House of Representatives
17 June 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the choir at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2167

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GIRLS IN ENGLAND

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– In the absence of the Minister for Immigration I ask the

Prime Minister whether he is aware that a large number of Australian girls are stranded in Great Britain, because of the inflationary costs of living there 1 As the Government brings Australian brides and fiancees hack to Australia from the United States of America, will consideration be given to the repatriation of these stranded girls at government expense 1

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

– Do I understand the honorable member to indicate that these girls have husbands?

Mr Conelan:

– No. They are unmarried.

Mr Fadden:

– That is why they are stranded.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is unusual for Australian girle to lack initiative in circumstances such as that. No specific case has been brought to my notice. I shall examine the matter and ascertain whether something can be done to help the girls.

page 2168

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture will recall that on several occasions I have mentioned the subject of this year’s pear crop in Tasmania. As the pear season is now over, having resulted, through no fault of the growers, in almost the total crop not having been called up, will the Minister indicate whether the growers can expect to share in the pool profit, if any, of the acquisition scheme of this year?

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

– The undertaking of the Government to the apple and pear growers of Tasmania and Western Australia was that in the event of any profit accruing from the operations of the Australian Apple and Fear Board in those States the profits would be remitted to the growers. The details of the amount that will be available in respect of apples and pears have not yet been determined as returns will not be completed for some months yet.

page 2168

NEWSPAPER REPORTS

Mr BURKE:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– This morning’s Daily Telegraph contains a leading article relating to the decisions made at the meeting of the Australian Parliamen tary Labour parly yesterday which reads -

page 2168

CAUCUS LIFTS CONTROLS- AND HOPES THAT THE WORST WILL HAPPEN

Members of Caucus did not vote for the end of controls because they think controls are bad. . . . They hope that chaos will result and that the people will repent their Toto nt the recent referendum and turn back to the Government with open arms - before the next election.

Will the Prime Minister arrange for members of the executive of the Daily Telegraph who are responsible for publishing this sort of story to be attached to delegations going overseas, or sent on special missions in order that their twisted and tiny minds may bfimproved ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not read the article, but it seems apparent that the writer cannot be satisfied no matter what has been done m regard to these national matters. Such persons are far more concerned with gaining some political advantage for the party which they support than with doing something in the national interest. Rather than attach them to any delegation that will proceed overseas, I consider that they should be detached from Australia.

page 2168

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the rigid application of the immigration laws against other Malays in Australia, will the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration inform me why no action has been taken toy the Australian Government to deport Samsudin Bin Katib, president of the Indonesian Malay Association and instigator of much industrial trouble at Broome f Has a notice ordering the repatriation of Samsudin Bin Katib been cancelled, and permission given for this man to remain indefinitely in Australia? Is it correct that the order for his deportation has been cancelled as the result of representations or pressure by the Seamen’s Union?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I confess that I have not heard of this gentleman with the peculiar name, and nothing relating to him has come to my notice. However, I shall arrange for the Minister for

Immigration to inquire into the matter, and supply an answer to the honorable gentleman.

page 2169

QUESTION

GOODWILL MISSION TO MALAYA

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– On what grounds did the Minister for External Affairs assert in the House last week that the Singapore Free Press was an extremist newspaper? Has the right honorable gentleman read a statement by the English editor of that journal, Mr. Jennings, that it is British-owned and is regarded in Singapore as a conservative organ? Has the Minister checked the reported interview with Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and can he inform the House whether the report was fair and accurate ?

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A report in the press attributed certain comments to Mr. MacDonald, although he had not made a statement of any kind. I have not checked the report. My comment on the newspaper was based on the nature of the criticism itself. Australia was, in good faith, endeavouring to help the people of Malaya and the journal used the occasion to introduce an entirely different matter, quite irrelevant to the object of the goodwill mission, and discuss, criticize and condemn Australia’s immigration policy. That attitude seemed to me to be entirely unjustified. The extremist nature of the criticism provoked my remark that the newspaper was an extremist organ. I have no knowledge of the political views of the Singapore Free Press, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on the matter last week.

page 2169

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– For some time, 1 have been endeavouring to help an exserviceman in Melbourne who is suffering from tuberculosis, and who is allergic to streptomycin. I have received information from England that a new drug, para-amino-salicylic acid, known as P.A.S., is being favorably regarded there for the treatment of tuberculosis. Has the Minister for Repatriation any knowledge of this new drug? If so, can his department obtain supplies for the treatment of repatriation patients suffering from tuberculosis?

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

– I have some knowledge of the drug known as P.A.S. During the past five years it has been used in Sweden, England and America for the treatment of tuberculosis. Recent reports from England and America of experimental work in the use of this drug in conjunction with streptomycin are encouraging and promising for cases resistant to other forms of treatment, especially those of tuberculosis empyemas or pus in the pleural cavity. The drug has not yet been used in Australia. I have now approved of the Repatriation Commission purchasing a quantity from England for clinical research at the Repatriation Genera] Hospital, Heidelberg. The research will be under the direction of Dr. Penington, specialist in tuberculosis, in conjunction with Professor Rubbo of the Melbourne University. Dr. Penington is at present in America attending a conference of the Society of Chest Physicians, of which he is a member, and he will make detailed inquiries into the use of this drug and other new forms of treatment being developed in that country.

page 2169

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr FADDEN:

– Is the Treasurer yet in a position to supply me with details of the payment of £300,000 which, according to press reports, will take the form of a subsidy to Trans-Australia Airlines? Will the right honorable gentleman also inform me whether all privately-owned airlines Lave been excluded from carrying air-mails, and if the previous practice of paying for the carriage of air-mails on a poundage basis has been abandoned?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– It would take some time fully to answer the questions that have been asked by the right honorable gentleman. Organizations other than Trans-Australia Airlines are involved in the carriage of air-mails. Certain subsidies are now being paid, and have been paid for a number of years, to private operators in connexion with this work. As I indicated recently, arrangements have been made between the Post Office and Trans-Australia Airlines for the payment of a lump sum in respect of the carriage of all the mail that TransAustralia Airlines may be called upon to handle. I regret that I have not yet been able to prepare an answer .to the right honorable gentleman’s previous question. I shall endeavour to expedite a reply to that and to the other questions he has now raised.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– In the absence of the Minister for Civil “Aviation, I ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Minister for Civil Aviation conferred -. ‘ ‘.i. all the airlines of Australia about September last on the conservation of petrol in the use of aircraft. Was an undertaking given at that conference that there would be no further extension of airlines? Is it not a fact that TransAustralia Airlines has extended certain airlines in Queensland in competition with former members of the Royal Australian Air .Force who are conducting two small services there?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have taken a personal interest in the conservation of aviation spirit and petrol largely because of the shortage of dollars. It is true that some months ago, after discussions with the Premier of Queensland, arrangements were made for the granting of licences to Tran- Australia Airlines to conduct certain services in Queensland. Those licences were granted under administrative authority given to the Queensland Government by the Queensland Parliament. The appropriate State department is empowered to grant licences to conduct intra-state air services to any one at all, including Trans-Australia Airlines. The Queensland Government has granted licences, or permits, to a number of airline operators to conduct intra-state services. Th, Minister for Civil Aviation and I have been examining ‘ the position. Mr. Cumming, of the Rationing Commission, who has been seconded to the Department of Shipping and Fuel to examine the whole position in regard to petrol and aviation spirit, has been conferring with representatives of th, Department of Civil Aviation on the subject. I discussed it last night at some length with the Minister for Civil Aviation. I am. not able to give a complete answer to the honorable member at the moment, but I shall arrange to have ali the information supplied to him by the Minister for Civil Aviation.

page 2170

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Works and Housing read a report in the Melbourne Age of the 10th June containing a criticism of the Victorian State Government’s handling of the problem of emergency accommodation for evicted tenants and a statement, of the Victorian Premier’s reply? If so, has the Minister particularly noted the Premier’s claim that the Watsonia camp was on a two years’ lease that only had one year to run, and that there was no. indication that a renewal would be granted? Has the Minister further noted that the Premier went on to say -

For all I know, the Federal Government might send the huts to the rocket range.

Is it true that huts that have been or could be used for temporary accommodation are being sent to the guided weapons range? If not, can the Minister suggest why the Premier of Victoria made that remark ?

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

– I have not seen the newspaper report to which the honorable member has referred, but I shall obtain it and examine it. I assure the House that any huts that are at present being used for temporary accommodation will not be taken to the guided weapons range. All the huts that it was proposed to move to the range have been taken there, and no further huts will be taken from Victoria. I cannot place any interpretation upon the Premier’s remark other than that it was one of the many irresponsible statements that he makes from time to time.

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Works and Housing state the number of new homes completed and partly completed in New South Wales during thi; last twelve months?

Mr LEMMON:

– In a recent speech the Premier of New South Wales stated that approximately 14,500 houses had been completed and that 19,000 were under construction, making a commencement programme for the last twelve months of approximately 33,500. That. I believe, is a very fine effort.

page 2171

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction Training Scheme

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Recently, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he had investigated a difficulty which had arisen in one of the committees dealing with the placing in industry of reconstruction trainees. Apparently, a deadlock developed as a result of the refusal of the Building Workers (industrial Union to approve of a certain employer as a proper person to engage trainees. Has the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction had an opportunity to go into the matter, and has a solution of the difficulty yet been found?

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

– When the honorable member first raised this matter I pointed out that it was necessary for some authority to approve of employers as persons suitable to employ reconstruction trainees in order to ensure that they were given essential training in their occupations, and not put to work in which they would have no chance of completing their training. This responsibility has been placed upon industrial committees. The committee for the industry involved in the honorable member’s question met last Friday, and approved of all the applicants except one who were seeking to employ reconstruction trainees, so that there is no question of a dispute between the union and the employers’ association. The union’s representative on the committee has signified his approval of five of the six applicants.

Mr Holt:

– After six months?

Mr DEDMAN:

– Only one application remains outstanding, and in that case the decision of the committee, which consists of representatives of both employers and employees, was unanimous.

page 2171

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that a departing diplomat recently disposed of two luxurious limousines to local purchasers? Can the Prime Minister say whether, in such cases, the vendor is required to pay import duty and sales tax before disposing of the cars? Are members of the diplomatic corps and of the Governor-General’s establishment subject to any quota provisions in respect to the purchase of goods free of excise and customs duties and sales tax, or are they permitted to make unlimited purchases ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Members of diplo matic staffs enjoy certain privileges in respect to bringing into the country goods associated with their work in Australia. Those privileges are conferred by legislation, and are not in the nature of a special dispensation.

Mr Conelan:

– Such privileges are enjoyed by diplomats all over the world.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That is so. I had not previously heard of the sale of motor cars by a departing diplomat to private persons. Whether such sales can be made without customs duty having to be paid on the cars, I do not know. It is an important point, and I shall make inquiries and shall let the honorable member know what is the position.

page 2171

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr CONELAN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Minister for Health wrote to the British Medical Association several weeks ago offering to confer with it on the objections of the medical profession to the giving of free medicine to the people of Australia. If so, has the association replied to the Minister? If not, what is the position?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Health has written on more than one occasion to the British Medical Association on the subject. He made that clear in the fine speech that he delivered in the Senate on Tuesday evening. He has received acknowledgments from the secretary of the British Medical Association, but up to quite recently he had not had a definite answer to his request. The Prime Minister tells me that arrangements have been made for a conference in the near future.

page 2171

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Primp

Minister state whether more than $1,000,000 was made available through the Australian Government in the last few months to an Australian company for the purchase of plant in the United

States of America to be re-erected in Australia? Is the shortage in Australia of the product that the company proposes to manufacture the result not of the incapacity of the already established Australian producers to meet the deficiency but to the shortage of coal ? En view of the urgent requirements of primary producers for increased imports of tractors, -will the Prime Minister consider refusing the release of dollars for the importation of manufacturing plant that, when it goes into production, will not, because of limiting factors, for example, the shortage of coal, add to the total output of the commodity being manufactured ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member has raised a question to which I have given a great deal of personal attention. Requests come forward from time to time from companies which i desire to import capital equipment from dollar or hard currency areas for the purpose of developing Australian secondary industry. Those requests come from such widely different interests as the newsprint industry, the steel industry and the textile industry. A great number., in fact, come from the textile industry. The Government has the responsibility of deciding whether the plant applied for is essential and whether the importation of such plant will help finally to reduce the drain of dollars expended by this country for various classes of overseas goods. When capital equipment imported into Australia becomes a factor in Australia’s productivity it may have the effect of reducing the dollar drain in other directions. To decide the effect of the importation of capital equipment it is necessary sometimes to look ahead for some years. For instance, with respect to the newsprint industry in Tasmania and the steel industry in New South Wales, it may not be possible to gauge how the importation of capital equipment will save dollars until a period of four or five years has passed. Because of that fact it is necessary to take the long view in the interests of the community, firstly, in regard to the future as well as the present conservation of dollars and secondly - and this is a very important aspect - in regard to allowing secondary industry to expand rapidly as it is doing in Australia. I have considered a number of rather difficult cases affecting the textile industry. I do not know the particular case to which the honorable member has referred, nor whether he wishes to disclose the name of the company concerned, but I am prepared to discuss the matter with him personally. I can assure the honorable member that a very close examination is made in the first place by the Commonwealth officials who have been deputed to deal with these matters in the preliminary stages, and in the second place by myself in the final stages. The Minister for Trade and Customs considered it necessary to hold consultations with a special committee on the importation of capital equipment, and a committee for that purpose has been set up within the Department of Trade and Customs, consisting of an officer of that department, an officer of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction acquainted with the needs of industry, and a Treasury official. Those officers devote the whole of their time to making recommendations on the dollars that should be made available, and the purpose for which they must be used. I repeat that if the honorable member does not wish to disclose the name of the company to which he has referred I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him privately and, if necessary, to give him a written answer.

Mr HOLT:

– -Will the Treasurer indicate whether any direct negotiations are proceeding at present between representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America with a view to ascertaining whether some solution can be found of the dollar shortage existing in this country, or are all negotiations of this character carried on through the United Kingdom Government?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The availability of dollars in Australia is governed by the volume of .dollars we can earn in hard currency or dollar areas, and the amount we can obtain from the Empire dollar pool. As the honorable member knows, except on very rare occasions, it has not been possible for Australia to earn sufficient dollars to purchase from dollar areas the quantity of goods which it requires. Except during one or two years, particularly those during which the American troops were in this country.

Australia has always had to draw on the dollar pool - in other words, to buy dollars with sterling. Therefore, our consultations in regard to dollars are almost entirely with the British Treasury. No direct negotiations have been conducted with the American Government. ft is true that under the Marshall Aid plan off-shore purchases will be made hy the American officials administering that plan. No indications have been received that any off-shore purchases will be made in Australia, thus making dollars available to us. Although no direct negotiations are proceeding between the Australian and the American Governments, the ‘ secretary of the Commonwealth Treasury, ray own economic adviser and the Commonwealth Statistician, Dr. Wilson, are now in the United States of America and we keep in close touch with any development which might offer an opportunity for Australia to earn more dollars either in the ordinary way or through our being given the right of offshore purchases under various appropriations made by the American Government.

page 2173

BANKING

Nationalization: High Court Judgment

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the House of the reason for the delay by the High Court _ in delivering -judgment on the case dealing with nationalization of banking, and whether that delay is in any way in the nature of a reprisal-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable gentleman is not entitled to make such a comment. The case is still subjudice

Mr JAMES:

– I ask the question because both the plaintiffs and the respondents in the case have indicated that there is a likelihood of an appeal to the Privy Council no matter what the High Court judgment is. I ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks that the decision should be given as early as possible. Does the right honorable gentleman consider that it is being delayed until the approach of the nest general election?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman, so far as I can discover, is seeking some information about whether the Attorney-General can give him any indication of when the High Court decision may be announced. All the other matters raised by the honorable gentleman are irrelevant.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– The only information which the parties to such litigation obtain of the date of the issue of a judgment is contained in a notice they receive, usually on the day before judgment is delivered. In some cases parties may not learn of the proposed date of the delivery of a judgment until it is published in the press. The banking case is of extreme importance and doubtless we shall be informed, in accordance with ordinary practice, when we may expect judgment.

page 2173

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MILITARY FORCES

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– As a means of providing some incentive to those who wish to join the Commonwealth Military Forces, will the Minister for the Army consider making all payments in respect of service rendered free of income tax?

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

– Enlistment conditions for the Commonwealth Military Forces are now being decided. There will be no variation of those conditions when a decision is made.

page 2173

SEA TRANSPORT OF STEEL

page 2173

QUESTION

PRODUCTS

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– In common with most other areas in Australia, North Queensland is experiencing a desperate shortage of steel for building purposes. While I was in the north recently, I was approached by representatives of the Steel Merchants Association, who pointed out the difficulties its members were experiencing in that direction. Later, I saw the Queensland manager of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, who informed me that the whole of the north Queensland orders had been manufactured and were awaiting shipment. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, through the Australian Shipping Board, consult with the shipping companies with a view to having vessels sent to Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited wharfs for the express purpose of lifting steel for Queeusland ports, particularly ports in north Queensland?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The Minister for Shipping and Fuel is aware of the difficulties that exist in connexion with the transport of goods to Queensland ports and I am sure he is doing everything in his power to obtain shipping for that purpose. The honorable member is aware that the Australian Government does not control interstate shipping, with the exception of the few ships which are under charter to or owned by the Commonwealth.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– The Government made such a mess of its control of interstate shipping that it had to abandon that control.

Mr DEDMAN:

– The honorable member for “Wide Bay is continually complaining about government controls, but immediately the Government abandons a particular control he again complains. L remind the honorable member for Herbert that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited itself owns shipping. I shall bring the honorable member’s question to the notice of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel who, I am sure, will continue to do everything in his power to ensure that shipping shall be made available.

page 2174

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been drawn to the following article appearing in a Melbourne newspaper named the Labour Gall, dated the 11th June:-

More than half of Australia’s tractor requirements would be imported this year from overseas, a Department of Commerce official stated this week. He said that Australia’s requirements totalled 15.000 tractors and 8.000 would be imported this financial year.

Will that number of tractors be imported, and, if so, how many may be expected to be made available for harvesting requirements?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I have not read the article to which the honorable member has referred. I assume that the figures quoted in it refer to the forthcoming financial year. If so, we are hopeful that they will be reached.

“VOLUNTEERED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE “ BADGE.

Mr FALKINDER:

– Will the Treasurer state what was the reason for the discontinuance in 1943 of the manufacture and issue of the “ Volunteered for Active Service “ badge, which was given to those who volunteered for active service during the war but who were rejected on medical grounds? If the issue of the badges was discontinued because of wartime shortage of material or labour, will the right honorable gentleman now consider issuing the badges to those who were entitled to them but did not receive them?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– A great deal of discussion has taken place with regard u> those badges, and some aspects of the subject require further examination. 1 shall look into the matter and reply to the honorable member’s question as early as practicable.

page 2174

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Loan Raising: Redemption ob Treasury-bills.

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Last week, the Melbourne Herald published an article signed by E. H. Cox, and purporting to be a commentary on Canberra political events. The article stated that the Government had borrowed £30,000,000 at 3f per cent, in order to repay a loan which had been raised earlier at a much lower rate of interest. Will the Treasurer inform me whether that statement is correct?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– As Treasurer, I have no knowledge of the transaction. Indeed. I do not know to what particular financial transaction the article referred.

Mr Holt:

– The retirement of treasurybills out of loan raisings.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I explained the position to the Leader of the Australian Country party recently. From time to time, loans are raised by the Loan Council on behalf of the Australian end State governments. In August, the Loan Council will prepare its programme for the coming financial year. Surplus moneys, which may be available, are used to redeem treasury-bills which are really IOU’s. When a loan has been oversubscribed and the money is being retained for use at a later date, the Commonwealth uses it to redeem treasurybills, and the Commonwealth Bank has not then so many of them outstanding against the Government. In my opinion, chat is the proper method of financing government. “Whether in war or peace, il: is not sound finance never to redeem treasury-bills. Even the States have made substantial redemptions of the treasurybills outstanding from the financial and economic depression of the early 1930’s.

Mr Holt:

– Has that been done out of loan moneys?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Surplus moneys, which cannot he expended immediately, may be used to redeem treasury-bills. Later, the moneys will be used by either the Commonwealth or the States for purposes to be determined by the Loan Council.

Mr Hughes:

– Of course we have no representative on the Loan Council, have we?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I hope that the right honorable member for North Sydney does not regard me as a. nobody. I happen to be the chairman of the Loan Council.

page 2175

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr EDMONDS:

– For a considerable time, I have made strenuous endeavours to have shipping provided for the purpose of removing that portion of last year’s sugar which is still stored in the mills and on the wharfs of ports in North Queensland. Although there has been a steady flow of shipping to the sugar ports, vessels at present are leaving them without completing their loading of sugar. The position arises not because of a shortage of ships or of a failure of waterside workers to load them, but because of the failure of the Queensland Railways Department to provide sufficient rolling stock to transport sugar from the mills to the wharfs. “Will the Prime Minister discuss this position with the Premier of Queensland, or the Minister for Transport in that State, in an endeavour to ensure a steady flow of railway trucks for removing the sugar from the -mills, and thus prevent the possibility of a cessation of crushing operations in North Queensland?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– After the industrial difficulties which occurred in Queensland a few months ago, the Premier, Mr. Hanlon, had discussions with me about the quantity of last season’s sugar crop which was still in store in Queensland. He asked me to do everything possible to have last year’s sugar removed before the mills began to receive the new season’s crop, about the beginning of July. I discussed the matter with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and the Stevedoring Industry Commission. Last week, Mr. Hanlon informed me in a personal talk that the ships which had been provided would enable the remainder of last year’s sugar crop to be shifted before the new season’s crop was ready. He did not mention difficulties associated with the handling of what is estimated to be a record crop in Queensland this year. 1 discussed with the chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission the importance of making provision to remove the incoming sugar crop from Queensland. Members of the commission and others who have examined the position consider that the facilities at ports in that State, apart from the availability of waterside workers and ships, are not sufficient to enable the expeditious handling of the crop. Recently, arrangements were made to take waterside workers from Mackay to Cairns, but transport and port facilities could not be provided to enable them to increase the rate of loading of ships. ] also discussed with the chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission the provision of other wharf facilities, such as capstans, and last week, I told Mr. Hanlon that I should be glad if he would examine the loading facilities, particularly railway transport into the sugar ports. When I was in Queensland, 1 examined the position at Townsville and it was evident to me that the expansion of the production of sugar in Queensland requires the provision of improved facilities for its transport to the wharfs. Irrespective of how many ships and waterside workers are available, the crop cannot be handled unless adequate transport and wharf facilities are provided. Mr. Hanlon is now examining that aspect.

page 2175

QUESTION

ROYAL TOUR OF AUSTRALIA

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Will the Prime Minister arrange for Their Majesties and the Princess, during their visit to Australia next year, to visit the city of Gympie? Formerly the centre of a great gold-mining field, this desirable city is now the centre of the largest butter factory unit in the British Empire and of a district from which is despatched the greatest quantity of fruit and vegetables grown in any single district in Queensland. In addition, it is the centre of the Queensland timber industry and forests propagation.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– When an honorable member makes a request to me I am always anxious to examine it to see whether it can be acceded to. A committee has decided the periods of time that the Royal visitors will be able to spend in each of the States and the Australian Capital Territory. It was considered that each State government should arrange its own itinerary. Several of the Premiers have informed me, merely for my information, of the arrangements that’ they have made, but their discussions are generally with the Minister in charge of the tour. I am not prepared to attempt to interfere with those arrangements. All that I have done when discussing the tour with any of the Premiers has been to ask them not to overburden Their Majesties and the Princess by arranging an itinerary which will involve long hours of travel under trying circumstances. It is hoped that the tour will be one that will give great pleasure to Their Majesties, but that will not be possible if they are asked to attend functions during both the day and the night. Apart from making that suggestion, I have not made, and do not propose to make, any representations to the State governments about what form the Royal tour should take and what places should be visited in each State. I shall, however, inquire into the question raised by the honorable member for Wide Bay.

page 2176

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1948.

International Wheat AgreementBill 1948.

page 2176

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I move -

That the ruling of the Speaker - that the motion proposed to be moved by Mr. Holt was not a matter of privilege - be disagreed with.

This motion has been on the notice-paper for eight months. That fact shows what little control the Parliament has over its procedure when it seeks to question the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. Owing to the time that has elapsed since the incident occurred that gave rise to this motion, it is well that the House should be reminded of what was involved in the motion proposed to be moved by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) and which was ruled out of order. On the 24th November of last year the honorable member for Fawkner moved that it was not a breach of privilege for an honorable member to discuss the decision of a statutory committee exercising an executive function when such a decision is not required by statute to be reported to the House. After some discussion had taken place, the debate on that motion was truncated by Mr. Speaker, who ruled the motion out of order as not being a direct question of privilege. Mr. Speaker further said is was an abstract motion that should be put on the notice-paper for debate at some other time. It should be observed that this debate upon whether or not the Speaker’s ruling was correct involves a matter that I hope clearly to show affects the privileges of all honorable members of this House. Whenever the privileges of any honorable member are violated, not only is every other honorable member of the House concerned with the preservation of those privileges, but every person in the country is concerned with them as well. It is only by the maintenance of our privilege that Parliament can function correctly.

So that the House may be aware of the atmosphere and the circumstances in which the decision was made, it is necessary to refer to what took place in this chamber on the 23rd October. On that day, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser) directed a question to you, Mr. Speaker, arising out of incidents that occurred on the 22nd October. On the 22nd October, because of allegations which had been made against a certain honorable senator, statements were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), and subsequently by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott). The committee set up under the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946 then had to determine whether the statements made by those three gentlemen should be repeated in the rebroadcast which normally takes place at 7.20 p.m. on each sitting day. The committee is a joint parliamentary committee, of which I understand Mr. Speaker is chairman. It is established, not by virtue of the Standing Orders of this House but by virtue of the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946. On the 23rd October, the honorable member for “Wide Bay asked a question with regard to a statement which had appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of that date. Among other things he asked -

Have’ you noticed that a member of the committee-

Events will clearly establish that that could have no relation to any one other than the honorable member for Fawkner- has discussed the deliberations of the committee with representatives of the press? If so, will you say whether the committee’s deliberations are properly the subject for such discussion by members of the committee?

In reply, Mr. .Speaker, among other things, drew attention to the act of Parliament under which the committee operated. It is appropriate that I should draw attention to the relevant sections of that act.

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

– Order! The honorable gentleman is not entitled to debate that aspect of the question. By doing so, he would merely be. circumventing my previous ruling. That matter can be debated on a notice -of motion being given. The question now before the Chair is that the ruling of the Speaker that the honorable member for Fawkner’s motion was not a question of privilege, but that it was an abstract motion that should be put on the noticepaper for debate at some other time, be disagreed with.

Mr SPENDER:

– That is all that I am seeking to debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair will decide that.

Mr SPENDER:

– It may be that the Chair will decide it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! I will have no insolence from the honorable member for Warringah.,

Mr SPENDER:

– With great respect to you, Sir, I have not said one word which could be construed by any one as insolence to the Chair. I am endeavouring to assert my rights in this House. “J bow to your ruling. I say that I am seeking to do exactly that, but I cannot do it until I have referred to the act itself, not to give my interpretation of it, but to draw the attention of honorable members to it so that I may deal with the question of whether the matter that the honorable member for Fawkner sought to debate on the 24th October was or was not a direct question of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The motion submitted by the honorable member for Fawkner was ruled out of order because it was not a privilege motion. It had no connexion with the act at all.

Mr SPENDER:

– That is the very question that I am seeking to debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not entitled to debate it at this stage.

Mr SPENDER:

– Perhaps I may direct attention. Mr. Speaker, to your decision upon that matter. The honorable member for Fawkner stated in his motion - .and I submit, with great respect, that, having regard to the remarks made in support of it by the honorable member, it can only be construed in this way - that it was not a breach of privilege for an honorable member to discuss the decision of a statutory committee exercising an executive function when such a decision is not required by statute to be reported to the House. That is the question which I am discussing now. I am not debating, and I do not propose to debate, whether your decision was right or wrong as to the functions of the committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question before the Chair is whether the motion, as submitted by the honorable member for Fawkner, was a direct question of privilege. In that connexion, the question arises whether he could claim privilege, having delayed action for 24 hours.

Mr SPENDER:

– In the first place, the motion in clear terms contends that it is not a breach of privilege for an honorable member to discuss a decision of a statutory committee which is not required to be reported to the House. I say, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that you were wrong in ruling that no question of privilege was involved. Your decision was based on a statement you had made in connexion with a previous case when you told the honorable member for Fawkner that in doing what he did he had himself been guilty of a breach of privilege. That is a serious allegation to make against any honorable member, because it can render him liable to serious punishment. You stated, as reported in proof number 26 of Hansard for 1947 at page 1235, that the honorable member and the press - but I am not bothering about the press now - had been guilty of a breach of privilege. You said that he had committed a breach of privilege because he, as a member of the committee appointed by statute, had revealed to the press, or discussed with the press, the decision of the committee before it had been reported to the Parliament. This involves an important issue, which is whether the voice of a member of a committee so established is to be stilled although that committee has never reported to the House, and is not required so to do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable, member is now debating the motion of the honorable member for Fawkner, not his own motion.

Mr SPENDER:

– My point, Mr. Speaker, is that your decision was wrong. First, you said that the subject-matter of the motion did not involve privilege, and then you declared that it was an abstract motion. You declared publicly that a member of this House had been guilty of a breach of privilege, and then you ruled that a motion, which was obviously intended to have your decision in that respect canvassed, did not involve a question of privilege. How you can reconcile those two declarations passes my comprehension. It is true that you are the person authorized to decide questions of privilege, but you are also - and this is, perhaps, your more important function - the custodian of the privileges of honorable members, and one of the most important privileges which honorable members enjoy is their right to criticize. You held the honorable member for Fawkner to be guilty of a breach of privilege because he had canvassed a decision of a committee, but when hesought to debate your ruling you declared that he was not dealing with a matter of privilege. With respect, I submit that your decision was wrong. The committees which deal with the functions of this House fall into a number of groups. There is a committee of the whole House. We are not concerned with that, because its decisions are immediately reported tothe House. There are select committees, and they are required by the Standing Orders to report to the House. There are other committees, also, including the Privileges Committee, which are required to report to the House; and., finally, there are statutory committees, the functions of which are fixed by statute. In this instance, we are concerned with a committee which had noauthority and was under no obligation’ to report its executive act to the Parliament. I draw your attention to what you yourself said when this matter first came up for discussion, as reported in proof- number 26 of Hansard for 1947, at page 1229. You said that the rebroadcasting of questions and answers had been determined upon as a matter of principle by the committee over which you presided, a committee which had been set up under the act. You quoted, as follows, the relevant principle upon which the committee had acted: -

Rebroadcast of Questions and Answers. - Within the limits of time available, the following parliamentary proceedings shall be rebroadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission between 7.20 p.m. and 7.55 p.m. on each sitting day: -

Senate proceedings - Questions without notice and on notice and answers thereto ;

House of Representatives proceedings - Questions without notice and answers thereto.

You then said that the committee was giving effect, not to its own decision, but primarily to the decision of the House. Nevertheless, when the honorable member for Fawkner sought to raise the :matter. he was told, despite your statement, that he was guilty of a breach of privilege; but when he sought to. debate the matter you said, ‘Mr. Speaker, that it was not a question of privilege at all, and you ruled his motion out of order. You said that the first question was determined by May’s Parliamentary Practice. [ do not know whether you will allow me to debate that, but your decision was clearly wrong, as an examination of the authority will reveal. On the 23rd October, you stated, as reported in proof number 26 of Hansard for 1947, at page 1235, “ The honorable member asked for it, and I shall give it to him “. Then you quoted from May’s Parliamentary Practice, 14th edition, Chapter VIII., “ Breaches of Privilege and Contempt “ as follows : -

By the ancient custom of parliament, “ no act done by any committee should be divulged before the same is reported to the House “.

You will find that the authority given for that ruling is volume IT. of Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion. which dealt with the dispute then going on between the Parliament of England and the King, when a committee was appointed to determine certain allegations of treason. That committee was obliged in the recess of the Parliament to hear evidence and report to the Parliament its determination. But the matter that that committee dealt with was nothing like the matter that we are dealing with. I have looked up every authority cited by May, and, as far as I have been able to determine by research, never has it been held that it is a breach of privilege for a member to discuss, whether he is a member of it or not, the decisions of an executive authority, whether that authority is a committee of the Parliament or not. An important principle is involved, because, as I think you, Mr. Speaker, will readily see, if a decision of an executive authority, such as a committee of the Parliament, whose decision has not to be reported back to the Parliament, are not to be canvassed, under penalty for breach of privilege, the representatives of the people of Australia are prevented from voicing their views on that decision. It involves a principle that should be defended by every honorable member, regardless of the side of the House on which he sits. You, Mr. Speaker, went on to say -

Upon thi9 principle the Commons, on the 21st April, 1837, resolved “That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House, and the documents presented to such committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person “. Where the public are admitted thi* rule is usually not enforced. The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to members, will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

Upon that reading of May, you held thai the honorable member for Fawkner was guilty of a breach of privilege. I say. with respect, that that ruling was wrong. Then, after you had ruled that the honorable member was guilty of a breach of privilege, and after he had sought to prove that he was not guilty of a breach of privilege, you ruled that he had not raised a matter of privilege. That ruling surpasses my comprehension and, I think, the comprehension of every reasonably minded man. But that was not the only subject-matter of your decision. You held further that it was not a direct question of privilege but was an abstract motion that should have been placed on the notice-paper for debate at some other time. It seems to me that if that decision was right - and I say that it was not - it was an unnecessarily narrow interpretation to place upon the motion proposed by the honorable member, when it was quite obvious that, in the conduct of the business of the House, what he wanted to debate was your ruling and whether there was, in fact, involved in it not only a reflection upon him but also a limitation on his rights and, what is much more important, the rights of every other honorable member. With respect and with an understanding of the Standing Orders, I say that it was a motion of privilege, because it specifically dealt with the question whether it was a breach of privilege for the honorable member to discuss the decisions of a statutory committee not bound to report its executive acts to the Parliament. Obviously it involved the privileges of every honorable member for you, Mr. Speaker, to say that the honorable member’s motion was an abstract motion when it raised a point that clearly was one of privilege. It seems to me to be a denial of your previous ruling. I do not expect that on my motion there will be any reversal of your ruling, because no longer in this chamber are the rulings of Mr. Speaker determined on their merits. With respect I say that what is taking place these days is one of the most regrettable features of the conduct of the House. I maintain that Mr. Speaker’s ruling - and I believe that you, Ma’. Speaker, will agree - should be readily accepted by every honorable member of the House. At no time should it be the subject of any suspicion of partiality. It is very difficult, however, for honorable members on this side to resist the conclusion at times that, in matters of this description, Mr. Speaker will certainly be supported by his party, whether he is right or wrong, and that must diminish the respect that nil honorable members ought to hold for the rulings of Mr. Speaker. In other words, I respectfully, but strongly hold the view that the rulings of Mr. Speaker, if wrong, should be held to be wrong by this House and that there should be no party division on motions of dissent from Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Although about eight months have elapsed since my motion dissenting from Mr. Speaker’s ruling was placed on the notice-paper, it Still involves a very important matter of principle to be considered by every honorable member.

Mr Holt:

– I formally second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr BURKE:
Perth

.- It is regrettable that the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), after having debated his motion on its merits, should have concluded by saying that Mr. Speaker’s rulings were no longer discussed on their merits.

Mr Beale:

– That is true.

Mr BURKE:

– I emphatically say that it is not true. If matters arise which require a ruling from the Chair and there is no provision in our Standing Orders or in May to cope with them, it becomes merely a matter of opinion as to whether the ruling given is right or wrong. In such circumstances, it is as easy for us to be right when we say that Mr. Speaker’s ruling is correct, as it is for the Opposi tion to be right in saying that it is not correct. The honorable gentleman who now occupies the speakership has greater knowledge of the Standing Orders and May than has any other honorable member, no matter how experienced he may be.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Tell us what, that remark is based on.

Mr BURKE:

- His ability to make a decision on. the spur of the moment is also marked. The firmness that he displays in situations that arise so frequently requiring firmness from the Chair is exemplary. His attributes make for the efficient and orderly conduct of the proceedings of this House. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), to the accompaniment of loose laughter from his colleagues, says that I cannot find anything on which to base my statement. I base it on the fact that on every ocasion on which Mr. Speaker’s ruling is challenged, he is able to quote, from the Standing Orders or May. an authority for his ruling. Unless honorable members opposite are actuated by party political considerations, they will not seriously deny that.

Mr Archie Cameron:

Mr. Archie Cameron interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) is not entitled to make insinuations against the Chair by cheap interjections. If that occurs again, I shall deal with him.

Mr BURKE:

– I do not say that there have not been occasions on which the occupant of the Chair at the time has not, on the spur of the moment, made a mistake in his ruling. I affirm, however, that the honorable gentleman who to-day occupies the honoured position of Speaker of this House has a wider knowledge of the Standing Orders and rules of the House and of the precedents established in it than has any other honorable member, whether he be a relatively new or old member of this’ chamber. The present discussion, as the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has said, is the result of an incident that occurred on the 23rd October last, when the attention of Mr. Speaker was drawn to a newspaper report of proceedings in the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee. The honorable member who raised the matter had asked Mr. .Speaker whether he had seen a. report which had appeared in a daily newspaper of a discussion of the committee’s deliberations with representatives of the press. Me.. Speaker replied that his attention had been drawn to a statement on the subject which had appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, but he had not had an opportunity to study it thoroughly. He went on to say that he had first noticed an editorial in that journal. He described the statement as “ completely untrue “, and then said -

What the committee did was to exercise the authority given to it by the Parliament to deal with the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings.

Ee continued -

I propose to go further into these newspaper reports; because, after all, the press has no right here. The only right the press enjoys here is the privilege bestowed upon them by the Parliament. If that privilege is abused hy the publication of false reports on what a committee of this House has done, I am prepared to take very strong action. I propose to examine all the newspaper reports, and if they are such as I suspect they might be, the newspapers concerned will remember the action I take.

Then only did the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) come into the picture. According to Hansard, the honorable member then said : “ Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation “.

Mr Holt:

– The honorable member has omitted to mention a. prior reference to a breach of privilege.

Mr BURKE:

– That referred to a breach of privilege by the newspaper only. There is no reference in the report to any individual member of the Parliament. The Hansard report continued -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not involved.

Mr Holt:

– In the question asked, a direct reference was made to my action in making a statement to the press.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay did not mention the honorable member as being the “ leak “ to the press.

Dr Evatt:

– The name of the honorable member for Fawkner was not mentioned in the question.

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

– The question was based on a statement which 1 had made to the press.

Mr BURKE:

– The important point is that it was not known to the country, even though it may have been known to some members of the House, that the honorable member was involved even in the slightest degree. Mr. Speaker did not, at that stage, make any reference to a breach of privilege by the honorable member. His only reference was to a breach of privilege on the part of the press which had published the report. It will be noted that, until the honorable member, of his own volition, became involved in the matter, his name had not been mentioned; nor, so far as I have been able to discover, had it been associated with the press report. The honorable member asked leave to make a statement, and leave was refused. Those were the original proceedings in this House. Let us now look at what the Standing Orders provide.

Mr Holt:

– The honorable member has omitted all references by Mr. Speaker to a breach of privilege by me. The report that appears in proof number 26 of Hansard for 1947, at page 12.35, in the first column.

Mr BURKE:

– That is the report of > later debate.

Mr Holt:

– No, the same debate.

Dr Evatt:

– It was a later debate ou grievances in which the honorable member for Fawkner took part.

Mr BURKE:

– That is true. On that occasion the honorable member initiated the discussion. That fortifies my point that at no stage in the original discussion was the honorable member for Fawkner mentioned, nor was there any implication that he was the honorable member involved in the leakage to the press. Only when the honorable member himself drew attention to the fact was it brought home to the House that he was involved. Mr. Speaker did not at any stage, until forced to do so, say that the person involved was the honorable member for Fawkner.

I shall now deal with the practice in relation to parliamentary committees. The only Standing Order dealing with the matter which I have been able to find is Standing Order 344, which provides^ -

The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the House, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person.

Mr Spender:

– That does not apply in this instance.

Mr Beale:

– That is a different kind of committee.

Mr BURKE:

– The only point upon which the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has based his assertion is that the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee does not report to this House. That is the position theoretically; in fact, the House is informed of decisions arrived at upon occasions, and as to the allocation of broadcasting times between the two Houses.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr BURKE:

– Those remarks merely clarify the situation. The subject with which the House is dealing is whether the honorable member for Fawkner had raised a matter which affected his rights and privileges as a member of this House and was thus entitled to precedence for his motion over other business then on the noticepaper, or subsequently introduced. Mr. Speaker, as honorable members have said, quoted an extract from May’s Parliamentary Practice in support of the ruling he had given, and then said that both the honorable member for Fawkner and the press could be adjudged guilty of a breach of privilege. The honorable member for Fawkner, in the motion which he submitted to the House, affirmed -

That it is not a breach of privilege for an honorable member to discuss the decision of a statutory committee exercising an executive function when such a decision is not required by statute to be reported to the House.

The issue upon which the House must pass judgment to-day is whether Mr. Speaker’s ruling in respect of that motion was right or wrong. Mr. Speaker said, “ It is an abstract motion that should be put on the notice-paper for debate at some other time “. The motion was immediately ruled out of order, and the ruling was repeated a little later. Theinference to be drawn from that ruling isthat Mr. Speaker may rule a motion out of” order either immediately or when the discussion makes its meaning clear. May’s Parliamentary Practice makes it clearthat Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons has exercised the right to determine whether a question is one of privilege according to the Standing Orders. The object is to prevent abuse of the Standing Orders by an honorable member claiming, under the cloak of privilege, the right to discuss a matter, for the discussion of which other means are provided by the Standing Orders. The only element involved in this matter is whether it should have been immediately discussed, or whether, in common * with other matters of a similar character not relating to privilege, it should have taken its place on the notice-paper and come up for consideration in due course. Was the motion of the honorable member for Fawkner a direct assertion that his privileges had been lessened oi his rights invaded, or was it a negative approach to an abstract question? Hemerely said that he wanted the House to decide that it was not a matter of privilege and that he could have disclosed evidence to the House. A matter of privilege takes immediate precedence and al the moment the statement was made thehonorable member should have risen to a question of privilege if, in fact, he thought that a matter of privilege had been involved. Immediately after thestatement had been made the honorable member should have sought to exercise his right to discuss the matter. Had he complained then of a breach of privilege he could have proposed a motion forthwith. However, the honorable member sought, by using the procedure laid down for complaint of an alleged breach of privilege, to declare that a certain action was not a breach of privilege. In this case he wanted the House to declare that a certain action was not a breach of privilege. This was not done immediately but at a. later stage. He could move such a motion only by giving notice of a substantive motion, and Mr. Speaker correctly ruled that he must- take such a course if he desired to pursue the matter. In short, the precedence given to matters of privilege applies only to complaints that the privilege of the Parliament has been attacked. In this -case there was no such contention by the proposer of the motion and Mr. Speaker had no option but to rule as he did. In May’s Parliamentary Practice, 13th Edition, I have discovered the following pertinent paragraph relating to claims of privilege overruled from the Chair:-

As precedence is naturally desired by members care has been taken, by rulings from the Chair, not to extend that claim to any motion which does not strictly relate to an urgent matter of privilege, properly so called, and many motions more or less affecting privilege have been brought on in their turn with other notices of motion.

Mr. Speaker has declined to give priority on the ground of privilege to a motion dealing with the case of a member who had been -elected after a sentence of imprisonment had been passed upon him which he was still serving.

May clearly indicates that unless there is a matter of urgent or immediate interest, Mr. Speaker is within his rights in declining to give precedence to the motion and preferring to treat it as a matter of privilege. In the same edtition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, appear the following paragraphs : -

Besides the interruption of business at the moment prescribed by the Standing Orders . proceedings may be interrupted by a matter of privilege or order, which calls for thu immediate interposition of the House on a matter of recent occurrence.

A privilege may also be brought forward without notice before the commencement of public business, and is considered immediately, on the assumption that the matter is brought forward without delay and that immediate consideration is essential to the dignity of the House.

E submit that none of these requirements was fulfilled in this case. First, the motion was not expressed in the complete and definitely clear-cut form in which a motion of that character should have been expressed. Secondly, it was not brought forward immediately after the statement to which exception was taken was made. Thirdly, it could in its abstract form have been placed on the notice-paper and, with other matters of a similar kind, have awaited the consideration of the House. Everything I have been able to discover, both, in our

Standing Orders and in May’s Parliamentary Practice, upholds the ruling given by Mr. Speaker in this matter, and by seeking to challenge the ruling of the Chair the honorable member is merely wasting time which could better be devoted to matters of major importance. No harm has been done to the dignity of the Parliament; no limitation has been placed on the privileges of honorable members. Honorable members, I am sure, will agree with Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The dignity of the House has not been affected and no one has suffered from the ruling and, accordingly, the motion must fail. On its merits, this issue must clearly be decided against the proposer of the motion. The honorable member probably submitted his motion in a wrong form in the first place, but the main consideration is that his rights were not in any way placed in jeopardy, i suggest that those honorable members who may follow me in the debate should discuss this matter on its merits and that no more should be heard of the accusation that honorable members on this side of the House show their partisanship by blindly supporting all rulings of the Chair, whether they be right or wrong. Naturally, we look to Mr. Speaker, as an expert in the interpretation of the Standing Orders, to guide us in points of procedure of this kind. ,He knows the Standing Orders better and May’s Parliamentary Practice more intimately than any other honorable member. The cheap jibe levelled against honorable members on this side of the House, that they support Mr. Speaker’s decisions whether they be right or wrong, could no doubt be made by Labour members were they sitting in opposition under a Speaker elected by the non-Labour parties; but that sort of criticism gets us nowhere. It lowers the dignity of this assembly and gives added support to those who would attack- the parliamentary institution, write down its members -and, perhaps unconsciously, provide a situation in which parliamentary government may give place to some other form of government which no sane thinking member of the community would choose deliberately.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- 1 indicated earlier that I seconded the motion proposed by the honorable member for

Warringah (Mr. Spender). I express to him my personal indebtedness for his motion and for the lucid description he has given to the House of the issues involved in it. I am, of course, indebted to him, because I am directly involved in a personal sense. As the honorable member for “Warringah has said, the personal position of any individual member of the Parliament is of secondary importance when issues affecting the rights of all members and the practice of Parliament are involved. It is to that aspect of the matter that I direct my attention at this time. First. however, in view of the remarks made by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke), who, presumably, has been assigned by the Government to defend Mr. Speaker’s ruling, it becomes necessary to clarify one or two points which have become obscured by the honorable member’s appalling ignorance of the circumstances of the case. The honorable member said that no question of privilege arose until I, myself, became involved in the original discussion. A question was asked in general terms relating to a member of a committee. “ No one “, the honorable member said, “ was specified, nor was any direct reference made to any particular member”. That is a process of hair-splitting which gets us nowhere. Every honorable member knew perfectly well that I was the member of the committee to whom reference was made at that time. There was no secrecy about it. I did not attempt to hide my remarks under the cloak of anonymity. I had disagreed with a decision reached by the committee on an executive function which the committee, by statute, was required to discharge. I had publicly expressed my opposition to the decision, and my statement appeared in the press under my own name. It was apparent to any one with a knowledge of the circumstances that when the question was asked and the answer was given by Mr. Speaker and a critical reference was made to the member involved I was that member. “When I sought to explain my own position in the matter, and a discussion developed, a clear statement was made in Mr. Speaker’s concluding remarks in these terms -

Therefore both the honorable gentleman and the press have been guilty of a breach of privilege.

So, there was the very specific charge that I, as the honorable gentleman concerned, had been guilty of a breach of privilege. That, in itself, is a serious charge. Indeed, it is the most serious charge that has ever been levelled against me in the Parliament, and I hope that I never encounter a more serious one during my term in this place. If I had been guilty of a breach of privilege, how then, as the member charged, could I set about redressing that position, or making my own position clear to the Parliament? I took what seemed to be the obvious course. We are now told in a quibbling discussion that my motion proposed on the following day was in general terms, that I had said it was not a breach of privilege for “a member” to do these things, and that I should have said that it was not a breach of privilege for me to do these things. It was quite clear that I was the member involved and that when I used the term “ a member “ everybody knew that I was referring to myself. Secondly, the privileges of all members were involved. If Mr. Speaker found, as indeed he did on the previous day, that what happened was a breach of privilege, how, consistently with that ruling, can it be argued that a motion which referred to that offence did not itself raise a question of privilege? The whole thing is patently absurd. The matter raised an issue of first-class importance to the Parliament.

Dr Evatt:

– Does the honorable member say that every question dealing with a matter of privilege is itself a question of privilege?

Mr HOLT:

– I prefer to deal with the specific case before us. Here was a question of privilege arising out of the conduct of the proceedings of a parliamentary committee. Now we are told that this is an abstract motion which should have been put on the noticepaper in the ordinary way. The honorable member for. Perth said that it raised no issue of urgency which warranted the Parliament dealing, with it as a question suddenly arisingThat submission is answered by the manner of the committee’s operations. It is an executive committee, which meets almost daily to deal with matters associated with the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament. The Government itself has something to answer for having allowed the postponement for eight months of the consideration of the motion, which relates to the operations of the committee. If an honorable member be guilty of a breach of privilege because he discusses a decision of an executive committee, obviously the operations of our parliamentary committees will be seriously hampered. In the terms of the statute under which this committee is appointed, a responsibility is thrown upon it to act without reference to the Parliament. It has an executive function. Indeed, the broadcasting and rebroad- casting of the proceedings of this Parliament can be carried out only in accordance with the conditions laid down by the committee after the general principles have been adopted by the Parliament. When I was charged with a breach of privilege, the committee had not presented any report to this Parliament for nearly twelve months, and has not since made a report. Quite clearly, these were issues arising daily on which discussion should properly take place.

However, I do not want to enlarge on that aspect, because the motion before the House is in relation to the ruling of Mr. Speaker himself. It would be a bad thing for this Parliament if conditions of procedure were so rigid that the decision of Mr. Speaker embodied the essence of infallibility. No man is infallible. Speakers are human, and, in this particular case, Mr. Speaker is involved not merely as a judge in respect of the discussion which took place, but also as a party to the proceedings out of which the incident arose. Therefore, we must examine with great care the decision which Mr. Speaker gave at that time. In view of the circumstances, I find it necessary to question the bona fides of the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. I do so with regret, and with great respect to the office which he holds, but the decision that he has given, if upheld by the House, will seriously limit the activities of committees appointed by this Parliament. We have a responsibility to determine for ourselves whether the decision was fair and just. I refer the House to the proceedings in the House which led to Mr. Speaker giving the ruling. In explaining that my own action could not be interpreted properly as a breach of privilege, I referred to the fact that Mr. Speaker,as the chairman of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee, had made a statement to the press. That was the offence with which I was charged. The allegation against me was that i had committed a breach of privilege, in that I had made known to the press what had taken place at a meeting of the committee. But I had been inf ormed - in my opinion reliably, that Mr. Speaker himself, in his capacity either as the chairman of the committee or in exercise of his rights as a private member of it, had given a statement to the press at the same time. I refer to a newspaper report of this incident in the House which reads as follows : -

Mr HOLT:

– I have seen the report.I have been informed by representatives of the press. “ They said they took press statements from you “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is totally untrue.

Mr HOLT:

– I have the press interview beforeme.

Mr Falstein:

– Who told vou?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If you told me who he was I would deal with him.

Mr HOLT:

– It was a representative of the Daily Telegraph. He said he had taken a statement from you, Mr. Speaker.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order. I do not desire to interfere in any way withthe honorable member’s right to discuss this matter fully; but the only question before the House is, not that which the honorable member is discussing, but whether the question subsequently raised by the honorable member was one of privilege. Therefore, the merits of the original ruling, whether it was right or wrong,do not arise here. The only question involved in this debate is whether a particular question raised was one of privilege. Mr. Speaker did not say that it was out of order. He said that it was not to be treated as a question of privilege. Therefore, I submit that the honorable member is not in order in going outside that specific issue. Mr. Holt. - I desire to speak to the point of order. We are examining a ruling by Mr. Speaker that a certain motion did not involve a question of privilege. Being bound by precedents laid down by the Chair, we, as a Parliament, are entitled to examine whether the ruling was made in good faith, and was backed by the impartiality of Mr. Speaker himself. It is all very well for the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to claim that it is for the Parliament to decide this matter impartially, as I hope it will; but, in practice, we frequently find that these matters are determined on a purely party vote. I am trying to enlist the interest of the House, and to have a decision recorded on this subject which will not be on purely party lines, by showing that Mr. Speaker’s own action is in question, and that his ruling should be critically examined with that fact in mind. In order to establish those points, I am entitled to examine the statement made at the time by Mr. Speaker, and show that, in substance, it is contrary to the facts.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

– Order! The point of order taken by the Attorney-General is correct, and I uphold it.

Mr HOLT:

– Then Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, I now make the allegation that the statement of Mr. Speaker was wilfully false. I shall substantiate that allegation, if necessary.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order. The honorable member is not in order in attacking Mr. Speaker.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already ruled that earlier remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner were out of order. He must not continue in that strain.

Dr Evatt:

– The honorable member for Fawkner has attacked Mr. Speaker, and I contend that he should be asked to withdraw those remarks.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The Attorney-General has taken exception to certain words which the honorable member for Fawkner has used, and I ask him to withdraw them, as they cast aspersions on Mr. Speaker.

Mr HOLT:

– What are the words that r should withdraw?

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The words “ wilfully false “.

