House of Representatives
26 May 1949

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 204

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Motion (by Mr. Chifley - by leave - agreed to -

That, during the absence of the Speaker, the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committee! of this Bouse.

page 204

QUESTION

DISPUTE AT IKON KNOB

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Labour and National Service supply me with any information about any move that may have been made by any of the parties interested in the dispute at Iron Knob to approach the Arbitration Court ?

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

– Yes. The latest message, which I received from Melbourne an hour ago, stated that the representative of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, Mr. Scott, had made an application to the court for a variation of the association’s award to include some provision for the transport of members up the notorious bill at Iron Knob. I believe that other organizations are thinking of acting similarly and a general application may be made to the court so that the case may be properly discussed in the near future.

page 205

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact, as reported in the press, that the United States of America, has made approaches to countries in the Asiatic and Pacific areas to present a united diplomatic front against Communist penetration in Asia and whether Australia has been the recipient of any such note. Has the Government considered whether it proposes to give recognition to the Communist forces as the de facto government of China? Having regard to the fact that the last statement on international affairs presented to this House contained no reference to events in China, does the Government propose during the current sittings to make any statement upon Communist penetration in Asia so that we may be better able to understand what is happening there?

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

– There have been no special conferences on the subject of Communist penetration in Asia. On a number of occasions there have been talks about the situation in various Asiatic countries, of course, but there has been no gathering together of representatives of interested countries. Statements have been made on the subject by various foreign ministers. In answer to the honorable member’s question about the possible recognition of Communist leaders in China as the de facto government of that country, all I can say is that certain discussions have been taking place and that there has been an exchange of views between various countries, including Australia, regarding the general position in China and business relationships and diplomatic representation. No conclusions have been reached on that particular point. The position is quite fluid at the moment, and is merely the subject of discussion. The honorable member has also asked whether the House will be given an opportunity during this parliamentary period to debate international affairs. If honor. able members generally consider that a statement should be made to the House on that subject, I shall be only too glad to make it. As the honorable member is aware. one may make a statement upon certain international developments today, but within a week the position will change completely. However, consideration will be given to his suggestion.

page 205

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister seen statements attributed to the London Times that many overseas buyers think that the devaluation of the f i is inevitable, and are postponing not only their payments in sterling but also their purchases of British goods? Did the right honorable gentleman discuss that subject with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during his recent visit to London ? Has he any information to impart to the House on the matter?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The devaluation of sterling, and, indeed, the devaluation of the Australian £1 have been discussed by many people who write in the press and regard themselves as financial experts. I can only say at the moment that there has been no change in the views which I have expressed to the House on behalf of the Australian Government in my earlier replies to similar questions. As long as British sterling retains its present relation to the dollar, the Australian £1 will retain its present relation to sterling. As the honorable member for Griffith has stated, suggestions have been made that sterling itself may be depreciated. Certain economic experts in the United States of America, who do not speak on the matter officially, suggest that it may be necessary at some time to re-adjust some European currencies. The expressions of such opinions do a great deal of harm, because they cause speculators to move their “ hot “ money from place to place with the object of making a profit out of the transfers. In that way, considerable instability is caused. I believe that talks which have taken place about the devaluation of some European currencies have not assisted the rehabilitation of Europe. During my recent visit to London, I did not discuss with the Prime Minister of Great Britain the devaluation or otherwise of sterling, but I spoke at some length with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, about financial matters.

Mr Holt:

– Would a proposal to devalue the currency have to be approved under the Bretton Woods Agreement?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The position under the Bretton Woods Agreement is that the currency of a particular country may be appreciated or devalued by 10 per cent, without the approval of the International Monetary Fund. If the increase or decrease should exceed 10 per cent., a certain time is allowed during which the fund must agree or disagree with the alteration. ; Mr. Holt. - I referred to the British £1.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The position which I have briefly described applies to the currencies of all countries that are members of the fund. In reply to the last portion of the question by the honorable member for Griffith, I did discuss general financial matters with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know his views fairly fully on the subject.

page 206

QUESTION

STEEL

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the Government is importing Japanese steel at £42 a ton to make dog spikes for railway tracks? Is it also a fact that the best quality steel can be produced in Australia at £16 10s. a ton? Is it necessary to import Japanese steel because Communist-controlled mining unions refuse to produce sufficient coal to keep our steel plants in operation ? What action, if any, does the Government intend to take to curb these communistic activities and increase steel production ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I shall be glad to answer those portions of the right honorable gentleman’s .question which relate to matters of fact, but I point out that those portions which express opinions deal not with fact but merely with his personal point of view. The answer to the first portion of the right honorable gentleman’s question is “ Ye9 “. Rods for the manufacture of dog spikes for the New South Wales railways have been and are being imported from Japan - or, at least, permission has been given for their importation. I understand that permission has also been given by the authority directly concerned for the importation of certain structural steel. It jb true that steel production in this country is not. being carried on to the full capacity of the plants. Our estimated maximum production of steel annually is approximately 1,750,000 tons, but last year only 1,250,000 or 1,300,000 tons were produced. As stated by the right honorable gentleman, undoubtedly one reason for the discrepancy between the actual and the potential production of steel is the shortage of coal, due to mine stoppages and industrial troubles. However, I might Gay that those troubles were not all caused by Communists. It is also obvious that even if the steel industry were producing to maximum capacity it. would not fulfil the local demand. Efforts have been made to meet the deficiency, not only by importing steel from Japan, but also by importing French steel, and authority has been given for the importation of 20,000 tons from that country. There are good reasons why we should import steel from France, which is one of our best customers. I also discussed with M. Schuman, a prominent member of the French Government, the possibility of importing structural steel from France. The references by the right honorable member for Darling Downs to “ Communistcontrolled mining unions “ represents, of course, his personal view, but I remind him that there are other causes for the inadequate steel production. However, I admit quite frankly that the failure to produce sufficient coal, particularly in the Newcastle district, has reduced the production of steel, which is so badly needed at present

page 207

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question 10 the Minister representing the Minister for Health by pointing out that in the electorate that I represent there is a public hospital and two sanatoriums for the treatment of tuberculosis. I ask the Minister : - (1) Is the anti-tuberculosis vaccine B.C.G. being produced in quantities sufficient to supply the needs of Australia? (2) Has the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories perfected what is known as a “ f freeze-dry “ process, and, if so, is this in operation? (3) How is the vaccine B.C.G. distributed to the States? (4) What sum of money has the present Government made available for the treatment and eradication of tuberculosis?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The answer to the first of the honorable member’s questions is “ Yes “. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne can, and do, produce sufficient B.C.G. vaccine for the nation’s needs. In reply to the honorable member’s third question, the National Health and Medical Research Council supplies State Departments of Health with sufficient vaccine to meet requirements, which is done under medical supervision. Although the “ freeze-dry “ process mentioned in the second question is highly technical and difficult to explain, I do know a little about it. Serum laboratories in Australia, and in other countries, have been experimenting with the process for a leng time, and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne are now preparing the vaccine by that method. However, the real difficulty associated with the “ freeze-dry “ process is not in preparing the vaccine but in determining the real value of that process. Doctors and scientists say that in no country has the method been perfected to such a degree that “ freeze-dry “ serum can te accepted as a substitute for the fresh, liquid vaccine. Between 1945 and 194S approximately £140,000 has been spent in trying to prevent or cure tuberculosis. For this year, a sum of £600,000 has been made available. I can say, with the approval of the Prime Minister, that, whenever it is physically possible to spend more money upon the prevention and cure of tuberculosis, there will be no limit to the amount of money that the Government will be willing to spend.

page 207

QUESTION

PROPOSED ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Mr HOLT:

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that in the last month for which figures are available the gap between British exports and imports, in terms of money value, was approximately double the size of the gap for the preceding m nth. Reports are now circulating regarding the inevitability of the devaluation of sterling, owing to Britain’s difficult economic position. Will the right honorable gentleman say whether advantage was taken of the recent gathering of Empire Prime Ministers in London to discuss the possibility of the countries of the British Commonwealth holding an economic conference? Is it it fact that no full dress economic conference has been held by British Commonwealth countries since 1932? If the holding of an economic conference was not discussed by the conference of Empire Prime Ministers, will the Australian Government initiate discussions with a view to the convening of such a conference ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– No economic matters were discussed at the recent conference of Empire Prime Ministers in London. Only one matter was discussed by the conference and on that matter I have already made a statement to the House. The Australian Government does not propose to suggest that a conference of Commonwealth countries be convened to discuss economic matters, not because it disagrees with conferences of that kind, but because the economic interests of each of the countries of the Commonwealth are not similar to the interests of the other countries. The problems of South Africa in regard to overseas credits are quite different from those of Australia. The economic problems of India are perhaps quite different from those of Pakistan and Ceylon. Canada has problems that do not in any way affect Australia, and they are dissimilar to the problems of other Dominions. I consider, as I did last year when I made a special trip overseas to discuss Commonwealth economic relations as they affected Australia, that, owing to the diversity of interests of the Dominions, no purpose would be served by holding a Commonwealth economic conference.

Mr Holt:

– The interests of the countries that are members of the International Trade Organization are even more diverse than the interests of thu countries of the British Commonwealth, but Australia participates in the discussions that are held by that organization.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is true that economic matters are discussed by the International Trade Organization. The Australian Government, through its delegation to that organization, is kept fully informed of the matters that are discussed. It is also true that Australia is represented on the committees that deal with various economic problems with which the United Kingdom is associated. There are a number of them. I shall not attempt to enumerate them, because they are known by initial letters which can be very puzzling to those who do not know what the initials stand for. The honorable gentleman has referred to the decrease of British exports. As I have tried to make perfectly clear to honorable members on previous occasions, there will be great difficulty in maintaining export markets as world production develops, and results in the growth of competition of foreign markets, particularly dollar markets, with British goods. That will also be increasingly difficult as the world market becomes a buyers’, instead of a sellers’, market. That statement also emphasizes points that I have made previously. Many people think that dollars can he obtained easily for all sorts of purposes, but, as I said yesterday, with regret, although the position has improved recently the prospects of bridging the dollar gap for the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area are not, in my opinion, as bright as they were six months ago.

page 208

QUESTION

CHINA

INTERNATIONAL Status.

Mr FALSTEIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister for External Affairs. Did Article 23 of the United Nations Charter appoint the Republic of China a permanent member of the Security Council? Also, did the agreement that the Republic of China, the United States of America, Russia, France and Great Britain were to be permanent members of the Security Council, arise from the fact that those countries were the major participants in the recent war in the European and Asian theatres? If those are facts, will the Government seek from the United Nations an interpretation of Article 23 to make it clear whether the reference to the Republic of China in it is a reference to the government that was in existence in China at the time of the signing of the Charter, or whether the article refers, or could refer, to another government that is neither a republican form of government nor one which was in being during the recent war, and whether such a government would be entitled to a permanent seat on the Security Council ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member has raised a very difficult point regarding Article 23 of the United Nations Charter and the position in international organizations of the Republic of China. J_ believe that it may be said at once that China has been treated as one of the five great powers and that the intention of those who framed the Charter was that Article 23 should have reference to what was then the Government of China, and known as the Chiang Kai-shek Administration. I understand that that position still stands. There has been no change in international recognition of what is known as the Nationalist Government of China. “We know the circumstances that have arisen in connexion with that particular administration and I do not want to make any lengthy reference to them now. It seemed to many of us who know the history of China since 1942 that something in the nature of what has actually happened was likely to occur. I repeat that 1 take it that the reference to the Republic of China in Article ,23 of the United Nations Charter was certainly the then existing government, find not the present de facto Communist Government of China. The whole question of China’s position in the international field will now have to be reconsidered.

page 209

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Immigration take steps to acquaint himself with what I understand to be a shortage of labour, particularly in Victoria but also to some degree in all States, in the meat slaughtering industry? Will the Minister consult the producer?, processors and unions concerned in the industry with a view to verifying whether there is a chronic shortage of slaughtermen and other workers in the industry, so as to direct the attention of his department to the need to bring to this country immigrants who may help to reduce this shortage of labour? I do not refer particularly to displaced persons. I ask the Minister to confirm, if possible, a report which has reached me that in February of this year-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is not entitled, in asking a question, to read from correspondence or to convey information except for the purpose of making his question understood. He has already conveyed sufficient information for that purpose.

Mr McEWEN:

– Will the Minister find out whether it is true, as reported, that in February of this year there were 1.00 unemployed slaughtermen at Woodside Lairaces, the principal clearing house for the Irish meat trade with the United Kingdom? Is there not scope for the profitable transfer of some migrants from there to Australia?

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

– I shall be happy to confer with representatives of the meat industry, whether producers, union officials, or others with an interest in the successful operation of that very important industry. So far, I have not been asked by anybody in Victoria to discuss a shortage of labour .in Victorian meatkilling plants. If the honorable member will suggest to those who have discussed the matter with him that they might correspond with me I shall be pleased to see them. We are always anxious to see displaced persons given employment in primary industries provided accommodation can be obtained for them in or near the scene of their employment. Only last week, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture suggested that 70 displaced persons should he allocated to Tancred Brothers, near Bourke, in New South Wales, where accommodation was available for them, and the request was acceded to immediately. As for bringing migrants from Great Britain or Ireland, the allotment of priorities in the available ships is left to the State immigration authorities. If the Victorian authorities say that they wish the highest priority to be given to persons who can be employed in the meat industry, the Australian Government will see that their request is acceded to. However, accommodation must be provided by their nominators, because no migrants, British or otherwise, may come to Australia under any scheme of assisted immigration unless accommodation is available for them in the homes of their nominators. Above all else, we do not want immigrants to interfere with housing arrangements for the. Australian population.

page 209

QUESTION

BLINDED SOLDIERS,

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Repatriation a question inspired by a press report on the return to Australia of some blinded exservicemen after a course of training at St. Dunstan’s in England. Does the Repatriation Department finance the training of blinded ex-servicemen at St. Dunstan’s ? Has it sent any of its officers to study the training methods there? If not, will it consider doing so?

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

– The cost of treatment of blinded ex-servicemen who have been sent to St. Dunstan’s has been met mainly by the Repatriation Department in co-operation with the authorities controlling that institution. The Australian Government pays the passage of such exservicemen and also that of the attendants who accompany them. On a number of occasions representatives of blinded exservicemen have been sent to St. Dunstan’s to study at first hand the methods and practices adopted at that institution. Quite recently, Mr. Lynch, the president of the Blinded Soldiers Association, who is very well known for his activities in this country on behalf of blinded exservicemen, visited St. Dunstan’s at the Government’s request and upon his return furnished a report to the Government on the methods and practices of that institution. I assure the House that the Repatriation Department is keeping itself fully abreast with the latest treatment of blinded ex-service personnel. For a considerable period it has been the policy of Australian governments, regardless of party, to send to St. Dunstan’s blinded exservicemen who it is thought will benefit from a period of training at that institution. A number of men who were recently sent there have just returned to this country, and I shall await with interest reports upon the treatment they have received.

page 210

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Has the Minister for Immigration any comment to make upon the matter which I mentioned to him yesterday relative to a letter which I had received from a number of residents of Glenelg protesting against the proposal to erect a hostel for displaced persons on part of the West Adelaide aerodrome site?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Barker mentioned to me the matter to which he has just referred, as did the honorable member for Boothby at an earlier date. I think that the honorable member for Hindmarsh has written to my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, on the same subject. In view of the wide interest being evinced in this matter in South Australia, I am glad to be able to give each of those honorable members some information on the subject. Part of the West Adelaide aerodrome site not required for aviation purposes has been reserved for use, if necessary, for the establishment of a hostel for displaced persons. That site will be used only after all the possibilities have been exhausted of converting wool stores, existing camps and other buildings and of developing other hostel projects. If it be necessary to establish a hostel on the West Adelaide aerodrome site, the hostel will be used to accommodate married couples. Experience elsewhere with displaced persons in hostels confirms the view that the presence of a hostel in any district is unlikely to prejudice local Australian residents.

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to the observation made by the Roman Catholic Co-adjutor Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishop Simonds, on proceedings at the United Nations Assembly, where he acted as adviser to the Australian delegation ? In particular, Archbishop Simonds said that it waa a pity that no defence had been offered by any of the Australian delegates when Australia’s administration of its immigration policy was under constant criticism in the Assembly. He said -

Representatives of all Asiatic nations must have been influenced by the constant hammering of this one theme.

When no defence was offered-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member has made his point quite clear. He must now ask his question.

Mr LANG:

– Was the failure to reply to such criticism due to the fact that the Australian delegates had no instructions from the Australian Government, or was it because the leader of the Australian delegation was not in agreement with the Government’s administration of the policy ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Certain observations made by Archbishop Simonds, expressing regret that replies had not been made to attacks on Australia’s immigration policy, appeared in a press report which was brought to my notice by the Minister for Immigration himself. I believe that there . were other newspaper reports on this subject, but I saw only the paragraph that the Minister brought to my notice. Australia’s immigration policy, or that of any other country, is a purely domestic matter and not one for discussion by the United Nations. It is quite improper that such subjects should be raised at a United Nations conference. The honorable member will know that other countries have raised for discussion at the United Nations matters of domestic policy far more important than this matter. It is recognized by most people that this matter was hammered at the meeting by certain people with ulterior motives. The matter should not have been raised there. We do not intend to be a party to a discussion of purely domestic affairs at meetings of the United

Nations. The domestic affairs of member nations are not the province of the United Nations. They are matters entirely for the consideration of such nations themselves. The Australian delegates are quite clear on that point. Australian domestic affairs are matters for Australia to decide and no other country has any right to intrude upon them. There is no disagreement between Australian Ministers on Australia’s immigration policy.

page 211

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr LANGTRY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture indicate the possible effects upon the wheatgrowers of Australia of the Australian Government ratifying the International Wheat Agreement? Will the ratification of that agreement interfere in any way with the Government’s present guarantee of 6s.8d. a bushel for wheat? As this is a live question among the wheat-growers, will the Minister explain the position fully?

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

– When the International Wheat Agreement is ratified it will provide substantial aid and security for the wheat-growers of Australia. It will not interfere in any way with the Government’s guarantee which includes 100,000,000 bushels a year for export for a period of five years. When the agreement is operating smoothly, and when the stabilization fund has been adequately strengthened, it may make feasible within a measurable period of time a continuation of the Government’s policy of paying the longest running pool a refund from wheat tax collections retained by the Treasury.

page 211

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

Agriculturalmachinery and Motor Vehicles

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Can the Prime Minister hold out any hope of any further alleviation of restrictions upon the importationof machinery spare parts from dollar areas? I refer specifically to spare parts for agricultural machinery and motor vehicles. At present many primary producers are held up owing to thelack of such parts.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– This matter was raised during an earlier sessional period by the Leader of the Australian Country party. Full consideration was then given to it, and what was thought to be an ample allocation of spare parts for tractors was made and it has been continued. In fact, the allocations made during earlier quarterly periods were not fully taken up. This was due, no doubt, to the unavailability of equipment from overseas. I have no knowledge that there is any shortage of spare parts for existing transport or agricultural machinery because of the lack of dollar allocations. The Government has adopted the policy of making every effort to keep existing machinery in proper working order. The importation of new plant and equipment creates certain difficulties, but it has been possible to make a fairly liberal allowance of dollars for that purpose. I shall cause an examination to be made to ascertain whether there is in fact a shortage of spare parts in Australia due to dollar restrictions. If it is found that that is so, I shall have the allocations for that purpose re-examined.

page 211

QUESTION

BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– There is an urgent necessity for the development of the Burdekin Valley both from a national and defence point of view. Will the Prime Minister state whether an approach has been made to him by the Queensland Government for financial assistance in connexion with that project? In any event, will the right honorable gentleman give serious consideration to the desirability of providing financial assistance to the Queensland Government for the development of the scheme?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The subject of the development of the Burdekin Valley has been raised by Mr. Hanlon, the Premierof Queensland, on a number of occasions. The project has also been made the subject of discussion and consultation with the North Australia Development Committee. Mr. Hanlon informed me that the project would enable an additional 300,000 acres in Burdekin Valley area to be irrigated. It was suggested that the work should be considered as a separate project and made the subject of a joint agreement between the Australian and Queensland Governments similar to the arrangement made between the Australian and Western Australian

Governments in connexion with the water reticulation scheme in Western Australia. Arrangements were made that, as soon as reasonably detailed plans of the Burdekin proposal were obtainable, the Director of Works and Housing and the departmental officer who carried out the examination of the Western Australia project should examine them with a view to determining whether arrangements could be made between the Queensland Government and the Australian Government to develop the scheme as a joint venture. I understand that because of the shortage of technical staff, and the employment of technical men on the venture associated with the British Overseas Food Corporation, there has been some delay in completing the details of the scheme to a stage sufficient to enable a complete investigation to be made. I have promised Mr. Hanlon that as soon as the detailed plans have been completed, I shall arrange for officers of the Commonwealth to confer with the State officers with a view to ascertaining whether it is possible to reach an agreement for the development of the scheme as a national project. I shall ascertain what stage has been reached in these investigations and I shall inform the honorable member further on the matter.

page 212

QUESTION

MILK AND BUTTER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether the purpose of butter rationing in Australia is to provide increased supplies for the people of the United Kingdom. If so, to what degree has this objective been achieved? Is it the intention of the Government to ensure the complete success of the plan? My question is prompted by the fact that certain overseas business organizations are purchasing Australian butter factories, particularly in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales and in Victoria, and are converting them to the production of more profitable processed milk products. At present, quite a number of factories are in, process of this conversion. Is the Government aware of what is taking place, and, if so, what action does it propose to take in the matter?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– Butter rationing, which has operated in this country for a number of years, was introduced solely to assist the unfortunate people of the United Kingdom. The scheme has been effective, and the objective has been achieved. It is true that certain interests have purchased or are purchasing butter factories in this country, and converting them into milk-processing factories, but the Australian Government has no power whatever to intervene. Had the honorable member for Richmond and his colleagues on the Opposition benches supported the Government’s powers referendum proposals, the Commonwealth Parliament would have had. power over operations of this kind.

page 212

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have received an extract from a Dutch newspaper published in Holland asserting that a letter has been found that was written to Mr. Moh Hatta, a prominent Indonesian leader. That the letter was written by Mr. Timperley on the 4th November. 1948, and that it disclosed that the writer has been acting as a “ contact man “ for the Indonesian Government in proposals to establish an exile Indonesian government in India. I ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Timperley is an Australian, who was acting as the secretary of the Good Offices Commission in connexion with the Dutch-Indonesian peace negotiations. Will the Prime Minister inquire whether any such letter of the 4th November, 194S, was written by Mr. Timperley or any other Australian delegate? If so, will he let the House know the result?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I certainly know nothing of any letter written by Mr. Timperley or any Australian acting as “ contact man “. It is perfectly true that the Good Offices Commission and those associated with it have been in contact with both sides in the dispute, as the result of their official obligations. Only last week I received a message from the British Foreign Minister thanking Australia for the splendid work that it had done in the Dutch-Indonesian dispute. If the Good Offices Commission helped to reconcile the conflicting views of the Dutch and the Indonesians, I should think it did good work. I shall inquire into the matter raised by the honorable member for Parramatta.

page 213

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1948-49

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th May (vide page 200), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera.

– We are debating four bills, two of which are appropriation bills and two supply bills. The main question is .where the money is .coming .”from and where it is going. It is of paramount importance to ascertain why money is collected in certain ways and expended in certain ways. Some Government supporters, in debating these measures, have harked back to 1914 and some to 1927-2.8, and other periods long past in an attempt to develop an argument to justify the collection and expenditure of revenue as proposed. X do not need to go back more than three years to .show the great change that has occurred in the House of Representatives. Until that time we had heard very little talk of .socialization and nationalization in this House. People who had closely studied the history of the Labour party knew that, about 1922 or 1923, the party had amended its platform so as to require every member to sign a declaration that he would, if elected to Parliament, endeavour at every opportunity to implement a policy of the socialization of industry and the means of production, distribution and exchange. However, from then until a few years ago, that part of the Labour party’s platform seemed to have been put aside, and people throughout Australia thought the Labour Government would not pursue it further. Then the Government introduced its banking legislation, and that action seemed to blow the top off the whole secret, if it could have been called a secret. Every member of the Labour party spoke in this Parliament and outside it with enthusiasm ,of the socialist state that they hoped would be established soon. Since then, every bill of ;any importance that has been introduced into this House has been a .stepping-stone towards socialism.

