House of Representatives
11 March 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1948

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

page 508

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Broadcast by Mr. j. H. Austral.

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister representing the Minister for Health hear a recent broadcast by a man calling himself John Henry Austral purporting to state the Liberal party’s view on free medicine? This broadcast was in the form of a play and contained some startling examples of dramatic licence. Is the Minister aware that the broadcast launched an attack upon the members of the British Medical Association in suggesting, in effect, that the doctors of this country would virtually create a blackmarket in medicine for the poor and exploit the public as the medical profession is alleged to have done in New Zealand? Is the Minister further aware of the fact that the broadcast made certain untrue statements concerning medicine for the sick people of the Commonwealth in stating that a patient would have to return to his doctor after using each bottle of medicine and pay a fee for each prescription? Is the Minister also aware that the dramatist who prepared the broadcast attacked the formulary of free medicine, saying that it wasnot wide enough to meet the needs of the people of this country ? Will the Minister refute this broadcast, its scandalous attack on the British Medical Association, its misinformation concerning the demand for fees by doctors for repeat prescriptions, and its utter ignorance of the wide formularies provided under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act to cover the needs of the sick people of this country ?

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

– Something was mentioned to me very briefly about a broadcast having been made on this matter. I did not hear it, and I understand that the Minister for Health did not hear it. Was it made from commercial stations ?

Mr Haylen:

– Yes.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– If the honorable member can let me have a copy of the script, I shall certainly have some inquiries made. I should imagine that the British Medical Association would regard itself as being quite capable of defending itself without my assistance, but I shall have inquiries made if I can. get a copy of the script.

page 509

QUESTION

POULTRY

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that some poultry-farmers are experiencing considerable difficulty in obtaining sufficient supplies of bran and pollard for their immediate needs- and are therefore prevented from assisting the drive for more food for Britain? Will the Minister take the necessary steps to ensure that adequate supplies of poultry feed, including wheat and other grain, are made available? “Will he also inquire into the position in regard to supplies of concentrates ?

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

– The honorable member’s question involves the supply of wheat, bran, pollard arid concentrates for poultry. Steps have already been taken by the Government to ensure that more wheat is made available to poultry- farmers in South Australia. ‘ Distribution of bran and pollard was formerly controlled by the State governments, but control was relinquished by the States some time ago. The result is that poultry-farmers have to compete in the open market for supplies of those commodities, and the situation in regard to the supply of concentrates is much the same. Poultryfarmers are, therefore, thrown on their own resources and have to “scrounge” their supplies. I do not know the legal position in South Australia in regard to the sale of concentrates, but in Victoria their sale is regulated by the Stock Foods Act, which requires manufacturers of stock foods to show the exact constituents of packages for sale so that purchasers are able to assess the value of the preparation. In view of the circumstances which I have mentioned I think that the honorable member’s request is one which should be addressed to the South Australian Government.

page 509

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– In connexion with the home-consumption price of wheat announced, recently, it will be remembered that the Government appointed a committee which, after lengthy deliberations, named 6s. a bushel at sidings as the cost of production. In his press state ment of the 15th January last, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said that the committee’s finding of 6s. a bushel at sidings indicated a cost of 6s. 8d. at ports, but he announced the future price as 6s. 3d. a bushel at port9. Can the Minister say why the committee’s finding was ignored and why the price was fixed, upon the honorable gentleman’s own statement, at a figure representing 5d. a bushel, and, with the operation of the 40-hour week, probably much more, below the cost of production ?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– The committee of inquiry appointed by this Government was, with the exception of that appointed by the Lyons Government, the first committee to report upon the coat of production of wheat. It is noticeable that the findings of the other committee were not implemented by any government.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– What nonsense! A home-consumption price was fixed for the first time.

Mr POLLARD:

– This Government, however, has implemented the findings of the last committee to conduct an investigation. If the honorable member’ studies the report of the committee he will see it was ascertained that the average cost of production of wheat was 6s. a bushel at sidings. The Government had then to ascertain the difference in cost between bulk and bagged wheat, because the report did not specify to which category the figure of 6s. referred, and, in addition, to decide whether it could accept the report in toto. Some of the recommendations were not accepted. The Government made its own calculation and fixed the price for home-consumption wheat at 6s. 3d. a bushel at ports. It may interest the honorable member to know that at a recent conference in Canberra the Australian Wheat Growers Federation accepted that price of 6s. 3d., with the reservation that it should be subject to the application of an index number indicating a rise ov fall in production costs. It is anticipated that in the near future the committee will report upon whether it is practicable so to vary the price. When the report is received the Government will announce its decision.

page 510

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Conditions of Employment - Communications with United Kingdom Government.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Immigration say, first, how many immigrants he will be able to transfer from Victoria to Tasmania for the applepicking season; secondly, what proportion of these people will be allocated to the Tamar, Mersey and Huon River areas; and, thirdly, whether, upon the completion of the apple-picking season, the immigrants will have the option of remaining with their Tasmanian employers if all necessary conditions are complied with?

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

– “When I was in Hobart recently I received a deputation from the Tasmanian Fruit .Board. It was introduced by Senator Murray and accompanied by the State Minister for Forests, Mr. Worsley, who is himself a fruit-grower. Members of the deputation came from various parts of Tasmania. After considering the requests that were made, I said that 60 Baltic workers who are at present in Victoria helping to gather in the Victorian fruit harvest would be sent to Tasmania in about the middle of March of this year. Since then, other requests have been made and my departmental officers assure me that 80 Baits can be sent. They will be allocated to various employers by the Labour and National Service officer in Tasmania. I asked for assurances that the labour would be allocated to the various part3 of the State as fairly as possible, and I understand that will be done.

Mr Holt:

– Are these indentured labourers ?

Mr CALWELL:

– These people will be allowed to remain in Tasmania at the end of the fruit-picking season. The only stipulation we make is that the men shall be paid a reasonable wage and that proper housing accommodation shall be provided. Mr. Worsley said he had received applications from, a number of prospective employers and could place about 60 workers. The question of the wage to be paid bristles with difficulties. The Legislative Council in Tasmania refuses to pass legislation to set up wages boards for rural workers. We stipulate that these workers shall be paid at least the basic wage, and the Premier of Tasmania believes that to be fair. These Baltic people have been admitted to Australia under certificates of exemption. We bring them here, we clothe them, and we keep them for a month in an Australian camp so that they may learn English; but, as part of an agreement into which they voluntarily entered before they came to Australia, they are required to remain in a locality determined by the Minister for Immigration for at least twelve months, and normally for two years, after their arrival. We believe that if we act in a humane manner towards these people, and bring them to Australia, we are entitled to receive some return from them. So far as possible, they are being sent to places outside the capital cities in order to do work which, normally, Australian and British people will not undertake. The work is of an essential character, and must be done. I believe that, on balance, the Baits gain much more than they lose by this arrangement.

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In accordance with the customary rules of courtesy, did the Minister for Immigration send to the Australian High Commissioner in London a copy of his letter to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Noel Baker, outlining his proposed plan for mass migration? If so, was it forwarded prior to the public disclosure of the conten fs of the letter ? If not, was it because of a lack of confidence in the Australian High Commissioner in London? Was it intended to embarrass the High Commissioner in his official relations with Mr. Noel Baker? Will the High Commissioner be kept fully informed of any other plans on migration that the Minister might communicate to London? Is thu Migration Office in London under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner, or does it act independently of him ?

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable member referred to “ the customary rules of courtesy “. I do not accept him as an . authority on courtesy or anything else. There is no question of courtesy involved in any approach which I make with the concurrence of the Prime Minister in a personal and unofficial way to any member of the United Kingdom Government. What 1 did was done with the full knowledge and consent of the Prime Minister, and was in the best interests of Australia. That is all I propose to say about it.

page 511

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr HOLT:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping say whether it is true that the coastal vessel Time has now reached Mackay from Sydney after a voyage lasting almost four months? Can he say what caused this long delay? Is this performance typical of the movements of coastal vessels around Australia at the present time, and will he indicate what the Government is doing to provide speedy, efficient transport for the carriage of goods on the Australian coast?

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

– Quite naturally, I do not know anything of the movements of the ship mentioned by the honorable member. I can imagine that it may have had to put’ into quite a number of intermediate ports. It may have had to load fresh cargo, and perhaps make trips southward again after being some distance north. However, I shall obtain all the information I can on the matter, and supply it to the honorable member.

page 511

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr HADLEY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Because of the small ration of petrol allowed to taxi-drivers in Brisbane they are experiencing great difficulty in carrying on their work. Many of them are ex-servicemen who spent all their deferred pay in the purchase of motor cars, so that’ they have few resources left. Is the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping aware that, while taxidrivers in Sydney are allowed 150 gallons of petrol a month, those in Brisbane receive only 90 gallons? Does he consider this to be just, and if not, will he ensure that taxi-drivers in Brisbane are allowed the same quantity of petrol as those in other States?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I do not know upon what basis the Department of Supply and Shipping, through the rationing authorities, provides for the distribution of petrol throughout the Commonwealth. However, I shall draw the attention of the Minister for Supply and Shippingto the alleged anomaly mentioned by the honorable member and, if it is found to exist, the position will be remedied.

page 511

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Was a special meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Melbourne last week to make recommendations regarding the allocation to the States of the grant of £250,000 made available by the Commonwealth to increase production in the dairying industry? If so, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the House of the recommendations made bv the standing committee and also what action will be taken to implement them?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– In accordance with the decision of the recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture took place in Melbourne to consider ways and means of expending the Commonwealth grant of £250,000 for the assistance of the dairying industry. I have not yet received an outline of the standing committee’s deliberations. When it is received it will be examined by me and a recommendation will be made to the Cabinet. When that recommendation has been dealt with, I shall be in a position to inform the honorable member what decisions have been made.

page 511

QUESTION

TIMBER

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Last week I addressed a question to the Minister for the Interior regarding the attitude of timber-millers in the Innisfail district in refusing potential North Queensland purchasers supplies of first-class timber. I have since received a letter from the Minister stating that it has been ascertained from the Chief Controller of Timber in Queensland that no Commonwealth order was issued directing North Queensland sawmillers to forward timber to the southern States. The Minister also states that he has been advised that the Queensland authorities control the distribution of timber within that .State and that their consent must be obtained before timber may be- exported from Queensland. In the absence of the Minister for the Interior, will the Minister representing him confer with the Queensland authorities with a view to ascertaining from timber-millers in North Queensland, particularly those in the Innisfail district, the reason for their refusal to supply North Queensland purchasers with firstclass timber, where the timber was sold, and why they blamed an Australian government order for their action when they knew that no such order existed?

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

– On behalf of the Minister for the Interior, I shall have inquiries made and furnish the honorable member with a full reply as early as practicable.

page 512

QUESTION

IMPORTS FROM STERLING AREAS

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Is it a fact that the New Zealand Government is engaged in a drastic and widespread curtailment of imports from sterling areas because of a general tightening of exchange resources ? Is it true that the Australian Government is contemplating, or may shortly consider, the imposition of similar restrictions over and above existing dollar trade restrictions in Australia?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I gather that the honorable member ‘has seen some statement inferring that the New Zealand Government is proposing to impose sterling, as apart from dollar, restrictions. I read a statement attributed to the Acting Minister for Finance in New Zealand along those lines; but I have had no official word from him indicating that that may be necesary. Apart from very limited restrictions which are already operating, the Australian Government is not contemplating the application of an import licencing system in respect of sterling purchases. I know of no particular reason why there should be any further curtailment of sterling imports. It is true that, some eighteen months ago, as the result of a request by the United Kingdom Government, it seemed likely that we would have to impose limitations upon purchases from sterling areas. However, the fact that we have had a good season and are not obtaining from the United Kingdom the supplies that we had hoped to obtain, and, therefore, have not to meet larger commitments, our sterling balance at the moment at any rate - one cannot tell what the future holds - will be ample to meet payment of the sterling imports we require without imposing further restriction.

page 512

QUESTION

PRICES CONTROL

Mr BURKE:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– An advertisement published in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph of the 7th instant over the authorization of the New South Wales division of the Liberal party of Australia, contained the following statement : -

The Commonwealth has complete power to control rents and prices for as long as post-war shortages last. The High Court has made that clear.

I ask the Prime Minister whether the High Court, as claimed in that advertisement, has made it clear that it will uphold the Commonwealth’s power to control rents and prices for as long as postwar shortages last? If not, what authority exists for the statement of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal party? Will the right honorable gentleman have the matter examined by the Crown Solicitor in order to see whether contempt of the court is involved?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I should say, first, that it is sheer presumption on the part of any individual or organization, political or otherwise, to say what the judgment of the High Court is likely to be on any particular matter submitted to it. The fact is that the High Court makes its decisions on the circumstances and the law as it “sees them at the particular time. In certain cases, of which the honorable member for Parramatta has full knowledge, relating to certain aspects of prices control, the judgments of the court have not been unanimous.

Mr Beale:

– The court in a majority judgment upheld the Commonwealth’s power.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– In one case tho issue was decided by a majority not on a numerical basis but on the opinion held by the Chief Justice.

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-e. - He is still there.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– All I wish to say is that I am not sufficiently presumptuous to presume what the mind of the court is on any matter coming before it. It is clear that considerable doubt exists as to the duration of the” Commonwealth’s defence power exercised under the National Security Act. There is no justification for the statement made in the advertisement to which the honorable member refers. It is entirely presumption on the part of those who made it; and, I might add, that in view of some decisions already given by the High Court, no one is justified in making such a statement.

Mr BEALE:

– Has the Prime Minister read any recent decisions of the High Court relating to prices control, and is he aware that, in the latest and most authoritative of those decisions, the power of the Government to enact prices control was unanimously accepted by the court? The only difference of opinion related to profit control; there was no difference of opinion whatever about prices control. If the Prime Minister has not read that judgment and other judgments of the High Court recently, will he do so in order that he may give accurate information to the Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Reflections of that character are not parliamentary. If the honorable member disagrees with the Prime Minister, he has other means of raising the subject.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I only want to say, in the first place, that I would not be in any way a competent reader of High Court judgments and, in the second place, that I certainly would not take upon myself the responsibility of assuming that I could read the minds of High Court justices. I remind the honorable member, as I have done before, that in certain cases dealing with land sales control the” High Court judgment in favour of the Government’s view was carried because the Chief Justice himself supported that view.

Mr Beale:

– The Prime Minister’s answer to the question asked by the honorable member for Perth related to prices control.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am speaking of the general power that is resident in the defence powers. I repeat that it would be sheer presumption on the part of any individual to attempt to indicate to thu public what the High Court’s view would be as to how long the defence powers could be exercised having regard to the war and its result.

page 513

QUESTION

MALAYAN SEAMEN

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question with relation to the repatriation of Malayan seamen. As their repatriation involves the separation of husbands and wives, I ask the Minister for Immigration whether the Government has arrangement for sending the wives of these men to Malaya should they so desire? In the meantime, has the Government been obliged to make provision for the sustenance of these women and children? If so, what is the nature of that provision? Are these women a charge upon the Treasury?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– As I announced some weeks ago, the Commonwealth will send the wives and children of Malayan seamen, even their de facto wives, to them when shipping is available, or when the husbands, or de facta husbands, indicate to their wives, or de facto wives, that they have provided accommodation for them and are ready to receive them. We have never denied the right of these Australian women to go anywhere with their men if they want to do so. We have offered to pay their passages and the passages of their children.

Mr Menzies:

– Are they de facto children ?

Mr CALWELL:

– We have accepted into our vocabulary and dictionaries the term “ de facto wife “, but we have not reached the stage of accepting the term ” de facto children “. However, the Department of Social .Services is making payments to the women for the maintenance of themselves and their children.

Mr McBride:

– At what rate ?

Mr CALWELL:

– I think the women are paid 25s. a week each: the children receive child endowment. The amount is not very great but, indeed, these women and their husbands are not entitled to any special consideration. The men knew when they came here that they would have to leave Australia. They were given no assurance that they could stay. They were accepted as war-time evacuees only. I am amazed at the emotion displayed over a handful of Malayan seamen compared with the lack of concern about a far more numerous group of Indonesians who were placed in the same position. There seems to be a conspiracy by all sorts of people of all colours in the political spectrum to do something for the Malayans. I wish they were as active on behalf of Australians.

page 514

QUESTION

ARMED FORGES

Accumulated Leave

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– I understand that on the 30th June, 1947, all servicemen were discharged and that new regulations came into force on the 1st July of that year. It appears that at the time of their discharge the men had due to them a period of accumulated leave and that they have not yet been paid in lieu of that leave, although nine months have elapsed. In the absence of the Minister for the Army, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will inform, me of the position regarding payment of the money. Has any approval been given for payment? When may the men expect it ? Can those in need of it for domestic reasons obtain it immediately ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have been considering the matter raised by the honorable member during the last week. It appears that payment in lieu of accumulated leave has been made to men discharged from the Navy and Air Force. Delay has occurred in the issue of final instructions for payment to men discharged from the Army owing to a difficulty about taxation. As that difficulty is rather complicated, I do not intend to go into details, but I propose to discuss it with the three Service Ministers. The same principle applies to each of the services. The honorable member may rest assured that the men will receive the payment at an early date. I hope to straighten out the taxation difficulty next week. Some men took their discharge from the Army and others elected to remain in it as members of the permanent forces. The tax difficulty relates to the men who have stayed in the Army.

page 514

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Income Tax Concessions

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I desire to direct to the Prime Minister a question which arises out of representations made to me by union officials in the Northern Territory, and more recently by the secretary of the Employers Federation in Darwin. It relates to the necessity, in order to encourage the development of the Northern Territory, to exempt residents from the obligation to pay income tax on their salaries and wages. At present, persons engaged in primary production are granted a tax concession. During World War II. specialists in the professional sphere went to the Northern Territory to construct roads and the like, and they had few, if any, amenities. After the cessation of hostilities, these men conferred with me personally and wrote to me, expressing the opinion that the Northern Territory could never progress as it should until the salaries of professional men such as engineers, geologists and surveyors were increased by at least 30 per cent., compared with those in the southern States.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! Will the honorable member ask his question?

Mr BLAIN:

– The under-dog- that is to say, the wage-earner - is now feeling the pinch. He still pays income tax on his earnings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will the honorable member frame his question?

Mr BLAIN:

– I ask the Prime Minister to confer with the Minister for Works and Housing and the Minister for the Interior for the purpose of verifying what I have said, and seriously consider the advisability of exempting from income tax for at least five years persons in receipt of salaries and wages in the Northern Territory.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– This matter has been considered not only by this Government, but also by some of its predecessors. An income tax concession was granted to primary producers by previous governments, and was continued by this Government, for the purpose of encouraging the development of the Northern Territory. This concession, which is most generous, is abused to some degree by some people who derive an advantage from it but who live in the Northern Territory for only a very limited period. “When the matter was last examined, the Minister for the Interior considered that the concession should be continued, because he believed that only in that way could some encouragement be given to primary producers in the Northern Territory. In my . opinion, the endeavours of previous governments to encourage increased production in that part of Australia by income tax concessions have not been justified by results. The honorable member for the Northern Territory referred to the position of persons in receipt of salaries and wages. He will recall that, this Government granted to that section of the residents of the Northern Territory a special exemption, first of £40 and last year of £120. That is the biggest concession that has been .”iven to salary and wage-earners in any portion of Australia. The Northern Territory Development League and the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia have made representations for an increase of this concession. For my part, I do not consider that persons in receipt of salaries and wages in the Northern Territory should be completely exempt from the liability to pay income tax, as the primary producers are. The amount of the concession will he examined from time to time.

page 515

QUESTION

PALESTINE

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that within about eight or ten weeks, British forces will be withdrawn from Palestine in accordance with the decision of the United Nations in relation to the partition of that country. As the Australian Minister for External Affairs played a leading part in evolving the scheme of partition, I ask the Prime Minister whether any discussion has taken place in Cabinet- as to what steps should be taken by the United Nations, or what contribution should be made by Australia, to implement the partition decision. In short, having regard to the fact that Palestine has become a danger point which may threaten the peace of the world, has the Government given any consideration to giving aid to carry out the partition?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– In reply to a previous question I made it quite clear that the Minister for External Affairs was chairman of a committee appointed by the United Nations to make recommendations regarding the best method of meeting the situation in Palestine.

Mr Rankin:

– Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– If that is so, all 1 can say is that the honorable member for Bendigo is always rushing in. As honorable members are aware, the committee recommended the partition of Palestine. I think I pointed out at the time that the difficulties in Palestine were so great that in reaching a decision the committee virtually had to choose the least of the evils. There was no obligation on the committee to determine how its recommendation for partition, if adopted, should be implemented. That was a matter for consideration by the main body. The mere fact that Australia had a representative on the committee in no way committed this country directly to provide any financial or physical assistance in carrying out the partition, or in enforcing any order associated with that decision. That is a matter for the General Assembly, and for the Security Council, if necessary. Under the United Nations Charter, of course, we are committed to render assistance to the general body, but we have no obligation in respect of any particular sphere where there may be a need for armed forces or money. I assure the honorable member for Warringah that there has not been any discussion by Cabinet of any proposal that this country should make a direct financial or physical contribution to enforcing the partition of Palestine because that is not the kind of policy the Government would adopt. The utilization of Australia’s contribution to the United Nations generally is a matter for determination by that body itself. As I said to the honorable member for Reid some time ago, there will be no direct contribution by Australia either in men or money to the settling of the Palestine problem.

page 515

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Government’s free hospital treatment scheme does not cover out-patients, and that in order to be covered against the cost of treatment for minor injuries sustained in industry, many workers still pay industrial contributions which, in the past, have been allowed as concessional deductions for income tax purposes. How can the Taxation Branch justify the granting of deductions for income tax purposes in respect of medical and hospital fees paid by professional men and women yet continue to disallow claims for deductions in respect of fortnightly industrial contributions from workers’ earnings, which amount to many thousands of pounds per annum and which provide the main source of hospital finance? These contributions also make possible the building of new hospitals in which professional men and women are employed. Many industrial employers absolutely refuse to contribute to the capital costs of hospitals when they are being built by workers as what may be termed repair shops for injuries which they receive in industry. Employers also flatly refuse on many occasions to donate even a load of coal to a hospital, yet they have the advantage of deductions in respect of medical and hospital expenses.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have no recollection of any former provision in the taxation law for the granting of deductions in respect of payments by individuals to contributory schemes for hospital or other benefits. Certainly there has been no such provision in my time. The fact is that the law, as I understand it, does not allow deductions in respect of contributions to hospital benefit schemes, but provides that payments received as a result of such contributions shall not be taken into account as income. That has been the position so long as I can remember. This is because some workers contribute io two or three hospital schemes. I know of some men who pay into as many as four such funds. When they become sick they receive direct payments from some of the hospital schemes. In some instances th rate of payment is as high as £2 10s. a week. Because no allowance is made for contributions to the schemes, income received in that way is not assessed as taxable income. I do not recollect any other provision in the taxation law on that subject. Generally speaking, 1 consider that the system is equitable. With relation to the provision of hospital services, the honorable member knows that the great bulk of capital and maintenance expenditure on hospitals is provided by the general taxpayer. Ninety per cent, of the money required for the building of hospitals comes from that field.

page 516

COMMUNISM

Mr FALSTEIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What does it concern ?