Mr HOLT:

– I withdraw the words “wilfully false”, and merely say that Mr”. Speaker did, in fact, give a statement to the press. We, as a Parliament, are asked to determine whether the motion which I submitted was one of privilege. The issue does not require further elaboration by me. The honorable member for Warringah has placed it clearly before the House. I shall conclude by summing up the issue as it appears to me. If, in substance, a breach of privilege had been committed, as Mr. Speaker stated in the House, quite clearly a motion submitted by an honorable member in which he raised, not merely hip own position, but his own position as it affected honorable members generally, is a matter of privilege, and, in ruling that the motion was not a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker was in error and his ruling should not be supported by the House.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The only matter before the House is whether Mr. Speaker was right in ruling, in relation to an attempt by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) to submit a certain motion, that the question contained therein was not one of privilege. 3 admit that the subject is important, and I do not suggest that the matter cannot be debated by the House. Section 49 of the Constitution provides that the privileges of the House and of honorable members shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until so declared, shall be .those of the Commons House of Parliament.

Mr Spender:

– That is an important point in connexion with this motion.

Dr EVATT:

– I am aware of that. The motion which the honorable member for Fawkner had submitted was to the effect that a certain action was not a breach of privilege. The reference was to the discussion by an honorable member of a decision of a statutory committee exercising an executive function, when such a decision was not required by statute to be reported to the House. This is an important matter affecting privileges. If that motion wore carried by the House and confirmed by the Senate, it would become a ruling which would be binding. But that fact alone does not make the matter a question of privilege. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has conceded that two conditions must be satisfied. First, a prima facie case of breach of privilege must be made out, and, secondly, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The honorable member for Fawkner may be right in calling attention to that portion of the previous proceedings in which Mr. Speaker referred to the alleged breach of privilege, but Mr. Speaker can- not determine that an honorable member has been guilty of a breach of privilege. That matter must be determined by the House.

Mr Spender:

– That is not so. Mr. Speaker held that the honorable member had been guilty of a breach of privilege.

Dr EVATT:

– That is not the point. With great respect to the honorable member for Warringah, I remind him that it is a function of the House to declare whether there has been a breach of privilege.

Mr Spender:

Mr. Speaker said that it, was for him to determine whether there had been a breach of privilege.

Dr EVATT:

Mr. Speaker gave a ruling because the honorable member for Fawkner had raised the question. Mr. Speaker said, in effect, “ I am of a certain opinion “. That is quite a different matter from a solemn ruling of the House that an honorable member has committed a breach of privilege. The motion which the honorable member for Fawkner had submitted did not refer to the incident upon which the honorable member for Warringah now relies to support his case. I t did hot take up Mr. Speaker’s ruling, or the opinion that he expressed on the earlier occasion. It simply laid down an abstract, general rule to cover all future cases as to whether certain action by an honorable member should constitute a breach of privilege. If the House were to enumerate actions and conduct which are not breaches of privilege, the list will be a. long one. All the normal activities and conduct of honorable members, which are permitted, would have to be included in the list.

Mr Spender:

– That is a purely academic approach.

Dr EVATT:

– It is not. The honorable member knows perfectly well that we are now debating whether there was a breach of privilege. On the prima facie case, Mr. Speaker said that there had been no breach of privilege.The second requirement is that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. For reasons which seemed good to the honorable member for Fawkner, that course was not pursued. Instead of takingup the action of Mr. Speaker on the earlier occasion, honorable members opposite have attempted to lay down a rule applicable to all future occasions. This procedure bears no relation to the particular matter which had occurred on the earlier occasion. The point which the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) took was sound. He said that this proposal was purely academic and abstract, and might never rise again. It is not connected with the alleged breach of privilege by the honorable member for Fawkner, and, in my opinion, neither of the two conditions to which I have referred has been satisfied. A. prima facie case of breach of privilege was not made out.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 119.

page 2187

QUESTION

POPULATION

Declining Birth-rate.

Debate resumed from the 4th March (vide page 384), on motion by Dame Enid Lyons -

That the formulation of a comprehensive national population policy can no longer be delayed, in view of Australia’s responsibilities to herself and her relation to the outside world.

That while neglecting no phase of the problem, whether social, psychological, eco nomic or racial, such a policy, having regard to the general decline in the birth-rate, must place first emphasis upon the welfare of Australian women and children and the promotion of family life.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I listened with great interest to the remarks made on this subject by the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) and the Minister for Immigration (Mr.Calwell). Three outstanding points were made in their speeches. The first was that ourbirth-rate and that of all the western world is alarmingly low. although a recent rise has been noticeable in the Australian birth-rate following upon and coinciding with the war. The second point concerned the difficulties of parents with large, families as compared with those of parents with only one or two children. The third point, which was made by both speakers, ‘related to the lack of sympathy for, and the sense of social inferiority of, mothers with large families.

Very interesting material concerning the general question of population is presented from time to time. Due to the development of medical science, it is now possible for a greater number of people to live, and to live longer. Productive science, however, has not advanced at the same rate as medical science. Scientists to-day see a risk that the population of the world will outgrow world food supplies. “While this is not necessarily applicable to Australia to-day, it indicates a possible danger to the world as a whole. Therefore, all discussions relating to the increase of the population of any country must take into consideration the population of the world as a whole. This fact provides an argument in favour of bringing people to Australia, where food is plentiful, from countries where food is scarce, although if the scientists are correct in surmising that in about 70 years time the world will not be able to feed its peoples, it might be wiser for us to proceed upon the principle of quality rather than quantity. Quality might survive where quantity would not. It is reasonable to suppose that a threat to world food production is foreshadowed by the atomic bomb, which doubtless will become even more devastating as more money is made available for its development, and this may cause a world food crisis in a much shorter time than 70 years.

The Minister pointed out that in Europe there has been a rise in the birthrate similar to that which is occurring in Australia now. He used these words -

Why the birth-rate should increase in desolated .Europe is one of those phenomena which statisticians cannot explain, which baffles sociologists, and which is even beyond the speculation of psychiatrists.

I do not claim to be either a sociologist or a scientist. I claim to be fairly observant. I know that if I plant a bed of lettuces and they do not receive proper nourishment or cultivation, the lettuces are likely to run to seed. The weaker twigs of my peach and apple trees will bear fruit. Nature makes up for losses and rushes to leave quantities of seed to cover a deficiency or a weakness. I assume this is just as true of people as it is of plants.

Turning to the difficulties of parents with large families compared with those of parents with only one or two children, we are faced once again with the problems of housing and clothing and with the other anxieties that confront people with families. I have frequently pointed out that, although there is an outcry for more children, little consideration is given to parenthood. My files are full of letters from various authorities telling me that the housing of persons with families bristles with difficulties, and I have found this to be true. I believe that some racehorses in this country are better cared for and better housed than many of our babies. Families are being broken up, parents are being separated, not only from each other but from their children, and children are being taken into orphanages to relieve parents who have no homes for them. Conditions may have been worse in the past, but these conditions should not obtain in Australia to-day.

The Victorian Housing Commission does not build homes for parents with, for example, thirteen children; yet I have received appeals from families with that number of children who cannot be accommodated. I have in mind another case. It is that of a family in which the youngest children are triplets aged about two years. There are twins who are a little older and two or three other children who are older still. I ask honor-, able members to imagine the floor space that would be occupied by the beds alone. This family is living in three small damp rooms, of which the kitchen is the only living room. The eldest child is only seven or eight years. “Where are the babies to learn to walk? The yard is contained in a space 18 feet in length, between the back door and the back fence. A housing commission home would not accommodate this family because the beds would not fit into it. “When the father came to see me, he said, “ What do they think I should do - take a few of the children out and drown them?” If we are to discuss this subject seriously, we must recognize that these cases exist. If children are to be born in Australia, proper provision must be made for them - and it must be proper provision for healthy children, if we are to look for the quality of which I spoke earlier.

A few days ago I mentioned the hospital problem. It is fairly common for a mother to spend only three days in hospital bfter childbirth. A stay of five days is utmost regular. I have been told by the J Hospital authorities that the mothers are asked whether they have people to care for them when they get to their homes. Most of them say that they have, because they are anxious about what is happening to the child or children that they have left. There are no after-care homes and practically no possibilities of any aftercare at all for most of these mothers. That applies to the majority of the people in the cities. In this connexion I have in mind the case of one mother who returned to her family five days after childbirth. When I called at her house, before the new baby was a week old, I found her doing the washing for seven people. A great deal could be said about this matter. This is happening in all the cities of Australia to-day. It is an aspect of our birthrate or population problem that is rarely thought of, and I hope that opportunities will be afforded for other honorable memhers to discuss the question from that aspect alone. 1! do not agree with the statements that were made by the previous speakers about the treatment that is meted out to mothers with more than one or two children. I have not found the lack of sympathy or the sense of social inferiority to which they referred. I am certain that it is not general and applies only to a small section of society. From my experience and extensive observations, I know that friendliness and helpful neighbourliness is extended to the mothers of small children. This, too, is worthy of mention. In areas that are fortunate enough to have a nursery or a kindergarten, the general standard of treatment of mothers and children has improved. In those areas, the child is the most important member of the community and is recognized as such.

The activities of these areas tend to show a greater consideration for the child, the mother and the child’s problems. One of the pinpricks to which mothers are subjected is that perambulators are not allowed on trams and trains in some States. I understand that this is not obvious in Western A.ustralia. In Perth, provision is made for the carriage of perambulators or pushers on trams and trains, and in the public buildings a ramp is constructed to avoid the difficulty of getting perambulators up and down steps. If such consideration can be given in one pari of Australia, it can, and should, be given in other parts. Pinpricks of the kind I have mentioned a.re a more serious matter than private intolerance. 1 should say, from my own observation, that to-day young married people want babies, and are ready to sacrifice much in order to have them. Only a very limited number of people adopt the attitude that women who have children have almost committed a crime against civilization, to quote the words used by the Minister for Immigration.

Something has been said about thieffect on home life of the 40-hour working week. My observation in an industrial area leads me to the belief that the 40-hour week has proved a good thing. Fathers have more time to spend with their children, and to help in the home, although some may not fully avail themselves of the opportunity. Fathers sometimes need training, and their training in home making will begin from now. In any case, the time has arrived when those whose duty it is to consider variations of wages and working -hours should also take into consideration the ultimate effect of variations on the home life of the people. The duty of parents to share in the responsibility of bringing up their children is, I believe, quite as important as, if not more important than, the earning of a. living. Finally, I submit that those who advocate a higher birth-rate should consider the child who has no say in his arrival in the country. He cannot determine anything for himself, yet he it is who suffers when things go wrong.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2190

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1948

Motion (by Mr. Pollard) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under Customs Tariff Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

. - by leave - I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to validate the collection of duties of customs in accordance with the tariff amendments contained in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 which were introduced into the Parliament on the 2nd June last. The period of validation is limited to the six months ending the 17th December, 1948. As the Parliament will be rising at an early date, it will not be possible to afford honorable members an opportunity to debate the individual items during the present sitting.

For the information of honorable members, I shall briefly, outline the amendments contained in the Customs Tariff Proposal which is covered by the bill. The principal tariff amendment is that relating to vacuum cleaners under Tariff item 380 (b). Following a Tariff Board inquiry and report, this item was amended so as to grant protection to all domestic type electrical vacuum cleaners, whereas protection was previously limited to a restricted group of barrel type cleaners. Recent developments in the industry make this change desirable, and the bill ensures continuance of the protective rates until the Parliament has an opportunity to examine them.

Another amendment is that to item 373, which provides for duty-free admission pf goods for specified officials of the United Nations organization and associated organizations. These privileges have been granted in accordance with the. Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

The remaining amendments are of a minor nature, and do not effect any actual changes in tariff rates. The wording of item 122 (c) covering polishing cloths has been amended to include a wider range of polishing cloths to overcome tariff classification difficulties. The proposed amendment to item 269 (d) extends dutyfree admission under that item to all rotenone spraying preparations, whereas it was previously limited to derris preparations. There was considerable difficulty in distinguishing derris preparations from others containing rotenone, and the amendment removes this difficulty. The amendments to items 174 (x) (45) and 319 (a) (3) simplify the tariff classification of matrices for talking machine records without affecting the rates in any way.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– TheOpposition notes that this bill merely provides for the validation of the collections of customs duties under tariff proposals introduced in June of last year. “We appreciate that it is necessary to validate the collections, and we know that there is not sufficient time now to allow the schedule to be debated. I sound one note of warning, however. As a rule, the collection of customs duties under new tariff proposals continues for far too long without the direct authority of the Parliament, and eventually it becomes necessary to pass validating legislation. Sometimes, the validation has to he renewed before the schedules are finally approved. During the war, that was sometimes unavoidable, but the war is now over. It is only fair to those secondary industries which are seeking to take advantage of the trade opportunities that have arisen since the conclusion of the war that the Parliament should be given an opportunity to debate new tariff schedules as soon a? possible after their introduction. If the practice is continued of allowing the matter to drag on until validating legislation becomes necessary, the Opposition will have to change its attitude.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2191

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1948

Motion (by Mr. Pollard) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of excise under Excise Tariff Proposals.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

. -by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, and validates the collection of excise duties in accordance with the amendments contained in the excise tariff proposals introduced into Parliament on the 2nd June last. The period of validation is the same, namely, the six months to the 17th December, 1948. As the Parliament will be rising at an early date, there will not be any opportunity to debate the proposals during this sitting.

The amendments which this bill proposes to validate do not involve any important changes in excise rates. The item covering liqueurs is proposed to he changed to enable more effective control to be exercised over the manufacture of liqueurs in the interests of consumers and legitimate manufacturers. This change will come into effect by proclamation when the necessary administrative arrangements are made.

The remaining amendments relate to the exemption from excise duty of certain goods for the United Nations organization and associated agencies, and correspond to the customs concessions provided in the Customs Tariff Proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2191

AIRPORT FOR TASMANIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee

Act 1913-1947, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report, namely: - Establishment of new airport (for Hobart at Llanherne, Tasmania.

It is proposed to establish a complete, new airport, including the acquisition of land and the construction of a 121 degrees magnetic runway, with associated aprons, taxi-ways, drainage and initial buildings, at an estimated total cost of £760,000. I lay on the table the plans of the proposed aerodrome.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2191

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1948

Motion (by Mr. Ward) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to approve the placing of the Territory of New Guinea under the International Trusteeship System, to provide for the Government of the Teritory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea, and for other purposes.

page 2191

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1948-49

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 16th June (vide page 2125).

Schedule.

Department of External Affairs.

Proposed vote, £382,430.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- Yesterday the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) criticized the Department of External Affairs and. in his reply, the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) seemed to assume that criticism of his department was close to sacrilege; that everything that the department did was right, and that whoever criticized it was wrong. I rather gathered from his remarks that he believes that for the first time in the life of this country, and only since his. administration of the Department of External Affairs, had Australia had a policy on external affairs. He sought to compare conditions before and since 1941. I remind him of the great difference between his methods and those of the Menzies Government and its predecessors in the conduct of foreign affairs. We, on this side of the chamber, believe that discussions inside the family of the

British Commonwealth of Nations should take place, in substance, behind closed doors and should not be canvassed in public, whereas, even before the United Nations was created, the Government displayed its opinion that differences between members of the British Commonwealth should be ventilated publicly. One of my serious criticisms of the Government is that in publicly ventilating differences between members of the British Commonwealth it has widely breached the soliclarity of the British Commonwealth. Because of that, we have criticized some of the operations of the Department of Externa] Affairs. The Minister for External Affairs said that we agreed in principle with the main items of the policy of the Government. I do not know precisely what he means by that, but, if he means that we agree with the Government’s objectives, that may well be true. An objective is one thing but the means of reaching it is another. The advance^ ment of peace through the United Nations to the degree that that is possible, the consolidation of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the defence of Australia are, in general terms, three objectives with which every one in this chamber ‘ agrees; but the great difference between our approach and that of the Minister is on methods. I have said more than once that I do not believe that any constant thread of policy has been disclosed, by the Government. The Minister for External Affairs is no doubt to be congratulated upon the trouble that he goes to in the preparation of his statements on international affairs; but I find it impossible to reconcile them with those of other responsible Ministers. I direct the attention of honorable members to one outstanding example to establish my point. Before the Parliament adjourned for the referendum campaign, the Minister for External Affairs made a statement consisting of 280 pages, in which he referred, amongst other things, to the coup in Czechoslovakia. I agreed with his observations on that matter, but I heard the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) express a view on that matter quite irreconcilable with that of the Minister for External

Affairs, and not only on that matter but on foreign policy as a whole. It is a matter of bewilderment to the people of Australia, and of disturbance to honorable members on this side of the chamber, to find two senior Ministers expressing two different views on matters on which there should be unity. The opinion has been offered more than once by honorable members of the Opposition that the policy of the Government has in some ways fractured the strength of the British Commonwealth. I endorse that opinion. I urge the Minister for External Affairs, who only recently has appreciated the need for strengthening the. Empire, to realize also his obligation to increase the bonds that bind the nations of the British Commonwealth. It is one thing to be on the diplomatic omnibus and another to be certain which way it is going. It. is more to the second matter than to the first that I direct my remarks. I concede to the Minister that it is not easy to solve the problem of strengthening the British Commonwealth so as to create one strategic factor in the world. I have the habit of repeating because it is important the statement of the late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, that Australia spoke with a trumpet voice in the councils of the world when it spoke with the alliance potential of the British people. I firmly believe that to be true. It is’ frequently said that to accept the principle that the voices of the British countries must be in harmony, we should have to forfeit our right to express an independent view. A balance of course must be struck. On the one hand, if Australia expresses an entirely independent view on every item of foreign policy, as it has been too apt to do in the last six or seven years, we shall play into the hands of either potential enemies or those who desire to see the strength of the British people destroyed. On the other hand, if we submerge our views entirely in those of Great Britain, we shall not be able to express our views on, for example, special problems in this part, of the world. I realize the need to compromise between the two extremes. I realize, too, the disparity in the positions, in one sense, of members of the British Commonwealth. The special problems of South Africa and Canada are quite different from those of Australia, both economically and internationally. When one considers the peculiar problems of those two important parts of the British Commonwealth, one realizes that it is not easy to work out a scheme by which all the British peoples may speak with one voice. But every honorable member should be profoundly disturbed by the fact that the prestige of the British people has declined rapidly in the last four or five years. I speak of that as a fact. I have had the opportunity of moving round the world in the last three or four years, and [ know what I am talking about. It is regrettable that Great Britain, which almost alone held the rampart in 1940 and 1941 against the hordes that sought to destroy liberty and democracy, having survived the war, is going through the most desperate economic times that any nation could go through.’ It is because I have seen the world dividing itself into two mammoth camps that I have done my utmost to sound a warning that, unless we can find a way in which the British Commonwealth of Nations can present a common front to the world, the British people will ultimately be destroyed as a major influence for good in the world, and each component part of the Empire will be reduced to the condition of a satellite nation. That conviction is forced upon me. When this century dawned Great Britain was the strongest nation in the world. It was still in that position at the outset of the war of 1914-18, when the challenge of German had to be faced. The United States of America had noi, then reached the position in which it could challenge that of Great Britain, industrially or economically. It may be said that Great Britain and its Empire emerged from that war in a pre-eminent position. But, as the result of its great sacrifices in the war just concluded, it has been reduced almost to penury. Certainly, its economic position, as compared with what it was before 1939, has been most disastrously affected. So, we, in this part of the world, must pay the closest attention to its position. I am the last to question the right of any part of the British Commonwealth to express independent views, but it must be obvious to everybody that unless the British nations strengthen, with a common policy, the bonds that bind them, their influence in the world will be greatly endangered. Recently, Field Marshal Lord Montgomery drew attention to the signs of danger that are revealing themselves throughout the world. He said that, if only the British people could evolve a common policy on a strategic level, we could face the future with equanimity. We might not be able to face the future with equanimity, but wecould face it with greater confidence thanwe can to-day if we could evolve that common policy. I see the future of the world largely in terms of the future of the British . people. It is quite wrong for us to imagine that we can have any great influence on world events if we, as one nation, seek to assert our rights as one nation in all circumstances. I hope for closer collaboration between this Government and the Governments of Great Britain, New Zealand and other parts of the British Commonwealth. I realize that those are general words, and, in saying them, I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties of the problem. But if the bonds of the British- Commonwealth are to be strengthened, the move must come from this end. I remember an address that I made and the reply to it in London last year. It was made clear to me that many who desired to see the welding of the British Commonwealth more closely together thought that the move could not come from Great Britain because, if it did, it would be interpreted as interference with Australian affairs. So I want to see the move made from this end. Mr. John Curtin, some years before his death, sought to have created an imperial secretariat. The British authorities made a great mistake, I believe, in not welcoming the suggestion. It is true that it was not supported by Canada or South Africa, but if we are to wait upon all the component parts of the Commonwealth to reach agreement no progress of any kind will be made. I believe that if Canada and South Africa are not at the moment prepared to participate in such a secretariat, the secretariat ought to be established at least among Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The course of time will show the other Dominions that there would be nothing inconsistent with their independence in membership of it. They would find it both to their advantage and to the interests of world peace generally if they came ultimately into such a secretariat. I believe the problems of the world to-day, strategic as well as economic, are quite capable of solution.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I believe that the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) is one of the most respected of the members of this House when he discusses the subject of foreign policy. At least, I have found it so, and many people with whom I have conversed are of the same opinion. In his writings, too, I believe that the honorable member shows the same sense of responsibility as he does in his speeches on foreign policy in this House. However, I do not not believe that, in his speech to-day, he was scientific in his approach to the question of inter-Imperial co-operation. His statement that a fracture has developed in the co-ordination of Imperial policy between Great Britain and the Dominions was sound, but when he imputed some of the responsibility for that position to the present Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), he was less sound. I shall quote offhand some of the instances of co-operation between this Government and the British Government, and other instances where Great Britain showed plainly that : was not its intention to co-operate or even to consult with the Dominions with respect to certain matters. Those latter examples will show that the onus for any so-called fracture in the co-ordination of Imperial policy does not rest with the Dominion. We have an instance of cooperation with Great Britain in Australia’s participation in the occupation of Japan and in the policy pursued in that country. Australia called the British Commonwealth conference on the peace Settlement with Japan which was held in Canberra last August between Britain and the Dominions for the purpose of coordinating Imperial foreign policy with respect to the Japanese peace treaty. On the other hand, there has been little co operation between Great Britain and the Dominions in respect of the terms of thi European Peace Treaty and the responsibility for that lack of co-operation rests primarily with Great Britain, which at that stage was adhering to a policy of co-operation between the great powers. The minor powers wen only to be informed of decisions reached by the major powers. In the crisis over the claims of Argentina and Chile foi sovereignty over British territory in the South Atlantic, the Australian Government offered naval co-operation to Great Britain, which was gratefully acknowledged. With the Dominion of New Zealand, co-operation with which the honorable member has recommended to this Parliament, we have the closest cooperation in the Anzac Pact. But what of the attitude of Great Britain towards the Dominions in respect of some matters of foreign policy ? The truth is that Great Britain is labouring under the impact of three revolutions. The first of these is the revolution in the European balance of power occasioned by the destruction of Germany. Great Britain has made an effort to restore the balance of power in Europe through the formation of what is known as the Western Union, and in making that effort it has sacrificed some of the interests of the Dominions. The second revolution affecting Great Britain is in the situation in Asia and in Great Britain’s abandonment of her position in India and Burma. Great Britain’s present position in Asia, India and Burma was caused not by any lack of co-operation on the part of the Dominions, but by the sheer pressure of events. The third revolution which has affected Great Britain is in it.economic situation, which has occasioned the destruction of British investments in China and by the liquidation of British investments in Canada and thi United States in order to pay foi equipment and supplies during thirecent war. It is also due in some measure to the war-time destruction of much of Great Britain’s own capital equipment at home. I may summarize the position by saying that whereas before the war Britain had claims on foreign production amounting, by way of interest on investments, to something like £220,000,000 annually, its return from interest on foreign investments has fallen to about £60,000,000 annually. If honorable members will study the foreign policy of Great Britain and the extent to which Britain Kas jettisoned the practice of consulting the dominions on many matters involving relations with other nations, they will find that the whole situation can be explained in terms of the three revolutions I have mentioned. It is wrong to impute responsibility for the weakening )f co-operation in these matters to any dominion Prime Minister, or Minister for External Affairs. Great Britain presented the dominions with an accomplished fact in its abandonment of its position in Egypt and also in Palestine, which is another area from which Great Britain has withdrawn its influence. It lid the same thing in relation to India ;ind Burma. Another example is the setting up of the “Western Union in Europe. The Western Union will affect (imperial preference and initiative - and r.he responsibility for that fact rests upon the British Foreign Office. But the need for that union is great considering Britain’s present position in Europe. When the dominion governments made representations to Great Britain regarding the Western Union insofar as it appeared to affect them adversely, Britain, in my opinion, quite rightly brushed the Dominions’ objections aside. The Western Union is an example of Britain’s present attitude to unilateral action in regard to matters which might affect the whole of the British Commonwealth. The objectives of the Western Union Agreement contained in the preamble of the Treaty of Brussels are set out in part as follows : - lo fortify and preserve the principles of democracy, personal freedom, and political liberty, the constitutional traditions, and the rule of law which are their common heritage; to strengthen with these aims in view the economic, social, and cultural ties by which they are already united; to co-operate loyally and to co-ordinate their efforts to create in Western Europe a firm basis for European economic recovery; to afford assistance to each other, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, in maintaining international peace and security and in resisting any policy of aggression ; desiring for these purposes to conclude a treaty for collaboration in economic, social and cultural matters, and for collective self-defence, have agreed as follows: -

Article 1 of the treaty then follows. It reads : -

Convinced of the close community of their interests, and of the necessity of uniting in older to promote the economic recovery of Europe, the High Contracting Parties will so organize and co-ordinate their economic activities as to produce the best possible results, by the elimination of conflict in their economic policies, lbc co ordination of production, and the development of commercial exchanges. The co-operation provided for which will be effected through the Consultative Council referred to in Article 7, as well as through other bodies, shall not involve any duplication of, or prejudice to the work of other economic organizations in which thu parties are or may be represented, but shall on the contrary assist the work of those organizations.

The parties declare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the international engagements now in force between him and any other party or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of the treaty. None of the parties will conclude any alliance or participate in any coalition directed against any other of the’ parties.

That treaty is clearly an example of unilateral action by Great Britain as it includes the establishment of a consultative council between Great Britain and the western powers. If the economic clauses of the agreement mean anything at all they will affect imperial preference. The establishment of a system of preference between the powers subscribing to the Western Union is the foundation stone of British foreign policy in Europe. In addition, the treaty would appear to take priority over any relations that Britain may have with the dominions, because Article 6 of the Treaty provides -

The parties declare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the international engagements now in force-

I presume that refers to the Ottawa Agreement. - between him and any other party or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of the Treaty. None of the parties will conclude any alliance or participate in any coalition against any other of the parties.

Elsewhere the parties to the treaty undertake not to enter into any agreement inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement covering social, cultural arid military matters. When the British Foreign Minister, Mr. Bevin, outlined the intentions of the British Government with respect to the treaty, he said it was not designed to effect some short-term strategic or financial benefit. He made it quite clear that it was to be a cardinal factor in British foreign policy for the next 50 years, and the other parties to the agreement showed how greatly they valued it. The treaty must necessarily influence Great Britain’s relations with the dominions. In this regard I quote Baron van Boetzelaar who attended the Western Union conference on behalf of Holland as follows : -

Holland had always regarded neutrality as the main line of its foreign policy, and this had contributed to disequilibrium among the European great powers. The new pact puts an end to the possibility of Holland remaining neutral in the event of aggression.

Quite clearly the expansion of Russian power in Europe necessarily imposed on Britain a policy of active intervention in Western Europe and, in. fact, of active alliance in that part of the world, if it was to obtain results worth anything in its task of restoring the European balance of power. It had to make great concessions to as well as receive concessions from, the other western powers, which comprise Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg and France. Many people who in the past have sponsored the idea of an imperial secretariat or federation, believe a similar agreement to this one would have been beneficial had it been established between Empire countries in times gone by. The main responsibility for the drift from imperial co-operation that has been, a feature of imperial relations recently rests with the British Government, but I do not blame that government for it. The loss by Great Britain of its dominant position in Europe, the revolutionary situation in Asia, and the great damage to Britain’s economic position caused by the war, has forced it into union with other countries. I believe that when conditions settle down there will be found a trend in British foreign policy towards cooperation with the dominions. I do not know whether the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, will show any greater tendency in the future to give prior undertakings to Great Britain about what Canada will do in the event of Britain becoming involved in an international conflict, as he did prior to the last war, and I am doubtful whether the new Government of South Africa will be friendly towards any ideas of closer imperial co-operation. We ought to be at least fair enough to the Minister for External Affairs to recognize that, more than perhaps any other dominion Minister, he has advocated imperial cooperation. Honorable members witnessed examples of this in the crisis over Argentina, in the Anzac Pact between Australia and New Zealand and in Australia’s initiative in seeking co-ordination of foreign policy with respect to thcJapanese Peace Treaty, at the conference in Canberra last August to which I have already alluded. Another example is the manner in which Australia is shouldering her obligations in the provision of the occupation forces for Japan.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- J gathered the impression from the speech of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) that Great Britain through no fault of its own had had to neglect or to an extent abandon the dominions, and he outlined the reasons, as he saw them, why Britain had been more or less forced to take this course. He went on to say that. Britain had not consulted the dominions in certain cases. I do not believe that Britain is entirely at fault. The British Commonwealth of Nations is a family of nations. In a family where the mother is sick the members of the family do not just let her lie in bed until she cries out for help. They visit her, find out what the trouble is and do what they can to help her. The present position is not one of Britain just abandoning the rest of the Commonwealth. We should show our interest in, and readiness to help Britain. We should help as much as possible to bring about closer Empire co-operation.

During the budget debate I questioned the desirability of the continuance of

Australian embassies in certain foreign countries. -Provision is made in this bill for funds for the Australian embassies, amounting in Russia to £15,270, in Brazil £5,780, and in Chile to £3,640, making a total of £24,690. During the budget debate, I asked for information about the return we received from the expenditures involved. I was then informed by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) that the future of overseas embassies and legations was under review and that the need for effecting savings, particularly in the dollar areas, was being seriously considered. When the New Zealand Government was reported to have closed its embassy in Russia, . I again asked the right honorable gentleman whether the’ Australian Government proposed to take similar action in order to save expenditure, and I also asked once more for details of the benefits wa were receiving from the maintenance of these expensive overseas establishments. I have never been told what benefits we derive from them. I agree that it is essential that we should maintain friendly relations with Russia and, perhaps, on that score the continuance of the Australian Embassy there may be justified ; but surely Australia can be adequately represented in South American countries, particularly those with which our trade is negligible, by a liaison officer attached to the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. It should not be necessary to continue the existing costly establishments in those countries.

Dr Evatt:

– Does the honorable member limit his suggestion to the embassies in South America?

Mr HOWSE:

– Yes. I understand that they are at present under review. I offer no criticism of the External Affairs officers attached to them. No doubt they are endeavouring to fulfil their task in very difficult circumstances. It is bad policy to squander money on these expensive establishments in South American countries when dollars are so urgently needed for our own requirements of agricultural implements, tractors and motor cars.

It is difficult for overseas countries to understand the policy of this Government on international affairs. We appear to have an unhappy knack of insulting our former allies. The Dutch, who were our gallant allies during the war, have had to suffer humiliation at our hands for the last two and a half years as the result of the ban imposed by a militant industrial union upon Dutch ships trading between the Dutch East Indies and Australia. The Dutch people may well ask : “ What is the difference between the policy of the Waterside Workers Union and the foreign affairs policy adopted by this Government ? “ It would be very difficult to convince them that we are friendly disposed towards them when our actions so flatly contradict such a claim. We seem to have overlooked the fact that we are the losers by this.policy. Australia has lost many millionsof pounds in trade with the Dutch Indiesas the result of the stupid ban on Dutch shipping. The latest victim of our insults is Greece. Towards the end of the war, I was attached to the Australian Red Cross Mission to Greece. The mission did a magnificent job. It was sent to Greece as a friendly gesture in recognition of the humanitarian part played by the Greeks in harbouring our soldiers in time of great need. The members of the mission were the best possible ambassadors for Australia. They lived in the country and gave much needed succour to the unfortunate people. How much of that good work has been destroyed by the recent ban on Greek ships imposed by the Seamen’s Union we do not know. It must have been a great blow to Greeks who have many friends on this side of the world. It is high time the Government controlled its own foreign policy and refused to be dictated to by industrial pressure groups. We should not pursue two policies, one of abuse and the other of conciliatory words.

We must look to the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations as our real friends. Great Britain can no longer play the part of the fireman of Europe - putting out fires which threaten to spread beyond control - for it is no longer the strong nation that it was in former times. Previously it sought to maintain the- balance of power in Europe, but now it is overshadowed by the growing menace of Russia, a country which is becoming more powerful every day. Great Britain has been forced to join the Western Union in order to endeavour to stem the tide of communism which is spreading throughout Europe. I agree with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) that we should make allowances for the plight in which Great Britain now finds itself and we should be ever ready to co-operate with our kinsmen overseas. In order to enable us fully to appreciate affairs abroad, the Parliament should be informed of all new moves in the international sphere. Very little has been said in this House about the Western Union. Indeed, it is most difficult for a private member to keep himself up to date on overseas events. The Government should arrange for the presentation of more frequent ministerial statements in relation to foreign affairs. It has access to many documents and has many channels of information which are not available to the private member of the Parliament. I do not suggest that the Minister should disclose confidential information; I merely suggest that he should inform the Parliament on happenings abroad much more frequently than he does now. In the past, comprehensive surveys of international affairs have been presented from time, to time, but almost invariably they have been out of date by the time they have been circulated to us. In almost every instance months have elapsed between the events and the presentation of the statement. More frequent up-to-date reviews of international affairs would be appreciated by all honorable members.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) spoke last night in somewhat resentful terms about alleged criticism by honorable members on this side of the House some time ago of a statement ‘prepared by him which formed the basis of the debate on international affairs. His remarks should be corrected. I do not remember any honorable member on this side of the House speaking in sneering terms about that statement. On the contrary, I remember full well that several honorable members spoke in appreciation of the fact that there had been put before them a good deal of detail in regard to what had happened overseas during the preceding months. Such appreciation has again been expressed by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender/ For my part, I also express it.. It is welt that we should have documented in a detailed fashion the story of Australia’negotiations in foreign affairs through it* Minister for External Affairs and th* officials of his department. I do noi quarrel with the fact that we were presented with a long statement, running into between 200 and 300 pages. I do noi even quarrel with the fact that we found the statement a somewhat melancholy one The Minister is not to blame for that It was very largely a catalogue of failure in the international sphere, and of the failure of the attempt to make the United Nations workable. I do not propose to turn this debate into a full-dress discussion of international affairs, as a motion dealing with that subject is on the notice-paper. I ask leave, however, to spend a little time in replying to one or two observations made by the Minister for External Affairs. What we object to is not so much the matters .that are outlined in his statement as those that are omitted from it . we object not to the fact that it made de pressing reading, but to the fact that ii contained very little record of what h most important of all to Australia, tha? is, what had really been done and achieved in the matter of tightening our relation1 with Great Britain and the other unit.of the British Commonwealth of Nations I agree entirely with the Minister for External Affairs that this subject of international relations is one of great difficulty and that it has become increasingly complex. Of course it has. As the right honorable gentleman indicated, the character of the British Commonwealth itself has greatly changed. It has changed dramatically during the last few years, but the dramatic nature of the most recent changes should not blind us to the fact that it has never been a static unit. It has always been in the process of change. A few weeks ago I mentioned what I regarded as the changes which had taken place from time to time in the nature of the Empire, and I do not pro pose to repeat them now. I merely say that what is left of the British Commonwealth of Nations to-day is very different from what we regarded as the British Commonwealth of Nations even five, or ten years ago. All that is left of it to-day may be said to be Great Britain, plus the dependencies and the colonies, on the one hand, and certain selfgoverning dominions, united under dominion status, consisting of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, on the other. Even the Canadian position is not entirely clear, because Canada has other allegiances and interests. When on a previous occasion [ made some observations about the problems which face Australia the Minister for External Affairs charged me with having delivered a speech which - and he used a word which he apparently learned to love - was “ inspissated with gloom “. [t may be that I did present a gloomy picture, but that is no reason why we should not face the facts. We have no longer un Empire embracing India, Pakistan, Eire, or, for that matter, South Africa. These units have disappeared. I take responsibility for saying that for all practical purposes South Africa must be regarded as no longer part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, although the de jure position at the moment may be that it is still a member. At all events, it may be accepted for all practical purposes that, in the near future, South Africa will no longer be a part of the sort if Empire we visualize when Ave think of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain. There is no doubt a good historical reason for that. Australia, New Zealand and Canada look upon Great Britain as the Mother Country, whereas those other countries which formerly enjoyed dominion status and were regarded as a part of the British Empire are themselves mother countries. That statement is not entirely true of South Africa, but there again, in a population of some 10,000,000 persons, of whom 8,000,000 are natives, only onethird of the remaining 2,000,000 are of British stock, and the rest are mostly Afrikanders who have no particular affection for the British tie. In my view, that may well be the deciding factor in South Africa’s attitude towards the British Commonwealth in future. So, we have an empire of internal relations consisting of the countries which I have named, and, in addition, there are other countries not now part of the British Commonwealth, which may, however, still be re-united with us in a new kind of Commonwealth. Professor Mansergh called it a Commonwealth of “ external associations “.

The Minister, I am sure, is familiar with the article which the professor wrote for the Bound Table recently, in which he discussed this matter in relation to Eire. He pointed out that whereas Eire enjoyed dominion status in 1921, it had proceeded to break away and to tear up the treaty in the course of a few years. It had achieved, in fact, what strictly it was not entitled to achieve in law, and had made itself a separate nation outside the British Commonwealth. ‘ Oddly enough, circumstances have since occurred which have had a profound effect on the minds of the Irish people, not the least of which was the magnificent tolerance and patience which the British Government showed during World War II., when it endured the agony of having to decide whether it would take the western ports of Eire. Britain had handed them over to Eire in 1938, against the warnings of Mr. Winston Churchill. Although President Roosevelt wanted Great Britain to take that action, it decided to keep the spirit as well as the letter of the law and it did not lay hands upon those ports although at the time, its very existence was at stake. That is one of a number of decisions and events which produced a profound effect in the minds of the Irish people, and although,- in law and in fact, Eire is now outside the British Commonwealth of Nations, it would be possible, by wise statesmanship on the part of the British people, to re-unite Eire and also Pakistan and India in a new commonwealth of external associations. The problem is most difficult, and bristles with obstacles at every turn, but that is no reason why we should not face it.

The foreign policy of Australia therefore first and foremost, should be directed towards re-orientating our own relations, not only with Great Britain, but also with present and former units of the British Commonwealth. It is of no use Australia being an atom spinning in the void, yet that is what we are tending to become. Again and again, we have asserted at public conferences and in the press, through the mouth of the Minister, our right to speak our own mind and we have done so very bluntly - sometimes even rudely - and in violent opposition to the opinions of the rest of the British Commonwealth. In the interests of our security, that practice must stop. It may fee very nice for a young nation to be able to say, “ Well, we are free and independent. We express our own views, and although we are only little, we shall express them loudly.” Little people often express themselves in that way, but the time has come when Australia must learn 4o be wise about this matter. Above -all, in foreign affairs in future, Australia must discuss privately with the British Government and other units of the British Commonwealth our problems fin relation to the world at large. At all costs we must endeavour to reach an agreement privately, and maintain a common front. Last night the Minister gave an illustration to which I should like to reply. Referring to Palestine, he said that the British Government took one view which, he indicated, was proArab.

Dr Evatt:

– Nothing of the kind. I said that the British Government had decided not to express any view at the conference.

Mr BEALE:

– The British Government had previously expressed a view. It was not in favour of the partition of Palestine. The answer which I shall give to the Minister’s observations last night will be in the nature of an extreme example. I consider that it was most important that the Australian and British Governments should have expressed only one view regarding Palestine. I know that in making this statement, I am open to some criticism, but I frankly express this opinion, because I honestly believe that it reflects what we should strive for. It was more important for Australia and Great Britain to speak with one voice than it was for Australia to express a separate view on this issue. Australia believed that its view was right, but then, Great Britain also happened to believe that its view was right. It is all very well to say that we should stand, at all costs, for what we believe to be the better of two views. There can always be two opinions among honest people, or among honest statesmen, but we now live in a world of ruthless power, and it was vital to us in our relations with the rest of the world to have stood with Great Britain in this matter. That is the extreme illustration of what I mean. In our foreign relations, there is not sufficient private discussion and consultation with Great Britain before the event. That is the chief point of many of the shafts of criticism which have been levelled at the Minister by members of the Opposition. Doubtless the Minister will reply - and 1 am anticipating it - that the absence of unanimity or private consultation has not always been Australia’s fault. I believe that the fault often lies with British statesmen. However, the test of our statesmanship is whether we can surmount that obstacle. “Perhaps British statesmen want to take one view, and may be disinclined, for reasons of their own, to take other members of the British Commonwealth into their confidence, or yield to our view. However, the test of our statesmanship must be to make our view prevail. Surely that if not beyond our power.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- 1 appreciate some of the opinion., which the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has expressed. I did not hear the whole of his speech, but I heard that portion of it dealing with difficulties which have arisen in regard to cooperation between the component parts of the British Empire. I heard the complete speech of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley). The conclusion which I have drawn from both speeches is that it does not matter so greatly whether we differ on smaller issues of collaboration on foreign affairs within the Empire,’ so long as we have the same spirit in relation to the big issues. The honorable member for Parramatta, referring specifically to Palestine, deplored the fact that Great Britain and Australia had different policies. But as the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) explained last night, Great Britain, as the mandatory power, had no decision- to make other than that to withdraw from Palestine. Any conflict which arose occurred over decisions made at the United Nations. Great Britain has not always held the view that it holds to-day on Palestine.

Dr Evatt:

– That was the position at Lake Success.- The British Government decided to observe a policy of neutrality.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Before that, Great Britain and the United States of America, in co-operation, appointed a committee to investigate the situation in Palestine. That inquiry was evidence of a desire to probe into the position and find a solution for the difficulties that existed. In my opinion, we cannot improve the position, and any references to a desire “to tear ourselves away from the British Empire, and deliberative organizations “ might worsen it. The dominions, with their newer and increased status, consider that if they have a certain view, they should be allowed to sustain it. Australia has not lost anything by its attitude towards the situation in Palestine, as expressed by its representatives at the United Nations, and through the hard work and sincere efforts of the Minister for External Affairs, who was the chairman of the ad hoc committee on the proposal to partition that country. I am not prepared to say exactly what I think of the matter, particularly in regard to power policy angles, but I believe most sincerely that the Australian Government has a very good record in cooperating with other members of the British Commonwealth. There have been some differences, but they are technical ones, and do not affect the spiritual bond. They are not the kind of differences that lead to a breakaway. Australia has always been the bad boy of the family in regard to foreign affairs. It has expressed its opinions frankly, and sometimes with brutal frankness, but in providing treasure and man-power and co-operating at the highest point, Australia, irrespective of the government in ‘office at the time, has always been solidly behind Great Britain.

Foreign affairs has become a major subject of debate in this House, and we talk round and round it without really discovering anything new for ourselves.

We may argue that we are more loyal than honorable members opposite, and they may argue that they are more loyal than we are, but we consider that perhaps the Empire, is we know it to-day, may not survive. The government of the metropolitan province of the Empire, as we could so aptly call England, is struggling with emergencies that arise almost at the lifting of a hand, and, consequently, decisions have to be made, which, on closer examination, may show that Britain has not co-operated to the fullest degree with other parts of the Empire. But our desire to co-operate, with, and our sympathy for’ Great Britain in its present plight have never been stronger than now.

I desire to refer briefly to the development in this House of a certain concept of foreign affairs. Although I am not an “ old-timer “ in this chamber, I recall, that when I became a member in 1943. a debate on foreign affairs took place on a high level between the Minister for External Affairs and some members of the Opposition. I have attempted to study the subject, and I notice now that a full dress debate usually develops on international affairs, and many honorable members from both sides of the House participate. That does not happen by accident. Without being fulsome towards the Minister, I believe that, no matter how the Opposition may view the policy of the Government, the right honorable gentleman has quickened interest in international affairs, and given to us a wider concept of the whole subject. The Opposition has often contended that the Minister is taking too large a share, and is expecting Australia to take too big a place, in world affairs. In my opinion, that is a good fault.

Mr Holt:

– Probably the Minister is giving us a great deal more to worry about.

Mr HAYLEN:

– To adopt the word: of Kipling, that is one of the burdens ot Empire which we have to shoulder.

Sitting suspended from 6 to S p.m.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Just before the sitting was suspended, I had exhorted honorable members on both sides of the House to consider the part that has been played by the governments of the Dominions and Britain in this long and tedious battle for universal, peace. I submit with all the force of which I am capable that the Australian Government and Minister for External Affairs have co-operated splendidly with both the United Nations and the countries of the British Empire. The ideal that should always be before us as Australians and civilized human beings is not that of peace for a day but peace everlasting and eternal. That can be achieved only by taking a broad view and not by indulging in niggling attacks upon institutions and policies that are only in the process of formation. The co-operation of Australia with the other units of the Empire is sound and thorough. It is strong enough to allow of differences of opinion without the nations considering that those differences constitute “cutting the painter “ or drifting away from the common cause. It is strong enough also to permit of the support or rejection by one country of decisions and conclusions arrived at by others. Each country has borne in mind the necessity for the British Commonwealth of Nations to speak with one voice upon the ideal that is before them - world, peace. The only practical way in which to achieve this co-operation is for each country to have a strong, even though sometimes a divergent foreign policy and to be courageous enough to adapt it to changing circumstances, as has been done.

The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) referred to the expediency of treaties and plans such as the Benelux and other agreements that have recently been negotiated in Europe. He also dealt with the expansion of the Australian foreign policy that has occurred since the war. Conferences and meetings of all kinds have been held at which the expanded Australian delegations have discussed every phase of the complex problem of achieving lasting peace. There is strength, sanity and a definite plan in the proposals that are made from this side of the chamber in relation to the ideal underlying our foreign policy, which is the preservation of peace. It is a very good thing that there are differences of opinion, which are sometimes acute, between the members of the Parliament, but if those differences were upon matters of fundamental policy and resulted in a total cleavage, it would be a bad thing. I conclude on the note that the Minister for External Affairs has served Australia well. There is a difficult task ahead of us. We must obtain, not only the cooperation of parliamentarians, but also the active and living interest of the people of Australia and of the world generally if we are to establish a pattern of peace in this era. .

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) drew attention to relations between the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I propose shortly to refer in detail to thai important matter. There are, however, one or two minor points with which 1 wish to deal first. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) referred to the expenses incurred by the Department of External Affairs in filling posts abroad, and suggested that it would be sufficient if the only post that he specified were filled by an official of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. In order to avoid unnecessary dollar expenditure, particularly in the United States of America, considerable changes have been made. Not all of them are of a permanent character. Some details have already been supplied in written answers to questions. As to the post to which the honorable member for Calare referred, the officer in charge is an expert in agriculture and was recommended by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. Generally speaking, all the posts referred to in the ‘ details set out under the heading “III. - Department of External Affairs “ in the schedule to the bill are manned by a staff only sufficient to carry out the duties of the post. Having decided that we should establish relations with a foreign government, the Australian representation must be worthy of Australia. The expenditure on these posts has in all cases been the least that is possible, consistent with efficiency. We have been most careful to limit expenditure to the very minimum that is required. Details of dollar expenditure on Australian representation at Washington were given in an answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) recently and are available in Hansard.

The honorable member for Calare raised one other matter of a comparatively minor kind. I say that it was a minor matter because the answer to it is clear. He referred to the lack of reviews of international affairs made available to honorable members. En addition to the statements that have been made by myself, or by other Ministers, dealing specially with the economic side of international affairs, which are very numerous and cover a wide area, my department publishes Current Notes each month which brings the picture up to date as far as possible. It is true that it is impossible to refer in them to confidential information of the kind that cannot be published, but I think it is fair to say that the Department of External Affairs does its utmost to bring the facts to the notice of honorable members, and is successful in doing so.

I come now to what I think is the pith of the debate. It is useless for any one to criticize the Government or the Department of External Affairs unless he knows the facts. It was stated that there are differences in the policies pursued by Britain and Australia, and that those differences have been made public. With the exception of that mentioned by the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), no instance was given to support that suggestion. The honorable member for Parramatta referred to Palestine and said that in relation to that country there was a difference between the policies of Britain and Australia. He went on to say that it would have been better to reconcile the difference rather than to reveal it to the world. [ want to make it clear that at Lake Success there was “no difference whatever between the Australian and British policies in respect of Palestine. The policy of the British Government was that of a mandatory power which was leaving the territory, after having done an excellent job, both for the Arabs and the Jews, and was asking the United Nations to suggest a solution of an extraordinarily difficult problem. As I have said previously, a special commission, consisting of experts from eleven or twelve countries, was sent to Palestine. That commission recommended to the United Nations the plan which is commonly referred to as partition. Unfortunately, most people do not take the trouble to analyse it. It involves much more than a measure of political partition. The proposal is that the great economic services of the two communities should be governed by one authority, representative of both Arabs and Jews, and that a special trusteeship system should be established for the holy cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. When the plan was debated at Lake Success, the British Government made its attitude perfectly clear. It took the view that, having been the mandatory power, it should not favour any particular plan for the future government of Palestine and should trust to the United Nations to reach a just solution. On the facts that were before them, the delegations of Australia. Canada, New Zealand and South Africa supported the plan recommended by the special commission. It did not favour either the Arabs or the Jews, but proposed that a portion of Palestine should go to the Arabs and a portion to the Jewish people. The situation in Palestine is that there are two very small nations in a tiny area and it is apparent that eventually they must co-operate for the benefit of the whole of the area. However, they cannot agree to do so now. and therefore this solution of the problem was recommended. I repeat that in regard to Palestine there was no difference between the policies of Australia and Great Britain, and no case in which there has been such a difference has been referred to.

The criticism that has been uttered would lead one to think that the question of Imperial relationships is not one that is pressing upon us all the time. The reverse is the case. In connexion with the problem of Palestine, during the last four or five months literally hundreds of communications have passed between the British Government and the Australian Government. A continuous stream of suggestions and counter sug.gestions on international problems flows between the two countries. That is also true of relations between Australia and

New Zealand. In 99 cases out of 100 agreement is finally reached, but little is heard of those cases because there has been no controversy and no criticism. We should, however, struggle to achieve even greater co-operation. I agree that the first thing to do when dealing with international problems is to attempt to clear the ground for the greatest possible agreement between the countries of the British Commonwealth, but, as I have previously stated, each country approaches the problems in a different way. The committee knows, for instance, of the acute differences between India and Pakistan and between those two countries and South Africa. Those differences have been brought before the United Nations, and our efforts there were devoted primarily to an endeavour to secure agreement between the disputing countries. That illustrates the fact that there is a special relationship between Australia and New Zealand, as one group of the British Commonwealth, and Great Britain. The governments of the three countries have, broadly speaking, a simillar political outlook, but policy on foreign affairs should go deeper than that and be built on a more permanent foundation than party politics. I remember the occasion referred to by the honorable member for Warringah, when Mr. Curtin suggested, in 1944, the setting up of a secretariat to help the British Commonwealth in handling these problems. The proposal was supported by New Zealand, but was not accepted by the other members of the British Commonwealth. I have given reasons why it is very difficult for Canada and South Africa to agree to a proposal of that kind.

Mr Beale:

– Was the matter pressed any further?

Dr EVATT:

– The proposal was put before the Imperial Conference in 1944, and rejected, not merely by Canada and South Africa, but by the Government of the United Kingdom also. More recently, it has been discussed in the House of Lords by Lord Bruce. To press the matter further would be tantamount to asking for a secretariat representing only Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The honorable member for Calare compared Great Britain to a sick mother, a comparison which, I am sure, would be resented by every one in that country. Our kinsmen in Britain suffered more than did the people of any other country when they were fighting the battle for freedom, not on their own behalf only, but on behalf of the whole British Commonwealth of Nations. To-day the financial and economic position of Great Britain is almost desperate. Not sufficient account is taken of the contribution of Great Britain to victory, particularly before the United States of America and Russia entered the war. Australia has made an outstanding contribution to the rehabilitation of Britain. We do not take any particular credit to ourselves for that; it is the natural thing to do. When the war ended in 1945 with victory in Europe and in the Pacific, the United Nations organization was established, based on the prospect of an early peace settlement. That settlement has not yet been reached. Reference has been made to Russia, and I have mentioned the effort of Australia to restrict the use of the veto which has been exercised so often by Russia. We struggled against this principle from the beginning, and it is recognized to-day by all thinkers to be a cardinal defect in the United Nations. The situation in Europe . has not improved. Indeed, it is worsening, and now the partition of Germany is almost an accomplished fact. That situation has poisoned all international relations. A peace settlement in the Far East could have been achieved. The honorable member for Fremanlte (Mr. Beazley) rightly referred to the initiative taken by Australia in the matter of a peace settlement with Japan. It is true that we have had to protest against some of the things which have been done. Australia’s war effort in Europe, in co-operation with Great Britain and the other members of the British Commonwealth, was an important contribution to victory. In the Pacific, Australia’s contribution was outstanding. No country except the United States of America deserves more recognition than Australia in the peace settlement, because of the supreme importance of the Pacific area to this country. Nevertheless, some of the great powers were disposed to exclude Australia altogether.

The representations of Australia led to the- establishment of the Far Eastern Commission at Washington. We tried to hasten a peace settlement because of the responsibility that devolved upon us, and because of the serious risk inherent in the present situation.

In certain parts of the world, some members of the British Commonwealth are, by their geographical position, or their special capacity, able to take a lead, and speak for other members of the British Commonwealth, though necessarily for all. In Europe, that position is occupied by Great Britain. In Africa it might well be taken by other members of the British Commonwealth, [n the Middle East, Britain would naturally take the lead, but in the Pacific and in South-East Asia, a special responsibility devolves upon Australia and New Zealand. I see signs of such a development already and this does not imply a weakening of the British Commonwealth, but a further development of that extraordinary organization. And it is an extraordinary organization. Why were all the members of the British Commonwealth united in the last war? There was no treaty binding them. There was no agreement in the strict sense, hut the kinship and close relationship between the countries of the British Commonwealth caused the Dominions to join with the Mother Country in time of crisis.