Much of the expenditure that we are considering now is intended to expedite the socialization and nationalization of everything that the Constitution will allow, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) ‘has declared. An investigation of the source .of a great part of the Government’s revenue shows that it is collected from men of initiative and enterprise. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) said last night that the Australian taxpayer is called upon to pay only what he can afford to pay. The honorable gentleman should have amplified the .statement in order to make it clear that the taxpayer cannot pay his taxes and at the same time increase production. We need men of enterprise, ideas, initiative and working ability. They are the men who have reasonably good incomes. If they are taxed to the limit of their capacity to pay, they are left with nothing with which to open up new fields of activity and to guard against eventualities that might reduce the productivity of existing projects. As an illustration of the severity of the Government’s taxation policy. I refer to a newspaper article that was written by a Queenslander who knew what he was writing about. He pointed out that some graziers have to borrow money in order to pay their taxes. Discussing the United Kingdom meat contract, he stated -

Representatives of cattle-breeders from all over the south-west, interviewed at Goondiwindi (Queensland) last week-end, said there could be no big-scale development in beef production without an incentive to produce under free enterprise, as the moat trade had been roared in America. It waa a great opportunity for Australia, but had arrived twenty years too late. One grazier said he had just paid £23,000 tax and provisional tax on a net income of £20,000. Men were increasing their overdrafts to pay taxes without a hope of ever saving sufficient to extinguish their capital debts.

Besides, under Governments committed to socialism, graziers considered their tenure was insufficient to justify a big investment for improvements, even if labour and material were available, nor could there be any confidence for the future when bills, such as the Abattoirs Act, have empowered the Queensland Government officers to acquire any grazier’s stock merely by sending him a telegram.

That sums up the situation. Throughout Australia men are being taxed so heavily chat any extension of the pastoral and agricultural industries is being prevented. We are all pleased that Australia’s population is continually increasing, but it is a dangerous fact that primary production is not showing a corresponding increase. Only three weeks ago the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Dennett, said -

If we do not increase our primary production by tho time the Olympic Games are held in Melbourne we shall have to import foodstuffs from overseas.

That is a fine outlook for a great primary producing nation like Australia! The Government also obtains much of its revenue by taxing men who worked overtime and who because of such taxation have now lost the incentive to do so. Consequently it is discouraging any Attempt to increase national production. Taxation is dulling the enthusiasm of enterprising men.

The next point to be considered is the purpose for which the Government uses its income. That is a question of great importance. As an example, the Government has already budgeted for an expenditure of £1,930,000 for the acquisition of an entire block of property in Melbourne. That is only the beginning of a scheme that will cost many millions of pounds more before it is completed. The block covers an area of approximately 9-$ acres, which is l/32nd part pf the whole of the City of Melbourne proper. It is bounded by Spring, Exhibition, Lonsdale and Latrobe streets. There are 175 buildings on that land, including a Church of England mission and two charitable institutions. Agricultural dusting machine manufacturers, saw makers, thermometer and dairy machine makers, manufacturers of instruments used in the dried fruits industry, oven manufacturers, and paint, oil and varnish makers are only some of the 2,000 persons, including 375 ex-servicemen, who will be displaced by the Government’s action. We shall have displaced Australians to deal with, and the Government will have to do something about them. I want to be completely fair to the Minister for the

Interior (Mr. Johnson), who is in charge of the plan, and I admit that some of the buildings in the area are not so good as I should like them to be. However, many of them are in good order. The acquisition of the entire block in order to provide accommodation for government employees will cause trouble to hundreds of people who are producing goods for the nation. The public servants are not producing anything for the country. In my opinion there has never been a. period in our history, and there is not likely to be any such period in the future, when it has been necessary for s government to acquire a complete block of property in any capital city, least of all at present when everything that can be manufactured for primary producers and others is very sorely needed. Earlier this year I asked the Minister for the Interior whether the Government proposed to proceed with its plan to acquire that property in Melbourne. The Minister tersely replied, “ Yes “. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), who represents the electorate of Melbourne, appears very enthusiastic about the acquisition scheme. Of course, the block that I have mentioned is only one part of Melbourne that has been affected by the Government’s plans. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) hae told us about many buildings in that city that have been acquired for no other purpose than the housing of government employees. While money is being wasted in that way, the Australian people ca.u have no hope for the future. Every penny of government expenditure to-day should be used to increase production. But the Government does not seem to vant greater production. The speeches of honorable members opposite have indicated that the object of the. large number of non-pro ducers in the Government’s full employment policy is to keep production down because, if production were increased to the level of the demand, there would be unemployment in the country. That is a negative attitude. The only way in which we can develop this great country is to place as many men as possible in productive employment. The present state of “ full employment about which honorable members opposite speak with such pride, does not mean anything. Only in the way that I have suggested can we progress, as we have progressed in the past under private enterprise, in this great outpost of the Empire. If the Government does not heed this warning, he people of Australia will be obliged to do so, because our future prosperity depends upon increased production.

According to a recent statement, one person in every four in Australia is employed in a government position. I realize that not all those persons are employees of the Commonwealth and I Ho not desire to convey the idea that they are. However, it has been disclosed that the number of public servants employed in the United States of America is one in J.4. On a population basis, the number of Americans employed in the Public Service of the United States of America is only one-half of the number of Australians in government employment. Those figures lead me to the conclusion that it is no wonder that Australia is looking to the United States of America for goods. Nor is it any wonder that the United States of America is able to supply many of the needs of European countries. The explanation is that America has more of its man-power engaged in productive work than Australia has. When a country adopts such a man-power policy as America has, it can produce the goods.

Mr Edmonds:

– Is that why nearly -,000,000 persons are unemployed in the United States of America ?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Even if some of tile people are unemployed, America is still the greatest producing country in the world.

When the Prime Minister returned to this country after his second last visit to the United Kingdom, he stated that Australia required greater production. The Australian press made headlines of that statement. Evidently, the Prime Minister had a fleeting insight into the great fight that the British people were waging in their war-racked country to regain conditions of prosperity, and his better self was touched. When he arrived in Australia, he announced that this country needed greater production.

Mr White:

– The Prime Minister soon got over that state of mind.

Mr TURNBULL:

– He has not taken any action to increase production. The views which he expressed upon his return to Australia might he described as “ newspaper ta!k “. His words were only a catch-cry. Nothing was done to increase production. To-day, the Australian Labour Government, if judged by the speeches of honorable gentlemen opposite in this debate, has reached the stage when it says, “ It is almost hopeless to talk of increasing production”. In fact, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) has said that men are not prepared to work as they were formerly willing to work. He said that no one had offered a solution of the problem of increasing output per worker. The fact is that honorable members on this side of the chamber have offered a solution on many occasions.

Mr Duthie:

– What is the solution?

Mr TURNBULL:

– The solution is to give encouragement to the men who are prepared to work. In the past, men were prepared to work in this country. Why is it that this breed of Australians, who were as effective in World War II. as they were in World War I., have suddenly changed their whole nature and allowed production to fall below full capacity? The Labour Government’s policy, if permitted to continue, will crush the workers as effectively as if a steamroller had passed over them. The Government is trying to bring the production of each worker to an average rate of output. If a man produces more than the average, he will incur disfavour ; if he produces less than the average it does not matter. ‘ Ministers shrug their shoulders, and ask, “ What can we do about it, anyway? “ That is the position to-day. Men would work if they were offered encouragement, such as incentive payments and the abolition of the taxation of overtime earnings. Workers would produce more, and, with their increased wages, would be able to buy the goods produced. The ones who did not work would not have sufficient money to buy all the goods that they required and would soon realize their position. At that stage, there would be only the few unemployables who will always be in our midst, and a small percentage of other persons who would not work, no matter what happened. No one can convince me that the vast majority of Australians are not workers. We know that they are but they are not prepared to hit their heads against a brick wall all the time.

The man on the land has always been a worker. He is a worker and a producer to-day, but he is encountering difficulties because this Government is placing obstacles in his way. The policy of preventing a worker from increasing output is preventing the primary producer from expanding production. The man on the land is unable to obtain the equipment and supplies that he urgently requires. For that reason, he cannot increase his production. He is also burdened with (fixes.

I agree with one of the statements that tho Minister for Repatriation has made. In the course of his speech, the honorable gentleman composed a table of credits and debits for the Labour Government. T made a careful note of his points, because the Minister is always very fair to me, and I desire to be equally fair to him. He said that the . Labour Government’s debits were associated with production, housing and distribution. Production supplies us with the food that we eat, the clothes that we wear and the goods that we use. Housing is the accommodation where we live and sleep. Distribution, unfortunately, is far from efficient. I agree with the Minister that in connexion with production, housing and distribution the Labour Government shows debits. As time passes, the Government is plunging more deeply into debt. Unless it can reduce those debits, a financial and economic depression will overtake us as soon as world prices for our exports decline. Referring to the Labour Government’s credits, the Minister mentioned the mounting deposits in the savings banks. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) often refers to that subject. The idea that increasing deposits in the savings banks are proof of increasing prosperity is erroneous. If there were no goods to be purchased, deposits in the savings hanks would be worthless. Money has value only when it can be used to purchase goods. If goods are not available, the standard of living must fall. The only factor that can maintain our present standard of living is greater production in Australia. Unfortunately, this Government does not understand and does not want to understand that fact.

The Minister for Repatriation has spoken with pride of the Government’s policy of full employment. I do not need to speak about that subject, because the taxpayers know only too well that many Australians are government employees. In the remarks that I am about to make, I desire it to be understood that I am not referring to the employees of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and many other departments that render a real service to the community. The departments that I criticize are those which are unnecessary. Their staffs could be substantially reduced, and the employees released for productive work. Undoubtedly many of them would welcome employment in productive work because they realize that if bad times come they may be pushed out of their present jobs and they will have, lost the art of working productively. The Minister said that if a nian became ill he could obtain free treatment as a patient in a public hospital. What are the facts? Of course, I knew the facts at the time, but I checked the accuracy of my impression by having the matter discussed with a responsible officer of the Victorian Charities Board on the telephone this morning. He said that the estimated cost of maintaining an occupied bed in a. public ward in Victorian hospitals is 30s. a day. Tie Australian Government pays to the Victorian Treasury 8s. a day in respect of every bed occupied in public wards in hospitals in that State, and the board and the hospital concerned have to finance the difference which amounts to 22s. In respect of every bed occupied in private and intermediate wards in public hospitals the Australian Government pays 8s. per bed per day direct to the hospital concerned, and Ss. per day is deducted from the patient’s account. The Minister’s statement that the Government is providing the nuance for free treatment in public hospitals is, therefore, misleading. The Government is in fact paying only about one-quarter of the cost of maintenance. Ti” the Minister’s statement were correct why would so many country hospitals need to make special appeals and conduct functions to raise funds? Because people are compelled to pay a social services contribution tax many of them appear to believe that all the facilities provided by public hospitals are paid for by the Australian Government. Tor that reason hospital collectors are finding it harder than ever to persuade the public to contribute towards the upkeep of hospitals.

Mr McLeod:

– What was the name of the individual who informed the honorable member that the maintenance of hospital beds in Victoria costs 30s. a day?

Mr TURNBULL:

– He was a responsible officer of the Victorian Charities Board.

Mr McLeod:

– What was his name?

Mr TURNBULL:

– At the moment I cannot recall his name, and I have not with me the piece of paper on which I made notes of the telephone conversation. However, I can assure the honorable member that I wrote his name down and I undertake to inform him of the name to-morrow morning. However, quite apart from the information supplied by that officer, I have been informed by various hospital secretaries that the upkeep of beds in public hospitals amounts to approximately 30s. a day. It is clear, therefore, that in attempting to claim credit for the present Government by making the assertion that the Australian Government provides funds to enable patients in public hospitals to be treated free, the Minister must have been misinformed.

The honor able member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) cited a lot of taxation statistics in support of his contentions, but he did not convince any one. He referred to the enormous wealth that was concentrated in the possession of a few individuals in Great Britain a generation or so ago, and said that special action had to be taken to enforce an equitable distribution of that wealth. He tried to establish an analogy between that situation and the distribution of wealth in this country at the present time. .Of course, it is obvious that there is no analogy. We have a few wealthy families, but successful farmers and pastoralists cannot be regarded as wealthy men in the sense that they possess huge surplus funds, because, as honorable members realize, primary producers’ earnings are invariably reinvested in the land. If it were not for the successful, enterprising primary producers the present Labour Administration would not be collecting anything like the revenue that it is receiving. For that reason the honorable member’s remarks did not “cut any ice” with members of the Australian Country party. Then the honorable member endeavoured to show that the present incidence of taxation was light; but, of course, it cannot be disputed that during the last seven or eight years taxation has increased from £40 to £70 per head of population.

An important feature of our present economy is that the Government is receiving large sums of money from sources other than income tax. I have in mind particularly the proceeds of the petrol tax. The Commonwealth Government collects 10½d. for every gallon of petrol sold in Victoria. However, the total amount allocated to be expended on the maintenance and construction of roads in Victoria accounts for only about 2d. out of every 10-id. collected. In other words, although approximately £5,000,000 is collected in Victoria from the petrol tax, only approximately 1:1,000,000 is expended on the State’s roads. That is “highway robbery” in both senses of the term. I recently travelled over a number of country roads in Victoria and I discovered that many of them were badly in need of repair. If repairs are deferred much longer some of them will require to be re-made, which will entail enormous expenditure. In an attempt to remedy the situation, the Government of Victoria intends to provide approximately £5,000,000 for the construction and maintenance of roads in that State. That additional burden should not fall on Victorian taxpayers, because the petrol users of Victoria have already contributed more than sufficient to cover the expenditure involved. Altogether, approximately £18,000,000 is collected each year from petrol tax, but only about £7,000,000 is actually expended on roads. The Government is diverting the balance to Consolidated Revenue, where it can be used to finance schemes to pave the way towards socialism.

A great deal has been said about the referendum held last year on the proposal to control rents and prices, but no honorable member has really dealt with tho actual purpose of the Government’s proposal. The present Administration sought authority to amend the Constitution by introducing legislation that would permit the Government permanently to fix prices. The attitude adopted by the Opposition parties at the time and since was that although it considered that the Government should have certain powers over prices until conditions returned to normal after the recent disastrous world war, they did not believe that the power should be exercised permanently. The result of the referendum demonstrated very clearly that the Australian people did not want the Australian Government to have the power permanently to control prices.

Mr Duthie:

– That is a complete misrepresentation

Mr TURNBULL:

– I challenge the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) to rise in his place when I have concluded and point out in what respect t have misrepresented the position otherwise I do not think that the House will be impressed by his allegation.

Mr Duthie:

– Tell the truth !

Mr TURNBULL:

– I have always kept to the truth, and no honorable member has ever challenged the veracity of my statements except you, and on that occasion you had to withdraw and apologize.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Burke

– Order! If the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) will address the Chair, he will not attract such interjections.

Mr TURNBULL:

– For the benefit of the honorable member for Wilmot, let dmrepeat that the proposal submitted at the referendum was that the Australian Government should be permanently empowered to fix prices. I went on to point out that the attitude adopted by honorable members on this side of the House was that whilst they were prepared to agree io the Government exercising a temporary power to control prices until conditions again became normal, they wore not prepared to agree that such h power should become a permanent part of the Constitution. The honorable member for Wilmot alleged that that statement was untrue, but if he is the man that I think he is he will rise in his place and apologize for his unfounded allegation. When the people rejected the referendum, subsidies were withdrawn. The Government had temporary authority to control prices, and honorable members on thi* side of the House were prepared to agree to that authority being exercised for a little while longer. The Government, however, desires to he able permanently to control prices, as well as hanking and other commercial activities, and to use those powers as stepping stones towards socialization. What greater power hai? Stalin? What greater authority did Hitler want? Throughout the country the little business men are hardly able to carry on. Most of the large companies are paying good dividends, but the little business men in the cities and country towns are being gradually eliminated. The Government is not giving them an opportunity to trade successfully. The reason for that is that when the time comes for the Government to implement its plan of complete socialization the little business men will be the greatest obstacle in the way of the achievement of that objective. The Government could deal with the workers easily enough and the large companies could be socialized by means of measures passed by the Parliament, but the thousands and thousands of small business men in this country would be a great stumbling block. The Government knows that that is so and that is why small business men are not now being given much opportunity. It is now almost impossible to start a small business in Australia or to settle on the land. Australia cannot now make reciprocal tariff and trade arrangements with the United Kingdom, because that is forbidden by the Charter of the International Trade Organization. Most of the men who are now running small and even comparatively large businesses were formerly employees. They saved enough money to enable them to set up in business on their own account. Many of the men who now own their farms were at one time share-farmers. There is no opportunity for enterprise now, as there was in what honorable gentlemen opposite refer to as the “ bad old days “.

Mr McLeod:

– How many farmers were f vie ted from their farms in those days?

Mr TURNBULL:

– How many new farmers are there in the Wannon or for that matter any other electorate to-day? How many small businesses are getting into financial difficulties because of heavy taxation? How many men in Australia are seeking to settle on the land, and how many of them have been successful in so doing? This Government is not encouraging men to go into business. On one occasion a man came to me and told me that he was in financial difficulties. I advised him to seek the advice of another man, who had a great knowledge of finance. He did so and was given certain advice. His adviser pointed out that he had not sufficient money to meet his obligations. He owed many small debts of £8 10s. and £5 as well as some larger ones amounting to £5,000 or £10,000. He was advised to pay off his small debts first, because it was the small debtors who were likely to cause him most trouble and even to attempt to make him bankrupt. He was told that he could deal with the largo creditors more easily than with the small ones. He followed that advice and discharged his small debts. As a result, he had no small creditors worrying him like fox terriers in respect of debts of £2 10s. and attempting to make him bankrupt. After a while, his only creditors were those to whom he owed large sums of money, and they were more easily handled. Eventually, his financial position became quite sound. The policy that Ls being pursued by this Govern ment is gradually eliminating or making dissatisfied the small business men, who are the greatest obstacle to socialization in Australia. It can deal with the big business men. Let there be no mistake about that. In fact, it has already taken action to do so in regard to the shipping and banking industries. It will deal later with the big men in other industries. In the meantime, it is following a policy of making the small men so dissatisfied with their lot that many may abandon their businesses of their own accord.

The Council for Scientific and Industralia Research, now the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization was established under Commonwealth legislation. I have asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction on many occasions whether that organization can do anything to combat the rabbit menace. Honorable members opposite regard the rabbit menace as a great joke. It makes them all smile, especially the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller), whose electorate is heavily infested with rabbits. In answers to questions, the Minister has stated that a certain virus has been used but that experiments conducted by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research have shown that rabbits which are infected with the virus isolate themselves and thus do not communicate the disease to other rabbits. Recently, I read in the Kerang New Times an article on rabbit destruction, written by Dr. Jean Macnamara, B.D.E., M.D. At the head of the article the following passage appears: -

Dr. Jean Macnamara advocates new tests with a virus to spread disease among rabbits. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research made some trials of a virus and abandoned them some years ago.

Dr. Macnamara analyses the results of those tests and shows the error in reports that the sick rabbits went away to die alone instead of infecting others.

She says that failure of some tests in semiarid bush country is no indication that the virus will not be effective in more valuable country.

The analysis of the tests that were made by Dr. L. B. Bull, Mr. M. W. Mules and Mr. C. G. Dickenson of the Council for