Mr FALSTEIN:

– It arises from a question asked in this House yesterday by the honorable member for New England, who repeated certain statements which appeared in this week’s issue of the Tribune.

Mr BEALE:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair wishes to know what the personal explanation is about. I do not think that the honorable member for Parramatta can see any farther than I can in these matters.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– The honorable member for New England, in phrasing his question yesterday, repeated a statement which appeared in this week’s issue of the Tribune, alleging that, in sponsoring certain business in the caucus of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party, I had said that the Soviet Legation was “ the nerve centre of communism in Australia “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member claim that he was misrepresented in the matter?

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may proceed with his explanation.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I go beyond that and I say that the statement published in the Tribune was a complete and utter fabrication, that I did not use the words attributed to me and that I did not use any words to that effect. Indeed, neither I nor any other person present at that meeting made any -reference whatever to the Soviet Legation. I have no cause to believe, nor do I believe, that the

Soviet Legation exceeds its diplomatic functions. It is noteworthy that- the honorable member for New England, who is a member of the Australian Country party, which has initials similar to those of the Australian Communist party-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may make a personal explanation, but he is not entitled to make remarks that might draw a personal explanation from another direction.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I conclude by saying that it is noteworthy that a member of the Australian Country party should accept as unquestionable the authority of the Tribune.

page 517

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Queensland Strike

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister in relation to the railway strike in Queensland and the strikes associated with it. I am concerned about the suffering and distress in Queensland to-day, and I want to know whether the Prime Minister is still in contact with the Premier of that State, Mr. Hanlon. Is he able to inform the House and the country of the progress, if any, that has been made towards a settlement of that very serious strike? Has the Minister for Supply and Shipping, whom he sent to Queensland as his representative, returned to Canberra or Sydney and reported on the strike? If so, what information can the right honorable gentleman give to the House arising out of that report? Also, what further assistance is he able to offer to Mr. Hanlon in providing adequate food supplies for residents of country districts, where newspapers ‘ report that, many people are nearly starving ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not been in communication - with Mr. Hanlon this morning, but as I intimated to the House several times previously he has been in touch with me during the dispute. The present industrial dispute is a matter for the Queensland Government to handle, and I feel sure that Mr. Hanlon is quite capable of handling it through the Government of that State and its Arbitration Court. Mr. Hanlon has made a number of requests for assistance in regard to the supply of tyres and aero planes as I have previously indicated to the House, and so far as it has been physically possible to accede to those requests, the Government has done so. The Minister for Supply and Shipping has returned from Brisbane and has made a report to me. That report, however, is merely a factual statement of the position. Unfortunately, I am unable toinform the House of any ground for the hope that this serious dispute will be settled immediately or in the very near future.

page 517

ROYAL VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– I desire to inform the House that this morning I received two letters relating to formal adjournment motions’. The first was from the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) intimating that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -

The need for appointing a parliamentary committee representative of the whole of the parties in Parliament, and of a personnel acceptable to the whole people of Australia, to manage the tour of His Majesty the King.

Normally that would take precedence over other business, but I want to make it clear that the honorable member has since informed me, voluntarily and verbally, that he does not intend to proceed with the motion.

page 517

PETROL RATIONING

Formal Motion fob ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– I have received from the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -

The failure of the Government effectively to conserve petrol in Australia, its laxity of administration in liquid -fuel control, and its failure to conserve dollar currency by purchasing from the nearest convenient source of sterling supply, namely, the Netherlands East Indies.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion supported ?

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr ANTHONY:

– At the outset 1 wish to say that I favour the retention of petrol rationing in Australia because of the conditions which confront this country to-day. It is necessary to restrict the consumption of petrol in order to conserve dollars, and any effort which the Government makes towards conserving dollars must have the support of every honorable member who realizes the urgency of the international currency situation, particularly in so far aa it affects Great Britain. When one examines the present situation in order to ascertain just how effectively the Government has discharged its duties during the long period in which petrol rationing has been imposed, one finds that not only has petrol not been conserved but, on the contrary, a’ black market is rampant. In addition, it is evident that there has been scandalous maladministration in high places, and it is time that the Parliament took some cognizance .of the situation.

On the 1st March, 1947, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) made a statement concerning the Government’s intentions in regard to petrol rationing. The report which appeared in the press stated -

The Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley, said tonight that petrol rationing must be continued for an indefinite period. The Government was determined that liquid fuel regulations must be strictly observed, and had directed a general tightening up of the rationing system. Mr. Chifley said that while existing stringent conditions continued petrol users had a grave responsibility to see that the most careful economy was exercised. . . .

With all those statements we heartily agree, but when we examine the statistics we find that instead of dollars being conserved the very reverse is happening. Because of the situation on the waterfront and the control exercised over the movements of Dutch oil tankers by the Communist party in Australia, we have been compelled to purchase a large proportion of our supplies from the United States of America, which must, of course, be paid for in dollars. The drain on our dollar resources which this entails ha9 been considerable. In 1938-39 we imported from the Netherlands East Indies 217,000,000 gallons of petrol for which we paid £3,400,000, but in 1946-47 we imported less than 500,000 gallons from that source, the value of which was only £27,000. However, during the last six months of 1947 we purchased from the United States of America 59,000,000 gallons, which cost us the dollar equivalent of £1,850,000. In 1938-39 our imports of petrol from that country amounted to only 50,000,0000. gallons, for which we paid £728,000. In other words, in 1947 we purchased from the United States of America more petrol than we did in 1939, and paid nearly three times as much for it. I remind honorable members that in 1939 there was no dollar problem and petrol was not rationed. I emphasize that this occurred during a period when special efforts were allegedly being made to reduce the consumption of petrol and to conserve the expenditure of dollars.

Decent, honest members of the community, and particularly people in country districts, are suffering considerable hardship because of petrol rationing. Although they are compulsorily making the sacrifices required of them by the Government, most of them are doing so as cheerfully as possible in the belief that they are helping the country. I know of many dairy-farmers whose ration of petrol for milking machines has been so reduced that they have to forego necessary trips to town. Operators of irrigation equipment and tractors are experiencing the same difficulty. Many farmers in my own constituency have approached me and complained that it is almost impossible for them to do the job expected of them because of the meagre petrol ration allowed them. Of course, we know that the Government’s motive in reducing the quantity of petrol available to consumers is a worthy one, but at the same time the fact cannot be denied that the consumption of petrol has increased and continues to increase. One of the reasons for that disturbing increase is the existence of a rampant black market in petrol. The black market has grown and flourished despite the assurance given by the Prime Minister twelve months ago that the distribution of petrol would be controlled strictly and that the Government was determined to ensure that justice was done. Of course, the Liquid Fuel Control Board must accept its share of responsibility for the very grave situation which has developed. Only a few weeks ago a nineteen-year old youth, who had been charged before a special court in Sydney was shown to have entered the Sydney office of the Liquid Fuel Control Board and obtained, on one occasion alone, ration tickets entitling him to purchase 65,000 gallons of petrol. He obtained those tickets without even being called upon to produce a motor vehicle registration certificate or a motor driver’s licence. Over a period of eight months he “ got away “ with ration tickets for approximately 500,000 gallons of petrol from the Sydney office of the Liquid Fuel Control Board. When he appeared before the court he intimated, through his counsel, that he would not divulge certain information. People “ higher up “ must have been involved because obviously a lad of that type could not have “ got away “ with such a large number of coupons unless there was collusion between himself and someone’ in authority. Since this startling disclosure was made the Government has done nothing to allay the public anxiety aroused in regard to the administration of petrol rationing. There were five other defendants in that court; they were, respectively, a welder, a railway fireman, an orderly, a labourer, and a painter. No person of note in the community was involved; not one of the “ big shots “ was brought to justice. Are we supposed to believe that it is only the “ little “ men who do this ? What has been done to implement the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on the 1st March of last year, when the right honorable gentleman said that the Government was determined strictly to enforce the Liquid Fuel Control Regulations? I was informed by an executive of an oil company that recently a check was made of the coupons in a branch office of his organization and the officers of the Liquid Fuel Control Board, some of whom are very anxious to do their duty properly, brought with them an infra-red ray plant with which to make an examination. It was found that upon thousands of coupons the original signature had been obliterated, a fresh signature written in, and the coupons presented as new ones. The infra-red ray plant disclosed two signatures. I suggest that that can only have happened either because the used coupons were sent out again from the Liquid Fuel Control Office itself or because there was a marked lack of control in respect of coupons sent in by the fuel retailers. The obvious explanation is that after the coupons had been forwarded to the Liquid Fuel Control Office, bundles of them were sent to a chemist, who treated them in order to obliterate the signatures written on them, and that they were used again in the black market. It is hard to get at the truth of these matters, but at least the members of the public who are endeavouring to abide by the regulations and who are compelled to make sacrifices in the use of petrol are entitled to be protected against corrupt elements in the community who are waxing fat and rich as a result of the Government’s faulty administration.

In 193S-39, when there was no petrol rationing, 356,000,000 gallons of petrol were consumed in Australia, and in 1946-47, when there was the strict rationing to which the Prime Minister referred, consumption was 397,000,000 gallons. In the last six months of 1945, consumption was 133,000,000 gallons; in the last six months of 1946, it was 180,000,000 gallons, and in the last six months of 1947, after- a cut of 10 per cent, in October of that year, it was 202,000,000 gallons. It seems, therefore, that the stricter the rationing the greater the consumption of petrol. Doubtless it will be said that many more motor cars, trucks, and motor cycles have been registered and are on the roads, and that is true. I have figures showing that the number of’ motor vehicles of all kinds registered in December, 1946, was 973,000, and that by December, 1947, the figure had increased to 1,054,000. That is an increase in that period of some 80,000 vehicles, or 8.2 per cent. Petrol consumption rose from 330,000,000 gallons in 1946 to 397,000,000 gallons in 1947. In that period of twelve months, the increase of petrol consumption was 67,000,000 gallons, or 20 per cent., despite the fact that registrations of vehicles had increased by only 8.2 per cent, and that there was a 10 per cent, cut in the ration in October, 1947.

Figures supplied to me by the Minister for Supply and Shipping reveal that in January of 1947 petrol consumption in Australia was 32,700,000 gallons, and that in January of 1948, following upon two cuts of 10 per cent, in October, 1947, and January, 1948, respectively, it was 33,800,000 gallons. I assert that a large percentage of this increase is represented by illicit petrol going through the black-market, despite the fact that the Government is maintaining a huge organization such as the Liquid Fuel Control Board at a cost of £288,000 per annum.

As to the purchase of petrol from the Netherlands East Indies, I asked the Prime Minister recently whether steps would be taken to procure petrol from that source, and I was informed that, as the oil refinery plant at Balikpapan was not in operation and as the Dutch desired to obtain plant from Australia, it did not appear to be convenient to do so. On the very next day, however,- two tankers arrived from the Netherlands East Indies. At any rate, one arrived and two others were on their way.

Mr Chifley:

– The honorable member needs to be sure of his figures.

Mr ANTHONY:

– My question was asked on the 18th February, and on the 20th February a headline appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph which read : “ Three large petrol cargoes in six weeks. Big saving in Empire dollars.” On the day after the Prime Minister said there was not much chance of obtaining petrol from the Netherlands East Indies, petrol, in fact, arrived from that source. One tanker had arrived and two others were on their way. They were not Dutch ships. A great quantity of this petrol has to be carried in American vessels, which entails a drain on our dollar resources. It is a disgrace to the name of Australia that in a period of two and a half years every Dutch ship has been immobilised as far as our trade with the Netherlands East Indies is concerned. Researches I have made reveal that since the end of the war not one Dutch ship, other than one or two naval vessels, has made the journey between the Netherlands East Indies and Australia. The Government says it wants to do the right thing, but what attempt is it making to do so, either in respect of controlling the activities of communists on the wharves, or in respect of conserving dollars? All the evidence shows thai dollars are being wasted, and it is obvious that the Government has failed in its efforts to save petrol, because the more it attempts to tighten up rationing, the more petrol is used. According to figures issued by the Minister for Supply and Shipping, petrol in store at seaboard on the 31st October amounted to 54,000,000 gallons, but this had declined to 39;000,000 gallons by the 31st January last. The public are being taxed to maintain fuel control boards, and the Government has a duty to ensure that the administration is just and effective. Under the present system, the only persons who benefit from petrol rationing are the black-marketeers.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prima Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– Some of the points raised by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) were dealt with on previous occasions. T made it clear to the House some time ago that the Government was not satisfied with the control of coupons between the petrol depots and the garages. One of the difficulties with which we have had to deal is the fact that so many of the officers concerned with the administration of petrol rationing are temporary, and it is impossible to maintain a first-class staff on a temporary basis. For some time it was believed that it might be possible to abolish petrol rationing. That was done in New Zealand, but after a threemonths’ trial rationing had to be reintroduced. As a matter of fact, there is even some talk now of introducing petrol rationing in the United States of America. This is due to many factors, including the increased consumption of petrol throughout the world, amounting to almost 40 per cent. Other factors making for the shortage of petrol are the increased number of motor vehicles in use, and the difficulty of obtaining tankers. However, I understand it is hoped to have 150 additional tankers in commission shortly.

As I have said, the Government was not happy about the administration of petrol rationing because there was undoubtedly a leakage. I did not suggest that there was dishonesty on the part of officers, nor do I suggest it now. I told the Parliament that the Auditor-General had been asked to enquire into the distribution of petrol coupons. I asked the representatives of the oil companies to meet me in order to discuss what I believed to be a leakage at some point between the companies’ depots and its delivery to garages. I had no doubt that there was not proper supervision of the delivery of petrol from the depots by road tankers to the garages. I believe that the petrol companies realized this to be so. They conferred among themselves, and offered to police more strictly the delivery of petrol to garages, and to take care that they received from the garages petrol coupons equivalent to the quantity of petrol delivered, something which had not always been done before. That was an example of private enterprise failing to exercise proper supervision.

I thought it possible that there might be a leakage of petrol coupons and, of course, there is always the possibility of forgery. Even Bank of England notes have been forged, so it would not be surprising if petrol coupons had been forged, too. A close check was instituted. There was, of course, no possibility of anything being wrong in the Commonwealth Note Issue Department where the coupons are printed, but there might have been some laxity in the delivery of tickets to the control authorities. The system has now been tightened up. I have no doubt that attempts were made, some of them successful, to obtain petrol coupons from post offices by making false representations. Steps have been taken to prevent this from happening. The efficiency of administration is bound up with the number and efficiency of the persons who are doing the job. Leakages were sometimes due to carelessness.

I was not entirely satisfied with the issue of licences, and the Minister for

Supply and Shipping is now going into that matter. It is possible that attempts have been made to forge licences. Indeed, it is almost inevitable that such attempts would be made. The Security Service and the State police are looking into that aspect, and some prosecutions have recently been launched as a result of their investigations. The honorable member for Richmond declared with some heat that the increased quantity of petrol used had been bought on the black market.

Mr Anthony:

– I said that a very substantial proportion of it had been so. bought.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I wish the honorable member had made that qualification clear’ before. One would imagine, from listening to him, that all the extra petrol used, had come from the black market. Such a suggestion is sheer nonsense. W» should remember that, since the termination of the war, there are more motor vehicles on the roads than ever before, as the honorable member himself was fair enough to admit. This applies both to commercial and private vehicles. Not only are all the old vehicles on the roads, but also hundreds of thousands of additional army vehicles which were disposed of to the public. There are also such new vehicles as we have been able to obtain. The country has never before enjoyed such prosperity as it enjoys today, a fact which is responsible for the increasing demand for goods of all kinds. All the people are working, and all of them have money to spend. That is true of the primary producers as well as of other sections ©f the community. There is an increasing demand from primary producers for oil-burning machinery of various kinds, machinery which they previously did not have the money to buy. Neither did people have the money to “ go places “ where they are able to go to-day. Not only is there a greater number of vehicles on the roads, but there is also an ever-increasing number of heavy commercial vehicles in use. This is partly due to the fact that, in some instances, the railways have not been able to carry all the goods offering, and partly to the shortage of shipping. A large number of special permits for road transport has been issued in Victoria and New South Wales. At present large quantities of cement are being transported by road to Melbourne from cement works in New South “Wales. The road transport of cement in such quantities was unknown in the past. Indeed, cement works were then operating for only about half the normal time; now by working full time they are unable to meet the demands placed upon them because of the factors that I have mentioned. The honorable member for Richmond has not taken cognizance of the fact that, apart from controlling the ordinary standard ration, the rationing officers have authority to grant special permits to primary producers for the handling of this season’s record wheat crop and to carriers for the carriage of the farmer’s essential needs. If the honorable member had given a little thought to the matter he would have taken those factors into account. In addition, large numbers of permits are issued for the road transport of stock from one area to another. All of these factors have increased the demand for petrol. In short, first there is an increased number of motor vehicles on the roads; secondly, there is a greatly increased number of heavy commercial vehicles in operation; and, thirdly, a great increase has taken place in the number of special permits issued to primary producers and road haulers to enable them to transport the record wheat harvest. Honorable members are aware of the general world shortage of petrol and that a general manager of one of the oil companies has recently made a world-wide appeal to people to conserve petrol. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the near future the United States of America, which has been a large world supplier of petrol in the past, may become an importer of petrol. The fuel oil position is even more disturbing than the petrol position. The maintenance of the supply of adequate quantities of fuel oil will undoubtedly become one of the great problems of the future. For various reasons apart from the dollar position it is not possible to supply all the petrol the world needs.

The honorable member for Richmond has spoken of the possibility of procuring petrol from the Netherlands East Indies. He must be aware that the oil wells and storage tanks at Balikpapan were destroyed by American artillery prior to the entry of American forces into that area, and it will not be possible to restore them for some considerable time. I have seen the general manager of the company concerned-

Mr Anthony:

– I, too, have seen him.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– He submitted an application to the Australian Government for the supply of certain equipment to enable his company to carry on its operations.

Mr Anthony:

– That equipment was hung up on the wharfs.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Not at all. It was not available at the time the request was made.

Mr Anthony:

– Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of equipment was lying idle on the wharfs and was subsequently redistributed.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– There is a possibility that some supplies will be forthcoming from Sumatra; but so far it has been possible to obtain only one tanker of petrol from that source. The general manager of the oil company operating there has expressed the hope that supplies may be available from that source within a reasonable time. Irrespective of the shipping position, however, supplies from Sumatra and the Netherlands East Indies, will not be available in quantity for some considerable time. Apart from these sources of supply, the petrol position is made difficult because of the world-wide shortage of tankers. The general managers of three of the major oil companies have expressed different views on this subject. One of them believes that within the next six or eight months sufficient tankers will be available to transport all the petrol that can be obtained.

Mr Anthony:

– What about the Dutch tankers ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am dealing with the general world shortage of tankerage and not the few tankers available to one particular country. An attempt is being made to put into commission an additional 150 tankers. A general manager of one of the oil companies believes that there is no prospect of that number being made available. He sets the maximum figure at 80. It will not be possible to obtain large quantities of petrol from the Netherland East Indies under any conditions. The best we can hope, is to obtain a limited supply from that area. That a general world shortage of petrol is feared is evidenced by the construction of big synthetic oil plants in the United States of America. I assure the House that no stone will be left unturned to stamp out black-marketing. The oil companies themselves have agreed to exercise very strict supervision to prevent racketeering in petrol.

Mr Anthony:

– “Why cannot that supervision be exercised by the Liquid Fuel Control Board

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The administration of the Liquid Fuel Control Board will be tightened up as far as possible. The board is handicapped, however, because of the shortage of efficient staff. The board, being only a temporary authority, cannot attract the most efficient men.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I listened with great attention to the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) in reply to the motion moved by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government effectively to conserve petrol in Australia, its laxity of administration in liquid fuel control and its failure to conserve dollar currency by purchasing from the nearest convenient source of sterling supply, namely, the Netherland East Indies. I have not heard previously in this House a more specious piece of special pleading than we had from the Prime Minister to-day in his speech on ‘this subject. The right honorable gentleman made no attempt to answer the matters raised by the honorable member for Richmond. He made no reply to the statement that, notwithstanding severe petrol restrictions in Australia, in the last six months of 1947, as compared with a similar period in 1945, the consumption of petrol increased from 133,000,000 to 202,000,000 gallons. When he is pressed with respect to the maladministration of petrol control he declares that no irregularities have taken place in the Note Issue Department of the Commonwealth Bank which prints the petrol coupons, and that all coupons have been sent from that department to tha liquid fuel control boards in the various States. ‘ Then, as he usually does, he seizes the opportunity to attack private enterprise, completely ignoring the fact that the liquid fuel control authorities must have handled this matter in a very lax manner, indeed, when a youth of nineteen years of age was able, by telling a lying story about having to obtain petrol tickets for hundreds of carters engaged in transporting cement from the Blue Mountains area to Sydney, to obtain coupons in respect of 480,000 gallons of petrol. That was the story told by the youth himself when he was convicted in a special count. But the Prime Minister airily dismisses that fact. He says that very little petrol is finding its way on to the black market. A quantity of 500,000 gallons of petrol may appear to the right honorable gentleman to be a mere drop ; but oceans are made up of drops of water. When we find that this drop of 500,000 gallons has been lost under existing control we are entitled to ask how many more hundreds of thousands of gallons of petrol are getting through to the black market under the present ineffective system which the right honorable gentleman attempted to defend. This loss is to the detriment of our dollar position; and it explains the increased consumption of petrol in Australia to the degree shown by the figures produced by the honorable member for Richmond.