In India, the situation has changed. Some honorable members spoke as if we had to say good-bye to India and Pakistan as members of the British Commonwealth of Nation*, but I do not agree. Neither do I agree that Britain’s relations with South Africa will necessarily be altered as a result of the election which recently took place in that country, and I am sure the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) agrees with me. To accept any other “view would be pure defeatism. Relations between great Britain and Eire were embittered for a long time, but during the last three or four years they have improved greatly because, as a result of the war, the two countries came to realize their need of each other. There are great possibilities before the British Commonwealth of Nations. It may be that some of the component countries will be more closely linked than will others.

As the honorable member for Warringah suggested, there may be something in the nature of full membership and secondary membership. There is at present a difference of opinion as to the precise constitutional relationship of Eire to the British Commonwealth, but Eire is still a member. Australia seeks to cultivate the closest relations with other countries of the British Commonwealth. We strongly opposed the suggestion that India and Pakistan should cease to be members of the British Commonwealth, and I think our representation contributed largely to the decision that they, as well as Ceylon, should retain their membership. That could also have been true of Burma. The preservation of close relations between the countries of the British Commonwealth is important to ‘ those countries themselves, and to the world as a whole, in the interests of peace.

Mr Beale:

– Did the British Government consult with the Australian Government before the arrangement was made by which Burma became completely independent ?

Dr EVATT:

– Yes. We were informed by cable of the proposal, and I pressed the view that the proper solution of the Burmese problem was not for Burma to leave the British Commonwealth. I suggested that it should continue, in its new status, to be a member of the British Commonwealth. There has always been a difficulty regarding conferences of a limited character such as the one which dealt with the future of Germany. At that conference, which was held at Moscow, the Dominions should, I believe, have been represented, though our interest in the matter was not so great as our interest in the Pacific. The Dominions, in 1919, were represented at the peace conference which the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) attended as the representative of Australia, and at which he served in a very important capacity. The same principle should have been followed in the case of the peace settlement with Germany after the recent war. The initiative should not have been limited to the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Australian Government believed that Australia, by virtue of its contribution to victory in Europe, should have had a real share, though not necessarily a primary responsibility, in the making of peace. However, membership of the council was limited to four powers. We suggested to the British Government that the British Foreign Minister should represent, not only Britain, but also the other members of the British Commonwealth, and should speak for all of them, lt was argued that if he spoke for the group his voice would be more effective than if he spoke for only one member of it. That proposal, however, was not acceptable to certain other members of the British Commonwealth, who preferred not to be represented.

The relations between the various members of the British Commonwealth are of crucial importance to us. In the Pacific and in South-East Asia, Australia and New Zealand have special responsibilities, but I have never taken the view that in those areas British responsibility should cease. That would be a bad thing for us, and for the British Commonwealth as a whole. We have tried to obtain the greatest possible area of agreement. There has been disagreement upon occasions between members of the British Commonwealth. There was disagreement in 1945 over the veto. By a prior arrangement made at Yalta between Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin, Great Britain was committed to support the veto. However, such differences must be reconciled with the principle of unity in essentials, and the fact remains that countries of the British Commonwealth do unite in times of crisis. Australia is a nation, just as Canada, South Africa and New Zealand are nations, and the people of Australia would not have it otherwise. That fact is not inconsistent with seeking the maximum degree of unity in essential matters.

The attainment of such unity is, however, only part of the task before us. The objectives of the Australian Government are the objectives set out in the United Nations Charter. One of those objectives is peace, but something more than peace is required. There could be peace under a rigid dictatorship, but people would be deprived of liberty, and life would not be worth living for those who loved freedom. That kind of peace is not the objective in itself. Peace to be real must be based on justice and justice does not merely mean making a decision that the peace is just. I’ means economic and political justice. That is one of the greatest objectives pf the United Nations and of myself and my colleagues. Australia has made a great contribution to the achievement of that kind of peace. We have made the third largest contribution to the relief of the people, particularly children, of other countries. That if important. It is in accordance with the spirit of the charter. When I emphasize the importance of the British Commonwealth relations, it is perfectly consistent with the fact that we should tak our part in the work of the United Nations. In spite of many setbacks, the serious effects of which have been accentuated in the last twelve months, le: us never give up the struggle fo; peace based on economic and political justice. One of the ironies of the situation is that all over the world it is recognized that Australia has made a great contribution to the cause of world peace. Australia ha* been elected to the most important councils of the United Nations because of the consistent and unselfish way in which it has worked towards the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations. 1 pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Department of External Affairs, and to Australia’s representatives all over the world for what they have done in promoting the objective of world peace. In reply to the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) yesterday, I said that I did not think the world situation had deteriorated in the last three months. That is only an expression of opinion, I concede. The amount of money that we are expending towards the attainment of the objective of the United Nations is small compared with what it costs to wage war. The cost of the United Nations should be regarded in a liberal and generous manner. I am sure that most, if not all, honorable members do regard it in that way. Having dealt with our relationship with Great Britain and the British Commonwealth and our position in the United Nations, I believe that I have completely answered all criticism. Criticism has been by no means negative, and I appreciate the many constructive suggestions made from both, sides of the committee, especially those in the speech of the honorable member for “Warringah. I realize that the committee is entitled to look closely at expenditure, hut I say without fear of contradiction that small points of difference have been exaggerated. Nothing could better illustrate that than the recent controversy over Malaya. I am not going into the facts in detail, but the mission that was sent to Southeast Asia by the Government had two objectives that, I suppose, have the support of every one. They were the relief of distress and the establishment of certain scholarships. No one could object ro either of them and they are part of our set policy. Then the “White Australia policy intruded itself and a controversy developed at once, not in this House, but in the Australian press, and it -was repeated in Malayan newspapers. So, naturally, when the mission arrived in Malaya, criticism became more pointed.- That is due to the fact that in the modern world disagreement und disputation are news, but agreement and peace are not. There is a tendency io publicize points on which there is disagreement and to overlook the hundreds of points on which there is agreement. [ was impressed by what the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) said about more frequent up-to-date reviews of international affairs. I have described the information that the department supplies. In one or two quarters it has been suggested, I do not think seriously, that too much information has been given. If the information service can be improved in any way we shall spare no pains to improve it. I am obliged to the committee for having heard so patiently my reply to the criticism that has been levelled against the Government’s policy on international affairs, the Department of External Affairs and myself as Minister for External Affaire. It is important That there should be no misunderstanding about our relations with Great Britain or our part in the United Nations. Our part is an important part. We could forget about the war if we liked and say, “ Oh ! That is finished, and we are not interested in the future “ ; but we have completely rejected that policy. We are continuing the task that our servicemen began of bringing continuing peace back to the world - peace based upon political and economic justice. That is the objective of the Government. There have been failures and setbacks in the pursuit of thai objective,- but they do not warrant giving up the struggle. We did not give up the struggle for victory in the dark days of the war from 1940 until 1942. The years since 1945 could be described as the dark days of peace. 1 do not see why we should give up the hope of comradeship amongst the- nations. At any rate, this nation will not give up hope. It will struggle to its utmost to achieve the objective of a just and continuing peace.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- We are indebted to the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) for having covered so rauch ground, but the longer he spoke the more we were convinced that his admiration for the United Nations show* that there is something wrong with hie perspective, because the United Nations is a creation, as was the League of Nations, whereas the British Empire with its traditions is something tangible that grew and is something to which we belong. I am astonished that the Minister for External Affairs did not stress the need to preserve all that the British Empire connotes. When he referred to Palestine, the right honorable gentleman said nothing about the fact that Great Britain, assisted by Australia, wrested that country in World War I. from the misgovernment of the Turks.

Dr Evatt:

– I have said that half a dozen times.

Mr WHITE:

– Well, the Minister did not say that for 25 years Great Britain held the mandate over Palestine and that it put forward as a solution of the Palestine problem a scheme for a federal system. He did not praise the suggestion and say that the scheme was workable, but he supported the partition scheme recommended to the United Nations by a committee picked from the representatives of various nations, some of which are very minor, which went to Palestine and, after a cursory glance round, made its recommendation. The right honorable gentleman was chairman of the committee, and must take a great deal of the responsibility for the turmoil and bloodshed in Palestine.

Dr Evatt:

– I do not think that the honorable member could have been in the chamber when I dealt with that subject.

Mr WHITE:

– Had the Minister supported Great Britain things may have been better in Palestine. But he misled honorable members when he said that Great Britain had stood aside and given no opinion because it was the mandatory power. Why did he not declare in a loud voice that Britain had proposed a federal system for Palestine? We do not condemn the Australian officials. They have done excellent work in all parts of the world. The Minister himself must take the responsibility. Because he will not appoint an all-party committee to advise him on foreign affairs, he must exercise personal judgment. He may be an authority on many things, but he has blundered in his enthusiasm for the United Nations, which is beyond all bounds and is bringing Australia’s name into contempt.

I now turn to the activities of the Minister in Australia. One honorable member said last night that we had antagonized some of our closest friends. En’ reply, the Minister talked about economic justice, goodwill missions and the fight for peace. A lot of people spoke on slum subjects in reference to Chamberlain and Munich. Something more positive has to be said and done. For three years, the waterside workers of Australia prevented Dutch ships from going to the Netherlands East Indies. Though we asked the right honorable gentleman, as Attorney-General, to use his best endeavours to have the ban on the Dutch ships lifted, nothing was done. Last night, when, in an interjection, I asked him why something had not been done in restraint of the waterside workers, he said that I was always asking that question. So I am. I put it on the notice-paper. I asked why he did not take action against the Communist disruptionists, and he said that he would consider the matter. As the AttorneyGeneral, he is the authority on the Commonwealth statutes, and he knows that under the Crimes Act the Commonweal th has plenty of power to prosecute the disruptionists who hold their fellow workers in thrall and who, by their machinations, have lost millions of pounds worth of trade to Australia. The right honorable gentleman must know that the United States of America has taken markets in Java that were formerly Australian. Yet he has never in the Parliament or outside the Parliament publicly condemned tinmen who caused that loss of trade. They are the agents of Russia, whose barbarous ideology envisages the wrecking of the democratic world. They are traitors to Australia. Last night the Minister asked. “ What could we do ? “ What could he noi have done in three years? He added that the trouble had been settled, but, while it lasted, we lost valuable trade. The right honorable gentleman has not warned us of the dangers that may accrue to us. We must not imagine that we are a great white nation that can stand alone. We are a part of a great white nation. The right honorable gentleman is too fond of saying that there are two great nationsthe United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is a third great nation if all its components stand together - the British Empire. We have not equal man-power, but we have something close to it and equal resources. The British nation has given more to civilization and democracy than any other nation at any time. Yet. in the councils of the world, the right honorable gentleman has never put forward that view, but has pleaded the cause of alien countries, with or without wrongs. He has been listened to because he has represented Australia. What is the result ? We are a white outpost near to the teeming millions of Asia. We must live in harmony with them, but we shall not be able to do so unless we can stand up to them, yet the right honorable gentleman and all his colleagues have adopted towards them nothing but a policy of appeasement. For ten years Communist armies have been fighting in China, where the position is precarious. In Korea the United States of America and Russia, for some time have been facing each other across hostile lines. The Dominions of Pakistan and India, which are soon to lose the benefit of the peculiar genius of British Government, and between which there may be war, are another instance. Burma appears to have adopted communism. Yet honorable members never hear in this Parliament any warnings of the dangers of such developments. We have not heard anything from the Minister for External Affairs in regard to the position in Malaya, and yet he allows the leader of the Communist party in Australia, Mr. Sharkey, to rebuke the British authorities in Malaya and say what he thinks of them as the agents of British imperialism. The Minister’s policy should be an honest British policy both abroad and in Australia. To be 100 per cent. Australian is to be British too. We are one nation of a Commonwealth of Nations and we must stand together with the other members of the family. I feel that the Minister’s attitude towards the Dutch people, who were our gallant allies in the war, and who have been in this part of the world longer than the British people have been here, has helped to antagonize Dutchmen in South Africa and has assisted in the defeat of Field Marshal Smuts in the recent general elecnon in that country. The Minister can not see that there are possibilities for greater unity within the British Common wealth of Nations. We can achieve that unity if the Minister consults regularly with Ministers in Britain and the other Dominions. I understand that the Prime Minister is shortly going to Britain. The Minister stated that Australia had done outstandingly well in giving help to Britain. Those are not his actual words, hut he indicated that Australia had done more than any other dominion in that direction. Yet Argentina, an alien country, has made .more gifts to Britain than Australia has done and so have South Africa and Canada. Australia’s sole contribution in the federal field - and we have a government which sends goodwill missions in Royal Australian Air Force and other missions abroad- was a gift of £25,000,000 Australian credit, from funds held in London which amount would barely cover the money Great Britain expended in naval establishments in Australia during the recent war. The

Minister has said that we are concerned with economic justice. If that is so let that justice begin with our own kin. The people of Australia are far ahead of the Government and have done more for Britain by sending parcels and general goodwill than the Government has ever done. The Government continues on its way heedless of the wishes of the people regarding Imperial co-operation and help for the Mother Country. I say to the Minister, as calmly as the circumstances permit, that this Government should adopt a system which has been advocated for years by the Opposition. I refer to the establishment of a committee of both Houses of Parliament to deal with foreign affairs. Such a committee would give Australia a continuity of foreign policy and it could be composed of a representive cross section of the Parliament. In that way Australia’s foreign policy would be more in line with public opinion.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- Honorable members can scarcely ever have beard more savage abuse and misrepresentation than that contained in the references of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) to the alleged responsibility of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) for the situation in Palestine. That situation there has been brewing for at least twenty years and it reached such a degree of intensity in 1937 as to force Great Britain to keep an army of 30,000 men in that country. The position thereafter deteriorated progressively to the point where Britain decided to abandon Palestine. The Minister for External Affairs has never criticized Great Britain’s decision to leave Palestine. Great Britain made it clear that whatever the United Nations decide to do, it has resolved to cease to undertake responsibility for Palestine. In those circumstances the extremists of both sides in Palestine, who would not compromise with one another, decided to take aggressive actions against one another which rendered abortive all the work of the United Nations up to the outbreak of hostilities. It would not have mattered who the members of that United Nations committee had been. So long as the Arabs and Jews refused to compromise, the situation would have been one of turmoil. The only thing which could have avoided that development would have been a declaration by the United States of America that it was willing to take over Great Britain’s responsibilities in Palestine. Statements by honorable, members that the Minister must take responsibility for developments in Palestine are entirely unjustified. Regarding attacks by honorable members opposite on the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), respecting deportation of aliens, I remind them that, on a previous occasion, [ asked the Minister for Immigration certain questions which I admit were designed to embarrass him, concerning the deportation of the wives of Indonesian seamen. When the Minister in reply made a positive statement that he intended to uphold the White Australia policy and deport those aliens, the whole of the Opposition side of the House reverberated with “ Hear, hears ! “. But now, when the Minister, in pursuit of the same policy, has deported Malayans, the members who only nine months ago were so quick to say “ Hear, hear ! “, have, with, a sublime hypocrisy and following the lead of certain newspapers, twisted and criticized the honorable gentleman for antagonizing the peoples of SouthEast Asia. I have no doubt that the White Australia policy does antagonize those peoples, but I should like to see some consistency from honorable members opposite, instead of repeated criticism of the Minister for Immigration. The Minister is also repeatedly criticized by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia and other organizations which apparently believed that the Minister intended to break down the White Australia policy. Honorable members must take a responsible stand on this matter. Either they favour the White Australia policy or they do not. The hypocrisy of the Australian press on this issue is shown, when on the one hand newspapers criticize the Minister for not showing some leniency in his application of the White Australia policy, and on the other hand they suddenly twist and attack him for applying that policy too rigidly. It is also an example of the misdirection of the

Australian people, on the subject of international affairs, by. the Australian press. The situation in Indonesia is regulated; by the Linggadjati or Cheribon agreement between the Dutch authorities and their Indonesian subjects. That particular agreement was a typical British compromise, which was completely foreign, to the whole colonial outlook of theDutch people, and it is extremely doubtful whether the Dutch intended to carry it out. I intend to give evidence of that in a moment. The Cheribon agreement set up a republic of Indonesia within, the United States of Indonesia. The United States of Indonesia was under the Dutch crown. The agreement was an example of the capacity of the British to refuse to fight without words. Lord Killearn, who was in charge of the negotiations for Great Britain, gave the Indonesians their republic under the Dutch crown. I do not know how it if possible to have a republic with allegiance to a crown, but if that agreement prevented a lot of savage people from killing one another, it was completely justified. It was a typical example of the British refusal to murder anybody over a question of academic logic. It is extremely doubtful whether the logical Dutch did accept that settlement in fact, and when the agreement was signed they continued, to pour troops into the Netherlands East Indies. I am not saying that the Government of the Indonesians accepted the agreement either, for I do not believe that the Indonesian leaders are capable of controlling the anarchist element in the East Indies. The Dutch, having signed the agreement, failed to submit it to international arbitration, as provided in Article 17 of the document, and the dispute arose subsequently. The Dutch, in fact, continued to reinforce their armies in the Netherlands East Indies until they had 100,000 troops there. Honorable gentlemen opposite are very impressed by such a firm policy for the suppression of colonial rebellion but the action of the Dutch had repercussions throughout Asia.

This Parliament has to recognize that as a by-product of the recent war China has achieved complete independence. India also achieved complete independence and at the time of which i arn speaking Burma was in the process of obtaining its independence. Australia called the attention of the United Nations organization to the fact that no arbitration had. been sought in the dispute between Holland and the Indonesians. As a result of Australia taking that action the United Nations achieved at least a ease-fire and something approaching a peace settlement. It was vitally important that the Minister for External Affairs should have taken that action in the United Nations been use India also had intended to do so, and the most evil results would have followed had that happened. There would have been a line-up in the United Nations on the colour question, and it was vitally important that it should be a European nation which launched the complaint concerning the action of another European nation against an Asiatic people. It would have been an extremely bad thing had it been an Asiatic nation in India which raised the question. In its quarrel with South Africa, India has shown how tense a situation can become in Asia and in the United Nations when such a colour problem arises. The Minister for External Affairs can be commended on the result of the Australian action at United Nations, which had the support and cooperation of Great Britain and the United States, and which was in conformity with what had been prior policy. The interest of Australia in the Netherlands East Indies is admittedly vital and it is time we looked at it realistically, [f the Dutch authorities in the Netherlands East Indies cannot gain the goodwill of the natives, in the event of another Asiatic aggression directed towards this country, it would not, as a colonial power not wanted by its subject peoples, constitute a very effective barrier for Australia. The most desirable position we could have from the Australian Government’s point of view would be the presence of a European nation in the Netherlands East Indies so placed that it could gain the support of its colonial peoples. The Philippine Islands are an example of that. The Philippine Republic has the substance of independence, but by agreement has given the United States of America vital fortified positions. The Philippine Republic is an example of a country having the benefit of the presence of a European power which is not surrounded by a hostile population. If our policy could achieve peace between the Dutch and their Indonesian subjects, in an agreement such as the Cheribon Agreement under which the Dutch would have the substance of their economic and military position and the right to fortify certain points, and yet make concessions to the colonial people that at least would give them a promise of satisfying their desire for self-government, we should have a more stable situation than the one that has caused the civil war in Indonesia. The policy of the Australian Government in the Linggadjati compromiseWas directed towards maintaining the Dutch position in circumstances that bid fair to give the Dutch the support of their own people.

I believe the most outrageous statement made by the honorable member for Balaclava was his suggestion that the Minister for External defeat of Field Marshal Smuts. If any man was defeated because of his association with the United Nations, it was Field Marshal Smuts. He had been a major architect of the League of Nations; later he was a major architect of the United Nations; and that recoiled and struck him when the United Nations vetoed the amalgamation of .South-West Africa with South Africa on the ground that South African native policy did not warrant the complete fusion of South- West Africa with South Africa. The second occasion on which Field Marshal Smuts’s adherence to the United Nations recoiled upon him was when the General Assembly of the United Nations condemned South African laws on the ground that they discriminated against Indian residents in South Africa. The organization in the establishment of which Smuts had played a major part condemned South Africa on a point in respect of which South Africans are most sensitive - their treatment of coloured people within their own borders. That was the major blow to the prestige of Smuts. But we should remember that although he was defeated electorally, he received a majority of approximately 100,000 of the votes. lt was the over-representation of country constituencies in which Afrikaander nationalists predominated that led to his defeat as far as seats in Parliament were concerned, but not to his defeat in the country.

The honorable member for Balaclava said that no assistance has been given to Great Britain by the Commonwealth beyond the gift of £25,000,000 credit from the Australian Government. I remind him that Canada compelled Great Britain to liquidate all its holdings in Canada, with the exception of a few investments in the Canadian Pacific Railway, and when Great Britain’s investments in Canada ceased and it could not have made purchases in Canada without credits granted by that dominion, a loan was made by Canada to Great Britain. Australia has made a loan in exactly the same way, through sterling balances. To-day, we have sterling balances in London amounting to £A.250,000,000, which means precisely that to that amount we have supplied a greater quantity of goods to Great Britain than we have received from the Mother Country. As an example of economic co-operation, Australia has contributed to the dollar pool £113,000,000 worth of dollars which it acquired during the war years. Great Britain has not been refused credit or commodities by this country at any period since the war.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- I am sorry I was not present in the chamber when the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) made his opening remarks a few minutes ago. I understand that the right honorable gentleman made some observations concerning my statements earlier in the debate with reference to Palestine. The point that I was making when I was interrupted by the inexorable march of time was that, as far as Australia is concerned - and honorable members may for the moment exclude the rest of the Empire if they wish - there is need for closer, greater, and better integrated consultation or prior agreement with Great Britain than has ever been achieved in the past.

One encouraging remark made by the Minister to-night - and perhaps at the moment in which I compliment him for it I should also rebuke him for not disclosing it earlier - was his reference to the stand taken by Australia in relation to the decision to grant independence to Burma. A great many of us on this side of the committee, and, indeed, a great many people throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, were disturbed by the decision of the British Government to grant independence to Burma. Upon the information available to us, we felt that that was a step taken by a government which perhaps was too doctrinnaire to have a proper view of the significance of its decision. If any other government had been in office in Great Britain that situation need not, and, indeed, would not have .arisen. The Labour Government took office in Great Britain in 1944 or 1945 and made the decision as theresult of which Burma was granted complete independence. Many of us felt that such a decision was unnecessary. Many of us believed - and our belief has been upheld since then - that Burma, at least a large minority of the people of Burma, probably a majority of them, would have been prepared to stay within the British Commonwealth upon the basis of dominion status. Notwithstanding that, the British Government granted that country complete independence. I am grateful to hear that at least from Australia came a voice of protest. For the first time to my knowledge the Minister for External Affairs has disclosed that this country raised a voice of protest against that decision and suggested that another course might have been followed. That illustrates the point I was seekingto make earlier in the debate, that it should not be beyond statesmanship inthis country to prevent wrong decisions being made. I have said before that mistakes are not always made by the dominion or colonial statesmen; they aremade just as often at Whitehall as they are in the dominions and the colonies. If Australia raised its voice in the right direction I am glad. It is a pity that Australia’s voice has not been raised in the same way more frequently. If it has been so raised we should have been informed about it. If the Minister says that that has happened more frequently than has been revealed, that provides an additional argument to support the request made again and again by honorable members on this side of the chamber for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee of the Parliament which would be wider in outlook than party politics. A great many of us have, asked questions about this matter and we have debated it during discussions on international affairs, but the Minister has invariably told us that conditions in Australia are different from those in other parts of the world. There is such a committee in the United States of America, although in that country conditions are somewhat different from our own. There is also such a committee in Canada. T.t is true that there is no such committee in Great Britain, but the members of the British Parliament are afforded opportunities’ for discussing international affairs before events take place. In this country discussions follow the events. We are usually presented with statements on international affairs long after the events recorded therein have taken place. I see no objection to the establishment of an all-party international affairs committee so that we might have -something in the nature of continuity in our international affairs policy. With a change of government there surely should not be a change in Australia’s foreign policy.

The point I was seeking to make when I was stopped by the clock this afternoon was that for Great Britain und those other parts of the British Commonwealth which still form an integrated and reasonably tight British Commonwealth, there should be something of the nature of a permanent secretariat. I know that the late Mr. Curtin, to his very great credit, suggested something of that sort during the war. I also know that his suggestion was not encouraged by the British Government. The fact that nothing was done then is not to our discredit, but to the discredit of shortsighted politicians in Great Britain. I also know that Lord Bruce, a distinguished former statesman of this country, and now a member of the House of Lords, made a speech in the House of Lords which I- and many other honorable members have read, in which he elaborated in some detail the need for a permanent imperial secretariat. He was followed in the debate by Lord Hankey and if not chapter and verse at least sufficient detail of the proposal was given to indicate that it was not merely on the level of hope and speculation, but that it was a workable proposition. Some of the member? of the House of Lords threw doubts on the wisdom of the suggestion because they believed that such a move should not be made by Great Britain. They feared that if that were done, the Dominion? might be sensitive about it and resist what they might regard as dictation from Whitehall. Surely we have got beyond that. Surely any suggestion that might come from any part of the British Commonwealth would not be regarded in such a sensitive and artificial light b; Australia. Unless we put what is left of the British Commonwealth on a* basis of tight Empire co-operation and agreement., the end of the British Commonwealth a? we know it to-day may not be far off and this will mean the end of us too. Australia is not merely an atom spinning in a void. If we attempt to make it such, we shall undoubtedly perish. As I see the situation, it is not merely a matter of waving the Union Jack. Australia’s only hope for security is to weld itself in a tight association with the 50,000,000 courageous people of Great Britain and its vast wealthy colonial empire, coupled with New Zealand, Canada and the other parts of the British Commonwealth. Then if we can put our house in order in this internal association of British peoples, about which I spoke this afternoon, we may be able to induce countries like Eire, India, Pakistan, and maybe, South Africa, to come into some sort of reasonably close external association with us. We can never hope to get the same degree of association between themselves and us as is possible in those elements of the British Empire which have common sentiments and ideals. But if wo have something to present to them in the way of a workable association, there is no reason why they should not join us. If the Minister could indicate that something of that sort was being done it would be to his credit ; but to the degree t,o which it is not being done - to the degree to which Australia is shirking its responsibilities and saying, “ We cannot get anywhere “ - it is to Australia’s discredit. In 1919-20, the then Prime Minister, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) was not at all disturbed by the fact that other people overseas were trying to put him off. He raised his voice vociferously in Imperial councils, and he got his way.

Mi’. HOLT (Fawkner) [9.12].- I had not intended to speak on this issue, but I vas prompted to do so by the concluding sentences of the speech of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley). The honorable member said that Australia has amassed credits in Great Britain amounting to £250,000,000. He also said that Australia had contributed in amount of £113,000,000 to the dollar pool as the result of our economic exchanges. He submitted these facts to us as though Australia had in that way conferred some great benefit upon Great Britain for which the people of Great Britain should be thankful. At present ve have a favorable balance of trade with Great Britain and we are glad to have it. It represents the very profitable trading engaged in by many manufacturers and producers in this country; hut to imagine that we have done some great favour to Great Britain because of that is to put the position entirely out of balance. We have supplied to Great Britain the goode represented by these balances because it suited us to do so. That we have not lone a great deal more is to our everlasting discredit. If we are to take the virtue to ourselves because our credit balance at present is good, presumably we must take discredit to ourselves because a few years ago the central economic problem in Australia was how to preserve a favorable exchange balance with Great Britain. When I became a member of this House, we were greatly disturbed because we could not maintain a favorable balance of trade with Great Britain. If the prices which we are now receiving for our primary produce, collapse, or materially decline, it will not be long before the same problem will confront us again. Therefore, it is sheer stupidity to think that we are conferring some benefit on Britain at present by increasing our credit balance. We shall be glad to live off our fat, probably with in the next few years.

Why have we been able to gain this favorable trade balance with Great Britain? One reason is that Great Britain, during World War II., carried a much heavier burden in terms of manpower and treasure than Australia was required to shoulder. If we can do more to assist Great Britain when it is battling for economic survival, we should cheerfully shoulder the obligation. I do not believe that there are many honorable members who, after having examined the potentialities of this country, and the effort that is being put forward in various sections of the community, would agree that we cannot do a great deal more than we are doing.

The Minister for External Affair, Dr. Evatt) and honorable members opposite, are very sensitive to criticisms by members of the Opposition. Personally, I have a great deal of admiration for the Minister. He is a man of outstanding qualities, and he possesses a vigorous and capable mind. He is a man of great industry, and I believe that he has sought to serve Australia to the best of his capacity during the years that he has been Minister for External Affairs. But while we hold those personal views about him, we should not be deterred from offering criticism of issue which, we feel, springs from a lack of balance or t distorted sense of proportion. The Minister has cut a prominent and spectacular figure at some of the international ‘ assemblies where he has represented Australia. In my opinion, he has given to Australia a more notable place in world discussions than we enjoyed in the years before he occupied his ministerial office. But the right honorable gentleman, although actively engaged in international discussions, has not devoted the same energy or attention to problems which, if closely analysed, may affect directly the progress and security of this country. I shall point again to matters which have been raised in this chamber, because theycall for emphasis. The matters directly affect our relations with countries which, significantly from our point of view, have deteriorated sharply during the last couple of years.

Earlier, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) spoke of the harm that has been done to Australia’s relations with Holland because of the irresponsible action of certain industrial groups in this country which have refused to load ships with cargo destined for the Netherlands East Indies. We cannot pass lightly over this matter, or ignore the consequences to Australia arising from the damage that has already been done. In the first place, we gave a serious affront to a close and staunch ally in World War II. Secondly, we have done irreparable commercial harm to our trading prospects with the Netherlands East Indies. We have permitted competitors, who possess a little more common sense and a better sense of proportion than we do, to place their goods and develop their markets where opportunities had previously existed for us. The damage has been done, and we have not, in the process, cemented good relations with the Indonesians. They have not recognized as possessing any worth a government that is prepared to allow its foreign policy to be taken out of its hands and exercised by irresponsible and undisciplined groups here. At the same time, our relations with the Dutch people have been harmed. From reports which reach me, and I have no doubt that all honorable members have received similar information, we know our friendly relations with the Dutch people during. World War II., when Australia’s name stood high with them, up longer exist, and to-day we are disliked and even detested by many of them. We have done, and we are continuing to do, ourselves great harm.

Unless the Government accepts its re- .sponsibility in the matter, we shall also do enduring harm to the relations between Australia and Greece - another of our allies during World War II. and a country which should be the source of profitable and mutually beneficial trade in future. Here again, the Government has allowed certain elements in this country to dictate our trade policy with Greece. It is all very well to say that we have managed to get another ship moving because those who were prepared < to impose the ban upon it have discovered that they were merely harming th,French and not the Greeks. That waa poor answer for the Government to give, and I have yet to learn that » better answer will be given. If the Government disapproves of the action taken by the waterside workers in relation to Dutch ships and of the action which thiwaterfront unions have threatened in relation to Greek ships, let it come 0U openly, declare where it stands, and say that it will enforce its policy in thicountry. One of the first and most important responsibilities of any govern ment is to determine its own foreign policy, and its own relations with other countries. If a government is not prepared to accept that responsibility, ii need not wonder when the security and commercial prosperity of Australia suffers in consequence. We have heard a good deal about the exercise of the vet in the United Nations gatherings. Lethis Government exercise the veto occasionally against those who set out ti thwart its own efforts, and defy it* attempts to maintain good relations with our former allies.

The Minister for External Affairs and his colleagues in the Govern ment, are open to criticism on other grounds. Because of a most serious deterioration of good relations between South-East Asia and Australia, the Government recently sent to Malaya and Singapore a goodwill mission under th<leadership of Mr. Macmahon Ball. 1 know Mr.. Macmahon Ball, and I do noi offer any criticism of him individually He is a capable and conscientious man The damage which has been done in South-East Asia to Australia’s future security, to say nothing of our commercial relations, was so serious that if ti goodwill mission had to be sent to those countries, it should have been at thi highest ministerial level. If there was damage to be repaired, the task should have been undertaken by the Minister for External Affairs or the Prim Minister (Mr. Chifley). What son of reaction did we expect? Thiwas a most delicate mission. Although our representative was to discuseducational scholarships and the like, important aspects of Australia’s foreign policy would unquestionably arise, the White Australia policy would be challenged and questions would be asked as to why we pursued this or that course which offended racial pride. If the Government had intended the goodwill mission to repair the damage, obviously the representative would have had to be in a position to deal with these matters in an authoritative voice, and not give such replies as, “ I shall consider what you say, refer it to the Government and ascertain what can be done about it. I am most impressed with what you have said “. That is familiar jargon which we hear all too frequently even in this chamber. But when members of a goodwill mission had to talk to people whose pride has been hurt and whose racial sensitiveness had been jarred, we needed to have some one on the spot with the capacity and authority to say just what the Government meant and exactly what it could and would do. So the Government either should not have sent ;i goodwill mission, such as the one that was sent, which merely fomented trouble wherever it moved, or should have sent representatives who could speak with the full authority of the Government which they represented. We have no lack of ministerial representatives to attend the conferences of the United Nations. In the interests of the future of Australia, and its security, a senior Minister should have visited South-East Asia. Now, the damage has been done and another visit might only stir up trouble. High-level ministerial representation should have been determined when the proposal was discussed.

The only other matter to which I shall refer arises out of a .reply which the Prime Minister gave to-day in answer to m question. In Australia, our economic progress during the next few years will be considerably restricted by the problem of dollar exchange. I do not need io discuss the details; we know how the shortage of dollars is affecting us already.

Dr Evatt:

– May I remind the honorable member that we are really dealing with the Department of External Affairs.

Mr HOLT:

– The subject which I am discussing may be matter for commercial policy, but in the broad sense, it involves ‘sternal affairs. The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commonwealth Statistician and an economic adviser were now in the United States of America to investigate the problem of dollar exchange. A few moments ago, the Minister interjected to remind me that we are discussing external affairs. One aspect of this particular problem, which touches upon external affairs, should be considered.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr BURKE:
Perth

.- The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has raised two important matters and another which, by comparison, is of relatively minor importance. The two matters of major importance are the White Australia policy and the ban imposed upon the loading of Dutch ships destined for the Netherlands East Indies. The matter of comparatively minor importance is the reference to the goodwill mission to Malaya. I have no objection to honorable members opposite taking exception to the White Australia policy, if they desire to do so.

Mr Holt:

– No one has taken exception to the White Australia policy. If the honorable member misrepresents us, we shall have to make further speeches in order to clarify the position.

Mr BURKE:

– I do not care how many speeches the honorable member opposite makes, because all of them are easy to answer. If honorable members opposite desire to object to the- White Australia policy, they are at liberty to do so. Indeed, Australia invites their frank views upon it, but if they adhere firmly to the White Australia policy, they, and we, must accept the consequences arising from it, and be prepared to explain the reasons why we cannot modify or abandon it. We should not apologize for the White Australia policy. The reasons for its introduction are well known, and the position is clear to the people of Australia. Racial inferiority is not involved. The White Australia policy had to be introduced because unlimited immigration from Eastern countries would submerge the comparatively small white population here ; and the whole of Australia’s living and working standards. which have been, developed by strenuous efforts over many years, would be undermined. That is our simple answer. We apologize to no one for the White Australia policy - at least honorable members on this side of the committee do not do so. We say that it is Australia’s natural right to impose restrictions upon immigration by the people of other countries. We say to those other countries that they also have an inalienable right to impose what.ever restrictions they wish upon immigration from this country or other nations. If we honestly believe that the White Australia policy is for the good of this country, no mealy-mouthed apologies are needed. We have merely to say that it is our settled policy, endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people, that it was introduced for eco.nomic reasons, that it is maintained to ensure our stability and future progress, and that it has been eminently justified by the events of the period through which we have but recently passed. Had that policy been Whittled down in any way, there is no doubt that when the Japanese Emperor decided to wage war against the democratic countries there would have been an enormous fifth column within our frontiers and our war effort would not only have been undermined but frustrated and defeated. It is not sufficient for the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) and other honorable members opposite to say that they believe in the White Australia policy; they have to explain itto the Australian people and justify it to the world. If they believe in it, they must not make apologies for it to the peoples of other lands and seek to undermine it and eventually replace it with another policy. There is much sentiment in the Australian make-up, and it is very easy to play upon it. Honorable gentlemen opposite could, in some circumstances, gain political advantage from it. [ have made, and will continue to make, applications for people from the Eastern countries to remain in Australia for limited and perhaps unlimited periods of time, but I have never apologized for Australia’s immigration laws, and I do not propose to do so. Honorable gentlemen opposite-must not only say that they believe in them but must accept the in evitable consequences of advocating them.

The second important matter to which the honorable member for Fawkner referred related to the ban placed upon Dutch shipping and, more recently, the suggested or actual ban upon the loading of Greek ships. If honorable gentlemen opposite believe in forced labour and industrial coercion, they are perfectly entitled to advocate that point of view throughout the length and breadth of the land. If, however, they say they stand for the rights of human beings and that they deny the right of any government to coerce labour, to regiment the people and to demand that people shall do things that they do not desire to do, and if they claim that they do not stand for industrial conscription except in time of war, they have, similarly, to justify that claim by their actions. Now, as on every occasion when industrial standards, industrial regula tions, or any phase of Australia’s industrial life is discussed, honorable members opposite say that discipline should be imposed, labour should bf* coerced and that the arbitrary, punitive and fierce provisions of the Crimes Act should be used to ensure that the people are forced to do the will of the Australian Government. It that is their view, they are completely within their rights in advocating it. If they believe in the conscription of labour, they are perfectly free to say so. They should not. however, say at the same time that they abhor the conscription of labour and that they demand that there shall be no industrial coercion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable gentleman must connect his remarks with the question before the Chair.

Mr BURKE:

– With great deference to you, sir, I think they are relevant to that question. I am replying to the remarks made by the honorable member for Fawkner.

Mr Holt:

– When did I refer to industrial conscription?

Mr BURKE:

– The honorable member said that the Government, by allowing a ban to be placed upon certain types of labour on the waterfront, is allowing the foreign policy of this country to be abrogated.

Mr Holt:

– That hae nothing to do with industrial conscription.

Mr BURKE:

– The honorable gentleman says it has nothing to do with industrial conscription. His reasoning is as shallow as his words are profuse. It has everything to do with it. The only way in which the Government can make the waterside workers, or any other workers, perform certain kinds of work is to force them to do it. If the workers say that they will not do it, the only thing for the Government to do if it considers that, such work must be done is to take the workers by main force and say they must do it. That is the alternative which faces the honorable gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr Holt:

– Has the Government ever thought of finding people who could do it?

Mr BURKE:

– The honorable gentleman talks glibly of finding people who could do it. The fact is that the people who do waterside work are waterside labourers. They are there to do a specific job. That job has to be done either by them or by anybody else who can be forced to it. Perhaps the suggestion is that it could be done by forced labour, through the use of the military forces of this country. There is no other alternative.

Mr White:

– “What did Mr. Hanlon do?

Mr BURKE:

– “When faced with a crisis in Queensland, Mr. Hanlon took the most drastic action.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable gentleman must connect his remarks with the question before the Chair.

Mr BURKE:

– Those are the simple facts on that issue. They are starkly clear and undeniable.

I now turn to the Australian goodwill mission to Malaya. The honorable member for Fawkner paid a generous tribute to Mr. Macmahon Ball, who is eminently qualified to represent Australia in that area, to explain the Australian point of view and to cement peaceful relations between the respective countries. No criticism can be levelled against the selection of Mr. Macmahon Ball or the other members of the mission. If the mission had been intended to confer with Ministers in Malaya it might well have been argued that Australia’s representation should have been on a ministerial level, but that was not the case. Its task was timake contacts with individuals and groups and to develop and maintain good relations between ourselves and our neighbours in the Pacific. Mr. Macmahon Ball is well qualified by experience and training to represent Australia in thos* countries.

Broadly, Australia’s external affairspolicy has been under challenge I should have thought that the Minister’s effective reply to earlier criticism of our foreign policy would have been sufficient to prevent further criticism of it. The honorable gentleman pointed out in the most realistic fashion that Australia has done all that i> possible to develop British Empire cooperation. If other component parts of the Empire refuse to follow Australia’s lead or to co-operate in the way that Australia has suggested, what does the Opposition suggest should be done? Is it suggested that Australia should establish an Empire secretariat? Canada would not participate and neither would South Africa. New Zealand would perhaps be willing to do so, and Britain would be lukewarm to the project, although not because it thought it was unnecessary. “With two major members of the British Commonwealth standing out, such a secretariat would be a farce, and would weaken rather than strengthen the Empire. To set up an Empire secretariat designed to embrace the whole of the countries of the Commonwealth and to have the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand participating in it, with Canada and South Africa standing aloof, would lead to an immediate break in the British Commonwealth of Nations. That cannot be denied. The Opposition contend that, despite the fact that component parts of the British Empire refuse to follow the lead we have given, we must still press on with the proposal. The Minister for External Affairs has pointed out thai the Australian Government has given a lead. It continues to communicate almost daily with the representatives of the people in the United Kingdom, to express its own views and to consider the views of the British Ministers in order to find, where possible, a common policy and, where that is not possible, to agree to work together in international affairs as far as is humanly possible. Further than that, we have established close cooperation with the United States of America and, what is far from unimportant, a firm and determined membership of the United Nations. That organization has not been successful in every phase of its operations and has not solved every problem that it has sought to solve, but is There any organization in the history of mankind that has dealt successfully with ;he great issues that confront the United Marions to-day? The hope of mankind tor the removal of the causes of war rests m some organization, call it what you will, by means of which the nations of the world can gather together in conference. The Minister has represented the Government ably at those conferences, and has pursued a clear and fearless policy that must commend itself to every one who examines the situation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON (Barker) 1 9.43] .-The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) must feel pleased with the debate that has developed. It shows that honorable members on both sides of the committee are taking a kindly interest in what they think should be considered in relation to foreign affairs. The debate has centred upon certain matters which are of vital importance at the moment, and it is, therefore, different from many such debates which have preceded it. On occasions, the Minister for External Affairs has prepared a very interesting document, which was largely historical and laid on the table just prior to a parliamentary .recess, and honorable members have been asked to debate it when the Parliament reassembled, but this debate has arisen quite differently.

The Minister referred to the necessity for political and economic justice throughout the world. I want to know whether the Cabinet itself is agreed upon the interpretation of those terms. Is the Minister’s interpretation of economic justice in New Guinea identical with that of the Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) ? Would his interpretation of political and economic justice in Australia be acceptable in Moscow. Burma, Budapest or other places that I could mention? When I heard the right honorable gentleman make his statement I was reminded of the famous question which has never been answered : “What is truth?” I ask the honorable gentleman what is political and economic justice? Until we know what those things are, obviously we shall not be able to found a foreign policy upon them.

I desire to say a word regarding th» general attitude of Australia to world affairs. We are a small people numbering only about 7,000,000, and in the family of nations we may be likened to a pigmy, but during the last few years the gestures we have made have been those of a giant. We have attempted to take the lead. We have almost attempted to coerce other countries. One of the most amazing examples of this was when the Minister for External Affairs became the chairman of a commission which dealt with a proposal for the partition of Palestine. One could talk for a long time on that subject. If we come down to tin-tacks, both the Jew? and the Arabs are only immigrants to Palestine. If the fact that a people inhabited a country at some time in the past is to be taken as giving them s claim upon it, then people of English descent everywhere might logically claim parts of Germany, Holland and Denmark which were once occupied by their ancestors. By the same argument, it would be logical for the present King of England to revive the claim to the throne of France, because the king of England at one time claimed the title of king of France. The United Nations agreed to the partition of Palestine, so that th, logical attitude for the Minister for External Affairs, who assented to the proposal, was to recognize the new state of Israel as soon as it was proclaimed However, the Australian Government which apparently had much to do with bringing about the partition, failed to recognize the government which it was largely responsible for bringing into being. When the Parliament reassembled after the holding of the recent referendum, I questioned the Minister for Externa] Affairs on that point, and he promised to prepare a statement, but the statement has not yet been made.

I pass on now to the Japanese peace treaty. Does any honorable member really think that anything which the Australian Parliament may do will alter in any particular the terms of a peace treaty between the United States of America and Japan? I say nothing of a treaty between Japan and the belligerent countries other than the United States of America. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) is a member of a special committee which has been set up by the Government to consider terms of peace for Japan. I ask him what influence he, or the committee of which he is a member, can exercise upon the terms of peace, provided a. peace treaty is ever signed between the United States of America and Japan? Henceforth, the Japanese are to have no air force or navy, so that it cannot become a vigorous, aggressive power. If it is not able to protect its own sea trade, it cannot transport armies beyond its own coast. For my part, I would not allow Japan to become a military power, either. I am not impressed by what 1 have read in the newspapers about the need to re-arm Japan in view of the situation which has developed in the Far East. We do not need any special committee, or inspections of Japan by members of Parliament, to make certain truths clear to us. All we need is a little common sense, and a knowledge of history, from which we can learn how nations have been- able to re-arm and reassert themselves after defeat. Once Ave make it possible for a nation to re-arm, we cannot continue to direct the manner in which the arms shall be used. It is too ridiculous to suggest that we can rearm a nation of 100,000,000 people, and continue to keep it in leading strings.

I should like to hear from the Minister for External Affairs the views of the Government regarding the Western Union in Europe. Many of the small nations of western Europe may be com- pared with the city states of ancient Greece. A Greek philosopher of old declared that the Greeks could do anything if only they could agree among themselves, but they were never able to do so. In the same way, the nations of western Europe have never been able to agree among themselves. There are too many divisions of race and language, and too many tariff barriers. A glimmer of common sense has shown itself in connexion with the proposed reduction of tariffs between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but if western Europe is to save itself from communism, and from being overrun by the Red Russian army, something better will be needed than the Western Union. It will be necessary to make some such arrangement as that proposed by ‘Churchill to the French in the dark days of 1940. If there is to be a Union of Western Europe, as I believe there ought to be, obviously into such an organization must come the overseas possessions of European countries such as Belgium, Holland.

France and Great Britain. They should combine to work for the defence of civil and political liberty, as I understand it. but not as it is practised by Communists in Greece, where the clock has been turned back 400 years. What was the basis of Turkish power in Asia Minor and Europe? It rested upon the obligation imposed upon every Christian family in the territories controlled by the Turks to hand over the eldest son to be brought Uas a soldier in the Janissary, or Imperial Guard of the Sultans. It was not Turk.who comprised the armies which carried the Turkish power to the Avails of Vienna, only to be thrown back by Sobieski, the great Polish soldier. The Turkish armies were filled wi th Christian soldiers. In eastern and central Europe to-day, the powers of hell, directed by Moscow, are doing the same sort of thing. Sooner or later, the Australian Government will have to tell the people of Australia, who are becoming increasingly alarmed at the situation, on which side of the fence it stands. Is the Government standing for western Europe or for Russia? There can be no accommodation whatsoever between western Europe and what lies east of the Vistula, or, indeed, with a good deal that is west of it. “What has the Australian Government to say about the overrunning of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and the rape of Poland? What has it to say about the downfall of Czechoslovakia, and events in Austria and Hungary? In the newspapers, to-day we read that ‘a Russian officer has threatened a Minister in the Australian Government with physical violence if he does certain things. Can such a threat be reconciled, with the principle of political liberty? What has the Australian Government to say of the position in Yugoslavia, Roumania and Greece? Everywhere from the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, we are faced with the same threat. It is against this power that the Government must take a stand. In my own electorate, I am constantly being asked: Ls the Prime Minister a Communist? Is the Minister for External Affairs a Communist? Those questions must be answered. The people are listening to the broadcasts of the debates in the Parliament, and their curiosity has been aroused. When it comes to Mr. Speaker, the question is generally something to do with his ancestry, and they have no doubts about that. Are we part and parcel of the British Empire, or of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or whatever we are to call it? For my part, [ have never been ashamed of the term Empire. The Minister for External Affairs is an historian who has published historical works. I invite him to search the records, and he will not find an instance of a great empire going out of existence without leaving in its wake a trail of destruction and suffering. The world to-day is preparing again for the westward march of men such as were Atilla, Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane, but the new men will march under the banner of the hammer and sickle. It is becoming a matter of increasing importance upon which side the Australian Government stands. Our attempts to lecture the world, and our representation upon committees which decide what countries shall be partitioned, are of no real importance to Australia. Our fate will be decided partly by what happens in western Europe, and partly by our capacity to stand on our own feet in this part of the world. I am very anxious to learn why the Australian Government allowed the navy of the United States of America to leave Manus Island. The Minister for External Affairs is gravely mistaken if he thinks that, in this modern world, Australia can provide the naval, military and air forces necessary to defend our island continent against the mounting forces of Asia. I have the most utter disregard for the United Nations organization. Its constitution is not worth the paper upon which it is written. The same was true of the League of Nations. Reliance on the United Nations is a delusion and a snare. The structure will fall as soon as the test is applied. Any country which is foolish enough to rest upon the assurances of the United Nations will be left naked and alone when the time comes. The only thing for us to do is to enter into closer relations with the United Kingdom and with western Europe.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Clark).Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- In this debate, members of the Opposition have followed the same two familiar lines of discussion, the ban on Dutch ships being one, and the flank attack on the White Australia policy being the other and in this connexion the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) is one of the worst offenders. It is time that the Opposition was stood up and counted on this issue. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), in the last five minutes at his disposal, discussed the White Australia policy and the situation in Malaya. I warn the Opposition of the danger of making common cause with the Communists on the White Australia policy. The Opposition must be either for or against the policy. The matter should be kept above the level of party politics. If the White Australia policy is discussed here frequently, that is the fault of the Opposition; but because the Opposition has a measure of success to gain from these attacks upon the policy, the subject is brought into the arena far too frequently. If there is to be a shocked cry of “No, no, we believe in the White Australia policy!” let us !u ar it. Or, if Opposition members believe that the White Australia policy is outmoded, let them say so. Let them no longer philander between two points. If the White Australia policy does not mean the best of Australian life to them, it does to me. The repatriation of the Malay seamen is being dragged in by the hair of the head stupidly and ineffectively as propaganda. The White Australia policy should be discussed, if it is to be discussed at all, on broader and sounder lines and should not be the subject of dissemination of misinformation by honorable members opposite. The repatriation of the Malay seamen was fully explained previously by the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), who, unfortunately, cannot be present to-night for family reasons, but I remind honorable members opposite, who talk glibly about the need for the establishment of goodwill with Malaya, that 70,000 Australian servicemen established our goodwill in Malaya and Singapore by their willingness to die in its defence. This is not crude patriotism. lt is factual patriotism. There was no misunderstanding about our duty there, and we have none about the White Australia policy. If honorable members opposite have something to say about the ethics and ideals of the White Australia policy, they should at feast stick te the facts. It must be admitted that our White Australia policy is based not on racial antagonism but on economics. No one has a greater dislike for the coolies, whether they be Malays, Chinese or Indian, than have the top-rank Asiatics who condemn our attitude on this matter. But they do not like to use this infiltration attack upon the White Australia -policy because they resent the implication that they are considered by us to be our inferiors, whereas nothing is farther from the truth. The White Australia policy was forced upon us not only as a measure of defence, but also as a measure of humanitarianism. Let us remember the Lambing Flat riots. Let us remember the thousands of kanakas that we repatriated from Queensland; yes, even from the area of this federal city, which was formerly the Yarralumla station. Those people had been black.birded into the country and had died here and in the high Monaro with literally the hibiscus still in their hair. Others were repatriated in the interest of human decency. The White Australia policy was created not as a barrier against men with skin of a colour different from, but bodies like our own, to be nourished and souls to be saved. This ragged fusillade from the Malay press does not state the facts. In that it is like the press of most countries. It has not told us that two Australian sailors who wanted to settle in Singapore were “ quizzed “ as to how much money they had and what accommodation they could obtain for themselves and then were not permitted to land. Two Australian-born men arrived at Singapore by SS. Gorgun on the 7th May. They held valid passports and approximately £40 in Australian currency. The local immigration authorities would not allow them to land, as they did not have suitable employment, or accommodation assured. There is another instance, a soldier serving with the British forces in Malaya cannot be demobilized there unless he can produce evidence that he has a suitable position to go to which will give him a satisfactory income. In Malaya there are prohibitions against the entry of coolies from India and China. This row over the Malays is a little storm in a tea cup, but it has been blown up by the Opposition in its desire to tear down the Government. It is greatly to the credit of the Minister for External Affairs that he sent a goodwill mission to the east where our destiny lies and that scholarships to study in Australia should be offered to people in the eastern countries. That the goodwill mission should have met such an unfriendly reception is amazing in view of the history of the recent war. Such cavalier treatment of the goodwill mission should be regretted not so much by Australia as by Malaya. Loose arguments have been indulged in about the White Australia policy. Asiatics may enter Australia on licence for seven years if their export trade overseas amounts to’ only £500 a year. Concessions are granted to Asiatics whose trade amounts to £1,250 a year inside and outside this country. Students are fairly treated. The White Australia policy has always been adminstered guardedly so as not to offend other people. It was established in the face of wide opposition from overseas. It has become accepted as our policy because it was the fairest policy in the circumstances, then and remains so to-day. If exceptions were made to it, the exceptions would become the policy. The White Australia ideal would be whittled away. Of what advantage would that be to the rest of the world? The objection to low-wage coolie labour is not confined to Australia. It is spreading all over the world. We see it in Fiji, India and Malaya. Every one of the Malays sent back to Malaya was a deserter. That is confirmed by the facts that were placed before the Immigration Advisory Committee of which I am chairman. The circumstances under which the fourteen Malays concerned entered Australia were that one deserted his vessel in 1942; one refused to re-sign on his vessel in 1943; one was permitted to sign off his for recreation leave but failed to rejoin the ship; three served with the American Transport Service and were signed off here in 1946 for repatriation; one was brought to Australia from Japan in 1945 for recuperation ; and seven signed off vessels in Sydney for repatriation. Many of the Malays that were repatriated were married in Malaya, and any government with an instinct for the prestige of the white man and knowledge of the marriages which may occur at seaports of the great metropolises, would have been moved to examine the position. There has not been a drastic sweeping of unfortunate Asiatics into ships sailing from these shores. We were committed to repatriate them. When they found this country a wholesome place to live in they married though they knew that they must be repatriated. This action was, in fact, an attempt to break away from the conditions on which they were allowed to enter and remain in the country. They enlisted aid and propaganda from the extreme “left” and, astonishing though it may be, the extreme “ right “. So it was the tottering old Tory in the Union Club as much as the most rabid Communist who attacked the White Australia policy on their behalf. They attacked the Minister without knowledge of the facts or a desire to know the facts. The merciful, sensible and only thing to do was to send them home. Because the job of policing the White Australia policy had not been done for six or more- years owing to the exigencies of war, the Minister for Immigration was forced to move. There has been no wholesale clearing up, and the women left behind have become a charge on the social services of the country. The Minister saw that that was done. Was that not better for them than the beach at Singapore? Yet should they desire to go to Malaya they may do so. No outcry was raised against the repatriation of the Indonesian seamen, and 4,000 others went out of thi9 country without any outcry being made. The honorable and gallant member for Balaclava (Mr. White), who gallops into the fray, armed for battle with the Labour party on this issue, raised no voice about their repatriation, no doubt because he regarded them as Communists. He has taken issue, with the Government on this account only because he sees in it the opportunity for political gain. The honorable member is unworthy to discuss the White Australia policy when he cannot keep it on the high level on which it was discussed by the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). The honorable gentleman found a ready mate in the honorable member for Fawkner in raising side issues that were entirely out of place. It is regrettable that the repatriation of a few Malays, should have been seized upon by the Opposition as an excuse to attack the Government. Chinese and other Asiatics were forced to leave the country similarly because they had also been admitted under an agreement to go when told to go. It is unfitting that the Minister for Immigration should be attacked for having done the job properly. He has administered the Immigration Act according to the letter and spirit of the measure. Opposition members have talked drivel about this matter. The Minister for External Affairs attempted to lift the debate to a high level, but honorable gentlemen opposite, who have ranked themselves with out-and-out Communists in attacking the White Australia policy and the Government’s adherence to it. have dragged the debate down to the lowest level. It disgusts me to see time wasted as they have wasted it. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) made some biblical references, and talked about Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, about whom every one learned in their school days. What relation they have to the repatriated Malays is hard to. discover. It is important to remember that the White Australia policy should not be muddied in this chamber for political reasons.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I do not think that honorable members have ever listened to a more impertinent speech than that just delivered by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen).. He said that the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) “ had attempted to lift the debate to a high level’.