Scientific and Industrial Research is set honorable members, I shall incorporate out in a table. With the permission of the table in *Hansard -* I am sure that when the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has studied that table, he will agree that in most instances the tests have been reasonably successful. In the issue of the newspaper in which the article to which I have referred appeared there was published a letter from a man who had read of these tests. He asked that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research should use the virus at Kerang, Victoria, where rabbits exist in large numbers, in order to see what results could be obtained there. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has cost the Australian taxpayers a large sum of money. It has certainly done some very good work, but I consider that something more should be done by the new organization to combat the rabbit menace. It is time that the Government made .up its mind whether it proposes to regard rabbits 'as an industry or as a pest. The onion weed is a menace in country districts. I have asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction on numerous occasions whether something can be done to combat it. The Council :f.or Scientific and Industrial Research has adopted the attitude that it could .dp nothing to help. I think that when public money is expended upon a government scientific research organization, that organization should take some action to combat menaces to .the productivity pf the country. In the last report submitted by .the Auditor-General it is stated, dealing with government activities, that legal audit requirements have not been met, that trading losses are covered by making up deficits from public funds, and that huge accumulated losses are being piled up by socialized and semi-socialized undertakings. There are some Ministers in this Government who interfere too much with their departments, but, strange to say, one of them, in reply to .a question that I addressed to him, .said, that he would not interfere with his department at all. On the 22n.d February last, I asked a question .of the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr. Drakeford)** regarding TransAustralia Airlines, and a radio broadcast known as " The Blue Danube ". " The" Blue Danube " session is advertised in the newspapers, and the public is urged to listen to it. The advertisements cost money. The session tells the public to use Trans- Australia Airlines. It was because -of things like that that the Minister was able to say in answer to my question - . . because of the broadcasts advertising Trans-Australia Airlines and the excellence of its services, its trade has been greatly increased . . . The Minister said something else that I. cannot understand in .the light of the fact that last year Trans-Australia Airlines lost about £500,000. He said- >I believe that it is correct that TransAustralia Airlines is conducting -a broadcast session each week, and 1 understand that it :has been awarded the "Oscar", which is the tumour bestowed on the best performance given over the air. As Minister for Civil Aviation, T do not attempt to interfere with the business urrangements of '.trans-Australia Airlines. The Minister does not interfere, although Trans-Australia Airlines lost £500,000 in a year ! But we have in this Parliament Ministers who interfere with many things, and whose interference causes losses. One Minister will not interfere to avoid a loss but another interferes and causes one. The Additional Es.tinj.ates of Expenditure show that under the wheat contract with New Zealand .another £2,200,000 is to he paid, bringing the cost of the agreement to about £8,000,000 that the taxpayers will have to pay because of the muddling of Ministers who should be .co-operating with the producers' representatives. *[Extension of time granted.)* The necessity to pay that further £2,200,000 is regrettable, but the deal is now an accomplished fact, although the taxpayer is still paying for it. Nobody on the Government side has attempted to explain anything about that matter yet. {: #subdebate-16-0-s2 .speaker-JYV} ##### Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES -- How much did tho farmers lose through that deal ? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The wheatgrowers received the full amount based on world parity prices at the time that the agreement was .made, but the taxpayers, many of whom are farmers, have lost £8,000,000. After all, 'a man elected to Parliament represents not only the farmers but all the people in his constituency. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Fuller)** should explain that deal to the people whom he represents, and he will discover whether they like it. I certainly do not like it. I hate always to be bringing these matters forward, but often such mistakes are recalled to our mind -by the actions of the Government. I have explained the attitude of two Ministers to matters of national interest, but I can go further than that. Let us look at the actions of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** in connexion with the recent sales to the United Kingdom of wheat from the 1948-49 crop! This side pf the House has always advocated the rendering to the United Kingdom of every assistance possible. I have always been one of those who believe that the Homeland has suffered so much, and is putting up such a brave fight now, that we cannot do too much to help it. Let this be the foundation of the remarks that I am about to make. I do not believe that the wheat-growers should bear all the contribution. I believe that when we make a contribution to the United Kingdom by way of lower prices for products, it should .be .borne evenly by the whole population. Rut what .do w.e find? Recently .60,000,000 bushels of wheat were sold to ,the United Kingdom. The world parity price of wheat at Fort William. Canada, is 213 cents a bushel, which .is equal to 14s. 5d. f.o.b. in this country. .The Australian Wheat Board regards the present world parity price for wheat as 14s. a bushel. The United Kingdom sale has been made at the price of 13s. .8d. a bushel for wheat delivered lip to the 31st March, 1949. Not much wheat would have been delivered by then. From that date to the end of July next the price will be 12s. 10£d. a bushel. This seems strange in view of the fact that our own acceptance of the world parity price is 14s. a bushel while the Fort William price is 14s. od. a bushel. Honorable members on this side of the House agree with selling wheat to Great Britain at a cheaper rate than we sell it to other countries. But I protest against the wheat-growers having *to bear* all the burden. The difference between the price at which the wheat is sold, and the world parity price, should bc made up to the wheat-growers out of Consolidated Revenue. If that could bo, ;ind has been, done in the New Zealand wheat deal, why can it not be done in the deal with the United Kingdom? I should like some one on the Government side to answer that question. In the years ahead, there may be droughts which will affect the wheat-growers' incomes seriously, and naturally every wheat-grower desires to develop his financial reserves during the period of high world parity values. The Australian Government is not acting in n just manner when it places the burden of the wheat deal with the United Kingdom entirely on the wheat-growers. I desire now to refer to a matter to which I have referred on previous occasions in this chamber - the payment of subsistence to Australian prisoners of war of the last war. In answer to a previous question regarding this matter the Prime Minister said - >None of the other countries with which we were allied has considered that such payments were warranted. Because of that fact the Government cannot entertain the claims and its previous decision still stands. Since then I have learned that the United States Congress has passed a measure entitled the War Claims Act 1948 providing for the payment of compensation to prisoners of war. The amount of compensation payable to all American prisoners of war is one dollar a day for every day on which they were prisoners. That is equal to 6s. 3d. a day Australian. Yet we on this side of the House have asked for only 3s. a day subsistence to be paid to this country's former prisoners of war. The American nation realized the sufferings and malnutrition that prisoners of war in enemy hands underwent and made provision for a generous payment to them. Where a prisoner had died, provision was made for the payment to be made to his dependants. I have in my possession considerable information about the American legislation; it was sent to me by the Prisoners of War Relatives Association in Melbourne, and also by the Federal Council of the Australian Legion of Ex-service Men and Women from Sydney. It appears that at the present time the Government has not the desire to give justice to former prisoners of war who suffered because they fought for this country; yet it has made a deal with New Zealand that has cost the taxpayers £8,000,000. When we talk about giving the former prisoners of war justice, the Government simply refuses to do anything at all. How can the people of Australia accept such an attitude from any government, whatever its political colour? No spokesman for the Government has been able to advance a satisfactory reason for the Government's refusal to pay this money. We have had excuses, but not reasons. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- What does the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** think about it? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I am not worrying about what any one else thinks. As a matter of fact, I know what some Government supporters think about it. When I first raised the matter, they spoke in support of my request, but afterwards the Government and caucus put the steamroller over them. Now, when the subject i" raised, they get up and walk out of the chamber. What is the Government going to do? It cannot claim that it has not enough money. The Prime Minister has received a copy of the legislation passed in the United States of America and he is familiar with what has been done there. I expect that he will not consider the request favorably. During the war, the people did not mind being pushed around, and being heavily taxed because the money was being used in the fight against an enemy. They are being taxed even more heavily now, but the money is being used to assist an enemy, namely, the Government's programme of socialization. Private enterprise, which provides the revenue that the Treasury collects, will be eliminated by the Government when it has provided enough money to enable the Government to carry its programme through. During this debate, there has been much talk about communism. Recently, a man in Melbourne named Sharpley has been writing articles in the Melbourne *Herald* and also broadcasting. I am not greatly impressed by him. I do not like any man who *' rats " on his cobbers, and I have even less time for a man who is paid for doing it. If a man finds that he is on the wrong track - and Sharpley should have found that out in less than fifteen years - he should go to the government of his country with his information, not to a newspaper to receive payment for it. As a matter of fact, I was told in Melbourne that nothing that Sharpley had said was news to the authorities. However, coming from a Communist, it captured the attention of the public, and so has done some good. Both Sharpley and the Prime Minister have said that it would be of no use to ban the Communist party because that would merely drive the Communists underground. To that the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** said: "Oh, where do you think they are now? Are they not working underground? Those who are seen eni the top are only the camouflage". {: .speaker-JYV} ##### Mr Fuller: -- During the war, the right honorable member for North Sydney called the Communists his comrades. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Well, the right honorable member Ls right this time. If I. took the honorable member for Hume out into the country in his electorate and showed him a few rabbits running around, would he believe that the rabbits he saw were the only ones about? Of course not. He would know that most of the rabbits were underground. When a land-holder wants to get rid of rabbits he has to dig them out, and we must do the same with the Communists. The threat of communism is creeping south toward Australia. Practically the whole of China has been overrun, and Communist influence is strong in all south-east Asia. Communists, like gold, are where they are to be found. When the Postmaster-General **(Senator Cameron)** was asked about the number of telephones in Marx House, he said that nothing could be done about it because communism was a legal organization. Let us, then, declare it an illegal organization. The trouble is that for too long the Government was softsoaping the Communists. Only recently, has it been driven by the Opposition and the public to take some action. Even now, its activity is not unassociated with the nearness of the federal election. We want a government that will stand foursquare in its loyalty to the British Commonwealth. We want people who are unswerving in their loyalty to the King. Those who are not loyal should be eliminated. The Prime Minister protests that Australia is a democracy, and that we must protect the right of free speech. If a man commits a crime, he ceases to be a member of the community in the ordinary sense after he is convicted and imprisoned. He is not allowed to vote at elections, or to take part in public activities. He is a person, certainly, but he cannot claim to be a citizen. The greatest crime a man can commit is to continue living in a country, and accepting the benefits of citizenship there, while owing allegiance to a foreign country. When such persons band together to form an organization, that organization should be declared illegal. If they go underground, they should be routed out and dealt with. I believe that the prosperity about which the Government speaks so much is only artificial. It is, in fact, largely a mr"".t of savings bank accounts. If Ministers want to learn the truth about economic conditions, let them ask those who really know, the housewives. Let them ask their own wives. It is true that more money is coming into the homes now than ever before, but it is going out as fast as it comes in, and less can be bought with it than ever before. If the outlet from a lake is as large as the inflow, the level of the lake will not. rise. {: .speaker-JYV} ##### Mr Fuller: -- Why are the saving? bank deposits so large? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Because the people cannot get the goods they want. The result is that money has depreciated in value. Servicemen were told that they would receive gratuities at some time in the future. A gratuity of £200, if it had been paid during the early part of the post-war period, would have had at. least some reasonable purchasing power. However, when it is paid in 1951, as is proposed, it will not be worth much more than £100 in pre-war purchasing power. {: #subdebate-16-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honorable member's extension of time has expired. {: #subdebate-16-0-s4 .speaker-JPL} ##### Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · IND LAB .- Although there are several subjects upon which I should like to touch, I think I shall have to devote all my attention to housing. Once again, the subject of housing has received prominence in this House. Indeed, it is so important that every opportunity should be taken to get proper recognition for it, and to have it understood, if possible. It is obvious from what has been said so far that many honorable members do not properly understand what has caused the housing shortage, or what is needed to overcome it. On Friday last, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman),** whom I am glad to see at the table again this afternoon, said with some satisfaction: "At any rate, there are to-day more houses to every 100 people in Australia than ever before ". If he did not speak in exactly those words, he spoke in exactly that sense. I believe that the Minister made that statement somewhat rashly, rather hoping that it might be true, but actually not knowing whether it was true or not. For some time I had been examining figures with a view to proving or disproving that claim, and the Minister's statement again set me to work on my research. Although the statement may appear to be correct, an analysis of the census figures dealing with dwellings actually disproves it. In 1921, there was one dwelling to every 4.9 persons, and that ratio slightly improved by 1933, when there was one dwelling to every 4.4 persons. The ratio showed further improvement in 1947, when there was one dwelling to every four persons. Those figures, which I have taken from the census bulletins, seem to confirm the Minister's statement; but let us examine the figures further. The census return for 1947 shows that there were 1,995,736 dwellings in the Commonwealth. That number included 47,041 unoccupied dwellings, which was nearly twice the number of unoccupied dwellings in 1933 - an extremely interesting fact - and 34,758 dwellings in course of erection compared with 976 dwellings in course of erection in 1933. The figure? relating to occupied dwellings are the most interesting aspect of the analysis. The census figures for 1933 indicate only occupied and unoccupied dwellings, whereas the census figures for 1947 include numerous additional details. In the 1947 census return, occupied dwellings are shown under a number of headings, including private houses with one family only, private houses shared by several families, share of private houses,, a flat including share of a flat, tenements,, and dwellings other than private. Nofigures were given in the 1933 census return relating to tenements, but I assume that the number of such dwellings has very much increased since that year. In the 1947 census return the definition of dwellings includes not only such temporary structures as have been added to homes to accommodate additional persons but also - and this is the most important point - all temporary housing in camps throughout Australia. The number of units under the latter heading runs into many thousands. In addition, we must take into account the 83,618 migrants who, up to the 31st March last, entered this country after the census was taken, in 1947. If the ostensible improvement per cent, of population has been effected merely through the provision of temporary structures and tenements, we have shown no improvement whatever in our housing position; and that has been my contention all along. The 1933 census return does not give any figures at all with respect to the sharing of homes, although such sharing was prevalent at that time; but the 1947 census return shows that 147,385 dwellings were shared either by several families or by only two families and it also indicates some thousands of shared flats. The whole record does not make happy reading. Indeed, I believe that, if the figures were brought up to date, they would reveal an even worse state of affairs. I have taken the figures which I have just cited from the census bulletins for the respective years. The temporary homes indicated in all those returns include shanties, hovels and shelters which are in such a vile condition that they should be immediately demolished. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- -Such structures were also included in the figures indicated in the 1933 census return. {: #subdebate-16-0-s5 .speaker-JPL} ##### Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA -- Yes; they were included in the groups of buildings called dwellings in each of the census returns to which I have referred. I thought that I had made that point clear. In 1936 and 1937, 4,000 men, women and children lived in dwellings of that kind in one quarter of the State of Victoria alone. I do not know how many such dwellings exist to-day in the factory area slums in that State, but I know that the number must be several thousands. I believe that the Government made a mistake in the early 1940's when .it refused to go on with home-building. Great Britain was much more hardpressed than was Australia during the war, but the United Kingdom Government continued to build homes during the war years. New Zealand did the same. However, that day has passed. The problem must he solved now, or wo may not be able to solve it at all. What are the factors which are preventing us from solving it? A number of reasons have been advanced. Is it the 40- hour week? That cannot be the reason because the Arbitration Court, when it prescribed a 40-hour working week, declared that industry was in a position to reduce working hours without impairing the national economy. Does our problem arise because a large number of people are seeking homes as the result of the greater prosperity which Australians are enjoying to-day? That is not the reason for our difficulty, either. The housing problem is a very old problem. That fact is proved by the existence of slums in every large city in the world. In fact, the richer the city the worse is its slum problem. People who have been exploited, have for generations been pushed into the meanest living quarters. *Now,* the people, having had a certain amount of education, are objecting to such treatment; and they will continue to object to being compelled to live under such conditions as have obtained in the past. As the result of the recent war and the cessation of home building, this problem has now impinged upon a higher stratum of society. Not only the down-trodden, *lower* classes but also those previously fairly well off are speaking out about this problem to-day. I believe that the problem, which existed also under past governments, is a problem of profits. I have no doubt about that. Private enterprise in its striving for undue profits has over-reached itself. Only by a comprehensive plan of governmental home-building can we overcome this problem. The hunger of private enterprise for profits is responsible for the shortage of homes. Private enterprise is keeping up the prices of home materials to-day because it is primarily concerned with making profits for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. A number of questions might be asked as to the causes of the high cost of homes to-day. Private enterprise is building homes to-day even in association with governmental undertakings. It is producing the materials and fittings and selling the land for home sites; and the prices under all these headings are unduly high, and, I am sure, are returning unduly high profits. Everything relating to the home to-day is too expensive, including the cost of land. If the people had voted at the recent referendum on rents and prices control as they should have done, and empowered the Commonwealth permanently to control prices, this state of affairs would not have arisen. The defeat of the referendum proposals has been, J have no doubt, of great political advantage to the members of the Opposition. The more closely we examine the history of private enterprise in home building the more do we find support for increased government action in this sphere. hi 1936-37 an investigation of home building was made by a board established by the Victorian Government. The board's report, which is well worth reading, shows quite clearly that private enterprise was unable to provide the necessary homes" for the Victorian people. In its report the board stated - >If it hari been practicable commercially, private enterprise, already would have met the demand. The report clearly demonstrated that private enterprise had not done so. In another portion of its report the hoard stated - >The board is of opinion that legislation similar to the Housing Act 1935 (England) dealing with overcrowding, is necessary. It submits, however, that a general and indiscriminate application of an overcrowding act would, at present, create great hardship and additional problems. Throughout the report the board pointed out that the fact that private enterprise alone had been attempting to cope with the housing problem had made matters worse. It is the duty of not only this Government but also every State government to make housing its first priority. That is one of the first requests [ made when I became a member of this Parliament, and I have continued to make it. Such a reform is absolutely necessary if the standards of home life are not to fall into a worse state than they have ever been in the history of this country. A whole generation of young people is growing up without bornes to-day. That means that home life is deteriorating very rapidly. I remind honorable members that in London during the war, when houses were destroyed by the thousand as the result of enemy action, no fewer than 3,000 girls of very young age were brought before the children's courts every month on charges of delinquency. The magistrates who dealt with their cases stated that the problem of delinquency had been accentuated because of the absence of home life. If that could occur in London solely for that reason it might well occur in this country because of the absence of homelife for our young people. Unless we do something to cure the evil of homelessness in the community we shall undoubtedly have to face a tremendous increase in juvenile delinquency. Some honorable members opposite have brought to the notice of the House instances of people who are suffering great hardship because of their inability to secure homes. [ could cite hundreds of similar instances. *I* have personal knowledge of many and I hear of more and more every week. I believe, and the figures F have cited substantiate my belief, that the housing position in Australia to-day is worse than it was at the end of the war because of the provision of temporary dwelling units and the increased number of people who are living in tents and in sleep-outs erected in backyards. I have in my room a number of letters dealing with this problem. One relates to a young married woman who lived with her husband and child in one room. Within the last few weeks, she brought home twins. One room and three babies ! Her problem is how to dry the washing. Can honorable members imagine how she does it? It is almost impossible for her to keep her children healthy in these circumstances. Other instances have been brought to my notice of people living is tents or sleep-outs without a floor. One case that I have in mind disclosed such grave hardship that I referred it to the Victorian Minister for Housing with a request for assistance. He had told me previously that I should refer to him only cases of families in which there were five children. Having regard to the special circumstances of the case to which I refer. I asked him if he would consider it as one coming within the stipulated category. It related to a married couple, with four children under the age of 7 years, who with an aged and helpless grandmother of S6 years, lived in a shed without a floor. They did their cooking on a fire built up on bricks outside the building. The Minister refused to assist, stating that if he did so he would-be establishing a precedent. No help was given to those unfortunate people. I could cite hundreds of similar instances of hardship, but it is unnecessary for me to do so because this state of affairs is generally known to honorable members. ,1 believe that if the documentary film of slum conditions, made by the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence and. shown in Melbourne, were screened here for the information of honorable members some good might result. The problem is very serious indeed and its solution will require every possible effort on the part of this Government. It can be overcome ; .of that I am sure. But it cannot be overcome merely by pushing it into the background and saying, " We have not the materials and the man-power with which to tackle it ". If we cannot otherwise find the materials and man-power to undertake this nationally urgent work, we should deprive other and less important works of the men and materials so that it may be put in hand without delay. We are expending many millions of pounds on projects that are not nearly so important as housing. This matter should be viewed in its proper perspective. Homes should be built for the people so that generations yet to come may understand world problems and foster world peace. That can only be done through security. When people are not secure they feel resentments, and resentments ultimately lead to wars. {: #subdebate-16-0-s6 .speaker-J7U} ##### Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA · UAP; LP from 1944 -- In this chamber I have seldom referred to housing mainly because I have not had any practical suggestions to offer. Moreover, when I have spoken on this subject, there has been no evidence that my contributions to the debates have been considered to be of any value. I am moved to say a word or two to-day about housing by the references that have been made to this subject in the present debate and in a debate that took place last week. Particularly I am prompted to do so by the speech of the honorable member for Bourke **(Mrs. Blackburn)** to-day. The honorable member has made it very clear that statistics *can* be very misleading indeed. She has shown that the statement by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** *last* week, although in accordance with certain statistical information in hi3 possession, was misleading. No one can deny that the housing problem to-day is worse than it has ever been. [ was interested therefore in the statement made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction last week (about the number of houses for each 100 of the population. A point that seems to have escaped everybody is that in proportion to the population there are fewer children in the community to-day than ever before and that, therefore, housing demands on the basis of the family unit must be greater. When children are small, families of five, six or seven can be housed in moderately small houses. However, even though families are smaller, houses are still required for family units. Therefore, the pressure of demand must increase. That factor is constantly overlooked. The statement that prosperity is the reason for robbing people of homes is fantastic. What is prosperity? Is it something that deprives people of homes? Is it something that makes it impossible for people to buy many of the necessaries of life? Let us clear our minds about the meaning of prosperity. How can we consider ourselves to be living in prosperous times when so many people have to endure the conditions that have been described to-day by the honorable member for Bourke, and of which we all know from our daily contact with the community? Honorable members opposite point to the building of 49,000 homes last year compared with the highest pre-war figure of 40,000, as a great achievement. But surely it is nothing to boast about in the light of present day conditions. To-day. the demand for homes is much greater than at any time in our history. I leave the matter there, except to add that every member of this chamber, I am sure, shares the anxiety of the honorable member for Bourke, and also her hope thai this problem will be solved satisfactorily before long. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender),** who led Opposition speakers in this debate, dealt with the proposals now under consideration ap purely financial measures and, in my opinion, made a masterly dissection of the situation. His speech was analytical and constructive, and there is no need for me to go any further on the line? that he followed. However, I wish to comment on one matter that he raised. The honorable member expressed the opinion that the Government should, al this time, curtail its expenditure as much as possible. Honorable members opposite apparently derive great comfort from the fact that there is in existence a reserve fund to be expended on government work? should a period of depression occur. That fund, of course, is not solely the creation of the Commonwealth Government. Al) States have contributed on an agreed basis. No one will deny for a moment that that policy is extremely wise. 1 point out, however, that the expenditure of that money will not do quite all the things that the people at large expect. Yesterday, a bill to give effect to the Snowy River diversion scheme was introduced into this chamber. Other projects on hand include the development of the Northern Territory, and the standardization of railway gauges. But public works should extend over a much wider field than that. I contend that the Government's building programme in the various capital cities to-day should be severely curtailed. For instance bank premises are being built or extended. "Whilst existing accommodation may not be all that could be desired, that work is competing with home construction, and is restricting the public works that will be necessary should a. depression come. The Prime Minister himself has all but said that a depression is on our doorstep. The Government would, be well advised to heed the advice that has been offered by the honorable member for Warringah and keep its expenditure as low as possible. The honorable member for Richmond **(.Mr. Anthony)** dealt with subsidies and was taken to task by a Government supporter, who said that the Government could not continue the payment of subsidies after the defeat of the rents and prices referendum because it had not the power to police subsidy payments. Let me mention just one subsidy that is paid, but not policed, by the Commonwealth. C refer to the subsidy paid to the States for road construction and maintenance. The Commonwealth has no control over the disbursement of that money by the States. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Surely the honorable member does not suggest that a subsidy paid to a government is comparable to a subsidy paid to, say, a clothing manufacturer. {: #subdebate-16-0-s7 .speaker-J7U} ##### Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA -- /The honorable member knows quite well that there is o-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the States. The various State Ministers who control prices confer frequently and, so far as I am aware, there has not been one i instance of a State taking action contrary to that of the other States. The payment of subsidies by the Commonwealth could be controlled by a similar method, and to argue that there must be a purely legal source of power seems to me to be begging the question. It is true that there is some form of Commonwealth control in respect of the subsidies payable on butter and tea, but the Government's arguments in relation to subsidies generally are absurd and insincere. In this chamber last week, I stressed the danger of what I described as an unbalance between primary and secondary industries. It is true that in the past Australia was mainly a primary producing country,, but strong arguments were advanced in favour of extending secondary industries, with the result that such industries are very properly being expanded. I wish tomake it perfectly clear that I have no quarrel with that at all; hut primary industries are not flourishing as they should be. They, not our secondary industries, are bearing the brunt of conditions to-day. The other night I mentioned food and I repeat now what I said then: We are within measurable distance of the time when this country may not properly feed its own population, and, when I say "properly", I mean with a properly balanced diet. Most people believe that the wool industry is flourishing as it has never flourished before because of the high prices that are being obtained for wool; but the sheep population in Australia is less than it was in 1941-42 and the quantity of wool produced is less. In 1941-42, there were 125,200,000 sheep ; to-day, there are only 102,600,000. {: .speaker-KSD} ##### Mr McLeod: -- There have been a couple of very severe droughts since- 1941-42. {: .speaker-J7U} ##### Dame ENID LYONS: -- I am not talking about the reasons for the decline;. I am merely stating facts. If the honorable member is capable of absorbing facts I ask him to listen for a few more minutes so that he shall have more information than he has at present. In 1941-42, 1,167,000 lb. of wool was produced and, in 1947-48, only 1,027,000 lb. So there has been a diminution of not only the sheep population but also the quantity of wool produced. Of course, as every one realizes, also involved in a consideration of the sheep population is the provision of food. Another fact to be considered is that the total high-grade wool production is very much less than, it was. Indeed, it is only half of what it was in the key year, 1941-42. Merino wool production is falling all the time and is now little less than a half of what it was. I am sorry that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction is not present, because- I particularly wanted to direct his attention, to that fact, since it has a hearing, on certain cases that I have put before him recently about the dispersal of merino studs. Prices are higher than ever before. I am well aware that, in the total amount,, the value' of the finer wool is very small, but its value as an advertising medium for Australian wool cannot for a moment be overlooked. I particularly ask the Government to take notice of that point. The importance of the value of wool in relation to the total value of our primary industries is surely apparent to" every one. If the price of wool were to fall to the 1936-39 level there would be a loss of £.102,000,000 to the pastoral section of industry, or a drop of 65.5 per cent. If there were a drop of only 5 per cent., there would be a loss of £7,250,000. The production and the price of wool, as every one knows, have a very marked relation to the national income, ft is calculated that a 10 per cent, reduction of the price of wool would reduce the national income by about £29,000,000. So, we cannot for a moment overlook the pastoral industry. "We must find out what ails it and what can be done to give" it prosperity. Some may >ay that by fostering' the manufacture of wool in Australia we shall offset any possible drop of prices overeas. The figures show that only 22 per :ent. of the wool clip was- used locally in 1947-48 and that we exported 1,600,000 lb. of yarn and imported only ii,000 lb. So, apparently, there is a limited market in Australia for manufactured goods, and it seems that much as we may encourage the manufacture of woollen goods in Australia, we cannot hope to compensate for the drop of the national income that a drop of wool prices would cause. "What can be done to help in the furtherance of the- wool industry? During a recent visit to Queensland, I went into this matter, and f have been supplied with certain very interesting information. One calculation that has been made shows that in Queensland it take9 about half a ton of steel and iron to maintain an establishment responsible for 1,000 sheep. The -beep population of Queensland is estimated at 26,000,000. So, in normal times, about 10,000 tons of steel and iron would be necessary to maintain the sheep population of Queensland alone. In. addition, there are about 8,000,000 cattle. There is the sugar industry, there is dairying and there ii farming. I am discussing only the- primary section of industry and all those primary industries' not only have an increasing need for steel and iron but' are also many years in arrears in repairs and maintenance: So the quantity of steel and iron needed to revivify the pastoral industry and rural industries generally is enormous. Just how we are to catch up with the lag goodness- only knows! One man said to me, "This looks not so much like planned economy as planned catastrophe ". It may interest, honorable members to know that in the United Nations economic report recently published it was remarked that Australia was the only steel' producing country where production of steel bad declined. That is a remarkable a.nd alarming statement and it is one to which the Government must give much more serious attention than it apparently has given up to the present. The position of the steel industry ft alarming. The steel output of 1,278,000 tons in 1947-48 was less than threequarters of the potential production and a little less than the output in 1946-47. I shall not cite further figures in this matter because all honorable members, even including the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. Sheehy),** who smiles blithely at the suggestion, know the decline that has taken place in the production of steel and iron. We have no right to expect any contribution to national prosperity from the rural industries unless they are supplied with their basic needs. As I have shown in relation to the wool industry, those basic needs impose a great demand upon our total resources of iron and steel. I have here a copy of. a report prepared by the Western Australian Farmers Union, which conducted a survey in order to determine the present requirements of iron and steel products of farmer? throughout that State. The total quantity of such products in arrears- is enormous. The position throughout Australia must be so serious as to make any government that is interested in the maintenance of primary industries very anxious indeed as to the future. The report discloses that Western Australian farmers want thousands of headers, harvesters, binders, mowers, hay balers, seed drills, combines, ploughs and other machines. All of those things are manufactured in Australia. Farmers to-day are not in a position to increase their output in any way because of the lack of essentia] materials and machinery. In every part of Australia they are crying out for miles of fencing wire, miles of piping and thousands of machines merely to keep their farms in production. Their needs have not been adequately supplied for a long time past, and they are not likely to be satisfied for a long time to come. Until we can overtake the lag of iron and steel production, our primary industries will not be much better off than they are to-day. I impress upon the Government the importance of our primary industries, both financially and from the stand-point of human needs, and I sincerely hope that, in any review of the economic situation that is made, great insistence will be placed upon the requirements of primary producers so that the great development that has taken place in our secondary industries in the last few years will not prove to have been a step in the wrong direction. It would be tragic if that development should be at the expense of our country areas when instead it could provide markets for the products that can be taken from the soil if the farmers receive the proper support of the Government and the industries that supply their needs. Another matter that I wish to discuss is of a different character. It relates to the production in Australia of shoddy goods. In this instance I do not place the blame at the door of the Government, t hasten to say that lest some honorable member should immediately rise and revile me. There are people in Australia, not politicians, who are doing a great deal of damage to the good reputation of the country. We have heard of consignments of Australian canned meat and other foodstuffs received in London which were not fit for human consumption or at least were not sufficiently attractive for the people of the United Kingdom to eat although they are not accustomed to a great variety of food. The manufacturers of such goods are traitors to their country as well as dishonest towards the people who huy their products. In Queensland recently I was shown a pair of child's shoes that had been bought in Brisbane. They had been made by a firm in Sydney that 1 could name. {: .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr Sheehy: -- Hear, hear! Name it. {: .speaker-J7U} ##### Dame ENID LYONS: -- I may yet do so. After six hours of wear, the sole of one of the dmes had come loose. It had been merely stuck to the rest of the shoe, and when the child had worn the show in a shower of rain the glue had dissolved. That was positively scandalous, and 1 consider that any firm that dares to sei! goods of that kind should be very severely scared at least. No doubt it would mem; its ways if it were given a warning. The shoes cost 13s. 6d. Two other pairs of the same brand had been bought by th>child's mother during the previousthirteen months. Possibly she though' that she had been unlucky on the first twi occasions. She knows now that it was noi bacl luck, but that she had been sold articles that were not fit for sale at the price that she paid. What is to be done about that sort <>!' malpractice? If I were the Minister f0 Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman** *I* should call conferences of manufacturers in every industry and submit tithem very seriously and plainly the enormity of the offence that such firmcommit. not only against their customerbut also against Australia. In England, a type of article which is produced * Sheffield bears a reputation that haendured for centuries. I visited Sheffield many years ago and asked a man who wain teres ted in the manufacture of cutler* what had been done to maintain the uniformly high standard of goods mannfactured there. He told me that tin manufacturers belonged to a cutlers' guild and a silversmiths' guild, and that it wa.the business of those organizations tiensure that no member sold goods of ii standard lower than that which had been prescribed. Any manufacturer winoffended was expelled from the organizations and lost the right to use the mark- of the guilds on his products. Manufacturers in Australia could well emulate the example set in Sheffield. I hope thai this matter will be brought to the notice of the manufacturers of shoddy goods. I hare not named the firm that produced the shoes that I have mentioned, but il will have an opportunity to make amends, because the shoes are being returned to it. T hope that that will be a lesson to it and that it will not continue to pour out goods of that kind, which arc a disgrace, not only to itself, but also to the other manufacturing industries of Australia. {: #subdebate-16-0-s8 .speaker-KSD} ##### Mr McLEOD:
Wannon .-First I shall deal with some of the remarks that were made by the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons). I noticed that the honorable member spoke as an authority on primary industries. I regret that I must disagree with a great deal of what she said, and 1 suggest that 3he would be wise if she obtained more facts and general information about primary production before discussing the subject in this House again. If I understood her comments, she blamed the Government for the decrease of the sheep population of Australia. She compared the number of sheep in 1941-42 with the number in Australia to-day. Everybody who has had any experience in primary industries knows that three of the most severe droughts in our history occurred in recent years and that our sheep population decreased by more ,than 30,000,000 in that period. That loss cannot be restored in one season. If the honorable member had a little more knowledge of primary industries she would appreciate that fact instead of placing her reliance upon some figures that she has read. She implied that the decline of the number of sheep in Australia was attributable to the shortage of fencing wire, but conveniently omitted to assign any of the cause to drought conditions. Therefore, I Consider that I should explain to her some interesting facts about our wool industry. Years ugo, when I became a member of this House, I expressed the view that all Australians should have a knowledge of that industry, because it was, and still is, tho most important factor in our national economy. The Liberal Government, of which she was a supporter, did not display any concern for the wool-grower when it agreed to dispose of our wool to the United Kingdom at 13d. per lb. Australian in 1940. I protested against that low price. In 1935, approximately 500,000 Australians were unemployed and when the Labour Government took office two years after the outbreak of war the number was more than 100,000. The large majority of farmers had either become bankrupt or were on the verge of bankruptcy. A primary producer was then able to engage labour on his own terms. An unemployed exserviceman, who came to my house to ask for a job said, " I shall leave it to you to decide what you will pay me ". Because of prevailing low prices for wool and wheat I was not able to pay him very much. That is an instance of the economic conditions in Australia fourteen years ago. The cost of production of wool in 1935 was 12d. per lb. In 1939 an anti-Labour government sold the whole of Australia's wool clip for lOd. per lb. sterling. When that agreement was made, the Australian Country party and the other self-styled champions of the primary producers did not protest against the low price. At the beginning of 1942. after Australia had been at war for nearly two years, the Australian Labour Government was able to secure an increase of price. The honorable member for Darwin ha* also claimed that the Labour Government dissipated the merino stud flocks. That is not so. No action that this Government has taken will have such an effect as the honorable member has described. In the western district of Victoria, large stations have been subdivided, and many pastoralists are now engaged in sheep-breeding on a small scale. Some of them purchase fine rams from Tasmania at high prices. One of those men, who is known to me, has a property of only 2,000 acres. He, and many others like him, are just as efficient in the sheep industry as the big squatters were. Provided the blood is kept in Australia, the merino industry will continue to flourish. The honorable member has used the specious argument that the opponents of closer settlement in Victoria and other States employ. .Considerable areas of land in the rich western districts of Victoria are lying idle. They should be made available to small sheep men, who would use the land to the best advantage. According to the honorable member for Darwin, the shortage of fencing wire is evidence that the Labour Government is guilty of neglect. During the financial and economic depression, wool-growers could not afford to buy fencing wire. At that time, large quantities of it were available. Travellers from large firms sought orders for fencing wire throughout the country. "We even imported fencing wire because other nations manufactured more of it than they required. However, wool-growers could not afford to purchase all their requirements, because their wool was sold overseas at an unpayable price. Some one else overseas made millions of pounds out of the deal. Between 1931 and the outbreak of World War II. in 1939, Australia had a backlog of fencing wire. Now, the position has completely changed. During the economic depression in the early 1930's. primary producers were in such a desperate plight financially that their farm machinery was being re-possessed. The honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Turnbull)** should be well aware of that position, if he has any knowledge of his electorate. Should he venture to contradict my statement, some of the primary producers in his constituency will quickly correct him. Members of the Opposition claim that the Labour Government is responsible for all the shortages of primary producers' requirements, but they do not mention that anti-Labour governments in the past made no attempt to establish industries worth mentioning in this country. There was a large moving population that relied on the primary industries for their livelihood. Those people engaged in such seasonal occupations as shearing, fruitpicking and cane-cutting. Comparatively few young Australians had an opportunity to learn trades. When World War II. began, the anti-Labour government made no attempt to increase the manufacture of our own requirements. I recall that the Labour party advocated the construction of aircraft in this country for the defence of Australia, but honorable members opposite were opposed to our suggestion. We hoped that the establishment of an aircraft industry would provide employment for some of the 500.000 persons who were then out of work. Our proposal was treated with scorn, and we were accused of desiring to cut the painter with Great Britain. The Australian representatives of bi: business overseas said, "Let Australia remain a primary-producing country. We shall buy all your woo"; at 10d. per lb. and all your wheat at Is. 6d. a bushel, and sell manufactured goods to you ". That policy has always been supported by the representatives of big business in this Parliament, including members of the Australian Country party. When the Labour party came into office, it made sweeping changes At the beginning of the war the antiLabour government advocated a policy of " business as usual ". Our troops picked up the old rifles that men of the first Australian Imperial Force had relinquished on demobilization and, with those weapons, had to defend .themselves against aeroplanes and tanks. Their cry was, " If we have tommy guns we can stop the enemy ". The Labour part: had to mobilize Australia and divert itf industries from peace-time manufacture to the production of arms and equipment. Australian manufacturing industries began, to expand. Partly as the result of the experience gained during the war, out factories are now able to make motor cars, tractors and aircraft. Honorable member? opposite once sneered at the mere idea that Australians could successfully manufacture such intricate machinery. Anti-Labour parties were opposed to such an extension of our activities because the financial interests that they represented in this Parliament desired to import our requirements of motor cars, tractors and aircraft. I have described at some length thiterrible legacy that the Labour Government inherited in 1941 from the Menzies and Fadden Governments in order to show the unfairness of casting on the Labour Government the blame for all the "present shortages. 'Until the war years Australia did not lack adequate supplies of coal. In 1929, the stocks were so large that the coal-owners were able to lock out the miners. They had asked the workers to accept a reduction of wages and when the men insisted upon being paid the award rates, the owners set the example of breaking the law. Nearly 5,000 notices of dismissal were issued, overnight to the miners. The owners were able to adopt that aggressive policy because they held huge stocks of coal in reserve. But honorable members opposite were not concerned about the plight of the miners. Until the outbreak of war, they did not care whether 5,000 coal-miners were living in small shacks on the coal-fields, and were hungry and desperate. Overnight the coal-miner became a most important person. His job was so essential that he was not permitted to enlist in the services. According to the president of the Liberal party, **Mr. R.** G. Casey, Australia is bleeding to death under the present Labour Government. Australia certainly bled almost to death when **Mr. Casey** was Commonwealth Treasurer. He was not able to provide sufficient money for public works .in order to absorb the unemployed. The Australian Labour party, since taking office, has not been able to correct in a few years all the unhappy conditions thatexisted under anti-Labour administrations. Remedial measures take time. Proof that overseas investors have confidence in the present Government may be found in the influx of capital amounting to £53,000,000. Employers are competing with one another for the available labour. Australia's expansion has rapidly outgrown its man-power resources, but even so, the Government is endeavouring to make up the leeway. The Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Calwell)** has initiated a vigorous policy to bring to Australia people from the United Kingdom and displaced persons. Unless the population of Australia is greatly increased, some of the coloured races will invade the Commonwealth one day. The Liberal party and the Australian Country party, when in office, did not attempt to provide against that possibility. When they formulated an immigration policy, the ships bringing migrants from Europe were loaded to the Plimsoll mark with manufactured goods and the people, upon arrival in Australia, were sent to country districts. Many of them quickly became dissatisfied with conditions here and went " broke ". They lost all their possessions and became virtually sandwich men decrying Australia. They were a bad advertisement for this country. Those conditions prevailed under anti-Labour governments. However, immigrants who arrive in Australia under the policy of the present Government will be assured of employment. Of course, honorable members opposite do not believe in full employment. They prefer a pool of unemployed. We need additional man-power to enable our industries to expand. According to last Friday's issue of the Melbourne *Age,* the miners will produce 15,000,000 tons of coal this year. The miners themselves say that an insufficient number of men are engaged in the coal-mining industry, and they give, as the reason, that young men are not seeking employment in it. Probably, we cannot blame the young men for that. They have seen their fathers cough up their lungs and die at 45 years of age. Until conditions in the mines are improved, how can wo blame a man for seeking more attractive employment in other industries? He may desire to settle on the land and live in the fresh air for a change. We cannot coerce men to enter the mining industry until we have improved the conditions in it. Rather than engage in coal-mining, men will seek employment in non-essential industries. That is one of the reasons why we lack many of our requirements. The figures cited by the honorable member for Darwin in relation to production are not correct. Members of the Opposition contend that production has declined, but what basis is there for that criticism ? I shall compare production before the war and since. Consider, for example, the manufacture of agricultural implements. The official statistics show that during the financial year 1946-47 1,280 tractors were manufactured in Australia compared with 489 in 1937-38. Incidentally, the statistics for 1946-47 are the latest available. I hardly need to point out to honorable members that production has increased considerably since 1946-47. The number of harvesters manufactured in 1938 was 1,705, compared with 2,475 in 1946-47. Harrows manufactured in this country in the corresponding periods numbered 13,633 and 31,987 respectively. The number of ploughs of all types, manufactured wholly in Australia was 11,166 in 1938-39, compared with 14,902 in 1946-47. Those statistics certainly do not support the contention of members of the Opposition that production has declined. The real reason for the apparent inadequacy of production is that the demand for goods and services has increased enormously because of the greater purchasing power of the community to-day. I know that as a small farmer I can now afford to buy fencing wire, and so can most of my neighbours, whereas we could not before the war. A similar consideration applies to housing accommodation. Under the aegis of anti-Labour administrations young men could not afford to marry because they could not earn sufficient to rent a house, let alone to purchase one. The proposals of the present Administration contained in the Appropriation Bill should be viewed in the light of the record of the anti-Labour governments which were in office for so many years between the two world wars. It should not be forgotten that many honorable members opposite were either members or supporters of those administrations. The honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Turnbull)** had a lot to say in criticism of the Government. Supporters of the Government like to hear him speak, because he provides us with plenty of ammunition for debate. Of course, I am sure that he does not always understand the things he criticizes, otherwise he would not provide us with so much ammunition with which to strafe him. He wanted to know whence the added spending power of the community had come. I point out to him that whereas the average man was not earning sufficient before the war to enable him to pay taxes he can easily afford to do so now. Furthermore, I have the satisfaction of knowing that my wife will be properly provided for if anything now happens to me causing her to become a widow. When I first entered the Parliament I was not paying income tax, and had I died then it would have gone hard with my wife financially. However, because of the humanitarian, social legislation introduced by Labour our dependants and the poorer sections of the community are adequately provided for. Of course that is only right and just. Before the war wealthy landowners were purchasing more and more land and aggregating huge properties. If that had been permitted to continue our national spirit must have perished. The war came, we threw in everything we had in the struggle to survive and spared no expense, and now we must pay for it. After all, those who possess substantial wealth and property owe most to the fighting men because they had most to lose. They cannot, therefore, justly complain because taxes had to be increased in order to finance a part of the cost of rehabilitating our ex-service men and women. We have only to consider the actual achievements of the present administration to realize that it is doing a far better job than any anti-Labour Government ever did. Thirty-two million pounds has been expended on repatriation alone. I invite honorable members, and particularly the honorable member for Wimmera, to consider the scope and nature of the benefits provided under the Government's rehabilitation scheme. Land settlement of exservicemen has absorbed £14,500,000, and much more will be expended for that purpose. At the end of the war the Government was confronted with a deficit of £266,000,000; this year it is officially estimated that we shall have a surplus of £2,000,000. Labour believes in the policy of " pay as you go ". Contrast that with the profligate record of the anti-Labour administrations, which is a veritable " rake's progress ". After World War I., they borrowed recklessly, and notwithstanding that it was a prosperous period, they continued to borrow until the overseas financiers would not trust them any further. For years they borrowed money at the rate of £30,000,000 a year. Of course, I realize that to-day some members of the Opposition attempt to justify their profligacy, and even urge the presentGovernment to borrow on the same grand scale. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender),** for example, wants to borrow dollars abroad, leaving it to future generations to repay the loans. Of course, we all remember the fate of the anti-Labour Administration which was in office when the crash came. I remind honorable members that Labour has repaid £100,000,000 of the debt incurred by our friends opposite when they and their predecessors were in office. To-day we have overseas credits of nearly £400,000,000, and our economy is as sound as that of any country in the world. That is why overseas industrialists and investors desire to come here. Australia deserves, and has received, great credit for the generosity that it has displayed towards overseas people. We have contributed £30,000,000 worth of food to relieve the starving people of Europe. Apart from philanthropic considerations, that action is in line with Labour's policy of assisting the cause of peace by removing the causes of war. We have contributed our share in that respect, and have also rendered substantial assistance to our kinsfolk in the United Kingdom. The. Government has made gifts totalling £35.000,000 to the United Kingdom, and although our critics have complained that those gifts represented only book entries, it must be apparent to any one who knows anything of economic facts that that is not so, the actual effect being that the hard-pressed industries of Great Britain are relieved of the necessity of providing us with £35,000,000 worth of goods and thus enabling them to earn more dollars. That is assistance of a most practical nature. From time to time the Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden)** has had a great deal to say about the Government's economic and financial policy. The statements which he made recently concerning petrol rationing would, in my opinion, do a very grave disservice to the United Kingdom. We have to repay war loans totalling £59,000,000, but I emphasize that that money is owed not to overseas investors but to our own people. Had the parties to which honorable members opposite belong remained in office during the war, I doubt whether we should have continued as a nation; I fear that Tojo would have vanquished them. The honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** is one of the Government's most consistent critics. He is constantly complaining of the Government's attempts to rationalize our economy, and he has referred sneeringly to " long-haired boys and short-haired women planners". Surely the *debacle* which occurred during the regime of the administration of which he was a member in the early part of the recent war should have convinced him of the need for the Government to plan intelligently. I hardly like to remind the honorable member for Warringah of the matter, but I recall very vividly the occasion prior to the downfall of the anti-Labour parties during the war, when he felt constrained to inform the House of the situation which confronted the country. The Curtin Labour Government and its supporters had to contend with that situation when it assumed office. I was very intrigued by the remark of the honorable member for Wimmera to the effect that the great dread of farmers is socialism. I point out to the honorable gentleman that I would not be a. member of the Parliament to-day but for socialism. I could not have settled on the land but for socialism. What private enterprise would have offered to expend huge sums in order to settle me and thousands of other ex-servicemen on the land after World War I.? The guaranteed price of wheat, which varies according to an index figure prepared by an expert committee, is another form of socialism. Whatever it be called, 1 benefit by it. Honorable gentlemen opposite do not believe in guaranteed prices and would prefer to leave the fixation of prices to profiteers. They do not agree that the Government should control the price of wheat. They believe that the price should be fixed by the manufacturers of farm machinery. I derive great benefits from socialism. This year my manure was carted over a distance of approximately 250 miles at a cost of 10s. a ton. Would private enterprise do that? It would be an ill day for the farmers if the policy that is advocated by the honorable member for Wimmera were implemented and a free rein were given to the agents and the " sharks ". The honorable gentleman urged us to continue to act a3 we did under private enterprise. I have figures showing the number of fanners who lost their land in the Wimmera electorate during the depression years. The forced sales that took place then compelled the farmers to form defence organizations. When a farmer's effects were offered for disposal at a forced sale, his neighbours gathered round, and any man other than a neighbour who bid for the effects knew that he would be thrown into the dam. The honorable member for Wimmera has said that the country progressed under private enterprise. Many of the farmers whose effects were sold at forced sales during the depression are still alive. If the honorable gentleman dealt only with realities he would not make himself look so foolish. It has been said that the Government's taxation policy has killed incentive. Honorable members opposite, knowing that a general election is fast approaching, have suddenly developed a great concern for the welfare of the working men. They now proclaim what they will do for them if the Opposition parties are returned to power. The anti-Labour parties have had many opportunities to improve the lot of the working men of Australia,, but during the years when they were in a position to do so they fought against them. Since the war-time peak, the Government has reduced the volume of taxes by approximately £200,000,000 a year. As the price of wool rises, so my taxes increase, hut I make no apology for saying that I hope that the price of wool will remain at a high level, because I am quite prepared to continue to pay those taxes. I was never better off than I am now, and the same remark applies to my neighbours. The hanking institutions of this country are becoming worried. They are suffering from a depressed feeling because the farmers are paying off their mortgages. That is no good to the banking industry. I use the word " industry " advisedly, because money-lending is an industry. The hankers do not want me to pay them money, they want to talk me into accepting a liability of some kind. They are acting very generously now. They want me to get into debt again so that I shall have to pay interest to them on the debt. My advice to men on the land is to be cautious and to pay off their debts now, because if they do so they will be able to hang on if a recession occurs. In order to determine the truthfulness of the charge that the Government's taxation policy has destroyed initiative in industry, let us examine the case of a man with a dependent wife and two children. I think it may fairly be said that that is the average size of the Australian family. From the 1st July, on an income of £400 a year, he will pay £5 a year in social "services contribution, whereas in 1938-39, on the same income he paid £6 5s. a year in income tax. Now he will receive £26 a year in child endowment as well as other social services benefits in certain circumstances. It used to be a very serious matter for a family if the husband went into hospital. His wages ceased, but his liabilities in respect of rent, food and clothing for his family continued. Upon leaving hospital many men were faced with debts that hung over their heads for years afterwards. To-day the father of two children who is admitted to hospital knows that he will receive £1 5s. a week and that his wife will receive a weekly income of £1 a week in respect of herself, 5s. in respect of the child not entitled to child endowment and 10s. child endowment in respect of the other child. That is a sound policy. Honorable members opposite talk a lot about communism. I believe sincerely that the greatest bulwark against communism in Australia is the Australian Labour party. It is reasonable to assume that Sharpley, the ex-Communist, received a substantial sum of money for the information that he gave to the newspaper that published his revelations, as they have been called; but any good member of the Australian Labour party could have supplied that information. The members of the Australian Labour party have been fighting communism for years. I was interested in Sharpley's statement that the aim of the Communist party is to kill the Australian Labour party. The Communists have that much in common with members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. There is a close link between the three parties in that regard. The Communists know that under the social security programme that i3 being implemented by the Labour party men will not rebel or become discontented. Honorable members opposite, who are opposed to full employment desire that 10 per cent, of the working population of Australia shall be permanently unemployed. That is why the Communists are working for the return of the anti-Labour parties. Communism thrives in poverty, and the Communists realize that if the anti-Labour parties are returned to power at the next general election conditions in Australia will be favorable for the spread of communism. Possibly the Communists are receiving assistance under the lap from the Opposition parties. It is probable that the banks, which will do anything they can to defeat this Government, are supporting the Opposition. The Australian people need to be careful. If the antiLabour parties are successful at the forthcoming general election they will not impose the taxes that it is necessary to impose in order to provide security for Australian working men when they become ill or unemployed. The implementation of the policies that are advocated by members of the Opposition would constitute a menace not only to Australia but to the world in general. Those policies would result in poverty and starvation, which are the conditions in which communism thrives. The statements of policy that have been made by the President of the United States of America show that he knows that that is so and that he realizes that the nations of the world must do better than they have done. The Australian Government has set an example, and communism in this country is being killed by our social security programme. The anti-Labour parties were responsible for the growth of communism in Australia, and I warn the people that if they are returned to power at the next general election it will thrive again. The Communists are merely the instruments of those great, powerful financial interests that desire to bring about the re-election of the Opposition parties. The incentive that they will impose upon the people is the incentive of hunger. I shall tell the House of something that actually happened in Melbourne. A very wealthy man was erecting a huge building. At the time to which 1 am referring there were many unemployed and it was easy to obtain labour. One man who worked on the building thought that he would be on the job for some time. He was anxious for work, and he worked till he almost dropped. Because of the poverty of the times he could buy very little food to sustain himself. But after only a week the foreman dismissed him on the instructions of the employer because that gentleman considered that after he had been in a job *fox* a week his output might drop, and in any event it would not be difficult to find another hungry worker to take his place. There are some men who still believe in that policy. That is the kind of incentive that the parties opposite would like to give to the workers. But there is no need for incentives of that kind. Australia is one of the greatest countries in the world. When we find shrewd, hardheaded businessmen coming here to invest capital, that is all the proof that we need of the soundness of our country. But we must overcome our shortages of manpower. Imagine a great continent like Australia having a population of only 7,000,000. That is only as large as the population of one city in Europe or America. I am proud of what we have achieved, under great handicaps, not only in peace but also in war. The greatest handicaps under which we suffered prior to the last war were anti-Labour governments, and an anti-Labour government will be once more the greatest handicap from which we could suffer if ever one is elected to office again. It will take a long time to recover from a period of office of an anti-Labour government. But we must have vision in this country. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting the Northern Territory. It is wrong to say that it is not possible to establish and develop agriculture there. But to develop the territory we shall require vision, and that is what this country does not have when anti-Labour governments are in office. I consider that the present Government has shown what we can do in the development of this great continent. In developing Australia it has had to face competition from the rest of the world for migrants of the right kind. Canada and other countries are fighting for such people, and the countries that already have them do not desire to lose them. Britain does not want to lose its young men, and we cannot blame it for that. But the Labour party argues that, just as we must have decentralization in Australia itself, so must we have it on an Empire scale. Australia is the last bastion of the white race in the south-west Pacific. As a part of the British Empire this country can be an even greater bastion, but in order to constitute ourselves as such we need many more millions of people. It is for that reason that we must have vision, and that we must not allow selfish, sectional interests to try to make profit out of our development. "We must think in big terms. I congratulate the Treasurer on this measure because I consider that it reflects the soundness of this country and of his judgment in guiding its affairs as he has done. {: #subdebate-16-0-s9 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Parramatta -- I do not desire to take up time in making unnecessary answers to all that the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. McLeod)** has said, but I shall reply to three observations that he made. He said that he would not be here but for socialism. That, I consider, is the best argument that I have heard for some time as to why we should have nothing more to do with socialism. He talked about the depression in the early 1930's. He always, talks about the depression. He moaned and he groaned as he always moans and groans about the depression. Every honorable member in this House is dedicated to preventing a depression happening to us again. We on this side of the House differ from the Government regarding the best way to avoid a recurrence of a depression, but all of us are determined that it shall not happen again. But I suggest that if the honorable member and many of his colleagues did not have the depres81011 to talk about they would not be able to make a speech in this House. The honorable member also said that **Mr. Sharpley's** revelations were not needed to teach members of the Labour party about communism because already they knew all about it. My comment on that is that if they knew all about it why did they not take the people of Australia into their confidence instead of all the time poohpoohing the so-called danger of communism? When we have raised the issue of communism in this House honorable members opposite have said that it did not exist, and that it was a bogy. But now that Sharpley and his friends have blown the gaff they are rushing forward to tell us- that they knew about it all the time. By the measures now before the House the Government is proposing to expend about £108,000,000. It proposes to expend, in four departments, the following amounts: Northern Territory, £400,000; Department of the Interior, £50,000; Department of Works and Housing, £754,000; Department of Health, £164,000. I am interested in those government departments because I have just returned from a trip to the Northern Territory. Each of them has some connexion with the territory. I wish, therefore, to refer to the administration of the territory and to what value the taxpayers of Australia are receiving for the money that has been expended there on their behalf. I am convinced of three things. First, there are the enormous potentialities of the territory. Nobody could go to a place like Alice Springs without being deeply impressed with that district and what it may mean to Australia in the future, if it be properly developed. I am also convinced about the quality of the people of the territory, and of the ability and good faith of most of those concerned with the administration of the territory, on the spot. But I am also convinced that the progress of the territory has been tragically retarded through muddled administration mostly emanating from Canberra. The Northern Territory is ringing with discontent over the way in which it is being administered. The most bitter discontent exists regarding the Canberra administration, not among despised citizens whom the planners and bureaucrats might think are of no account, but among most of the public servants and officials on the spot. Let me give illustrations of the kind of Government action that has aroused discontent. I remind the House that we have in the Northern Territory, in practice, a nationalized medical health service, similar to that which the Minister for Health **(Senator McKenna)** and this Government intend to impose on the people of Australia. The people of the territory have told honorable members who were there recently, in the strongest possible terms, and without making any hones about it, " If you people down in the south arc going to get a nationalized medical service, come up here first and see how it works out in practice before you accept it ". There is a gentleman who has been saying something like that for some time. I refer to **Dr. Webster,** whom the Government sacked for saying it. He was one of the elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council, and was the medical officer practising at Tennant Creek. On the 16th February, last year, at the first meeting of the council, **Dr. Webster** said this - >I am a firm and convinced believer in a national medical service. His reason for holding that foolish view, I understand, is that he is a Labour man. But he has apparently seen the light, for he went on to say - >However, if the national medical service at present being provided for the people of the Northern Territory! is to be regarded as the prototype of the national medical service for Hie whole of Australia, I have grave doubts whether the people of Australia will have anything to gain by the introduction of such si service. Not long after he had said that. the Government sacked him. Oh yes, I know that all was done according to Hoyle. He was only a temporary civil servant, and therefore the Government could dispense with his services at any time. To be sure there was a great shortage of doctors in the territory; nevertheless the Government sacked him. I understand that **Dr. Webster** was the only doctor at Tennant Creek. Now there are none, or only one. Before his dismissal **Dr. Webster** had been refused by the Government leave of absence to attend a meeting of the Legislative Council at Darwin, although he was an elected member of that body. Then, a short time afterwards, as a result of the criticism that I have quoted and of other criticisms, the Government conveniently dispensed with **Dr. Webster's** services because, it said, he was only a temporary officer. Other people also have been sacked because they have had the courage of their convictions, and have criticized the Administration. Thank God, there are still left in Australia a few civil servants who are prepared to criticize the Administration, even at the risk of losing their jobs. As for **Dr. Webster,** I say plainly that he was booted out of his job because the Government did not like his criticism. I have been speaking of the health services in the territory. There are in it 13,000 aborigines of full and mixed blood, and there is no proper medical inspection of them. This is in marked distinction to the practice in Western Australia, where the Government has provided for the medical inspection of aborigines. The Government of Western Australia is very annoyed about the lack of medical inspection in the Northern Territory, where leprosy is rampant, and aborigines from the Territory are constantly crossing over into Western Australia and infecting the aborigines of that State. **Dr.** McGlashan who was Chief Medical Officer at Darwin, was one of the government nominees on the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory. Speaking on the day the council opened in February of last year, he said - >The outlook on the problem of leprosy is, unfortunately, very black, and I find it very difficult to formulate a policy to cope with it ... I regret to say that we have no firm policy in respect of leprosy and it may he years before one is evolved. Leprosy is a foul and beastly disease which is rampant among the aborigines of the Northern Territory, yet, the Chief Medical Officer and the Government's own nominee on the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory admitted that there waa no firm policy for dealing with the disease, and that there was no likelihood of one being developed for years to come. It is no wonder that people in the territory are boiling with indignation over the way in which the medical services are administered. **Dr.** McGlashan has since been removed to Western Australia. Is it too much to suggest that he was removed because he, too, was somewhat too outspoken? Let me now refer to the mentally sick in the territory, those people who are insane. It was admitted by the Administrator of the territory no longer than two or three months ago, when he was speaking in the Legislative Council, that no provision existed for dealing with the insane. When they became mentally sick they are generally put in police cells A few are sent to hospital, hut most of them are held in police cells until they can be sent south. Sometimes, they are held there for as long as a fortnight. There is nowhere else to put them, and the Administrator said straight out that it was not proposed to do anything to alleviate the position. *Not* long ago, I read about the conditions that prevailed in Europe in the Middle Ages. At that time, people who were mentally ill were supposed to be possessed by spirits or devils, and they were chained and thrown into dungeons. It appears that something of the same attitude towards mental disease obtains to-day in the Northern Territory. There is also room for complaint regarding hospital and medical services in Darwin. There are now only four doctors in Darwin instead of eight, which the population of the district requires. There seems to he little likelihood that the full number will ever be obtained, because living conditions for doctors are intolerable, and they will not stay. For one thing, there is too much interference. Doctors go to Darwin hoping to be able to do something for the people, but eventually they become sickened by the conditions under which they have to work, and they go away. There is no private practice for doctors in the territory. The entire medical service is run by the Government, which is unfortunate for the patients. There are intolerable delays at the out-patients' department of the hospital, and at the clinics. Expectant mothers, who attend the clinics at an early stage of their pregnancy, are examined by one doctor, but it is absolutely certain that when the time comes for their confinement they will be attended by some other doctor. Every one knows what mental disquiet, and what a sense of insecurity, is likely to be engendered in the mind of an expectant mother who knows that she is likely to pass through the hands of a whole succession of doctors before the time comes for her to bear her child. Conditions are much the same at Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and elsewhere in the territory. Everywhere, medical services are chaotic, and the Administration does not seem to care. One of the reasons, of course, is divided control, and I propose to discuss that later. **Dr. Webster** was critical on this point, and discussed it in the Legislative Council. As a matter of fact, the council agreed unanimously to appoint a committee of members of the council to investigate the medical services in the Northern Territory. What happened? The committee held an inquiry, and brought in a stinging report, but before that the Director-General of Health had directed the officers under his control to refuse to give evidence before the committee. If that is not bureaucracy gone mad, I do not know what it is. In the hospitals of the Northern Territory, the welfare of patients obviously comes last. The members of the clerical staff come first, with the medical practitioners in second place. When people in official positions criticize that arrangement they are sacked. For instance, Sister Cummings, acting matron of the Darwin Hospital, several times criticized the abominable way in which the hospital was administered. On one occasion, she said - >I have never been in such a terrible place where the patients are put last. Clerical staff at all times comes before the junior doctors who have had a terrible time. For having expressed opinions like that she was sacked. She was sent away on sick leave, and while she was away she received a curt note to the effect that her services were no longer required. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr Abbott: -- Who did that? {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- The Director-General of Health. It was stated that her services were no longer required, but the fact is that she was sacked. That is just another instance of some one with local knowledge, and with courage enough to criticize the Administration, having lost her job for doing so. *Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was dealing with the melancholy failure of the Government's administration in the Northern Territory. I had pointed out that Australia's very existence will depend upon our wisdom, vigour and efficiency in developing that great area. To substantiate my criticism I referred to the administration of the health services in the territory and pointed to the Government's lamentable record in that respect during the last three years. In the Northern Territory -we have, in practice, a nationalized medical service, and our experience of it should be a warning to Australians elsewhere who may be inclined to favour the nationalization of similar services throughout the Commonwealth. The same criticism applies to the question of the provision of milk in the territory. Residents are obliged to depend in the main upon powdered milk, which at Tennant Creek costs 7s. 6d. a tin, when it is available, compared with ls. 6d. a tin in southern States. **Dr.** McGlashan, Chief Medical Officer in the territory, was moved to say in the Legislative Council some time ago that the position was tragic, and that it was due partly to lack of milk supplies that a great deal of teeth decay and the slow healing of fractures was so noticeable in the territory. Then there is the matter of dental services. Owing to the shortage of housing, the local dentist received a month's notice to vacate his house in order that it might be made available for a doctor, who refused to stay in the territory unless accommodation was obtained for him. Thus, like draughts on a board, officers of the Health Department in the Northern Territory are being moved here and there to make room for one another. Unless the position which existed when I was recently in Darwin has been rectified, that town is now without a dentist. As I said before, members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council were up in arms as the result of such conditions, and sometime ago that council unanimously agreed to appoint a select committee to inquire into the medical services in the territory. I mention the fact that the decision was made unanimously because the council includes Government nominees who, normally, would be expected to voice the Canberra view for the Government. However, those nominees supported that decision. The committee went ahead with its inquiries, but it had to traverse a rocky road, because **Dr. Metcalfe,** the Director-General of Health, no doubt acting on orders from the Minister for Health **(Senator McKenna),** ruled that officers of the Department of Health were not to give evidence before that committee. That attitude on the part of the Government caused great indignation at the last meeting of the Legislative Council, held in February this year. That committee brought in a very severe report. I read parts of the report in the official record of the council's proceedings, but when I endeavoured to obtain a copy of it through the Parliamentary Library to-day, every one was cagey about where I could obtain it. Officers of the Health Department and of the Department of the Interior were not co-operative when inquiries were made for me as to where I could obtain a copy of it. It may be a coincidence, but I wonder why such officers should be so cagey about making available a report of that kind to a member of the Parliament. Such an attitude is part of the bureaucratic system of pushing the citizen around and when one proceeds to do something about it, one finds it almost impossible to get at the facts except by the most persistent efforts. I shall give another illustration of the way in which the Northern Territory is being administrated and of the manner in which the taxpayers' money is being misspent. I refer to the infamous Darwin plan, which, in my view, is positively the peak of bureaucratic stupidity. The Department of the Interior, the Department of "Works and Housing and the Department of the Navy each had a finger in the pie and the crystal-gazers of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction were in it too. I remind honorable members that Darwin was bombed in 1942 and the town was severely damaged. In 1944, there was produced the Mcinnes report, which recommended the re-building of Darwin upon the basis of the existing plan. A long delay occurred after that admirable report was presented. Then, in 1945, an interdepartmental report was called for upon the Mcinnes report, and the interdepartmental report rejected the Mcinnes report because the Department of the Navy objected to it. The Navy desired to be given the use of the whole of the eastern section of the town, where Government House and the official buildings are now situated. It was then pointed out that the Navy had at its disposal a vast area of land elsewhere, but they got their way, and nothing was done in the matter. In 1946, there was produced, not upon the advice of people living in Darwin who would be familiar with conditions on the spot, but from Canberra - I believe from the Department of Post-war Reconstruction - a new plan which was called the Darwin plan. I have seen that plan. It is numbered C.D.854. Undoubtedly, it is a planner's dream, which, of course, means that it is a citizen's nightmare. It was simply just one of those things which could only come out of the brains of people who had had no practical experience of the problems of Darwin. Under that plan it was proposed that the official area now on the right side of the town should be moved and that area handed over to the Navy, and that the official buildings should be moved to the centre of the town where the houses and shops are now situated. Again, like draughts on a board, the houses and shops were to be moved towards Myilly Point to the west, which was to be developed as a residential area. That plan was a magnificent and flamboyant document burgeoning with civic centres and fresh-water swimming pools. It was symmetrical and tidy, but, nevertheless, just plain silly. It was based on the proposition that Darwin was to have a population of 25,000, whereas its population now is only 6,000 and is decreasing. No one who knows anything about the subject will predict that the town will ever have a population in excess of 10,000. Let no one think that the grandiose meat scheme, about which we have heard so much lately, will necessarily make much difference to Darwin. The area stretching for 240 miles from Darwin to Katherine is mainly sour country which is not suitable for cattle-raising, and it is most likely that the killing will be done in the area near Alice Springs and the beef will be railed, or air-freighted, to Wyndham, and Adelaide. Therefore, the plan will probably not be of great importance to Darwin. This famous plan was also based on a military establishment of about 5,000. At present there is located there a brigadier in charge of 80 bodies. That is the magnificent total military complement. There is also a naval establishment of much the same size. It is unlikely that the existing defence establishments will be increased under this Government. The plan was alao based on the proposition that all of the houses in the central part of the town, where the residential area is situated, were movable, whereas anybody who has been there knows that a great many of them are constructed of stone and brick and will have to he demolished to make way for the official quarters. Those responsible for the plan did not even take into account the position of water mains. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the planners ever went to Darwin. At any rate they did not consult the local authorities on the matter, and they took no notice of local conditions or of people on the spot who knew anything about them. Residential blocks in the area were to be of the magnificent area of 70 feet by 70 feet. Imagine that in a climate like Darwin, with 40 miles of streets provided with electric light, water and other services. That proposal has been modified to the extent of a few feet as the result of a great deal of outcry and pressure. In the plan all of the churches were to he grouped together. They were to be removed from their present sites, with which they have historic associations, and set in holy peace, side by side, in a paddock in the residential area. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Darwin, a Frenchman, was so incensed about that proposal that he said : " I will not go. I will sit down here and you will need a large police force to move me ". The authorities were forced to make some concessions and that church is not now to be moved. The Church of England authorities made arrangements with the Navy - the garrison church is located in the naval area - under which they will be permitted to occupy their present site. But what the sergeant-major described as the " fancy ", non-conformist denominations - I belong to one of them myself - were to have their churches pushed to the western end of the town. I have never before heard of a proposition for building a small town on these lines. As far as I know, local opinion was not consulted, and if it were consulted, it was ignored. When this plan was first proposed there was a storm of bitter protest, not only from the poor, innocent, stupid citizen, who does not count in these matters, but also from officials on the spot. I was struck by the calibre of most of the officials there. Notwithstanding that their jobs might have been at stake as the result of their objection to the plan, they were prepared to say to Canberra : "Wo think this is wrong"; but, apart from slight modifications of the location of the churches and of the size of the residential blocks, Canberra would not budge. The authorities have continued to sell the leases of the land on which the town is to be rebuilt. What is Darwin? After all it is now, and it always will be, only a small country town. It is also a fort and our back door. It is also a port, but not a very convenient one. It is also an air terminal, but let no one assume that as such it will always have any vast significance. With stratosphere flying Darwin may very well be by-passed. At present in bad weather the Constellations go on to Cloncurry, where customs officials are also located. Darwin is merely a country town which should be rebuilt upon the basis of the existing town, some special consideration being given to the fact that it is also a port and the back door of this country and, consequently, of strategic importance. That, surely, should be the end of it. Let economic forces then take their part in its development. With the expansion of international trade, Darwin might develop into something bigger. However, with their hothouse economics those responsible for the plan have tried to establish an important town before it is ready to be established. This plan is a hothouse failure. The next matter to which I wish to refer is the confusion that has been created by the divided control of the administration of the Northern Territory. The territory is under the control of the Department of the Interior, but the Minister for Works and Housing **(Mr. Lemmon),** by reason of the great building activities which it is intended shall be undertaken there, has a very big say. I should imagine that the honorable gentleman has the major say in the affairs oi the territory - and he is a man who likes his own way. {: .speaker-K0K} ##### Mr Conelan: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- Everybody might say that, except, perhaps, the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Johnson),** who is not present in the House. A motion was carried in the Northern Territory Legislative Council for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the activities of the Department of Works and Housing in the territory. After some difficulty, a committee was appointed, but instructions came from Canberra that the officials of the Department of Works and Housing were not to give evidence before it. A statement to that effect appears in the report of the proceedings of the Legislative Council during the session held in February last. It was made by one of the Government nominees on the council. It appears to be true that only one house was built in Darwin in the two years preceding 1948. The position may have improved since then. Conditions in Darwin are so difficult that it costs approximately £3,000 to build a humble wooden house of four or five rooms. That amount is beyond the means of most citizens, with the result that responsibility for building houses is thrown back on the Government. Another Minister concerned in this system of divided control is the Minister for Health **(Senator McKenna),** who also likes his own way. But that poor, unfortunate gentleman, the Minister for the Interior, has to administer the territory. I understand that there is a suggestion that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** may soon have a finger in the pie because of the possible development of meat-growing in the territory. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** also has a finger in the pie. In addition, the Ministers responsible for Aviation and Trade and Customs, as well as the Attorney-General **(Dr. Evatt)** are interested. I realize that some element of overlapping is inescapable. I do not complain of that ; but there is far too much of it. Then, on top of this ricketty hierarchy there is the mysterious Bureau of Mineral Research, the activities of which do not help the blood pressure of the Director of Mining in the Northern Territory administration. Until recently the famous North Australia Development Committee, on which there are representatives of Western Australia and' Queensland, also had some say. Why that body did not include in its membership a representative from South Australia, the officials of which know more about conditions in the Northern Territory than those of any other State, I do not know. The president of the North Australia Development Committee was the peregrinating **Dr. Coombs,** but he was rarely present at its meetings. His place was almost invariably taken by **Mr. Carrodus.