The Prime Minister then said that the number of heavy vehicles now on the roads was greatly in excess of the number operating before the war, and that these vehicles are now being used for all sorts of purposes for which they were not used in pre-war times, such as, the carting of cement between New South Wales and Melbourne and the transport of heavy goods in all parts of the Commonwealth. The right honorable gentleman would lead the people to believe that this activity reflects some great improvement in our economic development, that it is a further advance towards the “ light on the hill “, “ the golden age “ and the workers’ “ honeymoon “, to all of” which he so often refers. But, in fact, these developments reveal the effect of the strikes by which this country has been riven since the end of the war, involving the use of heavy vehicles, and the consequent increased consumption of petrol, for the transport of goods which before the war were transported by ships or on the railways, Nothing is said about the Admirable Crichton, the Good Man Friday of the Ministry, the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) who is given every job and administers a department which is allowing our petrol supplies to leak through a sieve. No reference is made to the fact that since he assumed control of the Department of Supply and Shipping, the turn-around of ships in our ports has become so slow that Australia itself has become a by-word throughout the world. For that reason our shipping services are rapidly losing their capacity to carry the cargoes which are now transported on small units in all parts of the Common,wealth Yet the Government does nothing to attempt to bring about a cessation of (the (transport strike in Queensland, as the result of which hundreds of thousands of gallons of petrol are being used to transport by air and by road goods which were previously transported on the railways or in ships. Why did not the Prime Minister, at the outset of the strike, say to the trade unions and the Communists in that State, “ I stand firmly behind Mr. Hanlon, and I will give him all the support he needs. The goods required by Queensland will be sent to that State. We will stand behind the State Government.” But the right honorable gentleman has done nothing in that matter. Instead of supporting the Labour Government of Queensland, the Premier of New South Wales has refused even to remove temporarily the licence-fee on lorries to enable them to carry goods to the starving people of Queensland. This is a terrible story which has not been revealed at all by the Prime Minister in his reply to this debate.

He said that Australia could not obtain supplies of petrol from the Netherlands East Indies. He kept harping about the destruction of oil refineries at Balikpapan. Any one would be led to believe that the only oil refineries in the Netherlands East Indies and adjacent territories were those at Balikpapan. I understand from information I have received from various oil companies which have attempted to import petrol that there are refineries at other places in the Netherlands East Indies which were not destroyed during the war and are now operating. But the Prime Minister conceals the truth from the people of Australia. He does not tell them all the facts. Instead he tells the House a cock-and-bull story about the refineries at Balikpapan being the only refineries in the Netherlands East Indies. He failed to tell the people that the real cause of the trouble is that this country is being governed not by the Government, but by the Communistcontrolled Waterside Workers Federation, which refuses to allow Dutch petrol, goods or shipping to come into this country. For too long has the Prime Minister in his fireside chats and confidential way of speaking in homely terms misled the people of Australia. But the people are sick to death of the foul and vile administration of the Government as exemplified by the ineffectiveness of its administration in controlling petrol supplies and distribution.

Motion (by Mr. Scully) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mk. Shearer - Hon. J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 525

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1947

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 10th March (vide page 501), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 … be further amended . . . (vide page 1, of appendix following page 3284, volume 195.)

Item 91 (Seeds and nuts).

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

– I inform the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) who spoke on this item previously that liberty has been retained to amend the by-law under the item, as in the past, and, consequently, the position of local producers of seeds has not been in any way changed.

Item agreed to.

Items 94, 96 and 104 agreed to.

Division V. - Textiles-, Feltsand Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire.

Item 105 (Piece goods).

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– Item 105, which appears in Division V.- Textiles, Felts and Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire, refers, among other things, to cotton piece goods and is most important. India has, on request, been granted participationin the British preferential tariff, on unbleached cotton piece goods, which remains at½d. a square yard or 5 per cent. ad valorem, whichever rate returns the lower duty. The intermediate tariff has been reduced from l¼d. a square yard tod., and the general tariff remains at 2¾d. This item is a classic example of what is likely to occur under the new multilateral trade agreement system. The British preferential tariff is designed to protect the British cotton piece goods industry. The participation of India in that protection will cause great concern to the British manufacturers, but I amnot so concerned about that as I am about what will be the ultimate result of the multilateral agreement system. Honorable members will remember the drive some years ago by Japan to corner the Australian cotton piece goods market. They will also remember the violent opposition to that move of the British manufacturers. When Japan ultimately enters the comity of nations, as it undoubtedly will, it will be granted, under the multilateral agreement system, the same concessions as are granted to the United Kingdom and India. The great threat implicit in that statemtnt to those engaged in the British cotton piece goods industry must be realized by honorable members who know that Japan, which will be shorn of heavy industries under the peace treaty and encouraged to reconstruct its economy by the development of light industries, will concentrate on the production of textiles, particularly cotton piece goods. I foresee that Japan’s participation in tariff concessions equal to those granted to the United Kingdom will, owing to the low standard of living in Japan, cause the collapse of the British cotton piece goods industry. I do not propose to dwell on the threat to the industry presented by India’s participation in the concessional tariff. All honorable members are aware of that menace. But the menace from Japan will be of the utmost gravity. The loss by Great Britain of one of its principal manufactures will be the forerunner of the economic disfnemberment of the British Empire. I have no need to go into detailed statistics of production and employment in the industry, because all honorable members are sufficiently aware of them, but it is time that something was done to safeguard Britain’s interests. Indeed, as we are already committed, the opportunity for action seems to have passed.

As the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) explained recently, all these commitments and contractual obligations which the Government feels that Australia is bound to accept, were made at a time when they appeared to be the only solution of our difficulties. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and the United States of America entered the war, the situation became entirely changed. Therefore, any contractual obligations into which we entered in the early years of the war should have received further consideration, because of the changed circumstances. The Government is rushing head-long into multilateral agreements, and I have indicated what is likely to happen if Japan returns to the comity of nations. This matter is worthy of consideration, and the Government must examine, the general effect, because this is only one of many items likely to be affected. As the Government has not finally adopted the charter, action could still be taken to protect tho economy, not only of the United Kingdom, but also of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

We should bear in mind the classical example of the United States of America, which retains control of the economic conditions of its satellites, namely, the Philippines, Cuba and the LatinAmerican States. The United States of America has an arrangement which is just as effective as the Ottawa Agreement, and which excludes the goods of Australia and certain other nations. Those treaties are made on a bilateral basis. If the United Kingdom, even despite the Geneva Agreement, negotiates at least seventeen treaties, why should the Australian Government boggle at the preservation of Empire solidarity? We must expect to face a real challenge from Japan when it returns to the comity of nations. We should still have vivid recollections of its industrial power. Deprived of its heavy industries, Japan must concentrate on light industries, in- eluding the manufacture of textiles. This challenge from Japan will be intensified, and ultimately cause the complete collapse of the British textile industry.

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

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) completely misunderstands the position. This preferential margin is available because the United Kingdom Government agreed to a reduction of the margin. India is still a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the advantages to be derived from this treaty will accrue, not to Janan, but to the seventeen nations which signed the agreement at Geneva.

Mr Harrison:

– Does the Minister suggest that Japan, if it returns to the comity of nations, will- not sign the treaty ?

Mr DEDMAN:

– If Japan desires to take advantage of the treaty. !t must buy its way in by making certain concessions. Those countries which ratify the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will decide whether Japan shall participate. The speech of the honorable member for Wentworth creates an entirely false impression. The only other countries to which the most favoured nation treatment applies are those with which we have treaties containing a most favoured nation clause. If Australia has a treaty containing a most favoured nation clause with a country not represented at Geneva, the advantages accruing from those particular concessions will extend also to the seventeen signatories of the agreement. The countries concerned are, generally speaking, nations with which we made trade arrangements when the Liberal party and the Australian Country party constituted the Government of this country.

Mr. ADERMANN (Maranoa) [“12.301. - The tariff imposed upon the importation of cotton goods has an effect upon cotton-growing in Australia. I do not quibble at the rates, but I desire to refer to the general position of the industry. Imports of raw cotton totalled between 70,000 and 80,000 bales, and the price landed in Australia was 30d. per lb. That figure represents approximately twice as much as the Government’s guaranteed price to producers, lt is scandalous that Australian cotton growers are not receiving encouragement. The Tariff Board must bear some of the responsibility, because the guaranteed price is based upon its recommendations. Indeed, the report of the Tariff Board on the cotton industry is one of the most anomalous documents that has ever been presented to this Parliament. It does not present the position fairly. For example, an examination of the report discloses that the rate of wages upon which the recommendations were based was between 30s. and £2 5s. a week. 1 do not know whether the Tariff Board imagines that the Australian Labour Government will insist that ‘rural labour shall be paid at that rate, arid I cannot understand why the Government has accepted the report, or based its decisions upon it. The fact that Australia grew only 1,500 tons of raw cotton during the last season is the repercussion of the Government’s action in adopting the Tariff Board’s report, and its failure to improve the position. In a debate on this subject in 1946 the then right honorable member for Capricornia, Mr. Forde, who represented the Minister for Trade and Customs in this chamber, boasted that the Government had guaranteed a price of 15d. per lb., which exceeded the amount which the Tariff Board had recommended. At the subsequent election, the cotton-growers showed exactly what they thought of him. However, the Government still employs him in some glorified position where we never hear from him.

The world is now offering an unlimited market for cotton. Do we propose to continue to flog this industry with a price which is only half as much as the price of imported cotton? The Queensland Cotton Board has asked for a guaranteed price of 22d. per. lb., and even that is 8d. per lb. less than the imported price of raw cotton. If the price of 22d. per IK will encourage the growing of cotton in Australia, it should be paid, because Australia would still derive a financial advantage compared with the price of imported raw cotton. Australian housewives are not able to buy a reel of white cotton in any shop, and, in addition, Australians are not able to purchase many cotton goods. The Government has repeatedly stated that cotton goods will be in short supply for some considerable period; yet no action is being taken to extend to this industry the encouragement that it deserves. “When I expounded the case for the cotton industry on behalf of the Cotton Board and the growers, the Government ridiculed my submissions, and heeded the former member for Capricornia. The Government has now reaped the result of its decision by the failure to produce a substantial quantity of raw cotton in this country. What hope is there of encouraging cotton production when the guaranteed price is only 15d. per lb. ? To use a colloquialism, there is “ Buckley’s chance “. I hope that the Minister will treat this matter seriously. Time is an important factor. Cotton-growers want to prepare their land in July, and if the Government earnestly seeks an increase of production it will have to improve substantially upon its guaranteed price. We are importing 70,000 or 80,000 bales pf raw cotton annually, and paying 30d. per lb. for it; yet the Government talks of encouraging local production by giving a guarantee of only half that figure! The proposal is lacking in common sense. I make these representations to the Minister with all the force at my command.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Capricornia

– I, too, wish to make some comments about the production of cotton in this country. This item deals with various textiles, but particularly with cotton goods, and the importance of cotton from the financial point of view can be assessed from the fact that annually we import 70,000 or 80,000 bales of raw cotton. But there is another significance to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee : If the cotton-growing industry in this country were given a chance to develop, a substantial proportion of the cotton that we now import could be grown in Australia with great benefit to the economy of the country, particularly in the light of the present dollar situation. When We find that Australia is paying 30d. per lb. for 70,000 or 80,000 bales of raw cotton, imported into this country annually, and that Australian cottongrowers are being guaranteed the mag1nificent sum of 15d. per lb. for their product, we realize that there is ample scope for action by the Government to assist the industry.

The development of the cotton industry of this country has been under consideration from time to. time over a long period of years, but the effectiveness or otherwise of the policy that has been pursued so far can be gathered from a brief examination of production figures. In 1939, cotton produced in Australia amounted to 12,447 bales. By 1941 it had dropped to 11,437 bales, and by 1947 to 1,531 hales. There is the position in a nutshell. Plainly, unless something can be done to assist this industry substantially it will very soon cease to function. Already, it is well on the way to extinction. The reason for the drop in production can be gauged by looking at the net returns that the growers have received during the period with which I have just dealt. In 1939, the cottongrower received a net return of 11.241d. per lb. By 1941, that figure had increased to 12.51d. per lb. and by 1947, to 15.6d. per lb. So, from 1941 to 1947 the return increased only from 12.51d. to 15. 6d. per lb. It is recognized that an increased return has been necessary in all industries if they are to survive; but how does the increase received by cotton producers compare with corresponding increases in other industries which have been shown to be necessary to enable those industries to continue. Let us compare the cotton industry with the dairying industry for instance; The present price paid to dairymen for butter is the result of a comprehensive survey of’ production costs and therefore, can be adopted as a guide. Between 1941 and 1947 the price paid to dairy-farmers for butter increased by 69 per cent. In the same period, as I have already shown, the percentage increase iri respect of cotton has been only 24 per cent. This indicates clearly that the small increase that the cottongrower has received is not nearly sufficient to recoup him for increased costs of production and that unless something is done to provide him with a more reasonable remuneration for his labour, he will’ not continue to grow cotton. A further virtue of adopting th& increased return for butter as a guide lies’, in the fact that cotton is usually grown in conjunction with the production of other primary products, particularly those of the dairying industry. Obviously, if a cotton-grower finds that his return from, butter production is far better than that from growing cotton, he will abandon the cotton-growing portion of his venture and concentrate on dairying. That has happened throughout central Queensland. Hundreds of farmers who sharted to develop cotton production ten years agohave abandoned it completely, and I am certain that great difficulty will be experienced in persuading many of these farmers to return to that industry in view of their unfortunate experiences. Because of the obvious disparity between the return for cotton and that for other primary products, the Government’s objective should be to place cotton growing upon a more comparable basis with other primary industries. The Queensland Cotton Marketing Board, . in its efforts to place the Australian cotton industry on a sound basis, has made a request to the Australian Government which, I understand, is still being considered, for a guaranteed price of 22d. per lb., raw cotton, which is the equivalent of approximately 7-Jd. per lb. seed cotton. The proposals that we are now discussing provide an avenue whereby that request could be met, and I submit in respect of cotton the same arguments that I have already advanced in regard to tobacco. These two industries are the Cinderella industries of Australia. They are both fortunate in that they still have available to them in this country an enormous market for their products. It will be many years before the home demand can be met.- I do not know of any other industry in which this advantageous state of affairs exists. Both cotton growing and tobacco growing can be expanded enormously without entering into competition with other countries on overseas markets. That is an extremely sound reason why these industries should be placed on a firm footing. I submit, therefore, that from this source, or, if the Government wishes, from some other sources, there should be made available to the cotton-growing industry sufficient finance to provide the guaranteed price recommended by the Queensland Cotton Marketing Board, and also to carry out experiments in the development of varieties of seed, the selection of the right types of soils, and so on. As I pointed out in regard to tobacco-growing, an infant industry, and particularly one in which low prices prevail, cannot afford to carry out the experiments necessary to fully develop its potentialities. Therefore, I strongly support the request that has been made to the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) by the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) that something radically effective be done by the Government to ensure that the cotton industry shall be given the assistance that is required for its development, I point out that the QueenslandCotton Marketing Board is experimenting with methods of mechanical harvesting and the Queensland Government has a plan for the development of water conservation schemes in areas which have proved suitable for the production of cotton. If the Australian Government will guarantee to cottongrowers a price that will encourage them to expand production we may expect some worthwhile developments in the industry. A guaranteed price at least as high as that recommended by the Queensland Cotton Board is an essential ingredient of that development.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Item agreed to.

Items 106, 107 and 108 agreed to.

Items 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, and 123 considered together and agreed to.

Item 130 (Cotton Textiles)

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

– I move -

That Item 130 be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following item: - “ 130. By omitting the whole of paragraph (1 ) of sub-item (b ) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -

1 ) Cotton or containing a mixture of fibres in which cotton predominates -

As prescribed by Departmental By-laws -

1 ) Unbleached, not being printed, dyed or coloured, per square yard, British,½d.; intermediate, l¼d.; general, 2¾d. ; or ad val., British, 5 per cent. (whichever rate returns the lower duty).

2 ) Bleached, not being printed, dyed or coloured, per square yard, British, ½d.; intermediate,1d.; general, 3d.; or ad val., British, 5 per cent. (whichever rate returns the lower duty).

Printed, dyed or coloured, per square yard, British id.; intermediate, 2d.; general, 3½d. ; or ad val., British, 5 per cent. (whichever rate returns the lower duty).

And in respect of sub-paragraph (a) - On and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation -

As prescribed by Departmental Bylaws, per square yard,British, l½d. ; intermediate, 5d. ; general, 6½d.

Otherwise, per lb., British, 4d.; intermediate, l1d.; general, 1s.1d.; and ad val., British, 22½ per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent. ; general, 45 per cent.”

This amendment is made principally for drafting purposes. Since 1939, several Customs Tariff proposals have made reference to item 130 (b) (1) and, as an opportunity did not occur for a tariff debate during the war period, the collections of duty under those proposals have been validated. The heading to item 130 (b) (1), as shown under the Customs Tariff 1933-1939, was amended by the Customs Tariff proposals previously referred to, and when introducing proposals No. 3, which are now the subject of debate and which refer back to the 1933-39 tariff, the fact that the changed heading had not become part of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 was overlooked. This amendment has therefore been found necessary in order to bring the wording of the heading of item 130 (b) (1) in line with that which has been operating by means of tariff proposals since 1939.

Item 130 (b) (1) (a), which appears in this amendment, was in proposal stage prior to the Geneva trade conference and the duties under that item have not been altered by the resolutions arising from the discussions which took place at Geneva.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 135 agreed to.

Division VI. - Metals and Machinery.

Items 136, 144, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 169, 174 and 176 considered together and agreed to.

Item 178 (Internal combustion engines, boilers and steam turbines).

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– I am concerned not so much with rates of duty as with the urgency of bringing internal combustion engines into the country in order to increase primary production. I understand that the gravity of the dollar shortage has caused a delay of at least twelve months in the importation of internal combustion engines because some import licences were withdrawn and will not be validated again until the 30th June next. Can the Minister state whether that is the general position with regard to tractors and power units for farm production? I know that licences for the importation of larger items of machinery required by local governing authorities were cancelled and that new licences will be issued next month so that the machinery may be imported early in the financial year 1948-49. Can the Minister give any information regarding the supply of tractors and other farm machinery which is urgently needed by producers?

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

– This matter has nothing to do with the tariff schedule before the committee. I know that some licences for the importation of internal combustion engines were cancelled, but I do not know whether they have been replaced with fresh licences. I shall make investigations and ask officers of the department concerned to reply to the honorable member’s inquiries.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

. - I do not notice any great alterations of tariff rates under this item, and therefore I am anxious to know why companies dealing in farm machinery were recently allowed to add 20 per cent. in one alteration to the charges for the items which they handle. Overnight they notified purchasers that they had been permitted to increase the prices of already very costly farm machinery. The new tariff rates applicable to these items, which came into operation about the same time, do not account for the increase. Why has the Government permitted the companies to make this surcharge?

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

– If there has been a 20 per cent. increase of the costs of farm machinery as the honorable member suggests-

Mr Bernard Corser:

– The charges have been increased by 20 per cent.

Mr DEDMAN:

– Might that not be the resultof increasedcosts- ofproduction ? The only thing that I can do for the honorable member is to ask the Prices Commissioner to investigate the matter.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– That will do.

Item agreed to.

Item 179 agreed to.

Item180 (Handset telephones, gas and electrical appliances, &c).

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– This item refers to handset telephones, bell sets for telephones and parts. The British preferential rate of 12½ per cent. specified in it has been reduced from 17½ per cent. I thoroughly agree with that reduction. However, the intermediate rate has been increased from 35 per cent. to 37½ per cent., and the general rate remains at 42½ per cent. As we have often been informed in this chamber, there is an Australia-wide shortage of telephone sets and parts. The mere reduction of the British preferential tariff rate on these products from 17½ per cent. to 12½ per cent. is not sufficient to meet the needs of the situation. Temporarily, at least, the tariff should have been eliminated. The present shortage of telephone equipment may continue indefinitely and the lack of telephone facilities is one of the most annoying inconveniences endured by country people. The reason why so many people in the cities are still waiting for the installation of telephones is the lack of telephone exchange equipment.

Mr Edmonds:

– The honorable member does not imagine that that particular difficulty can be overcome by removing the tariff?

Mr TURNBULL:

– No, but I think that we should offer every incentive to overseas manufacturers to send telephone instruments here. The present extreme shortage of telephone and other facilities constitutes an emergency situation, and if we do not depart from our former tariff policy during the emergency we shall certainly not improve our position. I am merely making a non-party suggestion that the importation of telephone equipment should be encouraged to the maximum in order to satisfy the pressing needs of our people. Obviously, the temporary elimination of tariffs on telephone equipment would encourage its importation.

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

– Replying specifically to the point raised by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull), the position is that previously there was no operative intermediate tariff rate in respect of telephone equipment. It is proposed to reduce the most-favoured-nation tariff of 42½ per cent. to 37½ per cent., so that the same margin of preference will be observed.

Mr Turnbull:

– But there was an intermediate tariff!

Mr DEDMAN:

– But it did not operate. Therefore, the same margin of preference has been retained between the British preferential tariff and the tariff applied to imports from other countries.

Item agreed to.

Items 181, 185, 187, 189, 190, 208, 215, 217 and 219 considered together and agreed to.

Division VII. - Oils, Paints and Varnishes.

Items 228, 229 and 231 considered together and agreed to.

Division VIII. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass and Stone.

Item 240 agreed to.

Item 241-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following subitem: - “(b) (1) China ware, porcelainware, and parianware, n.e.i., composed of a vitrified non-absorbent body which is more or less translucent, ad. val., British, 10 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

Chinaware porcelainware and parianware, n.e.i., and not covered by paragraph (1) of this subitem ; earthenware, brownware and stoneware, n.e.i., including glazed or enamelled fireclay manufactures, n.e.i., and all kinds of porous insulating blocks, ad. val., British, 17½ per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following sub- item : - “ (c) Sanitary and lavatory articles of earthenware, including glazed or enamelled fireclay manufactures, ad val., British, 12½ per cent. ; intermediate, 42½ per cent.; general, 47½ per cent.”

