View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
28 May 1947

18^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- INDONESIA
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
QUESTION
- COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
QUESTION
- TEXTILES
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING
QUESTION
- WAGE-PEGGING
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- CLOTHES RATIONING
QUESTION
- FLOOD RELIEF IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY
WAR GRATUITY BILL 1947
- Second Reading
UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1947
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1947
- Second Reading
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION BILL 1947
- Second Reading
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1947
- Second Reading
COINAGE BILL 1947
- Second Reading
BILLS BE TURNED FROM THE SENATE
QUARANTINE BILL 1947
- Second Reading
BEER EXCISE BILL 1947
- Second Reading
WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1947
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS AND WORKS BILL 1947
PAPER
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Royal Australian Air Force: Stores and Equipment; Promotions
- Public Service : Numerical Strength
- Waterfront Employment

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S.Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2982

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Darwin Service

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Following my question yesterday in reference to the suggested new air service between Melbourne and Darwin, can the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation informme whether he subsequently took the matter up with the Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission, as he promised he would do, and state what is the position?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– Yesterday, following the honorable member’s request to me, I discussed this matter with the chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission and learned that, as I had indicated, the suggested alteration of. the air service between Melbourne and Darwin was the figment of some person’s imagination. The commission has not considered an alteration of the existing service between Adelaide and Darwin and such a proposal is not contemplated.

page 2982

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Banon Dutch Ships

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Australian Government has exercised what the Dutch and Indonesian administrations have described as its “good offices”, with a view to securing the removal of the ban by the Australian Waterside Workers Federation on the loading of Dutch ships in Australian ports; if so, with what result?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The request of the Dutch and Indonesian administrations is being given effect ; the “ good offices “ of theGovernment are being exercised in the direction desired.

page 2982

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It has been reported that a large number of Liberty ships are lying idle in different American ports, and,I believe, are for sale. Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government is prepared to enter into negotiations for the purchase of some of these vessels, with a view to facilitating migration to this country? I understand that some of the vessels could quite easily be converted for use in the passenger traffic.

Mr Chifley:

– The Minister for Immigration will answer the question.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I repeat what I have said on several occasions, namely, that negotiations are proceeding through the medium of the Australian Ambassador in Washington for the purchase by Australia of any available vessels that are owned by the Government of the United States of America, or private interests in that country, and are suitable for immigration purposes. Fourships similar to Misr which arrived in Australia recently are available at $1,100,000 each. Although they are good vessels, there is some doubt as to their suitability for carrying passengers on the long run from the United Kingdom to Australia. The Australian High Commissioner in London has been instructed to have the vessels inspected, and when his report is received the Government will decide whether it will purchase them. Should the ships be purchased they will be used to bring people from Great Britain to Australia. “ Liberty “ ships generally are not suitable for the carrying of passengers, as they are cargo vessels produced under mass construction methods. Some of them are good, but others would not be suitable. The ships in which the Government is interested are of the “ Victory “ type, and if we can get them we shall do so.

page 2983

– The report will not deal with the administration of land sales control throughout Australia. It will deal only with the particular matter to which I have referred. I realize that there are many difficulties associated with the administration of land sales control in every State. As I pointed out yesterday, one difficulty is the failure of valuers to agree. However, I do not wish to reflect on the great body of valuers, because they have been most helpful. In many instances decisions in Sydney were not made by Mr. Lush but by panels of men outside the Public Service, and engaged in the real estate business. That is something which should be made quite clear. Disputed cases are sometimes referred to the valuer of the Taxation Department or to the special panel. I heard the honorable member for Parramatta talking about this matter last night. My experience has been that one of the greatest causes of delays in having applications dealt with has been the failure of solicitors to forward the applications together with all the necessary information to the delegate of the Treasurer. People are constantly writing to the department complaining that their cases have not been dealt with. When these, complaints have been investigated, we have almost invariably found that the delays have occurred in the offices of the solicitors handling the transactions. A second difficulty arises in connexion with country valuations because of the vastly different views of country valuers as to the value of a particular property. Many of these valuers established themselves in business as stock and station agents and auctioneers and have not the requisite experience to make valuations which would be accepted by qualified valuers. The investigations being made are limited to the administration of the Sydney office and cover particularly certain transactions which have been brought under notice which have a bearing on the removal from office of Mr. Lush.

page 2984

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Ferry Service

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the 14th Ma>, I asked the Prime Minister whether the failure of the Government to honour an agreement, to pay to Sydney Ferries Limited a subsidy of 6d. a week in respect of each employee of Cockatoo Island Dockyard carried between the island and the mainland, had resulted in the company deciding to discontinue all ferry services to the island after the 31st May. The right honorable gentleman replied that early in the operation of the prices stabilization scheme, the Prices Stabilization Committee had decided to pay such a subsidy in order to avoid an increase of the wages of employees, and that the matter of remuneration no longer had to be considered. I now ask the Prime Minister whether in August, 1946, Sydney Ferries Limited was permitted to increase fares charged for workmen’s weekly tickets between the island and the mainland from ls. 6d. to 2s., while maintaining the cost to Cockatoo Island Dockyard employees of ls. 6d. a week, and that to the 18th April of this year no subsidy was paid to the company? Has Sydney Ferries Limited and Cockatoo- Docks and Engineering Company Proprietary Limited been informed that the subsidy arrangement has lapsed? Can the Prime Minister say whether the ferry service to the island will be discontinued after the 31st May?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– An answer has been prepared to a question on this subject, asked, I think, on notice by the honorable member for Wentworth himself. I checked it yesterday, but because it did not give all the information it might as to the stage which negotiations have reached, I held it up. The arrangement for the payment of a subsidy of 6d. a week representing the difference between ls. 6d. and 2s., was made by the Department of the Navy, but the responsibility appears to have rested upon the Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Company Proprietary Limited. It is clear that that responsibility has not been discharged, and up to date the subsidy has not been paid. Arrangements will be made to ensure that payment is made. The second question is whether the subsidy will be continued, and I cannot give a final answer to that. I have been informed that negotiations are in progress with a view to preventing the discontinuance of the service, and I - understand that the present arrangement does not terminate until the 30th June next. I shall obtain all available information on the subject, and supply it to the honorable member.

page 2985

QUESTION

COAL

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister say whether it is a fact that Abermain No. 1 Colliery has been idle since the 31st March owing to an inter-union dispute ? Is it also a fact that the trouble has spread to two other mines? Seeing that the miners propose to call a conference of all districts in Sydney tomorrow, will the Prime Minister himself endeavour to convene a conference of the various craft unions concerned in industry with a view to the formation of one union to which all workers in the coal-mining industry would belong as in Great Britain, where there is very little industrial trouble of this kind in comparison with Australia?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I know, of course, that Abermain No. 1 Colliery has not been working, for a considerable time hecause of a demarcation dispute, or something of that kind, between the Federated Engine Drivers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union as to who should do certain work. I was not aware that the trouble had extended to other mines. I agree that the existence of so many craft unions associated with the coal-mining industry leads to much difficulty, but I understood that there was a council of minme unions, including the miners federation itself, which was supposed to «over them all. I do not think that there is anything I can do to induce members of craft unions to join one union for the industry.

Mr James:

– Will the Prime Minister tail a conference?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The trouble is that there just are not enough hours in the day for all the conferences which it is suggested I should call. I understand that already a number of conferences have been held to deal with this matter. The Minister for Supply and Shipping has been associated with a number of discussions aimed at securing a settlement of this dispute. I believe, also, that this matter has been considered by the chairman of the Coal Industrial Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, who is also chairman of the other body dealing with the mining unions. However, I shall take the matter up with the Minister for Supply and Shipping to see if anything can be done to settle this unfortunate and unjustified trouble.

page 2985

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Tariff Requests

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– What arrangements, if any, have been made for what the Prime Minister described recently as the friendly consultations between Great Britain and other Empire countries regarding Empire trade preferences? When is it proposed to submit to the Parliament any arrangements that may be made either at Geneva or London?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Negotiations are now taking place at Geneva. Earlier consultations were held in London between representatives of the Dominions in relation to the proposed agreement on international trade and employment. Consultations are constantly taking place between representatives of the British” Commonwealth of Nations at Geneva in respect of matters of mutual concern. Recently I arranged for Dr. Coombs and the High Commissioner for Australia in London, Mr. Beasley, to consult with Sir Stafford Cripps who is responsible for the work of the Empire delegation. The preliminary discussions between the representatives of the Dominions on the general subject of international trade have been concluded. As to the latter part of the honorable member’s question, it is not expected that any agreement which may be made at Geneva will be available for consideration by the Parliament until September or October. There is always a danger, of course, that the discussions at Geneva may not result in a satisfactory

Agreement, but we are hopeful that a satisfactory solution of the problems of international trade will be reached. If agreement be reached, it is not likely to be brought before the Parliament until after the recess, probably in September or October.

page 2986

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Export of Woollen Piece Goods - Import of Cotton from Japan.

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Post-warReconstruction what is the position regarding supplies of first quality suiting materials ? Also, is it a fact that during the last nine months, as reported in a recent issue of the Sunday Mail, Brisbane, more than 177,289 suit lengths have been exported from Australia to Russia, and that the material, which was mostly double weft and worsted type, formed a part of exports, totalling up to 4,000,000 yards, to 48 foreign countries? Having regard to representations made to me by country citizens, who complain that they are unable to obtain good quality suiting materials, except on rare occasions, when a suit length costs £20, will the Minister take action to give Australian country residents a better deal ?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– This question has been raised on a number of occasions. It concerns the Minister for Supply and Shipping, to whom I shall mention the matter with a view to obtaining any information which may be useful to the honorable member. However, I should like to say now that, whilst a large quantity of woollen textiles has been exported from Australia, a large proportion of that quantity consisted of materials which are not suitable for the Australian market. These materials were manufactured during the war for war purposes. The quantity of woollen textiles of types suitable for local consumption isvery limited. As far as I am aware, exports represent only token shipments to markets in which Australia enjoyed trade before the war.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that a total of 12,000,000 yards of cotton goods is to be shipped to Australia from Japan. If so, does the Commonwealth Government intend to distribute that quantity equitably between the various Australian mills, or will the distribution be a matter of private organization?

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– Control over the importation of cotton goods, rayon, and so forth is under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Trade and Customs. I shall have the honorable member’s question conveyed to the Minister in order to obtain an answer.

page 2986

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Sandakan Death Marches

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Army concerning an item listed in a broadcast programme for the 30th May published in the A.B.C. Weekly of the 24th May, at page 16. It states - 9.15. Six from Borneo.

Story of the Death Marches and Fate of Prisoners-of-war in North Borneo, by Colin Simpson.

In view of the Minister’s statement to me last week that the report of Major Jackson had not yet been delivered following his visit with Mr. Simpson to Sandakan, North Borneo, to investigate the fate of 1,900 Australians who perished there, and in view of the notification in the A.B.C. Weekly that, at 9.15 p.m. next Friday, from station 2BL, the six survivors of the Sandakan death marches into the jungle are to describe the affair under the direction of Mr. Simpson, will the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Information, prohibit this broadcast until Major Jackson’s report has been read on the floor of this House? Will the Minister also have the script of the proposed broadcast laid on the table of both Houses of the Parliament before the broadcast is made?

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not seen the report in the A.B.C. Weekly, but I will have the matter examined and discuss it with the Minister for Information. On the result of that discussion will depend whether the talk will be allowed.

page 2987

QUESTION

WAGE-PEGGING

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– In the absence of the Attorney-General, I refer the Prime Minister to a decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales on Monday that it could not alter rates of pay pegged by National Security Regulations. The commission upheld the appeal of the Greater Newcastle City Council against an order made by Mr. Justice Cantor on the 18th December last, directing the council to pay its town clerk a salary of £1,450 a year. Two members of the bench held that the commission had no power to fix salaries at more than £1,000 a year or alter rates of pay pegged by the National Security Regulations, but the third judge dissented and held that the commission did have the power. In view of the doubt, even amongst highest judicial authorities, as to the effect of the wage-pegging regulations, will the Prime Minister prepare for the information of honorable members a statement showing the present policy of the Government in relation to wage-pegging generally? En view of the anomalies that are arising and the conflicting views held as to the effect of the wage-pegging regulations will he give consideration to their abolition?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I thought the position had been made clear as to what authority, other than the Acting Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, could do under the amended wage-pegging regulations. Any industrial authority is empowered to increase marginal rates by 25 per cent, plus 3s. If it is thought that a case has been made out for the award of a greater amount, a tribunal is empowered to make a recommendation to the Acting Chief Judge. The AttorneyGeneral has not yet received the transcript of the judgment and proceedings in the case mentioned by the honorable member, but he expects to have them to-day, when opportunity will be taken to review the circumstances of the case and the reasons for granting an increase over the prescribed amount to an employee of Greater Newcastle City Council set out by Mr. Justice Cantor in his judgment. However, there is no doubt that Mr. Justice Cantor did have the right to refer the matter to the Acting Chief Judge, and the Acting Chief Judge is empowered to decide such matters without any restrictions whatsoever. As soon as possible after receipt of the transcript of the judgment and proceedings I will make an early reply to the honorable member’s question. With regard to the latter portion of his question, it has been made clear on a number of occasions that as opportunity offered, the Government would relax the rigidity of wage-pegging with a view to its eventual abolition. That is the promise which I. made twelve months ago, and it still stands.

page 2987

QUESTION

HOUSING

Canberra - War Widows

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My electorate adjoins the Australian Capital Territory. I have had several inquiries from home-seekers from Canberra about their prospect of getting a home here. Can the Minister for Works and Housing say how many people are seeking homes in Canberra, the number of homes under construction in Canberra and when those homes are likely to be completed to relieve the acute shortage?

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Housing is very scarce in Canberra, mainly because of the inadequate planning for the development of Canberra by pre-war governments. While trying to gear an organization for an expanded home construction programme in the National Capital we also have to construct roads and lay sewerage and water mains, which work should have been done before the war when there was a great volume of unemployment in’ the country. Unfortunately, about 1,300 people are on the waiting list for homes in Canberra. We have under construction about 350 houses, and T believe that within the next twelve months we shall have double that number under construction.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is it a fact that the Minister for Works and Housing was approached by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia with the request that he make available to war widows and their children homes at a nominal rental? Is it a fact that the Minister informed the League that it was not practicable to do so? If that is so, is the Minister prepared to reconsider his decision in view of the just claim which these people have upon the community ?

Mr LEMMON:

– It is true that some time ago the body mentioned wrote to me asking that consideration be given to providing houses for war widows and their children. I informed it that the department already has over 20,000 applicants eligible for homes, and that until we can satisfy them, I could not sec any good reason to extend the provisions of the act to cover the people he mentioned.

page 2988

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister aware that retailers in Queensland and other States are agitating for the abolition of clothes rationing? In view of the claims being made that there are adequate supplies of most lines of clothing will the Minister consider removing some articles of clothing from the ration list, or making & more generous allocation of rationing coupons? Large quantities of clothing are available for purchase by the public but they cannot bc bought by the public because of the limited number of coupons issued to them. In winter time more clothing is needed by the people but they are unable to purchase it bacause of lack of coupons.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the statement mentioned, I understand, by the president of the Retailers Traders Association in .Brisbane.

Mr Francis:

– No, the request was received from Queensland.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The request was made by the retailers.

Mr Francis:

– And the general public.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The availability of various articles of clothing, particularly cotton and textile goods, is constantly reviewed by the Minister for Trade and

Customs and the Rationing Commission. For a period a grave danger existed that all the clothing required to meet coupons at the existing scale could . not be provided. During the last fortnight we have seen our way clear to increase imports from the United States of America and Japan in order to meet some of the deficiencies. I have no doubt that the Minister for Trade and Customs and the Rationing Commission will endeavour, when it is possible, to increase the value of clothing coupons.

Mr Francis:

– Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Trade and Customs to examine the matter?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I shall ask the Minister to examine the matter immediately in the light of the latest developments regarding the importation of materials.

page 2988

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– As the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has a “ considerable amount of leisure “, as he said a few minutes ago, I ask him whether he has yet found time to reply to a question which I addressed to him on the 2nd May last, relating to conflicting statements by the former Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia and himself regarding flood relief in that State?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I did not say, in reply to another question, that I had a considerable amount of leisure. I am still investigating the honorable member’s question.

page 2988

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Salaries

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement which appeared in the press yesterday that the permanent heads of Commonwealth departments and other officers who were appointed . by Cabinet will soon receive increases of salary, and that their assistants and all other officers receivingmore than £750 per annum will later be granted proportionate increases. The report also stated that a sub-committee of Cabinet, consisting of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health and Social Services, had been appointed to examine the salaries of the highest paid public servants and make recommendations to Cabinet. I ask the Prime Minister to inform me when will the review of the salaries of the highest paid public servants be made? When will he make a statement to the House on the matter? Is it proposed that the increases to be granted to senior officers in receipt of salaries exceeding £720 per annum - I mention £720 per annum because, although the press report referred to £750, I believe that the figure should have been £720 - shall be made retrospective to the 8th May last, as were increases granted to other public servants?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the statement to which the honorable member referred but I shall inform him of the exact position. Some time ago the Public Service Board met the organizations representing lower paid public servants, who receive salaries up to £450 per annum. After many consultations, a case was presented to the Public Service Arbitrator, and a consent award was made which gave to those officers a total increase of £1,600,000. In addition, the Public Service Board met the officials of those organizations representing public servants in receipt of salaries between £450 and £750 per annum, and an award covering them has been made. The Public Service Board is not in a position to continue the examination of salaries in excess of £750 per annum until the salaries of those officers who are appointed by Cabinet have been determined. For example, the permanent heads of some departments receive a salary of £1,400 per annum. An equitable adjustment of salaries above £750 a year cannot be made until the present ceiling for the salaries of those officers appointed by Cabinet has been reviewed. Cabinet has appointed a sub-committee of three of its members - the Attorney-General, the Minister for Health and. Social Services and myself - to examine all those salaries which are determined by Cabinet itself and not by the Public Service Board. I hope that the committee will be able to devote a couple of days to an investigation of the matter during the ensuing recess. When the committee has completed its work, it will present a report to Cabinet, which will then decide whether it shall adopt or modify any of the recommendations that have been made and will determine the date from which its decision shall become effective. My impression at the moment is that, if the work of the committee can be completed fairly quickly, it may be possible to make any increases of such salaries apply from, probably, the 1st July next. .

page 2989

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen a newspaper report that the general sales manager of H. V. McKayMassey Harris Proprietary Limited, Mr. S. S. McKay, had said that from two to three years will have elapsed before the leeway in the production of agricultural implements and equipment has been overtaken? If so, in view of the importance of maintaining production at the maximum, especially in the wheat industry, will the Minister have an urgent review made of the situation, with the object of ensuring that everything possible shall be done to meet the needs of primary producers ?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I have not seen Mr. McKay’s statement regarding the shortage of agricultural implements and equipment,but I am aware that there have been some difficulties in connexion with the purchase of adequate supplies of agricultural implements of some types and of some duplicate parts that are essential for the working of agricultural implements. The honorable member has asked me whether I will take steps to remove the existing difficulties. I am undecided as to whether he desires the institution of some form of control and the diversion of labour and materials as a means of overtaking the shortages.. If he does, I shall be pleased if he will make a definite statement to that effect. As far as I am able within the ambit of existing powers, I shall be glad to do anything that I can do to have the production of these implements accelerated.

page 2989

WAR GRATUITY BILL 1947

Motion (by Mr. Chif ley) agreed to -

That leavebe given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the War Gratuity Act 1946.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the bill is to provide for the extension of certain provisions of the War Gratuity Act 1945 to the 30th June, 1947. Section 10 of that act provides that service subsequent to the date twelve months after the cessation of hostilities should not count for war gratuity. For the purpose of the act, the 2nd September, 1945, was proclaimed as the date of the cessation of hostilities. Under the act as it stands, therefore, service after the 2nd September, 1946, does not count for war gratuity. The Government subsequently decided that, having regard to the fact that general demobilization had not been completed at the 2nd September, 1946, the date of entitlement to gratuity should be extended until the forces had been established on a more or less postwar footing. The date selected was the 30th June, 1947, and the bill gives effect to that decision by inserting the words “ 30th June, 1947 “ in lieu of the words “ date twelve months after the cessation of hostilities” wherever they occur in the act.

The bill also provides for the amendment of section 27 to ensure that members serving at the 2nd September, 1946, or who re-enlisted subsequent to that date, shall not suffer any loss of interest on gratuity by reason of deferment of the date of entitlement to the 30th June, 1947.

Only two other matters are covered by the bill. There is an amendment to section 14 to make less restrictive the provision for a minimum of three years’ gratuity in the case of death when the member left persons totally dependent on him. In the act as it stands, the persons who might be entitled to the benefit of this provision were widow or widower, child, parent, step-parent, foster-parent or dependant of the deceased member, provided that they were beneficially entitled under the will of the deceased to any part of his estate, or would, had the deceased died intestate, have been entitled to a share in the distribution of his intestate estate. The amendment proposed in the bill gives entitlement to persons of the specified relationship who were totally dependent on the member at the date of his death, but removes the restrictive provision relating to entitlement under the member’s will or under an intestacy. The removal of this restrictive condition follows the adoption by the Government of a suggestion from the Central War Gratuity Board that the amendment was necessary in order that certain deserving cases should not be deprived of the benefits of this section.

A new section is to be inserted after section 32, to provide formal power of delegation of the powers of the Minister under the act.

Although the bill extends the benefits of war gratuity for a period to meet circumstances which were not anticipated when the act was framed, there has been no departure from the sound principles that were adopted by the all-party committee which originally reported on the subject of war gratuity payments.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Harrison) adjourned.

page 2990

UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th May (vide page 2938), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- This bill, to grant a sum of £25,000,000 to Great Britain as a contribution towards war expenditure incurred by it in respect of operations in and around the Pacific, affords to all honorable members a very proper opportunity to discuss not only a monetary grant to Great Britain, but also the whole matter of whether any assistance should be granted and, if it should, what that assistance should be. If the matter be one only of money, no honorable member on this side of the House will say that the grant should not be made pursuant to the bill. But we also say that more should be granted than is proposed; and we hope that this bill will be the forerunner of other measures, and will be a part of a scheme to scale down the indebtedness of Great Britain, not only to Australia but also to other countries. We on this side say that the expression that the money is to be granted, “ as a contribution towards war expenditure of the United Kingdom Government incurred by it in respect, of operations in and around the Pacific “ is a misnomer. If money is to be granted to Great Britain there is no need to say that the gift is being made for a particular purpose such as that. The feeling of the Australian people is that if a gift is to be made to our kinsmen in the Old Country it should be made because of our gratitude for all that they have done for us not only in the Pacific but in every sphere in which they “served during the war. The real feeling of the people of this country is one of unspeakable gratitude for the sacrifices of their kinsmen which began in 1939 and continued throughout the war, and are still being made. We wonder whether there is any particular significance in the use of the phrase, “ in and around the Pacific “. We have asked, by interjection and otherwise, what those words mean, but we have not received an answer. It may be that there is a good reason for them - a reason associated with high politics with respect to which we on this side have not been taken into the confidence of the Government - but prima facie the statement that this is a gift in respect of Britain’s help in the Pacific is niggardly and mean, and does not create a good impression in the minds of the Australian people.

The substantial question which divides honorable members on the two sides of the House is whether Australia can make a large and generous grant of foodstuffs to the people of Britain. No supporter of the Government has said that the people there’ are not short of food. On the contrary, it has been admitted that Britain is gravely short of food.

Mr Gullett:

– The Minister for Transport does not think so.

Mr BEALE:

– There may be a more generous body of opinion on the Government benches than that expressed by the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward). I prefer to select as typical of the views of honorable members opposite the state ment of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) that Britain is short of food. Some honorable members say - and it does not sound well when they say it - “ Oh, yes, but Britain is giving food to the people of Europe “. That is true, but it is obvious to all intelligent people that there is grave danger of the lights going out in Europe. If civilization as we know it disappears in Europe; if ordered life crumbles in countries such as Germany, Italy and France ; if democratic and political institutions fall to pieces in Europe, civilization not only in Continental Europe but also in Great Britain and the rest of the world will disappear with it Unless the culture and civilization of Europe is maintained there is no hope for any of us who have inherited western civilization. It is because food is the key to this situation, for without food any people will crumble, that the Govern-, ment of the United Kingdom has been at such pains to send food to the people in other parts of Europe. Judging by the remarks of honorable members opposite, the opposition to the proposal that large quantities of food should be. sent to Great Britain appears to be due to a belief that we in Australia have not enough food to send. In a carefully reasoned speech the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has shown that we have food which could be sent. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has said also that the Opposition will grant to the Government immunity from political criticism in respect of any action it may take to secure more food for the British people. He has suggested that the law in relation to food rationing should be enforced more strictly, or that the Government should experiment with the lifting of rationing in certain quarters; or, if it thinks fit, that rationing should be extended ; and he has gone on to say that the Opposition will take equal blame with the Government for such a decision. The right honorable gentleman is criticized for his offer on the ground that it does not present a solution of the problem, but consists merely of alternative proposals. I emphasize that it is an offer from the Opposition to the Government which alone has th# power to act and knows the facts. We say that these matters should be investigated, and that a real national effort on the highest possible plane should be made. We suggest that the people should be called upon to make sacrifices, if necessary, in order that more food may be made available to those who need it. I thought that the cat was out of the bag when the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) spoke last night. The honorable member said plainly that the Labour party would not ration the people of Australia any further.