** The committee is now in a moribund state. It is not strange that the Minister for the Interior should find difficulty in administering the territory. There is a striking failure on the part of other Ministers and departments to co-operate with and assist him. That has been referred to again and again in the debates in the Legislative Council. The position became so bad that, not long ago, the Prime Minister issued a directive that every department should give the Legislative Council the fullest information and assistance. It had been asserted in the council that the Government and its departments had not co-operated with the council. At present there appears on the notice-paper of that body a notice of a motion protesting against the lack of co-operation. The chief difficulties arise in connexion with the Department of Works and Housing and the Department of Health. This system of overloading will not work, and something must he done about it if the territory is to be properly developed. It is not necessary to accept my word as a private member of this House on this matter. I suspect that other members on the Government side would support the views that I have stated. Honorable members should read the words of Government nominees on the Legislative Council as recorded in the reports of the debates of that body. If they did so, they would find confirmation in chapter and verse of the statements that I have made. Another aspect of divided control is the absence of local government bodies to give effect to local opinion. The weaknesses of the Legislative Council have been stressed many times in this chamber. These are made worse by the fact that Government members of the council have had to vote as directed. The Director of Works for the Northern Territory, **Mr. Lucas,** has shown that that did not suit him because he has resigned. The council has met only three times. A meeting was to have been held this month, but it was postponed because, quite bluntly, the Government was too mean to make proper arrangements for the reporting of the proceedings. All this lack of adequate local government has led to vicious over-centralization. If a Government official at Alice Springs incurs a debt for even as small an amount as 25s., he cannot pay it without sending the voucher to Darwin for approval. On occasions, it has taken up to fourteen months to have a paltry bill paid, with the result that some tradesmen at Alice Springs will not deal with the Government. One man who sold an electric stove to the Tennant Creek hospital for £60, had to wait from August, 1948, until February, 1949, for his money. But the delays that occur between Alice Springs and Darwin and Tennant Creek and Darwin, are nothing compared with those that occur between Darwin and Canberra. Everything has to go to Canberra, where it is " hooted " from one department to another. For instance, 30 per cent, of the claims made under the Darwin Lands Acquisition Act passed in 1945 remain unpaid because of Canberra bottle-necks. It is clear that a system of single control is vital to the development of the Northern Territory. Unless there is one Minister controlling all matters, including public health and works and housing, the territory will not progress. I could talk about mining, the condition of the natives, the alarming activities of the Communists, and soil erosion, all of which present difficulties that are not being tackled adequately, but I believe that I have said enough to show that this major national problem must he handled with strength, courage, and determination if we are to hold Australia at all, because we shall not hold this country unless we develop the Northern Territory. There is an urgent need for single control of the Northern Territory by a courageous Minister who is prepared to say to the Government, " This is what should be done. If yon do not like it I shall resign ". Unfortunately we do not get that kind of men in Labour governments nowadays, but it is time there was one. The administration of the Northern Territory in recent years is a melancholy and horrible story. But it need not be so. I quote the words of Stuart, the great explorer who with matchless courage and enduring incredible privations found his way from Adelaide northward through the wastes. When, after many months, he finally saw the blue sea on our northern coastline, he said - >Properly administered, this territory will some day become one of the finest colonies under the Crown. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Daly)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 245 {:#debate-17} ### SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1949 {:#subdebate-17-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-17-0-s0 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to set up the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric authority under the defence powers of the Commonwealth. As honorable members are aware, defence plans are divided into four categories - regional security, the defence forces which include the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, defence research, and finally, the industrial capacity of the nation to support a defence machine. It is to the latter two aspects that this bill has its greatest application, for it proposes to harness a potential power of 1,720,000 kilowatts of hydro-electric power. I do not intend, at this stage, to trace in detail the full history of the many Snowy diversion schemes which have been initiated from time to time since 1884. Suffice it to say that varying proposals have been put forward for consideration. Most of them, however, have been limited by sectional outlooks, particularly in the early periods, and even right up to 1915. Jntil then, of all the proposals brought forward, not one envisaged dam construction. They were all schemes for irrigation, and although they received great verbal support in drought years, as soon as rain came they were quickly forgotten. However, between 1915 and 1918 the Public Works Department of New South Wales did give consideration to the harnessing of portion of the Snowy to give an estimated output of 150,000 kilowatts of electricity. No consideration was given to irrigation and the plans did not progress further than the blueprint stage. However, the scheme did do one very important thing. It created a definite line of thought on the possibility of hydro-electric power in this area. From then until the middle of the twenties, further proposals were discussed, each one gradually becoming more ambitious. The bias was then in favour of irrigation, but nothing was done until 1937, when two Swedish engineers made an investigation on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, and placed the entire emphasis on hydro-electric power. Therefore, between 1884 and 1937, we had proposals, first, for irrigation, then for power, then swinging back to irrigation and then again going to power. The proposal of the Swedish engineers was to be carried out by the construction of a dam at Jindabyne and a tunnel cutting across the great loop of the Snowy River to Biddi Point. Approximately 250,000 kilowatts of power were to be generated. Subsequently, proposals were made for the diversion of the water to the Murrumbidgee Valley to irrigate the lower Murrumbidgee areas, provide some minor power development, and to supply some water to Sydney. In 1942 the New South Wales Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of **Mr. J.** M. Main, Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, to investigate and report upon the various proposals. This committee submitted its report in 1944, and, in recommending the diversion to the Murrumbidgee, it performed a considerable public service by drawing attention to the practicability of using this river to provide water for inland irrigation. The New South Wales Government adopted the report, hut, as its implementation would have prevented the Victorian Government from going ahead with its proposed hydro-electric schemes on the lower Snowy River in that State, and as the Australian Government had the right under the Seat of Government Acceptance Act to the use of the Snowy River for the production of power for the Australian Capital Territory, a conference of Ministers of the Commonwealth and the two States was called to consider the New South Wales proposal, together with the suggestion that the Snowy should be diverted into the Murray rather than into the Murrumbidgee. It was recognized that the latter proposal had never been investigated in any detail, and the conference agreed to the Australian Government carrying out a preliminary investigation into the practicability and implications of diversion to the Murray. The Department of Works and Housing carried out the engineering investigation and the Department of Post-war Reconstruction examined the agricultural aspects. They jointly reported to the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1947. This was the first occasion on which we saw developed a scheme which had in its intention consideration of the two aspects, one of hydro-electric power and tho other of irrigation. This report stated that, on the information then available, there was no reason to doubt the practicability of the proposal; nor was there any doubt that there was a very great advantage because of greatly increased power production over diversion to the Murrumbidgee. From the agricultural point of view, however, it stated that, although the diverted waters could be used to great advantage in either the Murray valley or the Murrumbidgee valley, on balance, better results would accrue from a diversion to the Murrumbidgee. In dealing with that part of the report on irrigation, the committee gave its opinion on whether the whole of the water could be best used in either area, as the engineers' reports had at that time not shown that it was possible to have two diversions, one to the Murrumbidgee via the Tumut and one to the Murray. Therefore, it did not give consideration to whether it would be best to have two-thirds in the Murrumbidgee and one-third in the Murray, because, as I pointed out, at that time, it was not know whether such a scheme was pos- sible economically and as an engineering proposition until after the report of the Commonwealth and State Committee, which was set up in 1947. I wish to make that very clear, because quite honest but very different opinions have been expressed. Some people in the Murrumbidgee valley have been critical because they have not fully appreciated the position. At that time the only water under consideration was 900,000 acre feet. Under the new proposals that have been made on the findings of the engineers the amount of water available will be a minimum of 1,450,000 acre feet. That committee consisted of **Dr. L.** F. Loder and **Mr. A.** S. Brown, for the Commonwealth; Messrs. J. M. Main, F. H. Brewster and V. J. V. Brain from New South Wales; Messrs. L. R. East and E. Bate from Victoria. **Dr. Loder,** Director-General of the Department of Works and Housing was chair.man. It was their report, which was submitted in November, 1948, that showed the great possibilities of power and water and at the same time the possibility of the two diversions. The purpose of the Ministers who agreed to the appointment of that committee was to continue and complete the investigati on and comparison of the two proposals. The committee was greatly aided in its task by aerial photographs taken by the Royal Australian Air Force and a good deal of additional information produced by surveys and other work carried out by the various Commonwealth and State departments. The much wider scope anc the greater detail of the information thus provided to the committee allowed it to extend its consideration to other streams in the area, and, as a result, it recommended to the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers in February, 1949, that, in its opinion, neither of the two original schemes should be adopted. It considered that a totally new and much more comprehensive proposal, involving the use of the waters of the Tumut River and the Tooma River, as well as those of the Murrumbidgee, the Murray and the Snowy, should be put in hand. A brief explanation of the scheme recommended envisages the diversion of 235,000 acre feet annually from the Snowy into the Tumut, which is a tributary of the Murrumbidgee, and the diversion of 334,000 acre feet annually from the Tooma, which is a tributary of the Murray, into the Tumut, thence to the Murrumbidgee. The result of the two diversions would be that the Murrumbidgee would gain 569,000 acre feet a year, or about two-thirds of the average annual flow of the Snowy. To make up for the loss of the Tooma waters, at least one-third of the Snowy would have to be diverted to the Murray. Further investigation of the best way to use the final third is now being made, and the committee will report before the end of June on that aspect. The Commonwealth and State Ministers were unanimous in agreeing to the proposals advanced for the use of the two-thirds of the Snowy waters, and have agreed to preliminary work being put in hand pending a decision about the final third. The net result of the proposals is that the power output which, even with the full diversion to the Murray, was estimated at 1,100,000 kilowatts, will under the new proposal be increased to not less than 1,565,000 kilowatts, and, if the final third is diverted to the Murray, to 1,720,000 kilowattswhich is nearly as much as all the power stations in Australia can produce to-day. I desire at this point to make a brief comparison of these proposals with the achievements . of the Tennessee Valley Authority, because its work has world recognition. The Snowy, as I have just pointed out, has a potential installed power of 1,720,000 kilowatts. The Tennessee Valley has 2,056,000 kilowatts, or a difference in favour of the Tennessee Valley Authority of 336,000 kilowatts. The Snowy's estimate has been made on a conservative basis. 1 have no doubt that, as the scheme progresses, by the harnessing of smaller streams, we shall have a greater installed output of hydro-electric power than that of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Snowy's estimated output of kilowatt hours is 6,650,000,000 as against the Tennessee Valley's 9,707,000,000. I make this explanation because I have seen some people comparing the two schemes, but quoting kilowatt hours of the Tennessee Valley Authority against installed kilowatt power of the Snowy, as it must be remembered that with a normal load factor of approximately 45 ,per cent., which is the load factor estimated in the Snowy scheme, one kilowatt would produce 3,942 kilowatt hours a year. Moreover, this great amount of power can be produced and delivered to the capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney at about half of the cost of production of electricity by steam stations burning coal or oil. With adequate and cheap power and adequate water, there is no reason why there should not develop in the Murrumbidgee and Murray areas great inland cities, which can feed out their secondary production to the coastal capitals of Australia. If the power is used - and I hope it will be used - for decentralized industries near the source of supply, the cost might well be little more than one-third of the present cost of power in our capital cities. Honorable members may be surprised at this statement and may well ask how power can be produced at such a very low cost per unit when confronted with the total capital cost of the proposals, which may be between £170,000,000 and £200,000,000, including transmission. The reason why this scheme is so highly economical is that large volumes of waters are available at such great heights. One gallon of water per second dropping 1,000 feet can produce enough electric power to provide for the needs of 90 Australians at their present average consumption. The significance is in the great height that the water falls, from the highest power stations at the 5.000-ft. level to where it will be finally discharged to the Murray River or the Tumut River only 1,000 feet above sealevel. Because of our capacity to barnes* at such a great height, the same water may be used many times. Added to this fact, the snow in the mountain areas acts as a natural storage space for many months of the year. This makes it possible for the power produced in the area to be so cheap and attractive. It is well recognized throughout the world to-day that power has become the most efficient tool of the machine age. At the same time hydro-electric power is the cheapest, most economical and most flexible form of power and, once the capital works are completed, require* the least amount of man-power per kilowatt of any form of electrical production. The potential output of this great scheme represents in coal 4,000,000 tons per year, or approximately one-third of our present output. This means that if we desired to produce electricity through steam stations fired hy coal, it would take 4,000,000 tons of our best black New South "Wales coal, which is one of our most valuable and yet wasting assets. Easing of the coal demand, and the stepping up of industrial production in basic materials will be of great assistance to our peace-time economy, and will assist considerably the States of South Australia and "Western Australia, which still rely on coal and steel products from the eastern side of Australia. For the purpose of further comparison, if we desired to produce the same amount of electricity by the use of fuel oil, it would take 1,500,000 gallons of oil per day or 547,000,000 gallons per year. It seems hard to realize that this great amount of energy has been running to waste each year. This indicates the enormous wealth which is waiting to be harnessed in the snow-capped mountains of Kosciusko. It should also indicate what great assistance this steadily flowing amount of electrical energy will mean to the industrial effort of our nation should Australia be faced with the threat of war. The Government, therefore, proposes to establish an authority immediately under its defence powers to carry out this most important national work. It has found that the requirements of power for its munitions factories and laboratories and its defence research installations, even in time of peace, are now reaching very high figures. In time of war, the power requirements for defence will be so great that they will be in excess, it is computed, of even the whole of the power that can be produced by this great scheme. In time of peace, power not required for defence purposes can be made available not only to the Australian Capital Territory, but also to the power grids of the States of New South "Wales and Victoria for normal industrial purposes. I point out that many defence research projects in view, while needing a great deal of power at certain times, can in general be operated so that their demand comes at a time when the industrial demand is very low. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the vulnerable nature of most of our present major power stations, which are located, and because of economical reasons must be located, near the coast, where they are extremely vulnerable to enemy attack in time of war. They require also the labour of many thousands of men to mine and transport the coal required for their operation. In the case of the Snowy Mountains scheme, sixteen power stations will be located underground, scattered miles apart in almost inaccessible mountain country, and thus will be virtually safe from attack. Further, the operation of these stations will require but a handful of men to produce their full capacity in times of emergency. From the point of view of defence, these matters are of the greatest significance, and it is for this reason that the Government considered that, in the national interest, it should undertake and prosecute with the utmost vigour the development of these great power resources. In order that the development of the scheme may, as far as is consistent with defence needs, be integrated with the power development of the States concerned, it is the Government's intention to appoint an advisory committee, consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and the two States, to advise the Government continually how such integration may best be obtained. This committee will also be expected to advise on matters concerning irrigation, insofar as it might be affected by the operation of the authority that will be established under the bill. After the water has passed through the turbines, it will flow inland, where the irrigation authorities can use it for the purposes of food production with comparatively small expenditure, as the whole of the costs of the diversion and much of the cost of regulation will be met automatically by the sale of electricity. .It will thus become the task of the respective Sta.te irrigation authorities to prepare and organize to receive this water so as to ensure its most effective use. This is, in itself, an enormous undertaking, for the scheme, by the addition of waters from other streams previously mentioned, will make available for irrigation no less than an additional 1,800,000 acre-feet of water. For the purpose of comparison this means approximately three to four times the amount of water which is at present used by the Leeton-Griffith irrigation area. Therefore, one cannot fail to recognize that before the irrigation authorities lies a very important and very large task to ensure that full and effective use is made of these waters. The bill first provides for the appointment of a commissioner and two associate commissioners, who will he charged with the responsibility of carrying out the construction of this undertaking. Powers are given in the bill for the authority to purchase land, plant, materials and equipment, together with normal powers associated with any constructing organization charged with such a large undertaking. The authority will, I am sure, receive the full co-operation of State and local government instrumentalities, which will be asked to undertake some of the important aspects of the construction work. The States of New South "Wales and Victoria have considerable knowledge and experience of many phases of. the work to be undertaken. The authority will also consider engaging contractors from other parts of the world who have skilled teams capable of carrying out some of the construction work. At the same time, a day labour organization will be established. The functions of the authority will be limited to the generation of electricity in the Snowy Mountains area. This is the mountainous area near Mount Kosciusko in the south-east of New South Wales. Jurisdiction will be given to the authority to transmit the electricity generated, but it is confidently expected by the Government that the States of New South Wales and Victoria will erect and maintain the necessary ' transmission lines, as in peace-time they will be large users of the electricity produced, and in time of emergency the whole of the electricity supplies would in any case need to be integrated through the power grids of the States. This is one of the important aspects to which the advisory committee that I have mentioned will be expected to give serious attention. There may, of course, be certain defence establishments or requirements of the Australian Capital Territory which would justify the authority constructing its own transmission lines, although it is doubtful whether, even for this purpose, any major works would be undertaken, as a State power grid would probably even then be the most effective channel of transmission. The Government is ever mindful of the fears that have quite naturally been expressed, particularly by residents of the lower Snowy Valley, of the effect on rural lands of the diversion of the Snowy waters. Therefore, power has been given to the authority to carry out works, even outside the prescribed area, which may be necessary to prevent or mitigate any such damage. For instance, it may be necessary to provide some small storage in the lower Snowy Valley to augment the summer flow in that area. It is recognized, also, that the Government of New South Wales has a particular interest in this area by virtue of its development of the Kosciusko Park. The bill provides, therefore,, that in the carrying out of its work, the authority shall cause as little inconvenience and do as little damage as possible. Provision is made for compensation where the authority must unavoidably cause injury to any property, and a minimum of restriction has been placed on the activities of individuals or State authorities within the prescribed area. Provided that the works of any other instrumentality do not conflict with the works of the Snowy authority, the bill allows complete freedom to such persons or instrumentalities. The bill is not a complex one. It is simple, and has the clear and definite purpose to set up an authority with adequate powers to construct the largest public works undertaking ever conceived in this country and one that is pregnant with good for the whole community by making available large blocks of electric power for defence in the event of war, and for industrial activities in times of peace, and large quantities of controlled water for irrigation. This is a work that has been talked of for 70 years. This Government has firmly resolved that words shall be transferred to deeds; that this great wealth potential must be harnessed for the defence of the country, and that it 3hall be done in such a way that the continued flowing wealth of power and irrigation water will be enjoyed by future generations. I believe that this scheme will be one of the greatest single factors that will make it possible for this country to carry a greatly increased population. It will also be one of the greatest factors to bring about a permanent and effective policy of decentralization. Because of the great quantity of water that will be made available for irrigation, and the cheap power that will be generated, there is no reason why we should not see, in our time, inland cities in the Murray Valley and the Murrumbidgee Valley that should carry a population of 1,000,000 people. The Government faces this task of construction in the knowledge that it will encounter many problems. No doubt, at times, we shall meet with some disappointments, and the work will have many critics. However, those critics, in the main, will be people who have little faith. This Government has faith in its engineers, its people and the future of Australia. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Harrison)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 250 {:#debate-18} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1948-49 {:#subdebate-18-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 245). {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Martin .- The four appropriation and supply bills that are now under consideration afford honorable members a wide scope for discussion. To-night, I intend to make a few comments upon certain statements by the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender),** who attacked these measures on behalf of the Opposition. I was particularly interested in his statements relating to employment in Australia to-day. He said that the Government cannot claim to have achieved full employment at the present time. Therefore, I took the trouble to obtain and verify official figures relating to the employment of people throughout the Commonwealth. I find that the total number of persons now employed in Australia, including those in factories and other undertakings but excluding those employed as domestics and rural workers and those in the defence forces, is 2,436,000. The total number of persons receiving unemployment benefits is only 1,663. Of that number, 1,375 are in Queensland, and their unemployment is due to the seasonal nature of the industry in which they are normally engaged. In other words, the employment figure is an all-time record, and only 288 persons are unemployed in this great Commonwealth. Between 150,000 and 200,000 positions are vacant, and because of our lack of population, they cannot be filled. Those figures are the direct answer to the honorable member for Warringah and other honorable members opposite who contend that a condition of full employment has not yet been achieved in Australia. The record of the Australian Labour Government in this respect is infinitely better than that of anti-Labour governments. I mention those figures in order to remind certain sections of the community that the prosperity that we enjoy through full employment, high wages and good working conditions to-day has not always prevailed but is due, in the main, to the new approach and the national policy of full employment that this Government espouses. When glancing through the Commonwealth *Year-Booh* for 1944-45, I noticed that 563,000 persons were returned as unemployed in 1933. That number included youths and girls who, because of the economic depression and the maladministration of governments, had never 'been employed in any capacity in industry. The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. McLeod),** in an excellent speech this afternoon, reminded honorable members opposite of the tragic unemployment position during the 1930's. Even as late as 1939, after the outbreak of World War II., more than 100,000 persons were unable to obtain employment in this country. The Labour Government has a great record of achievement compared with the record of anti-Labour governments in this respect. It is a well-known fact that honorable members opposite do not believe in full employment. Speaking in a debate on international affairs a few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies)** stated that workers in industry were not giving maximum production, because of the lack of a spur to make them produce. In the opinion of the right honorable gentleman, that spur is a surplus of men and women in search of employment. The honorable member for Warringah, as a reference to *Hansard* will show, has stated that he believes that, in a free society, there is no such thing as full employment. Those statements prove that honorable members opposite, who criticize the Labour Government's policy of full employment, do not believe in the people enjoying their birthright, which is a job and the ability to buy the necessaries of life. Honorable members opposite desire a condition of society in which a surplus of men and women is available for industry, so that the workers will he spurred to increase production and thus provide greater profits for those who wish to exploit their labour. I need not refer to the years of the financial depression to describe the social conditions that have existed under antiLabour governments, but I shall quote from the issue of the Sydney *Daily Telegraph* of the 1st May, 1940. That newspaper is viciously opposed to the Labour Government. The article, which is entitled " 1,600 seek jobs " reads as follows : - >Sixteen hundred nien yesterday answered an advertisement seeking 50 workmen for Wirths' Circus. > >When they learned that the wage offered was 22s. Od. per week and keep, some of the men attempted to attack **Mr. R.** C. Monnington, advance manager for Wirths' Circus. Tho article further stated in reference to **Mr.** Mannington - >When he announced the terms offered, there were shouts of, " That is no wage for white men ". > >One man held up a little boy and said : " 22s. (Id. a week wouldn't keep him ". The sum of 22s. 6d. a week is not sufficient to keep a dog, much less a family. Although those conditions have prevailed under an anti-Labour govern ment, honorable members opposite criticize the Australian Labour Government, which has espoused the policy of full employment, with reasonable wages and working conditions. Honorable members on this side of the chamber believe that the condition of affairs that is instanced in that newspaper article will not occur under a Labour administration. Labour believes in full employment and economic and social security for the Australian people. Even if the attainment of the ideal involves nationalizing banks or adopting other methods, we are determined that never again will the people of Australia experience, such conditions as those that existed when men and women could not get jobs. Members of the Opposition may criticize that statement and laugh at it, but I remind them that amongst those who are listening to the broadcast of these proceedings are many people who will recall with bitterness the state of affairs that existed during the depression, and I am confident that at the next election they will vote for a continuance in office of the Government which ensures that they have a job. The complaint is frequently heard that people are not producing nearly as much as they did before the war. That criticism loses sight of the fact that because of the vastly increased purchasing power of the community, due to the prosperity which this country is enjoying under Labour's administration, our working population is not sufficiently large to produce all the goods and services required. In the course of a speech which he delivered only a few days ago, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** pointed out that the value of factory production in Australia during 1946-47 was an all-time record of £412,945,000, and was approximately twice the value of the production of 1938- 39. During that period the number of factories increased by 29 per cent, to 34,767, and the number of persons employed in factories increased by 42 per cent, to 803,698. Those statistics indicate clearly that those engaged in industry to-day are producing very successfully within their capacity the goods that we require. It is only because of the special factors associated with the present extraordinary demand that our production is not equal to that demand. Another important aspect of the measure is the proposed appropriation for social services. I wish to deal particularly with criticism of the means test, such as that voiced by the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender).** The present Government is expending approximately £88,000,000 on social services, compared with an annual expenditure of £20,000,000 by the nonLabour government that was in office before the war. Of the yield from taxation the present Government is returning to the taxpayers social services of a total value of £88,000,000 compared with the amount of £20,000,000 returned by nonLabour governments. Those social services embrace the most comprehensive range of benefits imaginable, and the scheme operated by non-Labour governments before the war cannot be compared with it. The only criticism levelled at the present Government which will be found to contain any substance is the agitation for the abolition of the means test. Members of the Opposition have told us that they intend to abolish the means test, should their parties be returned to power at the next general election, and to-night I shall endeavour to make clear the views of Labour concerning this most important matter. Let me say at once that the Australian Labour party is committed to the total abolition ultimately of the means test. We believe that it should be abolished by a gradual process, and during the period that Labour has been in office it has endeavoured to ameliorate the operation of the means test. As an earnest of our intention we have abolished the means test by legislation which has been introduced to improve, extend and establish other social services. I have in mind particularly the hospital benefits, maternity allowances, child endowment and pharmaceutical benefits. Labour has also gone a long way towards removing the application of the means test from age and invalid pensions. Furthermore, it has made special efforts to improve the conditions of recipients of those pensions, who are an important section of the community. For the benefit of the members of the Opposition, T shall reiterate the important benefits which Labour has conferred on age and invalid pensioners. The permissible income has been increased from 12s. 6d. to 30s. a week, or £3 a week in the case of a married couple. The value of property which applicants may possess without becoming ineligible for pension has been increased from £400 to £750, or £1,500 in the case of a married couple. Applicants are not now precluded from receiving a pension because they own their own home. There is no limit on the monetary value of pensioners' homes, and they remain eligible so long as they are the occupants of it. The amount of money which pensioners may possess on deposit in a bank has been increased from £50 to £100, or £200 in the case of husband and wife. Income obtained from the surrender of policies of life assurance up to a limit of £200 is not now taken into consideration in determining eligibility, nor are certain legacies from deceased estates or war gratuities. Furthermore, the pension rate has been increased from £1 ls. to £2 2s. 6d. a week. An invalid pensioner's wife receives an allowance of £1 4s. a week, and 9s. a week in respect of the first child. To summarize the progress that has been made since the time when pensioners were permitted to earn only the most meagre income, I point out that a husband and wife are now permitted to occupy their own home, which may he of considerable value, they may have £200 in the bank, and draw £3 a week income from superannuation or other sources without impairing their eligibility to receive a total pension payment of £4 5s. a week. In other words, their total joint income may, and frequently does, amount to £7 5s. a week. Those facts, which are incontrovertible, show clearly that Labour is alive to the necessity for ameliorating the lot of those unfortunate members of the community who were subjected to most exacting restrictions before Labour assumed office. What would be the effect of removing completely the means test ? It would cost the taxpayers £60,000,000 at the present rate of pension of £2 2s. 6d. a week. That, in itself, is a substantial consideration at a time when demands, are being made for the incidence of taxation on all sections of the community to be reduced. However, the most important consideration in any proposal to remove the means test is, what benefits would be gained by those sections of the community which are really in need of social assistance? Statistics provided by the Department of Social Services show that 85 per cent, of pensioners earn less than 5s. per week. Those unfortunate people suffer more keenly than any other section of the community from the increased cost of living. For that reason all Labour supporters and other responsible members of the community must confront the problem of providing more adequately for them before seeking to relax the means test. It is evident that any further relaxation could only have the effect of benefiting members of the community who are already provided for by reasonable incomes at the expense of these people. I contend that Labour has already accomplished a great deal by extending the pension to embrace large numbers of invalid and aged people who now enjoy a reasonable income, I emphasize, however, the importance of improving the lot of the unfortunate 85 per cent, of pensioners who have no resources other than their pensions, apart, possibly, from the homes in which they live or a small amount of real property which they may own. They are entitled, in my opinion, to consideration in preference to widening the scheme to include many who can well afford to support themselves. The view that I have just expressed may be construed as imposing a penalty upon thrift, but I suggest, quite sincerely, that that is not so. Many decent members of the community who, over the years, have struggled on low wages to rear families, have been unable, because of the economic pressure to which they have been subjected, to accumulate any financial reserves for their retirement. I suggest that when such people attain the age of 65 years they are entitled to consideration in preference to other members of the community who have enjoyed more fortunate circumstance* and have been able to set aside money for their declining years. It is not exactly right to say that the large number of people who have been unable to accumulate any financial reserves in their working years have been indifferent to thrift. Many of the people who reach the retiring age of 60 or 65 years will have reared families and, because of their family commitments, will have been unable to put anything aside for a rainy day. We must consider the needs of those people and ensure that they will receive a reasonable income when they reach the retiring age. I suggest that it would be better to give consideration at this stage to increasing substantially the rate of age and invalid pensions rather than to abolish the means test and thus render eligible for pensions people who are able to look after themselves. It has been stated that, because the means test has not been abolished in respect of age and invalid pensions, many Australian taxpayers who are paying social services contributions have no hope of receiving any benefits in return for their contributions. Irrespective of the size of his income, a married man with more than one child is eligible to receive child endowment payments and his wife is entitled to maternity allowance. In addition, all citizens are entitled to participate in the hospital benefits that have been provided by this Government and, subject to the doctors realizing their national responsibilities, to participate in the free medicine scheme. Those of us who are fit and well and able to earn must share the burden of providing for the less fortunate members of the community who are unable to provide for themselves. To abolish the means test at this juncture would cost £60,000,000 a year. We must consider, first, whether its abolition would benefit those who are most entitled to consideration. I submit that, in the main, it would not. Secondly, it is necessary to consider whether it would he more just to the people who have no income whatever, and who are, therefore, entitled to consideration by this Parliament, substantially to increase the pensions rate rather than to make additional people eligible for pensions. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- That is just pious humbug. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I shall come to the humbug in a few moments, when I refer to what was done in this regard by antiLabour governments. Honorable members opposite are now raising a great cry for the abolition of the means test and for the extension of the child endowment provisions. In those circumstances it is necessary to remind the people that for 25 or 30 years the treasury bench in this Parliament was occupied by members of the anti-Labour parties. During that period provision was made for the expenditure of only £16,000,000 a year on social services. Approximately 25 years ago the right honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page),** one of the " white hopes " of the Opposition, introduced a bill which provided for the establishment of a national insurance scheme. That bill was not proceeded with. Twentyfive years ago Viscount Bruce, who was then **Mr. Bruce,** promised that social reforms would be instituted, but the promises were not honoured. When the Lyons Government introduced its proposals for a national health and pensions insurance scheme, **Mr. R.** G. Casey, who is known as the " Bengal Tiger " and who is also one of the " white hopes " of the Opposition, stated in this House - >At the present time the Government cannot afford to divert from the vital necessity of national defence large sums of money for any other purposes, however necessary or desirable they may be. It was intended that that scheme should cost £1,000,000 a year, but that figure was reduced. The Opposition parties must be judged upon their actions when they were in power. They lacked sincerity and did almost nothing in respect of social services. Honorable members opposite do not really believe in social security ; they merely mouth the words for an election catch-cry. Let us examine the national health and pensions insurance scheme that was proposed by the Lyons Government. Under that scheme, the widows of insured men were to be paid 12s. 6d. a week until the dato of the first increase of contributions, five years after the inception of the scheme, and thereafter 15s. a week for life or until re-marriage, and, in addition, 3a. 6d. a week for each dependent child under the age of sixteen years. That was a gratuitous insult to Australian widows. Under that great scheme, which was sponsored by **Mr. Casey,** who hopes again to enter this Parliament and possibly to become Treasurer, the provision in respect of orphans' pensions wa3 that each dependent child under the age of sixteen years of an insured person, including insured widows, should receive 7s. 6d. a week. Age pensions were to be paid to insured persons for life - to men at the rate of 20s. a week from the age of 65 years and to women at the rate of 15s. a week from the age of 60 years. In addition, 3s. 6d. a week was to be paid in respect of each dependent child under the age of sixteen years. That was the best that the anti-Labour parties could do when they had every opportunity to do the things that thi3 Government has done. That was the best scheme they could put forward to provide for the social security of the people of this country. Examination of the proposals of the Lyons Government reveals that the great majority of the people of Australia would not have been able to participate in the scheme, despite the fact that it was to have been a contributory scheme and supposed comprehensively to cover the citizens of this country. That is an indication of what the people may expect from honorable members opposite if they are successful at the next general election. We cannot speak too often of what has been achieved by this Administration in the field of social services in seven or eight years. I hope that copies of the publication which has been prepared by the Government outlining the social services benefits that are available will be distributed to every home in the country in order to show the people that at last they have a government that really believes in providing for their security and welfare. The crocodile tears that have been shed by honorable members opposite who have spoken about price increases would lead one to believe that the Opposition bears no responsibility for the increases that have occurred in this country. Their chickens have come home to roost. Recently the Government requested, at a referendum, power to retain effective prices control throughout the Commonwealth. That request was bitterly opposed by honorable gentlemen opposite and their supporters throughout the length and breadth of Australia. I have in my hand a pamphlet that was issued by the Liberal party. It sets out five reasons why the people could safely vote " No " at the referendum. Every one of those reasons has proved to be what may be termed a lie. Everything in the document is opposed to the best interests of the Australian people. The arguments in it have been proved to be erroneous. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Read it all. The proceedings are being broadcast. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I shall read the document, or perhaps the honorable member would prefer that I request that it be incorporated in *Hansard.* {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Read it all so that the people can hear it. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- One of its headings states - 5 Reasons Why You Can Safely Vote No. It states, *inter alia -* Though the Commonwealth actually controlled, nearly all prices were fixed on a State or regional basis. All States are ready and able to do' a better job. We can judge how much of a better job they can do by what has, happened to prices since the referendum. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Less the proportion of price increases that occurred when the Commonwealth had control. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- The document went on - >The referendum issue is not price control or no control. If you vote No, price control will still continue while shortages exist. What a fallacy! But the remarkable thing about it is that the Opposition still believes in it. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Burke -- Order! There are too many interjections ! {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- Honorable members opposite want me to read the whole of the document, 'but I am not so ingenuous as to take up the rest of my time in reading a second-rate dodger to the people of Australia. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Martin is making his speech. Other honorable members will have an oppor tunity to make their speeches later, but they must not do so now by way of interjections. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I also quote here, for the information of the Opposition, a statement made in Perth on the 27th April last year by **Mr. Grose,** the president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. He said that the Australian Government should abolish all subsidies. That report of his statement is available for honorable members opposite to examine if they wish. {: .speaker-JYV} ##### Mr Fuller: -- The Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden)** sponsored that view. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I believe that that is so. The full responsibility for high prices to-day should be laid at the door of the Opposition parties, and of the vested interests and their supporters who were prepared to sacrifice the pensioners and the lower paid and middle income group workers mainly in the interests of profits, and also because they hoped to achieve power in this Parliament through the defeat of the referendum. It is no good for the Opposition parties to try to say that they had nothing to do with the increase of prices. Full responsibility rests with them, and false and misleading propaganda of the kind that I have quoted to the House was almost in the treasonable range at that time to judge by the latest results. I have summed up the arguments advanced by honorable members opposite and have exploded them effectively. I repeat that it is on record that a few days ago in Britain a prominent Minister in the British Labour Government said that that Government was making such a good job of administering the country's affairs that after twenty more years of Labour administration in Great Britain even a Liberal government would be able to run the country, and I conclude on that note by saying that here, in Australia, with another twenty years of Labour administration, even Liberal and Country party governments would be able to do a decent job of national administration. {: #subdebate-18-0-s2 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Swan -- A few weeks ago the honorable member for Martin **(Mr. Daly)** was in Perth inquiring into Rationing -Commission duties and lie had a rather amusing experience. He met some friends of mine at a pleasure resort and they took him to be the funny man from Victoria who played a part in the Gladys Moncrieff show "Viktoria and Her Hussar". I consider that to-night he has, earned the title of the funny man of this Parliament because of the trash that he has placed before honorable members. He said quite a lot about expenditure on social services, but he did not say how it was possible for the Government to pay out such a large amount. He did not tell us that that money was available by reason of the high prices that we receive for our primary products overseas, and he did not compare the prices now being received for wool and wheat with the prices ruling during the years when **Mr. Casey,** and other gentlemen whom he has mentioned, were in office. He went on to say that the members of the Opposition were definitely opposed to full employment. He knows that to be a misstatement. He said that there were very few people unemployed nowadays. Everybody admits that, and is rather pleased that it is so, but I remind not only the honorable member but also the House and the people generally, that although there are very few unemployed persons to-day, there are many employed people who are not really working. That is one of the reasons that the people of this country are not now as well off as they could or should be. He referred to production, but he mentioned only the value of production. He did not say one word regarding the volume of production. As honorable members on this side of the House have endeavoured to point out to the Government time and time again, it is of no use, in these days, to speak in terms of value of production, because that does not give a true picture of the actual position. That can be gained only from a knowledge of the volume of production. Towards the end of his oration he trotted out the same old story about the prices referendum, and said that the increases of prices must be laid at the door of the Opposition. An honorable member opposite has just said, " Hear, hear ". I want to tell that gentleman, and any others prepared to listen, that the people of Australia will not accept that story this time. Honorable members know as well as everybody else that the referendum was not to decide whether prices control should continue, but whether the Australian Government, irrespective of its political colom-, should have complete control for all time. Although worded differently the question for the people to answer was, "Are you prepared to hand over these powers to the Australian Government so that they will become an integral part of the Constitution ? " It was not, "Are you in favour of price control or against it ? " The members of this Government and the people of the country know very well that members of the Opposition, not only once, but repeatedly since the end of the war, during the period of the defence transitional legislation, have proved by their deeds that they would support the Government in the continuance of the powers conferred by that legislation as far as it concerned prices. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- For how long? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- For as long as the Government wanted it. We said on the floor of the House that we were prepared to support the continuance of those powers for as long as they were required. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- But then the Prime Minister issued a threat that if the referendum proposals were defeated the Government would withdraw subsidies. I have always thought that Labour governments and Labour people generally did not like any system of intimidation. I believe that that threat by the Prime Minister turned many voters against the Government's proposals. It was nothing but intimidation. The price of commodities in this country was rising long before the referendum was taken and, as every sensible person knows, that increase was inescapable by reason of the fact that during recent years, unfortunately, instead of men doing a reasonable day's work they have been merely filling in time on full pay. That, as the moment, is one of the tragedies of the aftermath of war, and to some degree, of full employment, although I support the principle of full employment. But for the members of this Government to try to "whip up feelings among the people by saying that the increase of 'prices is the responsibility of the Opposition is to engage in a campaign of falsehood. As I stated earlier, the referendum was nothing more than an opportunity for the people to state whether or not they were in favour of the power to control prices being vested permanently in the Australian Government. I only hope that the members of the Government will relinquish the idea of trying to foist the responsibility for high prices on members of the Opposition, or, to put it colloquially, will cease " kidding themselves up the garden path ". I shall refer to another amusing statement made by an honorable member opposite. The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. McLeod)** stated that it was left to a Labour government to secure an increase in the price of wool. Anybody who gives the Government credit for the increase in prices of primary products, particularly in overseas markets, is just deluding himself. That increase has been brought about through a cumulative and acute shortage, in other parts of the world, of the primary products that we are able to produce in this country. Last night, the Minister for Repatriation said that the " Commos " were no friends of the Government, but I say that the Government is the friend of the " Commos ". The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Estimates reveal that a considerable amount of money has been expended upon the Stevedoring Industry Commission, which, as was pointed out by the Attorney-General. **(Dr. Evatt),** on one of his brief visits to Australia, was to improve industrial relations on the waterfront, and help to bring about a quicker 'turn-round of ships. One of the members appointed to the commission - by accident, or by design - was the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, **Mr. Healy,** who is an avowed Communist. Another was **Mr. Roach,** who also is a Communist. They have drawn money from the Treasury as members of the commission, and both of them, hut particularly Healy, have repeatedly placed obstacles in the way of the smooth working of shipping. Only recently, Healy engineered a strike on the Brisbane waterfront, knowing that the dispute could be heard only before the Stevedoring Industry Commission. Then, before it could be heard, he boarded an aeroplane and flew to Perth, at government expense, undoubtedly. It was a strange coincidence that he should arrive in Perth on the very day on which the Eureka Youth League was staging a demonstration in front of the Ambassador Theatre, where the initial screening of the film, *The Iron Curtain,* was taking place. Healy addressed the waterside workers, and I do not blame him for that. Then, on the following Sunday he addressed a meeting on the Esplanade, in Perth, in which he claimed that the basic wage should he fixed at £10 a week. All his activities received publicity over the air, while the people of Brisbane were being held to ransom because of the hold-up on the waterfront. No one can suggest that that was fair dealing on the part of the man dra'wing pay from the Government. Eventually, **Mr. Justice** Kirby, chairman of the commission, was forced to tell Healy and Roach that he would have to recommend to the Government that they be removed from the commission unless they gave assurances of better behaviour. However, -the Government should have seen for itself what was going on long before then. A government which was prepared to continue paying money to men who were carrying on in such a nefarious manner undoubtedly shows itself to be the friend of Communists. Other Communists have been responsible for industrial stoppages in various parts of Australia, and particularly in the eastern States, where they have greater opportunities for doing harm. They have placed every obstacle they can in the way of production, to the great inconvenience and loss .of the public. To-day, the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. McLeod)** said that the production of tractors and farm machinery generally had increased, in some instances by several thousands, compared with previous years. I should like to know where the tractors are, because in Western Australia the farmers are in dire need of them. During the war, the authorities in Western Australia voluntarily agreed to allow all the available tractors to go to the eastern States, so that food might be produced near the places where most of the fighting men, Australians and Americans, were grouped. At one stage, the Government was paying wheat farmers in Western Australia 12s. an acre not to grow wheat, the excuse being the shortage of farm machinery. At the end of the war, some tractors were brought to Australia as a part of the winding up of the lend-lease agreement, but, instead of the tractors being allocated on an equitable population basis, Western Australia received a miserable 50 out of *a* total of 1,300. If, as the honorable member for Wannon said, more tractors are now being produced. Western Australia is certainly not getting them. I have here figures compiled by 'the Farmers Union of Western Australia from a survey of the needs of dairy-farmers, wheat-growers, orchardists, wool-growers, &c. The figures show that there is a shortage of 2,151 wheeled tractors, and 1,026 crawler tractors. Only seventeen Massey-Harris harvesters of the 55 K type have arrived in Western Australia recently. Farmers are trying to work with tractors fifteen and even twenty years old. There is a grave shortage of headers and harvesters, as there is also of ploughs and scarifiers. The excuse is that we are short of steel. Well, one reason for the shortage of this machinery may may be the slow turn-round of ships, and when we seek the reason for that we come back to this man Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, who, against the wishes of the Prime Minister and the Stevedoring Industry Commission, went on the platform and advised the members of his organization to go slow. In Western Australia there is a present demand for 4,700 tons of galvanized iron, 3,750,000 feet of f-inch galvanized piping, 4,290,000 feet of 1-inch piping, and 550,000 of 1^-inch piping. Between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 steel fencing posts are needed, as well as a great quantity of wire - plain and barbed - and wire netting. It is alarming to think that one great manufacturing firm in the east has not made an inch of wire netting during the last two-and-a-half years, because of the general slowing down of production. Yet, the Minister for Repatriation said that more coal had been produced last year than ever before. Later, he corrected himself, and said that it was the second best production year on record. Less coal was produced last year than in 1942, even when the quantity produced by open-cut mining, 1,503,000 tons, is included. The production of coal in underground mine3 decreased from 13,535,000 tons in 1939 to 13,312,000 tons last year, whilst the number of men employed in the industry increased from 21,562, including 15,689 employed in underground mines in 1939, to 23,600, including 16,400 employed in underground mines, last year. Although the overall production increased during that period by a little more than 2,000 tons, the quantity of coal produced in underground mines showed a substantial decrease. However, even taking into account the production of open-cut mines the total production last year was considerably lower than the record quantity of coal produced in 1942. What is the reason for that state of affairs? I am mindful of the difficulties of the miners, but, as the Minister for Shipping Fuel **(Senator Ashley),** pointed out recently, the miners themselves are not to blame for that position. That blame must be laid at the door of the irresponsibles in the industry who are encouraged by the Communist leaders of the miners' federation. In the meantime the community as a whole is being held to ransom. How can the present state of affairs be rectified ? Surely, some remedy can be found ; but this Government has not the backbone to tackle the problem although any government that was prepared to do so would gain, because it would thus do justice to the old decent class of unionists who did so much for this country during World War I. and the years immediately following that conflict. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- What is the honorable member's solution? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I shall tell it to the Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward)** in a few words. The Government should introduce legislation to give to trades unionists the right of the secret ballot. It has been said that some unionists are not in favour of such legislation. However, quite recently a deputation of representatives of the Ironworkers Federation waited upon the Prime Minister and requested him to introduce such legislation because they considered that the affairs of their union were not being conducted in a proper manner. To-day, **Mr. Thornton** is in Russia, where he has *been* decrying Australia. It would be a good thing if he could be refused reentry to this country, or if Russia would refuse him permission to leave that country. People of **Mr. Thornton's** kind who degrade Australia should be kicked out of this country. If the rank and file of unionists are not strong enough to combat such elements in their organizations the Government should not hesitate to pass legislation to ban them. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Ban the unions ? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I have said repeatedly that if the right of the secret ballot were given to the trade unionists we should soon find out the real position. The unionist who is a God-fearing citizen prepared to do a fair day's work wants to see such legislation introduced. However, the Government will not introduce it. If trade unionists were given the right of the secret ballot every financial member of a union would be enabled to influence the affairs of his organization. I would introduce legislation to provide that all major decisions within unions should be made by secret ballot. I would apply that provision to the election of officers. Should members of any union decide by secret ballot to re-elect their present officers that would be their affair ; but the secret ballot would give them the opportunity to express their considered opinion whatever it might be. The right of the secret ballot would give them the opportunity, if they so desired, to rid themselves of their present leaders. The great majority of strikes to-day are not against the boss or the Government, but are due to fiddling causes - because a horse walks too fast, or because some one has a sore toe. However, should the rank and file of unionists consider that they have a real grievance and decide by a secret ballot to strike if their grievance is not rectified by a certain date, they would indicate their mind clearly to the powers. Should a strike then occur, the responsibility for it would rest upon those really to blame for it. The provision of the secret ballot would provide ample opportunity for the investigation of grievances, whether they were imagined or real. Thus, we should avert much of the trouble that is being experienced in industry to-day. Many unions have not experienced the slightest degree of trouble. For instance, the members of the union which covers employees in the brewery trade in Western Australia have not had any trouble. Many people may imagine that such men have a good job, particularly during hot weather. However, I have seen many of those men delivering the amber ale at all hours of the day and night in order to meet the comfort and convenience of their fellow men, but I have not heard of that organization ever having been involved in a strike. The members of that union meet their employers round the conference table and when their just demands are met they are prepared to do a fair day's work. We do not hear of any industrial trouble at Broken Hill. That is because any miner there who attempts to " act the goat " is promptly told where he " gets off " and is soon obliged to leave the town. Unfortunately, however, we have industrial trouble in centres where our great industries are concentrated. J again urge the Government to tackle this problem with determination. Production can also be increased by the provision of incentive payments. I know that some honorable members opposite and many union leaders scoff at that idea. At the same time, however, the majority of the rank and file of many industrial organizations would welcome the provision of incentive payments. I vividly recall that I was working at my trade in Western Australia when the flat rate principle was introduced. As a consequence, men who were able to earn higher wages than many of their fellow workers said to themselves, " That is the end of it so far as we are concerned. If Bill Jones is going to get 13s. 6d. a day, we are not going to bother ". I do not want to be misunderstood on this matter. If incentive payments were provided it would be encumbent upon the Arbitration Court to ensure that no employer would be allowed to sit back in the breeching. All employers would be compelled to pay to any employee who, because of some physical defect, or incapacity, was unable to earn as high wages as the best of his fellow workers, at least a wage that would enable him to keep himself and his family in comfort. At the same time, however, the lack of incentive payments kills initiative on the part of workers who are capable of earning higher than the flat rate payable in their callings. Every opportunity should be given to every worker to increase his income to the limit of his capacity. He should be rewarded for extra effort. The flat rate system is stupid, because it kills the initiative of the abler workers. .1 have heard many Labour supporters, including some honorable members opposite favour the introduction of incentive payments as a means of solving our problem of underproduction. However, they will not express that view in public. They should realize that unless they educate the people along those lines we shall never be enabled to produce to the limit of our capacity and thus really benefit the worker. It is so much trash for honorable members opposite to point to savings banks deposits as evidence of our prosperity. What is the good of money if sufficient goods are not being produced to meet the requirements of the community? To-day, when incomes are comparatively high the Government's first objective should be to meet the needs of the community. A survey of manufacturing industries was recently placed before us by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman).** The Farmers Union of Western Australia is seeking 2,283 refrigerators on behalf of its members. Only yesterday I read an article in a newspaper to the effect that sufficient refrigerators Will soon be manufactured to supply one to every home in the Commonwealth. To me that statement made funny reading. I recall reading the same stuff in *Town Talk* when I was serving with the armed forces at Morotai and in Borneo in 1945. It was said that many of the annexes which had been erected to meet war needs would be utilized for the manufacture of refrigerators and that Australian householders would be able to buy them for. about £30 or £40. Where are those refrigerators? There are people in my electorate living near the No. 2 rabbit-proof fence under most primitive conditions. There, no ice man calls every day, and the people enjoy very few of the amenities available to Australians living in more populated centres. Orders placed by them for refrigerators three or four years ago are still unfulfilled. Even people living at Marble Bar, the hottest town in Australia, cannot obtain refrigerators. The Government will have to get down to bedrock in this matter. It must do something to increase the production of these essential goods. It could do so if it got rid of the red element in this country which is hampering production on all sides. The Government should have sufficient backbone to introduce the necessary legislation to stop the activities of obstructionists, or to give the unionists an opportunity to stop them. I do not wish to anticipate the discussion which will take place in connexion with a private member's bill which we hope will shortly he introduced into this House. I merely say now that every law-abiding unionist to whom I have spoken about the activities of the Communists in the unions has said, " We do not want union ballots to he conducted by our own people. They should be conducted either by the Industrial Registrar or by an official of the court". It is obvious that they do not trust their own organizations. Another matter to which I wish to refer is the provision of a comprehensive water scheme in Western Australia. Recently, this Parliament voted a sum of £2,150,000 to assist the Western Australian Government to provide a water scheme, under which water would be reticulated from the coastal areas on the western side of the ranges to the eastern wheat belt and towns in the Great Southern. Honorable members will recall that I commended the Government very warmly for that gesture to the Western Australian people, hut I said then, and I repeat now, that the provision of monetary assistance of that kind is of no use unless, by some means, the Government can expedite the production of the necessary piping. Under the arrangement made between the Commonwealth and the Government of Western Australia, the money voted by this Parliament is to bc expended solely on reticulation works. The latest, figures I have been able to obtain from the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman),** under whose jurisdiction this work falls, show that Western Australia receives only about 8 per cent, of the total production of piping in this country. I shall not rest content until a better allocation is made, or the Minister has supplied me with figures of the total production of piping, the quantities allocated to the various States and exported from this country, proving that the allocation to Western Australia is reasonable. It is strange that that information has not been furnished. Apparently some arrangements have been made with the manufacturers not to disclose it. It is disgraceful that a State which comprises one-third of the total area of the Commonwealth, and which faces the greatest difficulties in connexion with water conservation - though it has achieved remarkable results in that sphere - should be so treated. The Government should examine the achievements of the late C. Y.. O'Connor, the engineer responsible for the construction of the Mundaring Weir, who made possible the supply of water, over a pipeline 300 miles in length, to Kalgoorlie and intermediate towns, and in so doing increased immeasurably the productivity of the State. I appeal to the Government to increase the supply of piping to Western Australia. An increased allocation would be greatly appreciated by the residents of that State. Rain has not yet fallen this season in the areas proposed to be served by the scheme, for which money was voted by this Parliament, although the coastal areas have had good rain, and the Western Australia Government is using locomotives, which are in a shocking state of repair as the result of war conditions, for the haulage of water along the Great Southern railway. The water is available and the money has been provided; what we want is the production of larger quantities of piping and an increased allocation to Western Australia so that this magnificent project can be completed. In conclusion, I wish to refer to the Indian Ocean Empire air route. I have mentioned this subject on other occasions because of its defence importance. As I have repeatedly stated, very few defence works have been undertaken along the 4,350 miles of coastline in Western Australia. Because of that, Western Australia is very vulnerable to attack by an enemy. Indeed, that State was attacked by the Japanese at several points during the war. At Yampi Sound, in the north of Western Australia, a large body of iron ore is not being exploited to its fullest extent. We hope that those deposits will be fully developed before long. At present there is an air route from Australia to the United Kingdom which traverses the southern countries of Asia. I have suggested the establishment of an Indian Ocean Empire air route from Western Australia to the United Kingdom, via Cocos Island, Diego Garcia, Seychelles, Mombasa and Malta. It may not be practicable to establish such a route, but I ask the Government to carry out a survey to ascertain whether or not such a route is practicable. When I questioned the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr. Drakeford)** about this matter yesterday, the honorable gentleman said that a survey flight had been completed from Perth to South Africa, via cocos Island and Mauritius. Mauritius is well down south in the Indian Ocean, whereas Diego Garcia is centrally situated. I believe that such a route could be established only by mutual arrangement between the Australian Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The route should be surveyed immediately. Diego Garcia is equi-distant from Ceylon, Cocos Island and Seychelles, and from the defence viewpoint the proposed route offers many advantages because it traverses the middle of the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is an island six miles wide and thirteen miles long which offers sufficient space for the building of two runways, each 6,000 feet long and 300 feet wide, which, I understand, are the specified measurements for first-class runways. Space is also available for the construction of the requisite hangars and workshops. Even if sufficient space is not available for all these purposes the existing land area could be increased by reclamation of a lagoon. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the desirability of making an immediate survey of the route. Instead of concentrating solely on Pacific defences the Government should consider the vulnerability of Western Australia and investigate the possibility of the establishment of the air route which I have suggested. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- What is the distance of Diego Garcia from the other islands mentioned by the honorable member? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- Prom Cocos Island to Diego Garcia is 1,490 miles, and from Diego Garcia to Mombasa is 2,100 miles. From Diego Garcia to the Seychelles is 990 miles, and from the Seychelles to Ceylon is roughly the same distance. This proposed route should he investigated, and, if possible, surveyed. The Australian Government should hold immediate consultations with the Government of the United Kingdom with a view to the establishment of the necessary bases on the islands if such be possible. {: #subdebate-18-0-s3 .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby .-In discussing the measures now before the House, honorable members are entitled to consider whether money voted by the Parliament under the last budget has been expended wisely or otherwise. Before dealing with that matter, however, f shall make one or two observations about certain criticism that has been levelled at the Government in the course of this debate. The honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Hamilton)** said that the Government had announced that it would produce refrigerators for the people of Australia at former munitions establishments. The plain fact is that no Commonwealth government, whether it be Labour or Liberal, has power to manufacture goods for sale to the people of this country. That is the complete answer to the honorable member for Swan. The honorable member also alleged that the Labour Government had sponsored communism in this country ii nd that the Communists were its friends. Let us examine that statement. In my opinion, nobody has opposed communism in Australia as strenuously as have members of the Labour Government and of the Labour movement generally. Some time ago, the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt)** quoted the words of a man whom he called " Comrade " Dixon. Of course, the honorable member had every right to do that, because he was a member of a government whose Attorney-General, the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes),** issued an invitation to " Comrade " Dixon to broadcast over the national stations a statement on the policy of the Communist party. I have yet to learn that a similar privilege was ever extended by that government to a representative of the Labour party. I recall, too, that during the war the right honorable member for North Sydney said that he welcomed the Communists as brothers in arms, and that he would welcome anybody who would fight with us. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender),** in the course of his lengthy speech, offered many criticisms of the Government's financial policy. But he turned a complete somersault. He said that he agreed with the Government's action in establishing the National Welfare Fund, and that he did not believe in returning to the taxpayers everything that was collected from them. The honorable member also claimed that capital works, should be financed from loan funds. I remind the House, however, that it was the unrestricted overseas borrowing of the Bruce-Page Government that forced this country into the doldrums in the early 1930's. The present Treasurer **(Mr. Chifley)** has balanced his budget from year to year without resorting to overseas loans, yet he is being urged to revert to the borrowing policy which had such disastrous consequences in the depression years. Let us see what the Commonwealth Government has achieved not only in respect of its own finances, but also on behalf of the States, by its careful avoidance of overseas borrowing. I hope that the people of South Australia are listening to-night because I propose to show just how much they have been saved under the wise administration of the present Treasurer. The overseas interest bill of the combined States has been reduced from £31,000,000 in 1932 to £18,000,000, a saving of £13,000,000. The loans on which that interest is payable were raised either by the States themselves or by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States. What has been the saving to the individual States? The annual overseas interest bill of the State of New South Wale3 has been reduced by £4,600,000. The saving to Victoria has been £1,400,000, to Queensland £2,000,000, South Australia £1,000,000, Western Australia £1,000,000 and Tasmania £400,000. Therefore, what justification can there be for the suggestion that Australia should resort to overseas borrowing for capital works? There is no reason why all the necessary financial accommodation should not be obtained internally as it has been since the advent of the Labour Government. If interest is to bo paid on loans, let it be paid to our own people. The honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) spoke this afternoon of the deterioration of the quality of shoes. She said that she could tell us the names of the manufacturers concerned, but when I asked her to nameth em, she did not do so. I give the honorable member credit for having acknowledged that blame for the lowering of the standard of footwear could not be laid at the door of the Government. Obviously it could not be. When the Commonwealth controlled leather, it could insist upon the branding of footwear with the name of the manufacturer so that substandard products could be returned. Who was it that howled for the lifting of these controls? It was honorable members opposite. The industry itself claimed that it could control the situation. The result has been the deterioration to which the honorable member for Darwin had referred. As a family man, I know what poor-quality children's shoes mean. Prices have increased, and that, too, is something which can be attributed to the efforts of honorable members opposite. I wish now to deal briefly with Australia's overseas credits. Recently, in a press statement, the Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden)** claimed that the Government was ruining the country by building up huge credits overseas. The right honorable gentleman said that we should cash in on our overseas credits. It is remarkable that honorable gentlemen opposite, who so frequently say that we should do more for the Mother Country, advocate an action that perhaps more than any other would cripple it. I do not ask the House or the people generally to accept my word for that. I cite as my authority no other than **Mr. Isaachsen,** the general manager of the Bank of Adelaide. On the 22nd April, the Adelaide *Advertiser* published the remarks of the Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden)** about our overseas credits. In its next issue, the same newspaper reported the comments of **Mr. Isaachsen** as follows: - > **Mr. Isaachsen** said yesterday that he considered the Central (Commonwealth) Bank's policy was well considered and founded . . . **Mr. Isaachsen** said that it was well to remember, when reading sterling balance figures that two, or even one, bad seasons would have a very adverse effect upon Australia's overseas purchasing power, and that possibly it would then become necessary to draw upon Australia's present balances as a reserve. The general manager of the Bank of Adelaide took the Leader of the Australian Country party to task and said that the Government's policy was sound and that, in an adverse season or in the event of a collapse of prices for our primary products overseas under pressure of competition from other countries, our primary producers and the country generally could be helped through the period of adversity by the use of the overseas credits. It is a remarkable tribute to the wisdom of Labour's administration that the general manager of the Bank of Adelaide, who could not be regarded as a champion of the Labour party or the Labour Government, should see fit to say boldly that the central bank policy is sound and well founded. I propose now to give to the people an indication of how their money is being spent. Honorable gentlemen opposite often claim that the Government has not done anything for the ex-servicemen of Australia. In order to disprove their claim I intend to set out just how the Government has assisted exservicemen. I first refer to the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, under which ex-servicemen receive training to which they are justly entitled in their chosen vocations. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman),** who is so frequently the victim of unfair criticism by honorable gentlemen opposite, really deserves praise for what he has done to rehabilitate exservicemen. In 1947-48, the Government expended about £3,600,000 on university courses for ex-servicemen, about £8,900,000 on the technical education of ex-servicemen and about £340,000 on the training of ex-servicemen for rural occupations. The Government has expended about £25,000,000 of the taxpayers' money on reconstruction training. The six States last year expended about £12,000,000 on the education of children. In the same period, the outlay by the Australian Government on the education and training of ex-servicemen exceeded that expenditure by about £1,000,000. That gives an idea of what has happened to some of the taxpayers' money. The Australian Government's interest in education has not stopped at that point. It has advanced a considerable sum of money to assist civilian students through university courses. They are the clever children who lack the wherewithal from their own resources to attend universities. Last year, the Australian Government assisted 1,900 university students at an average cost of £113. Scientific and industrial research is a highly important phase of our economy. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, or, as it is now known, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, has been criticized recently, but no one opposite would claim that it has not performed a great service for Australia. In 1944-45, the Commonwealth expenditure on the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was £920,000, but, last, year, it amounted to £1,800,000. It is well that every one should know of what value the organization is to the primary producers and the people as a whole. I have given that information in order that the taxpayers may know how their money is being spent. I now turn my attention to war service homes in South Australia. Exservicemen in my electorate have frequently told me that they have been treated very well by the Deputy Director of War Service Homes and his staff in .South Australia. Between the 1st January, 1948, and the 30th April, 1949, contracts were let for 1,053 individual war service homes. The War Service Homes Act was amended a little more than twelve months ago to enable the construction of homes in groups. I battled for a couple of years before the act was amended to authorize what I prefer to describe as the mass construction of war service homes. Under the group, or mass construction scheme, contracts for 297 homes were let between the 1st January, 1948, and the 30th April, 1949. Tenders have been invited, but not finally dealt with, for another 171 individual homes. A total of 812 houses were under construction at the 30th April last. Including an additional 156 that are being built under the group scheme, the total number under construction at that date was 968. Between the 1st January, 1948, and the 30th April, 1949, 756 homes were completed. I do not claim that all of the homes needed by ex-servicemen have been built, because that is obviously not so. But I claim that great progress has been made with the construction of war service homes under the administration of this Government. During the period that I have mentioned, from the 1st January, 1948, to the 30th April, 1949, advances were made by the War Service Homes Commission for the discharge of 70 mortgages and the acquisition of 569 existing properties. I told the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Harrison)** earlier this week that I would have something more to say on this subject, about which he has had a great deal to say. Included in the total of 569 properties acquired by the War Service Homes Commission during the period under review were 434 homes that it bought from the .South Australian Housing Trust for a total of £565,769. In other words, the Commonwealth has financed the South Australian Housing Trust to an amount of more than £500,000 in assisting ex-servicemen to purchase homes. A permit must be obtained from the State authorities before the War Service Homes Commission can erect a house for an ex-serviceman. The construction costs that T have cited to-night give the lie direct to the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that homes were being constructed by the South Australian Housing Trust at a cost of £96 per square. The great problem that confronts us is that of increasing the rate of construction of homes for ex-servicemen. I do not care whether the houses are built by the State Housing Trust, by the War Service Homes Commission or by individual contractors so long as the work goes forward. I pay a tribute to the staff of the War Service Homes Commission. No doubt other honorable members have made appeals to representatives of the commission, as I have done from time to time, in order to assist ex-servicemen and no doubt they, too, have received prompt and sympathetic attention. I have never found the staff of the commission in South Australia to be lacking in any respect whenever I have made representations for the purpose of securing building materials to expedite the completion of ex-servicemen's houses. Another activity involving the expenditure of Commonwealth money is the war service land settlement scheme administered by the Department of Postwar Reconstruction. Ex-servicemen in South Australia have frequently asked me to assist them to establish themselves as farmers. In order that honorable members may be fully informed of the situation, I shall cite statistics. The areas in South Australia approved as suitable for the settlement of ex-servicemen total 370,386 acres. The real trouble lies in the fact that only 108 holdings have been allotted and made ready for occupation. The task of allotting blocks is not the responsibility of the Commonwealth. That is a State responsibility. I announce that fact to the House because members of the re-establishment committee in South Australia have told me that a tortoise could outrun the progress of the land settlement scheme in that State. The plain facts are that land has been approved as suitable for settlement but that the State authority responsible for preparing the land for occupation and allotting blocks is not carrying out its job as expeditiously as it should do. I have received representations from representatives of trade unions and other organizations in connexion with the taxation of superannuated persons, and it seems to me that an anomaly is involved in the present system. A superannuated person who has contributed for six units: of superannuation receives £3 15s. weekly and is called upon to pay tax at the rata of 2s. 9d. weekly. I understand that, after the 30th June next that rate will be reduced to 2s. Id. or less. However, a. person who has contributed for three units of superannuation receives. £1 17s. 6d. a week age- pension and £1 15s. a week superannuation, making a total of £3 12s. 6d., which is not taxed. I have been asked to bring this anomaly before the Government with a view to ite removal.. I hope that the Government will investigate the situation and effect a remedy before the next budget is introduced. When I was discussing the general housing programme in this House earlier this week I quoted a statement of facts regarding the construction of homes in the metropolitan area of South Australia. That statement was kindly supplied to me by Elder Smith and Company Limited. The figure that I quoted for 1939 was challenged, and I take this opportunity to repeat the facts. The number of houses constructed in the metropolitan area of South Australia in 1939, just prior to World War II., was 1,427. It is often said by honorable members opposite that this Government is doing little or nothing to assist homebuilding, but the figures that have been supplied to me prove the contrary. They are authentic, because they have been supplied by various local-governing authorities to Elder Smith and Company Limited, which has generously made the information available to me, as well as to other honorable members. The number of homes built in the metropolitan area of South Australia in 1948 was 3,323. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Under the Playford Government ! {: .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr SHEEHY: -- I do not care whether the Playford Government or any other government was' in power. Honorable members opposite make bold to claim that there has been no increase of the rate of construction of homes under the administration of the Commonwealth Labour Government. I am now making it clear that there has been a considerable increase, although it has been by no meant sufficient to meet the requirements of the people. If honorable members opposite 60 desire, I shall cite the number of new residences constructed in the metropolitan area of Adelaide over a period of years. In 1931 and 1932, the numbers were only 51 and 80 respectively. At that time, ample resources of man-power and materials were available for a vigorous building programme. Unfortunately, they lay idle because the people lacked sufficient money to finance the building of homes. The honorable member for Darwin has stated that, apparently, prosperity is a bar to receiving a home. Of course, that .statement is not correct. The Government desires that every person shall have the right to a home. The assertion that prosperity is a bar to the right to purchase a home is fantastic. What the Labour party does contend is that more homes could have been built foi the people before the outbreak of World War II., but anti-Labour governments neglected their opportunity to house the people adequately. As a builder, I was not able to obtain contracts to construct homes during the depression years because people were not in a financial position to meet the costs. However, money is available to-day for the erection of houses, and honorable members opposite declare that prosperity is a bar to homebuilding. The fact that people are able to finance the purchase of homes is, in itself, a vastly different position from that which prevailed under anti-Labour governments. I have described to the House and the people the avenues in which this Government has expended some of the money that it has obtained from taxation. The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. thompson)** has revealed plainly the improved position of persons in the lower and middle income groups under the Labour Government. Honorable members on this side of the chamber believe that the Labour party has a record of administration of which it can justifiably be proud. It has done more for ex-servicemen, and has uplifted the people of this country to a greater degree than has any previous government. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Gullett)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 266 {:#debate-19} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Defence purposes - Laverton, Victoria. > >War Service Homes Act - Land acquired at Warrawee, New South Wales. House adjourned at 10.33 p.m. {: .page-start } page 266 {:#debate-20} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* Australian Capital Territory: Protection of Animal and Bird Life. **Mr. Gullett** asked the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* >Is it a fact that the Australian Capital Territory is a sanctuary for animal and bird life? > >Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that migrants to this country are destroying protected native animals and birds, including kookaburras and magpies, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory? {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Frank Loyal Weaver {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP n asked the Minister for the Army, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the amount of damage done to (a) Commonwealth, and (.6) private property by fires started by the ex-soldier Frank Loyal Weaver in Japan? 1. Was he engaged in storing goods not properly in his possession; if so, where were they stored? 2. What charges were proved against him and what penalties were imposed? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr Chambers:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - 1. *(a)* £143,805 2s. 9d. sterling; (ft) approximately £150 sterling. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The mainitems recovered from the single room occupied by Weaver at Eta Jima included the following, to which he had no title: - Large quantity of Public Relations photographs; military equipment, army documents, and£166 sterling which was deficient from the Y.W.C.A. Hostel. 1. Weaver was brought before a courtmartial in Japan on the 16th October, 1947, and before arraignment, claimed that he was unfit to plead on the grounds of insanity. After hearing evidence, the court upheld this plea, and the finding of the court has been duly confirmed. {:#subdebate-20-1} #### Rural Reconstruction Commission {: #subdebate-20-1-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND s asked the Minister for Works and Housing, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that several years' ago the Rural Reconstruction Commission recommended that construction ofrural houses could be stepped up by a concerted effort of government and private enterprise in the mass production of pre-fabricated houses? 2.Has the Government followed this recommendation; if not, why not? 3: Has the Government any other plans to step up construction of rural houses? {: #subdebate-20-1-s1 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr Lemmon:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. In its seventh report of the 18th May, 1045, the Rural Reconstruction Commission recommended, inter alia: - (a) The promotion of satisfactory and improved standards of houses on farms should be adopted as a definite post-war national objective; (b) this objective should be one of the functions of State housing authorities; (c) the needs of rural housing should receive special attention from the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station. 1. At a special meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, in August, 1948, held to consider the reports of the Rural Reconstruction Commission, the State representatives were unanimously of the opinion that rural housing was entirely a matter for State governments. Discussion closed on the understanding that any action the States might require by the Commonwealth would be the subject of a specific request by them. 2. See above. {:#subdebate-20-2} #### Commonwealth Advertising {: #subdebate-20-2-s0 .speaker-KZJ} ##### Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · LANG LAB; ALP (N-C) from 1948 o asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >What amount of money was spent by the Government during the year 1948 on advertising in each of the following political newspapers: - *Standard, Century, Liberal Opinion, The Countryman, Labour Call, Western Australian Worker, South* Australian Worker, *The Voice* (Hobart) and *Worker* (Sydney and Brisbane) ? {: #subdebate-20-2-s1 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - >Standard, £799 17s. 6d.; *Century,* £1038s. *Liberal Opinion,* no advertising; *The Countryman,* £225 13s. 6d.; *Labour Call,* £275 5s.; *Western Australian Worker,* £329 17s.; *South Australian Worker,* £420 12s.; *The* Voice (Hobart J, £387 12s.6d.; *The Worker* (Sydney),£602 12s.; *The Worker* (Brisbane), £5181s. As I advised in this House on a previous occasion, Commonwealth advertising is confined generally to papers published weekly or more frequently; therefore, *Liberal* Opinion, which is published monthly, does not receive Commonwealth advertising. {:#subdebate-20-3} #### Soil Erosion {: #subdebate-20-3-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What information has the Commonwealth Government on methods used in Australia to combat soil erosion? 1. Has the Government been informed of new methods used in certain North African and Middle East countries (Tripolitania, Egypt and Arabia) to arrest soil erosion? 2. Has the Government considered sending Australian experts to those countries to study methods in use there? {: #subdebate-20-3-s1 .speaker-K9G} ##### Mr Johnson:
ALP -- The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Soil conservation and soil erosion are matters coming within the purview of State governments, which, however, keep the Commonwealth Government advised on methods used to combat soil erosion through the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation, membership of which comprises representatives of the various State governments and the Commonwealth Government. 1. The Standing Committee is at present gathering information on soil conservation methods used in all overseas countries including North African, and Middle East countries. The Trade Commissioners Service has been especially co-opted in this work. 2. The direct interest of the Commonwealth Government in soil conservation and erosion is confined to Commonwealth territories. The question of sending experts abroad to study methods in use in overseas countriesis the responsibility of State governments. Immigration. {: #subdebate-20-3-s2 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Minister for Immigration, uponnotice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth hopes to obtain 200,000 migrants from Great Britain within a measurable time? 1. If so, will he state how many of them are expected to settle in the rural areas of Australia ? Mr.Calwell. - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. In adespatch to the Prime Minister last year the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the right honorable Philip Noel-Baker, advised that shipping would be provided to lift 72,000 new settlers from the United Kingdom to Australia in 1949; 80,000 in 1950 and 87,000 in 1951, a total of 239,000 persons. Of this total, it was anticipated that in 1949, 1950 and 1951, the numbers of nominated free and assisted passage migrants travelling under the governmental migration schemes would be 45,760; 53,750 and60,750 respectively, and the balance would be full-fare paying passengers. 1. It is not possible to estimatehow many such new arrivals will settle in the rural areas of Australia. All nominations for British migrants under the free and assisted passage schemes are first received and checked by the State immigration authorities before being passed to the Commonwealth for approval. A prerequisite to acceptance of nominations is that the nominators will be able to provide accommodation for the nominees on arrival. Priorities of passage are granted in accordance with an approved list of categories agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States. First priority is granted to essential workers and the second to those who can be readily employed; in each case the provision of accommodation by the nominator is basic to acceptance of the nomination. Nominations initially are the responsibility of the States and if any particular State considers that it has need of rural workers from the United Kingdom it is entirely within the jurisdiction of that State to encourage and foster the nomination of such workers and to grant them priority. The number of British migrants who will settle in rural areas will depend upon the extent to which nominations from those areas are submitted by the State immigration authorities.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 May 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490526_reps_18_202/>.