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- On behalf of persons engaged in this industry in my electorate, and on behalf of members of the industry throughout Australia, I protest against the proposed reduction of the tariff. Item 241 (b) , (1) provides that the British preferential tariff on “chinaware, porcelainware and parianware, i.e., composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which is more or less translucent”, is to be reduced from17½ per cent. to 10 per cent. and the primage of 5 per cent. is to be removed. The net result is a reduction of 12½ per cent., which is extraordinarily large. The country with which the item was negotiated was Czechoslovakia, which should now be outside the International Trade Organization altogether. That country has ceased to have any sympathy for, or goodwill towards, the democratic countries; it has become Communist and is now hiding behind the “ iron curtain “. We should certainly not be reducing duties so drastically in order to please Czechoslovakia. Item 241 (b) (2) reads -

Chinaware, porcelainware and parianware, n.e.i., and not covered by paragraph (1) of this sub-item: earthenware, brownware and stoneware, n.e.i., including glazed or enamelled fireclay manufactures n.e.i., and all kinds of porous insulating blocks.

On these goods the present British preferential tariff is 17^ per cent, plus 5 per cent, primage, the intermediate tariff is 45 per cent., and the general tariff is 45 per cent., plus 10 per cent, primage. It is proposed that the British preferential tariff shall remain at 17-J per cent., but that the primage shall be removed. The intermediate tariff has been reduced from 45 per cent, to 40 per cent., and the 5 per cent, primage has been removed. The industry, which is concerned by the proposed changes, is one of the oldest in Australia. Ninety-eight per cent, of the materials used in it are of Australian origin, the only imports being the chemicals required for glazing. People engaged in the local industry, particularly those in Queensland, are gravely concerned at the proposed reduction of competitive duties. They believe that the service rendered by the industry certainly warrants la. continuance of the protection hitherto afforded it, and I therefore move -

That items 241 (b) and (o) be postponed, as an instruction to the Government to retain the present duties.

Those engaged in the industry believe that they were unfairly treated by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) and his advisers at Geneva. An exceptionally high percentage of the cost of producing earthenware articles in Australia represents wages to those engaged in the industry. Certainly the percentage paid as wages varies in .different sections of the industry, but approximately 70 per cent, of the cost of the manufactured articles represents wages, and for the most part wages paid to male employees. This industry, which is one of the oldest local industries, was commenced shortly after the arrival of the first settlers in this country. Unlimited raw material for the manufacture of chinaware and similar articles is available in Australia, and, in any event, the health of the community requires that the local industry should continue to function. That is obvious because many of the articles produced by it comprise sanitary-ware. The present British preferential tariff on sanitary ware and lavatory articles of earthenware manufacture’ is 22£ per cent., but it is proposed to reduce the tariff to 12£ per cent., which represents a reduction of 10 per cent.

Australian manufacturers point out that the present tariff on these items was fixed only after proper review was made by the Tariff Board in 1934, and again in 1937. On each occasion that board reported on the matter and Parliament considered and adopted the duties existing before the Tariff Board reported. I contend, therefore, that the present high duty should be continued as it has already been approved by a vote of this chamber. During the war the Government found itself in extraordinary difficulties because of shortage of many of the materials required to prosecute the war. An appeal was made and the industry readily produced all the articles for which the Government asked. The industry to-day is one of national importance because, if war were again to break out, it could produce many articles that are essential to the services. Before the outbreak of “World War II., the crockery, cooking utensils and similar items required for the armed forces were ordered from Japan, but when Japan entered the war, it was necessary to manufacture them only in Australia. Because the industry was efficient and its artisans and executives were highly skilled, it produced all that was required. I ask the Government to agree to postpone these proposed reductions or to restore the old rates of duty. In 1928 and 1929 the industry was in a difficult position and was unable to earn adequate profits. It requested that the situation should be examined by the Tariff Board. This request was acceded to. The Tariff Board recommended that the present rates of duty should be imposed, and the recommendation was implemented by Parliament.

The erection of houses is being delayed because of the scarcity of sanitary ware. It is difficult to import bulk supplies from Great Britain, and it is therefore imperative that these articles should continue to be manufactured in this country and in increasing quantities; The industry should not be faced with undue competition from Czechoslovakia, which is to-day outside the scope of the agreement under discussion.

Mr Williams:

– The industry cannot supply the orders it has now.

Mr FRANCIS:

– There are very few industries in Australia to-day that can meet the orders they have on their books, but they can increase their production. If an industry knows that it will receive adequate protection, it can expand and develop. There are many industrial organizations in Great Britain that are willing to bring their plant, equipment and expert personnel to Australia to supplement the volume of goods being produced by our manufacturers. Representatives of many of these firms have visited Australia to investigate conditions here, but when they learn that these duties have- been reduced by 10 per cent, or more, they will probably advise their directors that it will be better- to restrict activities to Great Britain. They will not wish to come to Australia only to find- that they are unable to- carry on.

The industry was called upon during the war, as I have said, to produce equipment for the armed forces: Every request made during the most critical period1 in our history was met, but now the Government, mainly at the request of Czechoslovakia, proposes to reduce these tariffs. This industry is a large employer of labour, and many hundreds of thousands of pounds are invested in it. The value- of land and plant is £4,149,000 ; the number of factories is 368; the number of persons employed is 10,484; the value- of the output is £4,975,000 per annum; and salaries and wages amount to £2,178,752 per annum. Is the Minister prepared to destroy a major industry such as this is by decreasing these duties? It is imperative that the industry should receive the adequate protection that was provided before the Minister went to Geneva. After the conclusion of the Ottawa Agreement, all duties were reviewed, and as a result of that review the present tariffs were applied. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to a postponement of this item, I ask him to restore the rates- of duty for which the industry asks. This is not a struggling and undeveloped industry; it has been in existence almost since the beginning of Australian history and has improved steadily. If it is assured of the protection it formerly received, it can expand and develop, so that ultimately it will be able to supply the whole of Australia’s requirements of high-quality articles for household table use and of sanitary ware. These articles are essential to the life of the nation, and I cannot understand why the Minister is proposing, mainly upon the recommendation of Czechoslovakia, to reduce the duties to this extent.

I have asked the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) to deal exclusively with the industry’s contribution to the war effort. There is an obligation imposed upon the Minister to refrain from any action that would have an adverse effect upon an industry that is vital to our economy. The number of Australian industries that can be expanded is limited, but this industry has unlimited scope for development. It has proved its efficiency by producing approximately £5,000,000 worth of products a year. I ask the Minister to explain why he has seen fit to yield to the importunities of Czechoslovakia.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I was interested to learn of the new policy of the Labour party with regard to the protection of industry. The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams) interjected to say that the industry could not supply Australia’s needs now. It is interesting to hear an honorable member opposite deny the right of an industry, because it cannot supply the whole of the wants of the nation, to ask for adequate protection.

Mr Williams:

– Things have changed.

Mr HARRISON:

– It is obvious that there has been a change in the policy of the Labour party with regard to protection. The Minister clearly revealed the change of policy by his negotiations at Geneva. I understand that neither Soviet Russia nor any of its satellite countries are signatories to this agreement. Czechoslovakia, in its free and enlightened state, became one of the seventeen signatory nations to the Geneva Agreement, but now that country has disappeared into the maw of Soviet Russia, and I am wondering what will be the effect of this upon the trade agreement. Will Czechoslovakia, as a signatory to the agreement, become the spearhead of a low standard-of -living drive designed to shatter the British preferential system at the behest of Soviet Russia? Will Czechoslovakia be used to make claims under its signature against all those nations which are signatories to the agreement? Czechoslovakia made representations regarding item 241(b), that is, chinaware, porcelainware, &c, after which the British preferential duty was reduced from 17$ per cent, to 5 per cent., and the primage duty of 5 per cent, was abolished. The intermediate tariff was reduced from 45 per cent, to 40 per cent. It is true that this industry is in a flourishing condition in Australia. It employs almost 90 per cent, of adult male labour, whereas the industry on the Continent employs mainly female labour. The policy of the Government is full employment, and its object should be to ensure that efficient Australian industries have an opportunity to develop and expand. Now, however, the Government has robbed the industry of the possibility of expansion. Everybody knows that Czechoslovakia produces low-grade crockery and pottery, so that, with reduced import duties, it will be able to flood the Australian market to the injury of the local industry. In Australia, almost 70 per cent, of the turnover in this industry is paid in wages to Australian workmen. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the Government, at the behest of Czechoslovakia, should be prepared to sacrifice an important Australian industry, particularly having regard to’ recent developments in that country. I do not know whether Czechoslovakia will now withdraw from the agreement. If it does, what will be our position? Will the duties revert to what they were before, or will the lower duties remain in force? That is a very important point.

I come now to item 241 (c), sanitary and lavatory articles of earthenware, including glazed or enamelled fire-clay manufactures, upon which the British preferential duty was formerly 22$ per cent., and the general tariff 52$ per cent. The value for duty under these rates exceeds 22s. 9d. per article, the percentages being - British preferential tariff, 17$ per cent., general tariff, 45 per cent.; primage, 5 per cent. British pre- ferential, 10 per cent, general tariff. It is now proposed that the British preferential rate shall be reduced from 22$ per cent, to 12$ per cent., while the intermediate tariff is to be 42$ per cent. The general tariff is reduced from 52$ per cent, to 47$ per cent. Honorable members, who were present in the Parliament: when this item was debated some years ago, will remember that the Tariff Board had recommended to the Government - and we were then the Government - that the duties should be fixed at the rates now proposed. It is the responsibility of the Tariff Board to make recommendations to the Government, which, if it approves,, lays those recommendations before theParliament, but there is always a higher authority than the Tariff Board, or even the Government, and that is the Parliament itself. On the occasion of which I am speaking, the Parliament, in its wisdom, and with the support of the Labour party, rejected the recommendation of the Tariff Board, and insisted that the higher duties should prevail. The committee divided on the item, and it would be interesting to turn up the division list to see how many honorable members who now support the Government’s proposal, then voted against a reduction of duty. At that time, they spoke and voted against a reduction, but to-day they are silent. The Government is now giving effect to the Tariff Board’s report, and has bargained away the protection which the Parliament then insisted upon retaining.

Mr Haylen:

– What does the reduction amount to? It is only 3 per cent., is it not?

Mr HARRISON:

– No ; it is 10 per cent., which represents a slashing attack on the local industry. The Parliament itself decided upon the measure of protection which the industry should receive, but the Government has gone behind the decision of the Parliament, and has bargained away this protection at an international conference. If that sort of thing is to be allowed to happen it is of no use for this Parliament to make decisions at all.

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

Research) [2.54] . - We are now considering items 241 (b) (1) and (2), as well as item 241 (o). All these items are concerned with chinaware, porcelainware&c. It is obvious that such an industry’ enjoys a considerable measure of natural protection, because the weight of raw materials is such that shipping costs would be very high in comparison with the total value of the article. All items were very closely examined by the Cabinet sub-committee which, had at its disposal all the information that was available to the Tariff Board. I assure honorable members that the slight reduction which has been made was agreed to after taking full account of all the information at the Government’s disposal. ‘ I was particularly interested in this item - as, indeed, I was in all items - because one of the largest firms connected with this industry operates in my own electorate. I should think that it would be extremely unlikely that I would advocate a reduction in tariff which would destroy an industry of which a very large and important branch is established in my electorate. Costs in this country have not risen to the extent they have in other countries and, as a result, the measure of protection previously afforded is now more than is required to protect the industry.

Mr White:

– Who said that?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The Government says so. In any case, it is quite clear that if the Government had taken the attitude that there was to be no reductions in tariff preferences, there would have been no agreement. The committee has already accepted the Government’s contention that the benefits we ha.ve received as a result of the Geneva negotiations far outweigh any concessions we have made.

Mr White:

– Not at all.

Mr DEDMAN:

– That, at least, is the concensus of opinion expressed by leaders of Australian industry.

The rates provided by sub-item 241 (b) (1) were negotiated with the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia, and represent deductions of 7-J per cent, under the British preferential tariff and 15 per cent, under the most-favoured-nation tariff. In addition the previous primage duties of 5 per cent, under the British preferential tariff and 10 per cent, under the most-favoured-nation rate have been removed. The proposed intermediate tariff rate becomes operative and the British preferential tariff and the intermediate tariff become bound at their new levels. Czechoslovakia, as well as the United Kingdom, specialises in the manufacture of chinaware of the finer types which are now covered by this subitem.

The rates provided in sub-item 241 (b) (2) were negotiated with Czechoslovakia only and the proposed duties provide for an operative and intermediate duty of 40 per cent., which is 5 per cent, less than the rate formerly applicable to most-favoured-nation importations, The former primage duty of 5 per cent, under the British preferential tariff, and the 10 per cent, primage duty previously applicable to most-favoured nation countries, have been removed. No change has been made in the former British preferential tariff ordinary duties. . The local industry which covers the manufacture of the classes of goods embraced by this sub-item is very well established and should be well able to bear the very moderate reduction of the protective duty formerly applicable to the products of most-favoured-nation countries. Thus, the allegation by honorable members opposite that all these items. were negotiated with Czechoslovakia is quite untrue. Of the three items, one was negotiated with the United Kingdom, one with the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia, and only one with Czechoslovakia alone.

Item 241 (c) was negotiated with the United Kingdom on the basis of unbound rates of duty representing reductions of the ordinary duties previously split on a value for duty basis, by an average of 7£ per cent. - in comparison with the duties operating under the new basis of value for duty - and of primage by 5 per cent. Consequential adjustments of the duties to give effect to the principles of preference decided upon at Geneva, namely, that the margin of preference should not exceed that operating on the base date - the 15th October, 1946 - have resulted in an unbound intermediate tariff rate being struck at 5 per cent, lower that the general tariff, and in primage under the intermediate tariff being reduced from 10 per cent. to. 5 per cent. This industry, which is very firmly established and is in a position to cater for the major share of local requirements, was examined by the Tariff Board on two occasions, in 1934 and in 1937. In each of its resulting reports the Tariff Board recommended unification of the item, or, in other words, flat rate levels of duty irrespective of the overseas price of the articles. The duties recommended by the Tariff Board in 1937 were 15 per cent. British preferential tariff and 40 per cent, general tariff, which, under the new basis of value for duty, would be 12$ per cent. British preferential tariff and 35 per cent, general tariff. The new British preferential tariff rate is, therefore, equivalent to the board’s rate, and the intermediate tariff is 7$ per cent, higher than the rate recommended by that body. I assure honorable members that these reductions were not made without thorough investigation and the knowledge that the industry could well stand them. If, however, it should be found that the Australian industry is threatened by overseas competition as the result of these reductions, the position is not irrevocable. Article XIX. of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides for the revision of any of these rates if it should be found that a local industry is threatened. I shall read the first paragraph of Article XIX. so that honorable members and the people generally will know that it is not true to say that this agreement is irrevocable, and that if the local industry be threatened nothing can be done about it. Paragraph 1 (a) of Article XIX. reads as follows : -

If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of like or directly competitive products, the contracting party should be free, in respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the obligation in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concessions.

That shows clearly that if, as the result cf unforeseen circumstances, there be any threat at all to this industry, the whole position can be reviewed.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The discussion on this item shows the danger of allowing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) to make international agreements of this kind onmatters that vitally concern Australian secondary industries in particular. It is rather interesting to the older membersof the Parliament to recall the fierce attacks made by the Labour party upon the Lyons Government when it introduced the Ottawa Agreement and subsequent tariffs. At that time Labour members protested that the present rates of duties were too low. Yet this Government, without any inquiry having been made by the Tariff Board - and I shall show that there is a statutory obligation upon the Government to hold such an inquiry - has decided on the mere say-so of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction to reduce the duty on this item. This industry provides employment for many thousands of Australians. Some of those employees are highly skilled and the majority are males. Thus, this industry is of the type which we should be particularly anxious to expand. But the Government is determined to reduce these duties in spite of the representations made to the Minister on the 1st March last by a deputation representative of many large firms engaged in the industry, including the Fowler organization which has factories established in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia.

Mr Dedman:

– And a factory in my electorate.

Mr WHITE:

– Well, the Minister will receive a shock when his constituents wake up to what is happening. They do not know now what is happening, and they will not take the Minister’s say-so that while he was at Geneva, or Havana, he assumed that the industry could afford this reduction of duty, and that should it suffer he could reassure them by pointing to an article in this or that agreement which would enable something to be done about it. How long would it take to effect a remedy in such circumstances? Obviously, such action would take months. First, the other nations which are parties to the agreement must agree to the remedial action proposed.

I refer the committee to section 15 (1) of the Tariff Board Act which reads -

The Minister shall refer to the Board for inquiry and report the following matters: -

the necessity for new, increased, or reduced duties, and the deferment of existing or proposed deferred duties ; mid shall not take any action in respect of any of those matters until he has received the report of the Board.

The Tariff Board made its last report on this industry in 1937. However, because the duty now proposed coincided to some degree with that which the Minister, or some of his officers suggested in Geneva, the Government says that this protection is good enough for the industry to-day. Have we ever had such haphazard tariff making in Australia’s history before? Apparently, the golden age about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has so often- spoken is now beginning to fade farther into the distance. The possibility of the recession about which he speaks when dealing with the present dollar stringency makes all men and women employed in this country a little concerned about their future; If that period comes, how will our industries, which this policy threatens to ruin, be saved? I do not say that this reduction of duty will cause this industry immediately to collapse. The firms established in it are highly efficient. However, I strenuously object to the policy of making trade agreements in this way. The Minister said that the Parliament had agreed to this proposal when Australia signed the Geneva charter. The Parliament did not agree to it. The Labour party sent the Minister as the Government’s representative to the conference at Geneva, and he and his colleagues agreed to these proposals without any permission to do so from the people of this country. At Geneva, the Minister reverted to the old system of multilateral trade agreements and the mostfavourednation principles which were discarded by the United Kingdom years ago.

Mr Dedman:

– Great Britain has reverted to those principles.

Mr WHITE:

– Great Britain discarded those principles over half a cen tury ago. Obviously, the nations which signed this agreement did so because they had some idea that they would thereby get trade from the United States of America, which we know is responsible for two-thirds of the world production of these items. The United States of America was our great ally in the recent war, and our hope for the future must rest upon collaboration with that country ; but in the economic sphere we must rely upon ourselves. This policy, however, will have the effect of breaking up the. British Commonwealth of Nations into economic fragments. That will be the result of it, because every concession made to one nation must be given to all signatories. Under that system, the strongest nation can afford to fold its arms and take what is going whilst refusing to make any change itself. Certainly, the United States of America will benefit under this policy, but we shall not profit from it. Czechoslovakia was one of the countries which asked for one of these changes; Czechoslovakia has been swallowed up in the last few weeks by Soviet Russia, which did not even participate in the discussions at Geneva. Soviet Russia has its own ideas about how it will get trade; it will just take it. How ridiculous is it, therefore, that we should be considering matters which no longer have real application, but come before us as. part of a policy which will ‘ ruin the system which, over the years, has enabled us to develop our industries? And all this because the Government is so internationally minded that it must give something away! I suggest that in matters of this kind the Government should get its loyalties right. Its first loyalty should be to Australia ; its second loyalty should be to the British Empire, and its international outlook should come in third place. The sooner the Minister realizes that, the sooner will Australia develop prosperous industries.

I could mention other firms which have established themselves in this industry. For instance, there is the firm of Hoffman’s in Melbourne, and the Tessellated Tile Company at Mitcham, Victoria. The latter company is the biggest firm of its kind in Australia. Those firms protested against any reduction of this duty; yet we are expected, on the mere say-so of the Minister, to agree to this reduction. “Why should this matter be hurried at all? Why should we not be progressive in dealing with a matter of this kind and utilize the power given to us under an act of the Parliament to refer it to the Tariff Board? The Minister says that if any injury be done to an industry by reducing the duty on any item, a remedy is available in the agreement. But how long will it take to apply the remedy? The Minister knows that under another article, the charter provides that the permission of all signatories concerned must be obtained before any change can be made. Therefore, I urge the committee to postpone consideration of this item. Indeed, I should like to see the whole schedule withdrawn until the Government really considers what these proposals involve and what they may mean from the point of view of providing employment in this country in the future. I say to the Government that it will virtually import unemployment by agreeing to these tariff treaties. It is strange that we should have presented to us by a Labour Government a proposal to reduce these duties, because Labour members were the high priests, not merely of protection, but also of trade prohibitions; and it is only in recent years, since our tariff became cluttered up during the recent war, that Labour’s outlook on these matters has become obscured. That is because the Government has not given sufficient study to this matter. It has simply signed this agreement blindfolded in the hope of favours to come. By withdrawing these proposals, it would safeguard our secondary industries. I shall endeavour to have the item postponed.

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

– I have just perused the Mansard report of debates in this chamber in 1936, when the duty in respect of this item was last under consideration. I find that the last two honorable members opposite who have spoken in this debate in opposition to the reduction of this duty voted in 1936 for the imposition of a duty lower than the rate proposed in this schedule.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) was not quite fair to the committee when he referred to provisions in the agreement in order to lead us to believe that should an industry find itself in difficulties as the result of a reduction of any duty, all we should have to do would be to set a.bout altering the duty in order to meet changed circumstances. That is not the case. Article XIX., which deals with emergency action on imports of particular products, states - 1. (a) If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this agreement, including tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of like or directly competitive products, the contracting party shall be free, in respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the obligation in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concessions.

But in order to effect that remedy, we shall be obliged, under the agreement, to go through a procedural rigmarole. Article XIX. continues -

  1. If any product, which is the subject of a concession with respect to a preference, is being imported into the territory of a contracting party in the circumstances set forth in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, so as to cause or threaten serious injury to domes tie producers of like or directly competitive products in the territory of a contracting party which receives or received such preference, the importing contracting party shall be free, if that other contracting party so requests, to suspend the relevant obligation in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concession in respect of the product, to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury.

Paragraph 2 provides -

Before any contracting party shall take action pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, it shall give notice in writing to the contracting parties as far in advance as may be practicable and shall afford the contracting parties and those contracting parties having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned an opportunity to consult with it in respect of the proposed action.

That procedure must involve protracted negotiations, but the Minister would have honorable members believe that the Government, if it is dissatisfied with a duty, may raise that duty, but that is not so, because it must give notice of its intentions in writing and consult the other contracting parties.

Mr Dedman:

– It can still be done.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The other contracting parties have to be consulted. The paragraph proceeds -

When such notice is given in relation to a concession with respect to a preference, the notice shall name the contracting party which has requested the action. In critical circumstances, where delay would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair, action under paragraph 1 of this Article may be taken provisionally without prior consultation, on the condition that consultation shall be effected immediately after taking such action.