Mr Haylen:

– So he did.

Mr ABBOTT:

– If he did, the honorable member reduced it to the lowest level.

Mr Haylen:

– Does- the honorable member believe in the White Australia policy ?

Mr ABBOTT:

– I shall tell the honorable member what I believe in before I have finished. The honorable member unjustly said that the Opposition had raised bogies about shipping to Indonesia and had made a Hanking attack on the White Australia policy. I propose to deal with each of those statements. It is a disgrace to Australia that the Government for more than two years allowed our good relations with the Dutch who fought with us as allies to be jeopardized and then allowed our trade to be lost in the Netherlands East Indies.

Mr Haylen:

– That is a worry.

Mr ABBOTT:

– It is a worry to Australia and it ought to be a worry to the honorable gentleman, who saw thousands of unemployed men and women walking the streets in the depression when Australian producers could not get decent prices for their goods. The honorable member is deliberately willing to throw away markets for Australian goods because he has to support the Communistcontrolled gentlemen on the wharfs of Australia who shape our foreign policy when it should be shaped by our legitimately elected government. This question of shipping to Indonesia and the action taken against Dutch shipping in Australian waters is something that cannot be lightly dismissed and written down as a mere matter of no consequence. Just as the Singapore press has written that bitter hatred would be aroused there for many years to come owing to the stupid, inflexible policy the Government has adopted in the last few weeks, I say that the Indonesian and Dutch peoples are not going to forget in a hurry the action of the Australian Government, which hag allowed its foreign policy to be taken over by the waterside workers and the Communist party of Australia. The honorable member for Parkes has stated that we took this opportunity to make a flanking attack on the White Australia policy.

Mr Haylen:

– Honorable . gentlemen opposite always do so.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I and other members of the Opposition parties in this Parliament have supported, the White Australia policy, not only in the- Parliament, but long- before we were elected, because we realize that that policy is vital and fundamental to the existence of Australia. We do not support the White Australia policy because a person’s skin is a different colour to- our- own, but on economic grounds. We support it because we believe it is essential to enable the working men and women of Australia to maintain the standards of living which we believe are their just right. Yet the honorable member for Parkes gets up and says we are making a flanking attack on the policy. The Opposition raised the matter only because it fears that the actions of the Government and of the Minister are jeopardizing a policy which honorable members of the Opposition parties believe is an essential foundation of the Australian economy. The honorable member for Parkes went on to talk about a ragged fusillade from the press of Malaya. Although the honorable member for Parkes is a pressman he never seems to be on good terms with the press. When he was the fashion writer or editor of a ladies’ journal in Sydney he apparently had a quarrel and left the job, or was put out of it.

Consequently this young writer for young girls always shows hostility against the press and that is why he talks about a ragged fusillade from the press of Malaya which raised this question and wrote very powerfully and strongly about it. But it was not a ragged fusillade. The press of Malaya which raised the matter is an English-speaking press and includes the Straits Settlement Times and the Free Press of Singapore, whose editor has stated that that publication is not in any way an extremist paper but a conservative journal. If the conservative journals of Singapore consider that the actions of this Government are dangerous we ought to sit up and take notice instead of trying to minimize our mistakes as the honorable member for Parkes is doing. Honorable members of the Opposition parties regard the Government’s action as the most dangerous one ever taken by any government to jeopardize the White Australia policy. They desire to know whether there was any notification to the Minister for External Affairs from the Australian representative in Singapore as to the possible effect of the deportation of those few Malayan seamen and the Chinese wife of a British subject in Western Australia. About twenty Malayan seamen were involved in addition to the wife I have mentioned, and it would not have jeopardized the White Australia policy in any way whatever, or had the slightest effect on it if the Government had allowed those people to remain in Australia. Instead of that they were turned out of the country and went home and told their stories and received sympathy from their countrymen. That immediately brought into the full limelight and the glare of publicity a policy which Australia should implement with the greatest delicacy and care and not flaunt in the eyes of those people we are attempting to keep out of this country in order to maintain our economic standards. If the Minister was warned of the feeling in Malaya - and it is foolish of him to say that statements in the press of Australia created that feeling, because the news items must originally have been cabled from Malaya - he did a shocking thing in allowing the Macmahon Ball mission to go to Malaya unaware of the kind of reception it would receive, and in allowing Mr. Macmahon Ball himself to be placed in the position where he felt he had to make an extraordinary statement in regard to a watering-down of the immigration policy of Australia, which was a most serious attack on the White Australia policy. That statement has done a great disservice to Australia by suggesting that there might be some slackening of immigration restrictions, which of course, would eventually lead to a tremendous influx of hordes of the Asiatics who for the last century we have endeavoured to exclude. The honorable member for Parkes, with a loyalty which deserves to be directed to better ends, went on to, snivel around the Minister and say the whole thing was created by the Opposition to permit it to conduct a hate campaign against the Minister. The honorable member also talked about cheap yellow journalism and about newspapers which made attacks against the Minister. There was no political attack on the Minister at all, but there was a solid determination among honorable members of the Opposition that they were not going to see the White Australia policy whittled down and placed in jeopardy by the colossal mistakes and stupidity of a Government which has apparently no common policy as between the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell). There have been other gentlemen in the past, for instance Mr. Richards, of South Australia, and the present honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), who have stated in this House that we should consider a modification of the White Australia policy. The honorable member for Hunter on one occasion said that as far as he was concerned the Government could admit immigrants who were black, white or brindle.

Mr James:

– You are a liar.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The statement which I have quoted appears in Hansard, and I ask that the honorable member for Hunter withdraw his expression that I am a liar.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Hunter must withdraw his remark.

Mr James:

– Having had the pleasure of making it, I withdraw it.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I accept the honorable member’s apology, and thank him for it. In this debate to-night it is the Opposition which is fighting to protect this sacred White Australia policy, and she honorable member for Parkes and other honorable members on the government side and the Minister for External Affairs in particular, who by their carelessness and lack of attention to what is happening overseas have prejudiced the policy and placed it in jeopardy. They have created towards Australia in the minds of other peoples a hatred such as has never been known sinces the policy was introduced as the national policy of this country.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of the Treasury.

Proposed Vote. £1,556,110.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that owing to the immense increase in the number of taxation officials and the consequent inexperience of many of them, numerous assessments which have been issued to taxpayers are grossly incorrect. I received a letter to-day from a taxpayer who stated that he had a personal income of £315, but was assessed to pay no less than £666 in taxes. Just before I went to South Africa another taxpayer informed me that he had an income of just under £1,200 per annum but had been assessed to pay £1,400 in taxes. In that particular case I was able to go to the Commissioner of Taxation, and found that the man’s assessment should have been for about £300. I am satisified that there are many similar instances where the amounts are lower and no fuss is made. It is a scandalous thing that people who are able to obtain the services and advice of an expert or an accountant, who can readily detect mistakes, are able to obtain redress from the Commissioner of Taxation. There must be hundreds of thousands of similar incorrect assessments issued to people in the lower income ranges who go along and pay the excessive amounts without having any means of determining whether they are being overtaxed or not. I urge that before the assessments are sent out in this wild and woolly fashion they be checked carefully to ensure that no mistake has been made. One of the reasons for the tremendous confusion in assessments is due to the fact that the social services tax is imposed on incomes as low as £150 per annum, which means that there are probably 4,000,000 assessments to be issued throughout Australia. I am opposed to taxes on incomes as low as that and when I was Australian Treasurer, I took the view that people on low incomes paid enough in indirect taxation, to deserve exemption from direct taxation, and I took steps to give effect to my view. With regard to the manner in which the money collected by the Government in taxes has been used I shall mention only the Government’s policy of apparently making hospital beds available free to patients. The Government pays 6s. a day towards hospital fees paid by patients. If one went through country hospitals to-day he would find that practically everybody in the general wards was being charged at the rate of £5 5s. a week, towards which the Federal Government pays £2 2s., and the patients are receiving bills for the remainder. In a recent visit to country hospitals I found that fees for patients in private wards have been raised from £5 5s. and £6 6s. to as high as £10 10s. a week. In the city of Grafton there is a private maternity home which charges £55s. a week. Due to the impact of the 40-hour week and other reasons, the hospital made application to be permitted to increase its rate to £5 10s. The application was refused. The hospital was closed down, but, because there was no other maternity hospital in the city the New South Wales Hospitals Commission had to take it over and it immediately increased the fees for maternity cases to £10 10s. a week.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! The right honorable member is dealing with the incidence of taxation. He must confine his remarks to the administration of the Department of the Treasury.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I am dealing with salaries and payments in the nature of salaries to taxation officials, which form part of the general expenditure of the Department of the Treasury.

I wish to draw attention to a’ statement made hy the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) in relation to the boycott by members of the British Medical Association of the Government’s socalled free medicine scheme. The Minister said that he could not understand why medical practitioners are denying financial relief to their patients.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The right honorable gentleman is again digressing from the question before the Chair. He must confine his remarks to matters associated with the administration of the Department of the Treasury.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The Treasurer collects all the taxes which are to provide the funds to pay for this scheme.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The right honorable gentleman is dealing with a matter which comes under the proposed vote for the Department of Health.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The Minister then asked, “ Why should the age pension “-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The right honorable member may discuss that matter at a later stage when the proposed vote for the Department of Social Services is under consideration.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I shall do so. It is ‘ scandalous that medical men should be villified and pilloried in this way without being given an opportunity to reply, over the air to the accusations made by the Minister for Health whose statements have been demonstrated by the leading newspapers of Australia to be grossly untrue. It is politically dishonest for the Minister to delude the people into believing that members of the medical profession, who get no fee from the Government, are responsible for the people being denied free medicine.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– This scheme involves the civil conscription of medical men.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

. -A report has recently been published in the press that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has made available to federal members in Sydney the services of a taxation officer to deal with taxation matters raised by their constituents. Honorable members representing Victorian constituencies frequently are asked by their electors to approach the Taxation Branch to clear up matters associated with their taxation assessments. In my electorate, particularly in the dried fruits area, many taxpayers have not received income tax assessments for some years. Naturally, they are anxious to know where they stand. Honorable members are put to great inconvenience by continually having to go to the taxation office to have these matters attended to. A considerable portion of their time is occupied in that way. The system adopted, in New South Wales has much to commend it and I shall be glad if the Treasurer will be good enough to make a similar arrangement in Victoria.

Mr Chifley:

– I shall look into the matter and ascertain whether it is possible to do what the honorable member suggests.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I wish to speak briefly about the position regarding Australian funds in London. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and members of the Government are continually warning us against the dangers of inflation. Honorable members on this side of the chamber fully realize these dangers and wish to do everything possible to remove any circumstances which are liable to bring it about. According to the Statistical Review, published by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the weekly averages of gold and balances held abroad amounted in 1939 to £A.34,010,000. A steady growth took place throughout the years, and in 1945 these balances totalled £245,600,000. The greatest rate of growth has taken place since 1943. To-day the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) stated that the balance has now reached a total of £250,000,000. The inflationary effect of this enormous aggregation of London funds, against which credits are established in Australia, is shown by the fact that the weekly average deposits of the nine trading banks, which in 1939 totalled £321,500,000 had grown by April, 1948, to £709,500,000. The present Government, as, indeed, did theFadden and Menzies Governments, realized the necessity for immobilizing certain of these bank deposits. Two hundred and eighty million five hundred thousand pounds of these funds was held in the special deposits account at the Commonwealth Bank in April, 1948. That amount represented the weekly average of surplus bank deposits held by the Commonwealth Bank. Notwithstanding this immobilization of bank deposits, the enormous aggregation of funds in London is having a very detrimental effect on prices in this country. The pressure on prices would be largely alleviated if an attempt were made to deal properly with some of the funds. In normal times, London funds would be liquidated by imports from Great Britain and by the service of overseas debts. I recall to the Treasurer’s memory the days of the financial and economic depression, when great difficulty was experienced in servicing our overseas debt. In paragraph 114 of the report of the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems, the royal commission said -

Overseas interest on public debt, including local government debt, amounted to about £28,000,000 sterling. Great difficulty was found in meeting this obligation and drastic steps had to be taken to provide the funds necessary to meet the interest and pay for imports.

On the 30th June, 1947, the public debt of Australia repayable in London amounted to £403,000,000. Only a very small portion of that debt has since been repaid. The Government now has an opportunity to reduce that debt by a considerable amount. If that were done no injury of any sort would be inflicted upon Great Britain. I suggest that we continue to send the maximum amount of exports to Britain but that, at the same time, we safeguard Australia from inflationary tendenciesby reducing the accumulation of funds in London.

Mr Chifley:

– May I ask the honorable gentleman how any action we may take in regard to the repayment of the debt in London would affect the inflationary tendencies brought about by the high prices received for our primary products?

Mr ABBOTT:

– I shall deal with that in a minute. I am pointing out that the Government has an opportunity to reduce Australia’s indebtedness to Great Britain by open market operations if there are no conversions due, or if conversions are due, by purchases of Australian loans in the “ open market “ or by reconverting the debt. I suggest that some portion of this debt of £250,000,000, say 10 per cent., could be reconverted, or the loans might be purchased on the market. To do this loans should be floated in Australia for conversion and open market operations. That is how the Government could reduce Australia’s credit base, lessen the inflationary danger in Australia, and make our position progressively more secure should we run into days of disaster and find difficulty in servicing our overseas debt. Undoubtedly, as soon as goods become available for export to this country from Great Britain, our London funds will disappear as they have in the past. I believe that, having this accumulation of London funds, we should be well advised to get rid of as much as possible of our overseas debt by bringing it hack into Australia.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £228,590.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

. -I wish to say something about the administration of the Attorney-General’s Department, particularly with regard to the Commonwealth Investigation Service. From time to time we on this side of the chamber have stressed the need to police the services of this country, but whenever we have drawn attention to the possibility that some foreign power might sabotage our long-range guided weapons project or when we have pointed out that in the Public Service there may be certain disruptive forces of a foreign power, we have been told by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) or the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) that the investigation service is such that we can assume that everything is under control. I was impressed by the logic of certain claims that have been made in regard to the Commonwealth Investigation Service, but in more recent days my faith in that service has been somewhat rudely shattered, and I propose now to indicate to the committee just how that has happened. There devolves upon me an obligation to make some amends in this chamber for the charges that I made against certain individuals on a question relating to Asian Airlines Proprietary Limited directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). I first asked the question, without notice, on the 11th March. The Prime Minister asked me to place the question on the notice-paper, and it appeared on notice-paper No. 120, dated the 7th April. In the course of my question without notice, I pointed out that, associated with a man named Campbell, who was one of the legal owners of Marx House, were a number of individuals whom I claimed were Communists. I made that claim in good faith, and in the light of information I had received from a source which I do not wish to divulge. The publicity given to my question gave an opportunity to one of the men concerned to protest to me that I had misrepresented him, and had falsely charged him with being a Communist. I gave him an opportunity to come and see me. I fixed a date and a time for the meeting. About that period, I had received a letter from a source which I shall not name at present, enclosing a communication addressed to the accountant of the Australian Communist party, and signed by Mr. M. Healy, general secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of Queensland. “With the letter was a receipt from the Queensland Railway Dispute Fund for £101 received from the Australian Communist party. I felt that it was my duty to hand those documents over to the investigation service. I rang an official of that service, and arranged for an investigation officer to be sent to my office to pick up the documents. That officer duly arrived at my office. As I have said, I had been in correspondence, with one of the men whom I had charged with being a member of the Communist party. His name is Frank Oliver Diggins. I wanted to be quite sure of my grounds before speaking to Diggins, and I asked the investigation officer, who was waiting for me in ray office and whose name is known to the Attorney-General, whether there was any doubt about Diggins being a Communist. The officer told me that Diggins was a Communist. I said that I wanted to know how I should handle him, because I had promised that, if I had misrepresented him, I would make amends in Parliament. I then asked the officer whether the other three men whose names I had given in my question, were Communists. The officer nodded his head in agreement. In my office at that time was my private secretary, who listened to the conversation. He has no doubt whatever that the investigation officer did indicate to me that the men were Communists. I was rather surprised, therefore, when I received the written answer to the question that I had placed on the notice-paper. To give the Government an opportunity to confirm what the investigation officer had conveyed to me, namely, that the men whom I had men:tioned were Communists, portion of my question was as follows: -

  1. (a) Is it a fact that, associated with Campbell in this company were Graham Callaghan Brickwood, Jack Oliver Diggins, John Robert Garemyn, Victor Morris Trevitt (6) Are these men members of the Australian Communist party, or are they associated or have they any affiliations with any known Communist body ?

I was surprised when I received an answer to those questions in terms which, although certainly not definite, were sufficiently clear to place beyond doubt the fact that the Government considered that these men were not Communists. The answer to question (a) was -

Yes. The four associates mentioned are Australian ex-servicemen and state that the establishment of this company was a rehabilitation venture.

It is rather unfortunate that they chose that particular company as a rehabilitation venture. The answer to question (b) was “I believe not”. I was rather concerned at this answer, and I spoke to the Prime Minister about it. He in turn took the matter up with the Attorney-General, who, I understand, closely questioned the investigation officer who, I believe, has denied that he gave me the information of which I have spoken. I emphasize that my private secretary was in my office at the time, and listened to the conversation. He has no doubt whatever regarding the information which was conveyed to me.

Subsequently, I saw Mr. Diggins, and in the light of that information I said to him, “ I believe that my question was correct, and was asked in good faith. I believe that you have some Communist affiliations. Even if you are not a member of the Communist party you are associated with it in some way.” He denied it. I then said, “ There are two ways in which you may clear yourself. One way is for you to go to the investigation service, and ask it to give you a clearance. The other way is for me to make the necessary amends if my question to the Prime Minister is answered in the negative.” He left for the offices of the Commonwealth Investigation ‘Service, which I proceeded to telephone. I explained that this man, whom I had discussed with an investigation officer, was on his way there to have a conversation. Subsequently, Diggins returned to my office and informed me that he had been to the investigation service and that it would not give him a clearance, or discuss the matter with him. That proves conclusively that the investigation service had some knowledge of this matter. The officer, in denying that the conversation took place with me, is obviously not aware of that fact, and he stands convicted on that ground.

As I have stated, the investigation service was aware that Diggins was on his way to the offices and would not give him a clearance. I have no alternative, in the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to my question, to say to these men, “I regret that I have labelled you as Communists. It was done in error, and, indeed, on information supplied to me by an investigation officer “. The AttorneyGeneral knows the identity of that officer. I consider that if the investigation service is so badly administered, controlled and policed that it is not in a position to give authentic information, its records cannot be so complete as the AttorneyGeneral claims that they are. In addition, if the investigation officer, under oath, has stated that he will not divulge information that comes into his possession, obviously he has broken that oath. In that event, it seeems to me that the investigation service is not on the high plane that it should be on. While I make amends, I consider that I should not be called upon to do so for a mistake that arose out of advice which an investigation officer had given to me. From time to time, the Attorney-General claims that the investigation service has a complete knowledge of the identity and movements of Communists in this country, hut this single incident causes me to doubt it. 1 regret that this incident has occurred, and I have no other course than to make amends. I am sorry that I was misled by an investigation officer. It is perfectly clear to me that he was fully aware of the commitment which he entered into with me, because he knows that subsequently I sent the man to the offices of the investigation service to ask for a clearance. I advised the investigation service that the man was on his way there. That being so, I cannot for the life of me understand why such misleading information was given to me in my capacity as Acting Leader of the Opposition as to cause me to label as Communists, men who, the Government states, are not Communists. I raise this matter now because I consider that the sooner the Commonwealth Investigation Service is tightened up the better it will be for the safety of the nation.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The committee has listened to an extraordinary story. The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) had made imputations against certain citizens. Those imputations were contained in a question which the honorable gentleman had directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley).

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– That is correct.

Dr EVATT:

– Before the honorable gentleman makes imputations of that kind against citizens, it is his duty to make reasonable inquiries into the case, because an imputation of Communist affiliations at the present time is about the most serious suggestion that can be made against a business man. However, the honorable gentleman asked the Prime Minister a number of questions about four men. I shall not repeat their names. He asked whether they were members of the Australian Communist party or were associated or had any affiliations with any known Communist organization. After referring the question to the investigation service the Prime Minister replied, “ I believe not “. What information did the honorable gentleman have when he made those suggestions? I assume that he did not base them upon his casual conversation with a temporary, investigation officer employed in the Commonwealth Investigation Service.

Mr HARRISON:

– Of course not.

Dr EVATT:

– The honorable gentleman had some other source of inf ormation.

Mr Harrison:

– That is true.

Dr EVATT:

– He did not rely for the imputation of defamatory slander on any information which he obtained from an investigation officer, but the fact is that, having made a suggestion in the most public way, and attacking the four persons by name, he subsequently had an interview with one of the officers of the investigation- service. I have never seen this officer in my life. I have never questioned him. I have no information about the matter except that which appears on the file of the Solicitor-General. The temporary investigation officer, because the Acting Leader of the Opposition had quoted him in support of the suggestion chat the Prime Minister’s answer was incorrect, was called upon to say what did happen between the honorable gentleman and himself. He made a report, and I shall read it. It was addressed to the Deputy Director, Commonwealth Investigation Service, Sydney, and is dated the 10th May, 1948. It reads-

The instructions had been given to him by the Deputy Director of the Commonwealth Investigation Service. The report continues - on the 17th March, 1948, I went on that date to the Federal Members’ Rooms, Sydney, to see Mr. Harrison, M.H.R., and obtain from him two documents for delivery to you.

Those documents had nothing to do with this matter. A messenger was sent from the investigation service to the office of the honorable gentleman in the Federal members’ rooms to obtain documents for delivery to the Deputy Director of the investigation service. The report proceeds -

I was received at the Federal member’s rooms by Mr.- , who said he was Mr.

Harrison’s secretary, and who asked me to wait. I waited for approximately 30 minutes. I then was ushered into an office, which was occupied by Mr. Harrison, whom I had not seen previously, but recognized from press photographs. I produced my credentials and Mr. Harrison immediately made it clear that he knew the purpose of my visit.

Up to that point, it was simply a case of a very junior officer, a temporary investigation officer, being sent from the offices of the investigation service to the room of the Acting Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of obtaining certain documents which had nothing to do with this case. The report continues -

Mr. Harrison obtained the two documents from bis desk drawer and gave them to me. As I prepared to leave the office, Mr. Harrison said, “ Just a minute Mr.- . Do you know anything about- 1” mentioning the name of the company. The report proceeds -

I replied, “No; all I know is what has been published in the daily press “. He then said : “ Do you know whether any of the directors are Communists?” I repeated the reply I had given to the first, question. When asking me the second question, the honorable member mentioned several names. I know one name which he mentioned, but I had not heard the other names before and I cannot now recall them.

Sitting suspended from 11 to 11.80 p.m.

Dr EVATT:

– I have been endeavouring to supply the background of this Sexton Blake story concerning four individuals who were alleged by the honorable gentleman to be Communists, but who, he now admits, are not Communists. In explanation of his mistake, he accuses the Commonwealth Investigation Service of having misled him. The honorable member admitted that he obtained his original information about the four individuals concerned from a source not connected with the Government or the security service, and stated that because of that information he asked a question in the Parliament. I have read portions of the report furnished by the temporary inquiry officer employed in the Commonwealth Investigation Service. That officer was not authorized to discuss the matter with the honorable gentleman, but was merely sent to him to take delivery of certain documents. The officer stated in his report that he had not previously heard the names of the four individuals concerned, and that, with the exception of one of them, who is not concerned in the case under discussion, he could not recall their names. In the course of the report to the Deputy Director, which he furnished, he stated -

On return to this Service I immediately handed the two documents which I had received to you. At the same time, I reported to you that Mr. Harrison had asked me questions concerning the company, and I thought he was trying to pump me.

Obviously, the Acting Leader of the Opposition was endeavouring to elicit information from an individual who was not authorized to make such communications. Furthermore, the conversation which he had with the official was quite a casual one. The Acting Leader of the Opposition states that he and his secretary placed a different interpretation upon that interview, and I do not challenge his good faith in the account of the interview which he has given to the committee. At the same time, I accept the report of the investigation official concerned, because, obviously, he did not know the men concerned in this matter, had never even heard their names, and knew nothing of them. It is clear that the honorable gentleman thought that the officer from the Commonwealth Investigation Service would be able to confirm his suspicions. However, he now realizes that he was misinformed in the first instance, and withdraws any accusation against the individuals concerned. That, in itself, is not important, because the people who were pilloried by the question which the honorable gentleman asked in this chamber were cleared of any imputation by the reply furnished by the Prime Minister to the effect that they were not Communists. However, the honorable gentleman was not content to let the matter rest, and he went out of his way to make an attack on the Commonwealth Investigation Service, although suspicion would still have rested unjustly on the four individuals concerned, but for the inquiries made by the officers of that service. Furthermore, I point out that the honorable gentleman could quite easily have sought from the Deputy Director of that service in Sydney any information which he desired to obtain. I seriously deprecate the action of the honorable gentle- man who constituted himself a private and unofficial investigating authority and then made defamatory suggestions against the individuals concerned in this matter.

The accusations made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition against the officers of the Commonwealth Investigation Service fall to the ground, because there is no evidence that’ any of the officers of that service were inefficient. On the contrary, they promptly investigated the matter referred to them and were able to prevent an injustice from being done. Does the honorable gentleman make any accusation against the officers in charge of the Commonwealth Investigation Service? The two officers in. charge, Colonel Browne and Colonel Lloyd, have occupied senior positions for fifteen or twenty years and were not appointed by the present Government. Furthermore, I am satisfied that they carry out their duties efficiently. Those are the facts, and I do not propose to elaborate them. I submit that the allegation made by the honorable gentleman against the Commonwealth Investigation ‘Service is quite as unfounded as the accusation which he made against the four individuals. In explanation of his action the Acting Leader of the Opposition claims that he gained the impression from the messenger that he might postpone making the imputation against the four individuals concerned until such time as it could be properly withdrawn. That has nothing to do with the matter, and it did not deter him from making a frivolous and paltry attack on the investigation service.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · “Wentworth

– If the facts of this matter were as stated by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) there would be no need for me to say anything further. However, the explanation furnished by the right honorable gentleman, which appears on the surface to be satisfactory, is not so in fact. The Attorney-General laid great stress on the fact that the officer who came to see me was merely acting as a messenger, and the right honorable gentleman referred to him as a “ temporary officer “. It is not my fault that the officer who interviewed me was not a regular investigation officer. I telephoned the Deputy

Director of theCommonwealth Investigation Service in Sydney, told him that I had certain documents, and asked him to send an investigation officer to me in order to receive the documents. I was not aware that the individual whom he sent was not an investigation officer; he produced his credentials which showed that he was empowered to come to my office to collect certain documents.

Dr Evatt:

– Those documents do not relate at all to the present matter.

Mr HARRISON:

– That is quite so. As I have said, I was not aware that the individual sent to me was not an investigation officer. I accepted him as an investigation officer who had been detailed by the Deputy Director of the Commonwealth Investigation Service to interview me. Had I thought that he was merely a messenger I would not have entrusted him with the documents. So much for the fact that the individual concerned was merely a temporary officer, who had been sent as a messenger.

The Attorney-General said that he is prepared to accept my version of the interview, but he qualified that statement by saying that he also accepted as true the statement of the investigation officer. Obviously, he cannot accept both statements, because they are mutually contradictory, and the fact remains that the officer concerned confirmed, in the presence of a witness, my belief that the individuals involved in this matter were Communists. His confirmation afforded me the opportunity to ask a question in the chamber in a much more definite form than I could otherwise have asked it. I believed that the information which I obtained from the officer was reliable because it confirmed the information which I had previously received-. I do not propose to divulge the identity of the person who supplied me with the original information. One of the four individuals concerned came to me in some distress and said that he was not a Communist, but admitted that he was associated with Communists, one of whom was the legal owner of Marx House. He also stated that that individual informed him that he was engaged in a venture with other Communists. That is a fact, and the Minister cannot deny it. The individual referred to was associated with known Communists in a venture, and because the Attorney-General had defended the transaction I considered that I needed some confirmatory statement. What better organization than the Commonwealth Investigation Service could I approach to obtain that information? Purely by chance, because I had these documents in my possession, there was in my office at that time a security officer whom I believed to ‘have come in response to my’ appeal to the chief of staff in Sydney. I placed the matter before him, as any ther honorable member would have done. I said “ This man is coming to see me. He claims that I have besmirched his character, and I should like to be more certain of my ground than I am now”. I asked him point blank whether the man was a Communist, and he replied that he was. Then I asked about the other three men. He left us in no doubt whatever about the matter. There can be no misunderstanding. He conveyed that information to us, although he now denies that he did. My private secretary and I are prepared to make sworn statements in order to place the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. If the officer had said to me, “I am a security officer and I cannot give the information for which you ask”, the matter would have restedthere, but because he did give me this information I sought to establish my contention and framed my question accordingly.

At one time the officials of the investigation service said they had no knowledge of the fact that Diggins had gone from my office to see them, after I had telephoned to say that he was coming. That was not divulged until I disclosed that information and a. check was made. It is clear that they were aware of my request relative to him. I sent him to the Commonwealth Investigation Service, and he was interviewed. The service refused to clear his name there and then. If the service had no information about whether he was a Communist in fairness to him its officers should have said, “ We have no inf ormation about whether or not you are a Communist “, or alternatively, “ In our opinion, you are not associated with a Communist body “. An officer of the Commonwealth Investigation Service misled me, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, knowing that I had asked a question, knowing that I intended to proceed with it, and knowing that I waa to interview a man who was objecting to my statement that he was a Communist. The investigation service was aware of this, and its officers subsequently interviewed him and would not clear his name or divulge any information to him.

Those are the facts and they cannot be contradicted. I do not care what the officer has said. Until I told an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department that the investigation service had interviewed Diggins, after I had telephoned to say that he was on his way, it was said that there was no record of that. . I think 1 have proved beyond all doubt that roy statement with regard to this matter is correct. “Whether the officer concerned had sufficient standing in his department to enable him to convey that information to me; whether he wished to inflate his ego by giving the impression that he knew more about security matters than in fact he did know; or whether he had sworn not to divulge information and the statement he has now made is an endeavour to cover up the fact that he divulged information that he should not have divulged, are questions that must be left to the committee to decide.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I submit that several matters have been established by the statement of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison). The first is that before this incident occurred with the Commonwealth Investigation Service, he made an imputation, and made it publicly. The second is that he now admits it was a false imputation.

Mr HARRISON:

– Only because of the answer that was given to my question.

Dr EVATT:

– The honorable member admitted that the suggestion that this man was’ a Communist, or had communistic affiliations with the persons mentioned in the question, was not correct. The third matter that has been estab lished is that the honorable gentleman now suggests that the investigation officer told him and his private secretary something which was false, and false to hisknowledge. As to that, the officer concerned has a good record in the department. There would be no point in his endeavouring to mislead the honorable member. The fairest explanation is that there was some misunderstanding about what was said. The fourth matter that has been established by the honorable member’s statement is that the officer did not go there to deal with him on this subject, but for the purpose of receiving some documents connected with another case and handing them to the investigation service. The conversation that took place was of the most casual character. It is improper to suggest that the honorable member is en titled to say to a man that he ha? def amed, “ I will not clear you ; you must go to the investigation service and clear yourself”. That is not a function that can be imposed upon the investigation service, and when guilt has been imputed to a person it is not for him to prove his innocence.

Those are the clear and admitted facts. The only relevance of them to this debate is whether or not the honorable member has substantiated some charge against the investigation service. The committee will note that he does not suggest that that service was the source of his original information. Therefore, it was not responsible for the imputation being made. The only matter to which the t honorable member can now turn is his conversation with a person who went’ to his office merely to receive some documents. The honorable member now says that the imputation he made was incorrect ; but, none the less, it was damaging. There is not a tittle of evidence to prove that there was any inefficiency on the part of the investigation service. The honorable member has involved this officer in the controversy, but the facts are that a charge was made against some citizens, and that that charge was untrue. It was contained in a question. “When the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) replied to it, he said he believed the persons referred to were not Comunists. That reply was correct, and it was given on the advice of the investigation service. The honorable member’s admissions prove that it was correct, and the men have been exonerated.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- 1 desire to refer to a matter about which I asked a question of the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) recently. Although I do not raise it with the intention of criticizing anything that has been done by any officer of his department, T believe it to be of considerable public importance.

On the 2nd June, I asked a question concerning the death of Mr. John Scott in New Guinea some time before that date-. When I was in New Guinea recently, the facts of the case were related to me. They are that Mr. Scott was in a dance hall some distance outside Lae, and that he was set upon by some Filipinos who were serving with an American military unit which was investigating war graves in that area. One of them struck Mr. Scott on the head with a bottle and killed him. Several of the Filipino soldiers were arrested and civilian proceedings were taken. There then arrived in Lae by aeroplane from the Philippines, a considerable number of American officers, legal and otherwise, who were despatched there at the order of the commanding officer of the Philippines forces, and an argument ensued as to whether or not the particular Filipino was to be tried by Australian law for an offence committed within Australian territory, or whether, as the Americans claimed, he should be tried by American martial law. That was a plain claim of extra-territoriality - a claim which had been made by British authorities many years ago against the so-called inferior or less civilized races, as in China and elsewhere; it was a claim which, according to modern standards and modern international law, is certainly in relation to Australia, not to be tolerated for a moment. I suggest that honorable members should pay some attention to this matter, because we have here a situation in which the United States authorities were seeking to impose upon Australia their views of international law, which is one that we cannot tolerate for a moment.

I asked a question about this matter and, although the Minister was not in a position to give a reply immediately, he has now furnished me with a full reply. A part of it reads -

It appears that an officer of the United States Army Court Martial had given an undertaking before the trial commenced-

That was before the civilian trial before the magistrate for committal - that he would make available evidence which had come into his possession and which appeared to inculpate one of the arrested men. In the .circumstances, the Administration charged this man only, and discharged the others held under arrest. However, when the trial had begun, the defendant entered a plea that the evidence which this officer proposed to give was privileged. The Magistrate upheld this plea and, as the only evidence for the prosecution was based on the evidence of this officer, the Magistrate dismissed the case. Subsequently, the United States officer and the Filipinos returned under instructions to Manila.

The point I want to make is that, as the matter has been told to me, those are not the full and correct facts. I do not suggest for a moment that anybody sought to mislead me on this matter, but I believe the following to be the facts: There was an arrangement - I speak with some knowledge because I spoke to some of the persons actually involved when I was in New Guinea - entered into between the American military officers, who were legal personnel holding military rank, and the Australian prosecuting officer and others concerned, that all assistance would be given to the Australian authorities to bring the murderer to justice. No reservations were made; a complete undertaking was given, and it was never indicated that any question of privilege would be raised. That is important because subsequently a plea pf privilege was raised, and it constituted a gross breach of faith on the part of those officers who gave the undertaking. I believe it was a breach of faith into which they were driven by superior orders-

Dr Evatt:

– On whose part?

Mr BEALE:

– On the part of the Americans. I do not raise this matter with any desire to cause irritation in other countries, but a very important question of principle is involve ! from the point of view of Australia, because we must not let this happen, if we can help it. When one of the witnesses was in the witness box, an American officer, who was there to look after the interests of the accused, then raised the question of privilege. I am not clear in precisely what form it was raised. I assert that it was raised in breach of the undertaking which had been given. The American officers originally claimed extraterritoriality. “We resisted that claim, and it was finally disposed of, as the Australian officials understood the matter by an agreement, and that the murderer should, if possible, be brought to justice on Australian soil, and by Australian law. There were no further reservations. Later, in breach of faith, this claim was made, and it was upheld by the magistrate. Before any further proceedings could be taken, and before it was possible to re-charge the man and elicit other evidence - it was only a magistrate’s preliminary inquiry and he could have been charged again by ex officio indictment or fresh proceedings - the Americans suddenly left the territory by aeroplane. Those arc the facts as I believe them to be.

The Attorney-General replied to me, and with that reply I do not quarrel, as I believe it was intended to be fair, but I also believe it to be inaccurate. The reply was -

The Government has enquired through the United States Embassy whether it is proposed to bring the accused to trial under United States Jurisdiction. I would add that all that could be reasonably done by the Papua-New Guinea Administration in the circumstances has been done, and the present correspondence with the United States Government has as its object the prosecution to finality of the trial of the accused.

I would say the officials in New Guinea did all they could in this matter, but were frustrated by a breach of faith. The matter should not end there. The Government should assert the authority of Australian law, not merely to ensure that the man shall be tried, but to insist that he is brought back to Australian territory and tried according to Australian law. It may be that he has already been tried, and shot, or hanged, or whatever is done in such cases by the American military authorities. I understand that their justice is sometimes pretty swift. However, I claim that inquiries should be made to find out what has happened, and, if it is possible, the man should be brought back to Australian territory and tried under our law. This may seem to be an academic matter, but we cannot allow a precedent to be created by having our law disregarded, and offenders whipped out of our jurisdiction and tried in another country. If that were permitted, it would place us in the same position as were the Chinese and the Egyptians under the extra-territorial provisions at one time insisted upon by European nations.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does the honorable member realize that this same principle has been insisted upon by Australia in two world wars?

Mr BEALE:

– I realize that when the American forces were in Australia we made an arrangement with them, that, in certain circumstances, they should have the right to try their own soldiers charged with offences committed on Australian territory, but that was during the war. We are not now at war. In this instance, soldiers, members of the military forces of the United States of America, were in New Guinea where they or one of them committed an offence. I am anxious to assert our prestige in these matters, and I see no reason why we should relax the rule that should be adhered to, or admit the force of a war-time rule which has no present application. Therefore, inquiries should be pursued, not only with a view to learning whether the American authorities intend to bring the accused man to trial under United States of America military law, but also whether it is possible to bring him back to Australia, if he is alive, so that we may try him here.

Friday, 18 June IWS.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– Although it has not been generally circulated, an answer to the honorable member’s question has been supplied to him. Does he suggest that any part of the answer is incorrect?

Mr Beale:

– I make no imputation against any one, but the answer does not give all the facts. A plea of privilege was entered at the preliminary hearing of the case in New Guinea, as a result of which the case against the accused collapsed. I understand that an arrangement had been made with the American officer who attended the hearing that no such plea would be entered.

Dr EVATT:

– The answer which 1 supplied to the honorable member contains the following passage : -

It appears that an officer of the United States Army Court Martial had given an undertaking before the trial commenced that lie would make available evidence which had conic into his possession and which appeared to inculpate one of the arrested men.

When the trial was commenced, the officer did not carry out his undertaking, and that is stated in the reply. During the war, we had an arrangement with the United States of America Army authorities by which officers and men of the United States forces could be tried by competent American military authorities. A similar arrangement was made with other allied powers whose forces were in Australia. The United States of America wished this procedure to be followed in New Guinea in connexion with the trial of a number of Filipinos who allegedly committed a crime while working in New Guinea upon what was essentially war work, namely, the removal of the bodies of American soldiers to Manila on their way to the United States of America. Officers of the Attorney-General’s Department believed that the cases should be heard by the local court in the area where the crimes were alleged to have been committed, but information which was in possession of the United States of America authorities, and which might have implicated the accused persons, was not given. The officer econcerned believed, no doubt, that he was justified in withholding it. Because the information was not forthcoming, the case collapsed. The accused men were taken hack to Manila, and we are endeavouring to ensure that they shall be tried there. I agree that, generally speaking, criminal cases should be heard where the crime was committed. However, the incident under discussion arose out of the war. Everything possible was done by the administration of Papua and New Guinea, and I am sure that the American Army authorities will not allow the offenders to go unpunished. On the contrary, their view is that they, and they alone, should punish the offenders, and that attitude has been responsible for the incident. It would be quite wrong, in the circumstances, to try to bring particular individuals back to New Guinea. We can be certain that they will be tried, and that the evidence which was withheld in New Guinea will be given in Manila.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has raised a very important matter regarding the operation of military forces. In two world wars, the Government of Australia insisted that Australian troops should be subject to Australian military law and dicipline in whatever part of the world they happened to be. So rigid was the altitude of the Australian Government on this point during the first world war that it would not even allow Australian troops to be subject to British military discipline. It insisted that they should be subject only to Australian military discipline. We cannot claim extraterritorial rights in respect of our own troops in other countries, and even other British countries, while denying the same rights to the military authorities of other nations whose troops happen to be on our soil. When a man enlists in an armed force he becomes subject to one law during the term of his service, and that is the law of the armed force to which he belongs. That rule applies whether he is in the territory of a friendly power, is in enemy territory, or is a member of an army of occupation. To my mind, it is unthinkable to argue that, if Australian troops went on a mission to China, for example, they should be subject to the laws of that country. The rule is that, if troops break local laws in such circumstances, they shall be tried by courts-martial constituted by their own army. The only point relevant to this argument is that, when a crime is committed in friendly territory, or even in enemy territory, the sentence imposed, or at any rate the finding of the courtmartial, should be communicated to the Government which is concerned as a matter of common courtesy. It would appear that that has not been done in this case. In no circumstances could I argue in favour of the proposition submitted by the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), because I will not recognize the right of governments of other countries to try Australian troops in occupation of their territory according to their own laws. I have had some experience of these matters. I remember an occasion in France during World War I. when my battalion had to pay for a wheelbarrow which was stolen by one of the men as a troop train was leaving a station. A complaint was made, it was proved that the barrow had been taken, and restitution had to he made. The records will show that compensation had to .be paid for damage done in the city of Cairo during World War I. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) will recall the “battle of the Wazir “-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to keep to the question before the Chair.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The question is whether our troops are subject to the laws of other countries or to our own laws. I referred to the honorable member for Gippsland because he probably knows something about the “ battle of the W azir “. I was not in Egypt at that time, but I believe that the Australian Government had to pay damages as the result of certain acts of Australian troops. I have no doubt that, when Australian Imperial Forces troops were in Palestine and Egypt during World War II., they incurred certain costs-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member must refer to the question before the Chair.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The question is whether troops are responsible to the government of the country which they are occupying or to their own army. I understand the question very well. If we are to reach a definite conclusion on a problem of such importance as this, it ought to be discussed on some other occasion. This matter touches one of the most vital principles affecting the conduct of troops and their responsibility for breaches of the law which they commit. I cannot support the view expressed by the honorable mem’ber for

Parramatta. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) ought to be advised by the United States authorities of the outcome of the trial which is the cause of this discussion.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

– The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) says that, he understands this matter very well. 3 think that he does not understand it at all. I am sure that the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) will agree that the proposition that Australian soldiers are never subject to the laws of foreign territories where they happen to be is utterly unsound.

Dr Evatt:

– The conclusion of the honorable member for Barker is correct, but his reasoning is wrong.

Mr BEALE:

– I am glad that the Attorney-General agrees with me to that extent. Of course the honorable member for Barker is wrong. There were thousands of cases in which Australian soldiers were prosecuted in other countries for civilian offences during World War II. The honorable member for Barker was perhaps talking about, military offences. Troops who commit civilian offences are prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which they commit those offences. That happened in Great Britain and in many other countries during World War I. Because of a claim made by the United States authorities during World War II., a concession was made by the Australian Government permitting American troops who committed civilian offences in Australia to be tried, in certain circumstances, by American tribunals. But World War II. is over, and I am concerned with the establishment of the principle that any man from any part of the world who commits a crime in this country must be tried according to the laws of this country. The AttorneyGeneral, in what I might call with great respect a masterpiece of evasion, has entirely dodged that issue. In the first part of his statement he admitted that the New Guinea authorities persuaded the American officers that the accused man should be tried according to Australian law. That was insisted upon by the law officers in New Guinea upon the instructions of the Attorney-General’s Department and was conceded by the American authorities.

Dr Evatt:

– And the man was tried.

Mr BEALE:

– The trial commenced

Dr Evatt:

– And he was acquitted.

Mr BEALE:

– The trial commenced and then, as the Attorney-General has conceded, a breach of faith occurred. The American authorities raised a defence which they should not have raised, according to the undertaking which they gave, and the man was discharged.

Dr Evatt:

– He was acquitted.

Mr BEALE:

– It is useless to say that. He was discharged from a preliminary magisterial inquiry. Having established the principle that the man should be tried by Australian law for a civilian offence in Australian territory, when the American authorities whisked him back to the United States of America we should have said to the United States Government, “Bring this man back here and let us try him “. That is the principle I seek to uphold. It may seem of little importance to a tired committee at twenty minutes past twelve in the morning, but I consider it to be a very important principle. If we do not assert it now, the matter will be raised against us in the future and Australia will be treated as a nation of no account and forced to acquiesce in the demands of large and powerful nations. I am not prepared to acquiesce in something which seems to he so wrong and which strikes so deeply at the sovereignty of this country.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes- - Department of the Interior, £480,710; and Department of Works and Housing, £825,980- agreed to.

Department of Civil Aviation.

Proposed vote, £1,250,790.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I object to this squandering of the taxpayers’ money. This proposed vote of £1,250,790, which will bring the total for the whole year to more than £5,000,000, may be passed in a few minutes without comment unless we protest against such wastefulness. The Government, through the Department of Civil Aviation, is engaging in a most iniquitous orgy of extravagance. It is wasting the taxpayers’ money by subsidizing a nationalized air service and endeavouring to crush private enterprise. I ask honorable members to note the unscrupulous way in which the Government is seeking to socialize air services in this country. Its methods are ruthless and totalitarian. It is using the department in order to ruin pioneer enterprises that have made Australian airlines equal to any in the world. The department’s expenditure has increased enormously in recent years. In 1945-46, 750 persons were employed in the Department of Civil Aviation and the total vote for the department was £323,000. In 1946-47, the number of persons employed had increased to 1,678, and expenditure totalled £659,000. By 1947-48, the staff had grown to 2,332 and the amount voted in respect of the department was £666,000. None of that expenditure was incurred in respect of Trans-Australia Airlines, which operates under the Australian Airlines Commission. The department, which has had a fine record in the past, is now being packed with officials, many of whom are merely harassing civil aviation and trying to make work for each other by inventing new forms of questionnaires and controls. Honorable members may be interested to hear the opinion expressed in an editorial by Air-log, the leading aviation journal in New South Wales. I quote the following from that article: -

page 2239

QUESTION

FOX IN THE HEN-ROOST: GET THAT GUN!

Government’s interest in civil ‘aviation should never intrude to the point of vexation or outright interference designed to set it back on its heels . . .

The public purse is being used unstintedly to pay for the functioning of at least one airline - Trans-Australia Airlines - which is ticking up fabulous losses whilst being used as a whipping-stick against free enterprise.

The article proceeds to refer to the duties of departmental officials. It points out that the department, which should, and can, regulate aviation efficiently, is using one official in an endeavour to exterminate private enterprise by giving him two jobs, first, as an official of the Australian Airlines Commission, and, secondly, as an official of the department. The officer referred to is Mr. E. C. Johnston, about whom the journal has this to say -

Mr. E. C. Johnston is one of the commissioners of the Australian National Airlines Commission whose functional airline is TransAustralia Airlines. As a bigger and better public servant - not to say a virtual dictator in all matters of policy affecting airline operation within and out of Australia - the very best we can say is that nothing could be more unseemly than that the prosecutor, judge and jury over every permit affecting commercial airline operators should also be one of the inner junta lined up to operate an avowed whipping-stick against free enterprise operators and simultaneously armed with every tiniest detail of those others existing or proposed operations.

The article contains much more in that strain. It is unjust that a government department should be used to harass, frustrate and destroy private enterprise in the way this socialist Government is doing to-day. The Government has penalized private enterprise in many other ways. Recently, it instituted penalty airport charges. I agree that a charge should be made for the use of airports, but it should be reasonable. The penalty charges imposed are treble those operating in the United States of America. If the Government has millions of pounds to waste, let it incur expenditure in the provision of up-to-date equipment, such as fog disposal apparatus at airports. Two days ago aircraft were grounded at most of the airports in Australia. With the aid of fog disposal apparatus, a clear area could be provided to enable aircraft to land and in that way the lives of air passengers would be safeguarded to a greater degree and air services would be kept functioning continuously. Recently, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) was delayed for a day at a fog-bound aerodrome. The Government should attend to problems of that kind instead of trying to trip up private companies.

I should like to refer to other imposts recently inflicted upon private air companies. I quote the following from the Melbourne Argus of the 12th June last : -

The £325,000 mail subsidy to TransAustralia Airlines was another example of an unprofitable government project being bolstered with taxpayers’ money, Mr. H. F. Walsh, general manager of Australian National Airways, said last night.

Last year, Trans-Australia Airlines, working like private airline operators on a 1b.-mile basis, earned £95,000. Now Trans-Australia Airlines will receive more than three times as much, irrespective of the amount of mail carried.

The difference between private and government airlines was that the private companies had to pay their way. A subsidy of £1,095,000 to Qantas Empire Airways was a good example of government generosity with taxpayers’ money.

Australian National Airways had offered tu run any Qantas route without subsidy and carry mail at .025d. per mile - a fraction of the cost at which Qantas was carrying it.

In the early days of aviation airlines had to operate on a subsidy basis because it was unprofitable to operate otherwise, but some private companies are now able to carry mails on a poundage basis and show a profit. For instance, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited carried mails for a number of years at. a rate of .025d. per lb. mile. When 1 asked the Minister a question on the subject he furnished a reply which I consider to be dishonest. T asked whether the Government intended to change from a poundage to a subsidy basis in respect of the carriage of mails. I regard the subsidy basis as retrogressive. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford) in a lengthy reply stated -

There is no common rate of payment for the carriage of mails by air applicable generally to all airline operators. On the contrary both the basis and the rate of payment to each operator is determined having regard to tinparticular circumstances of each case.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall now read it-

The ultimate objective is to pay a “ commercial “ rate for mails actually carried and such a commercial rate should be’ related to the cost of such carriage and therefore would he comparable to passenger and freight rates. Air transportation has not yet reached the stage where such a truly commercial rate can be adopted generally in Australia or in fact in any part of the world so far as our information goes. Therefore it is necessary in Australia, as in other parts of the world, generally to pay for the carriage of mails by air a substantially higher rate per lb. than is charged by the operator for the carriage of passengers and freights.

Instead of saying straight out that a change had been made from a poundage to a subsidy basis the Minister evaded the question. The poundage rate applying in respect of a great proportion of airlines was .025d. per lb. mile, although there may have been feeder routes on which aircraft operated on a subsidy basis. The Government now proposes to pay £325,000 to Trans-Australia Airlines to carry mails, although the most that that undertaking, which lost at least £525,000 last year, could earn on a poundage basis previously was £95,000. Will the Minister deny that? The subtlety of that proposal is disclosed in the fixation of the penalty airport charges. Although Trans-Australia Airlines is obliged to pay those charges, that enterprise is to receive a bounty from the Post Office in respect of the carriage of mails on a subsidy basis. Yet the Government claims that Trans-Australia Airlines is competing fairly with private companies. That is how this socialist Government is ruining enterprise ‘built up by our aviation pioneers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) admitted that he had conferred with aviation companies concerning the conserving of petrol in order to save dollars. ‘Some agreement was made. Honorable members do not know the full contents of that agreement because the Government never lets honorable members know the full story about anything. However, there was some agreement to the effect that no further expansion of its airline activities would bo undertaken by the Government. But what did the Government do? It invaded the State of Queensland where a number of ex-Royal Australian Air Force men were operating airways. These men were carrying on under great difficulties operating services in the Townsville, Charleville and Mount Isa areas. Trans-Australia Airlines set up in opposition to put them out of business and then brought out boasting propaganda to the effect that it was the biggest airline in Australia. If there was no specific contract containing a standstill agreement in regard to Trans-Australia Airlines expansion, let the Minister say so.

Mr Drakeford:

– There is not the slightest truth in that statement.

Mr WHITE:

– Is Trans-Australia Airlines not competing with these men to-day?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I repeat there is not the slightest truth in the statement.

Mr WHITE:

– The Government is trying to ruin young airmen who established airlines with aircraft which they bought at their own expense and it is bolstering up that policy with profits derived from the post office. There arc many other instances of the application of that government policy. One is Guinea Airways, which the Government has forced out of business, or at least very nearly out of business. That company pioneered the gold-mining industry in New Guinea and also the north-south route in Australia, and yet it was challenged by Trans-Australia Airlines and the Government bought it out for about £30,000 after some threat of legal action by the company. The Government put a fine company out of business when it did that. Qantas Empire Airways Limited, which was founded by pioneer Australian airmen and had a world reputation for efficiency, has been taken over completely. The Government inherited half of the company’s capital through an imperial arrangement. The company was satisfied to be a private company, but when it required new equipment it found that it could not obtain it, and the Government eventually bought it out for £455,000. There is a bill relating to that matter now before the House and I cannot speak on it at this stage, but I shall quote from an item which appeared in the press. It reads -

page 2241

GOVERNMENT TO PUT £2M. INTO QANTAS

Canberra, Friday. - The Commonwealth had paid £455,000 to take over Qantas Empire Airways, and would invest £2 million in it this month to buy four Lockheed Constellations, Mr. Drakeford, Minister for Civil Aviation, said in Parliament to-day. He introduced a bill to ratify the purchase and investment.

Since July 1, 1947, Q.E.A. had been operated as a Commonwealth undertaking, the original Qantas Company having virtually gone out of existence although its world famous name was retained.

The Commonwealth had purchased Q.E.A. so that it could operate the EnglandAustralia air service in accordance with an agreement with the British Government, which would nominate its own operator for the joint British-Australian service.

The bill would also authorise payment of Q.E.A.’s future capital by annual vote of the Civil Aviation Department Mr. Drakeford said.

That is a further example of wasted money. The Government expended about £3,000,000 originally to set up the Australian National Airlines Commission. The Government is trying to blot out all civil aviation and was challenged in the High Court, the court’s judgment ‘being that the Government could not set up a monopoly. It had lost money on TransAustralia Airlines but despite that, those who stand for free enterprise in civil aviation are being destroyed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– I regret the necessity for answering the arguments of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). On every occasion on which anything concerning civil aviation is debated in this House the honorable member gets to his feet and abuses the Government. What he fails to tell the people is that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had been swallowing up other Australian airlines over a long period of years. It swallowed eight companies. The Government’s attitude on that issue was clear and it seems necessary for me to repeat it for the benefit of honorable members on the other side of the House. That attitude simply was that if there was to be a monopoly in civil aviation in Australia, it would not be a private monopoly. Therefore the Government set out with the object of starting government airlines, which is something that has been done in other countries of the world. The honorable member hae dealt with a matter that is the subject of a bill to be debated to-day and I had hoped that the House would deal with that bill on its merits instead of having the subject dragged in as the honorable member has done. The honorable member even had the audacity to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) earlier to-day had agreed that there had been some understanding that the Government would not expand its airline. I deny that the Prime Minister made any such statement and I have a shorthand report of the Prime Minis ter’s answer to substantiate my denial. That statement is similar to a lot of other statements which the honorable member for Balaclava makes. He flings around charges of dishonesty. The honorable member relies largely on that type of behaviour to irritate the public mind. He follows a policy of irritation from start to finish. The honorable member has spoken about a subsidy to Trans-Australia Airlines. Over a period of seven years the Government paid the privately-owned company, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, about £2,500,000 for the carrying of mails. That fact will not receive much publicity in the press because the press is not interested in that side of the case, but so that honorable members will have the facts I shall quote the amounts paid year by year to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in mail subsidies. The amounts were as follows : -

1940-4] £31,852; 1941-42 £69,347; 1942-43 £467,700; 1943-44 £783,725; 1944-46 £733,640; 1945-46 £384,788; 1946-47 £73,774;

total £2,544,832.

It was apparently quite right for the Government to make these payments for services rendered by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is a privately owned company, but because it made similar payments to the Government airline Trans-Australia Airlines the honorable member has the audacity to rise in this House and attack the Government on the ground that the payments were a subsidy. Apparently it does not matter how much the Government, pays to a private operator but when it comes to the Government airline receiving payments according to the honorable member it is an atrocious outrage against the public.

Let me tell honorable members the exact position regarding these payments to Trans-Australia Airlines. Payment at the rate of £325,000 for the current financial year is being made to Trans-Australia Airlines for the carriage of mail matter on air routes in Australia over which that organization operates. Originally, Trans-Australia Airlines was paid at the rate of .025d. per lb. mile but, following discussions between the

Commonwealth Treasury, the Department of Civil Aviation and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, it was agreed that it would he more satisfactory and equitable to make an overall annual payment, seeing that Trans-Australia Airlines is now the principal mail contractor on the main internal routes, and is in the position to convey not only airmails but also ordinary letter class mails between Australia and Tasmania and postal articles of all classes on the relevant routes during the periods when normal surface transport facilities are interrupted seriously or other urgent conditions exist.

In addition to air mails bearing the prescribed air-mail fees, Trans-Australia Airlines conveyed a large quantity of un-surcharged mail matter during the present financial year. For example, the letter mails between the mainland and Tasmania totalled 80,000 ton miles and ordinary postal articles conveyed on other routes during peak traffic periods or when normal surface mail facilities were suspended or seriously interrupted represented an additional 40,000 ton miles.

As an indication of the extent to which Trans-Australia Airlines is assisting the Postal Department during times of emergency, I mention that during a period of nine weeks, when rail services in Queensland were dislocated,- Trans- Australia Airlines carried unsurcharged mail matter totalling 167,000 lb. When floods interrupted the railway service in the Northern Territory for a short period this year, Trans-Australia Airlines carried 1,000 lb. of ordinary mail matter, and, on a similar occasion, when floods stopped the Adelaide-Perth rail, service, 6,000 lb. of postal articles not bearing air-mail fees was conveyed by air. Prior to last Christmas where there was an enormous increase of the volume of postal articles, TransAustralia Airlines carried no less than 33,000 lb. of unsurcharged mail matter between ‘ the various capital cities on the mainland. Some time ago the steamer Nairana was withdrawn from the Bass Strait service, and Taroona will also be taken off the run for about three weeks for overhaul. During the period that these vessels will be off the run Trans-Australia Airlines will be used for conveying, in addition to ordinary letter mails, postal articles of other classes. The estimated weight of mails to be carried will be approximately 1S0,000 lb. The advantages to the Postal Department of having available the extensive air services of Trans-Australia Airlines for meeting normal and special demands are appreciable, and, as I have already indicated, that organization is obliged to carry, without extra payment, all mail matter required by the department. In view of the facilities made available by Trans-Australia Airlines, the amount paid for the carriage of postal articles by air is considered to be equitable. The revenue derived from the domestic air-mail fee of 3d. per oz., less a small amount which is retained by the Postal Department to cover the special handling of air-mail articles, is credited to the Department of Civil Aviation, which makes payments to Trans-Australia Airlines and other air operators for the conveyance of mails. The fee is not considered to be excessive, having regard to the service provided and the heavy expenditure which must be incurred in the provision and maintenance of essential facilities on routes in Australia on which commercial air services operate.

The contract between Trans-Australia Airlines and the Government provides that Trans-Australia Airlines shall carry all mail matter offering for a specific annual payment of £325,000. The honorable member for Balaclava said that Trans-Australia Airlines carried only a limited quantity of mail last year. That is perfectly true; but I remind the honorable gentleman that during that year TransAustralia Airlines had in operation only fifteen aircraft, whereas when Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited held the mail contract, the number of aircraft operated by that company varied from 29 to 32. No allowance was made by the honorable member for Balaclava for the difference between the size of the respective air fleets. If I still have to learn something about honesty, I shall never learn it from the honorable member. The total number of aircraft in TransAustralia Airlines’s fleet as at the 1st October, 1947, was fifteen; the total number at present is 26 and TransAustralia Airlines is now carrying practically all air mails throughout Australia except on certain routes, where other services run at an earlier hour than the TransAustralia Airlines service. In those instances, air mail is carried by the private airline companies at the expense of the Government as a special concession to the people living in the areas served, fu the first quarter of 1948 Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had 34 aircraft and Trans-Australia Airlines 26. Honorable members will see from these figures that the honorable member for Balaclava does not give an honest presentation of the facts. The honorable gentleman poses as an Australian expert on aviation matters without having a full knowledge of the facts to back up his statements. References have been made by some of the advocates of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited - and the honorable member for Balaclava is its chief disciple in this chamber - to the fact that that company has been able to operate its overseas routes on very low fares. It may be interesting to honorable members to know that the company received from the Australian Government for the operation of the TransPacific service no less than £200,000 and that it was guaranteed £10,500 in respect of every flight on that service. At the expiration of the period of the contract, the company made application to the department for permission to run two additional services, notwithstanding the fact that the Government paid it a total of £200,000 to make up the deficiency under the guarantee. A good deal of “poppycock” appears in the press in regard to civil aviation matters. If any “poppycock” is talked in this chamber on that subject, it certainly comes from the honorable member for Balaclava. I am prepared to give to honorable members and to the press all the information in my possession on this subject. I trust that it will receive the same publicity in the press as is given to statements issued by or on behalf of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited ; but my hopes are not high.

The answer given to the question asked by the honorable member for Balaclava to-day completely disposes of his allegation that the Prime Minister had agreed that there would be no further extension of private airlines in Australia. No such agreement was reached. Let us look at the history of private airline companies in that home of private enterprise, the United States of America.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister must confine his remarks to the proposed vote for the Department of Civil Aviation.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– It has been alleged that Trans-Australia Airlines has been operated at a heavy loss. I shall content myself with saying that, when the opportunity is presented to me, I shall prove conclusively that most of the major airline companies in the United States of America, which are operated by private enterprise are also being operated at a heavy loss. The ruling of the Chair prevents me from doing more than that at this stage. As to a comparison between the services rendered by private airlines and by TransAustralia Airlines honorable members may be interested to hear some extracts from an article which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 3rd June. Stanley Brogden, formerly a public relations officer in the Royal Australian Air Force, in a special article contributed to that journal wrote -

After spending many months in making it obvious that I am not very convinced of the desirability of government intrusion into airline operation, it is about time to say that Trans-Australia Airlines are very mindful of passengers.

This sleeper seat is just an example. TransAustralia Airlines and Qantas provide better food and have a slight edge on competitors for all-round civility and keenness. This opinion is formed after travelling more than 50,000 miles on every Australian airline there is, on every route, bar the Brisbane-Darwin run during the last eighteen months, and it coincides with opinions expressed to me by other consistent travellers who arc not conspicuously pro-government airline.

The fact is that Lester Brain, starting less than two yeaTs ago with nothing but money (plenty of that, I admit) has done a wonderful job in creating an airline like Trans-Australia Airlines. It took more than just millions of pounds.

Trans-Australia Airlines built up business in spite of the B’anking Act uproar, which aroused terrific opposition to all State-owned enterprise. They are getting increased business now, not from government sources any longer, but from the same pool of the public as other airlines.

That is probably a belated admission of the success of .Trans-Australia Airlines ; nevertheless it is apparent that it riles the honorable member for Balaclava to hear such an expression of opinion from a former member of the Air Force. It is true that Trans-Australia Airlines has been successful in establishing a vast organization and highly efficient air services in a very short period. In no other country has an airline of the magnitude of TransAustralia Airlines been established so successfully in such a short period. Trans-Australia Airlines has successfully met the competition of formidable operators who had been in the field for a long while. No one has heard me decry the capacity of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as an airline operator; indeed I have always given it credit for the manner in which it has handled its task. I have refrained from answering a good deal of the criticism of Trans-Australia Airlines which has appeared in the newspapers principally because the answers to such criticism were so convincing that I knew that they would not have received the publicity to which they were entitled, and, generally, because newspaper controversies of that kind tend to hinder the progress of civil aviation. The allegation that the establishment of a national airline service is inimical to the interests of the public is absolutely false. Because what was formerly paid by way of subsidy to powerful operators like Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is now paid to Trans-Australia Airlines such expenditure is regarded as a loss or at best as a contribution to Trans-Australia Airlines in contravention of the principles of fair and proper business accounting. The subsidy paid to Trans-Australia Airlines is merely an all-in price for the carriage of whatever air-mail may be offering. . I put it to the Committee that much of what the honorable member for Balaclava has said has no real substance. He w.as merely following his usual habit of rising in this chamber on every occasion that airlines are mentioned to make it appear that the Government has done something that is not in the interests of the travelling public. If there was a change of government to-morrow I am sure that the honorable member for Balaclava would like to be the Minister in charge of the operations of Trans-Australian Airlines.

Mr Falkinder:

– And he would be a very good Minister.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– That may be. 1 do not doubt his experience or his ability ; but. I do doubt the truthfulness of much of what he has said to-night.

Mr White:

– That does not worry me.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Apparently the honorable member is quite hardened to making statements of that character, but I do not propose to let him do so without giving him an answer. I do not think that any of the other points that he raised are worthy of a reply. I have dealt with his allegations in regard to Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I have in my possession considerably more information which 1 could furnish, and which I believe would startle some honorable members of this chamber.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– It is a pity that the Minister does not rise in this House oftener to tell us about civil aviation matters. To-night he has followed his usual technique of abusing any honorable member who dares to question his administration. He is indignant that his attempt to socialize, the airlines should be challenged. We all know of course that the honorable gentleman was one of the signatories to the infamous Labour socialization declaration of 1921, which set out the socialization programme to which his party has worked ever since. I see the Minister looking to the chairman for protection. Obviously he does not like to be reminded of this matter. In the last two years he has been busy in his endeavour to nationalize the airlines and to drag down the private operators. I shall refer to some of his statements, which, to say the least of it, are mendacious. He alleged that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was a monopoly. It is nothing of the kind; but so recent is his acquaintanceship with aviation matters that he would not understand the difference. Australian National

Airways Proprietary Limited was originally Tasmanian Airlines Proprietary Limited, and was started by the Holyman brothers. Victor Holyman, one of the founders and first pilots, was lost on one of the earliest flights across Bass Strait. The company has now been built up to great dimensions, and has absorbed a number of smaller companies. Fortunately, when the Parliament passed the Australian National Airlines Bill, and the Government proceeded to socialize air transport, three of the private companies took the matter to the High Court. But for that action, private enterprise in civil aviation would be extinct to-day. Fortunately, it appears nhat the private aviation companies will be able to continue their excellent work, because at the recent referendum the people of this country showed in no uncertain manner what they thought about socialism. I have no doubt that at the next elections this socialist Government will be swept from office. In the meantime, of course, -a scorched earth socialization policy will be applied in the aviation field by this Minister who by the fortuitous circumstance that a large aerodrome is in his electorate, has been entrusted with the administration- of civil aviation matters. I propose to quote some of his own words on these matters. The Minister obviously resents criticism. Apparently it hurts his feelings. I have no interest in any aviation company; I Min interested in this matter only from the point of view of the taxpayers. I admire the Trans-Australia Airlines air-crews because they are largely exmembers of the Royal Australian Air Force like the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder). They owe nothing to the Minister or to his team. They are in the Trans-Australia Airlines organization because they can fly, and the more aircraft we put in the air the better it will be for Australia. “When the proposal to purchase Convair aircraft for use by Trans-Australia Airlines was announced, I asked why British Viking aircraft were not being purchased instead, particularly in view of the dollar shortage. Subsequently, I asked the following questions in regard to Convair aircraft : - What is the estimated cost in dollars of the Convair aircraft now on order in the

United States of America for the Common wealth Government?

The answer was - “ Approximately 1,559,300 dollars “. I also asked-

What is the estimated cost in dollars foi spares for the above aircraft?

The answer to that question was - “Approximately 965,900 dollars “. “We were informed in Facts and Figures, issued by the Minister for Information, that 25 engineers were learning to service these aircraft. However, when I inquired what would be the cost of sending the 25 Australian engineers to the United States of America for this purpose, the Minister for Civil Aviation replied that the number was 19, not 25. He was unable to give me the cost. He said that travelling expenses between Australia and the United States of America, were, in the main, paid in Australian currency. I also endeavoured to find out how useful these aircraft would be and whether certificates of airworthiness had been granted for them at the time the chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission placed orders for them. 3 ascertained that the aircraft had been ordered before certificates of airworthiness had been granted. The chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission, Mr . Coles, had taken the responsibility. Here is a comment published in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial recently regarding Convair aircraft - “ The Convair was never intended to fly between Perth and Adelaide,” an official of an overseas airways corporation said last night. It is essentially a short-haul plane built on the assumption that 300 miles between cities is the most economical hop. It is » very good plane of its type.

That is quite true and that is the reason for the bogus flight being made from England at present. The Minister is endeavouring to make a virtue out of a necessity by saying that it is a .migrant flight. The plain fact is that the Convair aircraft is not capable of flying across th’c Pacific without extra fuel tanks. The aircraft are to follow the long land route bringing 100 migrants. And this is the department that sends 25 - or 19 according to the Minister for Civil Aviation - engineers to the United States of America to learn to service these aircraft, pays more than 1,500,000 dollars each for them, and 965,900 dollars for spare parts, making a total of more than 2,500,000 dollars at a time of acute dollar scarcity! The Minister spoke of the Convair aircraft with great pride. Probably he will have a brief handed to him now by an official, and will proceed to read their specifications instead of admitting frankly that a mistake has been made and that the English Viking aircraft would have met the requirements of the service. The reason given for proceeding with the purchase of Convair aircraft was that a deposit had been paid, but surely it would have been better to cut the losses and cancel the order. This is typical of the mismanagement that is characterizing the administration of the Department of Civil Aviation. A government department is being used to force private enterprise out of business by most unjust methods. Private airline operators are being prevented from purchasing aircraft of the type they want, and at the same time, the Government is subsidizing its own airline out of all proportion to the freight carried. In multifarious ways this socialist administration is endeavouring to liquidate the private airline operators. I wish the private airlines luck in their fight. As f have said, I have no financial interest in the private companies, but I trust that they will be able to hold out until this Government is swept from the treasury bench. Obviously the intention of the Government is to nationalize the airways in our time, and to smash the private operators before it is forced out of office next year. I exhort the private companies to ‘fight the Government on this issue, and to see that the Minister does not get away with his socialization plans.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– I have a complaint which may be related to Convair aircraft. When I heard that these aircraft had been ordered from, the United States of America, I made a protest, although the Parliament was not in session at the time, and my views were published in the press in Melbourne, and in various parts of Victoria. I contended that agricultural tractors should have been bought instead of these aircraft. At that time, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) replied that, even if the

Convair aircraft were not purchased, Australia could not obtain agricultural tractors from the United States of America.

page 2247

QUESTION

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

– Order! The committee is considering the vote for the Department of Civil Aviation, and the honorable member’s remarks about agricultural tractors are not relevant.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I propose to relate my remarks about agricultural tractors to the purchase of Convair aircraft. Desi te my protests, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford) continued with the negotiations for the purchase of the aircraft. I object, because primary producers urgently require tractors. Travel by Convairs from Perth to Melbourne, and from .Sydney to Brisbane may be comfortable and convenient, even though the honorable member for Balaclava (M’r. White) has cast a shadow over them. But by purchasing the Convair aircraft, we are “getting nowhere fast”, because they will not aid production. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) indicated at a later stage that because of the dollar shortage, Australia was not able to purchase agricultural tractors from the United States of America. The right honorable gentleman did not raise a similar objection to the purchase of the Convair aircraft. The Department of Civil Aviation should examine this purchase closely, and pay greater interest te Australia’s pressing need for greater production. Although we require aircraft, we need, first, machinery which will enable us to increase primary production.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong;Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation · ALP

– The accusation that I am dodging the issue does not come very well from “ tattling Tommy of Balaclava “. I do not like to indulge in remarks of this kind-

Mr White:

– The Minister started it.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr White) is like a baby. It is alleged from time to time that I resent criticism. I do not. Every honorable member has the right, to voice criticism, provided it is constructive, but the honorable member has never been capable of making constructive criticism on matters relating to the Royal Australian Air Force or the Department of Civil Aviation. I regret that I have to make that statement, and I would not do so, were it not for the absurd line of argument that the honorable member has conducted. Reference has been made to the purchase of Convair aircraft. The contract was completed long before the imposition of restrictions on purchases from the dollar area, and it has been honoured. The real reason for the criticism is that the people behind the honorable member for Balaclava, who furnish him with information about civil aviation, dread the appearance of the Convairs in Australia. They know that when those aircraft are in operation here, the public will be attracted to them, and will travel by Trans-Australia Airlines, which posseses the most modern aircraft. Naturally, that is a matter of great concern to certain interests, and I can readily understand their alarm. The Australian National Airlines Commission had the foresight to buy the latest type of aircraft, and its opponents stand in fear that their efforts to prevent the successful operation of the Government airline will not be successful. They want to damage it at any price.

The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull), I am sure, does not know the difference between an agricultural tractor and a Convair. I regret that I have to make that statement, but in the light of his remarks, I have no alternative. In the electorate which he represents, efficient aviation services are being established. Indeed, the honorable member has not hesitated to ask the Department of Civil Aviation to improve aerodromes in his constituency. The department was anxious to supply the need, and has done so. No one can say that during the last seven years the Department of Civil Aviation has not done a splendid job, and the criticisms which have been aimed at it, and the Adminisstration, are unjustified.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not mention that.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Of course not, but that was the inference to be drawn from the honorable member’s remarks. Me stated that the Government, instead of purchasing the Convairs, should have bought agricultural tractors.

I return to the statement of the honorable member for Balaclava that the Government preferred American aircraft to British aircraft. We have always been prepared to buy British aircraft which will measure up to our required standards. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has not bought any British aircraft. At its inception, it used Douglas aircraft, and ever since it has purchased American machines. Apparently it is all right for that private company to buy American aircraft, but al) wrong for the Australian National Airlines Commission to do so. Probably the honorable member would like to see u.« saddled with the kind of aircraft which would not be suitable to Australian requirements and, therefore, would be unpayable. We are not so wanting in sufficient common sense and business acumen as to do that.

Mr Falkinder:

– What about the Viking aircraft ?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I do not say that the Viking aircraft is not a good aircraft. I should be sorry to make any comment which reflected adversely upon an aircraft made in Great Britain. I like the Australian National Airlines Commission to buy the best available aircraft, and, to date, British manufacturers have not been able to produce commercial aircraft comparable with those made in the United States of America. It is unfortunate, but that fact cannot be denied. The Australian Government must allow the Australian National Airlines Commission, which it appointed, to exercise its judgment in the matter. This body is just as independent of Ministerial control as are the State railways commissioners, and whilst major items of policy may be laid down by the Government, there is little interference in the management of its affairs. So far as I know, no interference has occurred. I, personally, have not interfered. I am satisfied that the commission is doing an excellent job for Australia. The fulminations of honorable members opposite and others who join with them, result from the fear that this modern transport industry, which has been nationalized for the benefit of Australia, will yield results that will refute all the arguments of the commission’s critics.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Trade and Customs

Proposed vote, £593,870.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– Recently, I have had cause to criticize the actions of certain investigating officers of the Prices Branch regarding the sale of mallee roots in my electorate. Although honorable members opposite laugh, this is not a joke with my constituents. I shall not repeat the whole of the facts, which I recounted to honorable members yesterday, but they are not pleasant. I now ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs to explain the attitude of the Government in this matter. Does it approve of the tactics which the investigators from the Prices Branch adopted in order to obtain evidence which lead to the prosecution of certain farmers in my electorate, or does it condemn them? “Will the Minister also state what is being done to protect producers in future against such tactics?

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Health

Proposed vote, £128,430.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– Speaking in the Senate last Tuesday, the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) described at length the Government’s free medicine scheme, and criticized the opposition of the British Medical Association. In my opinion, the Government is conducting an ignominious and losing fight with the medical profession over what is ambiguously called the “ free medicine scheme “. Before I discuss the subject, I shall repeat the Opposition’s view of the whole project. Members of the Opposition have always contended that in a national health scheme the bottle of pink medicine or the box of pills should come last and not first. We believe that a national health programme should have the approval and co-operation of the medical profession. An adequate programme should commence with measures designed to prevent the incidence of disease, and to provide facilities for early diagnosis and treatment for sufferers before disease reaches a chronic stage. We have declared our belief that decentralized and convenient institutions should be established and equipped with adequate facilities for early diagnosis and prompt treatment of disease. We are convinced that a national health scheme should be concerned primarily with matters affecting the health of the community, including the provision of proper housing facilities and all the other factors which prevent disease. Instead of propounding any such scheme the Government offers us a bottle of nasty looking mixture.

The attitude which the Government is now adopting appears to be that having launched its scheme it has retired from the field and left the operation of the scheme to be resolved between doctors and patients. But where does the longsuffering public, for whose benefit the scheme was ostensibly introduced, stand?’ The public is being taxed to provide free medicine which, except in isolated cases, it is not receiving. The only test of the efficacy of any such scheme is its effectiveness in operation. Where does the Government stand in relation to this scheme and to the public? Is it sincere in introducing a “ free medicine “ scheme for the benefit of the public, or does it believe that the inauguration of such a scheme will pave the way for the nationalization of all medical services? On Tuesday night the Minister for Health dealt at great length, in the Senate, with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and sought to defend the adequacy of the formulary which is part of it. In support of his contention that the formulary was adequate, he said that his department had recently made a one-day survey of fifteen consecutive prescriptions dispensed by chemists, and it claimed that 93 per cent. of those prescriptions could have been dispensed from the formulary. However, I have been informed that the British Medical Association in Australia has conducted a survey, not merely of fifteen preemptions dispensed in one day, but of prescriptions dispensed over the period of a week, and an analysis of those prescriptions revealed that not more than 50 per cent. came within the formulary. That percentage included a number of tablets which contained sulpha drugs, aspirin and even phenobarbitol, which had been prescribed for patients suffering from influenza in the recent epidemic of that disease. I am informed that but for the occurrence of the influenza epidemic the mixtures, lotions and ointments prescribed by doctors for their patients would have comprised only 25 per cent, to 30 per cent, of the ingredients listed in the formulary. I understand that even the United Friendly Societies Dispensary has complained that the formulary of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is not as comprehensive as the dispensary service which it formerly provided. In addition, I understand that, a number of the friendly societies intend to extend the scope of the medical benefits which they provide for their members, because they believe that the requirements of their members will not be adequately met by the Government’s formulary.

One of the most serious objections raised by medical practitioners to the scheme is concerned with regulation 34, which provides for a penalty of £50 for medical practitioners who lose possession of the official forms. Medical practitioners regard that provision as an attempt to deprive them of their civil rights because it authorizes the Director-General of Social Services to direct any medical practitioner to deliver to him within a specified time forms or documents sent to such medical practitioner through the post.

In 1944 the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who introduced the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act in this chamber said that the tost of supplying a free medical service was estimated at approximately £2,000,000 for a complete year. The finance was to be provided from the National Welfare Fund. On the asumption that Australians will receive similar benefits to those conferred on the public of New7 Zealand by the scheme in operation in that country, the annual cost will almost certainly amount to £6,000,000, which is three times greater than the estimate made in 1944. The reason why I have taken the New Zealand scheme as a basis of comparison is that I believe that the benefits conferred on the people of this country should not be any less than those enjoyed by the people of our sister dominion. I remind honorable members that the cost of providing social services in this country which in 1938-39 amounted to £16,500,000, is estimated to increase to £72,000,000 in the current financial year. Honorable members will realize that that expenditure is likely to be inflated beyond all recognition by the addition of an expensive pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the cost of which cannot even be estimated accurately. I invite attention to the statistics prepared by Mr. Colin Clark, the Queensland Government economist. He said that by 1961 the cost of social services in Australia will probably increase to £.160,000,000, or one-third of the total annual revenue received by the Commonwealth.

An alarming increase has occurred in the cost of providing pharmaceutical benefits in New Zealand. The Government must realize the” extent of the commitments involved in its proposal to nationalize our entire medical services. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated -

Pharmaceutical benefits last year were expected to cost £1,451,000 in New Zealand, as against £762,198 four years ago. Part of the increase is due to higher costs, and to some extent, a widening of the list of proprietary medicines now available under the fund. Commencing in 1942-43 the pharmaceutical benefits in New Zealand cost in the first year of operation £503,000. The bill for all New Zealand social security charges which include old age benefit and family allowances, has risen from £20,578,000 in 1944 to over £45,000,000 in the financial year just ended.

Those statistics furnish some indication of the progressive increase which we can expect in the cost of providing social services in Australia.

The pharmaceutical benefits .scheme reeks of coercion of medical practitioners. Obviously the general public will patronize doctors who give prescriptions which will enable it to obtain free medicine, and it follows that all doctors will gradually be drawn into the scheme. Those who do not participate in the scheme will probably lose their patients. That means that the Government is, in fact, introducing, by a rather questionable method, its plan to nationalize medical services. Obviously, also, the voice of the doctor will not weigh with the Government in matters affecting the health of the community, because the Government is intent on pursuing its policy of socialization. The Government should frankly announce its policy and state openly whether it intends to use the pharmaceutical benefits scheme as a means of effecting the nationalization of medical and health schemes. If it is sufficiently honest to do that we shall at least know where we stand.

I received a letter to-day, the contents of which. I intend to read to the committee. It is from an eminent medical practitioner in Brisbane. I shall band the letter to the Minister, but I do not propose to mention the name of the writer. He also forwarded to me a copy of a letter that he wrote to the Minister for Health. In that letter to the Minister, he said -

I am a practitioner of over 43 37ears experience, the last 2S years as a specialist, f was once an ardent supporter of the Labour party. My late father was the first Labour member for Brisbane in the Federal Parliament.

Honorable members opposite can laugh that one off. In his letter to me, which was dated the 16th June, he wrote -

As a practising doctor of over 43 years experience as a general practitioner, army doctor, honorary medical officer at public hospitals and over 25 years as a specialist, I tried to keep an open mind on the subject until I could learn something of the formulary mid regulations. I intended to act according to my own conscience, apart from the British Medical Association. After learning something nf these matters I wrote to the member (Mr. Conelan) for the electorate in which 1 reside mid also to the Minister for Health and Social Services.

To date I have received no acknowledgment from either. Last night I listened to the speech of Mr. McKenna as broadcast. Mr. McKenna’s speech, to one who knows anything worth while of the practice of medicine and the British Medical Association, was patently largely composed of misrepresentation, distortion, suppression and a bitter flood of prejudiced and misleading comment on the British Medical Association … . . The British Medical Association has no power to carry out regimentation of doctors, being totally different in constitution from the trades and labour councils, Communist controlled unions, and the Federal Labour Government, which has allowed national policy to he directed by traitorous communistic influences, which has allowed the people to suffer innumerable hardships from the disorganization of trade and industry through subser vience to evil directions of union “ bosses “, &c., against the wishes of the vast majority of the people . . . . . Mr. McKenna severely criticized the two alternatives put forward by the British Medical Association. I do not know who were his advisers, but to the genuine practising doctor, possessed of both ability and conscience, either of those methods would be infinitely superior to the formulary system of the Government. I stress once more the fact that no individual or group of individuals, however learned they may be, whether members of the British Medical Association or otherwise, can compile a formulary to cover my work, nor that of any capable, experienced and conscientious doctor. I repeat also that the regulations governing the use of the government form for prescriptions cannot be observed by the busy and conscientious doctor. In a letter of mine to the press I described the Government’s present scheme of free medicine - which is not free - as an instance of ignorant and profligate bureaucracy run mad, and the more I learn of the scheme the more convinced I become of the truth of that criticism.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr HARRISON:

– As it appears that no other honorable member wishes to speak at the moment, I shall take my second period. In the letter addressed to the Minister for Health, the same practitioner wrote -

I will refer to the effect of the free medicine plan on much of my work. There is a special class of complaint which is very common and very difficult to treat satisfactorily. During the” years. I have developed a special line .of treatment of my own, involving the use of a. certain .preparation. I usually prescribe this, explain it as well as I can to the patients, with my recommendations, and tell them to continue for at least three months and then return - only to come back sooner if anything unexpected should develop. I find in the formulary a suitable product, but (and I am forbidden to use the certificate for chronic illnesses in this instance - confirmed by the instructions to doctors), in order to receive an adequate dosage the unfortunate patient will have to be re-examined at least twice a week and receive another prescription in duplicate, including his full name and address and my own signature and address. This is fair neither to patient nor doctor. I actually have a conscience and must give my patient the best advice I can.

That puts the whole matter in a nutshell. At present this eminent medical practitioner, having diagnosed that a patient is suffering from a certain disease, can proceed to treat him in accordance with a plan that he has evolved. After prescribing the appropriate drugs, he can tell his patient to consult him again many weeks or months hence. Under the free medicine scheme, however, he would not be able to treat the patient in that way, but would be forced to ask him to return frequently in order that he might prescribe on each occasion.

The members of the medical profession have been criticized for their action in refusing to co-operate in the working of the free medicine scheme. I have it on the best of authority that they are not attempting to sabotage the scheme because of any political prejudice, but are endeavouring to establish an ethical principle. They are more concerned with the health of their patients than with bolstering up a scheme which the Government is trying to run “ on the cheap “. They say that the formulary does not contain certain drugs and preparations which are necessary for the treatment of some diseases. They contend that they should have the right to prescribe the drugs that they think are necessary, but if they do so it may mean that some patients will be forced to pay for costly drugs that are not included in the formulary. The money to finance this scheme will be appropriated from the National “Welfare Fund. If the people subscribe to a free medicine scheme by paying a social service tax, it is unfair to differentiate against those who have to take drugs that are not contained in the formulary. If the doctors decided to co-operate in this scheme, they might well be forced into the position of prescribing according to the financial status of a patient and not according to his state of health. If they found that a patient had insufficient means to purchase the drugs that he needed and which were not included in the formulary, they might be faced with the alternative of prescribing drugs which were not so effective but which were in the formulary. It seems to me that the stand that the medical profession is now taking is dictated by the highest ethical principles and is one that should find favour in the eyes of the Australian people. The doctors maintain that they should be able to prescribe what is best for the health of the patient, irrespective of his financial position. It has been necessary for me to say this, because it will clear the air considerably on the attitude of the Opposition- to the free medicine scheme which has been introduced by the Government.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

– I wish to make reference to some of the remarks of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison). Very early in his tirade, the honorable member took advantage of a letter he had received from an eminent specialist to tell us what he thought, about the scheme, but he misapplied a penalty provision of the scheme. Section 7 (3) of the act provides the only penalty under the act, though penalties may be applied under regulation. A penalty of £50 could be imposed in certain cases on a doctor who received payment, other than from the Commonwealth, for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit. Actually the scheme provides that an “ approved “ medical practitioner, who in fact would be one practising in an outback area may be paid for the supply of such a benefit. If, however, a. registered chemist later sets up business in the area, the doctor would incur a penalty if he did not hand over the prescriptions to such chemist. The Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) delivered a good, level, reasoned speech which was not inspired by- letters and quotations and dread portents from medical specialists, but. took the facts as they were. He was very careful to point out that there was no actual penalty imposed upon the doctors, the penalties are similar to those in almost every other similar act.

Another point he made was that an earlier ‘formulary, which was much smaller than the formulary now provided pursuant to the act, was good enough for the fighting men of the Australian Imperial Forces and was approved by the same doctors who are opposing it to-day. They considered that it would cure every complaint of the average man. The Opposition apparently has the idea that the free medicine scheme is for millionaires. It is, in fact, intended to be a service for the suffering poor, and when we hear jibes and suggestions that the doctors must have sixteen different kinds of drugs to get the same effect, I wonder how simple their prescriptions are to the people we intend to serve? “What of the 300,000 age pensioners who are subject to various ills of the flesh such as arthritis, bronchitis and various other complaints which are chronic to their condition and age? If the members of the Opposition were as closely in contact with the people as we on this side of the committee are, they would know that after the landlord comes the medical bill in order of urgent priority. Certain references have been made to doctors. I think that the doctors do a good job, and are careful of their integrity, but they have gone a little off key in relation to this scheme. But what about the suffering patients ? Is there not something to be said for them? Amongst the 300,000 age pensioners there would be some people who require medicine urgently for their own well-being. The number of aged people who are sick, and who will obtain benefits under the social services scheme deserve consideration. Must the total invalids wait while the doctors, on the highest ethical claims, dicker about what is a complete formulary? The Minister said that a complete formulary would make the scheme highly expensive. The Opposition, like the Government, must have some regard to considerations of cost. A scheme may get out of hand, as has happened in other countries, where doctors can prescribe even cosmetics if they wish to do so. Such experiences have taught us that a limited formulary is desirable which is within the cost we have set, but which will make free medicine available to people under reasonable conditions. I think the doctors are losing sight of that consideration. It has been said that if you scratch a medical man you find a politician. We have two illustrations in this Parliament of the truth of that saying - one on each side of the committee. [ was told by a high-ranking chemist who had been assisting in the education of chemists in the use of the formulary, that many of the doctors did not recognize the drugs in the formulary because they had been used to getting the drugs under other names in preparations from such firms as Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited and other wholesale chemists. He also told us that doctors had said that these are very outlandish drugs, because they had not used them.

I do not want to add anything more than is necessary to bring the Acting Leader of the Opposition back to reality in relation to this free medicine scheme, which is not intended to blanket the country with nostrums and aids to health. The scheme is a genuine and sincere attempt by the Department of Health to give immediate and useful relief to people requiring medicine, but who have not the money to buy it. The other points raised by the honorable gentleman are side issues compared with the urgent humanitarian, consideration to which I have referred.

To my mind, the Minister made a most reasoned and well-considered statement to the Senate. He could have been bitter and caustic concerning the recalcitrants and the doctors. I was, for a short time, attached to the Social Security Committee. If that body had been allowed to function after the 1946 election, it might have been able in some way or other to recommend a satisfactory scheme, but it could not function because although we had our members ready and had a nominee ready for the chairmanship, the Opposition parties had declined to nominate any members for the committee. That is how eager they were to do anything about free medicine or the wider social services scheme that the Government had in mind. On the score of lack of cooperation in those days and in the matter of free medicine for the needy now, they have something to answer for.

We have heard a lot about the liberty of the subject and the need to listen to the voice of the people. I point out that the people voted in a referendum for this measure. The social services power sought in the three point referendum of 1946 was carried by a substantial majority. Apparently that is not to matter as the doctors intend to pull a strike on by saying that the formulary is not wide enough for them. They say, in effect, that they do not really object to the supply of free medicine. At several conferences they have agreed that it was not a bad idea, but they will not accept the formulary or help to make the scheme a success. Yet the members of the formulary committee who knew what they were doing, considered that the scheme would be workable. The doctors, however, have adopted the attitude that as the proposal envisages, in their view, the socialization of medicine and a new health service controlled by the Government, they will fight it. So the free medicine scheme, which could be of great use to the sick poor people of this country, has been made a political football.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Commerce and Agriculture.

Proposed vote, £325,270.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

, - Recently the wool-growers and people throughout Australia, read in their morning newspapers that an amount of £30,000,000 was to be made available to the wool-growers of this country. It was described as a windfall to the woolgrowers. I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to tell me who was responsible for that notice appearing in the press. It is due to honorable members that the Minister should make a statement about it. In later issues the press discussed how consequent taxation problems could be overcome. The question was raised also whether the money would be paid over a period of seven years by instalments or whether the woolgrowers would receive any money for seven years. In the circumstances, the Minister should say whether the graziers will receive any money at all from the profits of the joint organization, and if so, how much, and when. The Minister should make it clear whether his department blundered in regard to any such announcement, or whether the press was N in the wrong. The press throughout Australia published similar reports and the facts should be stated to honorable members. Even the last issue of the Victorian Wheatgrower reported that probably next year the wool-growers would get a certain amount from that fund. The Minister should say whether that report is true. To-day, I asked a question of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture regarding tractors, but- as- 1 could not get a satisfactory answer, I am compelled to refer to the matter again. The following statement appeared in the Labor Call, of the 11th June : -

More than half of Australia’s tractor requirements would be imported this year from overseas, a Department of Commerceofficial stated this week.

He said that Australia’s requirements totalled 15,000 tractors, and 8,000 would be imported this financial year. This number would be stepped up in 1948-40.

The Minister said that the reference was to the next financial year, but as the statement is to the effect that in 1948-49 the number of tractors imported would be increased, the figure mentioned must refer to the present financial year. Perhaps the official did not make the statement attributed to him. The newspaper may have misrepresented the department. In any case, I invite tinMinister to explain the position.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.During the last few days, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), and some of his colleagues, have been raising paeans of praise about what the Government has done for the primary producers. We have been told that the bank balances of the producers are swollen, that their pockets are stuffed with money and that they are driving about in large and expensive motor cars. I wonder what the primary producers who were listening to the debate thought about it all. When the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson) said that there was stagnation in the primary industries, he was ridiculed by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who said that never before had the primary industries been so active. I bring to his notice one industry which is suffering, not only from stagnation, but also from frustration. The Minister announced some time ago that he had arranged a contract with the Government of the United Kingdom for the purchase of eggs from Australia. As a result of the contract, he said, poultry flocks would be increased by 5,500,000 birds and egg production by 56,000,000 dozen, whilst 2,000,000 bushels more of wheat would be required for poultry feed. This announcement was received with enthusiasm by those who realized the need of Great Britain for eggs, and by the poultry-farmers, who saw in it some prospect of expansion for their industry. However, weeks and months went by, and the poultry-farmers lost their enthusiasm, mainly because of the continuing shortage of feed, which is worse now than ever. Hatching time is arriving, and extra wheat is required for feeding the hens. Unless something is done to provide the feed the programme outlined by the Minister can not be put into effect. Let me cite two typical cases. One is that of an ex-serviceman poultry-farmer, who has had eighteen years’ experience in the industry. He breeds white leghorns and sells the onedayold chicks all over Australia. He used to sell about 40,000 chickens in the course of a year.

Mr Scully:

– He is not doing too badly.

Mr RYAN:

– He was not doing badly once, but he is not doing very well now. A couple of months ago he applied to the Australian Wheat Board, and through it to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, for more wheat. He said that he needed 30 bags a month, and he added that he was already feeding as grain 25 per cent, of oats. No bran or pollard was obtainable. In reply to his application, he received the following letter signed by the Minister: -

Under the circumstances, I regret that no special increase in your wheat quota above tile general industry increase is possible at present. With reference to your remarks regarding the unsuitability of feeding whole oats to growing pullets, I am assured that ground oats is an eminently suitable grain component in mashes for growing chickens.

The poultry-farmer says that he has been raising chickens for eighteen years, and he knows that oats should not be fed to young chickens. In the circumstance, he has decided to give up producing stud birds, and he is only one of many who are going out of the poultry business. The second case I shall refer to also involves an ex-serviceman. This person, after six years war service, for part of which time he was a prisoner of war, set about to rehabilitate himself as a poultry-farmer. He heard the announcement of the Minister about a contract for the sale of eggs to Britain, and he decided to increase production. He applied for more feed, and the Australian Wheat Board replied as follows : -

If you contemplate a large increase in your flock, it will be necessary for you to augment your wheat supplies with supplementary feed.

He cannot get it, and he has written to me as follows: -

The position as <we see it is that if I go ahead and double my flock I will have to scratch and scrape around to get enough wheat to carry on, the feed position is acute enough just at present without having an eye to the future.

That is typical of what is going on all over Australia. It was estimated some time ago that egg production in Victoria would increase by 10 per cent., but it has been found that there has been a decrease of 37 per cent, compared with the corresponding period of last year, and this at a time when the . Government is asking for more eggs. Flocks are being reduced, and farmers are going out of production. Additional supplies of feed have been asked for but they have not been forthcoming, despite attempts to obtain them through the Government. Two important factors affect this problem. The first is quantity; the second is quality. It is obvious that the quantity available to the industry is not nearly sufficient even to feed those birds at present on poultry farms. It would be pitifully inadequate if the farmers increased their flocks to the extent that would be necessary to meet the demand for eggs. I know of many anomalies in the distribution of feed wheat. One is to be found at Ballarat, within the Minister’s electorate. A producer with 3,000 birds receives three bags of wheat a fortnight, yet another not far away, who has 450 birds, receives six bags a fortnight. In other words, one is getting too much and the other is not getting enough. There are many similar cases. ‘ Furthermore, the quality of the wheat varies considerably. One producer was obtaining 2,400 eggs a day from his flocks, but the figure fell to 1,000 eggs a day when he was obliged to change over to low-quality pinched wheat. Another man received a consignment of 60 bags from a merchant and, when he tested one of the bags, he found that it weighed only 116 lb., which represents less than 40 lb. to the bushel of wheat. Producers who get their wheat from merchants never know whether they will be supplied with good or bad grain. The proportion of bad wheat varies with each delivery. A? a result, the producers suffer severe losses. Poultry-farmers feed their hens by bulk, not by weight. They open the bags and put the wheat in containers for the birds and, therefore, when the wheat varies in quality within each consignment, some birds get good wheat and others get bad wheat and the output of eggs is affected accordingly. The charge for bad wheat is the same as for good wheat. Supplies of offal, particularly pollard, are hopelessly inadequate. As a primary producer, I know that it is almost impossible to secure regular supplies of pollard or bran for hens or cows. The reason, of course, is that production is inadequate. I have referred to these matters because the time has come for the Government to take action in the interests of the poultry-farmers. The Government is anxious to fulfil its contracts with the United Kingdom, and the industry is ready and willing to expand, but, in fact, is having difficulty even in keeping its head above water. I do not minimize the difficulties of the situation, and I realize that two irreconcilable factors are involved in it. On the one hand, wheat is required in large quantities for human consumption in other countries. On the other hand, the Government is demanding expansion of the poultry industry in order to supply eggs to the United Kingdom, but the growers cannot obtain the necessary stocks of wheat. Production cannot be increased unless action is taken by the Government to resolve these difficulties. The producers are suffering from continual frustration, and it is time for the Government to decide whether it will help them to fulfil the contract with the United Kingdom or continue to sit back and talk without taking action. There is a considerable body of opinion amongst poultry-fanners which holds the view that the price fixed under the terms of the contract with Great Britain is not adequate to cover the cost of production. I have stated the cost of production figures in this chamber on more than one occasion, and they have not been successfully challenged. However, in order to settle the question, the Government should appoint a committee to examine egg production costs through- out Australia. This problem will require a definite solution in the not distant future, and the Government would be well advised to get to work on it at once. It has carried out an investigation of butter production costs, and it should waste no time in authorizing a similar investigation in the poultry industry. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this matter and agree to appoint a committee of inquiry. The poultry industry is of great importance to Australia, and I impress upon the honorable gentleman the fact that, if it is to flourish, it must have adequate supplies of wheat and essential offal, such as pollard.

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

, - The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) has dealt at some length with the problems of the poultry industry. I know that this industry, like many others, has its own peculiar problems and always will have them. The Government has done a great deal, within the limits of its ability, to assist the industry. It is not unaware of the difficulties of the producers. The honorable member spoke of the troubles of some producers in the Ballarat district, and referred to an anomaly in relation to the quantity of feed-wheat supplied to two different farmers. It is true that, in that case, the respective supplies were out of proportion. But does the honorable member suggest that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture should be the retailing authority in the Ballarat district, and be charged with responsibility of ensuring equity in the distribution of wheat to poultry farmers? He and his colleagues have been mouthing objections to that sort of thing all over the Commonwealth for the last six months, and they are still doing so. They complain that there are too many bureaucrats. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) is constantly on the heels of Commonwealth departments and complaining that they are overstaffed. The honorable member for Flinders has voiced a complaint which can only be remedied by the retailers or the wholesalers so organizing their business, in cooperation with the producers, as to ensure a fair distribution of the available supplies of wheat. That is the situation in relation to the first problem posed by him. The second arises from the serious shortage of bran, pollard and other wheat offal. The solution of this problem, too, is completely beyond the power of the Government. The honorable member for Flinders, as an intelligent and active member of this Parliament, must be aware that every flour mill in Australia to-day is working three shifts, and producing offal to the limit of its capacity. Consequently, the greatest possible quantity of offal is being produced. The honorable member must also realize that the distribution of these products is the responsibility of the flourmilling trade. If he wants to ensure that every poultry-farmer shall get his fair share of bran and pollard, he is faced with two alternative methods. The first is for the producers to co-operate with the millers in an effort to equalize distribution. The second is for the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, or some other Commonwealth department, to take over the products and distribute them through a government agency. I know that the honorable gentleman does not want that to be done. It is useless for honorable members opposite to bring complaints of that kind to the Government. They should take them to private enterprise and ask the merchants to deal with them. Honorable members of the Opposition have had much to say against socialism, but when industries in which they are interested suffer because of unbalanced distribution of their requisites under the control of private enterprise, they blame the Government. I appreciate what the honorable member for Flinders has said about the difficulties existing with respect to, not only unfair distribution of wheat to poultry-farmers, but also the more fundamental difficulty of inadequate supplies of wheat from time to time. The latter difficulty has not always been a matter within the control of the Australian Wheat Board; it has arisen largely because of lack of transport facilities. The transport systems of New South Wales and Victoria were very heavily taxed in shifting this year’s harvest of 202,000,000 bushels. It has not been possible to move wheat to the seaboard and keep the ships moving, thus avoiding demurrage, and, at the same time, provide sufficient transport for the distribution of wheat inland to such industries as poultry-farming. However, that difficulty is gradually being overcome, and in the near future an increased quantity of wheat will be made available to poultry-farmers.

When it comes to the fixation of the price at which wheat will be made available for stock feed and poultry feed. I have not the slightest doubt that serious conflict will arise between the honorable member for Flinders and his friends in the Australian Country party. The latter contend that the world parity price should be charged for all wheat made available for stock feed. If the Government yielded to that claim, the poultryfarmers would not be able to carry on for another fortnight on a payable basis. It is impossible to exact from the United Kingdom a price higher than that stipulated in the present contracts. The only other way out - and I have no doubt that the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) will propound it - is that the Government should make up to the wheat-growers the difference between the concessional price of 3s. 6d. a bushel for stock feed and the world parity price, which at present is between 15s. and 16s. a bushel. However, while the honorable member for Wimmera advances that claim he complains, at the same time, about high taxes. Honorable members opposite cannot have it both ways. They should talk sense in this matter. Following the rejection of the Government’s proposal for the retention of prices control at the recent referendum, the State governments will find a nice “baby” on their laps when they have to fix the price of wheat for the poultry industry. It remains to be seen whether they will face up to their obligations in that respect and fix a just price which will enable industries dependent upon stock feed to carry on, and will also be fair to consumers of bread, flour and breakfast foods. I shall be interested to see how members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party will reconcile their differences in this matter. The Government sincerely hopes that the

States will co-operate in dealing with the problem, and it is prepared to do its utmost to help the States; but there is an irreconcilable difference between the honorable member for Wimmera and his colleagues who claim to represent the wheat-growers, and the honorable member for Flinders who has just stated such a good case on behalf of poultry-farmers in his electorate. I have no doubt that there will be much shuffling in the next few months on the part of honorable members opposite as to what should be done. The honorable member for Flinders invariably presents a case in a mild and gentlemanly manner, but there was a sting in the tail of his remarks to-night. He said that many farmers were going out of the poultry industry and were not being replaced by newcomers. As a primary producer he knows that people are always going out of primary production; but, whereas when governments of his political kidney were in office most of those who went out of primary production went out bankrupt and very few retired in comfort, the majority of those who leave primary production to-day retire on incomes they have accumulated on the land during the regime of the present Government.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– First, I shall answer the remark just made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) that many persons have gone off the land. In any farming district in Victoria, and I have no doubt that this applies in other States, one will find that the majority of primary producers have been tilling the soil for from 15 to 30 years following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers. With respect to the case advanced by the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) on behalf of the poultry-farmers, the Minister only partly answered the questions raised. The Minister said that there would be much shuffling on the part of the> members of the opposition parties in the future. There has already been much shuffling on the part of the Minister, and he is still shuffling. He endeavoured to prove that the honorable member for Flinders and members of the Australian Country party are at cross purposes in this matter. He said that we shall have to decide what shall be done. The Minister himself must decide what shall be done. The onus rests upon him, because what he has not told the people is that the poultry industry in this country has expanded enormously. At Mildura, in my electorate, production has been quadrupled.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member for Flinders said that the industry is declining.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I speak only of the position of the industry in my own electorate. In view of our egg contract with the United Kingdom, the Minister has appealed for increased production. He cannot have it both ways. The point is that sufficient wheat is not being made available to the merchants, whom he condemned, to enable them to meet the demands of the poultry-farmers. I admit that at this stage it would not be just to increase the quota for stock feed ; that would be wrong. But, surely, the Minister does not think for one moment, as J know the honorable member for Flinders does not, that the wheat industry should be called upon to make further sacrifices in order to assist the poultry industry. The wheat-growers are already making more than their just contribution in the interests of that industry. Why should the wheat-growers, any more than the coal-miners, wharflabourers, store-keepers, machinery manufacturers or wool-growers be called upon to subsidize the poultry industry? Why call upon only the wheat industry to keep other industries in production? If the Government desires to make available an additional 2,000,000 bushels of wheat for stock fed, its proper course is to make up to the wheat-grower the difference between the concessional price for stock feed and the world parity price for wheat. The Minister scorns that proposal, but the Government did not hesitate to apply that principle in respect of wheat sold under the contract with New Zealand. Surely, the poultryfarmers upon whom the Minister is calling for greater production are entitled to treatment as favorable as that which the Government extended to New Zealanders. That is the position, and it is useless for the Minister to shuffle around the issue. With respect to the quality of wheat being supplied for stock feed-

Mr Scully:

– They get all the rubbish.