Mr Sheehy:

– The honorable member for Hindmarsh said nothing of the kind.

Mr BEALE:

– That is precisely what he did say. The honorable gentleman said that it was all very well for members of the Opposition to talk about more severe rationing because they could go into restaurants and buy a rich, juicy steak for themselves whenever they liked, whereas the ordinary man had only his rationed foods to live on and could not afford to eat in restaurants to make up for any curtailed ration. The implication is that rationing is so severe in Australia that any intensification of it would cause intolerable hardship to ordinary people. I reminded the honorable member for Hindmarsh at the time that the people of Great Britain, are living on half the quantity of food that we in this country have under our rationing system. We on this side believe that, if necessary, the rationing system in Australia could be extended. We also believe that the people of Australia would respond generously to a good cause if they were asked in a proper way to do so. We suggest that the cause of giving more foodstuffs to the people of Britain who have done so much for us is the best possible cause for which sacrifices could be made. We think, too, that the view of the Labour party that ordinary Australians should not be asked to make further sacrifices grossly underestimates the spirit of the people of Australia and their gratitude to their kinsmen in the Old Country. What is needed is leadership by the Government.

I<t is a truism that ordinary committees do not lift themselves by their own boot-straps : democracy does not progress unaided; it requires to be called to action by the leaders of the nation. Because the Government is not prepared to make a generous gesture, and will not take the .people into its confidence and tell them what is required,, and call them to action, do most of the people sit back and do nothing. If the truth were explained to them and they were asked to act generously, I have no doubt what their response would be, I desire to put this matter in the way in which I believe it is understood by the ordinary, plain people of Australia^ 95 per cent, of whom are still of British stock and therefore, have a natural feeling of warmth, friendliness and gratitude to the people of Great Britain. They realize, as do some members of the Government that the British people are really in a desperate situation. No one can read the recently issued British Economic Survey and official reports and statements which appear from time to time in various publications without realizing how acute the position is. Any person who understands the effect of lack of markets, absence of credit and all tlie aftermath of war must realize that Britain is indeed in a bad way. Britain saved the world, and now in the words of Matthew Arnold, she is in truth -

The weary Titan,

Staggering on to her goal;

Bearing on shoulders immense,

The load of the too vast orb of her fate.

Contrast its position with that of Australia, which is unscathed by war, which is enriched by war and, is even prosperous, whose people have their bellies full to a degree unknown in Europe ; and whose future is completely assured so long as we are prepared to work. The plain, ordinary people of Australia, realize that it is up to us to do something. By this gesture of feeding an overtaxed, over-wrought and worn-out people, we shall be doing something which is in our own interest, because if England goes we go with it. However, the people do not wish to place this matter on the level of self-interest. They do not think in terms of self-interest in international matters. They are readily touched by emotional issues, and this is an emotional issue. Irecall the motto which is engraved in stone as part of a war memorial at St. John’s Cathedral in Parramatta within my electorate - Pro tanto quid retribuemus - “ What can we do for those who have done so much for us ? “. That is the real attitude of the people of Australia towards sending food to Great Britain - food in generous quantities that will require sacrifices on our part. Plain people remember what happened in 1939-40 when France fell, and when the English people stood completely alone. All the world held its breath, and many people, including some well-informed persons, wereinclined to think that it was all over. The plain people of Australia willremember the words of Churchill when he said -

We will fight on the beaches, in the fields and on the landing grounds. We will never surrender.

Not every honorable member on the other side of the House was in tune with Churchill’s words, but most people were, and the plain people were, and they still remember them. It was a plain ordinary Australian, of the third generation who recently handed me a copy of a small poem entitled Lines by an American, written by a man named Brennan, an Irish-American. This is what he wrote -

Who prays for England now

Against the Sons of Cain,

Seeks nobler place than they who knelt,

When Drake set sail for Spain.

The dungeon lamps of Hitler flare

From Norway South toRome,

And Slaves flayed bare of all saveprayer

Cry England, England come -

Who prays for England now?

Who dies for England now,

Willfnd a resting place in English soil or English sea -

Yet all the world will trace

A new-born kinship with these dead,

Which knows not time nor span -

For blood so shed will e’er pulse red - in the great heart of man

Who dies for England now?

Who speaks for England now

Must scorn the tribal shout

In praise of them who silent stand

On their staunch isle redoubt.

A hero-nation groweth near

Gethsemane alone,

But God will hear, Oh neverfear,the dear voice of his Son -

Who speaks for England now,

Those lines were written, as I say, by an Irish-American, one of the millions of people throughout the foreignworld whose sentiment was the sentiment of the plain ordinary Australian people of today. Those plain people of Australia still remember the great sacrifices that were made by the British people, not merely on their own behalf, but on behalf of the whole world. There was, as we know, a great deliverance. The world held its breath, but the British people came through and, after further sacrifices, the full story of which cannot ever be written on paper, victory was finally achieved.I believe that the Australian people, who are naturally friendly, generous and open-hearted, want to make a real gesture to our kinsmen, a real sacrifice, if they are only asked to do so by the Government. Are we to look at this in a mean, niggardly fashion? Are we to be careful and calculating? Is it true, as some of the speeches seem to suggest from the other side of the House, although they will not admit it, that the “ age of chivalry has gone. The age of sophisters, calculators and economists is with us, and our glory has departed forever “, as Edmund Burke said. I have no doubt whatever where plain, ordinarypeople of Australia stand.

We boast of our nationhood. We are making great play in the councils of the nations about Australia’s nationhood. We are throwing our weight about, but I venture to say that the real test of our nationhood is this: Can we rise to our moral responsibility on this occasion? We must get food to Britain. It does not matter how we get it there. We must investigate all possibilities. We must make a call for patriotism and sacrifice. As I said before, if the Prime Minister of Australia were only inspired to get up and issue a call all the people would follow enthusiastically behind him. Ration the people if necessary. Ask them to make sacrifices. Let the Government educate its own trade unions on this matter. Money spent on teaching the people to make sacrifices, if necessary, is well spent. We shall share the responsibility. We shall share any odium or blame, if necessary, but we do not believe that there will be any blame. The plain people always respond if they are given & lead on a decent lofty, moral issue. If we do not do this thing we shall bitterly regret it. If we do, we shall give succour to a noble people, and we shall add lustre and glory to our own nationhood.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- There appears to be no real difference of opinion among honorable members on this issue, although there is a division of opinion regarding the methods that should be adopted in order to assist Britain. I should have preferred this measure to go through the House without discussion, because the interplay of opinion may lead our kinsfolk overseas to believe that there is an actual difference of opinion upon the major issue. That is not the question. “While listening carefully to the debate, I was surprised to note a spirit of carping criticism of the Government in honorable members opposite. They could not avoid attempting a stab at the Government over something which is a moral problem. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to defame Australia, its war effort and its people in order to assist the motherland. Perhaps my education has been neglected in that respect, but I imagine that the British Commonwealth of Nations lives by the unity of its constituent parts. The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), followed by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), made by implication derogatory statements about Australian’s war efforts, and the Australian people in order to bolster a case that needs no bolstering. It is accepted by all sections of the community that we have a job to do in this regard. This long-winded discussion of the merits or demerits of this first plan to assist our kinfolk overseas must make Britons’ ears burn. Some honorable members are discussing Great Britain as the governors of a charity ward would discuss an orphan child in full hearing of the helpless applicant for relief. That i3 one fault of open parliamentary discussion of matters such as this. Surely this measure could have been handled more delicately and could have passed through this chamber-with much less disputation. However, the Opposition has made the bill a controversial measure, and I propose to have something to say about it. An invidious comparison of the war efforts of the dominions has been made by the honorable member for Barker. Surely this measure has been sufficiently explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman). This proposed grant of money follows the exchange of opinions between the two governments concerned. It is the beginning of some organized interchange of ideas between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Homeland concerning the long-range problem of the rehabilitation of Great Britain. The problem is one of not only immediate food supplies, but also of future trade. One could quite easily indulge in a highly moral dissertation on our obligations to Great Britain, and quote the poets, good and bad, in support of the argument. “We can disregard the figures given by the honorable member for Barker in regard to war efforts and also his remarks concerning the reference in this measure to a repayment of certain moneys expended during the war in the Pacific. If honorable members opposite cannot understand a gift being made with a clause attached to it that makes it appear to be a contribution to the reduction of a debt that we cannot ever fully repay, we on this side of the chamber can only leave the matter to the imagination. A tortuous analysis of war expenditure in the Pacific as against the Middle East and an endeavour to compare the blood and treasure poured out by this country during the war with the contributions of New Zealand and Canada, comes very badly from a member of this National Parliament. That question is not in dispute. “We gave to the limit. “We did our best. That, I am sure, will be acknowledged readily by. our sister dominions. There is no need to mention that matter in a discussion of assistance for Great Britain. Our task is to do the job which Britain wants us to do, and that, in the first place, is related to the question of credits overseas. The other thing that can be done is the organization of food supplies for Great Britain, and the people of Australia are doing that now. This other thing can only be done outside this Parliament. People are giving earnestly, silently and proudly in the discharge of a debt that’ they freely concede can never be fully repaid. Wharf-labourers are working on Sundays, but that, of course, does not get streamer headlines in the press. Instead, newspapers ask, “ What is Parliament doing?”. Parliament can do so much, but the spirit of the people can do so much more. If any further direction be needed it will be given by the Government. Recently I read that wharflabourers in Queensland had decided to forgo their Sunday rest to facilitate a quicker turn-round of ships carrying food for Britain. That of course was not big news because it was good news, and showed the sympathetic feeling that exists among the ordinary people of this country for the people of Great Britain. In the same newspaper, I read that in Surry Hills, in the electorate of the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) and a district that is not distinguished for its mansions, or its supporters of the Liberal party, one 3mall church alone had raised the sum of £87 for food for Britain on a single Sunday morning. The working people of this country understand what is going on in Great Britain far better than do honorable members opposite who rise in this chamber, or on public rostrums throughout the country, talk about the necessity to help the British people, and then go back to their four-course meals and forget all about it. The working people of this country know what poverty means. There is a universal bond between workers all over the world, and they are the quickest to react to the suffering of their less fortunate fellows in other lands.’ This is not a matter for governments. It is for the peoples of the world, particularly of the British Commonwealth, of Nations, by their generosity and their sacrifices, to do something for the people of the Homeland. We have all read articles in the press recently about the response that has been made to appeals for the return of food ration coupons. The people on the lower income groups are attempting to do something thoughtful, considerate and sacrificial for the people of Great Britain on similar incomes. This Government has no apology to make for this measure. In its organization and leadership, it is doing a very good job in connexion with the food for Britain appeal. There are many indications of what is happening outside Parliament in relation to this appeal. In regard to meat, for instance, an article appeared recently in the Sydney Sunday Sum, which I shall quote briefly -

Combined effort of the Meat Board and the Meat for Britain Appeal is likely to result in New South Wales alone providing the extra 10,000 tons needed.

The Lord Mayor (Alderman Bartley) sai’l this to-day.

The figure of 10,000 tons of export quality meat to maintain Britain’s ration had been set for South Australia, Victoria and this State combined, he explained. “Since the Meat Board’s campaign for export stock began this month 500 tons have come forward weekly and if this is maintained the Board will have produced 4,000 tons by June 30 - deadline date for export. “ The Meat for Britain Appeal will buy 3,000 tons of export quality meat this month and hopes to do the same next month “.

Alderman Bartley said the Federal Government had given the scheme its wholehearted endorsement and this had greatly contributed to its success.

As a result of the campaign there was strong evidence that the blackmarket wa,s dwindling”.

The people of Australia fully appreciate the need to do everything possible to increase the British meat ration. Frankly. I have no doubt that some of thi? £25,000,000 will be used for the rehabilitation of Great Britain in other directions. The Labour Government in Britain admits that a plank of its present platform is the rebuilding of British trade, particularly exports, lt has not imposed this harsh food ration - harsher than in the war years - upon the people of Great Britain because it thinks that it is a good idea. Britain is endeavouring literally to starve itself back to prosperity. Already it has worked miracles in this regard. However, despite the statements made by the right, honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) alleging a low standard of living in Britain, I point out that the attack made by a leading dietitian on the British food ration was refuted by Dr. Addison, who said that the people were in good health, and that children generally were taller and heavier than the average in 1939. The reason i3 of course that every one is getting a fair share of the food that is available. People living in countries in. which food, is” plentiful may look askance at. tha British ration, but the distribution- of it is such that the poorer people in the East End of London, and in those areas of the Midlands that were depressed before the war, are now getting their share of everything, that comes- into Great Britain. The. point about our meat export to Great Britain-

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– The pity of it was the adult sacrifice of children right throughout the war.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The statistics are available to the honorable member. There is no denying that the diet of the British people is monotonous; it has the effect of making them languid and tired; but medical evidence and my own experiences when I visited England in 1945 indicate that nobody was actually in want The diet was appallingly monotonous and not calculated to build up energy but it was sufficient. We should not be- over sentimental about this question of food for Britain. Everything sent io the Motherland is- designed to fulfil a two-fold plan to assist it hack ro its. former position as a great nation find to supply extra food during the interregnum in order to supplement the ration, of its people.. As has been pointed out by- the- most ardent advocates of food for Britain, if we sent to the United Kingdom all the meat we have in this country it would not supply to the workers of that country a pound of steak for breakfast. In this connexion I should like to quote an article which appeared in the New York Times concerning Great Britain’s planned economy. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) drew a. grim picture of Great Britain, which has survived the greatest war in history, and. quoted good, bad and indifferent poetry its the obituary of the British people. They- were strange words to come from a. man of the calibre of the honorable member. The plain fact is that during, and since the war the British people have been rallied by three slogans. The fir.st was, “Britain can take it “’. After the victory Great Britain launched its trade campaign and the slogan became “Britain can make ifr”. The rallying slogan now is,. “ Britain, must do without it “. In the New York Times. Mr. L. P. Thomas, pre sident of the L. P. Thomas Company and a director of several organizations handling building materials, dealing with Great Britain’s planned economy, is- reported to have said -

Criticise? of the. Labour Government by both the liberal and conservative press creates an erroneous-, impression abroad. Actually the country is more united, than ever and is recovering rapidly from the winter disasters. The coal situation is improving, with labour going back faster than the mines can absorb workers, and output this year may surpass the 220,000,000 ton goal set by the trade unions.. New mechanical equipment for the mines is planned, but is being held up by slow shipments from the United States.

There is little . unemployment and employment in the export trade has risen from 800,000 in 1939 to 1,400,000* in 1946. Wages are higher and. have passed the five pound, sterling per week level for the first time in the country’s’ history.

That is one of the principal reasons why we should see that Great Britain is encouraged, to go on with its magnificent job; not merely of re-establishment but of re-establishment from a base no longer built on imperialism which depends on the lower .paid’ workers to maintain its economy, and to see that the whole1 system ]S more effective and that there is a planned economy. That is the goal for which Mr. Attlee and his Cabinet are striving. Some honorable members opposite because of the frustration of shipping, which, incidentally, applies equally to food intended for Great Britain as to migrants desiring to come to this country, have completely warped ideas about this problem. If we had the ships we could, within the limits of our production, supply all the available food in this country to ease the position in Great Britain; but we have not the ships. A grant to Great Britain is in the circumstances the most sensible means of assistance. It has never been suggested that Great Britain took our products in enormous quantities when others were available from nearer sources of supply. The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) referred to Danish butter. Danish butter has always been the choice of British consumers and it stands to the discredit of members of the Opposition that while they still gave- lip service to the principles of Empire preference- and the development of our butter .market overseas, when they were in office- most of our Australian butter was. used for blending- with: Danish butter and. sold as a secondgrade product in the United King: dom. The same is equally true in regard, to Australian, beef and mutton. In its> hoy-day Great Britain preferred to; buy ihe. greater part, of its requirements of beef from Argentina. If £25,000,000 is available to assist Great Britain it. seems absurd to hear honorable members opposite flipping it away on their fingers as though it were a mere bagatelle. Is not this proposal tied up with something, more beneficial than actual money? Is not the availability of shipping and the closeness of other markets in which Great Britain can bay its foodstuffs also important? A grant of £25,000,000 willenable Great Britain to buy some foods from Denmark, agricultural products” n-om; Ireland, which is teeming with such products, and other .things it needs from’ adjacent countries. That is why a. money gift is planned; it can. be used sensibly and! immediately.

The emotional outbursts from honorable’ members opposite that we must send food to- Britain ignore the simple fact that a money gift will enable the British Government to acf immediately to rectify its position. This is not a- question- of a-, charity bazaar ; it is- a- planned concept for rehabilitating a country which has always held- a high- place’ in. the councils- of theworld’ and which”, when democracy waschallenged, was for a time- its sole champion. Let us tackle this food problem from the angle that we are adopting a method of assistance that the Government of Great Britain itself has asked us to adopt, and let us have no- more- of these1 emotional outbursts in this House. Given a fair chance Great Britain can pull itself out of its difficulties, and by the bootstraps if necessary, and get back- to the position it occupied up to and during the. war. These- are the things I regard; as important to stress- in a debate of. this nature. I feel: impelled to reply to the criticism implicit in many statementsemanating from the: Opposition, benches’ that Australia is not. pulling its weight. Those statements are not true and it is.dangerous and unreaL for. Australians- to; talk like that. Let u& see what otherpeople, think, about us; In: a Sydney newspaper under the heading, “ Thanks a Million “, the following letter from a grateful Englishman was published: -

I am writing this to. your paper, on behalf: of. myself and millions of. others in this country who appreciate what your great country is’ doing, but do not think of writing.

Hardly a day goes by without reading inthe paper that’ Australia is helping us with one thing or another-..

Thanks a million, friends, for the way you have helped. Over here wc get by, but when you’re short of a cigarette and have no soap, and keep tightening your belt, it isn’t bo good..

If this gesture that we propose to make induces Other countries to do likewise, then the good achieved by it will be greatly enhanced. The debate on the measure has dealt mainly with the subject of food for Britain. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) that the food question is of infinitely greater importance to Great Britain than the question of money. Great Britain must have food if it is to overcome ite present difficulties. It needs a more vigorous, contented., hard-working people. The people of Britain cannot be expected to give of their best efforts when they have constantly in mind the fact that they will be short of the food necessary to sustain them in their efforts. Great publicity has been given, both in Australia and in Great Britain, to the suggestion that the British people are starving. The impression I have gained from conversations with people who have recently arrived in Australia from England is that although the people are not starved physically, they do not get all they need and suffer mental depression and a sense of frustration from the monotonous character of their food, and that has a deleterious effect on their outlook and morale. That is of great moment, and whatever Australia can do to ensure that Britain shall have not only more food but also a wider variety of food ought to be done. It is questionable whether the Government has a genuine desire to send more food to Britain. Its main needs are fats - butter and meat. To test the sincerity of the Government’s protestations that it is sending to Britain all the food it can, one needs only to refer to figures prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician showing Australia’s consumption of butter and meat. In 1938-39, each Australian ate 33.55 lb. of butter, in 1939-40 30.26 lb., and in 1945-46 26.10 lb. That Australians ate last year only about 4 lb. less butter than in the first year of the war and about 6½ lb. less than a year before the war indicates that there is no effective rationing of butter in Australia. The meat position at present, is as follows. In 1934-35, they each ate 207.68 lb. of meat and on an average, in each of the last three years before the war, 248.1lb. compared with 194.8 lb. in 1945-46. So Australians have reduced their meat consumption by only 54 lb. a year on the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician; but I do not think those figures give the true position, because a great deal more country killing goes on now than previously, and, if that were taken into consideration, I think it would be found that Australians are eating as much meat to-day as they did before the war. However much we try to do so, we cannot prove that we are rationing ourselves sufficiently in either commodity. If we are to send more food to Britain immediately, we must eliminate the black market, a difficult thing to do because of psychological effects of a policy of restriction, and reduce the present ration scale in Australia. The Australian Country party and the Liberal party offered to share with the Government responsibility for a reduction of the ration scale, and any resultant unpopularity; but, of course, the Government intends to do exactly nothing in that direction. So it can be truly said that the Government is not genuine in its desire to send to Great Britain all the food that can be sent.

It is extraordinary that the British Government through its agent in Australia, the Commonwealth Government, is not purchasing more fat stock for export to Great Britain. In the last four weeks between 2,000 and 3,000 head of fat cattle could have been bought, slaughtered and exported from Victoria alone. I know that it could be argued that if that meat were sent now it could notbe sent later, but Britain’s acute need will exist only until the opening of the export season next August. An important consideration in the export of meat to Great Britain is that the housewives there could render the fat into dripping and thereby widen the variety ofmeans of cooking whatever food they are otherwise able to buy and solessen the monotony of the present meals, which is getting on the people’s nerves. An amazing commentary onthe inaction of the Commonwealth Government in the matter of supplying Britain with food is that the 15,000-ton liner Corinthic, which is due in Sydney, will leave for New Zealand immediately after arrival because no food is available for shipment in its refrigerated space. Even should it cost the taxpayers more if the Government went on the market to buy stock for slaughter and export to Great Britain, they would willingly pay it. It is a pity that that vessel should have to go the extra distance to New Zealand to pick up a cargo of food that Australia should have had awaiting its arrival. Country people find it hard to understand the Government’s attitude of waiting for something to turn up. They know that if they want something they have to go out and get it, not wait for it to come to them. Either of its own volition or as an agent of the British Government, the Commonwealth Government should buy stock to provide meat so badly needed in Britain, but the Government’s passive policy is to ask the people to make a voluntary effort. They are asked to surrender ration coupons and send food parcels. Graziers are asked to make a gift of stock. The graziers’ generosity is on a large scale. If the Government were sincere it would do more so far as the primary producers are concerned. Some people are not aware of therealities of the situation confronting graziers who send stock to the killing centres for export to Great Britain. Some even think thatprimary producers are withholding stock from sale for overseas consumption. Nothing of the sort is happening. The point is that growers, in consigning stock for slaughter for export to the United Kingdom, are making a considerable sacrifice. One grower recently sent a truck of cattleto Melbourne for slaughter for export to Great Britain, and this truck was merelyone of five which he intends to send. His cattle come from one of the finest fattening districts in north-eastern Victoria. The amount he received for the truck of cattle was approximately £2 9s. per 100’ lb. The current market price in Melbourne is between £3 and £3- 3s. per 100 lb., so that honorable members can realize the sacrifice this particular grower is making. He estimates’ that he is losing between £4 and £5 a head, or between £40 aud; £50 a truck. With four or five truck-loads he stands to lose between. £200 and £300. However, very few people in this country can. afford such » gesture.

Mr Thompson:

– In normal times- is not a considerable quantity sold on the export market at lower prices?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The Government” is asking graziers to make too great a sacrifice, and because the sacrifice is too- great the requisite quantities aTe not coming forward. The; same position applies to the export of mutton. The ruling price for export mutton is roughly 5-Jd. per lb., whereas the price on the open market1 in Melbourne is from 7d:. to 7-d. per ,1b. A truck of wethers, which would realize £2 10s. to £2 14s. a. head in Melbourne to-day, is worth only £1 18s; to £2 a head on the export market, so thai sheep-growers are losing something’ like £50 on a truck, of sheep. I have- been to ‘ Food for’ Britain “ rallies and I have no doubt that my experience has been similar to that, of other honorable members. Gifts of one, two, three, and five guineas are made, but if a man contributes ten guineas it is regarded as a most generous contribution. Yet on a single truck-load of sheep graziers are losing between £50 and- £60: Is that equality of sacrifice ?

I went into this matter in some detail in the course of a question which I asked the Minister for’ Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) the other day. He said that he would not deny the generosity of farmers and graziers who are making- stock available for export. But the point is that what is required is1 not generosity so much as results. If the Government were prepared to reduce the sacrifice being made by graziers much more meat would be available for export. If it. decided to pay graziers the ceiling price the inevitable result would be; to. divert more stock to the killing centres for export. But the Governmentrefuses” to do this. It is well known that, market prices’ in the southern States’ are considerably higher than ceiling prices, and I am not asking the Government to fix any extravagant price to encourage graziers to consign stock for slaughter for shipment to Great Britain, I am merely asking that it should order the payment of ceiling prices. That would not only attract more stock but would result in a more equitable sharing of the burden. Because the Government refuses to- do that, I say that it is not doing all that is possible to make available the maximum quantity of meat for export to Great Britain. In regard to short-term plans for. food exports, as I have said-,, the only thing which the Government, can do, in addition to permitting the payment of a ceiling price- for stock consigned for export, is to curtail the present nation and take vigorous action to suppress black marketing.

Turning, now to long-range plans for export of food, to Great Britain to enable that country to conserve its resources in the dollar area, the main consideration is to ensure a continued increase of exports. Very few people have any real idea of the statistics inr regard to Australia’s export and home consumption of food. Most, people think that this is a country which produces vast quantities of food of which we consume only a small portion, but I have obtained certain figures from the Government Statistician which should be of considerable interest. The fact is that this country is rapidly approaching, the point of complete consumption of production. Considerationof the latest figures showing the production and consumption of a. number of commodities, excluding wool, should convince honorable members how prejudicial to further production the imposition of added burdens on- primary producerswould be. As population increases in. this country our exportable surplus must inevitably diminish. The. Government. Statistician, in compiling, these statistics relating to consumption, has struck an annual average over the five” year period ended 1940-41, and I think that annual average may be taken. as: a fair and: accurate basis for any computations. In 1945-46 Australia consumed only 22 per cent, of the wheat produced, leaving 78 per cent, availablefor export. However; we consumed1 89 per cent, of meat produced, leaving only 11 per cent, for export. We consumed 73 per cent, of butter, 34 per cent, of cheese and 59 per cent, of sugar produced. Those are the country’s main products, apart from wool. How does it come about that 6ince 1942, when we entered into arrangement for the export of great quantities of food, our exportable surplus has declined so much? The answer may be found in the population figures. According to the Commonwealth Statistician, the population of Australia in 1931-32 was 6,553,000 and in 1945-46, 7,412,000, an increase of 13 per cent. With the increase of population, less food is available for export. I asked for an estimate of what additional population Australia could support before the home market would absorb our total production of meat. The Commonwealth Statistician wrote to me as f ollows : -

It appears, therefore, that a further 10 per cent, increase of population, or roughly 700,000 people, would begin to press on meat supplies.

Of course it would ! On present production the home market would be able to absorb our entire production of meat. The letter continued -

The same percentage might also press on dairy products-

That is true - since to a large extent, the exportable surplus of butter and cheese depends on the consumption of raw milk.

In other words, an increase of population by from 700,000 to 1,000,000 persons would seriously affect the export of butter and cheese. The Commonwealth Statistician remarked that the sugar position is reasonably satisfactory. As to wheat, honorable members know that in some seasons we have had large surpluses, but that a couple of years ago Australia was obliged to import wheat. Another factor which must be considered when we are examining our ability to export, is that as the population increases, some of the land on which products for export are now grown will be utilized for the growing of vegetables. Hence, the food position of Australia is rather alarming in regard to, not only our ability to continue to export primary products to Great Britain, but also our capacity to maintain a substantially bigger population than we have at present. As I have shown, an increase of population by 1,000,000 persons will absorb our total production of meat, butter and cheese. Our wheat production is unreliable. In the long view, the solution of the problem of the maintenance of our exports of food to Great Britain, while at the same time augmenting our population, depends upon increased production. I do not propose to describe at length the measures which should be adopted for the purpose of expanding our food production. That is not a subject for debate on the United Kingdom Grant Bill. However, in the next few years, we shall not be able to supply much more food to Great Britain unless we make food rationing in Australia more severe. As our population increases, we shall be compelled to reduce our export of food, unless every possible effort is made to increase our productive capacity by such measures as water conservation and irrigation, pasture improvement and the application of fertilizers to the soil. The only solution of the problem is an increase of production.

Economists have stated that Great Britain’s demands on the dollar pool are so great that Australia could assist most effectively by purchasing less from Great Britain- and allowing its exports to go to countries in the dollar area. That is not a remedy which I like. One way in which we can give real help is by the maximum production of gold. Gold is still the standard of the world’s currency. It will buy dollars anywhere and at any time. If we increase our gold production, we shall render the greatest possible service, apart from sending food, to enable Great Britain to meet its urgent dollar requirements.

Britain’s remedy, to a large degree, is in the hands of the British Government and the British people. Great Britain would be well advised to draw its inspiration from its glorious pas( rather than from socialist ideas which have caused great distress and even ruin in many European countries. The people of Great Britain are not working as they should. For years, Labour agitators have been telling them that the employer is making them work too hard, is not paying them enough, and is making excessive profits. Many workers in Great

Britain appear to have believed them, because the output per man-hour has decreased whilst wages have risen. The inevitable outcome is an increase of the cost of production. Any person who is familiar with costs of production and prices in Great Britain knows that it is extremely difficult for other nations to trade with Great Britain to-day. In addition, Great Britain finds it almost impossible to sell its goods to countries in the dollar area, because its costs of production are so high. An extraordinary situation has developed. Great Britain, facing the worst financial dilemma in its history, is retaining heavy taxes, for the simple reason that it is expending hundreds of millions of pounds in socializing industries. The socialization of industry, so far from increasing production, is interfering in many ways with it, and. with the exertions of private enterprise. The retention of higher taxes increases the price of goods and creates difficulties for the export trade. A few days ago, in the Parliamentary Library, I read about a 26 horse-power car manufactured by Austin for export. The specifications were ‘fine, and the car should find a ready market in many parts of the world. But the price in Great Britain was £1,500 sterling! Where many of these motor cars will be sold, I do not know. Great Britain itself must overcome this problem of costs and high prices, and increase the output per man-hour, as we in Australia must do. Probably, the average citizen of the United Kingdom does not fully realize the present situation of his country. The truth is that a big percentage of Great Britain’s purchases of food are made in countries in the dollar area from the loan which the United States of America and Canada granted. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, Great Britain has made heavy demands upon the loan. At the beginning of this year, an amount of 950,000,000 dollars was available to it, but according to the White Paper withdrawals this year will amount to 350,000,000 dollars. This matter must be decided in the United Kingdom. The people themselves must resolve it. In the meantime, our objective should be to make available immediately all the food that we can possibly spare. We should also give serious consideration to the necessity for expanding production in order that we shall be able to maintain continuity of exports to Great Britain and provide for an increased population in Australia, thereby enabling us to proceed to an even greater destiny.

Silting suspended from 12.UB to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- This bill is for the purpose of granting and applying out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the sum of £25,000,000 as a grant to His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. As Great Britain’s need is undoubted, and Australia is willing to come to its .aid with the grant of such a substantial amount, I should have thought that there was little more to be said. Indeed, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) made that clear when he said that we should send to Great Britain not only this money, but also food of equal value.

The bill is a short one, and the amount proposed to be granted is large. The grant is being made, not boastfully, but as a contribution to Great Britain’s aid in and about the Pacific - which, I presume, means in the war generally. Viewing the matter in its true light, and illumined as it has been by the right honorable member for Cowper, this contribution is being made in recognition of the services that were rendered by Great Britain in the war. As the assistance rendered by Great Britain is a consideration for the grant, and a consideration is usually stated in any proposition, this should appeal to the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), because he likes to have matters expressed in a legal - formula. In a word, it is the expressed consideration for the gift. Why a dominion should make a gift to the Mother Country would not be clearly comprehended unless it was’ in consideration for something that had been received. But the consideration in this case is not only that which is stated in the bill, namely, work done by Great Britain during the war.1 In addition, clearly, it is largely sentimental. We necessarily have an affection for the Mother Country and desire to assist it in its extremity. The reason for our desire to assist it does not need much explanation. The affection and regard which Australia - which at one time was a possession of Great Britain, but is now a dominion - has for Great Britain should be, and is, well understood. The gift to Great Britain of so large a sum as £25,000,000 would be inexplicable on anyother ground than the affection which Australians have for their kinsmen in the homeland. It is perfectly clear that the gift of food .to Great Britain is irrelevant to the purposes of the bill. At this stage I shall not make more than passing reference to the many a!bortive attempts on the part of the Opposition to discuss the need to send more food to Great Britain. Indeed, I should not be permitted to do so. There is no question about Great Britain’s need for more food. That need was .admitted and even insisted on on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) in an excellent speech last evening. The -only question to be decided is whether the gift should take the form of money which would enable the United Kingdom Government to purchase food to the value of £25,000,000, or whether goods to that value should be sent, perhaps in addition to a gift of money. Recent floods and blizzards have aggravated Great Britain’s needs, which were already great as the result of a total war. Although the proposed gift may be described as a generous gesture on the part of the Commonwealth, I do not say that the amount is sufficient to meet Great Britain’s needs. I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) say where food could be -purchased with the money to be appropriated .by this measure. .No one imagines that £25^000,000 will be sent to Great Britain in the form of specie. Most people know that exchanges of money between countries are not made in that way.

In my opinion, this proposal to make a gift to the Mather Country should not be advertised outside the family circle of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is unfortunate that the Opposition has blatantly stated this. The form used in the bill itself is a much more apt and pleasant way of stating the fact than to say, “You -are hungry, ‘and therefore we make a concession to you of some of the money you owe us”. 3 regret that the ‘Opposition has more thai] once sought to make capital out .of the “Food for Britain” appeal. Of course, food is being sent to Britain by private persons, and sent in very large quantities. I welcome that fact. I believe that food should ‘be sent, and it is a noble gesture to send it. The grant which it is proposed to make is not a mere book-keeping entry. It represents real value, and the gift isbeing made in such a way that Great Britain can acquire food to the value of £25,000,000. Britain’s .need is great, and it has proved to he a natural proposition that we, a dominion, should make a- gratuitous grant of £25,000,000 easily convertible into food, and that is what we are doing. I might have suggested that the real reason for making this grant is not the reason stated in clause 2 -of the bill, namely, that it is in consideration of war expenditure incurred by Great .Britain in and about the Pacific, but I have foreborne to .do so. I realized that the real reason was that Britain wanted food There is really nothing more to be said We know that Great Britain has need of this grant; we know that we are willing to make it, and that is all. there is to it.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The bill before the House is called the United Kingdom Grant Bill, and it is proposed in this measure to make an appropriation of £A.25,000,000 as a grant to the United Kingdom. In the press to-day, we read that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) had expressed the .opinion that the Commonwealth surplus from revenue this year would be in the vicinity of £43,000,000. During the war, we reduced our debt to Great Britain from £533,000,000 to £487,000,000, and our London credit balance increased f rom £46,000,000 to £190,000,000. Thus o.ur financial position in London is better by £270,000,000 than it was before the war. and that has been achieved by selling food to Britain and not at a sacrifice, because the Government ,of the . United Kingdom, under a guarantee, bought from us at a good price all the food thai we could export. Therefore, it is amus-ing to hear honorable members .opposite speak of generosity in connexion with this proposed gift to Great Britain. There is nothing generous about it. In the bill it is stated that the grant is to be made as a contribution towards the war expenditure of Great Britain. This grant, from a purely financial point of view, .represents only a scaling down of our credits in Great Britain. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) quoted from the AuditorGenerals report .some of the items of war expenditure by Great Britain in Australia, and I ‘could add to the list. For instance, Great Britain paid us £4,000,000 for the building of mine-sweeping vessels in .Australia. Vast defence works were undertaken in this country to assist the Pacific %var effort, including bases, repair facilities, magazines, and io on, and capital assets remaining with Australia total approximately £88,000,000, including .uncompleted projects. Of that .’sura, Great Britain has already paid us nearly £11,000,000. Great Britain .also contributed £2,000,000 to the -operating expenses. On the naval ‘side alone, Great Britain has paid us nearly £17,000,000, We -should bear these facts in mind when honorable members opposite say in ‘their ?mug way, ‘” We are putting something in the poor box for Great. Britain. Are we not good fellows’?” Great Britain also paid £1,934,000 for the upkeep of civilian internees and prisoners of war held in this ‘country, although many of the prisoners were actually captured by our own troops. When the cruiser *Sydney was lost, the people of Australia immediately subscribed generously for the construction of a new vessel. A total ‘of £426,000 was raised, and the Government still holds that money. Some time. ago, on behalf of one of the municipalities in my electorate, I asked for the return of £’i,000 that it had contributed to this fund so that it could make a gift of food to Great Britain, but the request . was refused. Great Britain replaced Sydney with the cruiser Shropshire.

Mr Abbott:

– What did that cost?

Mr WHITE:

– I do not know, but it would be worth several millions of pounds to-day. Honorable members opposite, who know little of defence measures, are probably unaware of the tremendous effort that was necessary to .train our Air Force. To this end Great Britain gave us 1,600 aircraft, together with numerous spare engines and a large supply of spare parts. We received hundreds of training aircraft, including Avro Ansons and Fairey Battles, without which we never could have trained the squadrons that fought overseas and in New Guinea. How dare this Government express its gratitude in this way. Early last year I asked in this House whether the Government had made any -gift food to Great Britain between 1943 and 1946 : what had the other dominions done; and would the Government consider a gift of food to the value of £2,000,000 to Great- Britain. The Prime Minister replied that nothing had been done in the years that I mentioned ; that he had no information about the efforts of the ether -dominions; and that no consideration would be given to a .gift of £2,000,000 worth of food to Great Britain.

The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) said that this was a financial measure and that there .should be no talk of food in this debate. He is ‘quite wrong there. Perhaps he is unaware that in response to frequent representations from this side of the House, including a motion by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), urging a gift of £25,000,000 worth of food to Great Britain, the Prime Minister agreed that the two subjects could be discussed in the one debate. I say, therefore, that honorable members are quite in order in dealing with food for Britain in the course -of this debate. In fact, that is the reason why Mr. Speaker has permitted a discussion of this subject in addition to the general financial aspects of the bill. I have endeavoured to show what a microscopic gift this £25,000.000 really is. Why, the aircraft that was given to this country by Great Britain during the war were worth £1,000,000. I remind the House also that in the depression years, when Labour governments in this country were greatly perplexed by their financial problems. Great Britain generously agreed to waive interest charges on Australia’s debt from World War I. In fact, I believe that a general moratorium on the debts themselves was granted.

Sir Earle Page:

– The whole debt, was cancelled.

Mr WHITE:

– That is so. The amount involved was something like £78,000,000. Yet now honorable members opposite talk of a pettifogging £25,000,000 gift to Great Britain- a sum that the Government could hand out any day by a reduction of the income tax or the sales tax, and which, as I have shown, is about half the expected surplus revenue for the current financial year. The Government could do far more. I was sorry indeed to hear the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) and others in their self-satisfied way saying, “We cannot do more. We cannot take food from the Australian workers.” The people of Australia are ahead of the Government. They are generous- hearted people, and are setting the Government an example by sending millions of food parcels to Great Britain. They are showing what could be done and what should bc done. Apparently, many honorable members opposite still believe that the British diet, although monotonous, is adequate, and that the British people will struggle through successfully. But what are the facts of the position? Since we have heard from some honorable members opposite the impressions of Great Britain that they gained from flying trips, I, too, shall have something to say of my personal experience, because for some years during the war I was in Great Britain with the Royal Australian Air Force. A visiting Minister or member cannot gauge the true position by living at the Savoy Hotel or at some other hotel for a few weeks. We in the forces were for some time billeted, with the British people. I was billeted with an English family, and I know how difficult it was for them to meet the position. I know, too, how they subtracted from their own requirements to ensure that members of the dominions forces had their fill. Honorable members opposite claim that there is too much sentiment about this matter. Of course there is sentiment in the Australian nation. We could not lay claim to a drop of British blood in our veins if we did not -realize that we should do everything possible to relieve the mis-; fortunes of the nation upon whose protection we depended for so long. I have before me details of the ration applicable in Great Britain to-day. I am afraid that when I talk about the points system half of the honorable members of this House will not know what I mean. I shall explain, therefore, that 32 points are allowed in the British ration each month. It takes ten points to buy a packet of 4 dried eggs, and 20 points to buy a tin of syrup. So the purchase of a 2-lb. tin of syrup for the children, and a packet of dried eggs requires nearly all the points available for a month. The meat ration is ls. worth a week, plus 2d. worth of canned corned beef. In other words, the total meat ration is approximately 1 lb. a week, compared with 3.7 lb. in this country. One ounce of cooking fat is allowed to each person every week and I shall have something to say about that matter later because of the unfulfilled promises made by the Prime Minister when he was in Great Britain about increasing that ration. The weekly ration of cheese is 2 ox. and of sweets 3 oz. The milk ration is 2§ pints a week and the bread ration is 63 oz. or one 4-lb loaf. Thus, the British people have had to impose upon themselves something that the German submarines could not achieve, namely, the rationing of bread. These are the fruits of victory of the nation that was the spearhead of attack and the bulwark of defence, and saved civilization, because democracy undoubtedly would have gone under in the early stages of the war had not the British people held out. We played our part in battle. Australia’s war record is excellent, but since that conflict has ended its governmental record has been disgraceful. That this should go on during the eighth successive year for these people, and that the Government should do nothing to aid them shows how lacking in the right spirit it is. Since 1943 I have endeavoured in this Parliament to ensure that’ better efforts be made to help the people of Great Britain. I proposed a “ Sweets for Britain “ campaign designed to mobilize all sweets held by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture in order to assist the British children who had not seen sweets for years. It was launched by the Lord Mayor of Melbourne. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was suspended from the service of the House when I endeavoured to make a personal explanation on this question of food for Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member was suspended for committing a breach of the rules of the House.

Mr WHITE:

– You were quite justified in your action, Mr. Speaker. I do not question it. Honorable members will recall that, on the cessation of hostilities, T asked the Prime Minister if, as a gesture of goodwill to Great Britain, and to show our thankfulness for victory, he would send a food ship to Great Britain. [ pointed out that when Japan- had experienced a severe earthquake in 1923, the Australian Government sent a food ship to succour the people of that country. The right honorable gentleman promised to consider my suggestion, but in a general and rambling statement made some weeks later he merely said, in effect, that a food ship would not solve Great Britain’s problems. Who said it would? Evasion of every kind, and callous indifference has been the consistent attitude of the Leader of the Labour party in this House. Later, I asked whether the Government would consider making a gift of £2,000,000 worth of unrationed foodstuffs to the British people; but nothing was done. That such a gift could have been achieved is evidenced to-day by the large quantities of food being sent to Great Britain by individuals in the community. In sufficient time before last Christmas I again urged that as a Christmas gift to the people of Great Britain we should send a shipment of unrationed foods such as eggs, dried milk and other commodities which were in plentiful supply in Australia. The London Baily Graphic, in its issue of the 8th November, said -

Britain may get a special shipload of food as a Christmas box from Australia, if a proposal by the Australian Federal Parliament is agreed..

But what was the response on the part of the Government? The Prime Minister merely said that he would consider the suggestion, but neglected to do so until I raised the matter again. Finally, the right honorable gentleman again said that such a gift would not solve the British food problem. Yet alien Argentina sent a generous gift of meat to Great Britain prior to that Christmas season and for its generosity received the thanks of the British people; New Zealand, a country much smaller in area, with a population about equal to that of Victoria, sent a gift of £1,000,000 worth of food. South Africa did likewise, and Canada wrote off an immense debt which helped the British people very materially; but Australia, a land of milk and honey, overflowing with the bounty of providence, has not adopted as a national policy the sending of a pennyworth of food to Great Britain; it merely intends to send £25,000,000 out of our money box. One could go on continually in that strain. We suggested a committee of ways and means and honorable members on this side of the House offered to collaborate with the Government in devising ways and means of securing food and sending it to the British people; but this offer also was ‘rejected. Let us consider what the world press is thinking about this matter. Some honorable members opposite affect to despise that truly Australian journal the Bulletin. Among other things, the Bulletin quoted a British dietitian as saying that the people of Great Britain were gradually dying of starvation. That may be an exaggeration, but it has some semblance of truth. Dealing with this statement, the Bulletin had this to say -

Australians . . . have had no leadership from the people in charge at Canberra. In that quarter there was instead sullen hostility to the cause they had at heart, followed by indifference and evasion when sullen hostility became inexpedient, followed again by gestures of belated sympathy which so far have amounted to nothing.

On top of the blasts of war, the raining of bombs on innocent women and children and rationing of the severest form, the British people have had to endure the fury of snow, flood and . tempest ; but the Australian Government is still unmoved and is still unreluctant to give them even a pennyworth of food. I asked in the House if the Government would agree to a grant of food to the Australian Red Cross Society which had been asked for succour by the parent organization in Great Britain - the British people do not ask for help unless it is sorely needed - but nothing was forthcoming except a promise that there would be official co-operation. It is true that that official co-operation was. freely given, and I pay a tribute to the officials of the Commonwealth departments who co-operated with the Australian Red Cross Society in its attempts to assist in alleviating the distress in Great Britain. But still the Government did nothing, ignoring completely the magnificant example set by this excellent humanitarian organization, the Australian Red Cross Society. The society had no difficulty in filling its quota of 700 tons of food. Of this quantity gifts totalled 244 cubic tons, consisting of 7,151 cases, yet not a pennyworth of food was supplied by the Government. Although the Government said it was useless to render coupons - it even directed an. official to make such a pronouncement ever the air - it now approves and during the last few weeks no fewer than 384,000 meat coupons and 5S,000 butter coupons have been posted by generous people to the society. Although the British people have lost property worth many millions of pounds, although a great deal of their stock and crops have been destroyed and the position in which they found themselves at the end of the war had greatly worsened, the Government remained unmoved. I have no doubt that the decision to make a gift of £25,000,000 to the Government of the United Kingdom resulted from conversations between the Australian Government and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt the gift will be of some assistance, and to that degree I agree with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), who said that it will enable the British people to buy food of that value and that they will not have to pay interest on the amount of the gift. While that may be true, where are they to buy the food? Are they to pay £1 a bushel for wheat from Argentina? There is no world food shortage to-day. If honorable members will study the white papers on world food production they will find that last year’s “production compares favorably with that of 1938. The whole- trouble lies in the distribution of the world’s food supplies. This. is what the Melbourne Herald had to say as to the attitude adopted by the Government -

Mr. Chifley’s answer to questions about our food exports to Britain is one of the shabbiest public statements ever made by an Australian Prime Minister.

Honorable members might like me to quote from further afield. In urging that more food be sent to Great Britain. Mr. Dillon, speaking in the Dail, in Eire, said that many Britons were suffering a degree of exhaustion .because of shortages of food. Britain’s sacrifices would excite admiration for a very valiant people.

This statement was made by the Opposition Leader of a country which interned British airmen during the war, which refused shelter to British ships crossing th* Atlantic in convoy to bring precious petrol to Gr.eat Britain, yet about whose machinations during the war Great Britain did not worry very much. Mr. de Valera, formerly a hitter critic but now knowing the great magnanimity of those people, said, in reply to Mr. Dillon -

Our government considers it nothing short of wonderful that the British people are behaving as they are in stinting themselves in order to send food, to where it is most needed in Europe.

This should not be a political party subject; but that statement should compel some members of the Labour party into realizing that they are not doing enough, and that speeches of sympathy with Great Britain are of no account. Our Government has lifted the ban on the supply of cream except under a permit system to certain invalids. Immediately it did so, I asked a question about it and was assured by the voluble Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) that the cream was made from whole milk, that in any case it would not go to butter factories to be processed into butter for export to Great Britain. To his own satisfaction’ he gave a long answer to my question. But’ the butter manufacturers of Victoria have stated that whereas in August, last year, only 53.000 lb. of cream was available to meet the needs of those permitted to buy it, the quantity manufactured rose in one month, as soon as the ban was lifted, to 607,000 lb., and in the next two months to 725,000 lb., and 726,000. lb. respectively.

As every one knows, cream can be, and is being; converted into butter, in private bornes. The manufacturer’s statement shows that the export of butter to Great Britain has been reduced by 390 tons a month. People in Great Britain get 2 oz. of butter a week ! One honorable member, after a good meal, rubbed his hands and said, “ But they get 4. oz. of margarine “. lt would, do some honorable members good to put themselves on the rations of the British people, as some people have done, and surrender their unused ration coupons. What can we do about the situation? I” intend to read a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister- by an organization whose membership covers all shades of political opinion. I was sent a copy. It expresses the opinions of the many warmhearted people sending to Great Britain parcels of food at exorbitant postage rates. I have asked that all parcels of f ood consigned to the British Ministry of Food should be despatched free of postage. The British Ministry of Food could then distribute the food so sent to it amongst the people generally. Thereby, people with no friends in Australia to send them food would benefit. But the Government refuses to do that on the ground that an agreement on postage with Great Britain must be adhered to. There has been ample time for that agreement to be reviewed, but it. has not been, and the postage on food parcels is about equal to the cost of the food in the parcels in some cases. The letter to the Prime Minister reads as follows: -

We, the- members of the St. Kilda Reunion Club, a body which is unaffiliated with any political party, and representing as we do, a good cross section of public opinion and all shades of political thought, deplore the unwillingness and/or inability of your Government, to carry out the wishes of the vast majority of the people in all walks of life in Australia, in respect to the matter of increased essential food supplies from this country to the people of Great Britain in their hour of need. We, urge it will not be too little too late.

The man who signed the letter, the honorary secretary of the organization, was a prisoner of war and, accordingly, he experienced some of the rigours that the people of Great Britain are passing through. When the Prime Minister was in England, he conferred with the British Cabinet and made a final broad cast saying that he knew what the British people were going through. I hope he still does. He made certain promises. They have not been fulfilled. The press of the 8th May, last year, contained the following news item: -

London, Tuesday. - Britain specially ap pealed to Australia and 5few Zealand to send every available ounce of surplus oils and fats and Mr. Chifley was taking back figures supplied him by Britain of the urgent need to meet the deteriorating world fats position.

This statement was made to the Herald to-night by the Food Minister (Sir Ben Smith) after his consultations with Mr. Chifley.

Sir Ben Smith, who was succeeded as Food Minister by Mr. Strachey, failed as dismally as Mr. S’trachey has failed. He is one of the men with academic qualifications that the Labour party loves. They can solve every problem but the practical ones and have not the vision to see a way out of Great Britain’s troubles. The newspaper item proceeds -

Sir Ben Smith and the Australian DirectorGeneral of Post-war Reconstruction (Di. Coombs)-

In whose hands our destinies lie at Geneva until, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) may choose to fly there to take over from him - have prepared the basis for a new Australian effort in response to Britain’s appeal.

That was nearly a year ago, but we have heard nothing of it. The article proceeds -

Sir Ben Smith said: “Yes, I particularly asked Mr. Chifley to do his utmost on the oils and fats position, and I appreciate his reference to this aspect of the food position in his farewell broadcast. The same goes for New Zealand. Both the Dominions have given the figures serious consideration, and I am confident that they will do the best possible “.

The “ best possible “ is this donation to the pool, but nothing is being given in the way of food. The Government has done nothing to acquire bacon or tinned milk, which are unrationed in Australia. It would be simple for the Government to assess what food the Australian people want and buy the rest and ship it to England, but it is not doing that. It could, but does not, buy and ship surplus canned and dried fruits and the like. Practically every morsel of. the Australian breakfast is unrationed-. All the excess ought to be requisitioned and . shipped overseas. I think that I have shown that as a grant this £25,000,000 is a sham. It is a part payment for the generosity that Great Britain has showered upon us. It is shameful that money is not set aside to buy surplus food in Australia for export to Great Britain. If that were done it would show that the Australian Government is at least as generous as the Australian citizens.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party

– I associate myself with statements by honorable gentlemen on this side of the House that the gift of £25,000,000 to Great Britain is a paltry return for what Great Britain has done to ensure the safety of Australia. The bill sets out in clause 2 that the money is “ a contribution towards war expenditure of that Government “ - that is His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom - “ incurred by it in respect of operations in and around the Pacific “. The sum of £25,000,000 could not possibly be accepted as an adequate measurement of our appreciation of the aid we received from the Mother Country during the war. It must be remembered that in the dark days of the war the Royal Navy convoyed our troops from and to Australia, and that but for the Royal Navy and the British mercantile marine none of our wool, wheat, butter, or other exportable commodities could have left our shores. Consequently, if the gift of £25,000,000 which we, in our pretence at being lavish, make to the United Kingdom, is the measuring rod, we are indeed repaying with ingratitude the vigilance and protection which we received at its hands and expense. I should like to be assured that this meagre grant is made voluntarily, because I have reason to believe that the United Kingdom Government, through its Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, approached the Commonwealth Government as a creditor in the sterling group, and asked it to reduce this indebtedness by £100,000,000. When the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) replies to this debate, he should assure the Parliament and the Australian people that the Commonwealth Government has not made this grant as the result of pressure.

The shattering blasts of war have left a terrible aftermath in many countries. Deep scars still mark the ordeal through which their peoples have passed. Some are suffering from disease, pestilence and malnutrition. Others have a political sickness, which militates against the maintenance of permanent peace. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is the victim of almost all those conditions. It has been a leader in world security measures, and can still contribute a great deal towards this end. Obviously, Australia, as a member of the British family, must measure up to its responsibilities, and assist to overcome the present disadvantages with the same eagerness as it has accepted the advantages of being a part of the British Empire. Any person who has studied the situation knows that Great Britain gave unstintedly of its resources in order to protect the peace of the world. To-day, the economic position of Great Britain is most serious. Undoubtedly, its overall financial position is due mainly to war conditions. This deterioration occurred at a time when Great Britain stood alone, with its back to the wall, before assistance, costly as it was, was brought to its aid. In its present circumstances, Great Britain cannot liquidate the debts which it had to incur, not only on its own behalf, but also on behalf of other peace-loving countries.

Shortly before the outbreak of war in 1939, Great Britain held foreign assets valued at £4,000,000,000. By the end of 1946, nearly one-half of those assets had been dissipated for the purpose of providing money for the prosecution of the war on behalf of the freedom-loving peoples of the world. Its capital resources abroad were so substantial prior to the outbreak of World War II. that they constituted an important source of economic strength from which an adverse trade balance could be financed. That is precisely what happened. But currency reserves and liquid security holdings were rapidly absorbed by war demands for essential imports, and by 1943 the prewar picture had completely changed. . In that year there was a total net deficit of over £1,400,000,000 met roughly in equal shares by lend-lease on the one hand and by the sale of foreign assets and borrowing abroad on the other. Net income also fell away sharply from the pre-war figures, as British shipping was absorbed, and much of it was indeed lost. In war operations, foreign investments and loans became valueless, as country lifter country was conquered toy the enemy. Great Britain then went heavily into debt so that it might meet that portion of its war cost not covered by lendlease, whilst awaiting the recovery of the proceeds from its exports, or the realizations from its foreign capital assets. By the end of the war, half of these assets had been sold in various ways. Its financial income was substantially less than before i he war, export trade was less than onethird and merchant shipping tonnage less than three-quarters.

According to estimates, the net deterioration of Great Britain’s external capital position, including both the loss of foreign resources and the growth of sterling indebtedness was already over 65,000,000,000 when the last shot was fired. Despite this, Great Britain stilt had about’ £500,000,000 sterling mainly from newly mined gold and the conservation of dollar earnings of countries in the sterling area. This comparatively small reserve was well below the prewar level, and quite inadequate to meet Britain’s own needs, and even moderate demands for the release of blocked sterling balances for current purchases. Consequently, the British exchange problem could not bc met by available reserves, nor could imports be further reduced. The only path to be pursued was to expand exports to a point far higher than prewar level, but that cannot be attained for years. There will inevitably be further considerable accumulations of debt before the British balance is restored.

Great Britain’s efforts to increase production have met with tremendous setbacks. Severe floods, and an unprecedentedly cold winter, threw 2,000,000 persons out of employment, and meant a loss of production of up to £40,000,000 a week. The “White Paper, issued by the United Kingdom Government early this year, surveying economic prospects for 1947, is the most disturbing document ever issued by that Government. It estimates the minimum deficit, in respect of overseas payments, at £350,000,000 for 1947, and that figure can be an underestimate. The seriousness of the position is revealed by the fact that only £955,000,000 of American credit will remain at the end of the year. The United Kingdom Government now obtains about 42 per cent, of its imports from the Western Hemisphere, and is selling only 14 per cent, of its exports in that area. That gives concisely but in alarming detail the economic position of Great Britain today. It is therefore only common business acumen for Australia to make a contribution which will have the effect of partially cancelling Britain’s sterling debt to us. The amount of that debt has been variously stated, but I have been informed that it is £230,000,000. The gift that this Government is proposing to make therefore represents not quite 10 per cent, of the total. Having regard to the great service that was rendered to Australia by the United Kingdom, from its immense resources, and particularly by the British Navy, I consider that a gift of £25,000,000 is a poor tribute as an assessment of Australian sentiment and financial responsibility towards the Mother Country in the hardships through which at has passed and from which it is still suffering. The Australian Government could, with every justification, greatly increase the amount. In any case it had no right to assess compensation for war services rendered to Australia in and around the Pacific at such a relatively paltry figure. It should have taken a broad view of Britain’s services to Australia. It might then have arrived at a more reasonable basis of acknowledgment, and it would not have stated the totally inadequate sum of £25,000,000 as compensation for preserving unencumbered the title deeds of this country. Except for Britain, we should not have been able to export 1 lb. of our exportable surplus commodities, nor would we have been able to bring back to this country a single one of the men who fought for us overseas. That we were able to continue our export trade and to provide shipping for our service personnel was due to the vigilance, determination and courage of the British Navy and the British Mercantile Marine.

I shall be greatly relieved if the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) will make a definite statement that the relatively meagre amount of £25,000,000 which is being provided for Great Britain under the terms of this bill is tobe considered as a voluntary grant and not a sum which is being paid as the outcome of representations made by Great Britain to Australia with the object of our making due acknowledgment of . what Britain has done for us. I understand, though I cannot produce any proof, that the United Kingdom Government made an approach to the Australian Government on this subject, and that it was represented that in view of all the circumstances an amount of £100,000,000 might he considered a proper contribution for the purposes for which this paltry and inadequate amount of £25,000,000 is now being provided.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- It seems to me that sometimes we lose perspective in considering subjects such as that before us at present. If we take a reasonable view of conditions, we must admit that food is needed in the United Kingdom. We also know that there is sufficient food for the people available in Great Britain, but the diet is monotonous. The British people are not starving ; they require a wider assortment of foodstuffs than they are able to get.Fish is available in Great Britain in such plenty that considerable quantities are being exported. Cereals are also available in quantities which leave a surplus for export. I find in the Australian Trade Commissioner Service, a publication issued by the Public Relations Directorate of the Export Division of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, a statement to the effect that included in British goods received in Egypt during January were 3,887 cases of whisky. I do not know all the ingredients that are required for the manufacture of whisky, but certain cereals are required. In January also, 370 tons of herrings and 133 tons of salmon were exported from Britain to Egypt. The same publication states -

A barter of 100,000 tons of Egyptian rice for an equal quantity of Canadian wheat is reported to be under discussion between the Egyptian and British authorities.

If such trading is going on between Egypt and Great Britain it is not unreasonable to assume that similar trans actions are proceeding betweenGreat Britain and other countries. The point I make is that the people of Great Britain are not starving,butrequire a greater variety of foodstuffs. There are people in Great Britain who have money to pay even extravagant prices for some foodstuffs. We have been informed, for instance, that 10s. 6d. may be paid for one peach. The people who have sufficient money can even buy the kind of breakfast they would like. If we deliver greater quantities of meat to Great Britain the question arises as to who will get it when it is offered for sale. I suggest that those who have the money will be able to buy more of the relatively small additional amount that we send. But I believe that it would he quite true to say that the poorer people, who constitute, if not the majority, at least almost the majority of British people, would not have money for that purpose. The food that they are able to buy already costs all that they can afford to spend. The most useful thing we could do would be to ensure that gifts which are sent to Great Britain really reach the people who need them. Those who can send fats, for example, should continue to send them, and such gifts should be distributed equitably.I have stated on previous occasions in this House that the United Kingdom and Australian Governments should come to an arrangement which would permit food parcels to be handled at the very minimum postal charge. If that were done, more food parcels would be sent to Britain. The amount of £25,000,000, which is proposed to be made available to Great Britain under the terms of this bill, should be used by the British authorities for food or for whatever purpose those authorities desireto use it. I do not know where it will go, or what it is really worth in relation to food or anything else, but I should be much more confident of an improvement of the conditions of British workers if food were distributed as a gift and was not sold at a profit.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– This bill is for the purpose of making a contribution of £25,000,000 towards the war expenditure incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of operations in and around the Pacific.

My chief objection is that it is a piecemeal measure, such as this ‘Government customarily brings down. It deals only with a particular part of the battle area in the world war which recently terminated, and it assesses the value of the United Kingdom’s contribution in the Pacific at £25,000,000. The debt which Australia and the other partners in the British Commonwealth .of Nations owe to the United Kingdom cannot be assessed at £25,000,000. We have to look at the whole picture. If the matter is to be reduced to cold business terms, there must be an adjustment of the debt incurred in respect of the different areas in which the world war was fought. The Government is merely making a beginning at the Pacific end, and must realize that Great Britain incurred- very many more debts in connexion with the conflict which it waged, practically alone from 1940 until the Germans attacked. Russia, and brought that country into the war, and the Japanese attacked the United States of America at Pearl Harbour and involved it also. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, Dr. Hugh Dalton, was quite right when he said that a conference should be held to consider the debts which Great Britain owes to different countries, and that those debts must be adjusted. I was rather amazed last night when the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) said, at the end of his speech, that he had considered for a long time that some measures along those lines should be taken. Neither he, nor the Government in which he is a leading Minister, has ever sought to raise the matter in this Parliament, with a view to convening an Imperial conference to consider what adjustment could, be made of Great Britain’s debt structure. The document which the British Government recently circulated, “’ An Economic Survey for 1947, presented by the Prime Minister to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, February, 1947 “, is one of the saddest pieces of reading that has been placed before the people of the British Empire for very many years. It is of no use to attempt to .separate our position in the world from that of the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand.

All of us are parts of a whole. If the Empire should fall to pieces, we would be merely small fragments in a world of power polities. We know exactly what would be our fate as a small nation. The payments for net imports into Great Britain amounted to £826,000,000 in 1938 and £1,100,000,000 in 1946. The net overseas government expenditure of the United Kingdom was only £13,000,000 in 1938, but was £300,000,000 in 1946. That net overseas expenditure of thUnited Kingdom is one of the factors, and a very relevant factor, which is making it extremely difficult to achieve the position which the United Kingdom i.striving to reach by the end of 1947. . namely, to increase the export target te- 140 per cent, of the 1938 volume. That is the immediate target. However, the distant objective is to raise the volume of exports of manufactured goods to rise to about 165 per cent, of the 193f level. If the Government of the United Kingdom had been able to reduce its net overseas expenditureof £300,000,000 in 1946 to a figure approaching that for 1938, its position to-day would have been a great deal easier than it is. Last night, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction gave what lie considered was an analysis of the reasons for the great difficulties in which Great Britain finds itself to-day and the living conditions of its people. The Minister claimed that the present position had been brought about mainly by the loss of overseas investments. Disastrous losses were sustained by Great Britain not only in connexion with its overseas investments. Its shipping, which was one of the greatest factors that had been responsible for what we might call its “ invisible “ exports, was thrown into the world conflict utterly regardless of its capital value, and many millions of tons was last. The receipts of the United Kingdom from exports and re-exports amounted to £533,000,000 in 193S, and to £900,000,000 in 1946. The interest from profits and dividends fell from £175,000,000 in 1938 to £60,000,000 in 1946; and the receipts from other sources, which would include insurance - a very considerable factor in earning income for Great Britain overseas in the pre-war period- fell from £61,000,000 to minus £10,000,000. This great deficit was due not alone to the factors mentioned by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction last night, but also, very greatly, to the colossal losses which Great Britain suffered in respect of its shipping and insurance.

The Minister went on to point out that Australia’s sterling credits in Great Britain to-day amount to £190,000,000. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) has stated that the amount is £220,000,000. I believe that he is more likely to be correct, because the last return that I have seen from the Commonwealth Bank in relation to overseas sterling holdings of the Australian Commonwealth, mention an amount of approximately £220,000,000. There is no need to argue about the accuracy of the figures; the amount is between £190,000,000 and £220,000,000. The Minister went on to say that the backlag of demand cannot be met immediately by Great Britain, and that what it was arguing was that it had been impossible to keep down sterling balances because of its inability to send exports to this country to pay for the goods that it received from us. The honorable gentleman added that the balances can be expended over the years. That is a mythical argument, which contains little truth. How is Great Britain to liquidate those balances, and simultaneously increase its exports by 175 per cent, compared with the volume for 1938 in order to pay for its imports and maintain a standard of living for its people? This matter has. to be considered realistically. We have to realize that the debt which Great Britain owes to Australia is very small compared with those which it owes to other parts of the Empire and to other countries. Great Britain owes £1,200,000,000 sterling to India for goods which it purchased in that country during the war, and it owes Egypt approximately £400,000,000 sterling. Each of those countries believes that it can collect its debt. The Australian Government would have done good work had it attempted to convene an Imperial Conference for the consideration by the whole Empire of the debt structure that had been caused by the war involving the dominions and Great Britain itself, in order to determine whether it is possible to write down considerably the debts owing by the United Kingdom and incurred in the defence of the Empire. The Economic Survey for 1947 issued by the Government of the United Kingdom points out -

This lay-out of imports and exports ends with a prospective deficit of £350 millions tobe mct by borrowing from abroad. This is itself considerable alongside the £955 -millions remaining of the United States and Canadian credits at the beginning of the year. But the drain upon these credits in 1947 threatens to be much larger than this. After the middle of this year our convertibility obligations under the Anglo-American Financial Agreement may result in some loss of dollars.

Under the Anglo-American Financial Agreement, the balances existing prior to the 15th July next are to be frozen for a certain period, but after the 15th July all sterling credits must be convertible to dollars if the owners of those credits in the United Kingdom require that that shall be done. The Economic Survey goes on to point out -

Moreover, our dollar position is much more difficult than would appear from our total balance of payments. We are now drawing some 42 per cent, of our imports from the Western Hemisphere, which is now the main source nf the food and raw materials that we must have. But we are selling there only 14 per cent., of our exports.

The balance of Great Britain’s exports is going into the Eastern Hemisphere, to sterling countries in which there is no convertibility into dollars, and it is impossible to use those credits for the purchase of urgently-needed food. It will thus be seen that the position is a very sorry and difficult one indeed. I should have thought that the Australian Government would have been big enough to realize that by what it is doing to-day it is merely playing with the position, and that the best means of adjusting the position is to convene an Imperial Conference for the consideration of the whole debt structure with a view to determining whether or not adjustments can he made.

The short-term picture as it affects Australia is concerned with supplies of food to the United Kingdom. I was rather astonished by that portion of the speech of the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn), in which she quoted from a trade bulletin of the

Department of Commerce and Agriculture certain facts and figures concerning trade between Egypt and the United Kingdom, and drew from them the conclusion that Great Britain had not acted wisely in having sent 100 cases of whisky to Egypt.

Mrs BLACKBURN:

– The quantity was 3,887 cases.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The honorable member went on to say that she believed that that whisky had been made from certain cereals. I point out that the added value given to grain in the distillation of whisky, and the very high price which Scotch whisky particularly commands on the world’s markets to-day, would probably enable Great Britain to increase substantially its imports of food and clothing and raw products, and thi3 would more than offset the value of the small quantity of grain used.

The honorable member went on to say that there should be a reduction of the postage on parcels of food from Australia to the people of the United Kingdom. I entirely agree. However, I understand that under the International Postal Convention postal rates with Great Britain can be reduced only by agreement with the Government of that .country. Australia cannot take unilateral action. Therefore, I suggest that the Commonwealth Postmaster-General should begin negotiations on this subject as soon as possible, so that postal rates may be reduced. At present, they bear most heavily upon those who can least afford the expense, and this has the effect of reducing the quantity of food going forward to Britain. The honorable member for Bourke also argued that the people of Great Britain are not short of food. Pood, she said, was not scarce in Great Britain, but the diet was monotonous. Apropos of that, there is a very interesting letter in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald from Dr. Brian W. Monahan, of Canberra, in which he writes -

I have recently received a copy of the article entitled “ Dying England “, by Dr. Franklin Bicknell, in The Medical Press. This article received some notice in the Australian daily press.

The basic fact brought out by Dr. Bicknell is that the present food, including all sources - rationed, unrationed, and restaurant food - leaves an average daily deficiency in energy value of approximately SOO calories per head. Such a deficiency would, of course, result in a short time in death from starvation. The deficiency is, however, met in part by reduced activity. This results in a vicious circle; deficient food supplies mean lowered production; lowered production results in less food, either home-grown or imported, in exchange for exports. . . .

I ‘believe, on the authority of Dr. Bicknell, this Harley-street specialist, that the people of Great Britain are short of food, and that the number of calories which they receive each day is far too small to maintain health and enable them to go on working. This belief is amply borne out by figures published in the financial column of the London Times of the 21st May last, the latest issue available in the Parliamentary Library. I quote the following paragraph : -

The feature of the overseas trade return? for April is the new record total of imports which amounted to £147,076,000, compared with £130,038,000 in the previous month.

Thus, the April figure for imports into the United Kingdom increased by about £18,000,000, mostly for meat, fruit, vegetables, oil, seeds, nuts and raw cotton. This indicates that the British people are desperately short of fats and meat, as well as oil seeds. There is, of course, a world shortage of edible oils at the present time. I believe that this Government ought to do more to assist in the sending of food to Great Britain. I do not know whether the allegations are true, but they have been made in the newspapers, that the amount of meat consumed in Australia by registered greyhounds amounts to 12 lb. a head a week, much of it first-class beef. The Leader of the Opposition said that if no meat were consumed in Australia over and above that permitted by the ration, we would be able to send another 200,000 tons to Britain.

Certain patriotic people are prepared to lose a considerable amount of money by sending their stock forward for treatment for export to Great Britain, but there are others whose patriotism - as the Prime Minister has sometimes reminded us - is in their pockets, and they are not prepared to suffer any loss by having their stock treated for export when they find that the loss on a light-weight beast is about £3, while for heavier cattle it would be even greater. There is also a loss on lamb. I suggest that if the Government wishes to use £25,000,000 to provide more food for the people of Great Britain, it would he infinitely better to expend it in the form of a subsidy on the British contract price for meat, in Australia, so that additional supplies might be rushed quickly to Great Britain. I admit that this is not a perfect remedy, but it would achieve immediate results. Moreover,, the charge that this would enable certain people to make large profits out of the drive for additional exports does not hold water, because taxation rates are so high that most of the additional profit would go back to the Government.

Donations to the Australian Red Cross Society for flood relief in Great Britain are free of income tax, but gifts to the “ Food for Britain “ fund are not tax-free. This tends to reduce the volume of contributions. I know it is altogether wrong that subsidies and concessions should be necessary ro induce people to assist the drive, but necessity knows no law. The people of Great Britain are short of food. They are weakening^ and slowly dying, as Dr. Bicknell said. They must have food, particularly meat and fats, and the food must be got to Great Britain quickly. Therefore, instead of making this gift in the form proposed, under which it is little better than a book entry, the Commonwealth Government should advance money to enable the Government of the United Kingdom to buy meat on the Australian market at the Australian ceiling price, so that additional quantities of mutton, lamb and beef might be exported. Whatever may be the proper, long-term policy, there can be no doubt that our short-term policy should be to- do everything possible to get more food to Great Britain as quickly as possible.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Wakefield

– It is evident from the debate on this measure that the House, as a whole, is in favour of the bill which we are now discussing, but it is not so evident that Government supporters regard themeasure merely as a* preliminary to a general shading down of the indebtedness of Great Britain to Australia. The PrimeMinister (Mr. Chifley), in his secondreading speech, went to some lengths to’ show the desperate straits in which Great Britain found itself because of the war. He covered the ground very fully,, and one might be justified in assuming from his remarks that this bill is to be merely the first of a number of measures of a similar kind. I admit that, after’ reading the speech more closely, I was rather shaken in that belief because, in the closing paragraph, he said -

When I was in London last year I discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the matter of assistance from Australia, and it has been since considered in Cabinet. After full consideration, the Government decided that the most appropriate method of assistance to the external war debts problem of the United Kingdom, would be to make an- outright contribution of £25,000,000 Australian.

The gift of £25,000,000 which the Australian Government will make to the British Govern^ ment, subject to approval by this Parliament, will be £25,000,000 which the British Government can expend in whatever way it thinks best in the- interests of the British people. Without commenting on the legislation which f hope will lie introduced next week, the- sum of £25,000,000 will be provided from. Aus tralian revenue resources and, therefore, will be a direct gift to. the British Government which may expend it on food, or in such- other way it desires.

While the Prime Minister was in Great Britain, he had the opportunity to discuss various matters with the United- Kingdom Government, and he believes that the gif t of £25,000,000 is the best way in which Australia, can assist the- Mother Country. I accept his view. The- right honorable gentleman has rendered great service, to Australia. Under his- leadership, the country has attained an. economic position, that it has never enjoyed, at any other time in its history. I support tl],bill, and am confident that if the Government proposes to make a further contribution to the rehabilitation of Great Britain, honorable- members will support the bill in the spirit in which the Government presents it to the House.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The bill, which authorizes the- making of a gift of £2-5,000^000 to the United Kingdom. Government, has been used in the House principally as a vehicle for a dis’ cussion of the necessity to make additional food available to the people- of that country.

Mr Brennan:

– No, the* Government has never adopted that view.

Mr McEWEN:

– I stand corrected. 1 agree with the honorable’ member for Batman (Mr; Brennan) that the Government has never adopted that view.

Mr Holloway:

– No, not under thi” bill.

Mr McEWEN:

– What I said was that this bill has been made - fruitlessly, as it happens - a vehicle for speeches principally directed to persuading, the Government to adopt that view.

Mr Brennan:

– Yes.

Mr McEWEN:

A BILL FOR AN ACT

To grantand apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the sum of Twenty-five million pounds as a Grant to Mis Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, for the purpose of appropriating the grant originated in the House of Representatives, as follows : -

This Act may be cited as the United Kingdom Grant Act 1947.

There shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, for the purpose of a grant to His Majesty’s Government in. the United Kingdom, the sum of Twenty-five million pounds as a contribution towards war expenditure of that Government incurred by it in respect of operations in and around the Pacific.

That is the entire substance of the bill and it contains no reference whatever to food for Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Indi appears to be determined to by-pass the ruling of the Chair. He could have said all that he wished to say about the capacity of the Government to provide this money if the bill had provided for the raising of taxes but unfortunately for him the bill, as is clear from what he has just read, is intended for one specific purpose, and that is to appropriate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of a grant to the United Kingdom Government, the sum of £25,000,000 “as a contribution towards war expenditure of that Government incurred by it in respect of operations in and around the Pacific It will be remembered, however, that the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) had a notice of motion on the notice-paper dealing with food for Britain. With the consent of the House, he withdrew his notice on the understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) would make some reference in his speech on this bill to food for Britain in order to broaden the debate. The debate, so far as I have been able to circumscribe it, has involved the making of the grant of £25,000,000 to Great Britain plus the consideration of the question of whether it would be better to contribute food for Britain. That should be broad enough for any honorable member.

Mr McEWEN:

– It certainly is broad enough for many honorable gentlemen ; it seems to be too broad for me. I submit that I am entitled to argue that the amount to be granted to Great Britain could be more than £25,000,000, and that if an amount of £25,000,000 can be granted to Great Britain without the necessity of imposing any additional tax burden on the people of Australia - though far be it from me” to advocate any additional tax burden - it cannot be claimed that such a grant represents a sacrifice on the part of the people of this country. I presume that the granting of this money will not involve the shipment of 25,000,000 £l-notes to the United Kingdom, for credits of this country in Britain which may be drawn against are very much more than is necessary for this purpose. The grant represents £20,000,000 sterling.

Mr Holt:

– Our sterling credits in Great Britain exceed £200,000,000.

Mr McEWEN:

– I understand that that is so. I presume that we will not demand interest payments by the United Kingdom in this connexion or the unfreezing of this fund. It is common knowledge that the United Kingdom Government is not in a financial position to discharge its sterling indebtedness to this country or to India, Egypt or various other countries that could be named. We have not the option, therefore, of demanding repayment of this money. It is recognized that it is not feasible to allow these huge funds to stand in the books of the United Kingdom Government, so that we may draw interest upon them. About’ the least gesture which a country such as this should make would be to abate the interest and principal payments. So far as I have been able to make an assessment, that would be for many years the equivalent of foregoing the principal indebtedness; because it will be quite a while before the United Kingdom will be able to discharge its overseas sterling indebtedness.

Mr Abbott:

– It will never be able to discharge it.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am not prepared to say that, because my knowledge of the subject is not sufficiently great, but I am prepared to give it as my opinion that it will be a long time before the United Kingdom will be able to discharge its sterling indebtedness.’ So the very best that Australia could get as the reverse of this gesture would be the payment of interest. I should hope that it would be at a very low rate; for example, 1 per cent., which would be equal to £1,250,000 a year. By foregoing that, we would not be making an extraordinarily generous gesture. I put it to the Government and the people of this country that, as the sterling credits in London cannot be liquidated by the Government of the United Kingdom, we could have been much more generous in regard to this - I repeat - book entry than we are being ; in what I regard as “ doctoring the accounts “ on the eve of ruling off the books at the end of the financial year; in writing out of our revenues £25,000,000 plus £18,000,000, so that our books will not show the true figures; in writing off such an amount that the balance at the end of the year will be reduced to something like equilibrium. My interpretation is that the passage of this legislation for the writing out of an embarrassing surplus of £25,000,000 is as much a political convenience to the Government as a gesture of generosity to the British people. We are not entitled to claim that we are making a real gesture of generosity unless the act involves us in some sacrifice. This act does not involve an addition to our taxes or the foregoing of a capital sum to the United Kingdom which, but for the passage of this legislation, would be paid to us. Within the limits by which I am circumscribed, I offer these observations on a bill which is paraded as an extraordinary act of generosity. It falls far short of entitlement to the claim that it is a very generous gesture. On the other hand, a close examination shows it to be an act of very great political convenience to the Government, the kind of thing that is done by companies which, from time to time, are the objects of attacks by Labour members of Parliament - a “ doctoring of the books, so as to suppress the true state of the finances. That is what is being done by the transference of £43,000,000.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The discussion has centred on the food difficulties in which the people of Great Britain are placed at the present time. In a way, that is rather a pity, not because the problem is not a grave one, but because the tendency has been to obscure the general economic crisis in which the people of the United Kingdom find themselves, of which the food problem is only a part, even though, perhaps, it is the most important part. The hill sets out to do something on behalf of Australia towards easing that economic crisis. A little time can be usefully employed in examining that crisis, because, if the people generally have not yet fully appreciated its extent and gravity, I am certain that it is not yet fully appreciated by honorable members also. What represents an economic crisis for the United Kingdom, in the long run also represents an economic difficulty or problem which must be faced by Australia and other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is quite easy to detect how the crisis has developed. Great Britain has expended £4,125,000,000 in the conduct of the war that has just terminated. That tremendous financial task, which was associated with its war effort generally, has converted Great Britain from its former position as a great creditor country, to a debtor country. At the same time, there has not been in Great Britain a production development which would enable it to face up to the situation by living on its own resources; in other words, the volume of imports which must necessarily be taken into Great Britain to-day is still very much in excess of what Great Britain is able to export. It is one of the ironies of the situation that £1,250,000,000 is owing by Great Britain to India and £450,000,000 to Egypt, a great deal of which was incurred in the defence of those countries. They were unable to defend themselves and, although they represented vital British interests at the time, they had to rely on Great Britain for their defence. In consequence, Great Britain has been faced with the most terrible economic problem. That was expressed in general terms by Mr. Winston Churchill, in a speech that he made earlier in this month of May, in which he said -

There never was a community in so dangerous an economic position. I warn you not to under-rate the gravity and financial distresses into which we are moving. They will be of greater intensity and severity than any we have known before. There is no country in the world being wracked to pieces as Britain is, and there is no country less capable of surviving such treatment.

Lest those grave remarks may be discounted as being those of the leader of an opposing political party, I direct attention to the Economic Survey for 194(7, which has been distributed among us by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). Those honorable members who have studied this sombre document, which is an official publication of the British Government, will realize how truly the facts back up the statement of Mr. Winston Churchill. In point of fact, the British Government has been relying, in recent months, upon the loan granted to it by the United States of America, in order to finance the balance of its exports, and it will have to continue to rely upon that source until the loan expires. Even last year, at a time when, because of world shortages, Great Britain was not able to import as much as it expected that it would be able to import, there was a deficit of £450,000,000 in the balance of exports and imports, and this year the deficit, apparently, will be even greater, for we find in this Economic Survey that a programme was set down for 1947 which anticipated imports of a volume of £1,450,000,000; but, if the figures from the Board of Trade for the last two months, for which I have been able to obtain the records - March and April - are examined, it will be seen that, whereas the programme contemplated imports at the rate of approximately £120,000,000 a month, those for March totalled £130,000,000, and those for April namely, £147,000,000; and in that latter reached the highest figure yet attained, month the exports totalled only £82,000,000. If one examines the breakup of those import figures, one will find that approximately one-half is represented by consumable goods - food, drink and tobacco. In April, those represented £70,000,000 odd of the total of £147,000,000. Great Britain, even to-day, with the aid of all the production which it was able to achieve during the war by cultivating additional land, the application of scientific methods, and so on, must import one-half of the foods that it consumes. It has been suggested by the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn), and possibly other honorable members, that the food position cannot be so serious as some English spokesmen have painted it, because Great Britain U exporting certain food. The honorable member for Bourke referred to fish and whisky. A closer examination of the import problem will furnish a part of the answer to what the honorable member said on the subject of exports of whisky. Great Britain is exporting to-day many commodities which it desires to retain. Clothing, perhaps, is one of the most important. The reason is, not that it can afford to export sugar barley, and the other ingredients of whisky, as well as clothing, but that it must do so if it is to survive and is not to fall into an economic morass and bankruptcy. Even with the best efforts which the British people can put forward, and by stinting themselves in order to build up export markets, those markets are falling behind in the desperate race that is being run. According to the figures that have been given in the Economic Survey, the exports last year were at 115 per cent, of the 1938 volume, yet that was sufficient to pay for imports only at the rate of 75 per cent, of the 1938 volume; because Great Britain, before the war, being in the strong position of a creditor nation, with interest payable abroad, and with its insurance, shipping and other services, was able to import far more by exporting far less. But to-day the position is reversed. Great Britain’s programme for this year is 140 per cent, of the export figure for 1938 ; but, because of a combination of circumstances such as fuel hold-ups, the extraordinary climatic conditions which developed, and possibly government policy - I do not wish to introduce that as a large element of controversy - Great Britain’s imports are at a very much higher rate than it was expected they would be, and it has not been able to approach to within a reasonable distance of the export target. It is well to bear in mind also - because this is a problem in which we are deeply interested on grounds of sentiment and self-interest - that the success which

Great Britain has achieved in the export field is not necessarily permanent. To-day, it is able to export under conditions which are favorable to exporters. There is a world scarcity. The goods which Great Britain produces are in demand, although the price is higher than that which people, in normal times, would be inclined to pay. Moreover, some of the exports are in the form of capital goods to countries which hope, in turn, to set up their own industries, and make themselves independent of Great Britain for the supply of consumer goods. Those who have recently had occasion to buy products from Great Britain, such as clothing, sporting materials, &c., must have been struck at their extraordinarily high price compared with the price of corresponding articles of Australian manufacture. While the corresponding Australian articles continue to be scarce, there will be a market for the higherpriced English articles, but let Australian production get within reasonable distance of the demand, and there will be a reluctance on the part of the buyers to pay almost twice as much for the English article. Therefore, we should not be too optimistic about the future of Great Britain’s export trade. What happens in the case of Australia may very well happen also in the case of other countries now taking British goods.. I emphasize this circumstance because it underlines the seriousness of the British position. Consequently, it underlines also the importance of this measure, and of measures like it, if we are to face the problems presented to us. The position is summed up in paragraph 61 of the Economic Survey in these words -

The central fact of 1947 is that we have not enough resources to do all that we want to do. We have barely enough to do all that we must do. Whether we reckon in man-power, coal, electricity, steel, or national production as a whole, the conclusion is unavoidable. To get all we want production would have to bc increased by at least 25 per cent. This is clearly impossible in 1047.

That was a survey for 1947.

Mr Conelan:

– Now read paragraph 62.

Mr HOLT:

– If there is any point in that paragraph which the honorable member wants to bring out I will read it, but I remind him that I only have a limited time at my disposal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I was wondering when the honorable member wa6 going to link up his remarks with the proposed grant of £25.000,000.

Mr HOLT:

– If we are not able to justify the grant because of the situation that exists in Great Britain to-day, what need is there to make it? Those of us who are supporting the bill have need to be satisfied that ‘Great Britain requires this assistance, and I know of no better way to establish that fact than to examine the present economic crisis in Great Britain. However, I need not elaborate the point any further. I hope that what I have said has registered with honorable members in all parts of the House.

As for food shipments, surely no one in this chamber suggests that Australia is doing all of which we are capable. I had a look at a publication which reached us in the last day or so dealing with the marketing of Australian butter and cheese in the United Kingdom. It was prepared by Mr. S. 0. Howie and Mr. C. Sheehy, who, I gather, went abroad under government auspices. They stated that the prospective supply of butter to Great Britain from Australia for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 would average 60,000 tons, whereas the average for the five years before the war was 92,000 tons. Thus, our target for 1948 was only two thirds of our average for the five years before the war. In the face of that no one can convince me that Australia is doing all that it might do to solve Great Britain’s food problem.

That is only one phase of the matter. Honorable members have discussed shipping. How much more could be done to provide shipping? We have discussed the reduction of the postal rates on food parcels to Great Britain, but the Government has told us that it cannot reach an agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom on the matter. Let the Government, if it wants to make a gesture, forgo its share of the revenue derived from the postal charges on food parcels to Great Britain. If it wants to encourage those who are sending parcels to Great Britain, and the British Government will not allow the rates to be reduced, let our Government forgo the whole or part of Australia’s share, because, I presume, Australia does receive a share of the revenue. These are only a few of the suggestions that come to our minds.

However admirable and useful and worthy voluntary efforts may be - and no one in this House will seek to discourage such efforts - the only effective way to mobilize the potential resources of the country is by central government action working, if necessary, in association with State governments and State government instrumentalities. It is only in cooperation of governments which control transport and the movement of goods that we can obtain the maximum results. It is not enough to make a gesture, however useful the present gesture may be, and then wash our hands of the matter. If we are to play our part in meeting this Empire crisis we must face it as if it were a war crisis. If Great Britain was at war we would not be arguing the constitutional question whether Australia had to go to war or not. We know that we would have to be at war if Great Britain was at war. At such a time we achieve a state of unity among members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that we do not seem to be able to get in time of peace; and I suggest that the reason is that we do not always realize how grave the crisis really is. Personally, I believe that it would be difficult to exaggerate the gravity of Great Britain’s economic crisis. If Great Britain crashes financially, the Empire countries must be damaged financially, also. The same unity and co-operation which is possible in time of war for our self -protection and security must be manifested at the present time if we are to overcome this crisis, also. How are we to do it ? Some of the answers have already been suggested. Quite obviously, one method should be by the expansion of our capacity to supply food. I have mentioned butter, exports of which have declined seriously compared with our average before the war. No doubt, this is true of other primary products, too. By appropriate government action, the people should be encouraged to increase production.

I now raise another matter, which, I believe, is closely related to this, namely, the Australian exchange rate. One .reason why we are able to make this grant of £25,000,000 to Great Britain is that we have a substantial credit balance in that country. To-day, I think it stands at about ‘£220,000,000, whereas before the war we tried to maintain a balance of about £50,000,000 to pay for imports, fee. Now, in spite of Great Britain’s economic difficulties, we are maintaining the exchange rate at 25 per cent, below sterling. This rate was fixed in December, 1931, and all the factors which seemed to justify the fixing of such a rate then, so far as Australia and Great Britain were concerned, are now operating in reverse; yet, so far as I know, no government statement has been issued on the matter. I do not know whether the Government believes that we should persist indefinitely with the present exchange rate. In the report of the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems, it is stated that the exchange rate of 25 per cent, below sterling was fixed in 1931 by the Commonwealth Bank, and whether it has now become a matter of Commonwealth Bank policy, after consultation with the Commonwealth Government, or whether the Government has not seriously reviewed the position since 1931, perhaps the Treasurer can tell us. While I am familiar with the economic and political arguments in. support of a continuance of the present rate of exchange, I do not know how it becomes morally justifiable in the light of existing circumstances.

Mr Calwell:

Opposition Members - Oh !

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Honorable member* opposite have cited the statements of experts. I am merely citing the statements of the Government’s expert advisers in reply.

Mr Holt:

– Does the right honorable gentleman seriously suggest that Australians are getting less fats to-day than the people of Great Britain?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am merely citing the contention of’ nutrition experts who have been in both countries that that is so.

Mr Holt:

– Is the right honorable gentleman referring to cooking fats?

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I did discuss with Sir Benjamin Smith many commodities that we could send to England if shipping space were available - foods that are not rationed, not such vital commodities as meats and fats. There are difficulties about that. The subsidies that the British Government would have to pay to keep prices at the level it aims at would be too great to warrant its acceptance of foods not essential to the basic food ration. There are many such commodities. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) could name them more readily than I.

The economic position of the United Kingdom is exceedingly difficult. It is not easy to find the final solution. Those who stand on the side-lines, who are not always the best judges, cannot declare what is the best method for Great Britain to get out of its difficulties. Further discussion may be necessary - about not only our sterling balance but also the sterling balances of other countries associated with the United Kingdom. I first thought certain bold steps of a politically unpalatable character ought to be taken about the large sterling balances held in the United Kingdom by other countries, but let me say at once that when the war against Japan ended our sterling balance in London was only £147,000,000. The rest of our sterling balances have been developed since then. I admit that Great Britain’s economic position is worse even than during the war. As far as I can represent the view of the Government on a difficult problem, I have authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. McFarlane, who is in London to discuss sterling balances with the British Treasury. I understand that the representatives of other countries, including Egypt, will be in London about June also to discuss the matter. I hope that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) will be there at the same time, lest ministerial representation is necessary while the discussions are proceeding. When Sir Kingsley Wood was Chancellor of the Exchequer and we had serious problems about sterling balances he was very fair in his dealings with Australia. Later we had sympathetic treatment from Sir John Anderson. It was apparent then to any one closely watching the position that if the war went on for any length of time difficulties were bound to arise. Sir Kingsley Wood expressed the opinion that the longer the war lasted the greater the difficulties would be. So it is no new problem that has just peered over the horizon. Every one associated with the various treasuries could see that the problems would increase the longer the war lasted. There will be later opportunities to discuss that aspect of the matter.

I have tried to deal in a sketchy way with one of the greatest dramas in history - that of a powerful nation economically, militarily, and industrially fighting for its economic existence. I do not want Opposition members or any one else to think that I do not fully appreciate the great difficulties of the United Kingdom, and that its economic collapse would bring disaster to the rest of the British Commonwealth nations, although perhaps not to the same degree in the case of Canada. If I show impatience sometimes when piffling “ suggestions are made for the solution of Great Britain’s problem, it is only because I know the fundamentals and the magnitude of the problem. It is a problem that must be solved on a far wider basis than on the basis of some of the paltry suggestions that are made. The solution of the economic problems that face the United Kingdom requires not only imperial action, but also action by the United States of America.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3033

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd May (vide page 2854), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– All that I need to say on the Australian National University Bill is this: Section 27 of the principal act makes provision, among other things, for a scheme of superannuation for the salaried teachers and officers of the Australian National University upon their retirement. The effect of the amendment is that, instead of a scheme of superannuation covering all the persons concerned, there may be more than one scheme. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) has explained how that arises. The amendment will permit of a dual system of super? annuation. Honorable members will agree that there should be effective superannuation provision for all the staff of the proposed university and, in those circumstances, I support the bill.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- While I am gratified to learn that the Commonwealth Government is making provision to enable adequate superannuation to be given to the teaching staff of the Australian National University, I should like to bc quite clear whether this scheme will be in addition to the social services scheme to which university teachers and professors, like every other citizen, contribute. The average rate of remuneration of university teachers and professors is approximately £800 a year, and they pay a social service contribution, on the basis of 18d. in the £1, of between £60 and £70 per annum. The recipients of superannuation payments under the Commonwealth Public Service scheme do not participate in the additional benefits under the social services plan, even though, as taxpayers, they subscribe to it. I should like the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) to explain that point.

In any event, I am happy to be able to congratulate the Minister on bringing into existence a scheme which, in essence, is comparable with a national insurance plan for the whole community, and involving a personal contribution for a specific object. I also congratulate the Government on making provision, when the staff of the Australian National University is being recruited, for them to receive superannuation benefits. During the last few years, great difficulty has been experienced in obtaining university teachers. Some persons with brilliant minds, who would make admirable teachers and professors, have been lured into other branches of activity because the salaries which they received at the universities, especially in the early stages of their careers, were less than they could earn in any other callings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Salaries are quite outside the scope of the bill.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– Any proposal, such as a superannuation scheme, which will provide an added attraction to these persons to become teachers and professors at the Australian National University, will be well worth while. The Minister, and his very capable Director-General of Education, have been examining conditions at Australian universities, and I urge them to consider the advisability of introducing a superannuation scheme to cover all teachers and professors at Australian universities.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The bill deals with the Australian National University, and the right honorable gentleman will not be in order in discussing a general superannuation scheme applicable to the staffs of all Australian universities.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The only reason why I touched upon that point is that the Australian National University at Canberra, in its infancy, must look to other universities for its teachers. There should be an ample reservoir of teachers in Australian universities to enable that need to be filled. My suggestion, if adopted, will provide security for university teachers and professors at all Australian universities, and brilliant persons will be attracted to teach in the universities, instead of being dissipated into various avenues of commerce, as they are at the present time.

Mr. DEDMAN (Corio - Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) stated, the original act provided for one scheme of superannuation for all those who will be employed at the Australian National University. The purpose of the amendment is to provide two alternative schemes of superannuation. Under the amendment, it will be possible for members of the administrative and office staff to subscribe to and obtain benefits from the superannuation scheme, which applies to the Commonwealth Public Service generally. The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) will recollect that this morning, I gave notice of my intention to introduce a bill dealing with superannuation benefits for members of the Commonwealth Public Service. Any alterations of conditions which that bill effects, will be applicable and available to the members of the office and administrative staff of the Australian National University.

The second superannuation scheme, under this amending measure, provides for the academic staff of the university continuing to subscribe to and obtain benefits from the Federated Superannuation Scheme for Universities to which they already subscribe. It covers the academic staffs of Australian universities, and, I understand, of universities in the United Kingdom. I am not able to say what benefits it provides, but the academic staff of the Australian National University, when appointed, will have the opportunity either to remain subscribers to the superannuation scheme which they joined at a much ealrier age, or alternatively, to join the Commonwealth Superannuation scheme. Both the office and administrative staff and the academic staff will be covered by those two schemes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported for committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3034

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th March (vide page 1278), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The House is asked to approve the constitution of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization known as Unesco. The hill is really in the nature of a formality, as the constitution has been approved by the various parties to it. The Australian Government also has approved it, and the constitution of the organization has been signed on our behalf. This is one of the international organizations which is a by-product, as it were, of the United Nations. It has most worthy objectives, which are set out under the main objective, in these terms -

To contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for human rights and fundamental freedoms affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations.

The objectives are admirably stated, and those honorable members who have taken the opportunity to examine the bill, will find that the schedule contains the constitution of this organization. The constitution itself contains a most comprehensive declaration in which it recites, in effect, that since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the education of men that our best hope of maintaining peace is likely to be found. The Opposition makes no quarrel with the bill, nor does it seek to deter the organization in the admirable objectives which it has. Perhaps our minds are tinged with the scepticism that is bred of experience in relation to these matters. Time after time, we have found that organizations with similarly highly stated ideals, have set out with the best intentions only to founder upon the practical difficulties which are created once we endeavour to put those objectives into working order. We can only hope, at this stage of the organization’s existence, that it will have a happier future than that.

Australia is not merely called upon to subscribe in terms of lip-service to this organization. If I understood the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) correctly when he delivered his second-reading speech we are required to make a budgetary contribution of approximately £42,000 a year. He covered quite adequately, for those honorable members who want a picture of what is proposed, the machinery of the organization, and the broad objectives by which and the principles towards which it proposes to work. If I do express a scepticism regarding the success of such an organization, I do not propose, by that expression of scepticism, to deter the people nor the organization itself from doing their utmost to carry out the objectives that they have in mind. This may be an experiment in international collaboration - the experiment of trying to carry through the world the ideals we hold as to equality of opportunity, the removal of illiteracy, and, through the more diverse spread of the educational advantages that the English-speaking people enjoy, a better understanding among the nations of the world. If the organization can do one-tenth of what it sets out to do in those directions, it will have more than justified the cost which Australia and other countries will bear. We all recognize that we have reached the stage in the world’s history when either we are united in our approach to these international questions, or we perish. In other words, we must collaborate in peace or we shall dispute in pieces. We live in the atomic age, in which scientific minds have been able to manufacture the most diabolic weapons of warfare that man has ever contemplated. On that technical knowledge and capacity hang a terrible threat to the peace of the whole world. We believe, with those who have subscribed to the charter of this organization, that the best principle for the maintenance for peace in the future is the mutual understanding and tolerance that is born of an intelligent approach to problems which the world faces at the present time. We recognize the difficulties of these problems.

There is no reason why any member of the Parliament should resist such a measure as this. At present there is very little in practical terms that we can point to in regard to Unesco, because the organization has not yet begun to function. The machinery has been established, however, and all that we can do at this stage is to refer to the practical measures that may flow from it, which we hope may lead to a development of interest and ideals which, in themselves, will tend to destroy the difficulties which the organization may encounter as it progresses. We hope that by the use of propaganda methods and the spread of. education and knowledge Unesco will largely contribute to world peace.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- This is one of the most important measures that we could contemplate. It has been recorded of Unesco that it is “ a magnificent experiment in international understanding”. In this regard it is one of the most important outcomes of the United Nations activities. Its purpose will be to increase international understanding and goodwill, and I believe that it will be able to do this because of the outlook of those who have participated in its inauguration. The United Nations is a body the object of which is to control war and eventually to outlaw it, if necessary by force of arms. Unesco is a more subtle weapon, which has been devised by educationists and scientists with the object of trying to discover the reasons which cause war. One needs to enter into the minds of the planners behind Unesco in order to appreciate the importance of their work. Ministers of education from some of the allied countries met in London in 1942 to consider the ravages of war. It would be well to consider some of the remarks that have been made by persons who were interested in the establishment of this great organization. Dr. Julian Huxley and other eminent scientists have declared that they see in Unesco a very reasonable and workable method for educating the peoples of the world against war and for outlawing those elements in our civilization which cause wars.

One might have expected pedantic language to be used in the instrument constituting Unesco, but the constitution is framed in surprisingly terse and clear language and not in the kind of medieval phrases which might be expected in such a document. The preamble reads -

The governments of the States parties to this constitution on behalf of their peoples declare -

That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed; that ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war.

Those simple words are such as one might read in any daily newspaper and such terse phrases emphasize the importance of Unesco, and point naturally to the kind of planning that surrounds this organization. I also direct the attention of honorable members to a sentence in the address of welcome by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, to the conference which supplied the opening phrases of the preamble. Mr. Attlee said -

To-day the peoples of the world are islands shouting to each other over seas of misunderstanding. They do not understand each other’s history, each other’s way of living, each other’s way of thinking. The better they understand each other, the more they will realize how much they have in common and why and how they differ, the less prone they will be to take up arms against each other.

In congratulating the organizers of Unesco the late President Roosevelt said -

To-day we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationship - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together at peace.

The Ministers of Education who were responsible for a great deal of the work in connexion with the establishment of Unesco were taking shelter in England at the time, and they saw the need for the maximum degree of collaboration throughout Europe in order to preserve, in some manner, the reservoirs of education and understanding which had been accumulated through the years. Their desire was to encourage and foster the advancement of international understanding, goodwill and peace through a world fellowship united in the ideals of service.

The purpose of this organization is to combat ignorance and to diminish hatred by means of mass information in newspapers, .radio and motion pictures. The press has a heavy responsibility in this regard, not only in our own country but also throughout the southern hemisphere and. in fact, throughout the whole world. Improved literacy in India and China is of the greatest importance. There is to-day a high percentage of illiteracy in these countries and it is in them that Unesco plans to do a great deal of its work. There will be plans to ensure freedom of access to all the treasure houses of the human mind. Mass education will be an important feature. The organization will endeavour to create a world university of the air, and a world auxiliary language. The world university of the air will be of such a nature that men will be able to tune in whether they live in Sydney, Lapland or Terra del Fuego. The world’s inheritance of information has been pillaged and it will be the work of this organization to make information available to mankind without limit of colour or creed. There will be provision for new education and new forms of education. Arrangements will be made for adult training in agriculture, adult training in health, and adult training in citizenship. A panel of experts will be chosen to contact workers in the field and every effort will be made to ensure clarification of language difficulties. Efforts will be made also to deal with world affairs on such a basis as will help to resolve conflicts of opinion, for many of these conflicts are curable. For this reason mass education is of the utmost importance. Never before in the history of the world have there been as many men and women hungry for books who lack the means of satisfying their hunger. Never before in the history of the world has the freedom of the creative artist to satisfy the fundamental need of his time been so restricted as it is restricted now by commercial practices, and by censorious suppression. The time has come to recognize that the world owes a duty to its less favoured peoples, not only in their interest, but in its own. It is not necessary, in order to recognize this duty, to assert that the roots of the evil of our time lie solely in the things of the human spirit, any more than it is necessary to assert; in order to arrive at certain other conclusions, that the roots of these evils lie solely in material conditions. It is necessary only to admit that what passes in the minds of men is a reality - and a reality which may well affect the great issue of peace and war - of life and death.

There will be a revision of text-books and relative teaching material. There will be no more burning of books and no misuse of books, and there will be no question of censorship. There will be no suggestion of a policeman of the mind or of a censor of the imagination. Culture will be undertaken on planetary terms. There will be a survey of the press, the films, the radio, and postal and telegraphic communications. Culture, for want of a better term, belongs to all and our educational facilities must be used to provide it. Unesco will not work for the middle classes or the better classes, but it will work for human culture on its best and highest level. All information is to be made accessible to all people.

A very important part of the work of Unesco will be connected with the survey of the press, and the radio and such other avenues as may be available, to help to inform the minds of the people. The surveys that will be made will include all tensions conducive to war, such as nationalism, internationalism, population pressures and technological matters. In this respect all avenues of communication will be explored. I emphasize that improved literacy will be of the highest importance to the people of Australia for it will undoubtedly enable the people of China and India in particular to understand our aims and ‘ideals in relation to our “White Australia policy better than they understand them to-day. Attention will be given to the under-privileged in every country, and this will involve considerations of climatic conditions educational difficulties, and everything of that kind, for these must undoubtedly be investigated if we are to meet our difficulties and overcome them. The social conditions of under-privileged people in the equatorial forests, the Amazonian forests, India and China must be investigated and living standards in these countries must be lifted. This can be done by an improvement of literacy and by improved living conditions.

Mr Blain:

– Perhaps.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The honorable member for the Northern Territory has passed through two world wars and he must know that if we do not undertake these basic tasks the preservation of peace will be an impossibility. We must face these issues with an impartial mind, and do our best to counteract all the difficulties that face us. Unesco has a master plan for the examination of tensions that may cause war. It will have to investigate ultra nationalism, which causes people to regard their country as greater than any other, as well as population pressures, minority groups, and other peoples who are prone to cause war. It will have to observe and report upon processes which may force people to adopt a defeatist attitude.

That, briefly, is the fine story of Unesco. I say in all sincerity that it is a good and a fine thing that men of understanding and wisdom should have taken the trouble to provide a charter which will be a splendid supplement to other efforts to avoid war. We can do no less than consider the matter carefully and thoughtfully. I congratulate the Minister upon having made Australia a subscriber to Unesco by means of this bill, in the simple terms of a grant of £42,000 a year. We have expended a lot more than that on lesser things. Probably, in the final analysis, in the years to come, it will be proved to be one of the finest investments that we have made.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I should like to be reassured by the Minister (Mr. Dedman) in regard to a matter that was not mentioned in his secondreading speech. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is the successor of the ill-fated League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Co-operation. It is astonishing, in the light of all the criticism that was directed at the late President Wilson, that none of his successors has been able, either in the Atlantic Charter or in any other international document, to advance one idea which was not originally a part of his ideas in connexion with the League of Nations. The League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Cooperation accomplished nothing. The level of intellectual co-operation in Europe in the period between the two world wars was not high, and certainly it owed very little to the League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Co-operation. Judging by the Minister’s speech, and the terms of the bill, this appears to be another academic organization of that character. I say that subject to correction, and put it forward because I am genuinely concerned. This organization had its origin in a meeting of Education Ministers in refugee governments in London. They were concerned about doing something practical to restore the smashed education of Europe. That is the last matter to which one can find a reference in this bill. The grant of £42,000 which the Commonwealth proposes to make towards the machinery of this organization will not provide an answer to the problem of Europe’s destroyed educational equipment, nor to the rehabilitation of Europe’s children. The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) has made a great and generous step towards the rehabilitation of Europe’s children by increasing the Australian grant for that purpose from £400,000 to £4,000,000. I shall be glad to find, in the policy of the Australian delegates to this organization at any rate, a practical determination to do the first thing that is essential in Europe, namely, not intellectual cooperation at the level of Dr. Julian Huxley, but the restoration of the primary and secondary education systems of Europe - the production and distribution of text-books. All over Europe consumer goods of the most essential kinds, the mere kinds that keep one alive, are nonexistent. I should like that there should be attached to Unesco practical printing houses which will publish text-books, for use by Europe’s children, of a type which will satisfy our desires in relation to democratic ideas, the information that they provide, the form, that they take, and the contribution that they make to the practical and real aspects of education. These will be the problems of the first five years of peace at least. There will always be intellectual co-operation between the universities of Europe, and that aspect of Unesco is less important and urgent, though I am by no means under-rating it.

I am glad that the Minister proposes that there shall be included in the Australian delegation representatives of the teachers’ organizations of Australia. I hope that they will have a chance to bend the efforts of the Australian delegation in a practical way, by restoring some of me “ .bread and butter “ aspects of European education. I do not think that we should expect this to be a powerful organization for peace. The complete United Nations organization is directed towards that end. However, this organization will be able to play its part in that connexion. But its immediate objective will be service for the children of Europe, and I hope that Australia will always keep that in mind.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

– in reply - I am glad that this measure has been so well received by the House. On that account, there is very little for me to say, and I need merely reassure the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) on the point that he has raised. The honorable member has said that he considers that this organization may, perhaps, be on too high an academic level, and that it may not contribute much, if anything, to the problem of the rehabilitation of education in Europe. The honorable member mentioned the sum of £4,000,000 which the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) recently, in answer to a question by, I believe, the honorable member, announced would be made available by the Australian Government towards the relief of children in Europe. I do not remember whether my colleague went into details as to how that sum would be allocated. A part of it is to be expressly set aside for the rehabilitation of education in Europe. Only to-day, I discussed with the Director of Education, Professor Mills, methods by which that money can he wisely expended. The honorable member is aware that there is in this country a very grave shortage of educational equipment - blackboards, books, and equipment of other kinds. It is rather difficult to evolve a method by which money made available by the Government for that express purpose can best be used. The Director of Education suggested to me to-day that perhaps one of the best methods of expending the money would he to bring to this country some them a short training in teaching, and students from devastated countries, give then return them, if possible with equipment, so that they may be in a position to undertake their task in those devastated areas. I have not yet given final consideration to that matter. I assure the honorable member that, notwithstanding the difficulties of finding ways and means by which Australia can assist in the problem of the rehabilitation of education in Europe, the matter has not been overlooked by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3039

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd May (vide page 2863), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- This bill was originated in the Senate, in which it received the support of the members of all parties. It is designed to liberalize the compensation payments to seamen who may be injured in the course of their occupation.

Those who were members of this House at the time will recall that in 1944 the Parliament debated an amending bill which liberalized the conditions of compensation payments for employees in various branches of the Commonwealth Public Service and those employed on Commonwealth works. I understand that the prime purpose of this bill is to bring, as far as practicable, the compensation provisions that are applicable to seamen into line with those that apply to employees who come under the provisions of the general Commonwealth act. In that respect, members of the Opposition raise no objection to it. But I mention at this stage a point .which, perhaps, the Minister may care to comment upon later. The Government has wasted no time in bringing into line the compensation conditions as they affect seamen, but I have yet to learn that it has stabilized the conditions under which seamen are to be employed. As I understand the position, seamen engaged on ships trading between different ports in Australia are still in receipt of a war risk bonus; in other words, they receive a special allowance which had its origin in the special risks which they were called upon to face during the war. One would have thought that, the Government having found time to work out a just scheme of compensation for injuries sustained by seamen while engaged in their occupation, it would also have found time to work out a proper peace-time wage scale which should apply to seamen so employed. If the position is in conformity with the information that was last supplied to me, the rate of war risk bonus varies according to that part of the waters of the seven seas in which a seaman is engaged at any particular time. Whilst there may have been a sound basis for it while the degree of risk varied during the war, surely, there can be no foundation in principle for the continuation of the scheme under present conditions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Can the honorable member indicate where the bill contains any reference to war risk? The honorable member may make a passing reference to the matter, but he may not develop an argument about it.

Mr HOLT:

– I do not propose to do so. This bill deals with other kinds of industrial risks to which seamen are subject, and with compensation payable for injury. Up to the present time, war risks have been one of those to which seamen are subject. One would have thought that when the Government was cleaning up the position regarding industrial risks generally it would have stated its policy on war risks. I raise the matter now in the hope that the Government, having received so much consideration from the Opposition in regard to other phases of the bill, will clear up this point for me.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- The purpose of this bill is to amend the existing law in regard to compensation payable to injured seamen, and a new schedule is being introduced. In this schedule different amounts of compensation are fixed for the loss of a right arm and a left arm. I do not believe that there should be this differentiation. If a man loses his left arm his loss is just as great as if he had lost his right arm. I hope that when the bill is in committee the Government will introduce an amendment to provide for the payment of the same amount of compensation in both cases.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I regret that the Minister (Mr. Dedman) did not refer to the point which I raised. The third schedule to the bill stipulates the compensation payable for specified injuries. On the point raised by the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan), the view is evidently taken by the Government that if a man who is naturally lefthanded should lose his left hand, he is entitled to receive the same amount of compensation as is payable to the righthanded man who loses his right hand. I do not know whether that explanation satisfies the honorable member. I agree with him that it appears somewhat inconsistent to fix different rates of compensation for the loss of the right hand and the left hand, and I should raise no objection to the same rate being fixed for both. The amounts payable for specified injuries are set out in the schedule, but it is not stated whether the same rate is payable if the jury is received in the ordinary course of employment, or as an effect of the war. Presumably, the Government proposes to treat seamen on the basis that the war situation still exists, and I do not know whether it does so because certain war regulations remain in force two years after the war has ended. By his silence the Minister evaded the point which I raised in my second-reading speech, and I give him this further opportunity to elucidate it.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

– In reply to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt),

I point out that this bill deals with compensation payments, not with rates of pay for seamen. Whether the war risk bonus is continued under a National Security Regulation or some other legislative provisions does not affect this bill. As for the matter raised by the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan), it will be recalled that, in my second-reading speech, I referred to the change that is being made because it is thought wise to insert a provision relating to procedure whereby a record will be kept of whether a man is left-handed or right-handed, so that higher compensation can be claimed for a limb theloss of which causes the greater injury. Evidently, the honorable member for Cook does not think that right. I shall have the matter further examined, and if anything can. be done along the lines suggested it will be done, but I am not prepared to accept an amendment at this stage.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– I am not sure that the interpretation given by the Minister to the provision about the payment of compensation for the left and the right hand would be endorsed by a point of law. The relevant Schedule provides that so much more shall be paid for the loss of the right than for the loss of the left, and so much more for the loss of a finger or thumb of the right hand than for the loss of a finger or thumb of the left hand. I should like to receive an assurance that, if necessary, the bill will be amended to make it clear that the man who suffers the greater loss will receive the greater compensation. As the bill now stands, it may mean that a lefthanded man will receive less compensation for the loss of his left hand, although it was more useful to him than his right hand.

Mr Dedman:

– That is not so.

Mr Holt:

-The point is covered by clause 6.

Mr THOMPSON:

– If the Minister gives me that assurance, I am prepared to accept it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported from committee without amendment; report adopted.

Bill-by leave- read a third time.

page 3041

COINAGE BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23rd May (vide page 2854), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– The purpose of thebill before the House is to reduce the silver content of the Australian silver coinage. At present, it contains 92½ per cent. of silver to the fine ounce, the balance of 7½ per cent. being made up of an alloy of copper, zinc and tin. This content was fixed by the Coinage Act of 1909. The reason advanced by the Government for the alteration of the silver content is that, during the war, the price of silver rose, in Australian currency, from 2s. 7½d. per ounce to 4s. 9½d. per ounce, with the result that our silver coins are disappearing from circulation because the silver in them is worth more than their face value. It is proposed to reduce the silver content to 50 per cent., the rest of the metal in the coins to consist of alloy. That is one reason for debasing the coinage. Another reason is that, during the war, the Government imported 11,000,000 oz. of silver from the United States of America, and this must be repaid. The Government believes that it will obtain a considerable amount of silver from the coins now in circulation, and that this, together with the new silver produced from Australian mines, will make up the totalof 11,000,000 ozs. which has to be repaid. I hope that the experience of the Government in attempting to extract silver from the existing coinage will be happier than was that of the Government of the United Kingdom. In that country, much difficulty was experienced in separating the silver from the alloy, and not so much silver was recovered as had been expected.

The Coinage Act which was assented to in 1909, was amended in 1936, so that in a period of 38 years this matter has only twice been before the Parliament. Therefore, I take this opportunity to bring to the notice of the House once again, as was done in 1909, the question of adopting in Australia a decimal system currency.

This is what Mr. King O’Malley said when speaking to the bill in 1909 -

I did expect something progressive from this Treasurer, but I am disappointed. 1 suppose it would be of no use to try to persuade the right honorable gentleman, backed as he is by honorable members on the Government side, to make a change, for if they attempted to do so they would be frightened, arguing that they had no precedent to follow. Yet every person admits that a child landing in the United States could pick up the American currency in an hour. One hundred cents make a dollar, 50 cents half a dollar, and 25 cents a quarter of a dollar. The whole currency is so easy to calculate that any child could understand it, but no man in Australia could figure up the interest at a certain rate, upon, say, £1,357 7s. 8id., without consulting a hook. The Treasurer has a splendid chance to effect reform, but I suppose it is not to be done.

Mr. Fowler, the then honorable member for Perth, supported the proposal for a decimal currency, and said that he regretted that the Minister had not seen his way to introduce the reforms suggested by the Coinage Commission. Mr. Batchelor agreed with the honorable member for Perth that it would be much better to adopt the proposals of the Royal Commission on decimal coinage. Mr. Dugald Thomson, who had been a member of the Coinage Commission, also regretted that the Government had not adopted the recommendations of that body. Giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems, of which the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) was a distinguished member, Professor Torleiv Hytten, economic advisor to the Bank of New South Wales, said -

I would suggest that the time has come for a change in the Australian currency unit, and the introduction of the decimal system to our currency. Our present system is an incongruous survival of mediaevalism. Apart from a few Eastern currencies, the £1 is now the only currency not divided on the decimal principle.

The main consideration, however, is the greater convenience of decimal currencies for internal transactions. Once the initial changeover had been accomplished, the saving in time and expense would soon repay the inconvenient transitional period, internally all calculations would be greatly simplified. For many calculations it is now necessary to convert sums of money into decimals first and then re-convert at the end. This both takes longer and introduces an added possibility of error. It is unnecessary to labour the benefits of simplification.

I submit that the system could be introduced very easily in Australia, and that this is a matter to which the commission might devote some thought.

He then suggested two schemes, one of. which was adopted by the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems. The royal commission was moved by the evidence of Professor Hytten and of other people in regard to decimal coinage, and in its report, to which the present Treasurer subscribed his name, at paragraph 688, it said -

Too little attention has been given in the past to the denomination and , forms of our token coinage. In our view, the division of the pound into twenty shillings, each of twelve pence, is antiquated. Most modern currencies are based on the decimal system, which has great advantages. With its introduction, money calculations of all kinds ‘ would be simplified and shortened, and a great deal of time and trouble would be saved in industry and in commerce. More of the time of school children, too, could be devoted to other subjects. The chief difficulties to be overcome are tradition, inertia, and the inconvenience and cost of the transitional period. Opposition will come from those who prefer the old system because they are accustomed to it, and from those who would deprecate a break with the custom followed by Great Britain. On the other hand, some parts of the Empire for long used a decimal system of coinage. The introduction of decimal coinage would provide an opportunity for a reconstruction of the whole of the token coinage from the point of view of shape, weight and design. The threepence, for example, is a coin of convenient denomination but inconvenient size. It would be easy to combine a decimal system with a new coinage, more convenient to handle than the present coinage, even if other metals than silver and bronze, and other shapes, than the present, were introduced.

The royal commission’s recommendation was couched in the following terms: -

We recommend -

A system of decimal coinage should be introduced based upon the division of the Australian pound into one thousand parts.

It is a matter of great regret that so many other recommendations of the royal commission were adopted but that a unanimous recommendation, so strongly expressed as this, and, moreover, one that was subscribed to by the present Treasurer in 1936, should not be mentioned in this bill. Even at this late hour, I ask the right honorable gentleman to consider the redrafting of the bill to provide what he recommended not so many years ago when he was not occupying the illustrious position which he graces to-day. I suggest that the division of the Australian £1 into a thousand parts and the provision of coins of smaller denominations than the halfpenny, would be of an advantage to the poorer people, as well as facilitate the recording .and accounting of commercial transactions. I ask the right honorable gentleman to take cognisance of what I have said, and when this bill goes before the Senate to insert in it an amendment to provide for the adoption of a system of decimal coinage.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I perused this rather remarkable bill over the week-end. I called at the office of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), and his private secretary was good enough to provide me with a certified true copy of the remarks made by the right honorable gentleman when he introduced the bill, and also with information as to the circulation of silver coinage in the Commonwealth. According to the Treasurer, the reduction of the silver content of our coinage will asist us to build up the stock of 11,000,000 oz. which we obtained from the United States of America for coinage purposes during the war. He stated that this quantity must be returned within a period of five years from the date when the President of the United States of America declares the war emergency to have ended. He went on to say that we are buying practically the whole of our local production which is available after allowing for the demands of industry, which is roughly 6,000,000 oz’. per annum, and any amount not required for coinage will be used to build up a reserve to meet our obligation to the United States of America. It is upon that text I propose to preach for the next few minutes. The right honorable gentleman stated the issues upon which he asks the House to agree to this bill, but I am certain that he did not tell anything like a fraction of the facts. According to the Australian Mining Standard of last month, the production of silver in Australia is approximately 14,000,000 oz. per annum. Not long ago there was a glut of silver and the price was extremely low. I remember going to the Port Pirie

Smelters on one occasion, where I saw, behind great iron bars, piles of silver ingots which were being held off the markets of the world because of the overproduction of silver. The price of silver was then under 2s. an oz. Time has moved on, and, as the article in the Australian Alining Standard indicates, silver now has many commercial uses, as the result of discoveries arising out of the requirements . of the war. As the result of the present shortage of silver, two matters arise which are worthy of note. The first is that, according to the Treasurer, notwithstanding Australia’s war-time production of silver, the Government found it necessary to borrow from the United States of America 11,000,000 oz. of physical silver, the terms of the loan being that that silver had to be returned to the United States of America, and not paid for. The United Kingdom Government borrowed a total of 88,000,000 oz. from the United States of America on exactly the same terms. Recently that Government passed legislation abolishing silver coinage altogether. Other legislation relating to silver coinage was passed in 1922, when the price of silver was temporarily very high, and, in order to meet financial difficulties arising from “World “War I., the United Kingdom Government reduced the silver content of its coinage from 37-40ths. which previously applied, and which applies in Australia at the present time, to one-half. What the Treasurer proposes to do in this bill is to ask the Parliament to adopt the standard of silver coinage adopted by the United Kingdom Government in 1922, from which the United Kingdom Government receded last year in favour of copper and nickel. The interesting fact is that, whereas the United Kingdom Government expects to make a profit of £30,000,000 from the sale of its silver after allowing for the return of the 88,000,000 oz. to the United States of America, on the figures furnished it must have in circulation approximately 215,000,000 oz. of silver in its coinage. I asked the Treasurer’s office for information relating to the amount of silver in circulation in Australia. The answer staggered me and I asked for confirmation of it. It is no less than 88,000,000 oz. If we have in circulation in Australia 88,000,000 oz. of standard silver - that is, silver 37-40ths fine - we have in circulation in this country no less than £24,200,000 worth of silver coinage. The Treasurer is now asking the Parliament to agree to the silver content of our coinage being reduced from 37-40ths to 6-12ths, to consent to the taking out of our silver coinage the difference between 6-12ths and 37-40ths .content of silver. If we apply the difference between those two fractions to 88,000,000 oz. we arrive at the figure of 40,000,000 oz. According to the right honorable gentleman’s second-reading speech, he needs this 40,000,000 oz. of silver to help him to build up a stock out of which he will return to the United States of America 11,000,000 oz. of physical silver which was borrowed during the war. This is one of the most delicious pieces of financial strategy I have ever seen. There is a strange coincidence that the amount of silver in circulation in the Commonwealth should contain exactly the same amount of silver that the British Government borrowed from the United States of America. In order to repay our debt to the United States of America the Treasurer proposes to take out of the coinage of the Australian Commonwealth no less than 40,000,000 oz. of its silver content. The proposal appears to be even worse if we deal in fine ounces. I do not know upon what calculation the 88,000,000 oz. is based. I have taken it for granted that it is on the standard of 92$ per cent, pure and not on the 24 carat basis. One pound of silver will coin 66 shillings. On the basis with silver at 2s. 7$d. per oz., every time the Commonwealth mints 66 shillings the Treasury makes a profit of 36s. lOd. If silver be bought at 5s. 9£d. per oz. the Treasury makes a profit of only ls, 8£d., but when the price rises to 5s. 11-^d. per oz. no profit is made at all. The interesting point is that in the first part of his discourse the Treasurer told us that early this year the price of silver reached 5s. 9$d. per oz., or ls. 6d. under the margin at which the Commonwealth ceases to make a profit on the minting of silver coinage. Having regard to that, we can well appreciate why the Treasurer desires to debase our currency. The other interesting fact to which we must direct our attention is that this 40,000,000 oz. of silver, when extracted by the Treasury from our currency of 88,000,000 oz., would at a price of 4s. 7d. per oz. be worth exactly £11,000,000. In order to repay the 11,000,000 oz. of physical silver to the United State of America the right honorable gentleman proposes to take out of the silver currency of Australia 40,000,000 oz. of silver worth £11,000,000 at present market rates. If that be not financial strategy on the grand scale I do not know what is. I heard of global strategy during the war; this is global strategy in the realm of finance. I am absolutely opposed to a measure which seeks to debase our currency in this way. I shall not go back to King Henry VIII. or to King John in order to find grounds upon which to criticize the bill, but I say to the Treasurer that if he desires that Australia should adopt a token currency, a currency which has no tangible value, the proper thing to do is to emulate the example of the United Kingdom Government and decide that our currency shall contain no silver at all, to plump for a straight-out, valueless token currency. I cannot understand the Treasurer attempting to do this year the very thing which the United Kingdom Government did 25 years ago, and from which “it retracted only last year. I have heard not a little about the enormity of closely following British practice. This is not a case of following British practice closely, but of following it a quarter of a century behind in point of time. This bill should be considered very closely by the committee. Incidentally, the schedule of the bill provides for the minting of crowns. In 1936 an amending bill was passed providing for the minting of crowns, but only for use as coronation emblems. Those crown pieces are extremely scarce. I cannot recall when I saw one. All are gone. The world is metal hungry and suspicious of the paper currencies floating about. The moment the Government tells the people that it intends to extract this silver coin from their pockets and replace it with a coin worth only a tiny fraction more than half the intrinsic value of the present coin, it can look forward to a hoarding of the silver coins of the Commonwealth. There is an old saying that bad money always drives out good money. Bad money always does drive out good money. It drives it into pockets and other places where people hide money.

Mr Blain:

– That happened in Malaya when the Japanese money appeared.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Regardless of what part of Asia or what part of central Europe, the Balkans or elsewhere, you mention, the hoarding of metals, particularly in the form of coins, is a lot older than the history of those countries. There are certain things about the Australian precious metals industry that this Parliament should have a good look at. I have preached here before on the question of the gold standard,, and I do not retract one jot from what I have said. Increase ihe paper currency as you like, it will still be measured in terms of gold, and nothing else. The result is, if newspaper reports are correct, and I presume they are, that police officers watch the departure of certain aircraft to prevent the smuggling of gold, because it has been discovered that with the price of gold to be pegged by us, in conjunction with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the other signatories to the Bretton Woods Agreement, at £10 15s. 3d. per oz., the market value of gold in India, French Indo-China, Siam, China and other countries is no less than £30 per oz. at Sydney, after the smuggler has received his fees and been paid for his risk wherever the smuggling takes place. It stands to reason that the market value of gold in Asia and in quite a part of Africa, for wherever the Arab goes you can bet your boots he will be willing to pay for gold, will be greater than we are prepared to pay here. As the result of the gold policy in the Commonwealth to-day, we are depressing the prices of the precious metal in Australia to make certain mines of marginal payability unpayable. Sooner or later the gold price will break.

In regard to silver, if so many industrial uses have been found for a practically precious metal, formerly used only in the coinage, ornamentally and in luxury articles, there is a future for it never before envisaged. Therefore we have to look at the coinage system. I point out to the Treasurer, while I am on my feet, that the schedule to the bill provides for a slight change of the gold content of gold coins. The schedules of the Coinage Acts of 1909 and 1936 provide that the standard fineness of gold in a sovereign or any other denomination of gold coin shall be “Eleven-twelfths fine gold, one-twelfth alloy ; or millesimal fineness 916.6 “. In the schedule to this bill, the dot has been knocked off the top of the “ 6 “. That means a fractional difference. I do not think it matters much because not many of us have a great number of gold coins in reserve, but in these matters, where we have Ministers, Treasury officials, and ‘ economists who know everything about everything in the world, it is as well that we should get down to the exact decimal. As one who left school at twelve years of age, I have a violent objection to seeing a recurring decimal turn into a nonrecurring decimal. It is a metamorphosis that we are not entitled to expect. I am opposed to the measure. The Government has not been frank with the Parliament if the figures supplied by its own officers are correct. If out circulation of silver is 88,000,000 oz., the Treasurer has no justification for “ pinching “ from the pockets of the Australian people 40,000,000 oz., plus the annual production of silver, in order to pay a debt of 11,000,000 oz. of silver five years after the President of the United States of ‘ America declares the state of emergency has ended. In two years, according to the Treasurer’s own figure, we shall produce a surplus of 12,000,000 oz. Therefore, the measure is absolutely unnecessary, and should be rejected, and I intend to vote against it.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- I support the observations of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) about a decimal coinage. This is one matter with which a progressive national parliament in this year of grace should deal as soon as possible. Many matters on which the Commonwealth Parliament may legislate, such as a uniform divorce law and ‘company law, have been provided for in the Commonwealth Constitution for nearly 50 years, but have not been dealt with by the Commonwealth Parliament. The coinage has been dealt with in various coinage acts. To-day we should deal with it in the light of experience of about half a century and move with the times. I believe that the advantages of a decimal coinage are well known to honorable members. Nearly every country except Great Britain and Australia has adopted the decimal coinage system in one form or another. The history of the matter in Australia is that, in 1901, a select committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the question of a decimal coinage, but, before that there had been in England, from about 1827, a series of royal commissions to inquire into the same subject. They emphatically reported in favour of a decimal coinage. In England the matter was complicated, because itwas thought that difficulties might be met in instituting a decimal coinage without a uniform metric system of weights and measures and, perhaps for that reason, perhaps because of various vested interests, and perhaps of natural conservatism - no matter for what reason - the British Parliament did not go on with the matter, notwithstanding the strong recommendations of the royal commissions. One step was taken by the British Parliament in 1847 when it made provision for the minting of florins worth 2s., which formerly had not been known. That was done avowedly as the first step in a decimal coinage system, based on the sovereign; but nothing further was done. Shortly after the inception of the Commonwealth of Australia, the matter of a decimal coinage was debated and a select committee was appointed. It went into the matter with great thoroughness. The committee held 23 meetings and examined nineteen witnesses, and opinions in writing were obtained from a greater number of experts of the day in Australia and abroad. The committee had the advantage of the best opinion it could get upon the matter. The difficulty it found was what sort of a decimal coinage was it to recommend - a system unrelated to any other existing system of coinage, as was done, partially, in the United States of America, shortly after its establishment with the setting up of the dollar system, or a system allied to the existing system in England? It was generally felt that the way to do it was to work out a decimal system allied to the sovereign. The committee made a strong recommendation which can be summarized as follows: -

That the Commonwealth adopt a decimal system of coinage and money of account.
That the basis of the currency be gold, and expressed in the existing British sovereign.
That the following coins of the existing system be adopted : -

The sovereign, as - 10 florins, 1,000 cents,

Half-sovereign - 5 florins, 500 cents,

Two-shilling piece - 1 florin, 100 cents,

Shilling - ½ florin, 50 cents,

Sixpence - ¼ florin, 25 cents.

Interrupting the quotation. I point out that up to that stage there was to be no change in the existing coinage. The coinage of the realm in Australia could be corelated to the decimal system without the need to mint new coins. The recommendations provided -

That a new coin, of the value of 22/5 pence of the existing currency, be coined in some mixed metal and made current as 10 cents (one-tenth florin).
That bronze coins of the value of - 1-1 000th, l-500th, l-250th, of the sovereign, l-100th, l-50th, l-25th, of the florin. to be known as 1 cent, 2 cents, and 4 cents respectively, be coined to take the place of the existing bronze coinage.

That was a clear-cut series of recommendations. As the honorable member for New England has indicated, the advantages were clear. There wouldbe an obvious educational saving. There would be an obvious commercial saving, and Australia, in commercial matters, would be in a better position in relation to other parts of the world. It was thought by the committee - and there was a good deal of evidence to support it - that if Australia swung in behind the system of decimal coinage it would accelerate a similar movement in Great Britain. The obvious advantages of a decimal coinage system for Australia are so clear that I need not debate the matter further. I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to investigate the matter, to discover whether it is possible to bring down within a measurably short time legislation to bring about a decimal system of coinage in Australia.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs Leader of the Australian Country party

– Honorable members privileged to hear the observations of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) are indebted to him for the startling information that he has concisely given to the House. His disclosures are, in my opinion, of such importance that they demand from the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) a satisfactory reply. The honorable member for Barker bases his case on information that he states he has received from the Treasury. He was informed that 88,000,000 oz. of silver is in circulation in Australia. From that he has calculated that this measure is not so innocent as the House might otherwise have been led to believe. Consequently, without going into details, I submit that the Treasurer has the obligation to provide honorable members with a satisfactory explanation.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– in reply - First, I shall deal with the matter raised by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott). Personally, I have always believed that the decimal system of coinage is a superior form of currency. However, I realize that strong objections would be raised to its introduction, particularly from the stand-point of inconvenience. At present, our minting capacity alone makes it impossible even to contemplate its introduction. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) referred to the reports of royal commissions in the United Kingdom which have examined this matter. By thirteen votes to ten, one of these commissions in 1920 opposed the adoption of decimal coinage.

Mr Barnard:

– The honorable member for Parramatta did not tell the House that.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– As the honorable member for New England said, decimal coinage has many merits ; but, apart from the physical impossiblity of adopting it now,- strenuous opposition would be voiced against the proposal. Many conferences would have to be held with interested bodies in order to convince them of the wisdom of the system. Some of the opposition would be based on the fact, that our existing system of coinage is traditional. Some people would oppose the adoption of the decimal coinage simply because it represented a new departure. In fact, some members of the Opposition in this Parliament are opposed to any form of change.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– We should like a change of government.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Although I have always personally considered that the decimal system has great advantage over our present coinage, it would be physically impossible to introduce it now.

– I listened to the honorable member for Barker very patiently while he made a number of misstatements. Before the introduction of cupro-nickel, the coinage of the United Kingdom had, for a long time, a silver content of 50 per cent. No one considered that, with the introduction of cupro-nickel, the coinage of the United Kingdom had been debased. The silver content of the currency of New Zealand is now 50 cent. The reason why the United Kingdom changed from silver to cupronickel coinage has two simple explanations. The first was the ever-increasing price of silver; which is not produced in the United Kingdom. The second reason was that the United Kingdom Government desired to repay to the United States of America the number of ounces of silver which it had borrowed during World War II. Australia will return to the United States of America the silver which we borrowed from it. The difference between the position of the United Kingdom and that of Australia is that we produce silver, and the United Kingdom does not. No doubt, cupronickel has its advantages, but we are not obliged to buy silver from abroad.

We are able to use our own sterling values to buy it. So, the two criticisms which the honorable member for Barker voiced about it are proved to have no foundation. If this bill proposes to debase the Australian currency, then the currency of the United Kingdom was debased for decades, and the currency of New Zealand is debased now.

The honorable member for Barker also complained that the Government will make a substantial profit from the introduction of the new coinage. The present price of silver is between 4s. 8d. and 4s. 9$d. per oz., and the profit which the Commonwealth Treasury will make from silver coinage, with silver at those prices, will be almost exactly the same as the profit which it made from silver before World War II., when the price was lower than it is to-day. I do not suppose that, the honorable member for Barker has reached a state of mind when he expects the Commonwealth to mint silver coinage at less than cost. All that the Government proposes to do is to make the silver content in our coinage, at the present price of silver, return almost exactly the same amount of profit as the Commonwealth Treasury received when the honorable member for Barker himself was a Minister. If he can find, any reply to these statements, I shall be pleased to hear them. ‘ I did not regard seriously his allegations of robbery. We have submitted this proposal to the Parliament because the price of silver has risen considerably and may go even higher. It is futile to talk about what the United States of America is doing. The price of silver has been fixed in that country, and silver producers in Australia could sell their silver there.

Summing up, I point out that our currency will not be debased; the profit derived by the Treasury will be almost precisely the same as it was before World War II.; we are buying surplus silver available after the needs of industry have been met ; and we propose to return to the United States of America the silver which we borrowed when we have accumulated sufficient for that purpose. The coinage which will be manufactured at a certain profit to the Treasury, will be put into circulation, and the value of its silver content will be the same as the value of the silver content of coins issued before World War II. The silver coins which will be called in, will be subjected to a difficult chemical process for the extraction of the silver. At one time, it was considered very difficult, though not impossible, to recover the silver content, because of the alloys mixed with it. Some chemical firms in the United Kingdom have now devised a method by which they can recover a large percentage of it. Some losses are sustained in melting down the old silver, and certain expenses are associated with the smelting process.I had not proposed to make such a long speech on such a minor bill, because I explained its purpose quite clearly in my second-reading speech. I said that, according to the Commonwealth Bank’s figures, the value of the silver coinage now in circulation in Australia is £26,500,000.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That figure was not contained in the copy of the speech which was handed to me.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I interpolated it in my speech and I presume that it is in the Hansard report. I hope that the honorable member’s anger has subsided, and that he will acquit me of any charge of having attempted to deceive the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Any idea that a bill similar to this was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom without criticism, is not well founded. I have read the debates on the measure, and I have a copy of them in my hand. Whilst I do not propose to read lengthy extracts from them, I point out that the criticisms which were voiced in the House of Commons - I am concerned not with the House of Lords, but with the elected representatives of the people - were very trenchant. One of the most interesting statements was made by Mr. Ashton, a member for one of the London districts. Hesaid that the “ only cheap thing left in the United Kingdom to-day is its currency”. The word “ debasement “ appears frequently in the records of this debate. The secondreading debate was protracted, and many honorable members of all political parties in the House of Commons participated in it. Later, a lengthy discussion took place in committee. The bill, which was to do in the United Kingdom what the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) is proposing to do in Australia, was bitterly contested. Honorable members may argue this matter any way they like, but this proposal is for the debasement of our currency. There is no other name for it. This is one of the matters on which kings and governments in many countries have been condemned throughout history. It is futile for the Treasurer to state that the Commonwealth Treasury will make only the same profit out of the new coinage as that which it received before the war. As he pointed out, I was a member of a government before World War II.; but I was not Treasurer. On one occasion, I was afraid that I would be. No one appeared to want that portfolio at the time, and I am often a “ stand-by “ who can fit into almost any place if it is awkward. To date, I have not been responsible for the administration of the Treasury. That is a pleasure which may yet await the Australian people. Nothing that the Treasurer can say will change my opinion that the effect of this bill will be to debase our currency. A total of 40,000,000 fine ounces of silver is involved and, at the present market value, that represents about £11,000,000. That sum of money is to be extracted from the profits of the people, and it will go into the Commonwealth Treasury. Under the new conditions, the Treasurer will be able to mint almost twice as many coins from the same amount of silver. That will mean that a great deal more currency will be in circulation. It has been the practice ever since we went off the gold standard for the Treasury to make a certain profit by the minting of silver coins. At one time a fee was payable in respect of the minting of silver coins, and on another occasion a fee was payable in respect of the minting of gold coins; at still another period such fees were payable in respect of both silver and gold coins. Sometimes when the bullion has gone into the mint it has been extremely difficult to get the coins out. There is no likelihood whatever of our returning to the gold standard, and the only metallic currency that we have that is worth anything is the silver coinage. As one of the rank and file of the community, I am deeply interested in this subject. Nobody expects value in relation to copper coins; but hitherto silver coins have always had a certain intrinsic value.

Mr Chifley:

– By taking ten florins into the Commonwealth Bank the people will still be able to obtain a £1 note.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That may be so, but they will not be able to obtain a sovereign. The Treasurer is well aware that the value of the £1 has deteriorated greatly since Commonwealth Bank notes were first issued. Originally the bank note carried a promise that on presentation to the Treasury a sovereign could be obtained for it. I am not quite sure of the exact wording that appeared on the bank notes, but that was the effect of it. These days have gone. Anybody who is interested in the subject will find in the Melbourne Museum a number of exhibits which indicate the history of the change in this connexion. I am absolutely opposed to this measure, and the time will come when the people at large will be awake to what has been done. It is true that gold currency was never as pure as silver currency. The gold currency according to law must consist of ll-12ths. gold, and the silver currency must consist of 37-40ths. silver. I doubt whether gold currency to-day carries anything like the requisite percentage of gold, and it might be wise for the Treasurer to consult the officers of his department on this subject. I have a strong suspicion that further attention will have to be given to this matter before very long, and I expect still to be a member of this Parliament when that time arrives. I hope that my honorable friends opposite will be required to clean up the mess that they are now making in relation to our coinage.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) is quite right when he says that this bill will result in a debasement of our silver coinage. I remind honorable gentlemen of Gresham’s law to the effect that bad currency drives out good money. I ask the Treasurer to tell us how our silver currency will stand in the future in relation to the silver currency of New Zealand. I am told that the percentage of silver will be the same, but I should like the Treasurer to answer my specific question. I should also like him to make a statement in regard to the future relationship of our silver coinage to that of the United Kingdom. Australians who were abroad on active service during the war know that they had great difficulties in relation to currency. In the Asiatic countries coinage practically disappeared, and stamps of quite minor denominations were used. At present our coinage is at a discount of 25 per cent, compared with that of Great Britain, because of exchange conditions. Will that situation continue? Our airmen in both Canada and the United States of America had great difficulty with regard to currency. Seeing that the Treasurer has informed us that, in the future, the Australian florin will contain approximately the same percentage of silver as the florins of the United Kingdom and New Zealand I shall be interested to hear the right honorable gentleman’s reply to my question. I wish to know the future ratio that will exist between our silver coinage and that of Great Britain and New Zealand.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I do not desire the public to be misled by statements that are being made in this chamber to-night. I make it quite clear that any citizen who takes ten florins to the Commonwealth Bank will obtain a £1 note in exchange.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– It cannot be denied that there has been a depreciation in the value of the Australian £1 note, just as there will be a depreciation, after this bill becomes law, in the value of the Australian florin.

Mr Chifley:

– The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) made some remarks this afternoon about a change in the basis of the exchange rate, which would appreciate the value of the Australian £1 note.

Mr Holt:

– In relation to sterling.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am utterly opposed to any alteration of the present exchange rate which would adversely effect our export trade. I would resist to the uttermost any move in that direction. We should be quite frank on these matters. I reiterate that the value of the Australian £1 note is less today than it was twelve months ago, and the Treasurer may take it for granted- that the value of the note will deteriorate still further as time goes on. The only governmental activities which are yielding a profit to the Government at present are the Mint and the Postmaster-General’s Department. Roth are monopolies in which no competition will be permitted. It will be interesting to see the balancesheet of the Australian National Airlines Commission in due course.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- The statement made by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that the Australian fi note had depreciated in value was absolutely ridiculous. I have bad the privilege, during the last few months, of travelling in a number of countries and of dealing with several different foreign -currencies. My experience has been that the value of the Australian £1 note overseas is high. Wherever one may travel he can buy more with an Australian £1 note than he could have bought with it before this Government came into power. In New York the Australian £1 note has appreciated very greatly. The United States of America, as honorable members know, dominates the financial world at present. In New York to-day an Australian £1 note can be purchased for $2.85. Five years ago it cost only $1.85. It is ridiculous to say that the Australian £1 note will buy less goods and services to-day than previously. As a matter of fact our £1 note is more valuable in many countries than the currencies of those countries. I found that because of our successful economic control organization our currency was highly rated in overseas countries. We are well aware, of course, that the exchange ‘ rate affects the value of our currency by 25 per cent., but we also know the reasons for this. The Australian £1 note has a higher purchasing power than any other currency. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has explained that in the future the silver content of our coinage will be approximately the same as that of Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) did not reply to the specific question that I asked him concerning the future relative value of the Australian, the New Zealand and the United Kingdom florin. It is important that we should have this information. The honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) wandered about in Belgium for a little while and now expects us to accept his word as authoritative in regard to the value of our currency. As a matter of fact a good deal that he told us was sheer nonsense. Our service men and women who were abroad during the war had many troubles over their Australian currency. I can tell him that every member of the Royal Australian Air Force, when leaving Sydney to proceed to the United States of America, had to be paid in American dollars, because Australian currency could not be used in that country. In Canada, the greatest difficulty was experienced in securing the acceptance of the Australian £1 note. Government supporters “ pooh pooh “ the opinions of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). It is necessary to stress the fact that the Australian £.1 is depreciating in value. Why is it suggested that the parliamentary allowance of honorable members should be increased if that is not so? Government supporters need not accept the additional amount if they consider that the status quo has been preserved. The Prime Minister should state clearly what the position will be as between Australian silver and that of New Zealand for purposes of trade, and whether there is any proposal to alter the design so as to make it approximate to a fair basis as between all countries for purposes of trade.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- Nations do not trade with one another in 2s. pieces; they conduct their operations on a higher scale. There is no general arrangement between nations in regard to metal coinage. The value of sovereigns, of course, is calculated not according to number but according to their weight. There is no standard of metal coinage that I know of, because various alloys are used and there is no precise knowledge of the metal content. New Zealand accepts Australian 2s. pieces, but we do not accept those of that dominion. That has been the position for many years. A country’s coinage can always be disposed of through different agencies; but there is no standard of acceptability on an official basis.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3052

BILLS BE TURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without amendment -

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1947.

Gift Duty Assessment Bill 1947.

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1947.

Without requests -

Income Tax Bill 1947.

Social Services Contribution Bill 1947.

Gift Duty Bill 1947.

page 3052

QUARANTINE BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd May (vide page 2857), on motion by Mr. Holloway -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- This bill is to enable the Commonwealth quarantine cervices to maintain a closer and more effective guard against the introduction of human and animal diseases which have never become established in this country but are a constant threat to the national health and economy. The vast increase of air traffic from overseas to Australia has drawn attention to the necessity of strengthening the hands of those who are charged with the responsibility of guarding Australia against the introduction of diseases which do not exist in this country. The bulk of the overseas air traffic originates in or traverses countries, especially in Asia, in which small-pox, cholera, plague and typhus are prevalent. By reason of its island conformation and its distance from other lands, Australia is in a unique position toprovide an effective quarantine guard against the importation of diseases. Until comparatively recent years, our quarantine defences have had to operate only with respect to comparatively slow-moving maritime traffic. The advent of air traffic has introduced a new and more difficult factor. No longer can we rely on the lapse of time involved in a sea passage from port to port to assist us in the detection of disease. A traveller may be in Bombay to-day and in Brisbane in a few days. This speed of travel may be eclipsed in the near future. Air travel has speeded international communications to such a degree that it is possible for a person infected with smallpox or other exotic disease to arrive in Australia during the incubation period and, unless adequate precautions exist, to traverse the length and. breadth of this continent before the disease becomes manifest. Such a happening could cause a major disaster in. this country, involving the loss of many valuable lives.

The only clause in the bill which deals with the quarantining of humans is clause 6. It is designed to confer on quarantine officers additional power to control the movements of travellers from overseas who may be a menace to the health of our people until it has been established that they are not infected with any serious communicable disease. There need be no delay if travellers can satisify quarantine authorities that they have been vaccinated and immunised. The Opposition strongly supports that phase of the bill.

The other clauses deal with animal quarantine. It has been found necessary to embody in the Quarantine Act the National Security (Control of Animal Disease) Regulations that were issued during the war and are at present contained in the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act of 1946. The experience of the war disclosed many omissions from our legislation. These were rectified temporarily by means of regulations that were issued under the National Security

Act. This bill proposes to incorporate them in permanent legislation. The Opposition is in agreement with those proposals.

I should like the Minister (Mr. Hol loway) to state whether he and the departmental officers are quite satisfied that adequate powers are being taken Io guard against the introduction of noxious plants and insects into Australia by means of aircraft. Aircraft landing and taking off from aerodromes in, say, India, Java, Timor and other places en route to Australia may pick up on their landing wheels or undercarriages noxious weeds or their seeds and convey them to landing grounds in Darwin, Brisbane, and elsewhere in Australia. In the monsoon season, while aircraft are on aerodromes, the plants or seeds could easily be washed off the wheels or undercarriages by heavy rains, and soon become established in Australia. Are regular inspections made of aerodromes, at least by agricultural officers or quarantine officers who deal with plant life, with a view to guarding against this possibility? 1 should like to have an assurance from the Minister, because people in the pastoral districts of Queensland are suspicious and fearful of the introduction of noxious weeds.

I pay a tribute to the work of our quarantine officers who over the years have so faithfully and zealously carried out the trust reposed in them by the legislature. They have assured that, as far as possible, this continent shall be free from diseases - human, animal and plant. It must be a source of great satisfaction to all of them, to know that this Parliament appreciates their efforts to keep Australia free from all diseases which come within their purview.

I regard the bill as necessary to meet changing circumstances. I hope that it will be administered with the thoroughness, skill and efficiency which have always characterized the work of our quarantine officers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I give to the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) the assurance he has sought. I was very pleased to hear him say what he did about the efficiency of the officers of the Health Department who are entrusted with quarantine work. They inspect all aerodromes, landing grounds and airports, and have the assistance of experts in veterinary and other sciences. Because of the rapid transport mentioned by the honorable member, and the fact that seaborne traffic comes direct from Asiatic countries in which diseases are rampant, the desire is that there shall be power to inspect not only plants or animals which may be on board, but also the ship itself if it has recently carried animals. It is further desired that there shall be power to maintain contact with men and women who leave the ship, apparently quite free from disease, because of the possibility of germs being in process of incubation. I hope that the committee will agree to the bill without amendment.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3053

BEER EXCISE BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd May (vide page 2855), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- This bill, brought down by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), amends the Beer Excise Act in three ways, and largely effects an improvement of the present administrative practices. The first amendment concerns the issue of excise stamps. These stamps are placed on barrels and casks, and many of them are left with the department because of changes of excise. The Government seeks to avoid surcharging the stamps, by having them printed on a gallonage instead of -a monetary basis. Obviously, time would thus be saved in the department.

The second amendment relates to the export of beer. At the present time,.th* merchant who sells it for export applies for a rebate or drawback of the duty. The proposal is that some lines may be exported without payment of duty in advance. This, too, will lessen administrative work.

The third amendment concerns the watering of beer. Honorable members may regard the watering of beer as a serious crime, but I do not. However, as the purpose is to avoid loss of revenue to the Government, one must approve of the proposal. The fine is to be increased from £20 to £100. Honorable members will know what to expect if they add water to beer. I believe that it would be a good thing if the alcoholic content of beer were reduced, as was done in Great Britain during the war. I know that the Customs Department has explored this matter, and it has been stated that beer will not carry satisfactorily if the alcoholic content were reduced. That should not be the final word on the subject. Further investigations should be made so that, for the good of the community, beer that would be a good beverage might be produced with a smaller alcoholic content.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3054

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th May (vide page 2227), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The War Service Homes Act requires amendment in some particulars, and some of the proposed amendments embodied in this bill commend themselves to the Opposition. The bill proposes four major changes. The first is the abolition of the position of Commissioner, and the substitution therefore of the title of Director of War Service Homes. This is a consequential amendment arising out of the absorption of the War Service Homes Commission into the general body of the Public Service, a procedure which does not meet with the approval of the Opposition. The War Service Homes Commission was staffed entirely by exservicemen, who must now take their chance with the rest of the public service.

The second amendment provides for the acquisition by the Government of goods necessary for the building of war service homes. The Government may step in and acquire building material. During the latter stages of the war, I frequently stressed the fact that the Government would be deluged with applications for war service homes after the war. Now that the Government has 20,000 persons waiting for war service homes, it must realize that it could well have made provision earlier for obtaining materials?

The third amendment provides for increasing the maximum cost of a house and land from £1,250 to £1,750. In view of the increased cost of materials, we must approve that amendment.

The Government also intends to embark upon group building on the lines, I presume, of the schemes adopted by housing commissions in the States. While this may result in the quicker erection of houses, it can also, unless very close supervision is exercised, result in the creation of slums. In some of the States where such schemes are in operation, too many houses are being placed upon a given area of land. Care should be taken to provide adequate playing grounds, parks, &c. Because only builders in a big way can take on group building contracts, there will he a tendency for small builders to be forced out of business, although I believe that where men own small blocks of land, individual houses may be built. Many ex-servicemen have learnt carpentering and bricklaying under the reconstruction training scheme, and they should not be forced out of business because the Government is concentrating on group building programmes. I hope that the Minister will ensure that such men get their share of work.

– Did the honorable member withdraw the offensive words, Mr. Speaker ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The Chair did not call upon him to do- so.

Mr White:

– I regard the honorable member’s remarks as offensive and untrue, and I ask that they be withdrawn and that he apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Chair will decide whether the honorable member should do so. The honorable member said that the honorable member for

– I shall read the recommendations of the commission. Recomendation 596 states -

We recommend that action be taken to make available sufficient labour to cut and season the largest possible stocks of timber for domestic building in the early post-war years, the amount of labour required to be ascertained by consultation with the Department of Postwar Reconstruction and the Commonwealth Timber Controller.

Has the Minister carried out that recommendation? Where has the timber been cut and stacked? As the timber has not been cut and stacked, the Government proposes to commandeer supplies from the States. I tell the Minister that houses will not be built simply by making pious statements like this -

The purpose of this bill is to expedite the fulfilment of Australia’s obligation to provide war service homes for the 20,000 applicants who have already made applications and to the many thousands who will apply for such homes in the next few years.

That pious hope will not build houses. Neither will the passing of legislation to commandeer the limited supplies of material in the States. We have had many examples of this Government making regulations or bringing down legislation to overcome great national problems without result. It made regulations designed to increase production in the coal industry. The regulations were a failure. Notwithstanding their failure, they were incorporated in an act. Again they failed. This legislation will fail unless the Government carries out the recommendation of the Commonwealth Housing Commission and sends men out into the timber country to get the necessary timber and ensures the production of bricks and tiles and other building materials. Recommendation 597 states -

There are a number of other items where we consider shortages may develop if action is not taken during the war period to prepare for their production. Those items are listed below :

Galvanized sheet iron - flat and corrugated.

Asbestos cement - flat and corrugated (depending on supplies of crude asbestos ) .

Galvanised water pipes.

Electric meter boxes and switchboards.

Electric fittings and equipment.

Sheet glass.

Paint (all types).

Basins.

Baths.

Washing troughs.

Sinks.

Lock-sets.

W.C. pedestals.

Stoves.

Wash boilers.

Fly wire.

Linoleum.

Blinds.

The next recommendation states -

Certain items now used for war purposes and therefore in short supply which, it is assumed, will become immediately available for domestic construction at the end of the war, are listed below:

Copper piping.

Sash cords.

Plumbing fittings.

Sisal fibre.

Screws.

Bolts and nuts.

Sheet lead.

Chain wire.

The report proceeds -

We consider that the probable shortage of many materials and fittings should be regarded as a basis for investigating the production of building materials in relation to working out details for housing programmes in each State. In some cases it may be possible to convert war factories to the production of certain items required. If it appears that the requirements of particular building materials cannot be met under present conditions, we consider that investigations should proceed rapidly to increase the production of building materials or to change the methods of construction of dwellings.

Has the Minister done anything to carry out that recommendation? None of the Minister’s proposals will get him anywhere unless he tackles the problems indicated in the report. Materials must be made available before houses canbe built. We have heard about the shortage of glass, paint, iron roofing and the like. It is imperative that the Minister ensures the production and availability of those materials. I know from travelling around my own electorate, as well as other parts of Australia, that hundreds of partially-erected homes are awaiting roofs, walls or glass. The Minister has done nothing to provide essential materials. This legislation only proposes to commandeer what is available for private homes in the States. War service homes come first, but that means that no one else will get homes once this legislation is passed. The Government proposes that the Commonwealth shall take full power over material. It is able to do so because the Constitution provides that in a clash between Commonwealth legislation and State legislation the Commonwealth legislation will prevail. So this legislation will do little more than make it impossible for anyone apart from some ex-servicemen to get a home anywhere in Australia unless the Minister carries out the recommendations of the Commonwealth Housing Commission.

The bill proposes to increase from £1,250 to £1,750 the cost of a war service home. Does the Minister realize that, even at the low interest rate of 3¾ per cent., if repayment of the loan is based on a 20-year period, the monthly rent will be £10 7s. 6d., about £2 2s. a week. How many returned soldiers can afford that? If the period is 30 years, the repayment will be £8 2s.1d. a month, and if it is 40 years it will be £7 0s.11d. a month. Those amounts are impossible. Some assistance must be given to the occupants of war service homes. Because the Minister has failed to carry out the commission’s recommendations and has not sent men into the highways and byways to get the materials for housing, it has been found necessary to increase the cost of the homes by £500. I grant that the Minister has not been in office long, but his predecessor fell down on the job in not obtaining sufficient materials to ensure the availability of plentiful stocks for not only war service homes but also homes for civilians. The price of the Government’s neglect means the loading of the cost of the home by £500.

Mr Lemmon:

– They will get better homes.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Do not be foolish. One can have a castle if one can pay for it. The men who fought for their country cannot afford the rent even if they do get a better home. The Government must tackle the job in another way. It must meet the extra charges itself. In the Commonwealth-States housing agreements provision is made that the Commonwealth Government and the State Government shall share the difference between the present cost of a worker’s home and that charged before “the war. If the Commonwealth Government is prepared- to shoulder that liability on behalf of workers generally, it should be doubly prepared to shoulder it on behalf of returned men. It is entirely wrong that it should not do so. I ask the Minister to withdraw the bill and re-examine it with a view to ensuring that something better shall be proposed.

– I appreciate the Minister’s assurance. I shall not discuss the bill in detail. The important thing is that houses must be built for exservicemen. If the Minister is satisfied that the bill will give him power to proceed with an adequate programme of construction I shall give my wholehearted support to it. However, if the Minister does not proceed with the job after the bill becomes law we on this side of the House shall have a great deal to say about the matter.

Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby

.- 1 rise to speak on this measure because the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) stated in his second-reading speech that over 20,000 applications for war service homes are outstanding. 1 am not sure of the number of applications pending in South Australia, but I have been informed that the number amounted to 7,000 recently. The situation created by this great demand for war service homes must be faced. For almost two years I have been advocating the mass production of war service homes in order to reduce the lag in construction. I first made this proposition to the previous Minister for Works and Housing, who was good enough to arrange for me an interview with the War Service Homes Commissioner. However, after two hours of discussion with the commissioner, I failed to convince him that my views about the construction of war service homes were correct. I am glad to learn now that the Minister proposes to adopt the scheme which I have advocated for so long. Some people contend that the mass construction of homes would not be satis: factory.. Experience in South Australia contradicts that view. Houses which have been mass produced for the South Australian Housing Trust are of firstclass quality. Sixty per cent, of the homes built under that scheme have been made available to ex-servicemen. Under the mass production system it is not necessary to build according to a single plan. Various plans have been used in the South Australian Housing Trust’s programme. Furthermore, I am sure that sufficient materials ‘are available to enable this project to be carried on.

I should like to be informed by the Minister whether any action has been taken to secure land for the construction of war service homes in South Australia. The South Australian Housing Trust has been very active in obtaining land and has acquired many large areas. Plenty of suitable land is available in South Australia, and I am anxious to know whether the War Service Homes Commission has been active in this regard. During the parliamentary recess at Easter, the Premier of South Australia confirmed a statement that he had made to me six months earlier that he was prepared to allot to the War Service Homes Commission in that State SO No. 1 building priorities. I wast to know what the commission has done about those priorities. If they have been allocated to the commission, why are parents of ex-servicemen continually asking me to secure contracts for the building of homes for their sons? Ex-servicemen have also told me that they cannot secure acceptance of their tenders, and that many of them have failed to obtain price quotations when they have called for tenders. I have had considerable experience in the building trade, and these facts indicate to me that there is something seriously wrong with the war service homes programme in South Australia. In order to ascertain the cause of the trouble I have interviewed several builders. They have informed me that the percentage of payments made to them by the War Service Homes Commission is not as high as that made available by private architects and by banks. The War Service Homes Commission pays 75 per cent, on construction, subject to a marginal reduction, which provides the builder with about half of the amount that he has expended. Under private contracts, builders always receive payment of a percentage of the cost of the materials oh the job. The War Service Homes Commission does not make any payment to builders for materials on the site. If a builder has five or six houses under construction for the commission, he is therefore required to bear a huge load of expense. I hope that the Minister will also pay attention to the designs of homes built under mass production methods. I do not expect to see a group of 50 or 60 houses built according to a common plan. I have submitted to the Minister four different plans which would be suitable for war service homes. Houses could be built according to these plans at a cost of between £1,000 and £1,200. This bill provides for a cost of £1,750. I consider that we need not worry about building homes at that price for the average “digger”. The War Service Homes Commission should be able to supply houses suitable to the needs of the average good Australian for much less than that amount. I hope that the Minister will investigate anomalies in relation to the construction of war service homes in South Australia. He would be well advised to communicate with the. State authorities. I am sure that they could supply him with the names of competent builders who would undertake the construction of war service homes of the same standard as those which have been erected on behalf of the South Australian Housing Trust. There is something wrong when ex-servicemen complain that they cannot get any one to tender for a job. Something should be done to enable these men to receive their entitlementsI consider that the provision of steel frames in war service homes is obsolete and useless. Only one type of window frame is of any use, and that is a box frame. I have no time for steel frames or patent windows.

Ample land is available near Adelaide for the erection of houses- for exservicemen, and I want to know from the Minister what he has done in this regard.

Furthermore, 1 ask that he be most careful in selecting the types of houses to be constructed, because I do not want only one type erected. The Minister for Works- and Housing was in Adelaide during the recent recess and I took him to Colonel Light Gardens, where a former South Australian Labour government had erected 1,-000 homes. Practically every one of those houses was different from the others, and I think that the Minister was impressed. What has been done by a State Labour Government can be done by the Commonwealth Government, and it is only a matter of accepting the advice of experts. The present shortage of houses constitutes almost a national emergency. When the Minister comes to deal with the matter he may find that be encounters a solid wall of resistance; but if I were in his position I should soon get rid of the resistance.

I favour the construction of different types of houses, and about 49 sets of different specifications are available for selection. I have written to the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) giving specifications adequate for a home that any ex-serviceman might reasonably acquire, and those specifications are those embodied in my own home.

I believe that sufficient - homes can be erected, and I confidently look to the Minister to deal with this problem sympathetically. - I understand the building industry and I know what I am talking about. Indeed, sometimes I think that we might do a greater national service if, instead of being in Parliament, we were building homes. I am not seeking publicity in making this appeal to the Minister; I have submitted to the Minister and to his .predecessor a definite plan, but I cannot go on making further pleas to the Minister.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I should not have risen but for some misstatements made by honorable members opposite. I listened with great attention to the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), who made a most reasoned and temperate speech. He made some valuable suggestions - suggestions equally as valuable as those advanced by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr.

Sheehy), who, I am pleased to note, takes a realistic View of this problem and regards it as one which the Government must solve. As a practical man he realizes that there is a big problem, and. from the Government’s own ranks he delivers this indictment of its policy. The honorable member for Boothby said that he cannot continue raising the matter and that something must be done. That is one of the strongest indictments of the’ Government that could be possibly made, and, as I say, it comes from one of the Government’s own supporters. Where does the poppy-cock of the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) and the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) get us? The honorable member for Lang made a most ill-considered statement in this House with regard to the number of evictions that took place when the Lyons Government waa in- office. That has been answered by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), who cited the fact that the honorable member himself, when he asked a question, received the answer that there was only one eviction. One would have thought that the honorable member for Lang was in complete accord with the Government’s policy in regard to war service homes, and one would never have imagined that he would have criticized the Government’s policy in this regard. But let us look at what the honorable member for Lang said on the 13th March, 1946, which is reported at page 239 of Hansard. He said -

Is it a fact that chaos exists in the War Service Homes Commission in Sydney?
Is it a fact that at present there are hundreds of ex-servicemen calling daily and the only assistance they receive iB instruction in filling in application forms?
Is it a fact that the officers say they are unable to advance money to servicemen to buy steel homes because the Minister has not yet announced his policy -towards this type of home? ‘
Is it a fact that there is at present seething discontent within the ranks of exservicemen at the inactivity of the commission ?
Will he call a conference of all interested bodies, including the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League, with a view to seeing if something concrete cannot be. done to alleviate the housing plight of servicemen? If so, will he have representatives of the Master Builders Association at such a -conference?
Will he call for an explanation from the Master Builders Association, why a recent- tender called by the commission did not receive a single inquiry, although master builders had promised co-operation in erecting war service homes?

Those are the questions asked by the honorable member who made such a violent attack on the honorable member for Balaclava for having criticized the Government along lines identical with the questions asked by the honorable member for Lang. I am disgusted with the hypocrisy of the honorable member for Lang, who sits in his place and gibes at honorable members on this side of the House, when he had not the courage to stand on his feet and utter the criticism of the Government which he implied in the questions I have read. He took the coward’s way out under cover of privilege at question time, hoping that his questions would appear on the notice-paper, and that he would then be able to flaunt the fact that he had made a plea for ex-servicemen in his electorate. He is not game to stand on his feet and say to the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) in all seriousness that this is a problem which must be solved, one which has been accentuated by shortage of supplies during the long period of war, and one on which the new Minister has to make a standing start. That the Government knows that the problem is serious is proved by the powers that are being taken under this bill. What then is gained by the hypocrisy of the honorable member for Lang ? Why has he not been man enough to make his statements openly instead of under cover of a question without notice? The honorable member for Moreton, who was so maligned by the honorable member for Lang, is reported at page 240 of the same Hansard as having asked these questions -

How many applications have been received in each State and in Canberra by the War Service Homes Commission since the 1st July, 1944?

I direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that that question relates to a period during which the parties which now sit in Opposition did not occupy the treasury bench. Other questions were -

How many homes have been approved and erected since that date in each State and in Canberra?

How many applications, have been refused in each State and in Canberra since that date,?

The answers, given to those questions furnish a reason for the later submission of questions upon notice by the honorable member for Lang, and the plea to-night by the honorable member for Boothby that the Government should treat the matter seriously. They were that from the 1st July, 1944, to the 30th June, 1945, there was a total of 3,529 applications for war service homes, and from the 1st July, 1945, to the 28th February, 1946, there were 8,464 applications, a total of almost 12,000. How many homes were built? The answer given by the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini), who was the then Minister for Works and Housing, was that 48 homes were purchased in the Commonwealth, 86 mortgages were discharged, 69 homes were erected, and the homes under construction at the 28th February, 1946, numbered 132. Yet there were 12,000 applications during that period! Is not the problem a real one? Of course it ia! In the honorable member for Boothby and the honorable member for Lang there are two different personalities, the one being actuated by honesty of purpose and the other being too cowardly to make his statements openly in this House.

Then there is the honorable member for Herbert, who, in the fashion usually adopted by Government supporters, accused honorable members of the Opposition of “ riding on the backs of exservicemen “. As an organizer of the Australian Workers Union that honorable member has “ ridden on the backs of trade unionists “ and possibly retained hi, position only because he created disaffection in the ranks of unionists. Yet he has the temerity to accuse honorable members on this side of the House of “ riding on the backs of ex-servicemen “.

Mr Edmonds:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Wentworth has said that I retained my position only because I created disaffection among the workers:

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. If the honorable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation he may do so later.

Mr Edmonds:

– Not one clay’s work has been lost in any district in which I have operated as a union official. I object to the statement of the honorable member, and ask that he be made to withdraw it and apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the statement that the honorable member for Herbert created disaffection is offensive to him, the honorable member for Wentworth should withdraw it. I ask him to do so.

Mr HARRISON:

– If the statement is personally offensive to the honorable member I have no hesitation in withdrawing it. I was speaking in general terms. The honorable member has not correctly repeated what I said, which was that no doubt he had retained his position. We know that at the present time other union organizers and leaders of trade unions are retaining their positions only by “riding on the hacks” of trade unionists. It ill becomes any honorable member to cast aspersions on statements that are made in support of a bill of this character, and to attempt to gain an unfair party political advantage. The criticisms that were voiced by Opposition members must have affected the honorable member for Boothby, because he later criticized the Government much more forcefully and in much stronger terms than any honorable member on this side of the House attempted to employ. Having exposed the hypocrisy of the honorable member for Lang in having attacked honorable members on this side of the House who criticized the bill in a reasonable manner, and having raised the tone of the debate to the high level which had previously characterized it, I leave the matter to the judgment of the House.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- 1 was a member of this House when the War Service Homes Act 1918 was passed. I remember the first Minister who undertook the very onerous task of administering that legislation. I do not wish to terrify the present Minister (Mr. Lemmon), who is a young man and a very good Minister, by mentioning that it was freely stated at that time that the late Senator E. D. Millen was undertaking a task which would cause his premature demise. As a matter of fact, - the honorable senator passed out of political life very shortly afterward*. The alteration effected by the measure which commends itself to me as being of the utmost importance arises from certain questions which I addressed to the Minister for Works and Housing, who intimated in reply that he proposed to introduce legislation dealing with the subject of my questions, but that, in the meantime, the State Governments controlled in the last resort the land upon which, war service homes might be erected. I accepted that reply, and on that basis I took up a matter of a housing problem with him; and he assiduously attended to the matter and was able to obtain, if not a solution, at least some mitigation of the problem which was exercising my mind. The real problem which this measure resolves is that it enables the Minister to requisition materials for the construction of war service homes. I believe that that provision goes far enough for that purpose. I shall deal with that particular clause al. the committee stage. However, it certainly enables the Minister, upon giving notice in sufficient form to the holder of materials, to obtain such materials for the erection of homes. 1 am not so sensitive as is the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) on the matter of the type of house required. I support that provision, and, bearing it in mind, I welcome the bill. I hope and believe that the bill will be conscientiously administered, and will satisfy all requirements for the erection of war service homes. Ninety-nine per cent, of honorable members are agreed that homes should be provided for ex-servicemen ; and it is now too late to set out any point against that. I entertain no doubts upon that score. I wish the bill success, and I am happy at its introduction because of that provision which enables the Minister to requisition materials for the erection of homes. The Minister for Repatriation in 1918 originally administered the act, and very successfully and courageously carried out his duties. I hope that the present Minister will succeed in obtaining the necessary materials, and that he will incorporate them in houses suitable for the requirements of servicemen, who naturally and necessarily require them;

Debate (on motion by Mr. Hamilton) adjourned.

page 3067

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS AND WORKS BILL 1947

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3067

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, No.59.

House adjourned at 11.52 p.m.

page 3067

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Royal Australian Air Force: Stores and Equipment; Promotions

Mr McBride:

e asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Air, upon notice -

What was the value of Royal Australian Air Force goods in store (a) in Australia and (b) abroad at the conclusion of hostilities?
What is the value of goods purchased since the end of hostilities?
What is the value of air force goods released for sale through (a) the Disposals Commission, and (b) other channels since the end of hostilities?
How many persons (a) members of the Air Force, and (b) members of the other services and civilians have been prosecuted since the end of hostilities for (i) robbery (ii) receiving or (iii) black-marketing of Air Force goods, and what have been the results of the prosecutions, if any ?
Have any members of the Air Force been discharged without prosecution as a result of investigations into robberies since the end of hostilities; if so, what are their names and ranks ?

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

Accounting records of stocks of each class of equipment and stores held by the Royal Australian Air Force are maintained in quantities only. Thus it is not possible to state values of holdings in Australia and abroad at the conclusion of hostilities; further, the huge amount of work which would be involved in determining values of stocks then held would not now be justified.
The costs of stores and equipment purchased since the end of hostilities areas follow: -

The aircraft covered by the expenditure at (i) were entirely those (Mustangs, Mosquitos, Lincolns, Beaufighters, Wirraways) manufactured under local contracts current at the end of hostilities and delivered since 1st September. 1945.

The estimated original cost of Air Force stores and equipment (including aircraft and associated equipment, considerable quantities of which have little, and in many cases,no sale value on the civilian market) released for sale through the Commonwealth Disposals Commission approximates £124,200,000. The original value of Air Force stores released through other channels (i.e., Army Salvage and the Commonwealth Controller of Salvage) approximates £250,000.
The statistics in relation to prosecutions insofar as the Air Force is concerned are as follows: -
1. Members of the Royal Australian Air Force - For robbery and allied offences - 1050 convictions, 81 acquittals. For receiving - 11 convictions, no acquittals. For black - marketing - 11 convictions, 1 acquittal.
2. Members of other services and civilians - For robbery and allied offences - 131 convictions, 18 acquittals. For receiving - 27 convictions. 3 acquittals. For black -marketing - 10 convictions, 1 acquittal.
No members of the Royal Australian Air Force charged with offences as the result of investigations into thefts have been discharged without prosecution.

Mr Falkinder:

r asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Air, upon notice -

Is it a fact that promotions in the Royal Australian Air Force during the last twelve months have been restricted to - (a) high ranking officers closely associated with the Air Board; (b) the General Duties Branch (automatic promotion) ; and (c) the Occupation Forces in Japan (promotions to acting ranks)? 2. (a) Is it a fact that no promotions have been given to officers of the Interim Air Force, which force has been in existence for some considerable time. (b) If so, will he explain the reasons for this situation?

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

Yes, insofar as substantive and temporary ranks of officers are concerned, but higher acting ranks have been granted as appropriate in other cases. Extensive lists of promotions of airmen of all ranks and musterings have also been made and promulgated in service orders.
In general, yes, that situation being due mainly to the demobilization factors and the adjustments from time to time made in establishments of the Interim Air Force to accord with personnel requirements and ranks for the commitments of that force, combined with the fact that, for a considerable period after the termination of hostilities, the supply of officers exceeded requirements. Decisions were, however, recently taken following upon recommendations made some time ago by the promotions boards for officer promotions and those approved - substantive and temporary with retrospective effect - are now about to be gazetted.

Public Service : Numerical Strength

Mr Ryan:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Did the statistics of departmental staffs announced by him on Thursday, the 8th May, relate only to temporary employees of the Commonwealth engaged for war-time duties on lv ‘
If so, will he state the number of permanent and temporary employees in each Commonwealth department at the 30th June, 1939, 30th June, 1941, 30th June, 1946, and the present date?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

The statistics referred to relate to both temporary and permanent employees engaged under various Commonwealth authorities for war-time duties.
The following table “ A “ provides in formation in respect of permanent and temporary employees engaged under the Commonwealth Public Service Act as at the 30th June, 1939, 30th June, 1941, and 30th June, 1946, the latest for which figures are available. Table “ B “ sets out figures relating to civilian employees in Commonwealth departments engaged under the Public Service Act and other acts, and including permanent, temporary and “exempt” staff as at the 30th June, 1939. 1945, 1946, and 31,st March. 1947. Information for 1941 is not available.

Waterfront Employment

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

How many new members have been admitted into the Sydney branch of the Waterside Workers Federation since that union agreed to admit 500 more members?
How many of the new members are returned soldiers?
How many waterside workers’ licences in the port of Sydney have been cancelled in the same period?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The Minister for Supply and Shipping has supplied the following information : -

Two hundred and ten members of the Waterside Workers Federation, 46 reservists, fourteen tow motor and engine drivers, fourteen members of the Permanent and Casual Union, total of 284 men. Practically the whole of the 284 men whose registrations have been cancelled have not been regularly attending for work and the cancellation of their registrations will not be felt as a reduction in the working strength of the port of Sydney.

Food Control: Shortage of Supplies in Queensland.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - On the 30th April the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked me questions regarding the supply of eggs, potatoes and matches in Queensland. I have had the matter examined and am advised that the Australian Potato Committee’s figures show that distribution of potatoes in Queensland for the four weeks ended the 19th April, 1947, averaged 3 lb. 4 oz. per head, and for the week ending the 19th April, 2¾ lb. per head. This represents an adequate supply. Eggs are subject to variations in supply, and the present period is one in which supplies are subject to seasonal recession. Matches are not now under any government control. Messrs. Bryant and May state that it has not been possible over a considerable period to keep Queensland orders up to date. This position is due partly to a general shortage of matches and partly to lack of shipping opportunities. The transport difficulty was overcome by the use of rail freight, the Commonwealth meeting the difference in cost between sea and rail freight. Bryant and May advise that recent consignments forwarded by rail and sea have appreciably improved the Queensland match supply position.

Water Conservation : Transportof Piping.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the9th May, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) asked a question in which he stated that he had received complaints from farmers regarding their inability to obtain galvanized piping. The honorable member stated that in response to these complaints he had made inquiries through the executive of a major pipemanufacturing company at Newcastle who advised that hundreds of thousands of tons of pipes were lying at sidings at Newcastle through lack of transport.I have had this matter investigated and understand that the latest advice is to the effect that there are at present 4,424 tons of galvanized water piping awaiting shipment to the various States at Newcastle. Clearances of galvanized water piping since the 1st May, 1947, amounted to 3,277 tons. The quantity awaiting shipment at that date amounted to 7,701 tons. However, advice has been received from the Australian Shipping Board to the effect that sufficient shipping space has been made available to lift the whole of the accumulations at Port Kembla and Newcastle and it is anticipated that this will be effected at a very early date.

Venereal Disease.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

y. - On the 21st May, the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) asked a question relating to the treatment of venereal diseases. The Minister for Health has now supplied the following additional information: -

Heretofore, with the exception of the war period, the control of venereal disease has been within State jurisdiction and the Commonwealth has assisted with financial subsidies to the States. As a result of the referendumof the 28th September, 1946, the Commonwealth has powers, among others, for the provision of medical services. At the recent conference of Ministers for Health of the Commonwealth and States on the 19th May, 1947, a resolution was carried to the effect that during the immediate post-war period the Commonwealth will develop its own central authority, and in respect of hospitals hand over authority to the States, providing general policy and funds. As the medical services are initiated and ex pand, consideration will bo given to the rela tive merits of compulsory and voluntary notifications of venereal disease in the objective of eliminating this disease.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 May 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1947/19470528_reps_18_192/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives28 May 1947

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr THOMPSON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARNARD:Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Mr McBRIDE:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Chifley:

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Abbott:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

COAL

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr James:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr FALKINDER:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr ADERMANN:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr POLLARD:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CHAMBERS:Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

WAGE-PEGGING

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LEMMON:Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DAVIDSON:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LEMMON:

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HAMILTON:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr POLLARD:ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr BEALE:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:ALP

House of Representatives
28 May 1947

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

Mr MCBRIDE:
Wakefield

Mr SCULLY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby

Senator McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

Mr McEWEN:
Indi