Mr Dedman:

– But action can be taken without consultation if it is thought necessary.

Mr FRANCIS:

– But then the contracting parties have to be notified. The. article proceeds - 3. (a) If agreement among the interested contracting parties with respect to the action is not reached, the contracting party which proposes to take or continue the action shall, nevertheless, be free to do so, and if such action is taken or continued, the affected contracting parties shall then be free, not later than ninety days after such action is taken, to suspend, upon the expiration of 30 days from the day on which written notice of such suspension is received by contracting parties, the application to the trade of the contracting party taking such action, or, in the case envisaged in paragraph 1 (6) of this Article, to the trade of the contracting party requesting such action, of such substantially equivalent obligations or concessions under this Agreement the suspension of which the contracting parties do not disapprove.

  1. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, where action is taken under paragraph 2 of this Article without prior consultation and causes or threatens serious injury in the territory of a contracting party to the domestic producers nf products affected by the action, that contracting party shall, where delay would cause damage difficult to repair, be free to suspend, upon the taking of the action and throughout the period of consultation, such obligations or concessions as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.

That is a tangle of legal jargon that no one could follow with any certainty, but it means not, as the Minister says, that it is a simple procedure to raise duties, but that it is an involved procedure. The Minister may claim that Article XIX. provides a way out, but by the time all the provisions of the article were complied with, an industry adversely affected by the agreement would be beyond recovery, all those engaged in it out of a job, and the capital invested in it lost. The Minister misled the House, perhaps intentionally.

Mr Dedman:

– I would not do that.

Mr FRANCIS:

– If the Minister did so intentionally, so much the worse. The crockery and earthenware industry of Australia is important in our economy, and the world i3 crying out for the goods that we can produce. Ninety-nine per cent, of the products of the industry are manufactured from locally produced raw materials. Only the materials required for the glazing process are imported. Australia produces annually about £5,000,000 worth of household crockery and sanitary ware, and therefore we cannot afford to lose the industry. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment in order that the industry may be adequately protected. One must stress the obvious to impress the Minister; so, I repeat that the industry is nationally important. The people engaged in it are highly skilled. Representatives of British firms have recently been in Australia exploring the possibilities of establishing branches here. In these days of atomic warfare, with Britain separated from Europe by only the 21-mile-wide English Channel, British industry has to turn its eyes to Australia. Had it not been for the socialist practices of the Australian Government hundreds of British firms would have established themselves in Australia. With expansion of secondary industries Australia will be not merely a granary but also the producer of manufactures that the world needs. We have an abundance of raw materials. But we shall not develop our secondary industries as’ they should be developed if we smash them as is proposed under this agreement. At one time the Labour party had some interest in Australian secondary industries. Its policy was to protect struggling young industries so that they should be able to establish themselves firmly and become highly efficient. That time has passed. This Government will go down in history, if historians waste their time writing about it, as the greatest tariff -slasher of all time. I advise the Government to reflect on “what it has done. I hope that the Minister Wil correct the false impression that he has given to honorable members that it. is a simple process to raise the rate of unsatisfactory duties. The Ottawa Agreement provided that if the security of Australian industries were jeopardized by an increase of imports as the result of the lowering of duties under the agreement, those duties could be referred to the Tariff Board. If it recommended sn increase of duties, those duties could be increased without conflict with the provisions of the Ottawa Agreement, but, under this agreement, in spite of what the Minister says, a complicated procedure must be gone through before unsatisfactory duties can be made satisfactory. By the time the procedure has been complied with, industries affected by adverse duties will have languished aud died. The money invested in them will have been lost and those employed in them will have had to find work elsewhere or go on the dole. Let it not be written of the Chifley Labour Government that by committing Australia to this agreement and membership of the International Trade Organization it slashed tariffs at the request of Czechoslovakia as they have never been slashed before. The Government should retrace its steps before it is too late.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I should not have risen to speak again, on this item had it not been for the’ observation by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) that the two previous speakers had formerly supported a. reduction of duties. I concede that one’s views may change according to the side of the chamber on which one sits. Times change, too, and, .between 1936 and 1948, conditions vastly altered. We passed through a world war. The Minis-‘ ler said that I was pressing for an increased rate of . duty, but I was not. I was directing attention to the fact that the decision of the Parliament in 1936 had been bargained away by him without the consent of the Parliament. At that time most members of the Labour party sided with certain dissatisfied Government supporters to defeat a tariff item introduced by the Lyons Government on the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

But my withers are unwrung, because I refer honorable members to the excellent contribution that I made to the debate on that occasion. I said -

It is seldom that I speak in opposition to low duties, but on this occasion I feel that the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Jennings) and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) have put forward an almost unanswerable case for the industry concerned. I do not intend to vote against the item, but I appeal to the Minister to refer il back to the Tariff Board for further consideration. If the facts are as set out by the two honorable members who have spoken, I feel sine that the next report of the board will be more generous to the industry.

Mr. Jennings was a supporter of the Lyons Ministry. I have no need to remind honorable members that the honorable member for Dalley is now Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaking a second time, I said that, as the Minister had given an assurance that the item would be referred back to the Tariff Board, I would support the Government, and I voted accordingly.

I am particularly interested in the division list on that occasion as many members of the Labour party who then supported the increase of duty have now changed their minds. In the division list is the name of no less a person than the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard). Although he then voted for an increase of the duty, he is now prepared to slash that protection to the bone. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), who voted for the increase, is silent to-day. He should be aware that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has bargained away this protection. You, Mr. Chairman, having voted for the increase of duty in 1936, must feel very keenly about the present proposal to reduce it, and doubtless you would like to vacate the chair in order to protest against it. The Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford), who voted for the increase of duty on the previous occasion, would hasten to fly to Canberra i.u his special aircraft, if he knew of this proposal. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), thehonorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy), and the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) also supported an increase. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini), who said on one occasion that “ words mean what they say “, should be keen to remain consistent, and oppose this reduction. The Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan) previously supported an increase of duty. As the Royal Australian Navy requires sanitary ware, he should not be a party to the present proposal. Mr. Speaker (Mr. Rosevear), who is generally present when the Government is hard-pressed in committee, but who is absent from the chamber now, fought strongly in 1936 for an increase of duty. The Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) and the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) supported it. All those honorable gentlemen whose names I read fought hard to preserve this industry, and advocated an increase of the protection afforded to it. Where do they stand to-day? They have allowed the interests of the industry to be bargained away at an international conference, which decided that multilateral treaties should prevail in future. Our industries are likely to be destroyed, because the Australian Labour party has forgotten that once it strongly advocated adequate protection for them. The sooner Australian industries realize that they have no friends in the Australian Labour party, and that their rights are being bartered away for a mess of international pottage, the sooner will the Australian Labour party be seen in proper perspective.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has made it clear that the Australian Labour party has somersaulted on the matter of protection generally, and on this item in particular. When the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) makes statements to the Parliament, he does not always bother to give the full facts. He tries to lull honorable members into a false sense of security by stating that Article XIX. protects this Australian industry or any other, and, in addition provides machinery for corrective action should that become necessary. Of course, some action could be taken in a roundabout way for that purpose. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) revealed the truth. Article XIX. reads -

Before any contracting party shall take action pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, it shall give notice in writing to the Contracting Parties as far in advance as may be practicable and shall afford the Contracting Parties and those contracting parties having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned an opportunity to consult with it in respect of the proposed action.

One of the contracting parties is Czechoslovakia, which is now well tucked away behind Russia’s iron curtain. Will Australia have to notify Czechoslovakia if an Australian industry is in danger? The article continues -

When such notice is given in relation to :i concession with respect to a preference, the notice shall name the contracting party which hits requested the action.

This system is being substituted for our own method of economic protection. Do honorable members opposite realize that this agreement will bring about the economic disarmament of Australia? Over a period of years, we developed our system of preferential trade, so that the maximum trade would flow between Great Britain and Australia to their mutual advantage. Under these proposals, Empire preference will disappear. On behalf of Australia, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has agreed that-

Each member shall, upon the request of the Organization, enter into and carry out with such other member or members as the Organization ‘may specify negotiations directed to thi» substantial reduction of tariffs and other charges on imports and exports, and to the elimination of preference.

The Minister said that Empire preference had created animosity throughout the world. What if there is animosity towards and jealousy of the British Empire ? Are we not a part of it, and should we not defend it ? Now, Empire preference is to disappear because the United States of America, which at present dominates world economy, has advanced a proposal which will increase its trade. The Minister spoke of production. I remind him that the Ottawa Agreement contained, in a few articles, provision for bilateral treaties. He said, unfairly, that members of the Opposition had supported a reduction of duty in 1936. Surely he must be aware of the obligation which then devolved upon us. Article 11 of the Ottawa Agreement reads -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that a review shall be made as soon as practicable by the Australian Tariff Board of existing protective duties in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 10 hereof, and that after the receipt of the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board the Commonwealth Parliament shall be invited to vary, wherever necessary, the tariff on goods of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.

We carried out that obligation to the letter. Every recommendation which the Tariff Board made regarding goods from the United Kingdom was approved by this Parliament.I do not believe that the present Government has a British outlook. It is abandoning the system of protection which has been afforded to Australian industries. The fact that the Government is adopting old recommendations of the Tariff Board on foreign duties may have escaped the notice of some honorable members. On previous occasions, I have mentioned that the International Harvester Company, an American organization, established a factory in Geelong, because the government of the day retained foreign duties against the importation of agricultural implements. This new industry immediately gave employment to 500 men. Under the present proposals that protective duty will disappear. I am sure that many honorable members opposite do not realize the significance of this treaty. Duties will be reduced on the basis of the reports of the Tariff Board made between ten and fourteen years ago. If the duties which prevailed then and which we supported were adequate, they are obviously totally inadequate to-day, because the introduction of the 40-hour week, the increase of the cost of labour and materials and other factors have made them out of date. In addition, the Australian £1 has been devalued considerably since 1936. If what has been the normal practice in Australia for many years were continued, and the Tariff Board were asked to report on these industries, a fair rate of duty could be fixed, and I am confident that members of the Opposition would support the recommendations. However, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, accompanied by a huge team of advisers, attended the International Conference on Trade and Employment at Geneva, and the subsequent conference at Havana, and blindly accepted rates that now must be regarded as no more than guesswork. The Australian law provides that changes of duty shallbe made on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. Members of the Opposition have revealed the dangers to which Australian industry will be exposed under these proposals. The Minister has acted unwittingly, because he has not studied many of these items, and he was not a members of the Parliament when all the facts relating to these industries were debated in 1936. I strongly advise him it would be in the best interests of Australian industries to withdraw this schedule and to investigate methods of protecting Empire preference.

Question put -

That sub-items (B) and (C) be postponed. (Mr. Francis’s amendment.)

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 36

Majority . . . … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item agreed to.

Items 242, 244, 249, 250, 251, 254, 255 and 262 considered together and agreed to.

Division IX. - Drugs and Chemicals.

Items 278 and 280 agreed to.

Item 281-

By adding a new sub-item (r) as follows : -

  1. Balsam of copaiba, emetine, timbo powder, when not packed for retail sale, ad val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 12½ per cent.
Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

– I move -

That the following be added to sub-item (r):- “And on and after 12th March, 1948 -

Balsam of copaiba, emetine, Derris Lonchocarpus and other rotenonebearing roots in natural or powdered form, when not packed for retail sale - ad val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 12½ per cent. “.

The effect of this amendment is to accord the same treatment to derris and other rotenone-bearing roots and powders as to timbo-lonchocarpus. The original draft of this item in proposals No. 3 had an anomalous effect in that it is not possible by chemical analysis to distinguish between the various rotenonebearing roots, all of which possess a common active constituent - rotenone - and are used for insecticidal purposes. The amendment now moved will overcome this difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Items 285 and 287 agreed to.

Division X. -Wood, Wicker, and Cane

Items 291, 293, 294 and 305 considered together and agreed to.

Division XI. - Jewellery and Fancy Goods.

Items 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 318 and 319 considered together and agreed to.

Division XII. - Hides, Leather and Rubber.

Items 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 332 and 333 considered together and agreed to.

Division XIII. - Paper and Stationery.

Items 334, 338, 340, 341 and 346 considered together and agreed to.

Division XIV. - Vehicles.

Items 351 and 352 agreed to.

Item 354 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “(b) (1) Motor cycles having a piston dis placement of not less than 250 cubic centimetres, and frames therefor, whether partly or wholly finished, but not including rubber tyres or tubes, ad. val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 17½ per cent.

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

– I move -

That paragraph (1) of sub-item (b) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph: - “ ( 1 ) Motor cycles having a piston displacement of not less than 245 cubic centimetres, and frames therefor, whether partly or wholly finished, but not including rubber tyres or tubes, ad val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 17½ per cent.

This amendment is necessary to give effect to the real intention behind the negotiations in connexion with these goods with the United States of America, which was to grant concessional duties on motor cycles which are commercially catalogued, sold and known as 2½ horse-power or 250 cubic centimeters machines. This item is, as a result of ministerial direction, already being interpreted by the Department of Trade and Customs in accordance with the amendment I have just moved, because it was found that limitation of piston displacement to 250 cubic centimeters excluded from entry under the item several makes of English motor cycles which were commercially known as 250 cubic centimeters machines, one of which actually has a piston displacement as low as 245 cubic centimeters.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Items 358 and 359 agreed to.

Division XV. - Musical Instruments.

Items 364, 365 and 366 considered together and agreed to.

Division XVI. - Miscellaneous.

Items 374, 376, 380, 381, 382, 384, 388, 390 and 392 considered together and agreed to.

Item 393-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (a) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “ (a) Crochet, knitting, mercerised, and embroidery cottons, put up for household purposes, ad val., British, 12½ per cent.; intermediate, 27½ per cent.; general, 37½ per cent.”

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

– I move -

That sub-item (a) of item 303 be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after 12th March, 1948 -

  1. Crochet, knitting, mercerised and embroidery cottons, put up for household purposes - ad val., British, 15 per cent.; intermediate, 27½ per cent.; general, 37½ per cent.”

This amendment increases the British preferential tariff rate by 2½ per cent. However, the British preferential tariff rate will still be 2½ per cent. lower than its pre-Geneva level. In consequence of negotiations with France concerning this item, Australia agreed, subject to parliamentary ratification, that the margin of preference would not exceed 15 per cent., which is equivalent to 12½ per cent. on the present value-for-duty basis. The Geneva negotiations dealt with rates of duty based on the then existing method of arriving at the value for duty, and ad valorem rates referred to in the schedules to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should, under the new basis of value for duty, be adjusted downwards. Accordingly the margin of preference on this item now should not exceed 12½ per cent. This amendment is to give full effect to the agreement reached with France. The amended rates still provide for a margin of preference equal to that which would be applied under the Ottawa formula.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Items 397, 403, 410, 419, 428, 429, 432, 444, 445, 446, 447 and 448 considered together and agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs.

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

– I move -

That the preliminary paragraphs be left out and the following paragraphs be inserted in lieu thereof -

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended is hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the nineteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, or such later date as is specified in the schedule to these proposals, at nine o’clock in the forenoon reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, duties of customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 as so amended.

That, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding paragraph of these proposals, where, in respect of any goods covered by an item or portion of an item in the schedule to these proposals, it is provided that rates of duty in respect of these goods shall be imposed on and after a date to be fixed by proclamation the Governor-General may, by proclamation, fix a date on and after which the rates of duty in respect of those goods shall be imposed.

That in this resolution, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ means the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, viz.: - 14th November, 1946; and 14th November, 1947.

The amendment is moved in order to bring the wording of the resolution into line with the wording of the bill. Some of the amendments which were moved on particular items operate from a date later than the 19th November, 1947, and provision for such later date has to be made. This amendment has drafting significance only and does not vary in any way the wording or the rates provided for in the resolution.

Amendment agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs, as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

page 545

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL . (No. 3) 1948

Bill presented by Mr. Dedman, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 545

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1947

Customs TARIFF (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2).

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 18th November, 1947 (vide page 2174, volume 194), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the schedule .to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1934 . be further amended . . . (vide page 47 of appendix following page 3284, volume 195).

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

.- The New Zealand preference proposals now before the committee contain only consequential variations arising from the negotiated alterations to the British preferential tariff and most-favoured-nation rates contained in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3. There were no direct negotiations with New Zealand for a review of our existing agreement with that country, but consultation took place whenever tariff items of interest to either country were involved in negotiations with other countries and the amendments contained in these proposals all have the approval of New Zealand. For the most part, these amendments merely have the effect of maintaining New Zealand’s relative position following variations in the British preferential tariff or most-favoured-nation rates, and in no instance have the New Zealand rat98 been increased. The proposals also include a few items which are included purely for redrafting purposes, and in such cases the rates have not been varied.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) proposed -

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

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I rise to order, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker. Where is the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) ?

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

– There is no point of order.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– If a motion is proposed that two Ministers prepare and bring in a bill, both of them ought to be present. For all we know, the Minister for Works and Housing may not agree with the bill.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved. It is not necessary for the Minister to be present.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 545

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1948

Bill presented by Mr. Dedman, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 545

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1947

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 18th November, 1947 (vide page 2174, volume 194), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1939 … be further amended . . . (vide page 45 of appendix following page 3284, volume 195).

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

Research) [3.56]. - Although there was no direct negotiation at Genevabetween Canada and Australia for a comprehensive review of our trade agreement with that country, a number of consequential amendments to the Canadian Preference Tariff were required following negotiations with other countries. However, consultation did take place at all stages, whenever the interests or prior commitments of the two countries were involved, and the proposals now before the committee, which give effect to those consequential adjustments, all have the approval of Canada. In no instance is the rate of duty increased against Canada. The amendments in most cases represent reductions in duty. I shall move an amendment to the final item in the resolution, which has become necessary in order to maintain Canada’s preferential margin in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Agreement.

Division VI. - Metals and Machinery.

Item 169 agreed to.

Division X. - Wood, Wicker and Cane

Items 291 and 359 agreed to.

Division XVI. - Miscellaneous.

Item 380-

By omitting - “ (a) (2) Carpet sweepers, Intermediate

Tariff “ and inserting in its stead the following: - “ (a) (2) Carpet sweepers, ad val., 45 per cent.”

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

– I move -

That the following be added to paragraph (2.) of sub-item (a): - “And on and after 12th March, 1948 -

(2) Carpet sweepers, ad val., 40 per cent.”

A reduction of 5 per cent. of the British preferential tariff rate was negotiated with the United Kingdom in respect of this item. Following that reduction a corresponding reduction should have been made in both the most-favoured-nation and the Canadian preference rates so as to maintain the respective margins of preference. Inadvertently the Canadian rate was not reduced and the amendment I have now moved adjusts this anomaly.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Preliminary paragraph.

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

– I move -

That the preliminary paragraph be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - “ That the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1939 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the fourteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the nineteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, or such later date as is specified in the schedule to these proposals, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, duties of customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1939 as so amended.”

The amendment is moved in order to bring the wording of the resolution in line with the wording of the bill. The amendment which was made to item 380 (a) (2) operates from a date later than the 19th November, 1947, and provision for such later date has to be made. This amendment has drafting significance only, and does not vary in any way the wording or the rates provided for in the resolution.

Amendment agreed to.

Preliminary paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

page 546

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1948

Bill presented by Mr. Dedman, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 547

INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Tariff Requests

Debate resumed from the 27th March, 1947 (vide page 1272, volume 191), on motion by Mr.Chifley -

That the following paper be printed: -

International Trade Negotiations - Tariff

Requests and Preferences - Ministerial Statement, 27th March, 1947, together with the following schedules: -

Schedule 1. - Items in the Australian tariff on which other countries are asking Australia to negotiate.

Schedule 2. - Items in respect of which Australia proposes to seek tariff concessions from other countries.

Schedule 3. - Items on which Australia receives preference in British markets which may be affected by the negotiations.

Schedule 4. - Items in respect of which Australia is expected to benefit through the tariff reductions which may be obtained by other countries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 547

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT

Memorandum of Alteration of Tariff Duties

Debate resumed from the 18th November, 1947 (vide page 2176, volume 194), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the following paper be printed: -

United Nations Conference on Trade and

Employment - Memorandum showing alteration of Tariff Duties.(Substitute paper tabled by Mr. Dedman on the 26th February, 1948.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party

– I take advantage of the Standing Orders to make some observations and to offer some criticism in connexion with this matter. I appreciate that the schedules have been passed, and that the ministerial statement was directed to the schedules. However, the matter now before us affords an opportunity to discuss the alteration of tariff duties proposed to be made. My criticism of the tariff schedules is based on five main grounds. First, the schedules are an integral part of the trade agreement, and are ultimately dependent upon the International Trade Organization charter, which has not yet been completed. Secondly, the method adopted to effect the proposed alteration of tariffs is contrary, in certain essential particulars, to the terms of Com monwealth laws relating to customs and tariffs. Thirdly, a great number of the specific items dealt with were reduced at the instance of France, which has since materially devalued its currency. Fourthly, a number of tariff alterations contained in the schedules were made at the instance of Czechoslovakia, and prior to the establishment of a Communist Government in that country. It is well known that the Russian and other Soviet-influenced Governments would have nothing to do with the tariff negotiations or with the formulation of the International Trade Organization. Several items are instanced as having been negotiated with India prior to the separation of Pakistan, although the latter nation is understood to have agreed to the negotiations.

I shall now proceed to develop those points in order. With regard to the first point, the memorandum of tariff items negotiated with other member countries represented at the international conference at Geneva is the operative part of the Geneva Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which Australia is a party. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is, in turn, an integral part of the International Trade Organization charter, the terms of which are at present under discussion at Havana. There is, as yet, no real indication of the general nature of what will emerge from the Havana conference. There is no certainty that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will not conflict with the final version of the International Trade Organization charter. There is no guarantee as to the final nature of the parent International Trade Organization document. Therefore, how can we be sure that its grandchild, the schedule, is sufficiently definite to be a desirable working arrangement ?