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is not so; the Australian Wheat . Board has endeavoured to give to poultry-farmers a proportion of good and inferior wheat, because it must be realized that in certain parts of Australia only rust and pinched wheat is available. The wheat was not of the quality desired by the poultry- fanners but they could not expect to get a reduction. They are paying at least 8s. or 9s. a bushel less than the wheat-growers would receive if the Government was sending that wheat overseas. If the Minister decides to release an additional 2,000,000 bushels for home consumption - and he said in this House some time ago he would do so - the wheat-grower will again be the loser. What I do not understand is why the wheat industry should keep the poultry industry going at concessional rates. Can the Minister explain now why the wheat industry any more than the wool industry should have to do that. The only thing that connects the wheat industry with the poultry industry is that poultry eat wheat. If the Minister desires to make cheap wheat available to the poultry industry why does he not do it in the way that the Government made cheap wheat available to New Zealand and not place the burden on the wheat industry, which is still suffering from the effects of droughts- and other setbacks which occurred in the past. The Minister may want to assist the poultry industry, but why does he pick on the wheat industry to carry the burden of that assistance. There is no real reason that any person inside or outside of this Parliament can give to me for the wheat industry being expected everlastingly to assist the poultry industry at concession rates. If the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) knows of any reason why that should be so let him say so now and if the Minister knows a reason let him also tell honorable members what it is. Wheat-growers should not be asked to put up with this injustice any longer.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.If the Minister feels the way he appears to feel about the prospects of the poultry industry why did he enter into a contract with the United Kingdom to sell eggs at 2s. Id. a dozen?

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member has dropped 3d. from the price contracted for.

Mr RYAN:

– The return to the poultry- farmer is 2s. Id. a dozen. What I really wish to emphasize, however, is the insufficiency of the quantities of wheat which poultry-fanners actually receive. The Minister knows perfectly well that he is a dictator. He has the power of veto and the power to issue instructions, but he places the onus on the Australian Wheat Board. By that method he is trying to throw dust into the eyes of honorable members. Flour millers to-day are experiencing difficulty in obtaining wheat. The Government itself is responsible for the distribution of wheat. It decides how much shall go abroad and how much will remain for home consumption and for release to primary producers. Wheat-growers are afraid that there will not be enough wheat for flour millers and the various other forms of primary production which use wheat offal. The Minister said that flour mills are working three shifts a day as hard as they can. I venture to suggest that the Minister is not well informed in that respect. Flour mills are not working three shifts. There is not sufficient wheat offal coming from the mills, although the demand for offal is no greater than it was a few years ago.

Mr Pollard:

– A few years ago we were exporting wheat offal overseas. At the present time all the wheat offal produced in Australia is consumed in Australia.

Mr RYAN:

– I agree with the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) that there is no reason why the wheat industry should support the poultry industry, but I point out to the honorable member that the poultry industry is not receiving wheat at concession prices but at the homeconsumption price. Every grain of wheat consumed in this country is paid for at the same rate whether it is consumed by human beings or poultry. If the price of wheat or eggs must be increased, all that the producers want is a satisfactory margin between the cost of production and the return they receive.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I should not have come into the debate except for the remark of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) that it would have been impossible to get higher prices for eggs sold to the British Government this year. The Minister has set out to mislead the poultry-farmers of Australia with regard to the price that could have been obtained. I do not suggest that we should force extortionate prices from Britain in that country’s period of trial. I entirely agree with the member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) that there is no reason why wheat-farmers should be asked to support another industry. The fact is that wheat-farmers in this respect are being robbed again as they were robbed by the New Zealand agreement. The Minister knows that they were robbed. At the time of the agreement the Minister denied a full return to the farmers for the wheat sold to New Zealand. It was only later that he was forced to disgorge the money. The taxpayers have had to pay dearly because the Government agreed to sell wheat to New Zealand at a ruinous price. What I want to point out to the Minister and the committee is that at the very time that the 1948 contract was negotiated with Britain for the sale of eggs at 2s. 4d. a dozen, with a net return to the farmer of 2s.1d. a dozen, the Dominion of Canada announced a prices agreement which it had made with the British Ministry of Food for the sale of eggs. The prices agreed on were : Spring shipment eggs, 47½ cents a dozen, or almost 3s. in Australian money; fall shipment 54¼ cents, or about 3s. 4½d. Australian. That means that the Canadian poultry-farmers in 1948 will receive about l0d. a dozen more for eggs sold to Britain than Australian poultry-farmers will receive. That Canadian contract was to be reviewed in 1949. It looks as if the Minister has made a pretty cheap sale of Australia’s primary products, in regard to both eggs and wheat.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Social Services.

Proposed vote, £333,310.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I desire to refer to three serious matters in the administration of the Department of Social Services. Some individuals are not getting a fair deal from the department. For instance, a young woman went to work at the age of fourteen years and for nearly two years she paid a social services contribution of 6d. a week. Then she became sick, and had to leave her employment before she had actually reached the age of sixteen years. The Department of Social Services informed her that although she had paid her contributions for a year and nine months, she was not entitled to receive any social benefit payments on becoming unemployed, because she had not had her sixteenth birthday. That is an utterly improper attitude for the Government to adopt. The legislation should have been amended long ago. No young girl should be required to pay a social service contribution of 6d. a week if, when sickness overtakes her, she is denied the sickness benefit. I agree that contributions should be paid for a reasonable period before contributors become eligible for benefits, but that period should not exceed six months. In this instance social service contributionshad been paid for a year and nine months, but because the sick girl was under the age of sixteen years, she was refused the sickness benefit. Injustice is also done under this legislation to the widows of ex-servicemen. A young man with a wife and two children went to the war, and while serving his country was killed in action. His widow, an energetic young woman, desiring to supplement her meagre pension of £2 10s. a week for herself and a proportionate pension for her children, decided to seek employment. Fortunately, her mother was able to look after the home and care for her children. She accepted a position for which she received a reasonably good salary. After working for a number of years her health broke down, and she was compelled to resign. During all the years of her employment she had regularly paid her contribution to the social services fund. When she became sick and was no longer able to work she applied for the sickness benefit, only to be told that because she was in receipt of a widow’s pension she was not eligible for the benefit. If that is the way the law operates, it is despicable. No person should be compelled to pay social service contributions unless he or she is eligible for the receipt of benefits. A third instance of the unfair way in which this legislation operates is furnished by the case of a man who all his life had been employed in an iron foundry. He had paid contributions to the social services fund since its establishment. He is now 67 years of age. Some time ago he became ill and was ordered by his doctor to leave his work, and rest. He thereupon applied for the sickness benefit and was told that he was not eligible for it as he was over the age of 65 years. I took his case to the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) and fought a hard battle on his behalf. Finally I extracted from the Minister a promise to make an ex gratia payment to him, solely because of the long period during which he had made contributions to the fund. I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service to examine these cases and to ascertain whether the provisions of the law can be ameliorated so that justice may be done to these people. The law should be so amended as to provide that all contributors to the social services fund shall automatically be entitled to the sickness benefit on the production of the requisite medical certificate.

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

– The social services legislation was drafted to cover the circumstances that existed when an antiLabour government .relinquished office, and it was thought that most people would not be able to continue working after they had reached the age of 65 years. Indeed, at that time very few of them were able to do so. The legislation accordingly prescribed that benefits should be restricted to persons between the ages of 16 and 65 years. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has already solved the problem of the ironworker to whose case he has referred by getting the Minister for Social Services to exercise his authority under the special section recently inserted in the act which enables ex gratia payments to be made in special circumstances. As to the case of the young girl, apparently she had been at work when she should have been at school. When the legislation was drafted it was assumed that children under the age of sixteen years would still be at school and accordingly no provision was made for the payment of the sickness benefit to them. Such a child, however, would not be called upon to make contributions to the social services fund unless she was in receipt of an income within the taxable field. If she elected to go to work instead of staying at school-

Mr Francis:

Her parents were in poor circumstances and they were forced to send her to work.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– When the act was drafted it was not thought that provision was necessary to meet a case of that kind. The honorable member should also have discussed her case with the Minister for Social Services.

Mr Francis:

– I did so and came a “ thud “.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Then the child must have been in receipt of a taxable income. The pension paid to an exserviceman’s widow would render her ineligible for payment of the sickness benefit.

Mr Francis:

– If that be so, then why were contributions taken from the woman to whom I referred ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The argument presented by the honorable member is identical with the submissions made by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) during every discussion of Estimates and Supply bills. The honorable member says that the pensions paid to war widows or incapacitated exservicemen should not be regarded as income to debar them from the receipt of social service benefits.

Mr Francis:

– Why does the Government demand contributions from people to whom the benefits of the legislation are denied?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Such people are called upon to pay the same income tax and social service contributions as other members of the community in receipt of like incomes.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health to an anomaly that exists as a result of a regulation promulgated under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. I cite a specific case in order to illustrate what is happening. A man in a town in my electorate became ill and was admitted to the local hospital, which is a small institution. The hospital authorities had no application forms for the sickness benefit. After he had been in the hospital for a week or a fortnight he was moved to a large central hospital, about 70 miles away. Upon admission he was handed an application form for the sickness benefit, but the doctor who attended him told him that no good purpose would be served by filling it in then as it had to be signed by the doctor who attended him when he first became ill. He retained the form until he had regained his health to some extent and was discharged and returned to his home town hospital. He then filled in the application and presented it to the shire secretary, who is responsible officer for the receipt of such applications. He received sickness benefit for only two days because it was stated that his application had not been lodged early enough for him to claim the benefit over the whole period of his illness. Both the doctor at the town in which the man was first in hospital, and the doctor at the larger town, certified that he had been incapacitated for a certain period - I think it was about six weeks - but the department refused to pay him for that period. I have brought this matter to the notice of the Minister, and it is now being investigated. The anomaly in the act should be rectified. Furthermore, there are many people in the community who do not realize that they are entitled to sickness benefits. Some of them, perhaps, may not be in a position to realize anything - they may be unconscious. Eventually when they lodge their claims they find that they cannot receive the full benefit. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on this matter. Does he consider that the anomalies should be rectified ?

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I point out that a disabled soldier who is unemployed has deducted from his unemployment relief benefit the amount of his disability pension. That I contend is quite unfair. A person drawing ;i benefit from a lodge or from a union does not suffer any such deduction. I have raised this matter more than once and I know that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) is sympathetic. He promised to have the matter adjusted, but that was some years ago and still nothing has been done. I recall that during an all-night sitting such as this, I moved an amendment aimed at remedying the position. My view was supported by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) and another Government member, but of course they did not support me when a division was called. I have seen the correspondence from the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) on the matter, and whilst he expresses his sympathy, he has never done anything to adjust the position. I urge that action be taken now. The matter may not seem important at the moment, but it will be of much greater concern should a slight recession occur, bringing some degree of unemployment to this country.

Mr Holloway:

– The position is better now than it was when the honorable member first raised the matter because the payment has been increased from 12s. 6d. to £1.

Mr WHITE:

– I admit that, but that does not affect the principle involved, which is the very reverse of preference to ex-servicemen.

I wish to refer also to the age pension. This pension is not granted to migrants until they have been in this country for 20 years - I believe that it used to be 25 years. That is a serious disability which will discourage the immigration of families, particularly from the United Kingdom. When this matter was dealt with on a previous occasion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) admitted that he knew of an English woman in his electorate who was 70 years of age but was not eligible for the age pension. I know of a woman who is over 80 but is still working because she cannot draw a pension. That is extremely harsh treatment. It is antediluvian. The provision was introduced so long ago that nobody knows the reason for it.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Shipping and Fuel.

Proposed vote, £819,080.

Mr. ABBOTT (New England) [2.35 a.m.l. - As the Parliament will rise to-day for a considerable period, I take this opportunity to draw attention to the coal position, and to make some reference to the working of the Joint Coal Board. The board has failed to achieve the objectives laid down in the Coal Industry Act of 1946. Honorable members will recollect that the board was established in that year, and commenced to function in 1947. It is most interesting to look back to the second-reading speech of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) on the Coal Industry Bill, and the optimistic forecasts that he made with regard to coal production in this industry once the bill became operative. He said -

The function of this bill is to establish a Joint Coal Board.

The main duties of the board will be, first, to ensure that coal shall be produced in the State in such quantities and with such regularity as will meet requirements throughout Australia and in trade with other countries.

Just how drastic and far-reaching the board’s measures will be, will depend solely on what is necessary to get the coal we want.

We have provided for the establishment of a coal industry tribunal with the necessary powers to settle industrial disputes and to promote industrial peace in the industry.

The Joint Coal Board has now been in operation since March, 1947. In Hansard of the 6th of May of this year, there is a reply to a question asked by Senator O’Sullivan of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) regarding the total production of coal in each State of the Commonwealth, in 1941, 1945, 1946 and 1947; the number of industrial disputes in the coal industry in each of those years, and the number of working days lost. An analysis of the answer to the honorable senator’s question shows that production in New South Wales dropped from 11,766,000 tons in 1941 to 11,683,000 tons in 1947- a difference of 83,000 tons. But open cut mining pro duced 958,000 tons in 1947 whereas production by this method in 1941 was nil, indicating that the output of the New South Wales mines had actually fallen by 1,041,000 tons. It was also stated that industrial disputes in New South Wales had increased from 392 in 1941 to 812 in 1947 - the year in which the Joint Coal Board became operative. In Queensland, where the board does not have jurisdiction, one dispute occurred in 1941, and two in 1947. According to figures supplied by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel Queensland’s production of coal is 16 per cent. of that of New South Wales, but the number of disputes in Queensland is only . 24 per cent. of those occurring in New South Wales. I repeat the Minister’s words -

We have provided for the establishment of a Coal Industry Tribunal with the necessary powers to settle industrial disputes and to provide industrial peace in the industry.

This winter we have seen our railway services curtailed, substantial cuts made in the production of steel by Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and Australian Iron and Steel Proprietary Limited, and the rationing of electricity for industrial and domestic use. Wheat is being transported by motor lorries for many hundreds of miles along roads parallel to existing railway systems. These vehicles consume vast quantitites of petrol, which, we are told, has to be paid for in dollars. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) has explained that the transport systems are encountering great difficulties regarding the carriage of wheat, but that the problem was being overcome. The great difficulties are due to the extreme shortage of coal throughout the Commonwealth. Now, the Joint Coal Board has announced that although the same number of men and mines are at work the maximum possible output of New South Wales collieries will be nearly 1,000,000 tons less than the quantity promised last September. On the 6th May last, an official of the Joint Coal Board stated that coal production in New South Wales was 884,000 tons below the target for 1948. In the period of nineteen weeks from the 12th January to the 22nd May last, 747,000 tons of coal was lost by strikes. In the 22-week period to the 12th June, 851,000 tons of coal was lost from this cause. The average weekly production for the nineteen weeks from the 12th January to the 22nd May was 219,400 tons, or a rate of 10,960,000 tons per annum, whilst the average weekly loss through strikes for the 22-week period was 38,000 tons, or a rate of 1,935,000 tons per annum. I shall not make any statements about coal which are not official, or quote any production figures other than those supplied by the Joint Coal Board. In a statement issued on the 7th April last, the board estimated that the coal requirements of the nation for 1948 would be 13,000,000 tons, and commented that that figure was capable of -attainment. The target which the board set was described as ridiculous by certain Officials of the miners federation, and the board declared -

If the union members had set out to demonstrate that the target could not be attained, the results of work this year to date could not have been more significant.

The board said, in effect, that a deliberate attempt had been made to wreck its target. If strikes had not occurred, and production had continued steadily, the output for the year would have been within 96,000 tons of the board’s target. But if losses continue at the present rate, the output for the year will be 2,031,000 tons below the target. The board’s statement contains the following passage : -

The direct and indirect gains and improvements realized by the employees in the industry have been considerable … In the mining communities generous grants enable local authorities to proceed immediately with community projects which do not involve materials in short supply.

The Cessnock Eagle, on the 18th May last, published a report of an address which Mr. J. Carrington, chief welfare officer of the Joint Coal Board, delivered before the Cessnock Rotary Club. He stated that the amount which had been paid for the provision of various amenities from the date of the appointment of the board to the 30th April last, was £138,343.

Mr Chifley:

– Time will prove that the legislation providing for a joint coal board was the best legislation that has been passed for the control of the coal industry.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am merely informing the committee of facts contained in the board’s statement. Mr. Carrington pointed out that the amenities included swimming baths at a cost of £22,500, and we read in the newspapers recently that 22 pairs of “ shorts “ had been supplied to a football team in the Lithgow district. The board’s statement continues -

In the light of such incontrovertible evidence of a new outlook for employees in the coal industry, the board and the public, which is finding the money, expected that the industrial position would be stabilized at least to the extent that it was in the latter part of last year . . . More specifically, it expects that the numerous stoppages for reasons which cannot conceivably justify direct action, should be eliminated.

Those stoppages have not been eliminated. The Prime Minister has expressed the view that the future development of the coal-mining industry will justify the appointment of the Joint Coal Board. Honorable members could be excused for believing that if the results of the establishment of. the board were as satisfactory as the right honorable gentleman stated, the Government and the miners’ federation would take some notice of its views. The statement proceeds -

Earlier in” the vear the board pointed out to the Combined Mining Unions’ Council and to the Central Council of the Miners Federation the apparent lack of discipline within the union and warned that unless the unions themselves could control the situation it would be inevitable that the gravity of the coal supply position would force some one else to take steps to do so. -

I remind honorable members that Mr. Justice Davidson who, as a royal commissioner, inquired into the coal-mining industry, made a similar statement. The document continues -

The board has carefully examined the conciliation and arbitration machinery which

. is now available, and is completely satisfied that if utilized, it removes all grounds for local direct action.

Honorable members will see that all the machinery is provided to prevent the strikes which are causing tremendous losses of coal production; but the miners’ federation does not use that machinery, and, consequently, industry is being paralysed. The statement concluded -

Having regard to all the foregoing and the fact that the present award provides for certain benefits relating to annual leave, payment for statutory holidays, and otherwise, the board lias decided immediately to refer to the Coal Industry Tribunal the question as to whether the conditions of those benefits should not be varied so as to provide for greater continuity of work as qualification for such benefits. On the hearing of this question the board proposes to be represented and to offer evidence and arguments in support of its views.

The board submitted its application to the Coal Industry Tribunal on the 8th April last, and the reasons for its action were stated in an accompanying letter. The first reason given was the great loss of production arising from strikes which had occurred in the coal mines’ in New South Wales. The board added that a large proportion of those strikes were unwarranted and unnecessary. Honorable members will be interested to learn what happened. The Joint Coal Board, under threats from the miners’ federation, met the miners’ leaders and, on the 1.5th April, seven days after it had submitted its application to the tribunal, agreed to withdraw it. The federation agreed to take all steps necessary to get its members to accept the recommendations in regard to discipline which were adopted at the 1945 conference. Although the decision was reached more than two months ago no remedial steps have yet been taken, and in the meantime 250,000 tons of coal have been lost. I mention those matters to indicate that the Joint Coal Board is not carrying out the function which the Minister said it would discharge. We must ask ourselves whether the recent interference by the Government in the decisions of the Joint Coal Board is intended to prevent that body from carrying out its duties. It would appear that this is so in view of the statement made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), in the course of his second-reading speech, when he said -

But because of the far-reaching nature of its decisions, it is important that the Board should conform to directions on particular matters of policy. The principle of parliamentary and ministerial responsibility for policy has been preserved by the ultimate right of the Prime Minister in agreement with the Premier of New South Wales to give policy directions to the Board.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ABBOTT:

– As no other honorable member has risen I shall take my second period. The point which I make is that tremendous losses of coal are occurring and the board has pointed out that there is “no discipline in the union. Furthermore although there exists a complete system of arbitration which was designed to overcome disputes in the coal industry, it is not being utilized, and the Joint Coal Board has seen fit to make a special recommendation to the Coal Tribunal. An extraordinary change of attitude has been manifested by the Joint Coal Board since it made that recommendation, and it has now made an agreement with the miners’ federation, which that body has not carried out. Is the board’s sudden change of attitude the outcome of interference by the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales to compel it to adopt a change of attitude in its dealings with the miners’ federation? If the Joint Coal Board is not allowed to function free of political interference the coal industry cannot progress, and the development of our other industries will be prevented because of lack of coal.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Department of External Territories, £22,980 - agreed to.

Department of Immigration.

Proposed vote, £60S,500.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.I regret the necessity for delaying honorable members at this late hour, but because of the unavoidable absence from Canberra of the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), honorable members have not had an opportunity to discuss the important subject of immigration. I realize, of course, that had the Minister been present during the last few weeks we should have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. I do not wish my remarks to be construed as a criticism of the Minister because he is regarded by all members of the committee as one of the most enthusiastic and effective administrators in the Government. Nevertheless, the enthusiastic activities of a good Minister who follows a sound policy, do not necessarily ensure satisfactory results in a matter of such importance as immigration.

I propose, first of all, to say something with regard to the necessity for obtaining migrants from the United Kingdom. Not only the Australian Government, hut also the British Government, has failed to grasp the necessity to disperse the British people throughout the Empire. The distribution of white people throughout the British Empire to-day is, in some respects, most unfortunate. Five-sevenths of the white people of the Empire live in an area which is only one-nineteenth of its total area. The weakness of the situation which results from that distribution does not need to be stressed. The recent war showed what the United Kingdom could do at a time of great stress, but Ave were always conscious of the extreme strain to which that country?s economy was subjected, and we need have no doubt that in any future war the United Kingdom will have no hope even of keeping its population alive. The disturbing fact, however, is that even in the heart of the Empire to-day there is no adequate realization of the terrible danger which confronts us. Obviously the British Government does not realize the seriousness of the position which confronts it, nor does it realize the increased importance of Australia as a future home for the British race. In the past the map of the world showed a great deal of red, which indicated that a large part of the world belonged to the British Empire. However, the territorial extent of that Empire is diminishing day by day, and the people of the United Kingdom can no longer base their economy on vast overseas possessions. Even in the last few weeks South Africa has decided to discontinue assisting the immigration of British people of that country. A direct consequence of that change of attitude is the increased- importance which Australia assumes as a prospective home for British people. I do not think that the people of Great Britain or their Government realize how important it is that migrants who come to this country should be predominantly of British stock. Historically and traditionally this country has always been allied with Great Britain, and we look to that country for assistance in developing Australia. However, Australia must obtain immigrants from somewhere, and the people of Great Britain should realize that Australia, like the United States of America, may develop into a great, powerful and thickly populated country which would be indifferent to the fate of Great Britain. If Australia is to continue to be an active partner of Great Britain it must be filled by people of British stock.

Although the problem of migration is the main consideration which confronts the British people to-day, it has never been tackled on an imperial basis. It seems to me that the solution of the problem demands an “ imperial “ touch which is totally lacking in the present policy of the Empire. The first step which should be taken to disperse the British people to areas where they can live with greater security is to convene a Commonwealth conference to evolve a detailed plan. Three main features present themselves in any plan for mass migration. The first consideration is to obtain sufficient migrants, the next is concerned with the provision of transport, and the third is to allocate land for settlement.

When Australians think of migration they think first of all of obtaining migrants from the British Empire. However, I propose now to disclose the possibility of obtaining migrants from other sources. It seems to me a great pity that we are unable to obtain migrants from Germany. In making that statement I realize that it may evoke resentment in the minds of many Australians, particularly members of exservicemen’s organizations. However, I can advance this suggestion with less diffidence than some people because neither I nor the members of my family have any cause to love the Germans. Nevertheless we must recognize the fact that the Germans are a vigorous, strong and numerous race, whose members are willing to emigrate to Australia in large numbers, and it seems to me a great pity that the gates of this country are barred against them. Of course, some Germans are permitted to come here - Germans of the Jewish faith. That seems to me a kind of anti-semitism in reverse. When the Minister for Immigration is asked when Germans will be permitted to come to Australia he invariably replies that their entry cannot be permitted until the peace treaty with Germany is signed.

That is all very well, but we need immigrants urgently, and I do not conaider his explanation satisfactory. We are entitled to know when the German peace treaty is to be signed - if there is to be such a treaty at all - and the Minister should furnish an approximate date when the migration of Germans to this country will be permitted.

I appreciate the difficulties with which the Minister for Immigration is confronted and I realize that he has done all that lies within his power to obtain shipping from Great Britain, but he has not been as successful as he hoped to he. Although the International Refugee Organization, for example, has encountered difficulties, it has managed to get the shipping it requires to transport refugees to Australia, South America and other countries. It was reported in the press recently that Monterey and Mariposa are for sale, and we know of Canadian shipping companies which are selling their ships. If the International Refugee Organization can obtain ships and if other vessels are for sale, the Australian Government cannot reasonably put forward the excuse that it cannot get them. The Minister should have greater control over the allocation of berths, and the kind of migrants that come here. The Australian newspapers frequently publish photographs of people who have come here “ under their own steam “ and not under the assisted passage scheme. Any company which purchases a ship can hawk it round Europe and fill it with migrants who conform only to our minimum requirements. The Minister should have the power to order the allotment of a certain proportion of the berths to migrants of the kind that Australia needs.

In my opinion there is a lack of longrange planning in regard to our migration scheme and the settlement of this country. The Italian method of colonizing various parts of Africa had much to commend it, and it might very well be adapted to the needs of Australia. In the past, a great deal of good land was available, and as soon as migrants arrived, they could take up land that would yield them a good living. To-day, however, the only land that is available for this purpose will require much capital to develop, and government assistance will be necessary if those who settle on it are to be assured a reasonable standard of living. If we are to put people on the land, the Government will have to play a much bigger part than it has done in the past. The migrants who are now coming here are congregating in the cities and the closely settled areas. The only way in which we can hope to settle our under-populated areas is by a planned migration scheme. Railways must be constructed, market facilities provided, and cool stores and farm buildings constructed before the migrants are brought here.

The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) said that honorable members on this side of the chamber had seen fit to criticize the White Australia policy. There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. Until the advent of this Government, the White Australia policy had been accepted without question for the last forty or fifty years. To-day, however, it is criticized from Singapore to Tokio and Suez, and it is criticized because of the way in which it has been operated by this Government. If we wanted to bring the White Australia policy into disrepute and to make it a laughing stock throughout the world, we could not have done it more thoroughly than the present Government has done.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.I assure the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) that his references to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) are. deeply appreciated. His criticism of the Government’s migration policy contained constructive suggestions and opened up new ground. As to mass migration from Britain, the honorable member is aware that priority is given to British migrants. The present rate of arrivals from Great Britain is little better than a trickle, but it must be remembered that the difficulties in the early days of planning were tremendous. Within the next five or ten years, however, there will be an aggregation of first-ela British migrants in this country. Most of them will be British ex-service men and women. They will be ready-made citizens, with the same aspirations as ourselves, and will be employed in our rural industries and our expanding secondary industries. I ask honorable members to consider the complicated problem with which the British Government is faced. The British people are dedicated to the task of resurrecting an empire that almost destroyed itself in the defence of liberty. At one time the migration of people from the British Isles on a substantial scale was accepted as desirable, but that is not so to-day. Many British members of Parliament are of opinion that it would be more desirable to keep Britons working in the essential industries which must be revived if Great Britain is to survive. The British Government has the first call on people in the displaced persons camps in Germany and elsewhere, and thousands of men have gone from those camps to work in the British coal-mines and heavy industries. The proposal that British people should migrate to Australia is not rejected, but it is not vociferously approved by all sections in Britain.

Europeans can leave Europe only in ships sailing from continental ports. No matter how much influence or money they have, they cannot, except on special medical grounds that have not been invoked so far, leave from a British port. The statement of the honorable member for Henty about ships being conjured up from nowhere i3 wide of the mark. There is a solid plan. In answer to the honorable member’s contention that there is not enough planning, and that there does not seem to be enough thought given to a sound immigration policy, I remind him that the British migrants are No. 1 priority, and Europeans, when we can get them by ships and other means, are next. But Britain is niggardly at present with regard to the emigration of its people. That is a factor which is restricting the broad plan of mass migration. So far as migrants from continental Europe are concerned, the authorities desire that the white flow to this country shall be maintained. The honorable member for Henty said that we should aim at an aggregation of British people with similar ideals to our own. That merely means moving our kinsfolk from one place to another.

Opinions regarding the immigration of Germans and other Europeans has undergone some change. At one time it was suggested that healthy Germans might come to this country, but, later, it was decided that those people should not come here until the peace treaty had been concluded. There was also available, it was said, a rising number of “ muscle men “ who could do the hard work of development in this country, if they were available to Australia. With the “ red “ sphere of influence spreading eastern European countries have become protectorates of Russia, and in those circumstances their nationals are not available for migration. We have a limited field now.

Mi1. Hor.t. - There is still a very big field in the areas controlled by Great Britain and the United States in Germany.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I refer to a decision of all governments regarding any dealings with ex-enemies, until peace treaties with them have been concluded.

There are also Italians, and Baits, but as the International Refugee Organization camps are depleted of members, it will be found that there is a diminishing number of those people available for migration to this country. ‘If we rely on the classic theory that Britain will support the Dominions, we are faced with the fact that, in the minds of many Britons, as well as of British politicians and statesmen, is the determination to see the struggle through. The migration problem has its psychological and political aspects and is difficult of solution, but on the practical side, a really honest attempt has been made. The honorable member for Henty has approached it in a reasonable way. He was courageous enough - and it certainly takes courage for an ex-serviceman to make this suggestion - to say that we could use Germans to develop Australia. We can use the Italians as well. We cannot continue to go about in the belief that we can get the best out of Europe all the time. The job is to screen those offering, and to remember that there are good people in all nations. If we are sincere about a migration scheme which will give us people who will help us in the development of this country and these migrants may ultimately he called upon to assist in its defence, should the occasion arise, we cannot afford to be so “ choosy “ from which section of Europe they shall come.

The ‘No. 1 priority is for the British, and running tandem with that, there is it scheme for Europe. So far a3 Americans are concerned, our policy is a goodwill gesture, and those G.I.’s who served in this country during the war and are anxious to come back here, are invited to return. The whole of our future is tied up with development of Britain and how its people regard our migration policy, as well as the development of a sound policy in respect of continental Europe. We are not the only ones in the field. The South American Republics which have fast ships are not so far from the centre of Europe, have been able to recruit many thousands of people for their rubber plantations and agricultural work generally. The South Africans and Canadians are also in the field.

The remark of the honorable member for Henty in relation to the Poles - exflying men and others - was interesting. He mentioned that some went to Tasmania and were employed on the Butler’s Gorge project for a number of years. We have seen reports that the Canadians had used the Poles in great numbers. But the fact is that we cannot give preference to those people who served with our troops during World War II., while hundreds of thousands of Britons continue to inquire at Australia House in London when they will be able to go to Australia. The position with regard to migration is sound and progressive. Whatever the Government policy is, there are at least 500,000 people in Great Britain who continue to inquire about being provided with a passage to Australia. When the members of the committee of inquiry went to Europe they were greeted with enthusiasm. They were able only to dampen that enthusiasm down; a lot of that enthusiasm has been lost, but it could be revived.

Wherever the Australian migration policy has been truthfully advertised in Great Britain or on the continent of

Europe, it has proved acceptable because it offers to people an opportunity to make a new home in a new country, and pays due regard to their training in particular industries. We have not? told them the story of a land where the sun is always shining. Wherever we mentioned the sands of Coogee and Bondi, we also referred to the sands of the desert in the “ dead “ centre of Australia. So far as publicity is concerned, we have been as truthful as possible. It is a natural thing for a man to overstate a case ‘when telling a colourful story, in order to lend effect, but where over-statements have been made about the Australian migration policy, they have been quickly reconciled with the facts.

There is a plan for Great Britain first and Europe second. We shall make available the speediest and most direct conveyances to bring migrants to this country, and we intend to tell them no lies about it. We tell them the true factual story of Australia. In those circumstances, I assure the honorable member that he need have no fear for the future of migration. I give him my personal guarantee that it is going very well.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.Earlier to-night, the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) and the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) charged me with attacking the White Australia policy. Such criticism is absurd, and represents a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The White Australia policy is supported by all political parties in this Parliament. It has been supported by all major political parties for many years. Indeed, it is being attacked by only one party, namely the Communist party. We are conscious that throughout the history of federation, there has been in Australia a number of Asiatics. They came here in circumstances of which none of us is fully aware, but they are here, and they are a very small proportion of our population. They have not created any racial problem, or involved us in any serious racial or international disagreements with other countries. The criticisms from this side of the chamber have been directed, not against the White Australia policy, but against the clumsy, tactless, inhuman handling by the Government of personal situations of a kind which created no problems for governments in the past. One real test of the White Australia policy is the attitude of other nations to it. Do they resent it because of criticism from members of the Opposition, or is the policy in jeopardy to-day, if it be in jeopardy, because of resentment created by the Government in its administration of the policy which it claims to uphold? By that test, no government in the history of federation has done more to weaken the White Australia policy than has the present one. During the war, some men of Asiatic origin were admitted to Australia. The circumstances were unusual, and emergency conditions prevailed. They were here for some years. Some of them married Australian women, and tried to settle into the community. No one could imagine that had that handful of persons been allowed to remain in Australia their presence would have constituted a serious challenge to the White Australia policy. In normal times, most of them would wish to return to their own country, and many of them sought to do so. However, a minute number did not desire to do so, either because of the marriages they had contracted, or for other reasons. It is out of the handling of those cases by the Government that racial resentment has developed. Because some honorable members on this side of the House desiring to maintain the White Australia policy, and preserve good relations with other countries, have protested against the too rigid application of the policy, for our pains we are accused of attacking the White Australia policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) mentioned the migration of Germans to Australia. We all agree that German migration before the war gave us some of our finest citizens. German migrants have settled in various parts of Australia, and during two world wars it was proved that they could be easily assimilated, and could be relied upon as loyal citizens in time of crisis. Generally speaking, migrants from northern Europe are more acceptable in Australia than those from southern Europe. We are glad to have many of the migrants from southern Europe, but I do not think that any one will contest my proposition that the northern European is a more acceptable type. Because southern Europe is closer to Australia, and because so many southern Europeans are already settled here, it is natural that we should get a larger number of migrants from southern Europe than from northern Europe. Special assistance and encouragement from the Government will be necessary if we are to obtain a substantial number of migrants from northern Europe. The country to which we naturally look for northern European migrants is Germany. Many Germans of a desirable type must be anxious to come to Australia, because of the devastation and wretchedness wrought by the war in their own country. The statement of the honorable member for Parkes may have been accurate, but it was not satisfactory, when he said that various countries had agreed not to admit nationals from Germany until a peace treaty had been signed with that country. There is no present indication of the signing of such a treaty, and I do not think that Australia ought to be bound indefinitely by an undertaking of the kind mentioned by the honorable member. The policy of rigid exclusion might be carried to the absurd length that an Australian woman married to a German cannot be united with her husband because he is branded with German nationality.

Mr Haylen:

– It is only a matter of time, and he will get a permit to come to Australia.

Mr HOLT:

– I trust that a fresh examination of that matter will be made.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) has said that he received a copy of a letter that had been sent to me by a certain medical officer living in my electorate. I point out to him that, whilst I have the greatest respect for this gentleman who alleges that he is still a Labour supporter, which I doubt very much-

Mr Holt:

– What has this to do with immigration ?

Mr White:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Griffith is referring to a matter that was discussed when the proposed vote for the Department of Health was under consideration.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Griffith must connect his remarks with the Department of Immigration.

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has apologized for the attitude that he and certain of his colleagues have adopted towards the White Australia policy. Members of the Opposition have frequently attacked members of the Government, and particularly the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), who has done a magnificent job on behalf of Australia in attracting migrants to this country. The honorable member for Fawkner made apologies for the people of Germany. He ought to know that, until a peace treaty between Australia and Germany is concluded, no immigrants can be admitted to Australia from that country.

Mr Holt:

– Does that apply to New Zealand, too?

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member is only trying to quibble. This Government is anxious to obtain immigrants who will be acceptable to the Australian people. The honorable member for Fawkner wants the Government to admit people who have fought against Australia. I disagree with him. We can obtain plenty of immigrants from Great Britain and European countries other than Germany and Italy.

Mr Holt:

– The Government is admitting Italians.

Mr CONELAN:

– Although the Italians were opposed to the allies in the early stages of World War II., they eventually joined us. There can be no comparison between Italians and Germans. Nevertheless, I am not anxious to bring Italians to Australia. When I visited Great Britain a little over a year ago I met large numbers of people who were anxious to come to Australia. The Minister for Immigration and his officers have done a magnificent job in obtaining ships to bring those people to this country. Their efforts have met with considerable success and the ratio of British immigrants to foreigners has been about ten to one. Whilst the honorable member for Fawkner appears to be anxious to encourage the immigration of people who fought, killed and wounded many Australians, I believe that most members of this Parliament and Australians generally are totally opposed to such a policy. The honorable gentleman has made out a very poor case. The Government’s immigration policy is well planned and has been well executed by the Minister for Immigration.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.The policy of bringing Baltic migrants into Australia has been highly successful. I have visited the camp at Bathurst where Baltic immigrants are housed and have met many people who employ Baits. From my own observations, and from the reports I have, received, I have reached the conclusion that these people will become desirable citizens. I regret that the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) is not present this morning owing to unfortunate private reasons, and I hope that he will soon be able to attend the Parliament again. The introduction of Baits to our rural areas has been of great value to the country. Our country areas need all the manpower that can be sent to them in order to counteract the great movement of population to the cities which has taken place in recent years. We must increase rural populations if we are to increase primary production. The Baits adapt themselves to farm life very well, and the training which they receive in the country areas to which they have been sent will, I hope, induce them to settle permanently on the land. Domestic help is badly needed in the country, and many Baltic immigrants can he directed to such work with great benefit. Many families are in dire distress and need domestic servants. They are entitled to all the help that we can give them because of the importance of increasing primary production. We should do everything possible to make life in the country more attractive. A system of family aid which has been introduced in Canberra could well be extended to our rural areas. In this city, an emergency housekeeper service has been inaugurated. Three housekeepers are available to go to the assistance of families stricken by sickness or other misfortunes. They satisfy an urgent need in the community. I understand that the cost of the service, with three housekeepers, is only £600 a year. I hope that this scheme will be extended to country areas. Services could be established in various centres to provide housekeepers in the event of emergency for homes within a radius of 50 miles. The Government should subsidize such a scheme in order to provide house-keeping assistance in remote areas to people who cannot afford to pay for such help. I commend that suggestion to the sympathetic consideration of Cabinet.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The committee is indebted to the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) for the manner in which he has enlightened us concerning some of the difficulties existing in respect of British immigration. I appreciate what he said ; but I believe that the Government can do much more than it is doing in that direction. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) will be visiting Great Britain in the near future, this subject should be dealt with on the highest governmental plane. I urge the right honorable gentleman to discuss it thoroughly with the British Prime Minister. Much more could be done by flying British migrants to Australia. Honorable members opposite have admitted that hundreds of thousands of British people are waiting to come to this country. Canada is subsidizing a service for the transport by air of British migrants to that country. I have made this suggestion on previous occasions, but nothing seems to have been done about it. The result is that to-day we are receiving mainly foreign migrants who can afford to charter aeroplanes to Australia. We must have a greater proportion of British migrants.

We are also losing a great opportunity by failing to use former military camps as staging camps for migrants until such time as they can be normally absorbed into the community. Many British people of splendid types are not able to come to this country until guarantees are given that jobs and accommodation will be available to them on their arrival here. Very often nominators of foreign migrants will give such guarantees when they are not justified in doing so, and the result is that foreign migrants are crowding into the country. The Government should arrange to accommodate British migrants in former military camps until such time as they are able to obtain normal accommodation. Transport could easily be provided for the conveyance of male migrants from such camps to adjacent towns to work. Unless some arrangement of that kind is made, many excellent British people who have been waiting for transport for up to three years will be debarred from coming to Australia. It is conservatively estimated that 200,000 British migrants are waiting to come here. All honorable member.* agree that under existing world conditions a wider dispersal of the British people is most desirable.

I also urge the Government to implement a scheme of child migration. The honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) was one of the founders of » scheme for the adoption of children by Australian families. However, that scheme seems to have gone by the board. The Government appears to prefer a system of limited child migration on an institutional basis. Whilst I agree that many classes of foreign migrants will be most acceptable in this country, we are getting an overdose of Italians who, in many cases, qualify for entry as the result of proxy marriages and because their compatriots in this country do not hesitate to promise the requisite employment and accommodation. On the other hand, it is characteristic of British people to act above board in such matters. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) should urge the British Government to work out a joint scheme in order to increase the flow of British migrants to this country. An admirable example, which we might follow, was set in the early days of settlement in Victoria, when pioneers brought their own collapsible houses and members of regiments migrated to that State en masse. Most of them were able to build accommodation for themselves. The Government should concentrate on British migration until the present trickle of British migrants is increased to a continuous stream.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Labour and National Service, £505,890; Department of Transport, £20,440; Department of Information, £135,810; and Department of Post-war Reconstruction, £282,190- agreed to.

Defence and Post-war (1939-45)

Charges.

Proposed vote, £38,000,000.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.I wish to refer to the allowances to war widows and orphans. As I have dealt fully with the subject on previous occasions, I shall content myself at this juncture by saying that although the Government has increased the rate of pension for war widows and their dependants, the present allowances are still inadequate. That impression is widely held throughout the community. It is emphasized particularly by members of ex-service leagues. Many shire councils in Victoria are also giving urgent consideration to the subject. I have received a letter from the Chelsea Shire Council, which has forwarded to me a letter circularized by a local committee urging that action be taken to increase the rate of the war widow’s pension. The council states that it agrees with the view expressed by the committee, and requests me to raise the matter in the Parliament. I do so now with emphasis. The present rate of pension is totally inadequate, having regard to recent rises in the cost of living. Without labouring the matter, I urge the Government, as soon as possible, to give more generous assistance to war widows.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– I wish to deal with the method of compensating ex-servicemen who suffer from recurring attacks of malaria. A number of ex-servicemen’s organizations in my electorate and the secretary of the Ker turned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, personally, have brought the matter to ray attention. The league has passed a series of resolutions of which, I believe, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) has some knowledge. A typical resolution requests that the Government increase the rate of medical sustenance to men and women undergoing treatment in repatriation hospitals to a degree that will bring their income from the Repatriation Commission to the rate payable in respect of permanent and total incapacity. At present, the rate of medical sustenance is £2 10s. in respect of the ex-serviceman, £1 2s. in respect of his wife, and 9s. in respect of each child under the age of sixteen years. That pension is paid in respect of the period during which the ex-serviceman is certified by a medical officer to be unable, by reason of his receiving treatment, to follow his usual occupation. I submit that the rate of sustenance is inadequate. Generally, the attacks of malaria last from seven to fourteen days. The total income of a man, wife and a child at the present rate of sustenance amounts to £4 ls. a week. That is less than the basic wage, which is regarded as the minimum necessary to enable a man, wife and a child to subsist. The basic wage in New South Wales at present is £5 14s. a week. Just treatment is therefore not being meted out to men who have offered their all in the service of their country and jeoparized their health because of war service. I urge the Government to liberalize the rate of medical sustenance. I believe that, in fairness to ex-servicemen who did so much for Australia in the war, the Government should give consideration to bringing the rate of medical sustenance paid during treatment up to. the rate provided in the special pension for totally and permanently incapacitated men, which is £5 ls. a week, plus weekly amounts of £1 2s. for the’ wife and 9s. for each child under sixteen. That would give the former soldier something above the basic wage and would be nearer to being a fair compensation for his disability. With respect to the repatriation allowances which the Government makes to malaria sufferers, I maintain that the rate paid is not an adequate compensation for the loss of pay incurred by an ex-serviceman suffering from a:n attack of malaria. The loss of time incurred is generally from seven to fourteen days. A family of three, for instance, would receive only £4 ls. a week in medical sustenance, while the husband was undergoing treatment for malaria. There is also an urgent necessity for an increase in the pensions paid to war widows. That is a matter which has been brought up from time to time in various ways, and I think the Minister should give it consideration. If war widows had formed a militant union and had affiliated with the Trades Hall - I mention the Trades Hall because I know the Minister has a knowledge of that institution, and will appreciate what I say - they would now have been in receipt of a real living allowance, plus cost-of-living adjustments, instead of the mere pittance which the Government now pays them. It is strange that a government which prates of honouring its obligations to those who served their country, pays only a miserable dole to war widows. Most war widows have to work to supplement the bare allowance they receive from the Government. Otherwise they would not be able adequately to clothe and educate their children and provide them with the. amenities which this Government so frequently boasts are part and parcel of the daily lives of Australians. Many of those widows have to choose employment involving working hours which wil enable them to be at home at certain times to attend to their children, and many of them are not able to stand up to the arduous hours of labour involved. The Government cannot plead that it does not possess the finances to provide worthwhile increases in allowances and pensions for ex-service personnel. Those increases are long overdue and it behoves the Government to demonstrate its sincerity to those who served their country in time of war. It can do so by making reasonable provision for those men who suffered in health by increasing their pensions and allowances to an adequate rate. I desire also to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which concerns the administration of his department. I have received a letter from a widow in my electorate which I propose to hand to the Minister for his attention. The widow states in her letter that her husband made application to the Repatriation Department about the 8th December last year for acceptance of a certain disability as due to war service. Her husband became ill some time ago from a stomach disorder, for which he had received treat- ment at various times while in the Army, and at the time’ the claim was made to the department he was too ill to be removed from hospital. From ‘ verbal inquiries made from time to time this ex-serviceman’s wife learned that the papers in connexion with her husband’s claim had been referred to the Repatriation Commission, in Melbourne, but she received no definite communication until a letter reached her on the 5th May, from the commission. That letter was dated the 3rd May, and was addressed to her husband. It advised him that his illness had been accepted as being due to war service and that medical treatment could be obtained by him at the expense of the commission if he applied to a certain doctor in Rose Bay. The woman’s husband had passed away on the 10th April and the Repatriation Department had been advised of that fact by the Legal Aid Bureau, whose assistance the widow had sought after her husband’s death. It seems to me that if a circumstance of this nature is advised to the department, and it does not make a careful check before advising a dead man that he is entitled to receive help, the administration of the department requires investigation. The widow submitted the Repatriation Commission’s letter to the bureau on the ‘ 10th May, and the letter was forwarded by the bureau to the commission asking that body to take immediate steps to meet the expenses incurred during the husband’s illness and to make arrangements for a pension for the widow. Up to date the widow has received no reply from the commission. 1 know the Minister is not personally responsible for such laxity, but it is a matter which he has an obligation to investigate, especially because such things harrow the feelings of bereaved persons who have lost a dear one and who have possibly adjusted themselves to that loss. When, because of the laxity of a department, they receive a letter which reopens the wound and causes them untold suffering it is most deplorable. I feel that there is a principle involved in this matter and there is certainly grave laxity in the Minister’s department.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) to anomalies regarding the issue of campaign stars to service personnel who served overseas. I refer particularly to the distinctions made between personnel who served in different theatres of war. With respect to the 1939-45 Star, no distinction is made between air-crews and ground staffs and administrative personnel who served on any overseas front other than Britain. For example, ground staffs and administrative personnel of the Royal Australian Air Force who served in Egypt may be granted both the Africa Star and the 1939-45 Star, while similar personnel who served for six months in New Guinea may receive the Pacific Star and the 1939-45 ‘Star. Yet, ground staffs and administrative personnel who served in Britain will receive only the Defence Medal. As the Defence Medal is issued to the Home Guard and to certain civil units, the injustice to volunteer dominion forces who traversed dangerous waters, and suffered casualties thereby, as well as by bombing, is plain. Actually, one Australian squadron, with its administrative and ground staffs, flew to and served in northern Russia. Yet, though these men were among the first to go overseas, and in most instances gave four to five years’ voluntary service, they are placed in an inferior position to others who did similar or less important or less dangerous work in New Guinea, and who, in some cases, may not have been called up till January, 1945. The position was invidious enough before the extension of the 1939-43 Star to personnel who served from 1939 to 1945, but, with this change and the granting of campaign stars, the anomaly has been widened, and the veteran members of the Royal Australian Air Force in the categories I have mentioned, and some members of the Sixth Division who were retained in England, receive the least recognition. The mistake seems to have arisen in the British definition of “ overseas service “. Whilst service in Britain was not overseas for British personnel, service in Egypt, Burma and other fronts was. Yet it does not seem to have been recognized that Australians who went overseas for service in Britain were in the same relative position as British troops who served in Egypt, or Australians of similar categories whose war service was in

New Guinea. The remedy lies in the previous Australian submission, as outlined in the following statement by the Prime Minister : -

The service of Australian Army and Air personnel, including ground staffs in the United Kingdom, Palestine and Sinai, should he recognized by the grant of the 1939-45 Star in addition to the Defence Medal.

I observed from very close personal experience that ground crews, in Great Britain particularly, underwent very severe conditions of work and suffered great privations as the result of the severe winter climate. They were subject to heavy enemy bombings and were called upon to ride despatches in blackouts and to undertake many other tasks of that kind. This matter might well be reconsidered by the Government, with a view to the award to” these men of the 1939-45 .Star.

Mr. WHITE (Balaclava) [4.1 a.m.. - I support the remarks of the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder). In order to demonstrate how unfairly this decision has operated in respect of Australian and .other dominion troops, particularly members of the Royal Australian Air Force, I point out that soldiers in the Australian Army, who may have been called up compulsorily, after serving in Port Moresby for only a few days, became qualified for the campaign star. Members of the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in 1939 and served in Great Britain as ground staff in a bomber or fighter squadron throughout the whole period of the war are disqualified from receiving a campaign medal. There were many casualties among them. Men who were lost by torpedoing in the Atlantic and those who became prisoners of the Vichy French do not qualify for the award of the campaign medal. Numbers of the ground crews in Great Britain were killed by enemy bombing and the risks ran by those who survived were considerably greater than those taken by many men with much shorter service in the Army in New Guinea; but they are not recognized for the medal because we look upon New Guinea as our theatre of war. Australia presented a case for these men, but without sufficient cause abandoned its viewpoint on this matter.

The War Office prescribed certain theatres of war, and it naturally did not include Great Britain itself as a theatre of war. That decision was fair in relation to many British troops who did not serve overseas, for instance troops serving in Scotland; but the members of the Royal Australian Air Force were mainly stationed at aerodromes and in the south of England, where they were subjected to enemy bombings and they suffered considerable casualties besides having been overseas. The Government has been remiss in not rectifying this injustice. The Canadian Government issued a special overseas medal to its troops, but some 2,000 members of the Royal Australian Air Force are regarded as being ineligible even for the award of the 1939-45 Star. As a former soldier, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) will agree that this decision is inequitable. When the Australian case was submitted to the War Office, it was not fully understood in Great Britain. The Government should re-submit it so that this injustice may not continue.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– I raised three very important matters concerning the administration of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard). I did not do so lightly, and, in common decency, the Minister should reply to them. The first related to the payment of an increased sustenance allowance to malaria victims who are forced to seek hospital treatment. The second was a request for information as to whether the Government had changed its policy in relation to increased pensions to war widows. The third matter related to a war widow, detailed particulars of whose circumstances I placed before the Minister. The honorable gentleman has had an opportunity to examine the points I raised. Honorable members do not raise matters of this kind simply for the sake of talking. We ask that the Minister furnish a reply now, indicating what he proposes to do. If he does not do so at this juncture, no action is likely to be taken in response to our representations.

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– Will the honorable gentleman furnish me with the name of the widow concerned?

Mr HARRISON:

– A letter on the subject is already in the Minister’s department.

Mr BARNARD:

– I have thousands of letters in my department.

Mr HARRISON:

– If the Minister has thousands of letters relating to cases in which widows have been advised some time after the death of their husbands that they are ineligible for pensions, his department is indeed in a shocking state. The Minister should advise honorable members making representations of this kind of the action which the Government may be expected to take, or at least he should inform them that investigations will be made into the complaints that they have lodged. That, surely, is merely a matter of courtesy. If the Minister declines to reply to the representations made to him, the Opposition will have to’ invoke some other form of approach in. the Parliament to compel him to do so.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

If the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) does not propose to answer theappeal made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison), I shall do everything in my power to keep thisdebate going indefinitely. Some time ago, I wrote to the honorable gentleman, setting out the facts of a case in which a widow who had been issued with a war widow’s badge had been refused a widow’s pension. Anomalies of that sort arisetoo frequently in the administration of the honorable gentleman’s department. The Acting Leader of the Opposition mentioned the case of ah ex-serviceman in> respect of whom the payment of a war pension was approved only after he had died. The Minister controls a huge department, for which large sums of money are voted by this Parliament, yet he isnot even courteous enough to indicate that representations made by honorable members will be examined and our complaintsinvestigated. If the Minister continues to treat us in that contemptuous way, weshall have to take other steps to force him to reply. I wrote to the honorablegentleman about another case, in whicha serviceman had been posted as missing,, but, although his widow had been declared ineligible for the grant of a widow’s pension, she had been granted a war widow’s badge.

Mr Barnard:

– Will the honorable gentleman supply the name?

Mr WHITE:

– I do not desire to disclose it in the chamber.

Mr Barnard:

– If the honorable member will tell me the name I shall make inquiries.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall give the Minister a copy of the letter at the conclusion of the sitting. If these matters cannot bo dealt with adequately by correspondence, honorable members have no alternative but to raise them in this chamber.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– Honorable members are entitled to more consideration than the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) is prepared to extend to them. I join with my acting leader in protesting against the utter indifference displayed by the honorable gentleman to representations which we have made during the course of this debate. Because it is possible that the submissions made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) did not register in his mind, I shall briefly reiterate them. The first related to the treatment meted out to ex-servicemen who are forced to seek hospital treatment because of attacks of malaria. These men are entitled to sustenance at least equivalent to the basic wage during the period they remain in hospital. The Minister declined to answer the appeal. The request was put in a courteous and appealing way. The case was well presented in tabloid form, having due regard to the fact that it is now 4.10 a.m. We shall not remain silent while we are treated in this cavalier manner. The Acting Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), who have raised this matter, are both returned soldiers. They have spoken tonight in the interests of ex-servicemen. The Acting Leader of the Opposition presented his case for a review of war widows’ pensions in an able manner, and some reply should be given by the Minister. The honorable gentleman also cited the case of an ex-serviceman who died while awaiting a decision of the repatriation authorities as to whether a disability from which he suffered was war-caused. Subsequently, a letter was received from the department, addressed to the deceased soldier, stating that his illness had been accepted as war-caused. The Minister should give an assurance that he will examine the matter immediately. His indifference is difficult to understand. He has refused to reply to the representations that have been made to him. He has not even expressed regret for the cruel treatment to which the widow was subjected. This state of affairs will not be tolerated by exservicemen. I always thought that the Minister had some of the milk of human kindness in him, but apparently I was wrong. Had I been in his place I should have been only too ready to express my regret for what had happened, and to give an assurance that proper steps would be taken to ensure that no similar cases would occur. I ask the Minister again to have some regard for the suffering of these people who have been placed in most unhappy circumstances by his complete indifference and that of his department.

Mr. CONELAN (Griffith) [4.13 a.in.”. - The present Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) is the most sympathetic holder of that portfolio that this Parliament has ever had. The honorable member for Moreton was at one time an acting Minister and he knows what is involved in handling a portfolio of this description. In World War II., the Minister for Repatriation suffered probably more than any other member of this chamber through family losses. The honorable member for Moreton ha? made a very poor contribution to this debate by making allegations against the Minister. While the honorable member for Moreton was acting as Minister in charge of War Service Homes, some exservicemen lost their homes. It is all very well for him to make accusations against the present Minister, but let him turn back the pages of time and examine his own record. He did little or nothing for exservicemen, yet, to-day, he decries the good work of the most sympathetic Minister for Repatriation we have ever had. The Minister is most sympathetic to ex-servicemen and their dependants. I am sure that all honorable members will agree that the Minister for Repatriation has done as much as any one in this Parliament to help ex-servicemen.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.What the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) thinks about the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) or the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) matters little; what matters a great deal is that members of the Opposition should receive some reply to the questions that they have raised. For a long time it has been a habit of the Government to ignore issues raised by Opposition members. It is time that practice was abandoned. The matters that have been raised this morning are of some moment to the members concerned, and to the country as a whole. Opposition members do not make speeches at this time in the morning merely for the pleasure of talking. We seek answers to our representations, and so far we have had no reply from the Minister for Repatriation. First, there is the matter of increasing the pensions for war widows but no reply has come from the Minister. The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) then raised the question of a campaign medal for men of the Royal Australian Air Force who served in Great Britain and still no answer is forthcoming from the treasury bench. The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) then raised a matter affecting the administration of the Department of Repatriation, and once more no answer has been given. I suggest that the Minister should make some endeavour to answer the points that have been raised, even if only for the sake of courtesy.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Miscellaneous Services, £172,430; War (1914-18) Services, £424,470; Commonwealth Railways, £618,000 ; Postmaster-General’s Department, £11,433,000; Northern Territory, £357,000; Australian Capital Territory, £289,000; Papua-New Guinea, £833,000; Norfolk Island, £1,000; Refunds of Revenue, £4,000,000; Advance to the Treasurer, £9,000,000- agreed to.

Preamble and Title agreed to.

Question stated -

That the bill be reported without amendment.

Mr LANG:
Reid

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, I did not hear you call “Defence and Post-war (1939-45) Charges “, under which the proposed vote for Defence and Service Departments is £16,774,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The committee debated that proposed vote for nearly an hour.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– Before the committee votes on the question before the Chair, I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to the fact that the Opposition raiseda number of matters relating to Defence and Post-war (1939-45) Charges. We resent that our spirit of co-operation in dealing with Supply to the Government should have been met with such discourtesy from Ministers. They havenot replied to any of the charges which we have levelled against their administration, or responded to our requests for information. Their attitude is contrary to long established precedent in this chamber. I make particular reference to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard). A widow who in December, 1947 had made application for her husband to receive treatment-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The Acting Leader of the Opposition is not in order in raising that subject at this stage.

Mr HARRISON:

– I do not intend to debate it. The Minister could easily have dealt with this matter.

Mr Chifley:

– The Acting Leader of the Opposition may rest assured that all the points which he has raised have been noted.

Mr HARRISON:

– That is not the point. This woman-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Order !

Mr HARRISON:

– I am not dealing with the case. The Minister might easily have expressed regret in this instance. When similar circumstances have arisen in the past, the Minister concerned has admitted that the incident should not have happened, and has promised to make amends. But the Minister for Repatriation remained silent, and ignored our representations. He did not display any sympathy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member is engaging in a debate on an issue which cannot be discussed at this stage and I cannot allow him to continue. As an act of courtesy, I have allowed him to say a few words, although the committee has already passed the vote involving the matters which he raised.

Mr Harrison:

– I have said all that I wanted to say.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

. -I join with the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) in protesting against the discourtesy of Ministers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to resume his seat.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall do so, but I shall take the first opportunity to complete my remarks.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The committee is considering the question -

That the bill be reported without amendment.

That is all that the honorable member will be in order in debating.

Mr WHITE:

– I am speaking to the question that the bill be reported without amendment. Certain Ministers and Government supporters are behaving in a most disorderly manner–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member is making a reflection on the Chair. The Chair has been most generous in granting honorable members latitude in making their speeches.

Mr WHITE:

– The Opposition has co-operated with the Government to enable this bill to be passed with reasonable despatch. The votes for many departments totalled millions of pounds, but the Opposition agreed to them in a few minutes. Some of us could have sought information or offered useful criticism on many subjects. I am surprised that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), who has been in the chamber for the last couple of hours, has not reproved his Ministers for ignoring the requests of members of the Opposition for answers to pertinent matters which they have raised. My parliamentary experience extends over nearly twenty years, but I have never known a government to ignore an Opposition on a Supply bill as the Government has done on this occasion. The Prime Minister should speak to Ministers about their conduct, so that it shall not be repeated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2279

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without amendment -

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1948.

Without requests -

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1947-48.

page 2279

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1948

Bill presented by Mr. Ward.

Mr WARD:
Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Copies of this bill are not available immediately for circulation to honorable members because of a delay at the Government Printing Office, but they will be circulated as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 2279

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1948-49

Debate resumed from the 4th June (vide page 1696), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.This bill seeks to obtain parliamentary authority for the expenditure of nearly £10,000,000, which the Government requires to finance works which will be in progress at the 30th June next. The amount is to cover building activity under the items of works and housing during the next four months. The Parliament. in adopting the budget provisions for 1947-48, included the amount in a total expenditure estimated at the time at £32,000,000 for the current financial year, but, owing to factors which, on a more appropriate occasion could he analysed, and, no doubt, criticized, a serious lag has occurred in the construction programme which the Government has undertaken. Consequently, the Government now seeks parliamentary authority to expend moneys next financial year which, had its programme been carried out to schedule, would have been expended within the period ending the 30th June, 1948. It is not easy for members of the Opposition to make any useful analysis of the expenditure contemplated in the proposed vote, which relates to items which appeared in the budget for 1947-48. No details were supplied in that budget which would enable us to form any idea of the number of works which have been completed. Of course we can refer to the building construction projects which were detailed in the budget papers, but although I have asked the Minister for “Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) to make available information as to those works which have been completed and those which have not, he has apparently found it impracticable to do so. In those circumstances members of the Opposition will not oppose the passage of the measure, but will await a more appropriate opportunity to examine the Government’s construction programme in order to decide whether the proposed expenditure is warranted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2280

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 1724), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.I strongly support this measure, which proposes to make available to “Western Australia the sum of £1,000,000 which was recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. At the same time I regret that the commission did not see fit to recommend payment of an additional sum of £112,000, which would have enabled the Western Australian Government to balance its budget. Payment of that sum by the Commonwealth would not have presented any difficulty to the Commonwealth Treasury because of the buoyant state of the revenue. Western Australia is one of the war casualties of Australia, for unlike some other States, it was unable during the war years to accumulate any surplus revenue. The deficit in the budget of Western Australia during this financial year has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the Government. The 40-hour week was introduced subsequent to the appearance before the Commonwealth Grants Commission of the representative of Western Australia. A royal commission was appointed in Western Australia to inquire into the state of the government railway system, which had deteriorated shockingly during fourteen successive years of Labour administration.

Mr Conelan:

– Are not some of the Western Australian railway services controlled by private concerns?

Mr HAMILTON:

– Private enterprise operates only one line in Western Australia. The royal commission to which I have referred reported that the railways were in a shocking condition, and suggested that some of the deficit in railway accounts might be met by raising fares. However, I am of the opinion that an increase of fares would have a further detrimental effect, because it would discourage people from travelling on the railways. A really sad state of affairs is disclosed by locomotive drivers who complain that they are frightened to drive locomotives any distance from the railway depots because of the condition of the track and of the locomotives and rolling-stock. The tramway system is in a similar state of disrepair. Despite all those handicaps, the Government has endeavoured to improve its financial position, although, unlike other States, Western Australia has suffered financially because of the recent war.

Western Australia is now in a period of expanding economy. Production of all kinds is increasing, and the wise expenditure of £1,000,000 now will reap a harvest of many millions through increased production in the future. The statistics of production of some of the States show a serious decline, hut that trend is not evident in Western Australia. From the pre-war year 1939 to the year 1947, the number of cattle increased from 767,000 to S12,000. In the same period the number of sheep increased from 9,100,000 to 9,700,000. Production of wool in Western Australia increased from 78,800,000 lb. in 1938-39 to 84,000,000 lb. in 1946-47. Production of butter, however, declined in the same period from 7,254 tons to 6,300 tons. However, the latter figure represented an improvement of at least 400 tons on the production of the previous year. Gold production in Western Australia showed a remarkable decline from £11,700,000 in 1939, to approximately £7,500,000 in 1947, and it is still declining, month by month. Yet the Government is delaying making an announcement as to whether it is prepared to grant financial or other assistance to the gold-mining industry of the State. I have heard the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) argue tha*- there are certain provisions in the International Monetary Fund Agreement which prevent direct assistance of a particular kind being given to the Australian gold-mining industry. However, the Governments of Canada and Rhodesia have overcome that difficulty and are openly providing assistance to the gold-mining industry by the payment of subsidies based on different formulas. The adoption of such measures is designed, not only to keep mines in production, but also to increase output. It is possible that similar assistance could he rendered to the goldmining industry in Western Australia. The necessity for the provision of such assistance is urgent, and unless aid is forthcoming many mines will be unable to continue operating. For the last three months of 1947 the value of the gold produced in Western Australia was as follows :- October, £641,000, November, £629,000, and December, £625,000. In January, 1948, it declined to £591,000 and in February to £435,000. Production in March and April showed a slight increase but it was still lower than in January. If the Treasurer delays the provision of assistance much longer it may be too late to save this important industry. I recall to honorable members that only last night the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) stated that it was not possible either to grant a subsidy or to permit gold to be sold freely in the markets of the world. The people of Western Australia would be interested to learn directly from the Government whether any assistance to this industry is foreshadowed. I commend the Government for its action in making a grant of £1,000,000, and 1 hope that in the near future it will see its way clear to grant a further sum. I only desire to add that, judging from interjections by the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) he knows very little about the vast State of Western Australia.

Mr BURKE:
Perth

.- I should not have intervened in this debate if the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton) had stated the facts fairly. The propaganda in which he indulged was not in accord with the spirit of this bill. The simple fact is that the decline of the Western Australian railway system, to its present shocking state began in the depression years, when a Country party-Liberal party Government was in power, because the money necessary for maintenance was not available. The deterioration which occurred then has never been remedied. The Government now in power in Western Australia inherited a sound position from its predecessor, the Wise Government. Whatever its plans for the future may be, all that it has done so far is to reap the benefit of the actions of the administration that preceded it. I say deliberately that it reflects no credit on the honorable member for Swan that he should take advantage of the debate on this bill to make a paltry propaganda speech. In view of its small population and large area, Western Australia is faced with great developmental problems, lt looks to the eastern States for assistance, because its development vnot only in its own interests but in the interests of Australia as a whole. Greater development of Western Australia is also essential for the defence of Australia. For those reasons, the bill now before the House is acceptable. Greater assistance will be required, however, and Western Australia looks forward to its claims receiving the sympathetic consideration of this Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2282

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 1724), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– I support the simple amendment to the principal act that is proposed to be made by this bill. As the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) pointed out in his second-reading speech, it was intended that candidates nominated for election as growers’ representatives should possess the qualification of being growers on at least 5 acres of orchard. It was found, however, that there was a weakness in the wording of the act that would permit the nomination and election to the board of a person who might not himself be an actual grower of apples and pears. This bill is intended to correct that position.

The 5-acre franchise is a vexed question in Tasmania. A comparison of the production figures for the various States reveals that it is an unfair franchise. The average production an acre is approximately 60 bushels, and in Victoria it is 120 bushels, but in Tasmania it is well over 300 bushels. It is obvious, therefore, that the Tasmanian growers are at a disadvantage in this regard. The Minister will perhaps remember that during the debate on the last amending bill I suggested that the acreage should be reduced, and I again urge him to consider that suggestion.

I consider that the board would function more efficiently if it had a representative at the major markets to which Australian fruit is delivered. That representative could check marketing arrangements, general financial transactions, freight charges and other matters at the point of delivery. It seems to me that that suggestion might well be adopted.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I support this bill. I rise only to inform the Minister that a number of growers will not register. The Primary Producers Defence League, with which the Minister is acquainted, has advised its members not to register, and there are many other growers who will follow suit. In other words, they will not take advantage of the franchise. The obvious reason is that they regard the hoard as merely a creature of the Minister and as having no freedom of action.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is going beyond the scope of the hill.

Mr RYAN:

– I am merely pointing out to the Minister that a large number of growers will not register.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House is not concerned with that. The question is whether this proposed amendment of the qualifications necessary for election to the board is desirable.

Mr RYAN:

– The Minister knows the situation now. All I desired to do was to bring that to his notice.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2282

H.M.A.S. SYDNEY REPLACEMENT FUND BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th June vide page 1787), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.This bill is a very simple one, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the great and memorable history of H.M.A.S. Sydney. It is outstanding in the annals of naval history, and is greatly respected in the Royal Australian Navy. H.M.A.S. Sydney was sunk in tragic circumstances in 1941, with great loss of life. Spontaneous and magnificent subscriptions were made throughout Australia to replace “H.M.A.S. Sydney with a cruiser, but the Government now advises that the Royal Australian Navy will not have a cruiser in the near future so it is proposed to perpetuate the name of H.M.A.S. Sydney in the new aircraft carrier. There are probably other alternatives for the use of the fund. The money was raised throughout the length and breadth of Australia. One suggestion was that a pensions scheme should be introduced for naval personnel. I ask the Government whether all of the suggestions made were carefully canvassed before a decision was made. The Parliament must make the decision on behalf of all the donors.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– I should like the Prime Minister to say whether he has had many requests from the donors of this fund for a return of the money they contributed. I have lodged one such application myself.

Mr Chifley:

– A few applications were received from small donors.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I have lodged an application from a town clerk in my electorate. As the money is not to be applied in the manner originally stated, it is desired that a refund should be made. I ask the right honorable gentleman to inform honorable members whether he has had many such requests; if so, is it not right that heed should be given to them? If my application is an isolated instance, and most donors approve of this bill, then the majority must rule. The right honorable gentleman can easily clarify the matter.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– The money in this fund was subscribed for the purpose of replacing H.M.A.S. Sydney. After the loss of the ship, Great Britain gave H.M.A.S. Shropshire as a gift to Australia. The money subscribed by the Australian people was not sufficient to buy another ship, and consequently it has remained in trust since that time. The trustees I understand have dispersed, and possibly the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) would have difficulty now in obtaining their views. E informed the right honorable gentleman some time ago that the Brighton Council in Melbourne which had subscribed £1,000 to this fund, considered that the money should now be applied to the purchase of unrationed food for Great Britain, as is done by the Red Cross Society with such success, as no vessel was being bought. I consider that that would be preferable. The Prime Minister must know that the money in the fund will not go towards the purchase of the aircraft carrier, hut will go into Consolidated Revenue. It would have been better if we bought our own ships from Consolidated Revenue and made a gift to Great Britain of the money in this fund, as suggested. It should be remembered that Great Britain gave Australia a cruiser for nothing. I ask that the matter be reconsidered.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

in reply - This was a very difficult matter on which to arrive at a decision. I have not received many applications for refunds, but representations in regard to the fund have been made by a number of people who were associated with the collection. The original objective was to buy a cruiser, but we found that the Royal Australian Navy and its advisers with the British Admiralty, were very strongly in favour of the purchase of an aircraft carrier. It was considered that the strength of the Royal Australian Navy could be best met within the resources available by the provision of an aircraft carrier. Due to that change of attitude on the part of the naval authorities, they felt justified in recommending that the money be utilised in connexion with the purchase of an aircraft carrier.

Not more than one contributor out of fifty has made a request that the money should be used for other purposes. One suggestion which was mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) was that the whole sum should be given as a donation to Great Britain. I asked those who made the suggestion to discuss it with the trustees and subsequently to make a submission.

Mr White:

– What did they do about it?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I gave them _ six. months to consider the matter and intimated that if I did not hear anything further from them in the matter, I would assume that nothing satisfactory had emerged from the discussions. I do not think it was a serious suggestion. The matter has been in abeyance for a long time. It was considered that a number of the donors would like a memorial in the form of a ship, and an aircraft carrier was recommended by the Admiralty. I should have preferred a cruiser, but the expert advice has been adopted. In summing the whole matter up the proposed action seems to be the best way of acceding to the wishes of the majority of the donors.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2284

PRIMARY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGES REPEAL BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th June (vide page 1787), on motion by Mr. Po.li.abd -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.This is a bill to repeal the Primary Produce Export Organization Act 1945 and the Primary Produce Export Charges Act 1935-38. The purpose of those acts was to collect on eggs exported and on apples and pears exported a small levy for the creation of a fund to be expended upon scientific work devoted to furthering the interests of the industries concerned. Subsequently, two acts were passed, one dealing with the marketing of apples and pears and the other with the export of eggs, and they contained provisions similar to those in the acts which it is now proposed to repeal. Under those acts, provision was made for the setting up of voluntary organizations, and such organizations have, in fact, been set up throughout Australia. The Egg Producers Council has sent to the leaders of the Liberal party and of the Australian Country party telegams protesting against the proposal to take over funds in the possession of these voluntary organizations. The telegram reads -

Board instructs me notify you its grave alarm statement to-day’s Melbourne Sun that Australian Egg Board will take over funds Egg Producers Council. Some of these funds have been contributed voluntarily by producers and the council is continuing to function. Board earnestly requests you reconsider this proposal.

At the annual meeting of the Egg Producers Council held in Brisbane on the 14th and 15th April of this year, it was unanimously resolved -

That a recommendation with supporting reasons be submitted to the Minister foiCommerce and Agriculture for the retention by the council of the whole of its accumulated funds, and the Executive Committee be authorized by the council to pursue the matter with the Minister and take such further steps thereon as it may be necessary.

In view of those representations, I ask the Minister to consider leaving with the council the funds now in its possession so that it may carry on its work. As an alternative, will he leave with the voluntary organizations the moneys which they collected, as distinct from such moneys as were raised under the legislation proposed to be repealed? If he will agree to that, the Opposition has no objection to the bill.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of funds from the Egg Producers Council and the Australian Apple and Pear Export Council to the Egg Export Control Board and the Apple and Pear Export Control Board, respectively. No objection is raised to the transfer of funds in the possession of the Australian Ample and Pear Export Council, but certain objections have been advanced to the proposed transfer of funds in possession of the Egg Producers Council. The money was collected partly under statute, and partly by voluntary effort. The Egg Producers Council consists of representatives of State marketing boards, which are financed by producers, and their activities are mainly concerned with the egg-producing industry, rather than with the export trade. Therefore, it is just that the money should be returned to the State marketing boards, and not transferred to the Egg Export Control Board, the activities of which are financed by a levy of id. a dozen eggs, so that it already has funds at its disposal. It is unnecessary that this extra money should be transferred to it when ii. can be much better used by the State egg boards.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee;

The bill.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I should like the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to reply to the points raised in the second-reading debate.

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

. -I point out to the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) and the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) that this measure is concerned only with those moneys in the possession of the Egg Producers Council which accrued to it by virtue of the imposition of the levy. Any money that came to the council from other sources will not be interfered with. The levy to which I have referred is the levy imposed under theprovisions of the Primary Producers Export Charges Act.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2285

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (NATIONAL STANDARDS) BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th June (vide page 1790), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill bo now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2285

QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 11th June (vide page 1928), on motion by Mr. Drakeford -

That the bill be now reada second time.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– I protest against the resumption of the debate on this important measure in the early hours of the morning. The time is now ten minutes past 5 o’clock, and the House is expected to debate a bill which a designed to extend the plan of socialization to which this Government has committed itself. It is probably the most contentions measure remaining on the business paper. Some of its features are of a disturbing nature, yet the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford) glossed over these features in his secondreading speech. One of its most unsatisfactory features is that the transaction which the bill is designed to ratify, and which will make the Commonwealth owner of all shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited took place nearly twelve months ago. The Minister admitted that the remaining shareholders were paid a sum of £455,000 for their holdings in July last year. Only seven months prior to that transaction, this Parliament had approved of the Commonwealth taking over half of the shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited. At that time we believed that the arrangement would be similar to the arrangements which had been made in respect of the management of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. We realized that the Government had gained a controlling interest in the organization, but we believed that its policy was one of close co-operation between government and private enterprise. However, seven months after we had approved the acquisition of half of the shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited, the Government entered into the arrangement with the shareholders which it now asks the Parliament to ratify. The Government bought the remaining shares without consulting the Parliament.In my opinion, it intended from the beginning to acquire those shares. Its original move was only a snide means of securing the consent of the Opposition to an arrangement which would give it a foothold in the organization. Its actions reveal a remarkable contempt for the institution of Parliament as a deliberative assembly. It completely ignores the Parliament whenever such a course suits its purpose. It laid the groundwork for this plan outside the Parliament in the knowledge that, having a majority in both Houses, it could enforce acceptance of its scheme.

The Minister supplied very little information in his second-reading speech. For example, he made no reference whatever to the possibility of a financial deficit resulting from the operations of the organization under government control. Also, he made no reference to the past results of the company’s operations. I take a pessimistic view of the outcome of this acquisition of an airline organization. The three State-owned airlines in Great Britain sustained losses totalling about £10,500,000 during the second year of their operations, which ended on the 31st March. One of these airlines is the British Overseas Airlines Corporation service, which has sustained losses amounting to more than £6,000,000. These figures are not reassuring to us, because Qantas Empire Airways services run parallel to those operated by the British Overseas Airlines Corporation. I shall not deal in detail with the history of Qantas, because the Minister has already done so. This organization was built up by private enterprise through the exercise of the imagination and initiative of men who were courageous enough to pioneer its operations. After they had developed it to the advantage of Australia, the Government decided to acquire it in accordance with its programme of socialization. When it acquired half of the shares from the British Overseas Airlines Corporation, it declared that the best results would flow from the cooperation of government and private enterprise in such a venture. Now we are asked to authorize the complete socialization of the undertaking. That is entirely different from the original proposal. It is interesting to read the press reports of the meeting at which the shareholders agreed to sell the remaining 50 per cent, of the shares to the Government. One Brisbane newspaper reported that regret was expressed that the pioneer enterprise should pass to government ownership in circumstances which virtually gave the shareholders no option of continuing their interest in the organization. That is particularly interesting, because the Minister emphasized that the shareholders were prepared to surrender their interests and willingly agreed to the Government’s proposals. It seems that they believed that they had no option. The Minister declared that the negotiations preceding the arrangement were conducted in a spirit of friendly co-operation. It seems that, in fact, they were like the discussions which took .place between Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf, or perhaps between Hitler and the Government of Austria. Obviously, the shareholders were left in no doubt as to the determination of the Government. Mr. Hudson Fysh, whose name has been long and favorably associated with Qantas, told the meeting, according to the same newspaper report, that the passing of control to government ownership reflected the trend of the times. That is an alarming observation, coming from an aviation expert of the standing of Mr. Hudson Fysh. I can imagine his feelings upon seeing his baby, which had grown to lusty manhood, being passed over to the Government in negotiations in which the Government wielded the big stick.

Mr Chifley:

– The discussions were most amicable.

Mr HARRISON:

- Mr. Hudson Fysh said that this transaction reflected the trend of the times. There is a degree of cynicism in an observation of that kind by a man coming fresh from a discussion with the Government concerning the transfer of the company’s shares. The transaction certainly reflects the trend of the times in Australia. Government airways is only another step on the long road towards socialization on which this Government has embarked with such alacrity and with such little concern for the rights of private enterprise or the welfare of taxpayers. The Government is seeking to establish a monopoly bank. It has experimented in the ownership of coal mines, airways and shipping. No doubt, Mr. Hudson Fysh had those experiments in mind when he said that this transaction reflected the trend of the times. I commiserate with him. I can imagine how he felt when he faced his shareholders as a prelude to handing over to the Government that which the Government desired because it is strong enough to see that it gets its way.

When listening to the Minister for Civil Aviation, I could not help thinking that he was not completely frank with the House. He spoke about the heavy expenditure involved in the purchase and maintenance of aerial transport services. He grandiloquently described this transaction as “ the fulfilment of a destiny probably never dreamed of by the original founders of the company “. That was a nice, round, mouthfilling phrase. I am sure that the founders of the company never dreamed of their concern becoming a government undertaking. The Minister’s observation was correct. It is far too late to note, in the classic phrase of the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), that we cannot unscramble this egg. The shareholders were paid eleven months ago, most conveniently, by way of a payment from the Treasurer’s Advance. That is a most unsatisfactory way of financing a transaction of this kind, which involves a question of policy on which the Parliament should first have been invited to express its opinion. The Government’s action in financing from the Treasurer’s Advance a transaction of this kind, involving a matter of public policy without consulting the Parliament, and, after the deed has been done, asking the Parliament to ratify its action, is simply tinkering with the Parliament. Such action should arouse our concern because it might in the future be magnified to a degree that will completely emasculate the Parliament. The method employed by the Government to finance this transaction is one of the most unsatisfactory features of this venture.

The Government appears to .be coming completely out into the open in implementing its programme of socialization. Its Communist-inspired plan for socialization is, as it were, emerging from the blue-print phase; practical effect is now being given to it under the tenyear plan we have heard so much about. No doubt we shall see that plan proceeded with step by step; and it will be futile for the people of Australia to express their views as they did at the recent referendum, because the Government is completely unconcerned about the views the people may entertain in respect of transactions which involve a change of ideology on its part. Thus, we can look forward during the next twelve months to further steps being taken towards the implementation of the Government’s plan of socialization. “Wherever a government has ventured outside its legitimate field of endeavour to engage in activities which are the province of private enterprise, it has left behind it a series of disastrous losses to the taxpayers of Australia.

Mr Drakeford:

– It is a case of losses with most airlines to-day.

Mr HARRISON:

– I have already referred to the losses incurred by the three major airlines in Great Britain which are .’State-controlled. Those losses amounted to £10,500,000 over a period of two years ended the 31st March last, whilst British Overseas Airways . Corporation, with which this new organization will practically run parallel, showed a loss of £6,000,000 during that period. The Minister cannot gloss over the possibility of financial loss under this venture merely by saying that losses are the general experience of all airlines. This venture runs parallel with all governmentcontrolled industries. The Government has power to extend many favorable conditions to ventures of this kind. For instance, it can exempt such an organization from taxation and from liability to pay municipal rates and taxes; and in the. case of airways it can ignore the contract or tender system and give to its own organization, as a right, the carriage of mails. Trans-Australia Airlines offers a classic example in that respect. That organization has shown a loss of £511,455 since it commenced operations. Now the taxpayers are called upon to foot the cost of £2,170,000 involved in this transaction. Furthermore, the Government is to increase to £300,000 its subsidy this year to Trans-Australia Airlines for carriage of mail, the corresponding payment last year being £103,000. The contract given to TransAustralia Airlines for the carriage of mails has already been discussed in this chamber, and attention drawn to the fact that the contract is no longer on a poundage but on a subsidy basis. Those facts indicate how the Government feeds the baby that it takes under its control. It is prepared- to give any and every concession to- its own- undertakings in order to help them to pay their way. But what has been the result of that practice ?’ That technique has been employed by governments in practically every State of the Commonwealth, and, without exception, State-controlled undertakings have shown a loss. Before- I proceed to deal- with such undertakings in the States, I shall examine the position which Trans-Australia Airlines occupies in the eyes of the general public. The number of passengers carried by air last year totalled 1,360,895. Of that total Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited carried 334”,577 ;, Trans-Australia Airlines carried 264,632; Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited carried 47,258; and. other operators a total’ of 190,448. Airways Outside the government-controlled airline Brans-Australia- Airlines carried 772,283 passengers as against 264,632 by that organization. If these figures are the barometer by which, we judge the efficiency of Trans-Australia Airlines or its popularity with airline travellers, Other subsidies will have to be paid by tile Government to offset’ an even greater deficit than £511,000. It appears that the Government, in an endeavour to force private airlines out of competition, is using the powers it possesses with respect to the control of aerodromes and aerodrome facilities by imposing- heavy annual charges for the use of aerodromes and landing facilities by those companies. Xt is also using, along the same lines, its power to grant’ .mail’ contracts instead of making these contracts available by tender. It hands them over to TransAustralia Airlines in the form of a subsidy. The reason for all those things is th.it the Government intends to squeeze out; of existence all competition from private airline operators. The Government’s plan to nationalize air travel, as instanced by its formation of TransAustralia Airlines and by its assumption of complete control of Qantas Empire Airways Limited may be best summed up in the words of’ the former member for Henty, Mr. A. W. Coles. What ‘he said was very interesting, and I was very amused when I came across a report of his speech the other day, because I well remember1 when that particular d’ebate took place in the House. JJ also recall with what dignity the honorable member addressed himself to this question. T. remember that he rose in what appeared’ to be righteous indignation at the thought that the Government even contemplated, nationalizing airways, and’ said1 -

The nationalization of airways would be a politically immoral act?, and must be so judged by the voters in the light of the 1944 referendum.

Those remarks appear- in the. Mansard’ report of proceedings on the 2nd March, 1-945.

Mr White:

– Then he took a job with the- Airlines Commission at £3>500 a year.

Mr HARRISON:

– Of course he did. but I echo only what the then member for Henty said at that’ time.. His words were pregnant with meaning; but if is interesting to note that the honorable member resigned his. seat to become chairman of the very nationalized airlinewhich he had condemned as a nationalizedform of air travel. I bring that matterup in passing to show the distinction between the views lie held’ then and thosehe holds to-day, and I sincerely hope that the Minister, in- the light of that’ precedent, will not offer me a similar, position, in Qantas simply because I have echoed the words of the then member for Henty. I should’ not like to find myself suddenly in charge of Qantas and’ the Minister must not read’ into my remarks anything except that I am repeating theremarks of the former member for Henty.

State-controlled enterprises are a barometer by which we can judge the Government’s prospects of success in its venture into industry. Let us see how government control has operated when the governments have invaded what is- rightly the province of private enterprise. Thereis the classic case of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. At one stage the CockatooIsland Dockyard was costing the Government about £60,000 a year and the loss continued to accumulate at that rate until the Government handed the dockyard over to private enterprise. Then thereis the Coalcliff colliery. During the period of government ownership which expired in March last year; not only were there almost continuous stoppages at themine, but also the nef losses for the year ended the 31st March, 1945, were £28,350 and for the following year £27,650. It is interesting to note that the Auditor-General in his last annual report, said that the major portion of claims which had arisen from Commonwealth control of the mine were in respect of payments by the Joint Coal Board which totalled £121,777. That is a sum which I believe the taxpayers would rightly resent paying. Such losses are inevitable in governmentcontrolled enterprises. At the 30th June last, the only coal mine under Commonwealth control was the Commonwealth Collieries Proprietary Limited, and in that case - and that mine is no doubt a selected mine - advances against losses totalled £32,858. The New South Wales Government had a number of government-controlled undertakings. The enterprises it established included joinery works, brick works, lime works, timber yards, power stations, sawmills, trawlers and a government-controlled meat industry which for four years did not pay Treasury interest or other statutory charges on capital indebtedness. It also had the Lithgow coal mine- which in 1947 showed a loss of £3,000 although the price of coal had been elevated to an extraordinarily high level. It had the State abattoirs which accumulated a deficit of £230,000. The total loss in all these enterprises was over £4,000,000. In Queensland, which has a Labour Government, only three out of eighteen State enterprises made a profit, which totalled £126,000. The other fifteen showed a loss of £4,447,216. Queensland’s government-controlled concerns included cattle stations, butcher shops, a cannery, produce agencies, hotels, cold stores, mining and smelters. There was a loss of over £4,000,000 in New South “Wales and of £4,447,216 in Queensland. A State coal mine in Victoria showed a loss of £90,000 for the year 1946-47. In “Western Australia trading concerns conducted by the State for the period 1938-1945 showed an operating loss of £207,384. That State’s ventures included brick works, engineering works, quarries, a shipping service and freezing works. That is the sorry story of all government-controlled ventures, yet here we find the Commonwealth Government stepping out into a wider field, and, having established its own airline and provided all the necessary machinery to close down ‘ private airlines it proposes to take over the control of Qantas Empire Airways Limited. The matters which justify condemnation by the Opposition are these: First, the continuance of the socialist plan of this Government in taking over from private enterprise a new venture, and, secondly, the method by which it has taken over this concern. Obviously pressure was brought to bear on the shareholdersof the company. That the shareholders saw no other way out is clearly indicated by the reports which I have read. It is obvious that Mr. Hudson Fysh, with a shrug of his shoulders, said, in effect, to the shareholders, “ “What can I do about it; this is in accordance with the trend of the times?” The fact remains, however, that while these negotiations were being carried on with the shareholders of Qantas Empire Airways Limited, the Government, instead of seeking the opinion of this House as to whether it should proceed with a venture of this nature, decided to use its funds to acquire the shares. Only now, twelve months later, is the House asked to ratify that action. The Government has treated this Parliament in a contemptuous manner. Actions of this kind lower the prestige of this Parliament as a deliberative assembly. I condemn every phase of these negotiations. I see no virtue in this venture. It is merely another attempt on the part of the Government to proceed with its Communist-inspired plan of socialization, which will result in added burdens being imposed upon the unfortunate taxpayers who are already groaning under the weight of the losses incurred on other ventures of a similar kind embarked upon by this Government.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I support all that has been said by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) in relation to this proposal. This bill records the obituary of a splendid concern previously conducted by private enterprise. Qantas Empire Airways Limited was one of the earliest airline companies established in the British Empire and had a name a3 good as that of any airline company in the world. It is now a government undertaking. the Government being the undertaker. Although the name will be retained and the existing directors are to continue in office - there are some very good men on the board - the organization will rapidly drop in efficiency. That is the history of government ownership of business. Government direction through a department may be good, because the resources of the government are behind it; but government ownership of a business is an entirely different matter. Irrespective of what government may be in office, the efficiency of this organization must fall away. The Acting Leader of the Opposition has proved that such, a falling-off in efficiency has taken place in every enterprise which has been taken over by a government. This proposal constitutes a further step along the road to socialization on the Communist model adopted by the Australian Labour party in 1921.

Mr Pollard:

– Hear, hear

Mr WHITE:

– The Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford) was one of the original signatories of the platform adopted by the Australian Labour party in 1921 at the behest of its Communist overlords. At that time, Mr. J. S. Garden, the general secretary of the Communist party, was fresh from Russia with the Russian slogans ready to his lips; The Minister is proud of this second venture in the nationalization of the airlines of Australia, this further step towards the complete sabotage of private enterprise. Here is his opportunity to fulfil his dream of nationalizing everything that comes within the ambit of his power. In another debate, the honorable gentleman said that certain companies were becoming monopolies and that he intended to show them what he would do with them. There are yet no monopolies in the air in Australia; but if there is one kind of monopoly which is worse than another, it is a government monopoly. The private airline companies have to pay their way. If they fail to do so their shareholders have to meet the loss; but the losses on a governmentcontrolled airline are met by the whole of the people. Many hundreds of thousands of people in Australia will not travel on government-owned airlines, but they will be inexorably taxed through their household budgets to provide the sums which at this unreasonable hour in the morning we are being asked to appropriate to finance this venture. Clause 5 reads as follows : -

There shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly -

the sum of Four hundred and fiftyfive thousand pounds, being the purchase price of the shares specified in section three of this act; and

And this is more iniquitous -

  1. the sum of Two million pounds to meet subscriptions, approved by the last preceding section, by the Commonwealth to issues of capital by Qantas Empire Airways Limited

In addition to these amounts, subsidiesare to be paid, but no mention is made of them in this bill. Honorable members will have to search assiduously to ascertain what the subsidies will cost the taxpayers. They will run into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. In his second-reading speech, the Minister admitted that at the time the contract was signed the total share capital of Qantas Empire Airways Limited was only £523,000; yet the Government propose.to pump into this organization no less than £2,455,000. The company had paid its way and had provided an excellent service with the capital of only approximately £500,000. This is how the Government squanders the people’s money. This acquisition represents a continuation of its programme of socialization, for the financing of which taxes are maintained at a high level. The Government should have left this company alone. The company sold out to the Government under duress. Having been keenly interested in aviation for the last 35 years, I do not intend to see this company, or aviation generally, upset by s government of the kind which now controls the destinies of the nation. In acquiring the assets of this company, the Government is merely pursuing an ideal, completely ignoring the more important problems that face it. It would be much better had the company been left to manage its own affairs. It may not have been able to acquire immediately the additional £2,000,000 worth of aircraft it required, but at least it was able to provide a splendid service with such aircraft as it possessed. In this bill we are being asked to add to the money which the Government is already wasting on another airline.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in opposing this bill and in protesting at the hour at which such an important measure is brought before us. The deal covered by this bill took place twelve months ago, since when there has been ample time to bring the bill before the House to ratify it. Why, at this late hour, should a bill, which seeks to appropriate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund an amount of no less than £2,455,000, be brought before us? At a time when the people of Australia are clamouring for reduction of taxes, it is appalling that the Government should enter into such an undertaking as this. Notwithstanding the fact that it has already sustained great losses in its earlier experiment in the establishment of a government airline, it rushes headlong into another expensive venture which may prove equally disastrous for the Australian taxpayers. Apparently this legislation is being rushed through the Parliament because some honorable members want to get home. Otherwise there would be no point in considering legislation at this time of the morning. One has only so look around the chamber to see that most honorable members are quite incapable of paying adequate attention to important legislation. No private enterprise would tolerate a practice such as this. The bill, of course, will be passed by weight of numbers, just as the International Wheat Agreement was ratified by this Parliament. I have no doubt that under Commonwealth ownership the Qantas undertaking will very soon show h loss. Again I protest against the hasty passage of this legislation. The measure should not have been brought forward at this hour. In fact it should not have been introduced at all. If the Government has a surplus of millions of pounds, then let it give some relief to the taxpayers of this country and thus encourage increased production.

Mr. DRAKEFORD (MaribyrnongMinister for Air and Minister for

Civil Aviation) [5.52 a.m.]. - in reply - I regret the necessity to reply at- this hour, but I consider that the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) is entitled to a reply to some of the matters that he has brought forward. First, I shall deal with his assertion that my second-reading speech on this bill concealed rather than revealed the real intentions of this measure. There is no justification for that charge, and I am confident that the Acting Leader of the Opposition has thrown it in only as a make-weight to bolster up the extremely weak case that the Opposition has been able to present against this measure. What is being done in this country with regard to air services is no different from action that is being taken in other countries, some of which are not under the control of Labour governments. That apparently has not been recognized by those who are alleging that this measure is part of a “ red “ programme drawn up years ago. I propose to give some information which I think may be helpful. I shall refer first to the purchase of the 261,000 shares from Qantas Limited. With the completion of the British Overseas Airways Corporation purchase, the Commonwealth became a half owner of Qantas Empire Airways Limited the other half share being retained by Qantas. The latter company had an issued capital of £304,000 held by private interests including shipping companies. In that respect it was similar to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is controlled by shipping companies, some of the capital in which is not held in Australia.

Mr White:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– We want to see. our airways nationally owned.

Mr Abbott:

– Who does?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The people of Australia. If ever honorable members opposite have an opportunity to return to the treasury-bench after this measure has been in operation for a few years, I am sure that they will not feel inclined to alter the principles that it lays down. I point out that in Great Britain Imperial Airways was taken over by a non-Labour government and heavily subsidized. The difference, of course, was that, while that organization was receiving subsidies, it was not held up to the public gaze as incurring losses. Qantas Limited was being guaranteed 7 per cent, on the total capital invested in these operations. The taxpayers were paying for that. I do not suggest t]] at the service was not carried on efficiently.

Mr White:

– The same board has been retained.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– -That is so, and the suggestion that the concern will now lose money because it is under government control, is an unwarranted reflection on the loyalty of members of that board. As I have said, Qantas Limited had an issued capital of £304,500, held by private interests including shipping companies, and the holding of 261,500 shares of £1 each in Qantas Empire Airways Limited was its main asset. Qantas Empire Airways Limited was faced with an immediate requirement of additional capital to the amount of £1,300,000, the proposal being that the Commonwealth and Qantas Empire Airways Limited should each contribute £650,000. This would have necessitated the raising of additional capital by the holding company, Qantas Limited. Throughout its history, Qantas Empire Airways Limited has been closely associated with the government of the day, and has been dependent upon some form of financial support by the Commonwealth, which has in effect guaranteed its costs and a measure of profit. The post-war programme of Qantas Empire Airways Limited formulated after consultation with the Government, comprises considerable expansion of pre-war standards, with the necessity for much greater capital because of the higher cost of modern aircraft and the increased services necessary to carry the traffic offering. In view of the financial conditions on which the company was operating, the substantial new capital requirement makes it necessary to review the general basis of the company. Under total Commonwealth ownership profits made by Qantas Empire Airways Limited can be retained in the business and also taken into account in the overall financial position -of services which are the subject of inter-governmental agreements, namely, the present service to the United Kingdom in parallel with British Overseas Airways Corporation. Apart from financial considerations, Empire policy has been public ownership of overseas communication facilities. Telecommunications is a case in point, and the following list of publiclyowned air transport operators gives a clear picture of the trend, which is not confined to Labour governments : -

United Kingdom - British Overseas Airways Corporation, British European Airways Corporation, British South American Airways Corporation.

Canada - Trans-Canada Airlines.

Trans-Canada Airlines was not established as a national undertaking by a Labour government; it was set up by the MacKenzie King Government. According to the Canadian Official Handbook for 1947, in a statement in the Canadian House of Commons on the 2nd April, 1943, the Prime Minister made it clear that, in the international field, Canadian support would be given to any reasonable proposal for international control in the interests of peace in the post-war year’s. In the domestic field, he stated that TransCanada Airlines would “ continue to operate all trans-continental systems and such other services of a mainline character as may from time to time be designated by the Government “ and that TransCanada Airlines was “ the sole Canadian agency which may operate international air services “. That service was not established by a Labour administration. All the fulminations against the Labour Government for having adopted this policy carry no weight, because non-Labour governments in other countries have acted in precisely the same manner. A strong defence aspect is involved, and any sensible government must ensure that defence is not neglected. The Government should control the aircraft so that when required for defence purposes, they will be available immediately. Mr. Mackenzie King also said that secondary services would be left to private enterprise, but he made it clear that no competition would be permitted either between a private company and a publicly-owned company or between two private companies. Yet, we are held up to scorn as if we were doing something detrimental to the public interest, whilst governments in other countries of the same political complexion as the Liberal party in this chamber are doing exactly the same thing. The list continues -

South Africa - South African Airways. New Zealand - New Zealand National Airways Corporation.

Joint ownership - Tasman Empire Airways Limited, British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited.

The Government of South Africa is not a Labour administration. In addition to those which I have mentioned, there are numerous examples of publicly-owned airlines in foreign countries, such as Air France, the Swedish A.B.A., and national operators of other Scandinavian countries . In other cases the recognized national operator has a large proportion of government capital, as, for instance, K.L.M.

I come now to the basis of settlement. Negotiations were held between representatives of the Commonwealth and representatives of Qantas Limited in May, 1947. The purchase price agreed upon, and subsequently ratified by Cabinet and by the shareholders of Qantas Limited, was £455,000. This included the right to all profits earned by Qantas Empire Airways Limited between the 1st April, 1947, and the 30th June, 1947, and as the net profit for the year 1947-48 was approximately £80,000-say £20,000 for the three months in question - the actual amount paid for the 261,500 shares as at the 31st March, 1947, ex the 1946-47 dividend which was received by Qantas can be taken as £445,000, that is, £455,000 less 50 per cent, of the £20,000 profit earned for the three months. This represents 34s. a share at the 31st March, 1947, as against 30s. 6d. a share at the 31st March, 1946, paid to British Overseas Airlines Corporation, or an actual cash difference of £46,212 for the same number of shares. This difference can be attributed to undistributed profits for the year 1946-47, a revaluation of certain assets, plus a provision for goodwill, including the name “ Qantas “, for which there was no allowance in calculating the price paid to British Overseas Airlines Corporation. The payment of £455,000 to Qantas Limited left that company with assets consisting mainly of cash and securities, and in October, 1947, the shareholders decided to put the company into voluntary liquidation. They were informed that the return would be a little more than 33s. for each £1 share held. The highest stock exchange sale of Qantas shares prior to the 15th May, 1947, was at 33s. 6d., which included the 1946-47 dividend of1s. 2d. a share. The suggestion has been made that the company acted under duress. I have not heard of any duress being exercised. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has stated that it was a perfectly amicable arrangement.. Of course, the Acting Leader of the Opposition suggested that the big bad wolf principle was invoked, and that the shareholders had to agree, or forgo any money. I should like to know whether the Opposition considers that we should have guaranteed money to a company whose profit averaged 7 per cent, over a period of years in order to enable it to carry on. Surely the reasonable view is that the Government should take the responsibility, as the governments of other countries have done, of conducting international air services. There is no reason to fear that under government control they will be less successful than previously. In fact, Qantas could not have handled the traffic, had the Government not been willing to provide the required amount of capital for the purchase of four Constellations.

Mr White:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is prepared to do it for nothing.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has made a number of absurd suggestions, and the honorable member is equally absurd. Since he has emphasized the activities’ of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as a successful private operator of airlines, I shall refer to the present position in the United States of America,which is the home of private enterprise. In America, shipping companies are not permitted to own operating companies of airways. In Australia, the main shareholdings in Australian National Airways Proprietary

Limited are as follows : - Huddart Parker Limited, 74,999; the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, 74,999 ; Holyman Brothers Proprietary Limited, 74,999; the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, 75,000; the Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited, 74,998; and Airlines of Australia Limited, 23,708. The total number of shares held is 398,708, so honorable members will see that the shipping companies hold nearly all of them. They have been endeavouring to obtain a monopoly of air travel. I make that statement advisedly, but they were developing that programme. The honorable member for Balaclava may sneer, as he usually sneers at almost every statement, but the official history of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited reveals the names of eight enterprises which became merged - perhaps I should say submerged - in the monopoly. They are; Tasmanian Aerial Services Proprietary Limited, Holyman Airways Proprietary Limited, Adelaide Airways Limited, West Australian Airways Limited, Airlines of Australia Limited, New England Airways Limited,Rockhampton Aerial Services Limited, and North Queensland Airways Proprietary Limited. That is how the combine has grown. In 1938, sixteen companies were operating; in 1944 only nine remained. The only unlimited characteristic about Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is its capacity to swallow its competitors.

Mr White:

– The Minister is making a misleading statement.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am stating fact, and reckless interjections from the honorable member will not alter them. There is absolute proof that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was gradually becoming a monopoly, and the Government was not prepared to allow it to do so. In the past, the honorable member for Balaclava has declared that airways should be operated by the Government, or by the Government in conjunction with private enterprise. The honorable member is reported in Hansard of the 8th March, 1944, at page 1,083, as saying-

Many of us are socialistic at heart, but we must be practical.

Those honorable members who are prepared to listen to reason will be interested to learn of losses which private airways operators have made in the United States of America during the last nine months of 1947. Eighteen companies, including some well known organizations, lost 10,983,195 dollars. If the honorable member for Balaclava requires any additional information, I can supply it. The honorable gentleman wants to tell the world that the only airways that lose money are those operated by governments, whereas the facts disclose that in the United States of America, which is the home of private enterprise, enormous losses have been incurred by private operators. I say quite frankly to the honorable member for Balaclava that under the conditions which obtain at present throughout the world it is very difficult for private airlines to make profits even though the number of companies and firms has been greatly reduced. ] could quote a number of examples in support of that contention, but I content myself with pointing out that the last report of American Airlines shows that during the three months ended the 31st March last it sustained a loss of 5,168,000 dollars after all necessary deductions had been made. In the corresponding period last year it sustained a loss of 508,000 dollars before tax credits were deducted. I could quote many more instances of the losses sustained by commercial airlines, butI do not propose to weary honorable members by doing so at this late hour.

The purpose of the bill is to enable our airlines to be developed so that we can provide a service which will be at least equal to that of other countries. I know something of the conditions which obtain in other countries, because I have been sent abroad on civil aviation affairs on three occasions and I have participated in numerous international deliberations on civil aviation. I can assure honorable members that the name Qantas is famous throughout the world. Surely no one can seriously suggest that that airline will lose its good name because it is to be equipped with the most modern aircraft available, which will be flown by the same personnel who are at present operating the company’s aircraft. The undertaking will continue to be administered by a board composed of substantially the same directors, and the ground and office staffs will not be changed. The criticism uttered by members of the Opposition that the reputation of the Qantas organization will suffer is ridiculous. However, I do not propose to say any more, because I consider that I have replied effectively to the criticism offered bv the Acting Leader of the Opposition, and I am satisfied that the action proposed to be taken by the Government is in the best interests of Australia.

Question pui; -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 17

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Drakeford) agreed to-

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to approve the purchase by the Commonwealth of certain snares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited and subscription by the Commonwealth to issues of capital by that company, and for other purposes.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed. Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2295

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 16th June (vide page 2056), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2295

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1946-47

Second Reading. Debate resumed from the 16th June (vide page 2057), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Mr LANG:
Reid

.- Our responsibility is not only to vote sufficient funds to provide for the adequate defence of this country, but also to make certain that the administration of those funds is in the right hands. Recent events have convinced me that the present Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) is not a fit and proper person to be charged with that responsibility. As Defence Minister, it is his job to see that traitors are kept out of all key positions in the Public

Service. That has not been done. The onus is on him to make .certain that there is not the smallest loop-hole for infiltration into key security posts of any one who is prepared to serve a foreign power against this country. It is his job to see that there is no repetition in this country of the Canadian leakages.

On his own admissions, the Minister for Defence should not be left in control of this department. He does not appear to have tie faintest conception of the dangers of sabotage and treachery. He told this House recently that the Commonwealth Investigation- Service had a -complete list of all Communists. He admitted that it included some members of the Public Service. Then he made the -staggering statement that “ the great majority of them hold positions which 4hey could not possibly use in order to betray defence secrets “. That means, that there are some Communists in positions where they can betray official secrets. That statement from a Minister for Defence is a confession of utter incompetence. How many Communists are there in key positions that they can use in order to betray official secrets? Is that the Minister’s attitude to the problem? How many does he think it would take to betray this country’s defences? What confidence could our potential allies have in us, if that is the attitude of the Minister for Defence? Could we expect the United States of America to share the secrets of atomic warfare with this country ?

No Communist should be allowed to hold any position whatsoever in the defence organization. But what do we find in the Minister’s own administration? Of all defence arms, none is more vulnerable to sabotage than is the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It has been hiring temporary employees as fast as they can be obtained. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) recently stated that it had 1,480 temporary employees. Such employees are not bound by rigid Public Service conditions, and do not even take the oath of loyalty.

The Minister has accepted personal responsibility for many of those appointments. He appointed Donald Mountjoy to the council itself. Mr. Mountjoy had no known qualifications for the position, but he had definite leanings towards the Communist party. It was the Minister who accepted personal responsibility for the appointment of Mr. Rudkin, a Western Australian Communist with a notorious war record. The Minister has personally sponsored the Public Service career of Dr. Lloyd Ross, author of the infamous “ Hands-off-Russia “ resolution at a time when Russia was an ally of Nazi Germany. Dr. Ross’s brother is known as one of the leaders of the Communist party in Australia to-day. Dr. Ross claims to have recanted, but that, too, is part of the Communist technique. It is strange, indeed, how the “ fellowtravellers “ - the crypto-Communists and the Communist activists - find such a consistent sponsor and defender in the Minister for Defence.

If the Communists desired to penetrate into the very heart of government administration, they would obviously concentrate on Canberra itself. Here they have direct liaison with foreign embassies. Through Canberra pass all important code messages between governments. All plans for the guided weapons range, war-time dispositions of troops, navies and air power, chemical developments and new methods of warfare are, sooner or later, handled in Canberra. The Communist general staff has a very acute appreciation of the advantages of Canberra centralization so far as its work is concerned. With a few key men or women in the right places, the Communist party would be in a position to disclose every offical secret.

With all that in mind, I addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) on the 14th April. I asked whether he was aware that the president of the Canberra branch of the Communist party, John Blom Pomeroy, residing at 33 Campbellstreet, Ainslie, had been appointed official photographer for the Council for Scientific and. Industrial Research. I also asked a question about Dr. Jack Atcherley, of 4 Ainslie-street, Ainslie, a member of the Prices Branch, and secretary of the Canberra Communist party. The Prime Minister said that he did not know of them, but promised to have inquiries made and to inform me of the result of those inquiries. I have not yet been informed hy the Prime Minister of the result The following day, both Atcherley and Pomeroy rushed into the press and denied that they were Communists. I waited to see whether the investigation service had a full record of Communist party members. I was not in the least surprised that Atcherley and Pomeroy should deny their membership. That was in line with Communist party directives. Then, on the 6th May, the Minister for Defence, during a debate on security measures, disappeared from the House and came back with a letter from Atcherley, which he proceeded to read into the records of this House. He said -

I take this opportunity to clear the name of a resident of Canberra whom the honorable member for Reid traduced in this House. 1 have here a letter received by the Prime Minister, shortly after the honorable member for Reid made certain allegations, and I now quote the letter in order to put it on record.

No mention wa3 made of any check by the Commonwealth Investigation Service. No investigation was made of the supposed full record of members of the Communist party. There was just what purported to be a letter from one of the men mentioned, without corroboration. and without any attempt being made to report on it. The Minister was satisfied to accept the letter on its face value. He was quite excited about it all. The fact that Atcherley had seen fit to make a personal attack on myself, appeared to provide the Minister with some great personal satisfaction. He was ready to sponsor Atcherley without inhibition. He was prepared to take Atcherley’s word. If Atcherley had been the key figure in a Communist network, and simply wrote a letter to the Minister, he would be quite satisfied. No more questions. No further investigations. How simple! How dangerous ! Atcherley denied that he was a member of the Communist party, but claimed to be a socialist. Then he made this rather important statement in that letter read into the records by the Minister -

In 1941, I was appointed as a shift chemist at the Commonwealth Explosives Factory at Maribyrnong, where I was responsible for the production of nitro-glycerine and cordite. In 1943, I was transferred, at my own request, to my present position.

Now, if .Atcherley was a Communist, on Ms own admission he was in a key position in a munitions plant in 1941, at a time when the Communists were bitterly opposing the war. Then, after the ‘Communists had somersaulted, he turned up in Canberra. Under certain circumstances, that move could well have had considerable significance. It might well, have been part of the Communist party’s war plan. In view of the Minister’s failure to submit a proper report to this House, and in view of his action in championing an individual to the extent of having his own statement of his position incorporated in Hansard, I now propose to take a certain course of action. I propose to hand to the Prime Minister certain documents. The first is a copy of a letter written by John Pomeroy as secretary of the Canberra branch of the Australian Communist party, to the Canberra Times on Thursday, the 7th February, 1946. A Canberra justice of the peace has certified that he has sighted the original of the letter, and that it is an exact copy. Pomeroy wrote the letter on behalf of the Canberra branch of the Communist party, in reply to allegations that the Communists “were infiltrating into the Ainslie Progress and Welfare Association. In the course of his letter. Pomeroy said -

There are Communists in all Welfare and Progress Associations in Canberra, but never has it been alleged that party politics have been introduced. The allegation that Communists are attempting to inculcate political doctrines into the minds of the boys’ and girls’ clubs, is arrant nonsense. Ainslie residents must be aware that the needs of youth are not being catered for adequately.

Pomeroy signed as secretary of the Canberra branch. Pomeroy is an official photographer with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Arrangements have been made for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to handle the key photographs in connexion with rocket-range surveys work. It is one activity with which no Communist should be allowed to have anything to do. It is now almost two months since I directed my question regarding Pomeroy to the Prime Minister, and it: has been a two months’ silence on the part of the Government.

The next documents I propose to hand to the Prime Minister, deal with Dr. J. R. Atcherley, whose denial that he was a Communist was read by the Minister for Defence to this House. First, I direct attention to the fact that one of the letters, dated the 4th October, 1945, in Atcherley’s own handwriting, as zone secretary of the Communist party, was written on official government minute paper. What members of the Public Service are permitted to use that particular kind of minute paper? Is it available to temporary employees, or only to senior officials preparing minutes for their Minister? The fact emerges, that during the Avar the Communist party in Canberra was able to conduct its correspondence on official government minute paper. If the Communist party had wanted official minute paper for any other, and more sinister, purpose, is there any reason tobelieve that it would not have been available to it ? The particular incident dealt with in the three other papers that I shall also hand to the Prime Minister, relates to the Moscow trial of a Canberra resident, who joined the Communist party to find out what it was doing, and who then proceeded to unmask its activities This man, Geddes, allowed himself to be admitted to membership of the Communist party, because he realized that that was the only way to discover who were members, and what they were doing. Because of possible victimization, I am most reluctant to use his name, but in view of the Minister’s attitude, I believe that the security of this country demands a complete disclosure of all the facts.

The first letter I shall hand to the Prime Minister is dated the 7th December, 1945. It was written from 4 Chaff eycrescent, Ainslie, to Geddes, and reads -

I am instructed by the Zone Committee of the Australian Communist party, Canberra, that your party membership has been suspended as from the above date, pending an inquiry into charges made against you of disruptive tactics in mass organization work - (Signed) J. R. Atcherley, Zone Secretary.

The next is a letter addressed to Geddes on official minute paper, inviting him to attend a meeting of the North Canberra branch of the Communist party on the 9th October, 1945, to reply to the charges made against him by a member of the branch. This is also signed “ J. R. Atcherley, Zone Secretary “. The third document I shall hand to the Prime Minister is a copy of the minutes of a previous meeting of the North Canberra branch of the Communist party, when Geddes was tried. The minutes are signed by A. C. J. Russell, secretary of the North Canberra branch. They read as follows : -

Minutes of A.C.P. Meeting, North Canberra Branch, held at the Ainslie Hall, 9th Sept.. 1945.

Moved - That the enquiry concerning Comrade Geddes be carried out according to legal procedure and the finding be communicated in writing to Comrade Geddes. Carried.

Comrade Atcherley’s report was read and voted on paragraph by paragraph. It affirmed that Comrade Geddes worked against party policy, by -

Agitating against the formation and support of the Progress Association for the Girls’ Club. After discussion, the charge was declared proved by the vote of C to 2.

Agitating against establishment of a joint Board of Control for the two clubs, in direct defiance of branch resolution. Vote 5 to 2.

Betraying Comrade Atcherley’s membership of the party whilst he was still an undercover member, by informingMr. Van Heck. Captain of the Boys’ Club, that the President of the Boys’ Club Board of Management was a Communist, and aimed at turning the club into a political organization.

Disrupting party links with the Progress Association by holding Comrade Pomeroy up to contempt at a meeting of the Association. Charge withdrawn through lack of evidence.

Creating further discord between the party and the association by violent speech against a member (Comrade Atcherley) at a meeting of the Progress Association, when Comrade Atcherley tendered his resignation as President. Vote 5 to 2.

Informing Boys’ Club members that Comrade Atcherley, their former President, had been kicked out by him (Geddes) from the Board of Management. Vote 5 to 1.

Refusing to attend meetings called for the purpose of affording him an opportunity of refuting the charges, or explaining his motive for such behaviour. Vote 5 to 1.

Moved - That Comrade Geddes be asked to admit that these charges have been proved against him and on admission of same, if he will undertake, in writing, to carry out party instructions, he be permitted to retainhis membership in the party. Vote 6 to 1.

Moved - That Comrade Low he deputed to approach Comrade Geddes to obtain such an undertaking. Carried. (Signed) A. C. J. Russell, Hon. Sec., Nth. Canberra Branch, A.C.P.

There, we have a Communist cell in actual operation! There is the typical Moscow trial technique - the Communist confession, self-accusation and the renunciation. But Geddes refused to co-operate. He preferred to take the independent line, and uncover his accusers. Note that Atcherley was an under-cover member of the organization. How many more undercover members are there in Canberra?

It is not what might happen at the progress- association, or the boys’ club, or the girls’ club, that is the matter of the gravest concern. Membership of the Communist party involves blind and unquestioning obedience to all orders. No Communist can be loyal to his country. Therefore, no Communist should be employed in any capacity whatsoever in the defence services. Was the Minister aware of the facts I have produced here, when he brought Atcherley’s letter into this House? If not, whose fault was it that he did not know? The facts were known to many responsible people in Canberra. How was it possible, then, for them to escape the vigilance of the people who should have known? Was the investigation service asked to make any investigation whatsoever? If so, did it fail? The House is entitled to know. If it could not uncover the leaders of the Canberra Communist party after they had been named, their addresses given, and their official positions disclosed, what confidence can we have in the investigation service? Who is going to accept responsibility for Atcherley’s letter being read in this House three weeks after I made my allegations in this House?

The Minister for Defence has wilfully blinded himself to the menace inside his own department. He has covered-up for Communists. He has either been hoodwinked, or he is travelling the same road. In either case, he has no right to remain in charge of the defence co-ordination of the Commonwealth. I do not expect this Minister, or this Government, to do anything about the Communists. They are too eager to suppress attacks on the Communist party. Not until this country finds itself in a position of extreme danger will the damage perpetrated by the Government in covering up these Communists be fully realized. If that day arrives - and I hope that it will not - this country will know where to look for the guilty men. They will be found on the treasury bench of this Parliament.

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

in reply - In view of the remarks of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang), it is necessary for me to take up a few minutes, even at this late hour, in order to make clear that the security arrangements enforced in this country are completely adequate and satisfactory. I shall explain them briefly. In the first place, every entrant to the Public Service is obliged to take an oath of loyalty.

Mr Fadden:

– That does not apply to temporary employees.

Mr DEDMAN:

– That is so. However, if any member of the Public Service, whether temporary or permanent, commits a breach of confidence by divulging the contents of any document which has passed through his hands, he is guilty of a breach of the Public Service Regulations and can be dealt with by the appropriate authority. Any breach of thi* nature is naturally investigated. Therefore, it can be assumed that no member of the Public Service has committed such a breach. Any person who had done so would have been dismissed. This procedure relates only to documents of a confidential nature which do not contain information which might be of assistance to an enemy. Public servants also handle documents containing official secrets of a defence character, which would be extremely dangerous in the hands of an enemy. These documents are dealt with by public servants of the very highest integrity. In fact, all members of the Service who handle such documents ha already been screened by the investigation service, which vouches for their integrity. Thus, there is a double screening; - an initial check of all permanent members of the Public Service, and a special check of those engaged on defence scientific research. The honorable member for Reid has endeavoured to confuse the House by referring to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It is true, as he said, that at least one employee of the Council, named Rudkin, did belong to the Communist party, and, I. believe, still belongs to it. However, he is engaged on scientific research work which is not of a secret character and has nothing whatever to do with defence work. He does not come into contact with any of the individuals engaged on defence scientific research work. In fact, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has nothing to do with the guided weapons project in central Australia. None of its officers know anything about the work on that undertaking. Therefore, it is not true to say that Mr. Pomeroy, or any other individual employed by the council, can learn anything about that secret project. That undertaking is the only secret defence scientific work in progress in Australia. The honorable member for Reid referred to the case of Dr. Atcherley. I did read in ‘ this House a letter which that gentleman had written. The honorable member for Reid had attacked him in this House, and he had sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) protesting that the statements of the honorable member were completely false. All that I did was to read that letter to the House. I offer no apologies for having done so. The honorable member for Reid now says that he has :proof that Dr. Atcherley was a Communist, and was employed in the Munitions Department in 1941. In that year, both the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), who is at present overseas, served as Prime Ministers of Australia. Therefore, if the honorable member’s statements arc true, Dr. Atcherley, a Communist, occupied a key position in the Munitions Department when the Opposition parties were in power.

Mr Fadden:

– How does the Minister snow that? The Labour party came into power in October, 1941.

Mr DEDMAN:

– The honorable member for Reid has just nodded his head in approbation of my statement. I have stated the position correctly. If the honorable member for Reid’s statements are_ true, then Dr. Atcherley held a post in the Department of Munitions when the Leader of the Australian Country party or the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister.

Mr Fadden:

– Does that make th, situation any better to-day ?

Mr DEDMAN:

– No, but it means that the Opposition, which continually attacks this Government on the ground that it employs Communists and takes no action to get rid of them, employed a Communist in a key position in the Munitions Department when it was ‘in office. That is all I have to say. I assure honorable members that the measures taken by this Government to make absolutely certain that secret defence projects are thoroughly safeguarded are entirely satisfactory and adequate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

– I refer to the item in the schedule, “ Subsidies, £8,217,654”. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) in his letter to the State Premiers, a copy of which he tabled in the House on Wednesday, stated -

Following the taking of the referendum in relation to rents and prices (including charges), consideration has been given to Commonwealth controls. It has been decided to advise- the State governments as follows: -

The right honorable gentleman at the same time made the following statement to the House : -

A review has also been made of existing subsidies and of rationing. Decisions have been made regarding these matters. I have to-day sent a communication to each State Premier setting out the Government’s decisions and I table a copy of that communication.

The letter, outlining Cabinet’s decisions regarding controls and the discontinuance of certain subsidies, 13 a damning condemnation of the Government’s tactics during the recent referendum campaign.

Lt also reveals very clearly the degree to which the Government sought to intimidate the electors into voting “ Yes “. The Prime Minister threatened that, unless the referendum was carried, consumer subsidy payments would be abandoned. He said -

If the Commonwealth Government were forced to abandon its subsidy plan, the price >f tea would overnight rise by 2s. 6d. to 5s. 3d. per lb.; butter would go up by 6Jd. per lb.; milk by id. a quart and the price of potatoes would nearly double. An ordinary three-piece suit would cost another 35s.; shoes would go up by 2s. a pair and those who .prefer kid shoes would have to ,pay 6s. more a pair.

The truth, confirmed by the Prime Minister’s letter to the States, is that long before the Government decided to hold a referendum, it had made up its mind to eliminate certain subsidy payments. This is shown in the letter, in which the Prime Minister addressed these words to the Premiers -

  1. . Many individual items of subsidies had already been eliminated by the 29th May, 1948 - this was referendum day - and certain others were being carried on under temporary arrangements which were due to expire some months hence and which it was not intended to renew.

That statement alone makes it perfectly clear that, while the Prime Minister and his colleagues played upon the fears of the people and went to much trouble to emphasize the danger of the abolition of subsidy payments in the event of an adverse vote, the Government had already decided not to renew some subsidies. Furthermore, according to the press of the 12th December last, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) announced that the Australian Government had planned to end price subsidies on certain goods as soon as possible. The Minister, according to the press, also stated that the elimination of subsidies would take place gradually to prevent any rapid or violent change in household budgets. The article went on to state that two methods were being employed. The range of items eligible for subsidy was being reduced and subsidies on goods in the eligible field were also being gradually reduced. Tinder the first method, wage subsidies and subsidies on jute, drugs and other commodities had been eliminated. Under the second method, prices of goods, such as tea, butter, milk and potatoes had been allowed to increase.

About the same time, the Melbourne Argus stated that the Government intended to liquidate all subsidies as soon as possible. In January, the Prices Commissioner was reported to have asked the Prime Minister to maintain remaining government subsidies in order to keep down the prices of essential commodities, but Treasury officials were said to favour the abolition of subsidies. However, on the 24th February, it was announced that the Government had decided to continue the price stabilization subsidies covering major items of food and clothing. These announcements, although conflicting, contained no reference to the Government’s referendum proposals. Furthermore, the official case in favour of the referendum prepared by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General contained no reference to the danger of subsidy payments being discontinued. It contained no reference to the subsidy policy whatsoever. The propaganda of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in that respect was not only political dishonesty, but was intended to mislead and intimidate the public in the worst possible way. I shall now mention some specific items referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter to the State Premiers.

In regard to butter the Prime Minister made it clear in the letter to the Premiers that the Commonwealth wa? prepared to continue any subsidy necessary to bring returns up to the guaranteed price to producers as determined from time to time. What about his threat of an increase of 6£d. per lb. in the price of butter to consumers which he said would eventuate if the “ Yes “ vote were not in the majority ? What about the Labour party advertisements which were designed to trap housewives into believing that, unless they supported the referendum, the price of butter would rise to a fantastic figure? Then, in a further attempt to frighten housewives into supporting the referendum, the Labour party published an advertisement in the press on the 27th May, headed: “The Big Referendum Question. Margarine or Butter. Vote Yes For Butter.” The referendum was overwhelmingly defeated and housewives are none the worse off to-day with respect to the price of this important commodity.

The Prime Minister in his letter admitted that as far hack as July, 1947, the State governments were informed that the contract system for potatoes would not be extended beyond the 1947-48 season. He added that the scheme depended upon the acquisition of potatoes by the Commonwealth and because it was thought that as the relevant legislation had to depend upon the defence power, its validity would become progressively more precarious. Notwithstanding this earlier intimation of the termination of the contract system, the Government threatened housewives that unless they voted “ Yes “ at the referendum, the price of potatoes would skyrocket.

We also faced the threat of higher milk prices’ as part of the Labour party’s referendum propaganda. But, if we read the Prime Minister’s letter to the Premiers, it is perfectly clear that when the Commonwealth withdrew the control of whole milk prices in September, 1947, and undertook to provide funds for subsidies for a further twelve months, it was not contemplated that further funds would be provided for subsidies after the present arrangement expired. Yet the threat was made for the purpose of intimidation that if a “ Yes “ vote was not carried there would be an increase in the price of whole milk.

Contrary to the Government’s story about the necessity for a “Yes” vote to maintain interstate shipping freights at a reasonable level, we have the Prime Minister’s own admission to the Premiers that this subsidy, introduced in August, 1947, was designed as a temporary measure only. The Prime Minister went on to say that numerous items in the original list of subsidized freights, such as those on sugar, hides, stock fodder, paper and linseed oil had already been deleted.

The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) in advocating a “ Yes “ vote, declared that, without the price stabilization subsidy, superphos phate would cost farmers about £10 a ton. Primary producers ignored the Minister’s warning and helped to swell the “No” vote, and the Prime Minister has now intimated that this particular subsidy will be continued for the present.

Wool was even associated with the threat that prices of clothing would increase, including an advance of 35s. for a suit. [Extension of time granted.] In his letter to the Premiers, the Prime Minister said the subsidy on woollen goods would be discontinued on 31st July, 1948, and that, in fact, it had earlier been under reviewbecause of excessive and rising costs and criticism and because it was causing excessive difficulties in the auction market, I draw the attention of the House to this paragraph of the letter -

The Commonwealth estimates that the stocks, of wool and manufactured and partlymanufactured woollen goods, on which subsidy has already been paid, are such that there need be no increase in the retail price of these goods on account of raw material costs for a period of from nine to twelve months. The Commonwealth Government assumes thatthe State governments will ensure that the consumer will receive the benefit of these very large stocks of subsidized raw wool.

The Prime Minister’s own statements and the indisputable facts contained in his letter to the Premiers disclose unmistakably that the Government instigated grossly unfair propaganda to promote a fear complex in the electorates with the hope of obtaining a majority “Yes” vote at the referendum. From whatever angle honorable members view this matter they will see that there was no warrant for the Government’s threats, and I cannot understand why the Prime Minister adopted the attitude he did and threatened that if a “ Yes “ vote were not carried certain goods which he enumerated would increase in price. It is a good thing that the people of Australia did not allow that campaign of intimidation to affect them.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I do not know why the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) has chosen this stage of the debate to go over this ground again. I thought all that ground had been covered before. I rise now only to say that I did not make any threat during the referendum campaign. What I did during that campaign was to place a simple case before the people and point out the hard realistic effects which would follow certain events. I left it to the people to make a judgment, after they had weighed all the circumstances. The position regarding subsidies has been perfectly clear. It was always realized that the subsidies were temporary, whatever that word my mean. It might mean years, or months. Subsidies were never regarded as a permanent part of the national economy. Tea is a striking instance. The Government subsidized tea because it believed that ultimately the price of tea would come down. That has not occurred so far, and if it had, the subsidy on tea would have been discontinued. I assure the right honorable gentleman that I made no threats. Long ago, I told honorable members that the purpose of subsidies was to stabilize our economy, and to keep down the cost of living, particularly in the interests of the less favoured sections of the community. During the referendum campaign, I pointed out that it was essential for the Government to be able to control, at all points, commodities in respect of which subsidies are paid. The Government did dot favour the continuance of subsidies in respect of certain goods, and those subsidies have been removed. The object of the Government is to control subsidized commodities so as to ensure that the consumer gets the benefit of the subsidy. The same comment applies to the subsidy on superphosphates. Payment of that subsidy could be made direct either to the manufacturers, who would be required to make corresponding price reductions, or, to the consumers. This is also true of the subsidy on butter. I am informed by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) that it will be possible for the Government through one of the boards associated with the dairying industry so to control the production and sale of butter as to ensure that the full benefit of the subsidy is passed on to the consumers.

Mr Fadden:

– That was well known before the referendum.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am merely stating the facts. I told the people that the Government could not continue to exercise the present control over prices and industry, and that unless it had full control over prices, so as to ensure that consumers got the benefits of subsidies, it could not be expected to continue the payment of the subsidies. Government policy in relation to subsidies will be reviewed next October. The subsidy on tea is being continued on condition that the States accept certain responsibilities. The subsidy on tea will not be continued indefinitely. That subsidy, like all others, will be reviewed from time to time. I notice some divergence of opinion among the members of the Opposition on this subject. I thought that the Leader of the Australian Country party was in favour of the abolition of subsidies.

Mr Fadden:

– I said that if subsidies were not paid there should be a corresponding reduction of taxes.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I meant that I gained that impression from press reports. Because press reports are misleading, I object to the right honorable gentleman quoting what the Argus reported me aa having said on this subject. For that reason, I have always made definite statements in this House, which are reported by reliable recorders. I can only assume” that it is the hour of the morning that has affected the right honorable gentleman, because he traversed a good deal of ancient history in dealing with this matter. The policy of the Government, can be explained briefly. Where we can exercise full control, we shall retain the subsidy; where we cannot do so, the payment of the subsidies will be discontinued. It is true, as I have said on other occasions, that the Government undertook to attempt to reduce subsidies. That has already been done over a wide field of commodities. It was done, for instance, in regard to the subsidy provided to maintain a certain minimum pay for women, and in relation to hundreds of minor matters. Certain subsidies have been continued, one of them being the subsidy on tea, because of the exorbitant increase of the price of that commodity. The subsidy on woollen piece goods was also continued, but, because of the extraordinarily high price of wool, the rate has been reduced. If that had not been done, expenditure on that account would have increased from £3,000,000 to approximately £11,000,000. Last year, and in 1946, the Government endeavoured to ascertain whether subsidies could be reduced in order to bring our economy back to a stable basis, independent of subsidies. My statements in regard to those objectives appear in the records of this Parliament. I do not threaten anybody. What I have tried to do is to put before the people the plain, cold, hard facts, and I have asked them to exercise their judgment on them. I hope that the people will be satisfied with the judgment they have delivered. This is a most improper time for the right honorable gentleman to refer to the letter to the State . Premiers. He knows very well the Premiers will assemble in Canberra next Monday to discuss some of these matters. I shall gladly offer them what advice I can.

Mr Fadden:

– I am giving the right honorable gentleman an opportunity for a rehearsal.

Mr CHIFLEY:

-The Government has received advice from all sorts of people about this matter. It will be pleased to co-operate with the Premiers, and give them all possible help, realizing that the control of prices is a difficult task irrespective of who attempts it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2304

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1946-47

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 16th June (vide page 2058), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2304

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every mein ber of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House ‘tr. the date of its next meeting.

page 2304

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at Its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter

page 2304

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Prices) Regulations - Declarations - Nos. 169-171.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, .&c. - 1948 - No. 30 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers’ Association.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Prices) Regulations - Orders - Nos. 3323-3325. National Security (Rabbit Skins) Regulations - Order - Returns.

House adjourned at 7.30 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be ‘fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 2304

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Apples and Peaks

Mr Holt:

t asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did the Auditor-General recommend the appointment of an independent investigator to examine thoroughly assessments made in connexion with the 1943-46’ and 1946-47 crops of unmarketed fruit in Western Australia and Tasmania ?
  2. If so, who was so appointed, and have his investigations been completed?
  3. Hae he presented any report; if so, where can it be inspected?
Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Mr. J. G. Crawford, Director of the Division of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture was Appointed by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to investigate the system of apple and pear crop measurement and compensation payments in Tasmania and Western Australia and his investigations have been completed.
  3. Mr. Crawford has submitted his report which has been considered by the Minister and a copy was forwarded to the Auditor-General on 28th April last. The report will be placed on the table of the Library for perusal by the honorable member.

Customs and Excise Duties: Concessional Exemptions.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 30th April, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) asked me questions regarding certain duty and tax concessions operating in respect of the Governor-General’s establishment. The following statement sets out the position : -

Customs - Excise Duties. - Freedom from customs or excise ‘duties is accorded in respect of goods for the personal or official use of a member of the family of the Governor-General or of a State Governor and also for suchmembers who arc not Australian citizens of the staffs of the Governor-General or of a State Governor. Similar concessions apply in respect of goods for diplomatic representatives in Australia or foreign countries, British dominions and possessions, for career consuls and trade commissioners, for their families and for such members of their staffs as are not Australian citizens. In the case of the GovernorGeneral the concessions date back to the inauguration of the Commonwealth.

Sales tax. - Sales tax is not payable at all by any person in respect of petrol, tobacco, Australian beer and Australian wine, because of the duties payable thereon; this position has existed formany years. Sales tax is ordinarily payable in respect of whisky, gin, brandy, rum and cocktails containing ingredients other than Australian wine. These goods are, however, obtainable free of sales tux by the Governor-General, State Governors, diplomatic and other representativesof other countries, and members of their families and staffs, subject to certain conditions which vary according to the status of the person concerned. Advice of these conditions is offiically given to all suchpersons. The concessions to representatives of other countries are in general accordance with international reciprocal arrangements.

With reference to the honorable member’s question regarding a car bearing the crown. I might point out that cars bearing crown.are those attached to the establishments of the Governor-General and the Governors of the respective States, and are thereforenot within the control of the Commonwealth Government

Overseas Investments in Australia.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– On the 28th April, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) asked me a question concerning overseas in vestments in Australian industries.I am now able to inform the honorable member as follows : -

According to information collected by the Division of Industrial Development for the period between September, 1945, and December, 1947, expansion programmes which were either commenced or proposed by established manufacturing businesses in Australia were estimated to involve ultimately capital expenditure of nearly £98,000,000. Businesses in which there were United Kingdom interests were estimated to account for nearly £6,500,000 of this total, businesses with United States interests over £11,000,000, and businesses with other overseas interests nearly £1,000,000. In the case of new companies which commenced manufacture in Australia between September, 1945, and December, 1947, or which were known to be considering entering that field, it is not possible to give a precise figure of capital expenditure which has been undertaken or is likely to be undertaken in the near future. Based, however, on forecasts which have beenmade, company registrations and other sources of information, it is believed that such new companies may provide for an ultimate investment of the order of £50,000,000 in Australia. Of this amount it is estimated that undertakings in which there will be United Kingdom interests may account for £18,000,000; undertakings with United States interests over £6,000,000; and those with other interests overseas over £1,500,000. The establishment of the ventures in which there will be overseas interests, referred to in the first part of this question, has resulted or will result, in the production of a variety of goods, including medical equipment, textiles, plastic fabrics, invalid foods, carpets, industrial chemicals, pharmaceutical goods, dressed and dyed furs, flexible steel shafting and other machinery, assembled motor vehicles, paper, cranes, clocking and harbour equipment, garage equipment, refined oil products, internal combustion engines, paint and pigment, toilet preparations, fluid measuring instruments, rubber products, elastic, metal alloys, vacuum cleaners and fractional horse-power motors, clothing and footwear, razor blades, rubber products, batteries, tools and gauges, clocks, and thermostatic controls. It is not possible to state the amount of capital being invested from overseas in each case.

Postal Department: Repairs and Alterations to Postal Property

Mr Falkinder:

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

  1. What restrictions are imposed on the carrying out by employees of the Postal Department of minor works, repairs, alterations and improvements to postal property, and when were these restrictions imposed?
  2. Has a direction been given that these minor works must be carried out by the Department of Works and Housing and, if so, who gave the direction, when was it given and what were the reasons for it?
  3. Is it a fact that in many of these small cases the work concerned could be carried out more expeditiously and with at least equal efficiency by postal employees without detrimental effects on postal work?
  4. Has this restriction retarded the rehabilitation scheme of postal property and involved heavy and unnecessary expense, as well as excessive delays?
  5. Will he ascertain what delays have occurred in typical cases in all States, and will he consider making a recommendation to his department, in conjunction with the Department of Works and Housing, that all minor works, repairs, alterations, improvements, &c, below a certain figure be conducted by the personnel of the Postmaster-General’s Department ?
  6. In view of the fact that the personnel of the Postmaster-General’s Department constitute more than half of the Public Service and give a useful service to the community, will he enable that department to employ its own artisans for these minor works and avoid such works being subject to any delays due to the Department of Works and Housing?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : - 1 and 2. Responsibility for the carrying out of construction, extension, maintenance and repair of all buildings for Commonwealth Government departments has always rested with the Department of Works and Housing (or its equivalent in pre-war years). The responsibilities of that department are detailed in the Department of Works and Housing (Functions) Order published in Commonwealth Gazette, No. 149, dated the 2nd August, 1945. 3, 4, 5 and fi. The amount of repairs and maintenance work carried out for many years to postal buildings has been inadequate, and many departmental buildings are in urgent need of alteration. During the war works of this nature could not be carried on and since the war ended there have been serious shortages of labour and materials. In view of the difficulties being encountered, an approach has already been made to the Department of Works and Housing, which has shown the Post Office the utmost co-operation. An agreement has been reached whereby the Postal Department is authorized to carry out, without reference to the Department of Works and Housing, any work of a minor character costing up to £23. It has also been agreed that the resources of the Postal Department may be used to arrange, with the approval of an officer of the Department of Works and Housing in each individual case, for the execution of urgent building works of a minor character estimated to cost between £25 and £300. The necessary arrangements are now being made by the Postal Department to implement this agreement, which will be reviewed by both departments concerned after a period of twelve months, with the object of smoothing out any difficulties brought to light by actual experience. I feel sure that, consistent with the demand on the nation’s building resources for other essential works, the procedure now agreed upon will enable Post Office maintenance jobs to be expedited.

Woollen Piece Goods and Suitings

Mr White:

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

  1. What was the square yardage and value of piece goods of wool (or chiefly of wool) exported from Australia for the financial year ended the 30th June, 1946, and the 30th June, 1947, and to the latest date in 1948?
  2. To what countries were such exports sent, giving value?
  3. What subsidies were paid on the manufacture of (o) textiles and (6) yarns in Australia, during the years 1945-46 and 1946-47 and to the latest date in 1948?
  4. What are the respective (a) domestic and (5) export prices of worsteds and single and double-weft Australian suiting materials?
  5. Has the Government been advised of shortages of piece goods usable for suitings by trade organizations and public bodies in Australia?
  6. What control is exercised over piece goods exported from Australia?
  7. Has the Australian Trade Commissioner in the Middle East any information regarding litigation in the Cairo courts regarding Australian textile exports; if so, what were the circumstances and who were the litigants?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : - 1 and 2. The following figures have been supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician in respect of piece goods of wool or chiefly of wool (including small quantities of piece goods manufactured from so-called wool such as hair -of the camel, alpaca, vicuna, angora goat (mohair), &c.) : -

  1. No subsidies are paid on woollen textiles and wool yarns as such but the following amounts were paid by the Australian Wool Realization Commission on raw wool purchased by

Australian manufacturers for tile manufacture of goods for consumption within the- Commonwealth : -

  1. Will the Government make the necessary arrangements for an exchange of information on Communist tactics and activities with other governments similarly concerned with this problem ?
  2. Has his attention been directed to a pamphlet issued by the Communist party, and . authorized by A. Ogston, of 695 George-street, “Sydney, threatening those urging a ban on the

Communist party with the same fate as those described as their “ red-baiting brethren iw Europe “ ?

  1. As this obviously refers to the murder of Jan Masaryck and other opponents of communism, is it the intention of the Government to permit the Communist pasty to adopt these methods of terrorism in Australia?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

t. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. I. have seen references in the press to the publication referred to.
  2. Arrangements have been in operation for many years for the exchange of information on all matters likely to prejudice security. 3 and 4. The particular pamphlet referred to has not been brought to my attention. However, the Government has at all times made clear that it will not permit any party or person to adopt methods of violence or terrorism in Australia.
  3. Representative domestic wholesale prices as fixed by the Prices .Commissioner for single and double-weft worsted cloths according to quality and workmanship range from singleweft, 10s. 9d. to 14s. 8d. per lineal yard; double-weft, 16s. lOd. to 22s. per lineal yard, There is no control over export prices but when the goods are shipped, exporters must repay any subsidy paid on the wool content of the cloth.
  4. Representations have been made regarding shortages of suiting material but as exports only amount to approximately -5.1 per cent, of Australian production of worsted suitings this does not materially affect local supplies.
  5. Wool (not worsted) piece goods are exported under a quantitative export system whereby manufacturers are allocated 25 per cent, of production for export. Worsted piece goods allocations are made to individual manufacturers within an overall allocation approved by the Government for export to approved destinations. The overall allocation for. 1948 is 1,000,000 square yards.
  6. The Australian Trade Commissioner in the Middle East has not referred to this matter in his reports.

Communism

Mr Lang:

g asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been directed to the publication by the United States Foreign Affaire Committee of a list of key Communists, including a number of Australian Communist leaders T

Division ok AGRICULTURAL Economics.

Mr Fadden:

asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. When was the Division of Agricultural Economics established?
  2. What are its functions?
  3. Who are the principal officers of the division, and what are their (a) qualifications and (6) salaries in each case?
  4. What staff is associated with the division ?
  5. What is the total expenditure upon (a) salaries and (&) other matters since the establishment of the division?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. In August, 1946, as a division of my department. Before that date it was known as the Rural Research Division of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction. 2. (a) To examine the effects of general economic policies on the rural economy: (6) to prepare regular economic outlook statements for each major industry; (c) toassist in special commissions of inquiry; id) to undertake economic research into the wool industry as specified in the Wool Use Promotion Act; (e) to examine and measure the earnings and costs of farms with special reference to the various factors affecting economic efficiency; (/) to assist the Director,.

War Service Land Settlement Division as requested, including the examination of land settlement projects as to suitability and estimates of economic opportunities for settlement; (g) to carry out special investigations as required.

  1. Name of officer, status, qualifications, and salary scale -

Crawford, J. G., director, M.Ec. (Sydney), formerly Economist, Rural Bank of New South Wales, Adviser to Minister for War Organization of Industry, Director of Research, Ministry,of Postwar Reconstruction, £1,162-£1,312.

Reid, P. A., Principal Research Officer, M.Agr.Sc. (Melbourne), formerly a grazier for twelve years and in Economic Department of Bank of New South Wales, £792-£864.

Strong, T. H., Principal Investigation Officer, M.Sc.Agr. (Queensland), formerly of Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock and of Soils Division, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, £792-£864.

  1. Thirty-three ‘professional officers and twenty administrative and clerical.
  2. Since the 1st August, 1946. - (<i) £38,588 18s. 7d., including £5,739 4s. 5d. paid for out of funds made available under the Wool Use Promotion Act. (b) £8,878 14.8. lid., including £1,244 10s. 3d. .paid for out of funds made available under the Wool Use Promotion Act.

World Food Shortage

Mr Fadden:

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

  1. Has he seen the reported statement of the Director-General of Agriculture, Mr. F. W. Bulcock, that “ unless Australia materially helped to meet the world food shortage, she would soon have to answer some very serious -questions “?
  2. If so, will he state what action, if any, the Government has taken to step up production in the food producing industries in this country ?
  3. What quantities of (a) butter, (6) cheese, (c) meat and (et) sugar does the Government anticipate will be available for export in the twelve months commencing the 1st July?
  4. What will be the destination of these -exports in each instance?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. I am informed that the Director-General of Agriculture, Mr. Bulcock, made the observations quoted when addressing a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Institute. He was dealing with the problem of world shortages of food.
  2. As the right honorable gentleman is well aware agricultural production lies within the jurisdiction of the States. However, the Commonwealth within its sphere has subsidized production of dairy products, stabilized wheat, subsidized fertilizers, and has taken such action as has been possible to encourage production.
  3. It is estimated that the following quantities of (a) butter, (6) cheese, (c) meat and (d) sugar will be available for export in the twelve months commencing 1st July, 1948: - (a) Butter, 77,000 tons; (6) cheese, 21,000 tons; (c) meat, 260,000 tons (carcase weight equivalent) ; (d) sugar, 300,000 tons (approximately ) . 4. (a) Butter. - Of the estimated exportable surplus of 77,000 tons, all but about 1,500 tons will be sold to the United Kingdom under the long-term contract and will be shipped as requested by the United Kingdom. It .* anticipated that about 4,000 tons may go to British dependencies. The balance of 1,500 tons will be shipped to special markets in the Pacific and elsewhere.

    1. Cheese. - Of the estimated exportable surplus of 21,000 tons, all but about 1,000 tons will be exported to the United Kingdom under the long-term contract under the same conditions as for the sale of butter. It is anticipated that about 2,000 tons of cheese may go to British dependencies. The balance of 1,000 tons will be shipped to special markets in the Pacific and elsewhere.
    1. Meat. - The total exportable surplus is sold to the United Kingdom Government which in turn may ask the Australian Government to divert quantities to other destinations. With the principal exceptions of the Philippines, India, Pakistan and the Netherlands East Indies, all meat shipped from Australia is either to the United Kingdom or her dependencies. The above-mentioned countries were originally granted allocations of Australian meat by the International Emergency Food Council, and whilst the council has since ceased to allocate world meat supplies to consumer countries the British Government has requested Australia to continue to supply the same quotas to those countries which previously received allocations. The total shipments of meat to countries other than the United Kingdom will be approximately 29,000 tons (carcase weight equivalent) during 1948- 1949. Of this quantity approximately 19,500 tons will be shipped in canned or cured form. (<Z) Sugar. - The destinations of sugar exports are determined by the British Ministry of Food to which all Australian surplus sugar is sold.

Murder in New Guinea.

Dr Evatt:
ALP

t. - On the 2nd June last, I undertook to make a full statement in reply to several questions which the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) had addressed to me as Minister for External Affairs concerning the trial of Filipino members of the United States Army Graves Registration Detachment at Lae, New Guinea, in connexion with the death of an Australian civilian named

John Scott. It was proposed to indict under New Guinea law six Filipino members of the Graves Registration Detachment who had been taken into custody by the civil authorities at Lae. A request was received, however, from the United States Embassy that the Australian authorities should relinquish jurisdiction to a United States general court-martial which had arrived at Lae. The United States Army General Commanding Philippines-Ryukus also made a claim to the Papua-New Guinea administration that jurisdiction should be exercised by this court-martial and not by the Australian civil courts. The Solicitor-General furnished advice to the Administrator that Australian law asserts full jurisdiction in local civil courts over offences committed against local law by visiting servicemen from friendly foreign States, particularly where the offence is committed outside the limits of any camp or other military establishment. In view of this advice, the administration of Papua-New Guinea proceeded with the trial before the local civil court. It appears that an officer of the United States Army court-martial had given an undertaking before the trial commenced that he would make available evidence which had come into his possession and which appeared to inculpate one of the arrested men. In the circumstances, the administration charged this man only, and discharged the others held under arrest. However, when the trial had begun, the defendant entered a plea that the evidence which this officer proposed to give was privileged. The magistrate upheld this plea and, as the only evidence for the prosecution was based on the evidence of this officer, the magistrate dismissed the case. Subsequently, the United States officer and the Filipinos returned under instructions to Manila. The Government has inquired through the United States Embassy whether it is proposed to bring the accused to trial under United States jurisdiction. I would add chat all that could be reasonably done by the Papua-New Guinea administration in the circumstances has been done, and the present correspondence with the United States Government has as its object the prosecution to finality of the trial of the accused.

Commonwealth Investigation Service: Special Police Squad in Queensland*

Mr Fadden:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in a Brisbane Sunday paper of the 9th May that a special police squad has been formed id Brisbane to counter Communist and other subversive elements and that it will be independent of the Commonwealth Investigation. Service ?
  2. If so, can this be taken as an indication that the Queensland Government regards the existing Commonwealth Investigation Serviceas being inadequate to deal with such activities ?
  3. If this is not the reason, will he explain the need for this State organization?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

t. - The answers to the right honorable gentleman’s questions are a» follows : -

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. In establishing such an organization, Queensland appears to have followed the longstanding practice of other States. An interstate police conference in 1947 recommended there should be co-operation in each State on all matters of internal security between the Commonwealth Investigation Service and the State police.

Immigration: Baltic Migrants

Mr Holt:

t asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. What contract or other document specifying conditions of their entry into Australia are Bait migrants from displaced person camp* required to sign and/or accept?
  2. Will he make available the text of these conditions?
  3. For what period of time are these migrants restrained from seeking employment of their own choice?
  4. What rates of payment and/or allowance are received by the migrant during this period?
  5. How many Baits does the Government hope to bring to Australia by the end of 1948?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. Displaced persons, including those of Baltic origin when volunteering for selection for migration to Australia, sign an application in the following form: - “I would like to emigrate to Australia under the above scheme and understandthat if I am selected I must remain in the employment found for me there for at least one year and that I would not be permitted to change that employment within tha’t period without the consent of the Department of Immigration.”

  1. In addition to signing the form of application quoted above, displaced persons are advised prior to embarkation that they will be admitted to the Commonwealth of Australia under certificate of exemption for a period of two years, and that a condition of the issue of this certificate of exemption, without which they would be prohibited immigrants, is that they must remain in an occupation, and a locality approved by the Minister for Immigration, for a period of two years from the date of their arrival. This is a normal immigration provision for certain new settlers of foreign origin besides the displaced persons being brought to Australia under our agreement with the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organization. On the expiration of the certificate of exemption, displaced persons may be granted permanent admission to Australia, and are then free to choose their own occupation and place of residence. These conditions mentioned above are similar to those laid down by Canada and other countries receiving migrants from displaced persons camps.
  2. It is a condition of the employment of displaced persons in any industry that the rates of pay and the working conditions should be chose laid down by Arbitration Court awards. If no award applies, the ruling rates and conditions for that industry are insisted upon. It is also a condition of such employment that Accommodation, up to the accepted standards for Australian workers in that industry, must be available without detriment to Australian workers. Due to currency restrictions in Germany displaced persons are allowed to take only the equivalent of 40 marks with them when they leave that country. They therefore arrive here virtually without funds. During the initial period after their arrival in Australia and before their placement in employment, they undergo an intensive course of instruction in the Australian way of life and the English language and are paid an allowance of 25s. per week during this period. From thi3 amount they refund £1 per week towards the cost of their maintenance, and retain the remaining 5s. to cover incidental expenses. This period of intensive instruction before they commence employment usually lasts about four weeks. Those who need it are also given an outfit of clothing free of charge and of course their fares to the jobs in which they are placed are met by the Commonwealth.
  3. Initially the Commonwealth Government undertook to bring to Australia 12,000 displaced persons per annum under its agreement with the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organization. The Commonwealth has, however, since indicated ite willingness to increase this figure to 20,000 displaced persons per annum.

Coal

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, upon notice -

What stocks of New South Wales coal wert on hand in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, at the 8th June, 1940, 7th June, 1947, and the 5th June, 1948?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

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

Militia Forces

Mr Gullett:

t asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Has he seen the statement of the Canberra Trades and Labour Council expressing their refusal to co-operate with the raising of the Srd Australian Militia Infantry Battalion?
  2. Is it a fact that the united hostels of Canberra, representing over 1,000 men, most of whom are of military age, regard the formation of the 3rd Battalion as being a “ threat to world peace “ and “ an attempt to create a New Guard Fascist Force which will ultimately be used against the workers “ ?
  3. What connexion have these decisions with recent visit to Canberra of Mr. Rowe, the Communist, who addressed the members of the hostels on the subject of the Communist victory in Queensland?
  4. Is this the same Mr. Rowe who advised the Queensland workers to go to gaol but who himself disappeared and hid rather than face the consequences of his breaches of the law?
  5. What support is the Government prepared to give to those trying to raise the militia battalions ?
  6. Is the Government prepared to watch the boycott of its own defence plans by Communists, without taking any action?
  7. If recruits cannot voluntarily be recruited, what steps does the Government contemplate to ensure the adequate defence of the country?
Mr Chambers:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am not aware of the views of the united hostels. 3 and 4. I have no information in regard to the movements of Mr. Rowe. 5 and 0. The Government will give full support to the Army in making voluntary training a success.
  3. The Government is confident that the voluntary recruitment will be successful.

Australian Regular Army: Enlistment of British Personnel - Medical Benefits to Dependants.

Mr Chambers:
ALP

s. - On the 11th June, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) asked the following question: - t ask the Minister for the Army the position if Australians in the British Permanent Army who desire to transfer to the Australian Permanent Army and live in Australia, and of British Permanent Army personnel who desire to transfer to the Australian Army. If transfer is permitted, will they retain their Army rank?

I now advise the honorable member as follows : -

  1. Australian and British personnel serving in the British Army are bound thereto until released by the British Army authorities. It is not possible to transfer from one army to another; the applicant must resign his commission or be discharged from the British Army nef ore he can be accepted as a member of the Australian Army. Any application to join the Australian will be considered on its merits. At the same time, there can be no guarantee that any person so changing over will retain his rank, although such rank would be taken into consideration in deciding the rank to be granted in the Australian Military Forces.

    1. As regards the transfer of members of the Australian Permanent Army who desire to migrate to the United Kingdom and join the British Army, these members will be granted their discharge from the Australian Army, but any rank granted on enlistment in the British Army will depend entirely on the British Army authorities.
Mr Gullett:

t asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Are medical advice and free medicine for wives and families of permanent soldiers to be restored, as was the case before the war?

Mr Chambers:
ALP

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

The question of the provision of free medical advice and medicine for the wives and families of permanent soldiers is now receiving consideration in connexion with the general question of medical treatment of members of the forces. As members of the naval and air services are also involved, the matter must necessarily be considered from the joint service aspect. I will inform the honorable member as soon as a decision is reached.

Re-establishment : Manufacture ok Furniture “ by Reconstruction Trainees.

Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

y asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -

  1. Is is a fact that the ex-servicemen working at the post-war reconstruction training centre, Adelaide, are manufacturing furniture for State schools in South Australia?
  2. If so, will he say who is supplying the material ?
  3. Is the State Government of South Australia reimbursing the Department of Postwar Reconstruction or paying for the furniture so manufactured?
Mr Dedman:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The material is purchased from funds provided by the Commonwealth for reconstruction training under the Commonwealth-States agreement.
  3. Reimbursement payments are made by the State Government and paid to the credit of the Commonwealth trust account for reconstruction training. The amount of reimbursement is calculated on the basis of cost of all materials plus 10 per cent., plus charges for any additional labour (excluding the labour of trainees and instructors). This is in accordance with the conditions which have applied since the inception of the Commonwealth Reconstruction training scheme in connexion with projects undertaken for any State department. It might be explained that whilst progressive and sound training in the principles and practices of the vocations is the primary objectiveof training in technical colleges, practical work of a useful nature and of as wide a variety as possible is an essential part of the training. Such work is chosen for its training value and not its commercial value. Projects for governmental departments and instrumentalities (Commonwealth and State), presenting opportunities for the right type of practical training, may be undertaken in the following order of priority: - (a) Projects for extension of Commonwealth reconstruction training facilities, e.g., fittings for new training units, extensions and modifications to buildings, &c. ; (6) projects for other Commonwealth departments: (c) projects for technical education authorities- carrying out training under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme and other State government departments and governmental instrumentalities; (d) projects for governmental housing commissions, governmental institutions and the like.

Motor Vehicles.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

n asked the Minister for

Transport, upon notice -

  1. How many applications for permits to purchase new motor cars have been considered and how many have been deferred by the Ministry of Transport, since it took over control of this administration from the States?
  2. How many of the total number of applications considered have been received from limbless and incapacitated ex-servicemen, and how many have been granted?
  3. What classifications of applications for new motor car permits receive priority over maimed and incapacitated ex-service applicants ?
  4. Will the Government consider granting permits immediately to all permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen who apply for them, provided such applicants are not already in possession of a serviceable vehicle and have not previously been granted a new car permit?
Mr Ward:
ALP

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

  1. Control of distribution of new motor cars and utility trucks has been taken over by the Commonwealth Department of Transport in two States only; New South Wales, from 2nd February, 1948, and Victoria, from 5th April, 1948. Since then the following applications for permits to purchase new motor cars have been considered and deferred (as at the 31st May, 1948) : -
  1. Applications are classified according to the trade or profession of applicants and information as to the total number of applications from limbless and incapacitated exservicemen is not available.
  2. Applications are determined broadly on the basis of urgency of need, having regard to the essentiality of purpose for which vehicles are required, in the course of which special consideration over other applicants is given to the needs of incapacitated ex-service applicants coming within that classification (essential users ) .
  3. Owing to the extremely short supply of a number of particular makes of cars, it would not be possible to grant permits immediately to every permanently incapacitated exserviceman without regard to a number of considerations, including the purpose for which the vehicle is’ required; the degree of incapacitation; the condition of existing vehicle (if any) ; the type of vehicle required and the urgency of need of the applicant.

Raw Cotton

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 21st April, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) asked me the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Which government department was responsible for the purchase of the raw cotton recently destroyed by fire in Sydney, and on whose behalf was it purchased?
  2. Who actually made the purchase, and what is the total value of raw material held by the Government?
  3. Does the Government make purchases for private traders?
  4. What is the total amount of money involved in such purchases, and what raw materials are at present held by government departments ?

In reply, I advised the honorable member that I would f urnish him with answers as soon as practicable, and I am notable to inform him as follows : -

  1. The cotton was purchased by the Department of Trade and Customs for allocation to Australian spinners of cotton yarns.
  2. The purchases were made by responsible officers of the department from quotations submitted by Australian agents of overseas supplies and after consultation with experienced spinners. The total book value of raw materials purchased and held by the Department of Trade and Customs for distribution to Australian industry is -
  1. The Commonwealth Government has purchased overseas, for allocation among private traders, certain materials which are essential to industry and which, because of world shortage in supply, can be obtained more succesfully by government negotiation.

(Note. - The butyl, which is a synthetic rubber, is for disposal but much difficulty i.« being experienced in finding a market for it. In addition to the above, sisalis also purchased on behalf of the rope and cordage industry by the Department of Supply and Development, but it is invariably delivered ex wharf and payment is effected within a few days. An amount of £830,000 has been allocated for the purchase of sisal for the year ending the 30th June, 1948, but under the existing arrangement payment for previous shipment is effected before the arrival of the next shipment.)

Civil Aviation : Trans-Australia Airlines.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 10th June, the right honorable the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) asked me a question concerning subsidies to Trans-Australia Airlines. 1 am now able to inform the right honorable gentleman that payment at the rate of £325,000 per annum is being made to Trans-Australia Airlines for the carriage of mail matter on air routes in Australia over which that organization operates. [ am advised that, in addition to air mails, Trans-Australia Airlines carries without additional payment all classes of mail matter when required. Extensive use is being made of the service from time to time for the conveyance of ordinary mails not bearing air-mail fees, including the pre-Christmas period and when normal rail or shipping facilities are dislocated. In view of the facilities made available by Trans-Australia Airlines, the amount paid for the carriage of postal articles by air is considered to be equitable. In reply to the further question asked to-day, I am informed that the practice of paying other airline operators on a pound-mile basis has not been affected by the decision reached in connexion with Trans-Australia Airlines.

Commonwealth Disposals Commission.

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Prime Minister, avon notice -

  1. Will he lay on the table of the House - (a) the report of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch, (6) the report of the independent committee, (c) the report of the AuditorGeneral’s Office, and (d) all other relevant documents, relating to admitted irregularities in the disposal of equipment, formerly the property of the United States Army Air Corps, located at Eagle Farm, Brisbane and Garbutt Field, Townsville?
  2. If not, what are the detailed reasons for such refusal?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

  1. The report of the independent committee, which comprised Mr. C. G. Brown, formerly

Chief Inspector of Finance in the PostmasterGeneral’s and the Defence Department and now Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs for Victoria, Mr. A. J. C. Wilson, Assistant Secretary, Department of Defence, on loan to Treasury, and Mr. O. J. Sweetland, formerlysenior inspector, New South Wales Directorate of the Board of Business Administration, together with the report of the Auditor-General’s Office, which formed the basis of the inquiry by the independent committee, will be laid on the table of the Library for the information of the right honorable member.

  1. The report of the Commonwealth Invesligation Branch, which was in the nature of » preliminary investigation only, and which is referred to and fully covered by the independent committee in its report, is regarded a? a confidential document and it is not proposed that this should be made available.

Royal Australian Air Force: Ex Gratia Payments

Mr White:

;White asked the Minister for Air, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House of the reason for the delay in making ex gratia payment:to certain members of the Royal Australian Air Force who joined as flying- instructors, and others in legal and medical musterings, concerning which payments repeated representations have been made to the Government by the honorable member for Balaclava and thihonorable member for Fawkner?
  2. Will he give a specific date by which these men will receive these payments?
Mr Drakeford:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are a? follows : - 1 and 2. This matter has been considered b the appropriate authorities and a decision ha. been taken. Authority has now been given for ex gratia payments as approved to bc effected without delay.

Mr. J. S. Garden

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. On what date was Mr. John Smith Garden appointed to a temporary or other position in the Public Service?
  2. On whose recommendation ot at whose request was he appointed?
  3. What salaries and travelling expenses waihe paid from time to time, and on what date,did such payments begin and end?
  4. What were the total amounts paid to him in (o.) salary, (b) travelling expenses and (c) other expenses, in detail?
  5. Did he contribute to the superannuation fund, and, if so, what weekly amounts were paid, and to what payments from the fund i* he entitled?
  6. Did he at any time work for, or have access to the records of, departments other than that department to which his salary and other expenses were chargeable?
  7. Did the Minister of the department to which his salary and other expenses were chargeable consent to hie employment by or his access to the other departments?
  8. What are the names and appointments of other persons who are attached to Commonwealth departments in positions similar to that applying to the case of Mr. Garden?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

  1. 23rd March, 1942.
  2. Mr. Garden was employed, on the recommendation of the then Minister for Labour and National Service, in the Department of Labour and National Service, as an employee exempt from theprovisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. 3 and 4. Salary at £10 per week from 23rd March, 1942, to 23rd December, 1947. Payments by Department of Labour and National Service -
  1. No.
  2. Mr. Garden did not work for any department other than that to which his salary and other expenses were charged. Officers and employees of one department are not allowed access to the records of another department in the ordinary course of business without special approval. No special approval was given while Mr. Garden was an employee of the Department of Labour and National Service for him to have access to the records of any other department.
  3. See answer to No. 6.
  4. Nil.

Public Service.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 8th June, the honorable member forReid (Mr. Lang) addressed a question to me asking for a list of all Commonwealth temporary employees in receipt of a salary of more than £500 per annum. I have ascertained that the Public Service Board has no such list and that to undertake the preparation and completion of the details required would involve communicating with all Commonwealth departments and agencies. Whilst the compilation of such a list would not be difficult in some departments it would be onerous in many. The staff sections of most departments have been seriously overworked for some time. It is pointed out, however, that the number would be small relative to the total of temporary employees.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 June 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1948/19480617_reps_18_197/>.