The second matter to which I wish to refer concerns the Commonwealth Tariff Board Act, which lays down the only legal procedure that can be adopted in respect of certain tariff alterations. For instance, section 15 (1) (d) provides that the Minister shall refer to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report the necessity for new increased or reduced duties and the deferment of existing or proposed deferred duties, and shall not take any action in respect of such matters until he has received the report of the board. That has not been done in this case, although there was ample opportunity to do so. .Section 11 of the same act provides that inquiries conducted by the board relating to any revision of tariffs shall, in general, be held in public, and that evidence shall be taken on oath so that those who are interested may express their views in a thoroughly democratic manner. That legal requirement has been completely ignored in connexion with this schedule. Those provisions still exist. They have not been altered or amended by this Parliament, either during or since the Geneva negotiations. Experience has proved them to be valuable additions to Australian customs law, and the Tariff Board as an open forum has been most successful in maintaining fairness and impartiality in tariff adjustments which, by their very nature, must always be controversial. An explanation is required of why these important requirements of the law of the Commonwealth have been totally ignored in connexion with what the Minister has described, as the most revolutionary methods of treaty-making ever adopted by this country.

Mr Dedman:

– I did not use the. word “ revolutionary “.

Mr FADDEN:

– The matter has become revolutionary because of the Minister’s handling of it and the means that have been employed to impose the will of the Government upon this House. The methods adopted constitute a serious departure from the provisions of the Commonwealth law relating to tariffs. There has been a successful attempt to by-pass a valuable and established independent authority to which interested parties and the public in general have full and complete access. I am well aware that Parliament is the ultimate authority upon tariff matters, whether or not they are dealt with by the Tariff Board. My objection is to the scrapping of such a valuable democratic instrument as the Tariff Board in connexion with so many important and, I fear, arbitrary alterations to our present tariff schedule.

About 100 items in the schedule were negotiated at the request of France. The main items were certain wines and liqueurs, laces, gloves, essential oils, and the like. The basis upon which the negotiations were conducted is now completely altered. France has devalued its currency by almost 50 per cent., and as a result the invoiced values of goods as well as the amounts of duty involved are altered considerably-. Article VI. of the International Monetary Fund Agreement forbids such currency devaluations except under stringent conditions. I should like to know whether France conformed to the terms of the International Monetary Fund Agreement in making the recent changes in the par value of the franc and, if so, whether the fund dealt with France’s application, if one was made, during or after the Geneva tariff negotiations. In my view, the tariff items negotiated, with France are now useless because the fundamental basis of the negotiations, namely, the comparative values of the Australian and French currencies, have altered radically since the schedules were completed. The schedules should now be revised or ignored if possible. This criticism applies with equal force to the French colonies of New Caledonia, French Indo-China, French West Africa and Madagascar.

Recent events in Europe, and particularly in Czechoslovakia, have again affected the basis of the negotiations upon which the present schedules were determined. At Geneva, the Czechoslovakian Government of the day requested concessions on 41 items and sub-items of the Australian tariff. In addition to concessions on thirteen items relating to iron and steel of special types for specified purposes, concessions were granted on glassware, chinaware, various types of artificial jewellery, and boots and shoes. That government has been superseded by one dominated by Russia. In those circumstances, what guarantee is there that Czechoslovakia will not, at its convenience, and at the demand of Russia, repudiate the agreement entered into by the previous government? Czechoslovakia is now under the domination of the Soviet Union and the political position of the country has altered materially since the agreements were negotiated. What action has this Government taken to meet the situation?

I understand that New Zealand has refused to be bound by the terms of its tariff agreements with Czechoslovakia, because of the recent political events in that country. If that be so, Australia would be wise to do the same, and refuse to confirm negotiations with a country which has succumbed to Soviet domination.

We have been officially informed that the negotiations at Geneva were conducted between the Australian delegation and a delegation appointed by the former government of India. The separation of Pakistan occurred while the negotiations were in progress and, apparently, the understanding at Geneva was that the Indian delegation would continue to negotiate on tariffs on behalf of the governments of both the new dominions. The present position, however, seems to be somewhat obscure, and before passing these items which have particular reference to India, I want definite proof from the Government that both Pakistan and India have ratified in their Parliaments the particular items attributed to India. Actually, these countries are not among the eight countries which have signed the draft trade agreement. As we imported £A19,000,000 worth of goods from India and Pakistan during 1946-47, the point should be cleared up.

Since the beginning of 1948, world events have moved with remarkable rapidity. Firm agreements made towards the end of last year may now be worth nothing owing to the alteration of currencies, to the liquidation and substitution of governments, or to the partition of dominions. Each of the five points which I have enumerated might well render these tariff schedules obsolescent, or at least incapable of enforcement against the original signatories. Under these circumstances, I believe that we have been most ill advised to pass them in their present form. I trust that the Minister will clarify the position by giving honorable members some information regarding France, whose currency has been devalued by 50 per cent.; regarding Czechoslovakia, which has become politically dominated by the Soviet; and regarding India, which, since these negotiations have been conducted, has been partitioned. We should at least be assured that the Government has considered these matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 549

DEFENCE

Debate resumed from the 4th June, 1947 (vide page 3346), volume 192), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the following paper be printed: -

Post-war Defence Policy - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 549

TARIFF BOARD

Debate resumed from the 8th Novem ber, 1946 (vide page 86, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the following paper be printed: -

Tariff Board - Report on parts for Motor Vehicles, Tractors and Cycles - Question of Cancellation of by-laws.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 549

TARIFF BOARD

Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee: Annual Report

Debate resumed from the 8th November, 1946 (vide page 87, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the following paper be printed: -

Sugar Agreement - Fifteenth Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1946.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 549

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report 1945-46

Debate resumed from the 8 th November, 1946 (vide page 86, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the following paperbe printed: -

Tariff Board - Annual Report for year

1945-46.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 549

QUESTION

MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCE

Purchase Agreements with United Kingdom - Review of Prices.

Debate resumed from the 13th November, 1946 (vide page 155, volume 189), on motion try Mr. Pollard -

T hat the following paper be printed: -

Meat and dairy produce agreements with the United Kingdom - Ministerial statement.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- It is now so long since this paper was last considered by the House that it has become out of date. The original dairy produce agreement, which was the subject of the paper, has been superseded by a more recent agreement, so that there appears little purpose in debating the old agreement. The same may be said of the original meat agreement. Both in regard to the dairying industry and the meat industry, statutory boards have been established to control exports, and on those boards there is a majority of producers’ representatives. That state of affairs was brought about as the result of pressure exerted over a number of years by members of the Australian Country party, and by Australian Country party organizations and producers’ organizations in the several States. The producers have always been particularly anxious to obtain representation on statutory bodies set up to ensure the orderly marketing of products. Originally, both the Dairy Export Control Board and the Meat Export Control Board were established by the Lyons Government, and on each board there was a majority of producers’ representatives, so that the producers virtually controlled the export side of their industry. Since the Labour Government came into office, the composition of the boards has been revised. The principle of majority representation by producers has been preserved, but in each statute introduced by the Labour Government providing for the revision of the boards, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has been given complete authority over the disposal of the products of the industries concerned. Moreover, in every case, the Minister has exercised this authority to dispose of the products of the industry behind the backs of the producers, and behind the backs of the members of the statutory boards concerned, so that the boards have become utterly ineffective. The producers were deluded into the belief that they were to be given control of their industries, whereas, in fact, they have, in a very cunning manner, been deprived of all control! Both the dairy produce agreement and the meat agreement were made by the Minister with another government, and provided for the disposal of the export surpluses, of those two great Australian industries. In each case the sale has been made atprices much below then existing world parity. Primary producers have not, either through their organizations or through their representatives in the Australian Country party, complained that a few more shillings could have been wrung out of the United Kingdom Government to which our meat and surplus butter and cheese have been sold. That complaint has never been voiced here; but what we have complained of is that under the powers it has acquired the Government has established its right to sell the whole of the products of great sections of primary producers without consultation with those engaged in the industries concerned. On behalf of the primary producers, and of the Australian Country party, I voice a very strong protest against the establishment of the principle that it is proper for a Government arbitrarily to acquire the product or property of the people and, behind their backs, negotiate its sale to any one else. Primary producers have little hope held out for them if they are. merely to exchange the exploitation of the middle man and the speculator for the exploitation of the Government. That, in effect, is what is occurring. That, certainly, is the structure which has been .established by the present statutory form of these export control boards. Successive Ministers for Commerce and Agriculture in the Labour Government have established the practice of selling, without consultation with the appropriate control boards, the whole of the products of great primary industries. Only a few weeks ago the whole of Australia’s surplus wheat harvest was sold, not entirely behind the back of the Australian Wheat Board, but in defiance of the advice of that body. The sale was negotiated in secret.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– The honorable member is not in order in discussing the sale of wheat. Furthermore, the disposal of the wheat harvest to which he refers took place after the paper now under discussion was tabled in the House.

Mr McEWEN:

– I refer to it merely as an example of the kind of thing that may happen in connexion with the sale of the commodities which are the subjectmatter of these two papers - meat and dairy products. It is well known that the price of a great by-product of the meat industry, tallow, has been pegged at approximately £20 a ton, while the world parity price has been between £120 and £130 a ton. If, in the old days, the speculators of Sussex-street, Sydney, and Flinderslane, Melbourne, had bought tallow at £20 a ton and sold it for £120 or £130 a ton, Labour politicians would have bellowed their protests against such exploitation of the producers; hut when Labour is in office and, through the exigencies of war, gains the powers vested in it by the National Security Act, and it becomes guilty of exploitation of the primary producers, exceeding even the wildest dreams of avarice of the speculators and middle men about whose operations we have all complained in the past, honorable members opposite do not utter a word of protest. The proper thing to do when sales are being negotiated is for the Government to take the control boards fully into its confidence and be guided by their advice. Where primary industries are not beholden to the Government for financial assistance, as is notably the case of the dried and canned fruits industries, the control boards should be’ permitted to negotiate the sales of their products without government interference. There is an idea in the minds of some people that the dairying industry is greatly beholden to the Labour Government for subsidies and assistance. Because the budget contains items covering subsidies paid to the dairying industry amounting to several millions of pounds, people are apt to think that that industry lives upon the Government’s bounty and that, accordingly, the Government has some right to sell its products. We, who live with the people engaged in this industry, and indeed all clear-thinking people, know that it is in no way beholden to the Government, but that, on the contrary, those who are beholden to the Government are the consumers of dairy products. The payment of the milk subsidy is in accordance with the anti-inflation policy of the Government, and is designed to keep down the cost of living, the Government well knowing that if it did not regulate prices by this means there would soon be a cessation of production in the dairying industry because dairy farmers would quickly switch over to alternative forms of production. Whatever may be said in rebuttal of the contentions I have advanced, there is no validity in the argument that because the industry is paid a subsidy by the Government there is justification for the Government arbitrarily taking control of the products of the industry and selling them without consultation with the appropriate statutory board.

Mr Fadden:

– It is a consumer’s, subsidy.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is so. This is~the first opportunity I have had to voice’ my objection to’ these governmenttogovernment sales. I also protest vigorously against the conduct of the business of the” Parliament by the Government in such a way as to enable an agreement made, if my memory serves me aright, in the middle of the last calendar year - approximately nine months ago - to be discussed without warning at. this late stage. Such a practice tends to reduce the Parliament to a farce. It is regrettable that Ministers should be permitted to table papers containing agreements which involve millions of pounds and concern the well-being and affect the very destiny of great foundational primary industries, and to postpone discussion of such agreements for eight or nine months. By that time the agreement forming the subject-matter of a particular paper may have been replaced by a later agreement.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– The paper we are now discussing affects three major Australian primary industries. I do not propose to discuss the price aspect. The point that most concerns me is whether we shall be able to fulfil our undertaking in the actual delivery of these commodities. Last year in Queensland a strike occurred in the meat industry, as the result of which we were unable to make delivery of our full quota under our contract with the United Kingdom. That strike, unfortunately, followed a long period of drought which had seriously affected the condition of the cattle. To-day, we see a recurrence of. similar conditions in Queensland, which is the greatest meat-exporting State of the Commonwealth. Yet no action is being taken to remedy those conditions, in order to ensure that we shall be able to make full deliveries under our meat contract with the United Kingdom. Surely, this Parliament has some obligation in that matter. As the result of the recent four year drought in Queensland, graziers have not been able to re-stock their properties to their full carrying capacity. Surely, this Parliament is concerned to prevent a recurrence of conditions which existed in Queensland last year. At this juncture I content myself by entering my protest against the failure of the Government to take action to prevent a recurrence of conditions due principally to the attitude of the waterside workers -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not deal with the present strike in Queensland. As the Deputy Leader of his party has already pointed out, the question now before the Chair is a contract which was signed nine months ago.

Mr ADERMANN:

-We see similar conditions arising with respect to the exportation of butter, large quantities of which are being held in cold stores because of strikes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Mr ADERMANN:

– As I am precluded from raising issues with which I consider the Parliament should deal, I shall content myself with entering my protest against the Government’s failure to deal with the matters of urgency to which I have referred.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 552

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Surplus Canteen Profits and other Funds.

Debate resumed from the 13th November, 1946 (vide page 156, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Drakeford -

That the following paper be printed: -

Royal Australian Air Force - Surplus

Canteen Profits and Other Funds - Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The fact that this paper was tabled on the 13th November, 1946, is evidence of the dilatory manner in which the Government deals with many matters brought before the Parliament. The Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford), when proposing the motion, pointed out that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) had drawn his attention to the fact that the Air Force Association had complained that some of these funds had been distributed. The Minister said a committee had recommended that one fund be established to embrace the funds of the three arms of the services. He pointed out that the functions of the committee appointed to control the fund wouldbe to control disbursements in providing relief and assistance to ex-members of the forces and their dependants, and also assistance in respect of the education of dependants of ex-members of the forces. He also explained that the funds would be administered by trustees. Legislation has already been enacted to give effect to those objectives. The committee has been set up. However, it is time that the House was informed of the disbursements made up to date. I believe that the committee is doing good work, but I suggest that the Minister should submit to the Parliament a report upon its activities.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 552

CIVIL AVIATION

Report on International Convention, 1944.

Debate resumed from the 3rd December, 1946 (vide page 848, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Drakeford -

That the following paperbe printed: -

Report by Minister for Civil Aviation on the Convention on International Civil Aviation, held at Chicago, NovemberDecember, 1944.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- When proposing the motion the Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) pointed out that the purpose of the conference held in the United States of America was to review and bring up to date the decisions of the preliminary conference held at Paris as long ago as 1919, when an effort was made to establish uniform international control of aviation, and of a later conference held in 1928. In the interim, great strides have been made in aviation. The distance flown by the first powered aircraft in 1903 is only equal to the wing span of a modern airliner to-day. Aviation is :a subject about which we should hear more in Parliament. We endorse what the Minister has been doing; but I wish to offer some suggestions regarding Australia’s participation in these international conferences. I suggest that insufficient attention has been given to increasing air safety. During the war, considerable attention was devoted in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force, particularly in the former, to safety in flying. We must continue to progress in this sphere. Whilst we must develop the speed and carrying capacity of aircraft and evolve engines as near to perfection as possible, aviation still involves hazards which can be overcome. I express that view as the result of my association with aviation extending over the last 34 years. To-day, travelon airliners still involves unnecessary risks. The Government should utilize the Department of Civil Aviation in cooperation with the civil aviation authorities in other countries in studying air safety generally. In this matter one can enumerate many needs, but I mention particularly the dangers arising from an aeroplane when it unhappily meets with disaster on, or close to, the ground, or crashes in taking off. The passengers in it are likely to be still alive when it bursts into flames. Only two weeks ago nineteen passengers were incinerated in an aircraft which crashed when landing at an airport in Great Britain. They had no way of escape. Most aircraft to-day are structurally as sound as they can be made, but honorable members who travel regularly between our capital cities in Douglas airliners will note that there are only two places of exit in case of disaster, namely, the door and an emergency exit. This means that should a plane, when taking off, run farther than it should, or should one engine fail or the machine crash after hitting an obstacle, the passengers are almost certain to be burnt to death. They have little hope of escaping from the machine. Although research with respect to speeds and designs must be continued, not sufficient attention in my opinion is being given to increasing the safety of aircraft particularly as to fire risk. The Minister will recall the occasion on which a fire occurred in the luggage compartment of a Skymaster in the United States of America. Messages were sent by the crew to the airport to say that a disaster might occur on landing, but all the occupants were burned to death, simply because the fire could not be put out. More needs to be done in the provision of fireextinguishing equipment and detachable windows. There is no reason why there should be only one emergency exit. The fuselage would not be weakened if all the windows were detachable, as in one type of British aircraft. Detachable windows could be the means of saving valuable lives. With the improvement of aircraft, accidents are becoming fewer and fewer, but their gravity has increased in ratio to the greatly increased carrying capacity of machines. More warning devices are needed too, when landing.

The Department of Civil Aviation, which has operated for a long time now, is highly efficient and employs many experts. I should like the Minister to ascertain its opinion of my suggestions. Australia has been a pioneer in aviation, but it should not rest on its laurels. It has scope for much more research. The spirit of inventiveness in Australians ought to be encouraged. If necessary, let awards be made for progress in that direction. The Army Inventions Directorate during the war, made awards for improvements of weapons for war. The same principle could well apply in peace-time. The department ought to encourage the inventiveness and ingenuity of Australians, in the hope of the development of more devices that will make for safer flying.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MaribyrnongMinister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation · ALP

– in .reply - I am glad to have the approval of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) of the accomplishments indicated in my report on the International Civil Aviation Convention of 1944. Nearly every one takes great interest in aviation, and the honorable member has drawn attention to a few matters that I should like to say a few words about. I appreciate the necessity to give full encouragement to the provision of safety devices and regulations, but I think I can reasonably say that great attention has been paid to that need in Australia. We are in constant communication with authorities overseas, including the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is shortly known as the Icao, and has replaced the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization, or the Picao. It has laid down certain safety regulations that it asks, not having the power to command, each member of the organization to endeavour to carry out. Australia has carried out those regulations as extensively as has any other country.

Mr White:

– I agree, but there is room for improvement.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Yes. I do not claim that we have, by any means, reached the limit. We should be paying constant attention to the development of safety devices and to loading and the distribution of loads so that we shall have the utmost safety in flying. I agree, too, that most aircraft are good and stable. Not many inferior aircraft are put up on the market. They would not be saleable if they were. But some aircraft are better than others. Commercial aircraft in Australia to-day carry more passengers each trip and annually than ever before. I agree with the honorable member that the greater the number of passengers carried the greater should be the number of exits. I do not desire to refer in this debate to subjects that have arisen in other discussions in this House, but I cannot refrain from taking the opportunity of saying that I have always doubted the wisdom. of putting 28 seats in Douglas aircraft, normally equipped with 21 seats. It is permissible to do so, because the provision is that the aircraft shall not carry more than a certain total weight. The installation of 28 seats provides a narrower passage, but the load comes within the 26,200 lb. weight limit set by the Douglas Aircraft Corporation. That load has been exceeded in other countries, but to give an idea of what the civil aviation authorities are doing to ensure the greatest possible safety margin in Australia, I point out that we have refused to allow aircraft operators to carry a greater load than is specified by the manufacturers. It is only reasonableto say, however, that when 28 passengers- are carried and only the normal exits areprovided and a mishap occurs, it mustbe more difficult for the passengers and! aircrew to escape from the aircraft than! it would be if only 21 were carried. Hencemy anxiety about the larger number of seats. I feel that the risk of fire in aircraft has been largely overcome. Thefire risk arising from pressurization in two modern aircraft, the Constellationand the DC6, seems to have been mastered. The honorable member will be interested to hear that DC6 aircraft are returning into operation, having been given a certificate of airworthiness, covering pressurization and anti-icing, as well as normal working. The manufacturers consider that they have removed thedanger. Great losses were suffered by the manufacturers of the aircraft and the airline operators in consequence of the grounding of the DC6 aircraft. One or two fires occurred in Constellation aircraft with, I regret, fatalities, but the manufacturers seem to have surmounted the trouble. I gather that the honorable member for Balaclava thinks that the manufacturers should ensure the avoidance of dangers before their aircraft are used in the commercial carriage of passengers. I assure him that officers of the Department of Civil Aviation keep in the closest possible touch with all people interested in aviation - aircraft manufacturers, airline operators and administrators of civil aviation all over the world. Sheaves of information are constantly arriving at the departmental offices. The subject is fascinating, because new aircraft are being produced from time to time. Until the aircraft have been thoroughly tested in flight, the manufacturers and others concerned cannot determine exactly what risks may be involved. I do not say that many accidents arise from the development of new aircraft. Indeed, they are few in proportion to the number of people flown. We have a proud record in Australia. I am cautious about making statements on this subject, because accidents have the habit of taking place when some one is commenting on their absence, but more people travel by air in Australia proportionately that in the United States of America. That may be surprising, but it is true. Our accident record compares favorably with that of any country. We pay constant attention to the factors mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava. He says that more could be done to encourage inventiveness, and I agree. We should not sweep aside suggestions for the provision of greater safety and comfort in air travel. I assure the honorable gentleman that through the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is an agency of the United Nations and is, therefore, a very important body, a great deal of work is being done to achieve the aims referred to by him. At the last conference of the orgonization, which was held in Montreal, 42 nations that are actual members were represented. In addition, nine other important international bodies, such as the United Nations were represented, and people familiar with all that is being done in civil aviation throughout the world, were also present. Icao will meet annually. This year, it will assemble at Geneva.

One of the matters to which reference was made in my report was the endeavour to obtain, if possible, a multilateral agreement. The attitude of Australia on this proposal is well known. Although honorable members opposite might not agree, the Australian Government believed from the outset that in order to avoid the kind of competition which leads to trade wars and sometimes to actual armed conflict, all international airlines should be owned by an international authority. Some of the nations, which earlier were opposed to that view, are now rather inclined to adopt it. More than one of them has signified its intention to give favorable consideration to the proposal.

Regarding multilateral agreements, we have not been able to make much progress, but bilateral agreements havebeen made between the United States of America and various other countries, and between Australia and various other countries. The United Kingdom has figured in some of them. As the result of these moves, many agreements will be in operation, and that will make it all the more difficult to secure multilateral agreements acceptable to all nations. However, I appreciate the suggestions which have been made, and give to the House an assurance that the situation is being carefully watched in the interests of the travelling public. In the sphere of safety, Australia does not lag behind other countries. Indeed, it is well in advance of many other nations. By way of illustration, I refer to the provisions for airsea rescue which have been developed at points on the Australian coastline as a part of our obligation as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization. We in Australia are ready to meet any need which may arise. Recently, when an Anson aircraft was missing in the vicinity of the Northern Territory, the air-sea rescue section of the Department of Civil Aviation was put into operation. Fortunately, the Anson aircraft was discovered before it was necessary to commence extensive search. Air-sea rescue sections are stationed at various places on our coastline for the purpose of responding to any notification which they might receive of an aircraft in difficulties. Therefore, we can claim that, in Australia, we are doing our part. Australia has reason to be proud of what has been accomplished in aviation, and of the safeguards which have been laid down on a permanent basis. From time to time, these will be improved so that the travelling public will not need to have any fear of air travel, and, indeed, will relish it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 555

AIR TRANSPORT AGREEMENT

United States of America and Australia

Debate resumed from the 4th December, 1946 (vide page 969, volume 189), on motion by Mr. Drakeford -

That the following paperbe printed: -

Air Transport Agreement - United States and Australia - Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and Australia is another matter affecting aviation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! In this debate, honorable members must keep strictly to the subject. In the previous debate, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) and the Minister for

Air (Mr. Drakeford) were out of order at times.

Mr WHITE:

– I submit that I was not out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have decided otherwise.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall not be out of order in this debate. This subject relates to an agreement between the United States of America and Australia regarding air transport, and I take this opportunity to say that the Australian Govern ment might have done more to encourage Australian aviation outwards from this country to the United States of America, and in particular it might have assisted Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to operate new air routes in various parts of he world. I have in my hand a copy of Aircraft, the principal aviation journal in Australia. It comments upon the application which Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited made to the Government for approval to operate new air routes. The company proposed to operate services to various parts of the world, and all that it required was that the Government should say that it approved the company’s proposals. Aircraft pointed out that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited hoped to carry the Australian flag to all parts of the world. Referring to the Government’s appeal to Australian industry to expand, the journal declared that this was an opportunity for Australian aviation to make its contribution. Approval of the proposal would not have cost the Government one penny either in recouping possible losses or by way of subsidy. In other words, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited did not require a government subsidy, and would not require Australian taxpayers to make good any financial losses, as a certain government-owned airline does on its operations. The service which Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited would have provided would have earned dollars, which Australia urgently requires, and it would have brought immigrants from the . United States of America. But the Australian Government would not approve the application.

Mr Scully:

– Why does not the honorable member deal with the subject before the Chair?

Mr WHITE:

– It is easy for chatterer9, who do not understand the position, to make that kind of. interjection.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to keep to the point.

Mr WHITE:

– My remarks are very much to the point. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is one of our pioneer air services. The company conducts one of the most efficient airlines in the world. I have no financial interest in it, but I admire it for its achievements.

Mr SPEAKER:

– How does the honorable member connect those remarks with the subject of this debate?

Mr WHITE:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited desired to operate a service between Australia and the United States of America.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not questioning that, but how does the honorable member relate his remarks about Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and Australia?

Mr WHITE:

– The Air Transport Agreement provides for landing rights for American aircraft in Australia, and for Australian aircraft in the United States of America.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the subject before the Chair.

Mr WHITE:

– My remarks are relevant. The Minister should explain to the House why the Government did not approve the application of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited: This service would have redounded to the credit of Australia. -Of course, I realize that the Government has a socialist policy-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must connect his remarks with the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and Australia, and ignore the Government’s socialist policy.

Mr WHITE:

– I do not suppose that the Minister will make an explanation, except perhaps to say that the Government does not approve of anything associated with private enterprise. If the Minister can offer a sound reason foi the rejection of the application of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, I should like to hear it.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MaribyrnongMinister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation · ALP

– in reply - The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) is labouring under a wrong impression regarding the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and Australia. The agreement provides for landing rights for American and Australian aircraft in the two countries. If a company applies for approval to operate a service across* the Pacific Ocean, permission must be granted by the governments of the United States of America and Australia. The honorable member, while referring to the agreement, mentioned that an Australian company had applied for permission to operate a service between the United States of America and Australia, and, indeed, involving other countries. This would mean additional services. According to a report in the press recently, the manager of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited’ stated that air traffic between the United States of America and Australia had decreased by 40 per cent. He made this announcement about the time of the termination of the company’s contract to operate a service between the United States of America and Australia on behalf of the Government owned British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines. While conducting this service, the company was guaranteed against a” financial loss.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Minister is following the course which the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) took, and his remarks are out of order. It would not be fair for the Chair to allow the Minister to continue in that direction after having denied the honorable member for Balaclava the right to do so.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am merely endeavouring to reply to the statements of the honorable member for Balaclava, and without your permission, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! It is not a matter of my permission. Having ruled that the honorable member for Balaclava was out of order in making his remarks, I must also rule that the Minister is out of order.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am merely pointing out, in reply to the honorable member for Balaclava-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The remarks of the honorable member were out of order, and the Minister would be out of order in replying to them.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The objective of the agreement now under consideration is the operation of services between the United States of America and Australia. We already have a sufficient number of services to meet present requirements, and the granting of authority to conduct additional services would be of great disadvantage to the’ existing operators. The two companies which are now operating the transPacific service are British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines, ‘ from Australia to the United States of America, and Pan-American Airlines, from the United States of America to Australia. Under this agreement, those two services can cope with all the passenger traffic which is now offering. As the result of dollar restrictions, not many people desire to travel from Australia to the United States of America, because dollars are not available for them to expend on their arrival in that country. Consequently, most of the traffic is from the United States of America to Australia. It would be wrong to approve any additional services, when the frequency and capacity of the existing services are sufficient to meet all our requirements.

Mr White:

– Approval of the request of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited would not have involved the Australian. Government in any expenditure.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member for Balaclava and other members of the Opposition would derive a great deal of satisfaction if a private company were now permitted to operate additional services, and thereby cause its competitors to incur a financial loss. The Government would be foolish to allow that. We desire to operate under this agreement the required number of services to enable people to travel in comfort to and from the United States of America and Australia, and Canada and Australia. As any further arguments that I might advance might be ruled out of order, I am not able to proceed along the lines that I should like to follow. However, there is a complete answer to everything that the honorable member for Balaclava has said.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 558

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Alleged Irregularities

Debate resumed from the 19th Feb ruary, 1947 (vide page 8, volume 190), on motion by Mr. Johnson -

That the following paperbe printed: -

Electoral rolls for certain sub-divisions of Martin and Parkes - Alleged irregularities - Report by Chief Electoral Officer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 558

IMMIGRATION

Refugees and Displaced Persons

Debate resumed from the 6th March, 1947 (vide page 435, volume 190), on motion by Mr. Calwell -

That the following paper be printed: -

Immigration, Admission of Refugees and

Displaced persons - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 558

CIVIL AVIATION

Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited - Fares

Debate resumed from the 3rd December, 1947 (vide page 3071, volume 195), on motion by Mr. Drakeford -

That the following paper be printed: -

Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited -

Fares - Ministerial Statement

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 558

COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION

Debate resumed from the 27th February (vide page 296), on motion by Mr. Chambers -

That the following paper be printed: -

Army Disposals Activities, September, 1944-January, 1948 - Ministerial Statement

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 558

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

International Affairs - Statement prepared by the Minister for External Affairs, 11th March, 1948. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Harrison) adjourned.

page 558

UNITED NATIONS

Second Annual Session of General Assembly

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper : -

United Nations - Second Annual Session of General Assembly, New York, September November, 1947 - Report on work of Australian Delegation. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Harrison) adjourned.

page 558

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday, the 7th April next, at 3 p.m.

page 558

ADJOURNMENT

” Grievance Day “ - Wheat - Royal Visit to Australia - Unemployment Benefits - Privileges Committee - Rail Transport : Queensland Strike - Re-establishment : Reconstruction Training Scheme - Northern Territory : Administration ; Darwin Reconstruction.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

.- As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have handed to you an intimation of my intention to move the adjournment of the House to-morrow to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. However, it is apparent now that I shall not have the opportunity to do so. Originally it was believed that the House would sit until the end of next week, but the business on the notice-paper has been dealt with to-day with unexpected rapidity, and the present sitting period will end to-night. That leads me to speak first of all about one or two recent happenings in this Parliament. During the last sessional period, I protested on three separate occasions against the Government’s failure to observe private members’ “ Grievance Day”. On the first “Grievance Day” during the present period of the session, it appeared that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) intended to permit private members to exercise this privilege, but after the motion “ That the Speaker do now leave the chair “ was moved, only two honorable members had spoken when the debate was “ gagged “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not reflect upon a decision of the House. It was the House that decided that the debate should be terminated.

Mr TURNBULL:

– In the course of a -subsequent debate, when an honorable member was speaking on a certain subject he was ruled out of order, and the Prime Minister suggested that “Grievance Day “ was the appropriate time for the discussion of such a matter. The -obvious retort by the honorable member concerned was, “But you ‘gagged’ the discussion on that day”. The persistent “gagging” of debates has brought the present period of the session to an unexpected end. This motion, the carrying -of which will result in the adjournment of the House until after Easter is the only opportunity that I shall have to speak on a matter which I regard as of importance to the country. The subjectmatter of the adjournment motion that I had intended to move to-morrow is the failure of the Government to give effect to the finding of the committee which inquired into the cost of wheat production when fixing the homeconsumption price of wheat, and the serious threat to the wheat industry offered by rising costs combined with the deterioration of existing machinery and the inability to secure replacements. For many years the Australian Country party has been advocating that wheat for human consumption in this country should be paid for on the basis of the cost of production plus a reasonable margin of profit for the grower. Finally, this Government was persuaded to set up a committee to inquire into production costs. I remind the House that the then prevailing price of 5s. 2d. a bushel had been fixed in 1938. We naturally thought that when the committee had determined the cost of production, the Government would adopt its finding in fixing the homeconsumption price of wheat. But what do we find? Only to-day there has come into my hands a booklet that is issued now and again, and is entitled Digest of Decisions and Announcements and Important Speeches by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. J. B. Chifley). Incidentally, I have never heard the right honorable gentleman make any of the speeches that are printed in this publication. Referring to an announcement by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) on the 15th January, the publication states -

The committee found a cost figure of 6s. u bushel at sidings. Conversion of that price to a bulk i’.o.r. basis indicated a price of Gs. 8d. a bushel. Having regard to the long-range security provided and the profitable return to a reasonably efficient producer, the Government adopted 6s. 3d. a bushel bulk f.o.r. ports as a fair proposition to all concerned including consumers and stock feeders.

I do not think that it was a fair proposition. It was not fair to the wheat-growers, because the finding of the committee was that the cost of production was 6s. a bushel at sidings. The Minister admitted in his press statement, and in this “ digest of digests “, that the price of 6s. a bushel at sidings was equivalent to 6s. 8d. a bushel at ports. We think it represents 6s. lOd. a bushel at ports and, with the 40-hour week, it will probably represent 7s. According to the Minister’s own figures, the homeconsumption price of 6s. 3d. a bushel is 5d. less than the cost of production. According to the views of people all over Australia, it is 7d. less than the cost of production. When the effect of the 40-hour week Ls taken into account, I think we shall find that it is at least 9d. less than the cost of production. Is that fair and reasonable ? How can these producers continue if they receive a price that is lower than the cost of production?

When discussing his subject, we should forget all about prices of 15s. or £1 a bushel. The basis of the industry is the price paid for wheat used for human consumption in Australia. If the growers receive high prices over certain periods, that is only fair. They need those high prices to compensate them for the bad periods which they have experienced and which, because of periodic droughts, they are bound ito experience in the future. On many occasions the Minister has said in this House that the growers will be very pleased with the home-consumption price, because there is every probability of the wheat market falling. I agree that there is every likelihood of a rapid fall in the market at any time. In that event, how can the growers continue in production if they are receiving 5d., Yd., or 9d. a bushel less than the cost of production? The most amazing statement of all was the declaration that an efficient producer could do well at a price less than the cost of production.

Mr Pollard:

– No statement was made to that effect.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I shall read the relevant passage. Here it is -

Having regard to the long-range security provided and the profitable return to a reasonably efficient producer . . .

How can a reasonably efficient producer get a profitable return when the price paid is less than the cost 6f production? It is of no use for the Minister to interject. He is attacking the problem from the wrong end. Seen in true perspective, the plan is economically impossible. It cannot succeed in any circumstances.

The inquiry committee was set up by this Government. If we consider how it acted we can come to only one conclusion, namely, that its finding had to be the lowest possible price that could be submitted. About 4,000 questionnaires were sent out by the committee to wheatgrowers. Of these, about 800 were returned. Of the 800, about 200 were incomplete. Therefore, only about 600 of 4,000 questionnaires were available to guide the committee in fixing the cost of production. The Minister may say that the growers are to blame for failure to return or completely fill in the forms. Why did the farmers fail to complete the questionnaires? The reason is that the form used was such that it would have been almost impossible to answer every question. One question was: “What was the value of the produce from your farm used by your family over the last five years ? “ How could any farmer answer that? Another one was : “ What was your farm worth in 1942 and what it is worth to-day?” If the value stated by the farmer were’ toolow, and if the land were to be acquired for some other purpose, he would be at a disadvantage. If the value stated weretoo high, he would put himself in a bad position for tax assessment purposes.. That question could have proved to be a trap and growers realized the fact. Itwas inevitable that the production cost determined by the committee would be the-, lowest possible figure. I know what theMinister will say when he replies to my charges. I can hear him now in imagination. He will say, “I want to tell thehonorable member for Wimmera that all the wheat-growers who attended the conference at Canberra and all the wheatgrowers’ organizations have accepted thisfigure of 6s. 3d. a bushel “.

Mr Scully:

– They have done so.

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is only part. of the story. They accepted the -figure, subject to acceptance by the Minister of” claims that they made, only because they were anxious to stabilize the industry.

When the conference met at Canberra,, there was supposed to be some “ give and take “. The “ give “ by the growers was acceptance of the figure of 6s. 3d. a bushel, a price which, even according to the Government’s committee, was lessthan the cost of production. In return for that gesture, what did the growers ask from the Government? They asked the Minister to eliminate concessional prices. They asked him to “keepout of the business “. In effect, they asked the honorable gentleman to ensurethat political and ministerial interference in the industry should cease immediately. Of course, the Minister said “ No “, and refused to grant their requests. Yet, when the subject is raised in this House at this late hour in thisperiod of the session, and at a time when it is most inopportune to deal with such a matter, the Minister will merely point out that the growers have accepted the price of 6s. 3d. a bushel. There is a great deal of difference between full acceptance and acceptance subject to certain conditions. It is highly ridiculous to expect the industry to prosper when the price fixed for wheat is lower than the cost of production. Nevertheless, the growers would have been prepared to accept that figure and to try to carry on if the Government had agreed to abolish concessional prices and abandon political interference. “Without relief from those handicaps, there would have been no hope of the growers agreeing to accept the figure. As a matter of fact, I understand that, when the conference assembled, the Minister adopted a “ take it or leave it “ attitude. He was completely dictatorial. When a grower stood up to put the ca3e for the industry, the Minister merely waved his hand and the man had to sit down.

Mr Russell:

Mr. Russell interjecting,

Mr TURNBULL:

– I know that the honorable member would like to wave mt down, but I have to guard the interests of a vast electorate. Many wheat-growers are not getting a fair deal from this Government, and I must fight on their behalf. Whether the Government’s supporters like it or not, the Standing Orders of this House provide that they must sit here and listen while I present the case.

The motion which I would have submitted to-morrow, but for this “ gethomequick” movement that is forcing the Parliament into an early recess, re’ f erred to the fact that the wheat industry is menaced by rising costs. In support of that declaration, I proposed to say what I have already said on this occasion, namely, that the price fixed by the inquiry committee was the lowest possible. In fact, I cannot understand how it could possibly determine such a low figure. In 1938, a price of 5s. 2d. a bushel was fixed for wheat. Now, ten years later, the Minister has fixed a price of 6s. 3d. - an increase of less than 20 per cent. Compare that increase with increased prices for other products. In 1938, a farmer could sell 400 fat lambs and buy a motor car with the proceeds. He can do the same thing to-day, because the prices of both Iambs and a comparable type of motor car have increased by 100 per cent. However, the price of wheat to-day has no relation whatever to values of

page 561

HO]

other commodities which prevailed in 1938. This is a great injustice, and it must be removed as soon as possible. The wheat-growers are labouring under an ever-increasing burden. They cannot buy new tractors, and the Government is not allowing sufficient spare parts to enter the country to enable them to keep old tractors in operation.

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is all that the ‘honorable member for Hume (Mr. Puller) would be entitled to have at the very best.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
. Burke · Mi

.– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I desire to raise a matter which I hope the Government will consider favorably in preparing the programme for the Royal visit to Australia next year. I am sure that every member of the House looks forward to the Royal visit with great interest, and every citizen of this country should be afforded an opportunity of seeing his Sovereign. The difficulty, however, so far as residents of country towns and provincial centres are concerned, is that, unless special arrangements are made for them to visit the capital cities, it will not he possible for them to see the Royal visitors. One has only to consider the overcrowded plight of the capital cities to-day to realize that the great majority of country residents, particularly women and children, will foe unable to secure accommodation in the cities during the tour.’ Therefore, I ask the Government to include country towns and provincial centres in the itinerary which will be arranged.

Mr Pollard:

– I imagine that Their Majesties will be masters of their own destiny so far as the itinerary is concerned.

Mr FRANCIS:

– But they will not be familiar with the extraordinary conditions prevailing in this country to-day. I ask that my request be brought to the notice of the Cabinet sub-committee which is arranging the programme for the Royal tour.

I also wish, to draw the attention of the Government to a serious weakness in the social services scheme for payment of unemployment benefits. A young woman in Queensland, of less than sixteen years of age, who had been in employment for some time and had been paying her contribution of 6d. a week to the social services fund, recently lost her employment. She made application for payment of unemployment benefit, but was refused on the ground that she was not of the age of sixteen years. It is absolutely wrong that the Government should collect money from youths of this country who contribute from their wages on the understanding that they will be entitled to unemployment relief if they lose their employment through dismissal, illness or other causes. I was seriously concerned by the case I have mentioned and I wrote to the Minister for Social Services informing him of the circumstances. In the course of his reply, he stated that he could do no more than administer the. law as it stands, and that it makes no provision for payment of unemployment benefits to people under the age of sixteen years, irrespective of the period for which they have contributed to the fund. I appreciate that a fund of this nature must be strengthened in the initial stages by obtaining the maximum amount of contributions, and we all know that a contributor to a superannuation fund must contribute for some time before he or his dependants are entitled to the payment of superannuation. However, the Minister did not reply directly to the point which I raised in my letter, which was that if the statute was not functioning satisfactorily it was his duty to bring before Parliament proposals to overcome the difficulty. From the nature of his reply, I believe that he is convinced that a grave injustice is being done, not only to the girl to whom I referred, but also to numerous other young people. People of the age of that girl are particularly in need of financial assistance, and I ask the Government to inquire into the matter and to submit proposals designed to overcome the injustice I have indicated. Young people who contribute to the social services fund are morally entitled to draw something from it in their time cf need.

Mr. Me,EWEN (Indi) [5.30].- Whilst I support everything which the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) said in relation to the wheat-growers, my purpose in rising is to mention another matter, which concerns every member of this House. I refer to the delay in the presentation of the report of the Privileges Committee convened to investigate certain charges which were made affecting the honor of a member of this House.

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Burke). - The honorable member is referring to a matter that is at present before the Privileges Committee.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is so. . However, I do not propose to discuss the subject of the inquiry, but merely to refer to the delay which has occurred-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not in order in discussing the report, or any delay which has occurred in submitting it.

Mr McEWEN:

– I appreciate that point, and I have no intention of trespassing upon propriety by attempting to anticipate the contents of the report, nor do I intend to refer in any way to the substance of the report or of the inquiry. I intend to confine my remarks exclusively to the time factor, which is something which does concern honorable members. The point is that an accusation was made in this House against a member of the Parliament-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– Order ! The same ruling applies.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Parliament thought proper to request the Privileges Committee-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect upon the work of a committee of the Parliament.

Mr McEWEN:

– I have no intention of doing so, I was simply pointing out-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Mention of the “ time factor “ obviously implies criticism of the committee for not having already announced its decision.

Mr McEWEN:

– I think that the chairman of that committee might pay the House the courtesy of providing an opportunity for the committee to meet so that it may reach a conclusion in the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! At the express request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), the chairman of the committee indicated some time ago that the committee was proceeding to a decision when it decided to summon further witnesses, and at that stage it was not convenient for the committee to meet. I do not think that any further reflections should he cast upon the committee.

Mr McEWEN:

– If I may say so without reflecting upon the committee or its members, and if I may be permitted to express my views as a member of the Parliament, I think that there should not be any further delay-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !-

Mr McEWEN:

– The report of the committee should be furnished so that the honour of our colleague may be cleared-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is simply defying the ruling of the Chair.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– Honorable members are aware of the serious industrial dispute which has disorganized the community in Queensland. From the latest reports which we have received on the course of events in Queensland there seems to be some hope that the strikers and the Communistled victims of the disturbance will shortly approach the appropriate industrial tribunal. However, in the meantime the people of Queensland, and residents of country areas in particular, have suffered severe hardships because of the lack of supplies due to disorganization of the transport system. In consequence, artisans and tradesmen have been laid idle, and primary producers have been frustrated in their attempts to produce the foodstuffs which are so badly needed to-day. I have received a communication from a chamber of commerce in my electorate pointing out that the workers of that district are threatened with the loss of their employment because of the shortage of supplies, and making a special appeal that the Government should take action to restore the State’s shipping services. It is desired that one ship at least from Brisbane and Sydney shall proceed to Maryborough so that supplies may be sent to this district. What is true of that area is also true of other parts of Queensland. The primary producers desire to do more than they are doing, but they cannot fence the land that is intended to be ploughed and cropped and cannot increase their production because transport is not available to bring them the materials they need. The unfortunate position is also likely to arise when tradesmen will be compelled to cease work on which they are engaged because the necessary materials are not available. I appeal to the Government, whether’ this strike in Queensland continues or not-

Mr Calwell:

– It is over.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– -It will not be over until the men’s claims are submitted to the Arbitration Court. Any agreement that is achieved as a result of the efforts of the Premier of Queensland will be appreciated, and if the strike is ended it will redound to his credit. I hope that the Australian Government will exert itself to ensure that ships carrying materials required by the workers and the primary producers of Queensland will sail. If they do not, unemployment in Queensland will increase and the people will suffer hardships. I appeal to the Government to see that goods that have already been manufactured and that are awaiting shipment are no longer delayed by continued Communist obstruction.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) said he understood that at the recent conference between the State Ministers of Agriculture and myself concerning the wheat stabilization plan, Mr. Roberton, the president of the Wheat Growers Federation, rose to speak and I waved him down.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not mention any name.

Mr POLLARD:

– Every one knows that the president of the Wheat Growers Federation is Mr. Roberton.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not mention him.

Mr- POLLARD. - The honorable member said that I waved down a representative of the, Wheat Growers Federation who attended the conference. It is well known that that was Mr. Roberton. The allegation is that I stood up and waved that gentleman down - apparently abruptly-,, rudely, and unceremoniously. Mr. Roberton has written in a New South Wales weekly journal that, when he came i-wto. the conference room I stood up, white with rage,, and waved him dp.wu.. I think it is fair that the House should b.e informed of the facts.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not say that.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member has had his “mag” and I am going to have mine. It is not my habit to become white with rage, and I have nev,cr done so. The honorable member fo,v Indi (Mr. McEwen) goes white with i-a.ge, but I go. red. At the Premiers conference in. August last it was agreed that representatives of the Wheat Growers, Federation should be heard at a conference to be held to. deal with wheat stabilisation, and to. accept a written statement of the federation’s case. When the conference assembled, it was intimated, that, the federation representatives were waiting outside, the conference room. When- Mr.. Roberton-,, the two vicepresidents: and’ the secretary of the federation entered the room, Mr. Roberton began to make a speech. Very patiently, I allowed him. to proceed for some time, but when he began to deal with domestic differences within the federation I stood up, told him quietly that the conference was not interested in that matter and asked him, to submit the statement. That was all that happened, and there was no need for any aa$ to become white with rage. I merely carried out the decision reached at the Premiers-‘ conference.

Mr Turnbull:

– That is only a side issue.

Mr POLLARD:

– The impression to be gained from Mr. Roberton’s statement is that he was treated discourteously, unfairly and unjustly. I throw that back in his teeth. I shall, not take advantage of- the privileges accorded to honorable members speaking in this chamber to say what I would normally call him; I can do that elsewhere. When the conference of

Ministers concluded- and they were Ministers belonging to all political parties - I was thanked for the courteous and fair way in which I had’ managed the business. Although Mr. Roberton and I have differed upon some subjects, we have never had any personal differences. He was received courteously; I shook him by the hand and welcomed him, as I did the two vice-presidents. The allegation of the honorable member for Wimmera that, discourtesy was shown to Mr. Roberton’ is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not say that.

Mr POLLARD:

– -The honorable member is so. subtle that he does not mention, names.

Mr Turnbull:

– I was not even thinking of Mr.. Roberton.

Mr POLLARD:

– The subject, of wheat can be dealt, with when Parliament re-assembles

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– -Honorable members are aware that exservicemen who desire to. take advantageof the reconstruction training- scheme have to make the appropriate application within twelve months of their discharge from the forces. Cases are constantly occurring of ex-servicemen not being able> to apply within the prescribed period,, and, therefore, being debarred from participation in t!he scheme. I refer to the case of a young- ex-serviceman who was in the Public Service before the war. He joined the forces at the age of nineteen, served for some six years and was discharged in 1947. He desired to. embark upon an administrative career- in. the- Public Service and applied within twelve months of discharge- for enrolment, in a part-time training course-. While taking this course, he sat for the Commonwealth Public Service clerical examination in November of 1947. It is. well known that, although many sit for this examination,, few are- successful. This young man, not knowing whether he had passed, did not apply immediately for enrolment in a full-time training course for a. diploma in commerce. The results of the examination were not published until just after twelve months following his discharge from the forces. Therefore, he missed, by a very short period, being able to apply for assistance in taking the diploma course in commerce at the Melbourne University. When he did apply, through the Reconstruction Branch, he received a letter stating that, as he had not applied within twelve months of his discharge, he was ineligible for the assistance he sought. That was not stating the position quite correctly, because he had, in fact, applied within twelve months for a part-time course. Admittedly, he had not applied for a full course, because, at the time, he did not know whether or not he had passed the examination to which I have referred. He brought the matter to the attention of the director in Melbourne, who said it was not unusual for cases to be brought before him in which men, because of special circumstances, had been debarred from taking courses. The director said that his considered opinion was that, in borderline cases, or in those cases where men had slipped, perhaps not through their own fault, discretionary power should be given to the Minister to grant an application. He added,, however, that in every such case put forward the application had been refused in Canberra.

I suggest that the matter should be looked at carefully again. In the case of applications for social service benefits, the Minister is given discretion to grant applications in special circumstances even though, upon a strict reading of the regulations, the application should be refused. As a matter of fact, I have » letter signed by the Minister for Social Services stating that, in a case in which I had interested myself, certain benefits were to be allowed through the intervention of the Minister, although, strictly speaking, the application should have been refused.

Mr Barnard:

– In such cases, the Minister for Social Services authorizes an ex gratia payment.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– It is stated in the letter that the Minister, using his discretion, authorized the payment. I maintain that, in borderline cases, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction should be allowed to exercise his discretion. Not so many cases would arise as to make any considerable drain upon Commonwealth funds. In the Public Service, seniority, qualifications and experience are all taken into account in making promotions, and of these, perhaps, seniority comes last. Unless the man whom I have mentioned can obtain his diploma in commerce, he may be debarred from getting very far in the Public Service, whereas, if he is allowed to take the course now, no one can say what opportunities may he opened up for him. I propose to supply full particulars of his case to the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction in the hope that he will be able to do something for the man.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I draw attention to the failure of the Government to push forward the rebuilding of Darwin. Only an hour’ ago, I received a letter from the Master Builders and Contractors Association of the Northern Territory dealing witu this subject. This morning, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) regarding the position of workers at Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, who have asked me to make representations on their behalf because of the high cost of living in the Northern Territory, where costs have soared owing to hi. o-li transport charges. Tradesmen are not prepared to stay in the Northern. Territory unless they are adequately compensated. Apart from the difficulty of obtaining tradesmen, it is also a fact that persons with high technical qualifications are loath to go to the Northern Territory. When senior positions are advertised,, they are hawked; around- the Commonwealth for months,! and quite- often no applications at all are received,, because the remuneration is not enough to entice qualified men. The letter which I received only an hour ago from the Master Builders and Contractors Association of the Northern Territory reads as fallows :: -

The Master Builders and Contractors Association, Northern. Territory, has instructed rae to. write to you- concerning the acute shortage of skilled labour in the building trade in Darwin1.

Owing to the extensive building plan in view, it will be necessary to overcome thisshortage before the plan can be carried out. At present, there are insufficient building- tradesmen in Darwin to carry out the work already in hand.

It has been found that men will not come to Darwin under the conditions prevailing at the present time. Wages do not compare favorably with those in the South, and outside working conditions are very trying because of the climate.

Accommodation is practically non-existent, both for married and single men, that is, unless they choose to live in disused Army camps and such like.

The association suggests that, to surmount these problems, some inducement should be offered, in the form of increased wages, or the territory be declared free of income tax for a few years, and as regards accommodation the first houses built be allocated to the men who will be engaged in building for the Town Plan.

It would be very much appreciated if you would give this matter due consideration and bring it to the notice of the House.

I am sorry that neither the Minister for Works and Housing nor the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), who are particularly concerned with the development of the Northern Territory, is in the House. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the Department of Works and Housing, although I am continually receiving letters condemning its operations in Darwin. Brigadier-General Lucas, the Director of Works and Housing in Darwin, told me last year that the first buildings which he proposed to erect woRld be for his own workmen. That is the very thing suggested in the letter which I have just read. The director is trying to put his policy into effect, but, obviously, he is not receiving much help from the Minister for Works and Housing. Materials for the rebuilding of Darwin are not going forward as they should. There is no direct allocation of materials to the Northern Territory as there is to the States, with the result that the territory obtains the scraps that remain after the States have been supplied. It will be remembered that the Minister for Works and Housing said recently that he had been very generous to Queensland in the allocation of supplies, having despatched to that State an extra 300 tons of galvanized iron. However, he has apparently forgotten the Northern Territory. Yet, it was the present Government which acquired all the land upon which Darwin stands, and which promised to put into effect a fanci ful rebuilding scheme. It should not be necessary for me repeatedly to have to appeal to the Government from my place in this chamber to restore to the people of Darwin the homes that have been taken away from them. The residents of Darwin suffered sufficiently as the result of the bombing of the town during the war, without having this further injustice inflicted upon them. But for the sudden ending of this sessional period, I had intended moving a formal motion for the adjournment of the House next Thursday in order to discuss all aspects of the administration of the Northern Territory, and to endeavour to compel the Government, which stole the land from the people of Darwin through the instrumentality of the Lands Acquisition Act, to do justice to them.

The development of the Northern Territory is seriously retarded by the inability of the Northern Territory administration to secure the services of skilled tradesmen. Sufficient inducement should be offered to carpenters and building tradesmen to encourage them to go to Alice Springs and other towns in the Northern Territory where they are urgently required. Unless that be done, they will not be tempted to leave the southern States, where all the amenities of civilization are at their disposal. I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully), who is now in charge of the House, to bring my remarks to the notice of the Minister for Works and Housing ( Mr. Lemmon) and the Minister for the I interior, so that the people of the Northern Territory may be assisted and rehabilitated at the earliest possible moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 566

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

United Nations - Food and Agriculture Organization - Third Session, held at Geneva, August-September, 1947 - Report of Australian Delegation.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act- - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.

Dairy Produce Export Control Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 25.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 22.

Northern Territory Administration Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 24.

Papua-New Guinea Provisional Administration Act - Ordinance - 1948 - No. 2 - Liquor.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 23.

House adjourned at 5.58 p.m., to Wednesday, the 7th April next, at 3 p.m.

page 567

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Egg Board

Mrs Blackburn:

n asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. How many appointments have been made to the Australian Egg Board?
  2. Have producers been appointed for three years ?
  3. Has the industry been deprived of the right to appoint its own representatives?
  4. Will he provide the name and State of each producer member, and the number of hens he owns according to State Marketing Board registrations ?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. The Egg Export Control Act of 1947 provides for the appointment of ten members, all of whom have been appointed.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. Section V. of the Egg Export Control

Act provides as follows: - “ The members representing producers shall, wherever practicable, be elected by the producers in such manner as is prescribed “ ; and “ Where, in respect of a State, it is not, in the opinion of the Minister, practicable to hold an election of producers, the members representing producers in that State shall, wherever practicable, be a person selected after consultation by the Minister with representatives of producer organizations in that State “.

I did not consider it practicable to hold elections in any State for appointment of initial producer members of the board as the act was only assented to on the 11th December, 1947, whereas it was imperative for the board to commence operations on the 1st January, 1948, on which date the Commonwealth relinquished its overall control of the egg industry. All persons appointed as producer representatives were nominated by producer organizations.

4.-

Commonwealth Boards.

Mr McLeod:
WANNON, VICTORIA

d asked the Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. How many of the seventeen statutory boards and committees attached to his department dealing with primary produce were (a) appointed by the Curtin and Chifley administrations, and (b) appointed by previous administrations ?
  2. How many of the boards and committees appointed by the Curtin and Chifley administrations are permanent, and how many are temporary, i.e., appointed under war-time powers ?
  3. How many boards and committees appointed by previous administrations are permanent, and how many are temporary?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) Three; (b) 14.

  1. Of the total number namely three, only one is permanent and two are temporary under war-time powers.
  2. Of the total number of boards and committees, namely fourteen, created by previous administrations eight are permanent and six are temporary under war-time powers.

Wheat.

Mr Howse:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

e asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, uponnotice -

  1. Has Great Britain notified the International Wheat Conference in Washington that she is unable to accept the draft of the world wheat plan?
  2. What is the present position at the conference, and does any compromise seem likely?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. A draft agreement has been approved by delegates to the conference, and has been submitted to the governments of nations participating in the conference for acceptance and ratification.

Rice

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Are there any restrictions on the growing of rice in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland?
  2. If so, what are the restrictions and the reasons for them 1
  3. Would the removal of the restrictions mean additional quantities of rice for (o) home consumption, and (6) export to the Far Bast?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. Rice production is a State function and I am not aware of any restrictions on ricegrowing. The crop, however, is grown only in the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area and the area is determined by the State authority each season in accordance with the water supply available for rice and other irrigated crops, and also in accordance with sound farming practice in the area. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

Repatriation : War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Has he read the report of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal No. 1, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on the 20th November last?
  2. If so, what comment has he to offer on the statement of the tribunal that the implications of the 1940 and 1943 amendments to the Repatriation Act, which took the onus of proof off claimants for pensions and placed it on Repatriation Boards and the Repatriation Commission, are not always appreciated by the commission’s officers, including more especially its medical officers?
  3. What comments has he to make on the tribunal’s statement that closer attention to the requirements of section 47 of the act would result in a considerable number of claims being allowed to returned service men and women without the necessity of appeal to the tribunal, that the burden of proof imposed by the act on the commission is not discharged simply by transmitting the official records to the tribunal, and that the commission is adopting a policy of avoiding representation before the tribunal when a case is heard?
  4. In view of these serious reflections by the tribunal upon the commission’s policy and on the attitude of some of the commission’s officials, what action has been taken, and when, to alter the procedure of the commission in relation to claims, and to ensure that the provisions of the legislation are being complied with in the interests of returned service men and women ?
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Repatriation Commission’s medical officers do not determine claims for pensions. A medical officer when expressing an opinion regarding the attributability or otherwise of a disability to a member’s war service is required to comply with the provisions of section 48 of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1020-1947. When deciding a claim, or appeal, the Repatriation Boards and the commission give consideration to all the evidence and have strict regard to the provisions of section 47 of the act.
  3. Close attention is given to the requirements of section 47 of the act and the commission does not reject a claim or disallow an appeal unless it is satisfied that it has discharged the onus of proof in accordance with section 47. The act does not require the commission to he represented before an appeal tribunal. Section 72 (2) of the act provides, that “ The Commission may be represented by any person other than a legal practitioner at the hearing of any appeal “.
  4. When an appeal is being considered by an appeal tribunal it is a matter for the tribunal to determine whether or not the commission has discharged the onus of proof. As previously stated, the commission does not disallow an appeal to it unless it is satisfied that it has complied with section 47 of the act. I am satisfied that the commission is complying with the requirements of the act.

Cotton Thread.

Mr Pollard:
ALP

d. - On the 3rd March, the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) asked a question concerning the shortage of cotton thread throughout Australia. The Minister for Trade and Customs desires me to inform the honorable member that he has been aware for some time of a shortage in Australia of sewing threads both for domestic and manufacturing purposes, and recently had an investigation made into the position. Supplies from the United Kingdom, which is the main source of supply, decreased during 1947, owing to difficulties associated with labour for spinning, but advices indicate that supplies arriving from April, 1948, onward will show a substantial improvement. In addition, it is understood that orders have been placed on continental countries for substantial quantities of sewing cotton in household packs. It is expected, therefore, that the present position will soon improve. rail Transport: Standardization of Gauges:

Mr Francis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice -

  1. Has a revised estimate been made of the cost of the standardization of railway gauges, in. view of the 40-hour week and the rising costs of labour and materials:?
  2. If so, what is the present estimated cost of the work?
  3. What stage hasbeen reached in the negotiations, and is the work regarded as more urgent than the erection of houses and an increase in production generally?
  4. What is the view of the defence authorities on the priority which standardization of gauges should take over other possible projects related to defence?
Mr Ward:
Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See. answer to No. 1.
  3. I would point out that statements have been made on a number of occasions by the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, clearly stating that such works as housing and water conservation are to be given the highest priority and will not be neglected because it has been decided to proceed with the standardization of the railway gauges throughout Australia. The Government is quite satisfied that this country has the physical capacity to carry out a number of urgent public works concurrently. Financial arrangements become only of secondary importance. It is the availability of manpower, materials and equipment that determines the extent and nature of the public works which may be undertaken to meet the nation’s needs.
  4. The defence authorities regard the work of standardizing, the railway gauges as desirable. The handicaps imposed upon defence forces during the last war as a result of our break of railway gauges are realized by all who have given any thought to this question. No opinion was asked for or given by the defence authorities as to the order of priority the work should have in respect to all defence projects. It should be pointed out, however, that the Commonwealth Government, whilst regarding national defence as its primary objective, is also aware of the enormous advantage the completion of such a work would be in respect to national development.

Civil Aviation: Guinea Airways; Qantas Empire Airways Limited

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Has he imposed restrictions on the number of air services provided by Guinea Airways from Parafield to Cygnet River, Kangaroo Island?
  2. If so, for what reasons were the restrictions imposed?
Mr Drakeford:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. No restriction has been applied specifically on the number of air services provided by Guinea Airways from Parafield to Cygnet River, Kangaroo Island. No application has been made for additional regular services and the few applications for special services have been approved. However, there is a general restriction on special flights by any airline operators for non-essential purposes. These restrictions have been applied generally in order to conserve dollar expenditure on petrol.

Mr McEwen:

n asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What is the statutory authority for the purchase by the Commonwealth Government for £455,000 of shares in Qantas Limited?
  2. Has this matter received Treasury attention, as mentioned by the Auditor-General in paragraph 48 of his recent report, and, if so, what was the result?
Mr Drakeford:
ALP

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

  1. The purchase of shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited, which were formerly held by Qantas Limited, was made temporarily from the provision in the Appropriation Act 1947-48, under Division 213, Advance to the Treasurer. It is proposed to seek ratification of Parliament to the transaction and to obtain special appropriation covering the expenditure involved.
  2. Qantas Empire Airways Limited is being continued as a public company for the present. The policy question in relation to the form of permanent administration is receiving the attention of the Government.

Immigration: Dutch Migrants.

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice -

  1. Have any Dutch farm workers yet arrived in Australia under the agreement with the Netherlands Emigration Foundation completed by the Government in December, 1946 ?
  2. If so, have they been placed in the various States ?
  3. In which districts are they at present employed ?
  4. What are the Government’s intentions regarding the introduction of additional Dutch farm workers?
Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The answers to the right honorable gentleman’s questions are as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. Due to lack of passenger shipping between Holland and Australia, no Dutch migrants have yet arrived under the agreement with the Netherlands Emigration Foundation. I am pleased to be able to say, however, that the first party of forty Dutch migrants will be leaving Holland for Australia at the end of this month. As shipping facilities from Holland improve the number of Dutch settlers arriving under the scheme will be substantially increased.

  1. For the present Dutch migrants are being selected for farm work and under the terms of the agreement the possibilities for the migration of skilled artisans will be considered later when the skilled labour situation in the Netherlands permits. The Netherlands Emigration Foundation has a representative in Australia who will arrange employment on suitable farms in the different States for farm workers brought out under the scheme. The Commonwealth Government will welcome as many suitable Dutch migrants as possible under the scheme. -The main limiting factor to obtaining large numbers is shipping. Although the Commonwealth Government has no direct responsibility for the provision of shipping for these settlers the Australian Minister at The Hague has maintained the closest liaison with the Netherlands authorities and has been untiring in his efforts to assist in obtaining additional shipping.

Broadcasting: Amateur Stations

Mr Adermann:

n asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department at some future date to cancel the amateur experimental radio transmitting band about IGO megacycles and to substitute a new band about 140 megacycles?
  2. If the change has been decided upon, is there any reason why it should not be made effective forthwith?
  3. If not, will he direct that the change be made immediately so that those interested in the use of these frequencies may stabilize equipment and avoid further expenditure on apparatus for frequencies which will be temporary only?
Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

Under the provisions of the regulations made at the International Telecommunications Conference which was held last year at Atlantic City, the band of frequencies between 144 and 148 megacycles has been allotted to amateur wireless stations, and will replace the band i66 to 170 megacycles at present in use in Australia. The change will become effective as from 1st May, 1948.

Industrial Unrest: Statements bt Mb. Fallon

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 19th February the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked the Attorney-General a question based on certain statements alleged to have been made by Mr. C. G. Fallon, Queensland secretary of the Australian Workers Union, at the recent annual conference of the union concerning the responsibility for shortages in Australia. In the absence of the Attorney-General, the Minister for Labour and National Service said that he would ask Mr. Fallon whether he had made the statements referred to. Mr. Fallon has now replied that he did not make the wide and sweeping statements attributed to him.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 19th February, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) asked a question concerning the conviction in the Special Federal Court, Sydney, of a youth on charges connected with a petrol coupon racket. I promised that I would obtain particulars of the case for the honorable member and also that I would have a short report prepared on the checking procedure respecting applications for petrol coupons. I am now able to advise the honorable member as follows: -

The accused, Reginald Cook, was charged in the Special Federal Court on 18th February on the following counts: - (i) Unlawful possession of petrol ration tickets representing 05,000 gallons on 5th December; (ii) on the same day he imposed on the Liquid Fuel Control Board by a false written representation to obtain ten petrol consumers special licences, representing another 50,000 gallons. Cook pleaded guilty to both charges, and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment on each charge, to be concurrent. In the same court five other men were fined on charges of attempted imposition similar to the second charge against Cook. All these men, including Cook, were arrested on the 5th December last in connexion with attempts to obtain special licences from the Liquid Fuel Control Board, Sydney, on the pretext that the petrol was to be used in motor lorries carrying cement fi om Portland, Berrima and Kandos, to Sydney. Quite a number of licences for quantities of petrol had been obtained by these people in previous months. In view of the urgent need of cement for building purposes, every individual application of this nature was not checked, the State Fuel Board assuming that this action had been taken by the State Transport Boards before issuing the transport permit. The reasons for this apparent laxity are that following the termination of the war and the easing of petrol rationing, many temporary employees of the Liquid Fuel Control Board endeavoured to secure their future by seeking employment elsewhere.. The board’s, staff rapidly dwindled, and replacements being unobtainable, many procedures and checks in existence during the war period had to be discontinued, thereby contributing to the ease with which certain types of people were able fraudulently to obtain petrol tickets. Since the necessity aroso for petrol rationing to be intensified, every effort has been made to re; establish the board on a proper basis of efficiency and I aw quite satisfied from reports received from security officers and State police that the avenues for obtaining genuine tickets by fraudulent means have been closed. The State police and. Liquid Fuel Board, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Investigation Branch, have for some months been engaged in an active investigation of breaches of the Liquid Fuel Regulations and I am pleased to. state that as a result of these efforts, the scope of malpractice has been reduced and the rationing system has been placed on a much improved basis.

page 570

PETROL

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 March 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1948/19480311_reps_18_196/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant