House of Representatives
18 October 1949

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1475

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

page 1475

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– After a report of the Tariff Board in relation to the cotton industry was tabled last week, the Prime Minister indicated that he would discuss with Cabinet to-day the recommendations it contained. The right honorable gentleman will remember, also, that I subsequently addressed a letter to him in connexion with this matter. Has he yet had an opportunity to discuss the report with his colleagues ? If so, was he able to convince them of the wisdom of settling this issue on a broad national basis?

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

– I have perused the report of the Tariff Board, but as there were insufficient printed copies, additional roneoed copies had to be obtained for distribution to Ministers, who, I understand, have since perused them. Cabinet may have an opportunity to discuss the matter next Tuesday.

page 1475

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the following telegram that I have received from Mr. McGinn, secretary of the Canegrowers Executive at Mackay, in Queensland : -

Many growers this area have ceased carting operations due to petrol shortage which in turn compels such growers discontinue harvesting operations for time being. Local supplies exhausted. Request you endeavour arrange additional supplies this area immediately enabling harvesting operations continue. Number of contract cane-carters in similar position and burnt cane lying on ground unable to be carted.

Will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Commonwealth has any authority over the distribution of petrol, or whether the recent decision of the High Court on the invalidity of petrol rationing has deprived it of that power?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– A number of telegrams, similar to that which the honorable gentleman has read, has been received at my office, complaining of the inadequacy of supplies of petrol for essential users. In my earlier replies to questions about this matter, I endeavoured to make it completely clear that, since the decision of the High Court on petrol rationing, the Commonwealth has lost all power over the distribution of petrol supplies within Australia. However, as I have indicated to the House on other occasions, the High Court has made it clear that the States have complete power to ration the distribution of petrol should they choose to do so. Therefore, at an early date, legislation will be introduced into this Parliament, and complementary legislation will be introduced into the State Parliaments, to authorize the re-introduction of petrol rationing. The distribution of supplies of petrol is entirely in the hands of the oil companies. The Commonwealth has power to control the importation of petrol, but I have stated repeatedly that the lack of dollars necessitates the restriction of imports of liquid fuel during the year. I shall not elaborate that matter, because I have dealt with it at some length on many occasions. The Commonwealth itself has no power to determine who shall receive petrol when it is released in this country.

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Commonwealth has the same power over the distribution of petrol in the Australian Capital Territory as the State governments have in their respective territories? Has there been any system of rationing of petrol in the Australian Capital Territory since the decision of the High Court was given ? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a shortage of supply and an unsatisfactory distribution in the Australian Capital Territory?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is true that the Commonwealth has power to control the distribution of petrol within the Australian Capital Territory, but it would be completely futile to exercise that power unless similar control were imposed in the adjacent State territory. The Premiers have made it quite clear, I think, that a system of petrol rationing in Queensland without a similar system in New South “Wales, or in New South Wales without a similar system in Victoria, would he quite unworkable. The Government considers, therefore, that it would not be proper to introduce petrol rationing in Canberra, which is close to the borderline of New South “Wales, when petrol rationing is not operative there. The only reason why rationing has not been introduced in the Australian Capital Territory is that the proposition would be quite impracticable in this limited area alone.

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister state the total volume of petrol stocks held in Australia by the oil companies at present and the total quantity held by the Commonwealth, either for its own use or as defence reserves? Can he also state the estimated length of time that such reserves would last in the event of further supplies being cut off by war or other causes? Has the Government taken any steps to accelerate the search for flow oil in the Commonwealth or territories under its control? Is any search proceeding at present independent of major overseas oil interests, and has the Government any project of its own for the discovery of oil? Has the Government abandoned all hydrogenation projects ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I want to make it clear in the first place that the Government has no knowledge of any stocks that may be held by the oil companies at country depots. It has no control over such stocks. As the honorable member knows, it has secured certain stocks of petrol for defence purposes. The only knowledge that it has of petrol supplies relates to seaboard stocks. According to my memory, seaboard stocks at present amount to about 55,000,000 gallons. The Defence Committee has recommended that defence stocks of petrol should not be allowed to fall below 50,000,000 gallons, and the oil companies have estimated that stocks of not less than 25,000,000 gallons should be maintained for ordinary trading purposes in order to meet the public demand. I do not know how much petrol is held in country depots, because the Government has no power, at present at any rate, to demand information about such holdings. As for the general petrol situation, I have men tioned before that two-thirds of the world’s production of petrol is used in the United .States of America. I have also pointed out that there is a very heavy drain on dollars and gold because of the dollar content of petrol supplied to the sterling area. It is estimated that not less than 400,000,000 dollars a year is required for this purpose. Even this estimate is stated to be low, and I have heard it suggested that the American oil companies themselves have said that between 600,000,000 dollars and 700,000,000 dollars is required annually to pay for petrol supplied to the sterling area. Inquiries have been made with a view to obtaining petrol from soft currency areas, but we have not been successful up to date.

Mr Beale:

– Ampol has just obtained 5,000,000 gallons from France.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am very grateful to the honorable member for that information. Naturally, I sanctioned the issuing of the licence to import that petrol. Ampol has obtained a licence to import from Le Havre, France, 12,500 tons of petrol. I have been given to understand by other oil companies that the importing of petrol from France will be an uneconomic proposition. It is hoped that further supplies of petrol will be obtained from France during the next eight months. France is a refiner of crude oil, and not an importer of refined petrol. Crude oil is not exported from France. I understand that some French petrol has been offered to Australian importers, and an import licence was granted a week or two ago.

Mr Beale:

– The Prime Minister was a bit late, that is all.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The honorable member was a bit late this time.

Mr Lang:

– “What is being done to encourage the search for oil in Australia ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government has given every encouragement to companies that are prepared to invest capital in the search for oil. More than 1,000,000 dollars has been allotted for the importation of oil-drilling equipment into Papua and New Guinea. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization have always been prepared to give every assistance to those engaged in the search for oil.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister, and by way of introduction I point out that I have received a number of telegrams dealing with the petrol situation. The first is from the Bundaberg Canegrowers executive which has a membership of about 1,000 growers. Canegrowers are at present engaged in harvesting, an operation which requires the use of motor lorries. The telegram is as follows: -

Unless more petrol released immediately harvesting arrangements will be disturbed such extent cutters and farmers unable continue, leaving large quantity cane in fields.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is asking a question that has already been asked.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the implication of my question is along entirely different lines.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not entitled to base a question on a question that has previously been asked. An answer has already been given to the question that he is now submitting.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– I have not yet asked my question. Therefore, I submit with respect, you cannot determine whether or not it is in order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is submitting a question relating to the supply of petrol to the sugar industry, and a similar question has already been answered by the Prime Minister.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister say whether, since the announcement of the decision of the High Court in relation to petrol rationing, any action has been taken by the Australian Government to increase the capacity of oil refining plants in Australia or to seek to obtain the benefits of any prospective increase of the capacity of such plants in other countries? Is the right honorable gentleman aware of any plans that have been made for an increase of refining capacity in Australia or in the sterling area generally that are expected to lead to an improvement of the petrol supply position in Australia? If so, when may some tangible results be expected to flow from them?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Inquiries have been made into the possibility of increasing the capacity of oil refining plants in this country. The United Kingdom Government has devoted considerable attention to the problem of increasing the refining capacity of the sterling area and indeed of the United Kingdom itself. The scheme that was evolved some time ago for an increase of the refining capacity of the United Kingdom envisaged an expenditure of £120,000,000. I have already stated in reply to a question that the British -American oil companies fear that an increase of the oil refining capacity of the sterling area would result in very serious losses to them as far as the marketing of refined petrol is concerned. The whole matter of increasing refinery capacity within the sterling area has been carefully considered. Of course, all refineries operating in the sterling area are not sterling concerns. For instance, an American company is operating in Sumatra, and the petrol that is refined by that company is not sterling petrol, nor is the petrol refined at Bahrein sterling petrol. Indeed, the dollar content of a great deal of what might even be called “ sterling petrol “ is very considerable. It must be remembered that most of the equipment for petrol refineries comes from the United States of America, which means that, in the first place, capital has to be found and dollars obtained from the central pool in order to provide it. I assure the honorable member that nothing will be left undone by the United Kingdom’ Government to increase refinery capacity, and I also point out that the Australian Government has endeavoured to interest investors in increasing the refinery capacity of Australia.

page 1477

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been directed to newspaper reports and to current talk about the reduction of the size of cornsacks from 3 bushels, or180 lb., to 2 bushels or 120 lb.? As that reduction is causing concern to a number of industries, and particularly to primary producers and flour millers, can the Minister give to the House any information that will clarify the position?

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

– I have not seen the newspaper reports to which the honorable member has referred, but the wisdom of putting superphosphates, nitrogenous fertilizers and other heavy products in lighter bags than the kind that is now in use has been the subject of research. At the moment, it is not intended to take any action to reduce the size of bags that are used for wheat, pollard, bran, oats and other cereals, but there may be an excellent case, from the standpoint of the farmer, the worker and the economics of sack-usage, for having a smaller container than that which is at present in use for those fertilizer products. It is estimated that if superphosphate were packed in a 120-lb. bag, the resultant saving of jute purchases in India alone would total 6.000 tons per annum.

page 1478

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister representing the Postmaster-General read in this morning’s press the report of n statement by Lord Forrester, of Enfield Cables Limited, to the effect that there should be sufficient telephone cable in this country because the British Post Office had rationed cable so that quantities might be available for export? As, on the evidence, there is not sufficient cable in this country for new services, will the Minister ask the PostmasterGeneral to confer with Lord Forrester, with a view to ascertaining whether supplies of cable can be made available to the Commonwealth for urgent telephone connexions?

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

– I have seen the statement to which the honorable mem.her has referred. I shall ask the PostmasterGeneral to have a consultation with Lord Forrester, or alternatively to arrange for a conference between one of hi? senior officers and Lord Forrester, in order to ascertain whether additional supplies of cable can be obtained from Great Britain. My own view is that Lord Forrester has spoken without knowledge of all of the conditions existing in Australia because I consider that, if extra supplies are available, they would have been obtained before now. If Lord Forrester can help us to obtain additional supplies, we shall be glad to have his assistance. I shall obtain a reply from the Postmaster-General and will supply it to the honorable member as soon as possible.

page 1478

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr HOLT:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral examined the comments made by Mr. Justice Dwyer when pronouncing sentence upon the Communist, Sharkey? In particular has the right honorable gentleman considered the following passage which I quote from the remarks of the learned judge : -

Over the Communist party and its seditious or treasonable conspiracies, I, sitting in this Criminal Court, have neither jurisdiction nor power. lt is to the appropriate authorities that I perforce must leave the task of adequately safeguarding the community in that regard.

In view of the comments of the learned judge, does the Attorney-General, as one of the appropriate authorities to whom His Honour referred, propose to take any further measures to ensure that the public of Australia shall be adequately safeguarded?

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

– I thought that the honorable member would probably infer from the proceedings to which he has referred, and from the result of them, that the public of Australia are adequately safeguarded. The principle that he has mentioned is very important. T have not seen the remarks attributed lo His Honour, Mr. Justice Dwyer, who tried the case. The importance of that case is that it was a prosecution under existing law that is applicable to everybody in the community. The fact that the accused was a member of the Communist party would not put him in a better or worse position. In other words, in the application of the principle all persons are bound equally by the law of the land. In this case the defendant Sharkey was found guilty of sedition and he was sentenced. That principle is exactly in keeping with that embodied in the important legislation that the Parliament passed during the coal strike. As a result of that legislation eight persons who had disobeyed the law enacted by it were proceeded against in the Arbitration Court and were committed to gaol, six of them being members of the Communist party. They were proceeded against not because they were i ii embers of the Communist party, but because they broke the ordinary law of the land. The ordinary law and that contained in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which is not special legislation but has been in force since 1920, are very sharp weapons which can deal adequately with persons who are guilty of seditious activity in this country.

page 1479

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Australian Citizens Abroad

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for the Interior what steps have been taken to enable Australians abroad and also Australians in New Guinea and Papua to vote at the next federal general election ?

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The legislation passed recently amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act makes provision for postal voting by Australians who happen to be in New Guinea or Papua or elsewhere outside Australia at the date of the next general election. The only special condition that will apply to such persons is that if they are unable to get another elector to endorse their postal vote they must have it endorsed by one of the authorities empowered under the act to do so.

page 1479

QUESTION

LISTENERS’ GUIDE TO CANBERRA

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister for Information whether he would confer with the management of the Melbourne Herald in an endeavour to have its publication Listeners’ Guide bo Canberra reprinted. In view of the educational value of this excellent publication to the public and schools, has he been able to get in touch with the Herald management about the matter ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I remember the question that the honorable member asked about a fortnight ago. I promised then that I would confer with Sir Keith Murdoch to see whether by joint government and private enterprise a new

Listeners’ Guide to Canberra could be published when the Nineteenth Parliament had been elected. In pursuance of my promise, I interviewed Sir Keith Murdoch when he came to Canberra last week. He came to my office. We discussed the matter amicably and reached a satisfactory arrangement. This Government finds it very easy to deal with private enterprise. Sir Keith Murdoch has no fear of socialization in this matter. As a matter of fact, he appreciates the fact that I shall still be Minister for Information after the general election and therefore able to deal with him because we are to have a new Listeners’ Guide to Canberra. The Department of Information is to provide certain blocks and biographical matter, and the Herald is to print the publication and merchandise it. I hope that, with the assistance of the Government, the Herald will not experience the loss that it had when it issued the publication alone.

page 1479

QUESTION

FRUIT FLY

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Fruit fly, which is prevalent in certain parts of New South Wales and does damage to stone fruit, has made its appearance in Gippsland. The Department of Agriculture of Victoria has proved that it is brought into Victoria in damaged fruit carried by aircraft. The Department of Agriculture has asked the air companies to co-operate with it in its efforts to stamp out fruit fly by incinerating all damaged fruit carried in their aircraft. At present, the fruit is used for stock feed. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited have agreed to cooperate, but Trans-Australia Airlines has refused on the ground that it is a State matter that has nothing to do with it. Will the Minister for Civil Aviation investigate the matter with a view to ensuring the co-operation of TransAustralia Airlines in carrying out the very necessary preventive measures contemplated by the Department of Agriculture?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have not heard of the matter raised by the honorable member for Flinders. He seems to have some inside information about what Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Ansett Airways Proprietary

Limited have agreed to do and TransAustralia Airlines has not agreed to do. I deplore the appearance of fruit fly in Gippsland or anywhere else, but I am sure, from, my knowledge of the management of Trans-Australia Airlines, that it would be as agreeable to co-operate in stamping it out in agricultural areas as would any other air company. I shall undertake to have inquiries made into the matter to see whether there is any real substance in what the honorable member has advanced. If there is any substance in it, and if there is a way to apply a remedy for any difficulties that have arisen, I shall be happy to try to have that remedy applied.

page 1480

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction Training Scheme

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– -I direct a question to the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. I point out to him that the cost of students’ text-books has recently increased by approximately 40 per cent, and the price of some text-books being as high, as 88s. for a single volume. The allowances made under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme of £10 for books and £20 for equipment are not permitted to be used as one allotment for whichever of the two purposes the student most requires the assistance. In view of these facts, will the Minister consider increasing the present allowance for books for students?

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

– I know that a considerable increase of the cost of books has occurred during recent years, but I am not aware that that increase has occurred in recent months, nor that it has taken place since the present allowance for books was decided upon. Under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, as the honorable member has said, students are permitted to buy with the allowance books up to the value of £10. That figure was fixed after very close investigation of the needs of the students in relation to books. As the honorable member will know, when students buy sets of books for a particular period of their studies they are generally able to sell thom at the end of that period and so have available some money to meet their expenditure on books that they require for the succeeding period. I assure the honorable member that the whole matter has been thoroughly investigated; nevertheless, I shall re-examine it. I consider that the allowance for books is not ungenerous in the circumstances.

page 1480

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is true that the Government has completed a contract with the United Kingdom covering meats and pig meats ? If so, what are the terms and prices involved ?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– The Government has not so far completed any contract with the United Kingdom in respect of pig meats or beef.

page 1480

QUESTION

COAL

Mr BEALE:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel seen a press report that the miners’ federation, by strikes and threats of strikes, is hindering the efforts of the Joint Coal Board to increase open-cut production, and has also decided that the coal-miners Christmas break shall begin a week earlier than usual? In view of this, what steps does the Government intend to take to break the monopoly of open-cut mining that was given back to the miners’ federation after the recent coal strike, and also to make sure that enough coal shall be produced to supply the needs ‘of industrial and domestic users in this country?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– There have been certain difficulties in regard to the working of multiple shifts in connexion with open-cut mining. Some of them have been due, as was pointed out in the earlier stages of the introduction of multiple shifts, to insufficient labour. Following upon the recent coal strike it was indicated that 400 or 500 additional persons would be required to make the working of multiple shifts possible. It has been found, particularly on the western coalfield where the Ben Bullen, Cullen Bullen and Commonwealth mines are situated, that it has not been possible to work multiple shifts because of the difficulty of maintaining the plant available. It has been, or will be necessary in some eases, to work two shifts in the open-cuts to enable the plant to be maintained. In one or two mines the necessary plant is expected to be available shortly but until it is available multiple shifts cannot be worked there. On the northern coal-field some trouble has arisen at Muswellbrook in regard to the working of three shifts. New Dell, New Field and Cessnock mines are working three shifts. It is proposed that when the Kerosene Yale mine is opened three shifts will be worked there. One or two of the other mines including Minmi have been working ten-hour shifts whilst others have been working nine-hour shifts. The difficulty has arisen largely because there is some opposition on the part of sections of the miners to working three shifts in some of the mines, and I think that that is applicable to some extent to Cullen Bullen in the west. Multiple shifts are not popular. That is especially true of the afternoon shift - called the “ dog watch “ - particularly when the men live some distance from the mine. However, the Joint Coal Board has insisted that three shifts must be worked, subject, as I have said, to the availability of labour and ability to maintain existing machinery. Additional machinery is being made available all the time. The matter of Christmas holidays is now being discussed by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and the Joint Coal Board, in an endeavour to ease any threatened scarcity of coal during the Christmas period.

page 1481

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services whether the Australian Government provides through any of its social services free hospital accommodation and treatment for those who cannot afford to pay for those things? I am omitting, of course, repatriation patients. If not, is it a fact that the free hospital service that is available in Victoria is made possible by a Commonwealth payment of 8s. a day for each occupied hospital bed, plus a State grant and public subscriptions? Can the Minister say what is the approximate average daily cost of maintaining an occupied bed in a

Victorian public hospital? My question is prompted by the feeling among many people that they should not have to make a substantial social services contribution, and, at the same time, be asked to contribute voluntarily to the upkeep of hospitals.

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

– An agreement between the Commonwealth and the States has made it possible for people to have free hospitalization in public wards of public hospitals. There is no doubt about that. The Australian Government desired that free beds should be provided in public hospitals, without a means test, and to that end a conference with the States was held. Under the agreement reached at that conference, the Commonwealth undertook to provide sufficient money to make up the fees which otherwise would be collected from public ward patients if the States made this accommodation available free of charge to patients. Originally, the payment hy the Commonwealth was fixed at 6s. a day. That figure was based on fees collected and charges made in the financial year 1942-43. Later, when costs increased, a further conference was held and the payment was increased to 8s. a day. The estimated cost ‘ to the Commonwealth of the 8s. a day payment for the coming year is £6,000,000. The 6s. a day originally was deemed to include a surplus which was to be placed in a special fund for the construction of new hospitals when this became practicable. However, when the payment was increased to 8s. a day, that provision was altered, and hospital authorities may now use some of the money in the special fund for emergency purposes. As I understand the question, the honorable member wants to know whether any money, apart from the Commonwealth’s subsidy of 8s. a day, is required for the maintenance of hospital beds. The answer is, yes. However, the fact remains that the Commonwealth has made it possible for people in all States to occupy hospital beds free of charge and without the application of the means test. There is no law that compels any one to contribute directly to hospital funds, but some people’ continue to respond to hospital appeals each year. The honorable member also asks what is the cost of maintaining a hospital bed in a public ward.

Mr Turnbull:

– An occupied bed?

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

– I have seen the report for 1947-48, but I have not yet seen the report for the following year, although I understand that it has been presented. In 1947-48 the cost of bed maintenance in the Melbourne metropolitan area averaged 29s. a day and in Victorian country areas the daily cost averaged 23s. 9d. Since then costs have risen and bed maintenance costs have probably increased slightly above those figures. In Victoria, the cost of free public ward hospitalization and medical attention for persons who did not wish to pay for such services amounted to £1,066,000.

page 1482

QUESTION

HIGH COMMISSIONER IN LONDON

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether Mr. Mighell, the assistant High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom, has tendered his resignation, and if he has, when he will vacate that position ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Prior to the lamented death of Mr. Beasley, the High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom, Mr. Mighell had intimated to me that, for health and other reasons, he desired to be relieved of his position as Assistant High Commissioner at the end of the present calendar year. At that time we were unaware of Mr. Beasley’s illness and the possibility that it would lead to his sudden death. After Mr. Beasley’s death, on behalf of the Government, I asked Mr. Mighell to carry on as Acting High Commissioner. He has been doing so, but it has been clear since his visit to Australia that he wished to retire either at the end of the present year or early next year. Those arrangements still stand. Mr. Mighell entered hospital recently for a brief period for the treatment of war injuries, and during his absence from his duties Mr. McCarthy, the secretary of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, temporarily replaced him as Acting High Commissioner.

Mr Menzies:

Mr. Mighell’s health has improved ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I believe that he had to be treated for war injuries. I understand that he has some outside private interests to which he desires to attend and that for health reasons he wishes to retire at the end of this year or early next year.

page 1482

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Mr HOLT:

– Recently, I asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction whether he would examine the desirability of appointing the Council of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization as prescribed by legislation which was recently passed in relation to that body. The Minister then informed me that he was under the impression that the council hadalready been appointed but that he would make inquiries and let me know the result. Is it true that the council has not yet been appointed, and that it cannot be appointed until the appropriate statutory rule is promulgated? Will the Minister tell me the result of his investigations and what action has been taken to expedite the appointment of the council ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I was underthe impression that I had advised the honorable member by letter ofthe result of my investigation of this matter. It was decided as a matter of policy that the council would he continued as an advisory body and I believed that all the necessary steps had been taken to enable it to do so. However, when I made inquiries I ascertained that some difficulty had arisen in relation to the drafting of the appropriate regulation. That matter is now before the Attorney-General and I hope shortly to hear that the difficulty, whatever it may have been, has been overcome. The necessary regulation will then be issued and the advisory council be formally established.

page 1482

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr TURNBULL:

– I direct the atten tion of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development to an article that appeared in a newspaper last Thursday. It was stated in the article that the Australian Aluminium Production Commission now has under its control bauxite deposits in Australia that are sufficiently extensive to enable the commission to maintain the production of aluminium in this country at the rate of 10,000 tons a year for 100 years. Can the Minister say how much of the bauxite is in Victoria, and at what places it is located ? How does the quality of the Victorian bauxite deposits compare with that of deposits in other States?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I cannot inform the honorable member for “Wimmera of the extent or quality of the bauxite deposits in Victoria. I shall ask the Minister for Supply and Development to obtain the information for which he has asked.

page 1483

QUESTION

LOSS OF BOAT

Mr BEALE:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral seen a recent newspaper report in which it was alleged that an Australian ex-serviceman has been detained for more than a year in Dutch-controlled territory in Indonesia and that he has sought the aid of the Legal Service Bureau at Darwin ? “Will the right honorable gentleman cause inquiries to be made to ascertain whether the newspaper has correctly stated the facts of the case? If it has done so, will he ascertain whether there is any justification for the detention of this man and whether it will be possible to repatriate him ?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– Apparently the question that has been asked by the honorable member for Parramatta relates to the disappearance of a small vessel from Australian territory, the question of the extradition of the persons who were concerned in removing it, subsequent action that was taken by the Dutch authorities in Batavia and an inquiry by a person who had been detained by the Dutch authorities regarding whether any legal proceedings are pending against him. The Prime Minister has informed me that a written reply to a question in connexion with this matter has already been given. If any further information is available in addition to that which has been given in the written reply, I shall inform the honorable gentleman accordingly.

page 1483

MOTOR VEHICLES

Manufacture in Australia.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · Corio · ALP

by leave - I wish to advise the House of a further step that is about to be taken in the development of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia and the consequential effect thi9 will have on dollar expenditures. The expansion to which I refer has been made possible as a result of the Government having approved of certain proposals submitted by the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited. These new proposals will result in a substantial expansion of the company’s activities in Australia and, when completed, Ford, cars and trucks will be largely the product of Australian manufacture.

The carrying out of this plan will, in the short term, involve some dollar expenditure, and in this connexion I should explain to the House that to provide for the importation of automobile components from North America two distinct dollar allocations are made by the Government. One of these allocations is available for the importation of motor vehicle chassis or components which have been customarily imported from North America. The other allocation is available only for the importation of components that are to be used in motor vehicles, the production of which involves the use of a high proportion of Australian-made parts. The Ford company already has access to the first allocation. It will now have access to the second.

The Ford company has been following a policy of steadily increasing the locally manufactured content of its vehicles. At the end of the war in 1945, less than 60 per cent, of the content of Ford vehicles was produced in Australia, and the greater part of this percentage was accounted for by the bodies which had been almost wholly manufactured in this country over a long period. By the end of 1949, nearly 75 per cent, of the total content of Ford vehicles will be produced in Australia. Many of those components are manufactured by the company at its works in Geelong but, in addition, approximately 250 other Australian manufacturers supply parts for Ford vehicles. The planned objective of the programme now approved by the Government is that by the middle of 1952, Ford cars and trucks produced in Australia will have approximately an 85 per cent. locally manufactured content expressed in terms of factory cost.

This important plan of development in the Australian automobile industry has significance in a number of directions. With regard to the Government’s central policy of full employment, developments such as this one are contributing to stable full employment. In 1939 the Ford company employed approximately 2,400 people. To-day, ten years later, it employs approximately 4,300. The company operates two manufacturing plants at Geelong and Ballarat in Victoria. There is also an assembly plant at Geelong and four other assembly plants in various parts of the Commonwealth. This represents a contribution to the effective decentralization of this country’s industry.

As Minister for Defence, I am also interested in the defence potential of industrial expansion of this kind. This company made a magnificent contribution to production during the war when the magnitude and efficiency of its plant permitted the production of a vast quantity of fighting material ranging from tank landing ships, steel lighters and marine mines to ammunition boxes. The greater the extent and variety of the productive capacity of the company, the greater will be therole it will be able to play in the future defence of this country should the need arise. This project not only means a great expansion by the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited itself but also involves the industrial and employment expansion of all those related industries which produce components for the automobile industry.

That the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited and its suppliers have decided to undertake this development is a matter for considerable satisfaction. This will be one of the most important and significant of the many expansion projects which Australian industry has undertaken. It shows that not only local industry but also great over seas industrial organizations have the fullest confidence in the economic stability of this country, and in its future progress.

I may add that this company has already planned yet a further stage of development, though the Government has not been informed of a time-table for putting this further stage into effect. It has for its object the production in Australia of most of the components still remaining to be imported when the present plan has been consummated. In the long term, the achievement of this objective will result in a considerable saving of dollars. The Government appreciates this expression of faith of the Ford organization and its parent organization in Canada in Australian technical and productive capacity.

I also pay tribute to Mr. H. C. French, the retiring managing director of this great Australian company. Mr. French, a Canadian by birth, has given a quarter of a century of unremitting service to the industrial development of Australia. It is due in a large measure to his vision and energy that this latest plan of development by his company has been made possible.

page 1484

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 1949 [No. 2]

Motion (by Dr. Evatt) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to declare that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is empowered to determine a basic wage for adult females, and for purposes related thereto.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1484

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1949

Motion (by Mr. Johnson) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Northern Territory ( Administration) Act 1910-1947.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1484

CUSTOMS BILL 1949

Motion (by Mr. Pollard) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901-1947.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

. - by leave - I move -

That the hill be now read a second time, lt has been deemed advisable to amend the Customs Act 1901-1947 on the lines indicated in the bill now presented for the consideration of honorable members. The proposed amendment is aimed at simplification of the application of the principle incorporated in section 75 of the Excise Act 1901 relating to refunds of customs duty on tobacco wastes arising during the course of manufacture and destroyed under supervision. It is considered that the desired result could be achieved with less inconvenience to the manufacturer and greater facility to the Department of Trade and Customs by dispensing with refunds and substituting therefor the granting of an allowance arrived at in the light of past manufacturing results. The proposal would benefit manufacturers in that the allowance would be made at the time duty was paid on the imported tobacco leaf instead cf the makers having to pay the full amount of duty and to await determination of the quantity of waste material and refund of the duty involved at a later date. It would also be advantageous from the point of view of administration as, under existing conditions, it has been found necessary for accurate and elaborate records to be kept by departmental officers, the position being complicated by virtue of the fact that in most factories both imported and Australian leaf is used. Owing to the property possessed by tobacco of readily absorbing and giving up moisture according to atmospheric conditions, exacting oven tests are required to be made to adjust wastes to a standard basis.

During the year 1947-4S a total of 3,S08,339 lb. of tobacco wastes was destroyed in the Commonwealth and on this quantity the sum of £1,131,735 was refunded.

In brief, the amendment will mean the abandonment of the system of refunds on tobacco wastes in favour of an allowance, and I commend the bill to honorable members for favorable consideration. .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1485

EXCISE BILL 1949

Motion (.by Mr. Pollard) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Excise Act 1901-1947, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to repeal section 75 of the Excise Act 1901-1947 which provides for the payment of refunds of customs duty paid on imported tobacco leaf wasted and destroyed under prescribed conditions, and to substitute therefor authority for the destruction of the waste material. The repeal of section 75 does not mean that consumers will suffer any hardship by virtue of the withdrawal of refunds previously allowed to manufacturers, as it is proposed by other legislation to make an allowance to manufacturers to compensate the industry for the cancellation of the refund procedure.

The waste which occurs in the course of making tobacco consists, for the most part, of stalks, refuse and clippings, but it may include some manufactured tobacco of such low grade as to be considered unfit for sale. For the protection of the revenue it is essential that all such material not incorporated in the finished product should be rendered useless for smoking purposes before release from customs control, and provision is made in the bill accordingly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1485

STATES GRANTS (ENCOURAGEMENT OF MEAT PRODUCTION) BILL 1949

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) agreed to - That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to make provision for the grant of financial assistance to the States of Queensland and Western Australia for the purpose of encouraging the development of meat production by the provision of improved roads and other facilities for the movement of live-stock.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1486

COAL INDUSTRY (TASMANIA) BILL 1949

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for :m act to provide means for securing and maintaining adequate supplies of coal to assist in meeting the need for that commodity throughout Australia and for providing for the regulation and improvement of the coal industry in the State of Tasmania, and for other purposes.

page 1486

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1949

Second Reading

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purposes of this bill are, first, to clarify the provisions of section 164b of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in relation to the prohibition of electoral posters exceeding the size prescribed, and, secondly, to provide readily applicable means of effecting the removal of any electoral poster that has been posted up or exhibited in contravention of the provisions of that section, or the obliteration of any electoral matter written, drawn or depicted contrary to that section. Clause 3 (a) of the bill is designed to remove any doubt that might have arisen as to the period of the applicability of subsections (1.) and (2.) of section 164b of the Commonwealth Electoral Act by specifically declaring that those subsections extend in relation to an election or referendum although the writ for that election or referendum has not been issued. There never was any other intention, and it is considered there is no real justification for placing on the subsections any contrary interpretation. Nevertheless, presumably because of the absence of a specific provision such as i3 contained in this bill, the extraordinary contention has been put forward that the prohibition imposed by the sub-sections applies only after the issue of a writ. Whilst it is held that there is no real substance in that contention, the declara tion embodied in this amending legislation will, if agreed to, remove any shadow of doubt whatsoever on the point.

Clause 3 (b) of the bill contains a provision expressly stating that nothing in section 164b shall prohibit the putting up or writing of a sign on or at the office or committee room of a candidate or political party indicating that the office or room is the office or committee room of the candidate or party and specifying the name of the candidate, or the names of the candidates, or the party concerned. However, any such sign must not carry any slogan or other matter soliciting support or votes for the candidate or candidates, or for the party, or in any other way advancing or attempting to advance, the claims of the candidate, the candidates, or the party. In effect, the sign must be purely informative in character, and nothing else.

Clause 4 provides for the inclusion in the electoral law of two new sections, 164ba and 164bb. The first of these sets out that an authorized person, that is a police or peace officer, may, and shall, if so directed by an electoral officer, remove an electoral poster that appears to have been posted up or exhibited in contravention of section 164b, or obliterate electoral matter that appears to have been written, drawn or depicted in contravention of the said section. The second of the proposed new sections makes provision for the granting by a court, upon application by an officer, of an injunction restraining any apprehended contravention of section 164b or directing the removal of an electoral poster posted up or exhibited, or the obliteration of electoral matter written, drawn or depicted, in contravention of that section. As I have already indicated, the purpose of those new sections is to provide machinery whereby prompt action can be taken to counter effectively any contravention or attempted contravention of the provisions of the Commonwealth law as expressly laid down in section 164b of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I commend the bill to honorable members and urge its speedy passage.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– As this bill has been in circulation since last week, I do not propose to ask for the adjournment of the debate, and I shall proceed now with my second-reading speech. The bill itself, and the provision that was inserted in the law in 1946, which it seeks to amend, are entirely without justification. The main purpose of the legislation is to deprive the people of their normal liberty to influence opinion, by restricting the size of electoral posters to 10 inches by 6 inches. They will not be posters at all, and what may be described as an entirely legitimate poster, which, in its free days, this community understood very well, is now on the forbidden list. I remember perfectly well that when the original provision was inserted in the act in 1946, it was associated in some vague way with the shortage of paper. It is now revealed as a perfect expression of the dictatorial socialist mind, the bureaucratic mind. The Government says, in effect, “ You people who want to put up a poster will not be allowed to do so “. Such an absurdity, I think, has never been wished on to any other civilized community. The Australian Government now comes before the people once more, and says, “ We confirm and, indeed, we strengthen a law the effect of which is as follows: - If you want to put up a poster 10 feet by 6 feet - not 10 inches by 6 inches - to advertise mustard, butter, a patent medicine or a film at the local motion picture theatre, you may do so, but you are not to use that paper for a poster of the same size to advertise a political argument “.

Mr Lang:

– Is there a definition of “ poster “?

Mr MENZIES:

– No. “The posting up, exhibiting, writing, drawing or depicting of a sign “ is one expression that is used, but otherwise the words are “ electoral matter “. I shall read the provision in the act of 1946. It is as follows : -

A person shall not post up or exhibit, or permit or cause to be posted up or exhibited, on any building, vehicle, vessel, hoarding or place . . . -

an electoral poster the area of which is more than sixty square inches–

A peculiar poster, as everybody will agree -

  1. Any electoral poster in combination with any other such poster if the aggregate area of those posters exceeds sixty square inches.

If we want to get a full view of this miserable, grandmotherly, interfering legislation, all that we have to do is to look at those original words. We may have a poster of 60 square inches. Nobody will be able to read it. We may print millions of them if we want to do so. The paper shortage will not matter. But if we put enough of them side by side on a hoarding we shall be violating the law because they will then be’ treated, under that section of the provision, as “ an electoral poster in combination with any other such poster “, the aggregate area of which exceeds 60 square inches. Could anything be more fantastic? The Government admits at once that paper has nothing to do with the matter, because we may print millions of these sheets as long as they are of pocket handkerchief size. However, we must not stick up a series of pocket handkerchief posters side by side on a hoarding because then the total area covered by the permissible paper would be more than 60 square inches.

How does this bill come before us ? If a bill had been introduced to abolish that provision, the people of Australia would have regarded it as some tardy restoration of their ordinary political rights. But no, that has not been done. What has happened? In Queensland, the organization of the Liberal party some time ago put up posters that were more than 60 square inches in area. There was no election in progress, and the organization had been advised that there was no prohibition against the posters. It was legally advised to that effect because the original act of 1946 provided that “ electoral matter “ meant - any matter intended or calculated to affect the result of an election or referendum held or to be held under any law of the Commonwealth.

The advice that the organization received was that until writs were issued there was no election that could be described as an election to be held under the law of the Commonwealth. In order to show the complete bona fides with which the matter was approached, I tell the House that the secretary of the Liberal party organization in Queensland actually interviewed the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, Mr. Stewart, on the 22nd March before posters were put up. Having looked at the provision of the act once more, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer said that it was quite clear that, until writs were issued, the party could do as it wished as there was no election pending and therefore no “ electoral matter “. The organization was told to go ahead. But news of this came down to the great city of Canberra, and the bureaucrats got to work and said, “ This is terrible. Why, if this is allowed, we shall be having big political posters put up in the country “.

Nothing could be more injurious to freedom, apparently, than to have big political posters ! As I have said, we can have the biggest poster in the world about some film. We can advertise a beauty contest, pork and beans, cheese or mustard. That would be all right. But we must not put up a poster that contains a political argument. Therefore, the bureaucrats said, “ We will alter the law “. This Government has its humorous moments, because the secondreading speech that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) has just read to us contained this passage -

The extraordinary contention has been put forward that the prohibition imposed by the sub-sections applies only after the issue of a writ.

The Government says that that is an extraordinary contention. Its own electoral officer upheld the contention, but it describes that contention as extraordinary! It wants us to understand that the argument is perfectly stupid. Yet it is so lacking in stupidity, that the Government has brought in an amending bill to put it right !

Mr Thompson:

– The right honorable member would not say that all he has said over the air in recent months is not to affect the election?

Mr MENZIES:

– I hope so. I concede to the Government at once that it has not endeavoured to prevent us from speaking in our places in this House. But the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) will be hard put to it to explain why it is that, though we may address the people of Australia for an hour over the air, we must not put up a poster for purposes of an election that is more than 10 inches by six inches. Nobody has ever pretended to put forward any real justification for that. As I was saying, having denounced this idea as perfect nonsense, the Government is quite prepared to occupy public time and expend public moneyby introducing a bill to cure a defect, which, it says, does not exist. That is very curious for a start. Then, having told the citizen that he is not at liberty to influence public opinion with a poster that is a real poster, it asked, “ How can we get rid of any poster that seems to us to contravene the law ? “ If honorable members will be good enough to look at clause 4 of this perfect piece of fascist legislation they will see this provision: -

For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the last preceding section, an authorized person may, and shall if so directed by the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth

remove an electoral poster which appears–

That is to say, which appears to him - to have been posted up or to be exhibited in contravention of the last preceding section; or

  1. obliterate electoral matter which appears to have been written, drawn or depicted in contravention of the last preceding section.

That is a remarkable power to give to an official, is it not? An official, with no intervention by any other authority, can tear a poster down. It may be a poster that does not offend this law at all, but he will be authorized to tear it down or obliterate it. Having read that provision, I looked earnestly to see who the “ authorized person “ would be.I thought that at least he must be some person of great responsibility. It appears later in the provision that “ authorized person “ means - a member of the Police Force of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth and a peace officer appointed under the Peace Officers Act 1925.

So a peace officer of the Commonwealth, moving with weary dignity away from guarding the factory gate at the end of the day’s work and coming across a poster that he does not like because it has been put up by a party that he does not vote for, may say, “ I am an authorized person. Down she comes ! “ This is the most amazing–

Mr Duthie:

– What is amazing about that?

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall be very interested to hear whether the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) can justify this legislation, because no attempt has been made by the Minister for the Interior to justify it. The whole thing is a wanton interference with the ordinary rights of the citizens of this country.

This law cannot be justified by the proposition that the Australian people are not fit to be allowed to read posters on politics. That would be too great an insult for any government to offer to the people of Australia. On what ground can it be justified ? We come back to the idea that paper should not be used for these purposes. I have already answered that suggestion by pointing out that, apparently, it is permissible to use all the paper in the world as long as each individual poster does not exceed in area 60 square inches. But what are we to think of the Government for telling us - because this legislation is aimed principally at the Opposition parties - that we are not to put up political posters because, forsooth, there is a shortage of paper, when the Government itself is using more paper every week for purely partisan publications issued by government departments - a grossly fraudulent misuse of public moneys - than would be used in all the posters issued by all the political parties over a period of ten years ?

Mr Lang:

– Does this legislation apply to advertisements in newspapers ?

Mr MENZIES:

– Apparently not. For instance, the principal act states -

  1. an electoral poster the area of which is more than sixty square inches ; or
  2. an electoral poster in combination with any other such poster if the aggregate area of those posters exceeds sixty square inches.

So, presumably, it does not apply to newspaper advertisements. I am. much obliged to the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) for his very pertinent reminder. For some reason, it is permissible to publish a poster in a news paper, which circulates 300,000 copies a day, and that poster may be 20 inches by 15 inches or 24 inches by 16 inches or whatever may be the size of the newspaper page, but if any one dares to put up a poster in a public place it must not be more than 60 square inches in size. If it should happen to be 61 square inches, then the lonely constable on his beat, exercising his own discretion, may pull it down. I say that this is pernicious nonsense, and that the people of Australia, once they are informed about such legislation, will not tolerate it for a moment.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– This is a scandalous piece of legislation, and all members of the Opposition are unanimous in protesting against it. This is part of the gradual undermining by the Government of our freedom and rights as citizens. Apparently, the Government is, to use an Australian term, “ windy “ about its chances in the forthcoming election, and so it is attempting by this bureaucratic fascist method to interfere with the rights of the people. The size of political posters was restricted during the war. The excuse for that action, at that time, was the shortage of paper. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), in his able speech, pointed out that, only by relating this legislation to the shortage of paper, could the Government possibly justify it. However, perhaps there is another reason. This Government has decided to kill the cotton-growing industry in Queensland, and so there may be a shortage of cotton material upon which to print posters. Already, one effect of the cotton shortage is to make clothing scarce and dear. Members of the Australian Country party protest vigorously against this legislation. The Government has promised to remove war-time controls, but in this legislation it is perpetuating a control, and seeking to interfere with the liberties which we should guard so jealously. We know that the Government Whip (Mr. Fuller) has placed on the back of a motor car a large poster inviting everybody to “ Vote for Fuller “, so that all may read it as he drives about the country. It will be interesting to see whether he removes that poster when this measure becomes law. We readily concede that the Government Whip has the right to display a poster in that way. We have no objection to his doing so, because we know that the more he advertises himself the . fewer votes he will receive. Once again, I protest against this attempt by the Government to impose fascist legislation on the people, and to destroy their liberties.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– I think that this legislation has a little more in it than was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). It is not proposed in the bill to impose any new limitations, because the legislation already exists to impose the limitations that are contemplated. The purpose of the bill is merely to apply existing legislation to the forthcoming general election, not only after the issue of the writ, but at all times prior to the election. In reply to an interjection by me, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was quite correct that all the money the Liberal party had spent over the last six or twelve months had been spent with a view to influencing the result of the coming election.

Mr Menzies:

– I am sorry to interrupt the honorable member, but I know he would not like to misrepresent me. He asked me whether I would agree that the speeches that I had made in this House had been so designed.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The Leader of the Opposition did not say that.

Mr Menzies:

– The Hansard record will bear me out. I shall accept the honorable member’s apology to-morrow.

Mr THOMPSON:

– There will be no need for an apology. When the Leader of the Opposition waxes eloquent, he is likely to make a slip. I asked the right honorable gentleman whether the money that had been spent by the Liberal party on propaganda during the last six months or more had been spent for the purpose of influencing the forthcoming election. I now ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer this question by interjection : Has the Liberal party the same purpose in mind when it expends money on broadcasting propaganda ? I happened to hear a ridiculous broadcast last night on behalf of the Liberal party.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lazzarini

– Order! I am afraid that the honorable member for Hindmarsh cannot pursue that argument any further.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Last night I listened to a broadcast that was made on behalf of the Liberal party.

Mr Menzies:

– What has that to do with the bill?

Mr THOMPSON:

– It has everything to do with the bill. As the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) has explained, this measure has been introduced to control the display of certain posters relating to a general election before the writs for that election have been issued. To-day, the Liberal party is sponsoring broadcasts with the object of influencing voters at the next general election.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the bill, which does not deal with broadcasts. It seeks to prohibit the display of certain electoral posters.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants freedom. He and his colleagues want freedom merely for the man with the most money to expend on the display of electoral posters on hoardings. Some years ago in South Australia it was part of my duties to book space on hoardings for the display of posters on behalf of Labour candidates, and I found that the advertising companies that controlled advertising on those hoardings had let all available space to anti-Labour organizations which twelve months previously had bought up the space on every hoarding that was in a prominent position. The result was that the Labour party could not secure any hoardings in a suitable position.

Mr Menzies:

– So, the honorable member admits that the bill is directed against his political opponents.

Mr THOMPSON:

– No. It is quite possible that in Victoria, for instance, the Liberal party will be opposed by parties other than the Labour party, and it is possible that the same state of affairs will exist in Western Australia at the next general election. I am wondering how the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton) will feel if the big Liberal organization has already booked up space on all prominent hoardings in his electorate to be used in opposition to his candidature. Therefore, this is not merely a question of a fight between the Labour party and the Liberal party. It cannot be said that the Government has introduced this measure merely to prevent its political opponents from doing something that Labour will not enjoy equal opportunities to do. The object of the bill is to prevent the big moneyed political organizations from monopolizing hoardings throughout the country.

Mr Francis:

– That was not the reason that was given for the control of electoral posters when the original bill was introduced.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I do not know whether or not that reason was given. T agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the quantity of paper that will actually be used for electoral posters will be infinitesimal compared with the quantity that will be used for electoral purposes in other ways. Honorable members opposite say that this measure has been introduced solely in the interests of the Labour party. That suggestion is remarkable in view of the fact that in some States where Labour is not in office, party political candidates are prohibited from using pictures in advertisements. Therefore, when the Leader of the Opposition says that this is the work of bureaucrats, there must be many non-Labour bureaucrats in this country. The real issue is whether it is in the interests of the community to permit party political candidates during a general election campaign to advertise on hoardings to an unlimited degree. Whilst I admit that in the past every party endeavoured to gain the greatest possible advantage by displaying electoral posters on hoardings, nevertheless, the most lurid posters that I have seen were used by Labour’s opponents. Some years ago action was taken in South Australia to prevent the countryside from being marred by the erection of unsightly hoardings for advertising purposes. That prohibition was not imposed by bureaucrats but by decent people in the community. Is it necessary, or desirable, to allow that principle to be ignored merely because a general election campaign happens to be in progress? The anti-Labour parties will not be at a loss to find means of disseminating electioneering propaganda. They will put out plenty of literature and along with that literature they will toss over the fences of private residences electioneering posters as large as they__are permitted to issue under the law. We know only too well what our opponents always do in that respect. Therefore, the Opposition parties have no justification for their outcry against this measure which has been introduced to tighten up provisions contained in the principal act. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition will not deny that posters that have been issued by the Liberal party during the last six months have been issued for the purpose of influencing voters at the forthcoming general election. This measure arises out of action taken by an officer of the Liberal party in Queensland to ascertain from the Chief Electoral Officer in that State whether it was permissible before the writs for the next general election were issued to display electioneering posters of greater measurements than the maximum prescribed under the principal act. That individual was told that the provision limiting the size of posters did not apply until the writs for the general election had been issued. That being so, the question has arisen of who shall be responsible for the removal of such posters after the writs for the next general election have been issued. If provision were not made in that respect, the anti-Labour parties would make a pretty good job of plastering every available hoarding with electioneering propaganda and, then, after the writs had been issued, they would merely say that it was not their responsibility to rr-move them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure the effectiveness of the existing legislation. Honorable gentlemen opposite will talk about fascism, as the Leader of the Opposition did earlier. His talk about fascism is in remarkable contrast to the usual talk of honorable gentlemen opposite about communism.

Mr Spender:

– They are both the same.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Both are objectionable to me. Neither communism nor fascism enters into our consideration of this measure. The question is whether the size of electoral campaign posters should be limited to 60 square inches or whether it is necessary for the political parties to advertise the work of their candidates on huge hoardings. The law is that the size of posters shall be limited to 60 square inches. The purpose of this bill is to ensure compliance with that law. I am not personally concerned, in my electorate, whether posters are big or little, but I know, from experience, that the big battalions and the men with lots of money certainly have a decided political advantage if political advertising on hoardings is allowed. This measure gives a fair opportunity to all political candidates to put their views before the electors.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- This legislation is an arrogant abuse of power. It emanates from a government that is “ control-minded “. Sometimes, in its little deeds, a government shows its true colours more realistically than it does in its great deeds. That is true of this Government in this connexion. The Government is trying to present a facade of necessity for this legislation. At first glance, the legislation may seem to deal with a comparatively small matter, but clearly the Government has lost its sense of proportion. It regards as justifiable any abuse of power against a political adversary. We have been told that the legislation is justified because it will make more effective the legislation that was passed in 1946, but that does not take us any distance along the road towards justifying the 1946 legislation, which this legislation seeks to strengthen. Under this measure the Government proposes to restrict the opportunities available to a political candidate to make his own approach to his own constituents in his own way. The answer to the question “ What logical justification can be put forward for the legislation?”, was provided, I think, by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson), who protested that previously the more enterprising political opponents of the Labour party had got busy and taken up all the choice hoarding sites. The whole legislation bristles with inconsistencies. It is, and will. remain, lawful, for example, to project on the screen of a picture theatre, day in and day out, before the eyes of thousands of people, a political advertisement, but the same advertisement may not be exhibited on a hoarding in a public street. What is the logical distinction between the one and the other?

Mr Daly:

– Cost !

Mr HOLT:

– I doubt whether a slide exhibited on a picture theatre screen for a long time would be any less costly than an advertisement on a hoarding, but the honorable member for Martin may be a better authority on that aspect than I am. Let us examine the matter more fully. Under the law, each political candidate is limited in the amount of money that he may expend on his own campaign. Why should a candidate not be able to expend that money in whatever manner he desired? Why should he be so restricted in advertising his qualities to his constituents? We may be told that the law does not prevent his party and supporters from expending money on his candidature. That does not apply only to honorable members on this side of the House, for it applies with equal force to honorable members sitting opposite. They cannot hold up their hands in holy horror, because, under the signature of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), they make daily appeals through the press for funds. We read almost daily of the thousands of pounds that trade unions are subscribing to the funds of the Labour party.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not pursue that line of argument.

Mr HOLT:

– I merely make a passing reference to it. The Government has not hesitated, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has reminded us, to make a thoroughly improper use of public funds for its own party political purposes. We remember the £50,000-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Chair will not again ask the honorable member to restrict his remarks to the bill, which has nothing to do with people subscribing to political party funds.

Mr HOLT:

– When the Government brings forward legislation the purpose of which is to restrict the opportunities of its political opponents to advertise themselves and their campaign, we are entitled to ask what the Government is doing to advertise its members and supporters and their campaign. Surely, that is relevant. While the Government is attempting to restrict others, it is making grossly improper use of public funds in order to advertise itself to the electors.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable gentleman persists with that line of argument, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Johnson:

– This bill does not restrict the size of anything.

Mr HOLT:

– It restricts the size of posters. Apparently, there is nothing to restrict the size and number of pamphlets that are circulated by Ministers. All Ministers may print and circulate at public expense pamphlets that advertise their own virtues. Such pamphlets are printed on first-quality paper and, very often, contain a photograph of the Minister responsible for their circulation. In my mail this morning I received a pamphlet issued by the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell). It is printed on very good paper and on the cover there is a photograph of the Minister. The printing was done by Truth and Sportsman Limited, Melbourne. Thousands of copies of the pamphlet will be circulated. Last week, we received copies of a pamphlet reviewing the activities of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford). It, too, was printed at the expense of the public, and, obviously, it was designed for propaganda purposes. This legislation contains nothing to prevent that sort of thing from being done. Recently another publication called Facts was issued under the name of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. It, too. was printed and published at public expense. The Department of Social Services, for propaganda purposes, issued the publication, Social Services of the Commonwealth. It is an elaborate affair. Hundreds of thousands of copies have been circulated. Then, we had the Minister for Labour and National Service authorizing the publication and circulation of Ten Tears in the Post-war World, or words to that effect.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member had better come back to the bill.

Mr HOLT:

– I do not think, with respect, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that you can declare my remarks to be irrelevant to the bill. The publications I have referred to have been issued by the Government for blatant political propaganda purposes.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The bill deals only with the tightening up of the law in respect of restrictions of the size of posters that are permitted to be displayed.

Mr HOLT:

– Presumably it has also something to do with the saving of paper, as that is the only justification advanced at any stage by the Government in relation to this matter. What else has it to do with?

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER. Order ! The bill makes no mention of the saving of paper. It is simply intended to tighten up the law.

Mr HOLT:

– Well, it is very difficult, unless we are entitled to examine the motives behind this bill–

Mr Johnson:

– This bill is designed to ensure that the present law will be carried out.

Mr HOLT:

– That is correct, and so we are entitled to discuss the merits of the present law which, I consider, is an unwarranted intrusion into the rights of all political candidates, and also an unwarranted intrusion into the right of the public to learn the views of candidates and the details concerning their background.For that reason this measure should be resisted by the Parliament. Now we are told that the present law is not to apply to political propaganda that is projected on a cinematographic screen. The Government, of course, has very good reasons for not preventing the display of propaganda by that method. Only yesterday moving picture cameras were grinding in connexion with a propaganda election stunt not far from here on the site of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric project. The films taken yesterday will be shown on theatre screens all over the Commonwealth. There is nothing in this measure to prevent those photographs from being taken and being displayed at public expense throughout the Commonwealth a9 useful propaganda for this Government. That is why there is no prohibition in this bill on the use of the screen for the dissemination of political propaganda. The final comment that I desire to make-

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER. Order ! If the honorable gentleman were to canvass all the matters not included in the bill, I am afraid that he could talk for a week.

Mr HOLT:

– I may talk for only 45 minutes in this debate, as is provided by the Standing Orders.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman must confine himself to the contents of the bill and must not embark upon a discussion of matters not contained in it.

Mr HOLT:

– We sometimes learn more clearly from little things just what a government’s intentions and its attitudes of mind are. The present Government in recent days has compelled us to limit the size of our posters in the way prescribed by the present law. It has also tried to restrict the use, for political broadcasts, of the broadcasting services of the Commonwealth. The people who observe these developments in Australia and whose memories are sufficiently retentive will recall that it was a succession of steps of this kind in European countries which finally led to the point where there was only one political party permitted in such countries. The people had’ no choice of political parties-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman is dragging in Europe now. He must confine himself to the bill.

Mr HOLT:

– I am certainly dragging in what happened in Europe, because if similar steps are allowed to progress sufficiently in this country it is only a matter of time-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable gentleman does not come back to the bill I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Menzies:

– If the honorable gentleman’s remarks are not relevant to the bill, I do not know what is.

Mr HOLT:

– It is quite obvious that if these steps that were allowed in other countries led to-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman could recite the history of the world if he were permitted to continue in that strain.

Mr HOLT:

– I remind you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that under the Standing Orders I am allotted 45 minutes in which to speak to the second reading of a bill. In the second-reading stage of a bill we are permitted by practice under the Standing Orders of this House to take the opportunity to examine the principles underlying a bill and the reasons behind it. I say, with respect, that you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, are denying me that opportunity. I do not desire to detain the Parliament on this matter, but I was trying to put one or two points to show what is behind this legislation and what we can expect if legislation of this character is allowed to go through without protest. The final point that I desire to make is in relation to the provision in the bill regarding Commonwealth peace officers. This is rather an extraordinary development. During the debate on the Estimates I sought to show that the practice of Ministers using men who were neither Commonwealth Investigation Service officials nor police officers in the true sense of the term, but were attached to various departments under the control of Ministers as, virtually, secret police was developing. Every Minister in this Government has his own private police force to-day. I say that advisedly and can prove it if necessary. Peace officers, as we all know, were, in the main, appointed during tho war years, although perhaps small numbers were functioning before that time, to maintain guard over defence establishments. During the war years their numbers were increased so that they could keep adequate guard on munitions establishments, and act virtually as official caretakers and as guardians of government property or property in which the Government was interested because munitions were being produced there. Now we see this interesting expansion of the role of the peace officer, the glorified caretaker, who now becomes an adjunct of the police force. He is to carry out some of the functions of the policeman. He will be able to go along a street and tear down or obliterate posters.

Mr Daly:

– Not unless directed to do so by the returning officer.

Mr Menzies:

– Yes. The honorable member has not read the bill.

Mr Daly:

– I refer honorable members opposite to clause 4 of the bill.

Mr HOLT:

– Proposed new section 164b a states, inter alia -

For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the last preceding section, an authorized person may, and shall if so directed . . .

Through the use of the word “ may “ the opportunity is available to the peace officer to act on his own initiative if he desires to do so. I am not concerned so much with the detail of the action that he is permitted to take as with the fact that here, by this rather innocentlooking piece of legislation, we are to have an expansion of the functions of the peace officer. Under this legislation he will become more and more a policeman. If one department, the Department of the Interior, may use a Commonwealth peace officer as a private police officer, and actually does so use him, what is to stop any other department, not necessarily openly, by legislation which this Parliament could examine, but by administrative action, from directing peace officers to perform the functions of secret police? Such a direction might never be disclosed to the Parliament or the people. The enlargement of the functions of Commonwealth peace officers proposed by the bill is a very unhealthy development and is in keeping with the whole of this legislation. The Parliament should examine legislation of this kind very carefully. Once the thin edge of the wedge is inserted the intrusion develops and we may yet find that it “ can happen here “, as it has happened in European countries in recent years. I join very earnestly in the protests made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
Brisbane

– I rise to support the bill wholeheartedly for the reason that I was partly responsible for bringing this matter before the Government. All over the metropolitan area of Brisbane, the Liberal party has for some months past broken the law as it exists to-day in respect of election posters. It has placed at almost every street corner signs advertising Liberal candidates. Those signs measure approximately 8 feet by 4 feet notwithstanding that the existing law restricts posters to 10 inches by 6 inches. Complaints that the Liberal party was defying the law were reported to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, who, after consideration, stated that the action of the Liberal party was a breach of the law. The matter was then referred to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Turner, who expressed the same opinion. The Liberal party, however, decided to retain the signs and, if necessary, fight the issue in the courts. As I said earlier, I was one of those who advocated the introduction of this legislation. It is unfair that one political party should be able to display large posters many months before an election, merely because it has money to pay for them. I wholeheartedly support the bill.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. George Lawson) said that the Liberal party was displaying posters in Queensland in defiance of the law. I have learned from my own inquiries that that is not so.

Mr Conelan:

-Who is the honorable member’s authority?

Mr FRANCIS:

– The Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, Mr. Stewart.

Mr Conelan:

– He is not there now.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I am fully cognizant of all the facts, and have had frequent discussions with my party on the subject. What happened was this : Inquiries were made of the then Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, Mr. Stewart, who, having read the relevant section of the act, said that clearly, until the writs were issued we could do as we wished. No election was pending, and therefore there could be no election matter.

Mr Conelan:

– When was that?

Mr FRANCIS:

– On the 22nd March, 1949. On that date, Mr. Porter, an official of the Liberal party of Australia, Queensland division, discussed this matter with Mr. Stewart, who was Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, and reported back to the executive of the party. It was upon his report that the party acted. There has been no defiance of the law. The action of the Liberal party had the approval of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland. Obviously the party’s action is not contrary to the law, because the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), has now introduced a bill to amend the law. If the Government is of the opinion that the law has been broken, why does it not launch prosecutions? I object to the Government’s shabby action in seeking to amend the law. Obviously this measure is not designed to enable the electors to make a proper and forthright selection of the candidates that they will support at the forthcoming elections. It is prompted by sheer cowardice. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) revealed that, not long ago, in South Australia, the Labour party decided to display posters on hoardings, but found that all the worth-while hoardings were already occupied. Peeved at this development, the Labour Government has introduced this legislation. The proposal now under consideration is devoid of merit and honesty and is unworthy of any government. Like all socialist governments this Administration has become power-drunk, and is seeking to restrict further the liberties of the people. This will prove to the Australian people beyond any shadow of doubt that honorable members opposite are unworthy of their support at the forthcoming elections. The measure will be a boomerang. The restriction on election posters had its origin in war-time regulations aimed at conserving paper. The provision was incorporated in legislation prior to the 1946 general election. The Queensland Division of the Liberal party is not now using any paper for these election posters. The posters are made of third-class three-ply wood which could not be used for any other purpose. The real aim of this bill, of course, is not to conserve stocks of paper, and, as I have said, the measure is unworthy of any political party.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) in protesting against the use of Commonwealth peace officers, without authorization by a police magistrate or any competent court - indeed, without even an adequate inquiry - to remove posters from hoardings just because honorable members opposite do not like them. Any political party which resorts to such measures can only succeed ultimately in destroying itself. At heart, the people of this country deplore such tactics, and by taking this action, the Government, already defeated, will only make its defeat more ignominious.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) claimed that the Liberal party’s action in displaying posters had been approved by Mr. Stewart. I pointed out by interjection that Mr. Stewart was no longer the Commonwealth Electoral Officer of Queensland. I repeat that now. For six months, Mr. Neilson has been Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland and his opinion is that the posters are illegal, and that the Liberal party is breaking the law by displaying them. The matter was referred to the Attorney-General’s Department for examination, and the legal officers of that department expressed the opinion that the action of the Liberal party was illegal. A request was made that the posters be removed, but, instead of complying with the request, the Liberal party has continued to break the law. There may be some doubt about the legality of some of the posters, but others are definitely illegal. The Liberal party, of course, wants the Government to launch prosecutions so that it may appeal from one court to another, and thus delay action until after the writs have been issued. It would then decide to take down the signs. To prevent practices of that kind, and to compel the Liberal party to obey the laws of this country, as it expects trade unions and Labour men to obey them, the loop-hole in the existing law has been closed by this measure. The Liberal party will have to pull down the signs and be prevented from wasting badly needed building materials in an effort to catch the eye of the passing voter. Tie Liberal party has been breaking the law in this respect for months.

Mr Beale:

– Naughty, naughty!

Mr CONELAN:

– Members of the Liberal party should uphold the law as they expect others to do. I wholeheartedly support this measure. Commonwealth peace officers form what is virtually the police force of the Commonwealth. “What is wrong with the proposal to instruct peace officers to take down signs that have been illegally displayed, instead of asking the State police to do so on behalf of the Commonwealth? There is nothing wrong with it. If the Australian Labour party was prepared to break the law as is the Liberal party it could easily organize a band of men to pull down these illegal signs. The Australian Labour party would not resort to such measures because it upholds the law. I congratulate the Government upon introducing this measure which will compel the Liberal party to obey the law.

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · Kalgoorlie · ALP

in reply - There was not a great deal in the observations of honorable members opposite that justifies a reply. In the manner which is characterstic of members of the legal profession the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) attempted to convey the impression that the proposals embodied in the bill now before us represent something new and that the Government had introduced it in order to impose a restriction that had not applied during earlier election campaigns. That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. This bill does not contain any provision affecting the size of electoral posters. The size of such posters was determined in the first instance by National Security Regulation.

Mr Holt:

– In order to save paper.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That is so, but because the restriction was acceptable to the people of this country it was embodied in the Commonwealth Electoral Act by an amending bill which was passed through this House in five minutes in 1946 without opposition.

Mr Menzies:

– During the course of an all-night sitting.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I did not interject while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to this measure. I ask him to extend similar courtesy to me. All that the Leader of the Opposition had to say on that occasion - and no other member of the Opposition spoke on the bill - was expressed in a few words. The Hansard report of his speech on this aspect of the amending bill reads - . The Government proposes as a matter of law on the statute-book, as opposed to regulations, that no candidate shall .post up a poster -with a greater area than 60 square inches. So, in future, the virtues of candidates will be disclosed to the electors in an area of 6 inches by 10 inches instead of 6 feet by 10 feet. This undoubtedly is due to the unexpected modesty of the Government and as modesty on the part of the Government is rare, I am not at all sure that I should not welcome it. . . .

In view of those statements by the Leader of the Opposition it is difficult to understand the opposition to this bill. Is it prompted by the fact that we are in an election year or is it because our proceedings are now being broadcast to the people? I can think of no other reasons for the hostility of honorable members opposite to this bill. The attempt that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters to convince the people that this measure contains a provision which has never previously existed in relation to the size of electoral posters will fail. When the restriction on the size of such posters was embodied in permanent form in the legislation no objection was taken by honorable members opposite. Why then should they attack the bill now before us ? The size of electoral posters is not at present under discussion. All that this measure seeks to do is to ensure that the law as it is enacted shall be given effect. The Leader of the Opposition said, in effect, “ If the posters exhibited by the Liberal party in Brisbane be illegal, why not take the matter to court ? “. We do not intend to take the matter to the court because if we did so the legal advisers of the Liberal party would immediately apply for an injunction and by that means delay a final decision on the case until the general election had been held. We thought that the simplest way to give effect to the intention of the Parliament was to make the wording of the provision so simple that even Liberals would be able to understand it.

Mr Menzies:

– The Minister admits, then, that this measure is aimed at the Liberal party?

Mr JOHNSON:

– Nothing of the sort. It is not aimed at any political party. Its provisions will affect all political parties alike. It was introduced solely because of a decision that had been given by Mr. Stewart, who has since been superannuated. During the twelve months preceding his retirement, Mr. Stewart had not enjoyed the best of health. Mr. Stewart said to some member of the Liberal party that, in his opinion, the posters did not contravene the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. After Mr. Stewart’s retirement the Chief Electoral officer went to some pains to explain the provisions of the law to the Liberal party and asked the party to remove the posters. The reply received by him from Mr. Charles Porter, an official of the Liberal party in Queensland, was as follows : -

I acknowledge your letter of the 19th September, for which I thank you. The advice given is being considered.

In reply to honorable gentlemen opposite, I say that the existing legislation, which has been in force for almost eight years, has proved to be effective and fair to all political parties. If it has done nothing else for the people of Australia, it has prevented the erection throughout the country of unsightly hoardings that blot out the view of the countryside. The lull to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act by inserting a provision relating to the size of posters was passed by this House in five minutes, but honorable gentlemen opposite now suggest that the Government is doing something drastic. They are trying to persuade the people of this country to believe that, just before a general election, the Government is introducing something new, whereas the provision to which they have referred has been in existence for eight years. I commend the bill to the House.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Me. Deputy Speaker. - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 16

Majority . . . .17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Display of certain electoral posters prohibited).

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– This clause is of the essence of the bill. I do not propose to repeat the remarks on this measure that I made in another place, as one might say; hut there are one or two additional remarks that are worth making in the discussion of this clause. It will be of interest to everybody to realize that this clause, which is the centre of the bill, has been brought in for direct use against the Liberal party. The Government makes no secret of that.

Mr Scully:

– Its members are lawbreakers.

Mr MENZIES:

– It has been said that the members of the Liberal party are to be dealt with by this measure because they are law-breakers. That is one of the most extraordinary allegations that I have ever heard. I am indebted to the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully) for having conveyed it to me. I think that it is conceded by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) that, so far from being law-breakers, as far back as last March they approached the then Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland and were advised that posters of the kind that they had in mind could properly be put up. It does not sound like the action of a lawbreaker to ask the inspector of police whether one is allowed to do something, and, having been advised that it is permissible, to proceed to do it. The allegation that members of the Liberal party are law-breakers is a very thin one. If the Government believed later that they were law-breakers, why did not it prosecute them? I have heard it suggested in places other than in, committee that they were not prosecuted because they could have engaged astute lawyers who might have been able to show that they were not breaking the law at all. That would have been a calamity! It would have been something that the Government disliked very much. It has also been said that it would have taken time to prosecute them. All that I can say in reply to that contention is that the Government has had much time at its disposal, because these posters have been on view for months. I should have thought that if the alleged breach of the law is as clear as we have been told that it is, the members of the Liberal party who are alleged to have offended could have been effectively prosecuted some time ago. The truth is that not only were they advised by the then Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland that they were not committing a breach of the law, but they also had very eminent legal authority for that point of view. They have not broken the law. The best proof of that is that the Government has found it necessary to alter the law so that something that was not a breach of the law yesterday may be from now on a breach of it. Only a few hours ago I heard some one say in another place that if there was a possible loophole it must be filled up. How you fill up a “ possible loophole “ I do not know. It must be a singularly mysterious operation, like wandering around in a pitch-black room with a cork in your hand looking for an empty bottle.

Mr Scully:

– “Why not a full bottle ?

Mr MENZIES:

– If I know anything about the Vice-President of the Executive Council he would not be wandering around with an empty bottle. I think that he underestimates his own powers. If I wandered around in the dark with a bottle in my hand, and the cork was out, I hope that the bottle would not be full. To return to the clause, may I point out that the original restrictions were imposed by war-time regulations. The statutory basis for the present restrictions, as I have made clear at all stages, was the legislation introduced in 1946. That legislation was introduced during an all-night sitting which immediately preceded the termination of the last Parliament. The House had been sitting until 3 a.m. on the 8th August of that year. It met again that morning and sat right through the night of the 8th August and during the 9th August, and then adjourned for the election campaign. It is little to be wondered at, therefore, that I, as Leader of the Opposition, found myself saying these words which, as they have not been quoted, I shall now quote. They are as follows : -

  1. ., I have the surety that the bill has been approved by the willing supporters of the Government, that there will be a majority for it, and after 1 a.m. I am not going to argue about it.

Any member of the present committee who has endured two consecutive allnight sittings and does not understand the point of view that I then expressed must be a parliamentary novice. The present measure, unfortunately for the Government, is not going through in the small hours of the morning. It is being passed during the daytime.

Mr Thompson:

– It is a good way to do it.

Mr MENZIES:

– Occasionally I find myself in agreement with the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson). I am delighted to think that this is a daylight transaction, because, for that reason, it must become known that the Government proposes to perpetuate, indeed to make even more rigorous, the restrictions that it has previously imposed on the right of the citizen, for which no justification whatever exists. I have referred to the debate that took place when the original legislation was enacted, and I have reminded myself that when the Minister for the Interior introduced the bill he said that the reason for its introduction was the shortage of materials. It is just as well to keep that in mind while we are considering the present legislation. On that occasion the honorable gentleman said -

The Government believes that the continued application of these provisions concerning the size of posters used in Commonwealth elections and referendums is completely justified at the present time because of the shortage of materials used in such posters and signs.

Later he said -

Furthermore, it would involve the use of a considerable amount of timber,-

Presumably he had in mind that only new hoardings would be used - and even paper and newsprint are not so plentiful as to justify an alteration of the conditions laid down for the last federal election.

Paper and newsprint! Have we lived long enough to be told by this Government that we cannot use paper or newsprint beyond 60 square inches? Yet this is the Administration that uses millions of pages for any blurb that it produces so long as that blurb supports the Government.

Mr EDMONDS:
Herbert

.- I have had considerable experience in connexion with this matter. The offence - and I say that it was an offence - was committed in the metropolitan area, and my electorate does not embrace any metropolitan area. I have seen the posters that have been the subject of discussion - these beautiful pictures of Liberal party candidates, and my reaction to them was that they made the place look dirty. However, I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has approached this matter in a most deceptive manner, as also have his colleagues who took part in the debate on the second reading of the bill. They say that this measure was designed to attack the Liberal party and that it will unfairly restrict the Liberal party in disseminating its political propaganda. They even accuse the Government of taking away the liberty of the people. If the right honorable gentleman wanted to be honest,, he should have pointed out that whilst this measure would restrict the activitiesof candidates of the Liberal party, it would also restrict the activities of candidates of the Australian Labour party. On this occasion, at all events, thebrilliant Leader of the Opposition cannot accuse the Government of being, anxious to apply to the present Opposition parties something that it is not prepared to apply to its own party. If supporters of the Australian Labour party are satisfied with this legislation, then I cannot see what our friends opposite have to complain about.

The right honorable gentleman said that some legal person might beapproached in connexion with this matter, and he suggested that some legal flaw might be found in the measure. He alsoreferred to the ruling given by Mr. Stewart and he contended that because theQueensland branch of his political party had approached the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for that State it could not have intended to commit any breach of the law. However, the right honorable gentleman did not say one word about the letter that his organization received from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Turner, which explained the position quite clearly. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), also made it quite clear that although the Commonwealth Electoral Officer had given a ruling on the matter, that ruling was incorrect, and that the correct position had been explained to the Liberal, party. Of course, the right honorable gentleman endeavoured to circumvent the difficulty by saying that he did not believe that either of the rulings given on the matter was correct, and that the position must be determined by the courts. However, I prefer to take the word of the Minister who has introduced the bill. When the Minister was explaining the position, the Leader of the Opposition rudely interjected, not once but on many occasions, to ask why the Government did not prosecute the Liberal party. I remind the right honorable gentleman of the statements made by Mr. Wanstall, who is one of the bright boys of the Liberal party in Queensland. At least, he calls himself a member of the Liberal party now, although he was formerly a “ Kewpie “. Mr. Wanstall is a legal gentleman. He told the press, not once but many times -

We will defy the Government, and will continue to defy it; and if we cannot get anywhere that way, we will take the matter to the courts, if necessary to the Privy Council.

In the light of that declaration what is the use of the Leader of the Opposition asking why the Liberal party was not prosecuted? It is of no use the right honorable gentleman trying to cover up in that way because we know that the Liberal party in Queensland would defy the Government in connexion with this matter, and that if the Government decided to prosecute, it would delay things by taking the matter from one court to another.

Mr McBride:

– As with the banking legislation.

Mr EDMONDS:

– Yes, and also the pharmaceutical benefits legislation. Of what use is it for the right honorable gentleman to say, “ Why didn’t you prosecute us “ ?

Mr Menzies:

– Do tell us.

Mr EDMONDS:

– The Government did not prosecute the Liberal party for the very reason that the Liberal party wished it would. What annoys me most in connexion with this matter is the utterly dishonest approach that has been made by members of the Opposition to this subject to-day. I refer to the claim that this measure will filch liberty from the people. Which is it that the Opposition claims will be taken away from the mass of the people? Every political party in the field is to be treated in the same way. Had the right honorable gentleman wished to be honest about this matter he would have mentioned that aspect. I am very glad that the Minister and the Government have decided that the Liberal party is to be compelled to comply with the laws of this country in common with all other sections of the community.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

.- I do not consider that there is any justification for the clause, which is the heart of the bill ; therefore there is no justification for the bill. It is contended that the Liberal party has broken the law. It must be remembered, however, that the present Government holds the record in relation to cases that have been brought against it and upheld in the courts.

Mr Edmonds:

– That is untrue.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I do not believe that there is any justification for the bill. However, if there is no reason for this measure being introduced, the Government must have an excuse for doing so. As I do not believe that the Governments wants to be excused, I have tried to find the reason by travelling around the country and making observations. The Australian Government has authorized the display of posters worded “Save to Prevent Inflation “, and “ Save for Security “ all over the country. It would be very embarrassing to the Government for large posters stating the other side of the case to be placed alongside the Government posters.

Mr Johnson:

– They are not election posters.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I did not interject when the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) was addressing the Chair and I claim that he should not interject now. The clause has been inserted in the bill to prohibit the display of large posters of a political nature during a political campaign or at any other time. That is the point in this bill. Posters larger than those that will be allowed under this measure are displayed all over the country at the present time. The Government is advising the people to wait until goods are in greater supply, and to save for security. It would indeed be embarrassing for the Government if an Opposition political party were to display posters of similar size in equally prominent places, either during an election campaign or at any other time, impressing upon the people that month by month the purchasing power of their savings was becoming less, and that the time required to supply goods was gradually extending.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Order! That has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is the reason why the Government does not want political posters of any kind displayed. I stress that the Government already has large posters displayed throughout the country.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order ! The honorable member cannot proceed along those lines.

Mr.DALY (Martin) [5.52].- I listened with considerable interest to the strange explanation that was given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) a few moments ago of his support for the measure introduced into the Parliament in 1946. He said that because he was worn out after too many late sittings in this Parliament, he was too tired to oppose the measure. It is indeed extraordinary that irrespective of his party’s views about the measure, he was too tired to oppose it, although he now claims that it was a dreadful piece of legislation. But what was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time? In speaking, to that measure, Senator McLeay stated–

Mr Menzies:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) is about to quote from a debate that took place in the Senate. I submit that that is out of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order ! The honorable member for Martin is not entitled to refer to a debate that took place in the Senate.

Mr DALY:

– I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition was too tired to oppose the measure, although, in his own words, it was a fascist measure designed to stamp out opposition. The right honorable gentleman asks the committee to believe that he did not oppose the legislation merely because he was too tired to do so. At 12.22 p.m. that day, in another place, an honorable gentleman who supported the right honorable gentleman’s political party, being too tired, I suppose, to oppose the measure, rose in his place and said, “ I support the measure “.. They are indeed a tired collection of individuals ! One says that he was half asleep and could not oppose a measure of vital importance to the public because he was too tired, and another supporter of the right honorable gentleman’s political party adopted the same attitude. The Leader of the Opposition expects us to accept that excuse. The Minister for the Interior, in an excellent speech, has explained the real reason why honorable members opposite are opposing this bill to-day. He has reminded us that a general election is approaching, and that the Opposition parties have produced this bogy, as they have produced other bogies, in an attempt to discredit the Labour Government. Honorable members opposite declare that the Labour party, in this bill, is attacking the freedom of the people, and, generally, they are indulging in a vote-catching campaign. But their real motive in objecting to this bill is that they realize that it gives to the candidate of average means the same opportunity to present his case to the electors as wealthier candidates have. The amended law will afford candidates an ample opportunity to display their names on their committee rooms during the election campaign. In that respect, all political parties will have an equal opportunity.

One of the purposes of this bill is to clarify a vagueness in the act of 1946. Lawyers, laymen, electoral officers and candidates have placed different interpretations upon the provisions of that act. For example, the Liberal party in Queensland adopted an interpretation that was different from that of the Chief Electoral Officer. I am so charitable as to say that possibly both the Liberalparty and the electoral officers were entitled to their own opinions on that particular provision of the act. This bill will make clear what is an electoral poster and where it should be displayed.

I recall that during the election campaign in 1946 I had in my own committee rooms a sign bearing the slogan, “Daly for Martin”. That display was perfectly legal, and was accepted by the electoral authorities, but I understand that a similar sign, if displayed in connexion with the forthcoming election, would not have the approval of the authorities. T also recall that during the election in 1946, I expressly avoided having signs that exceeded a certain size, and yet I discovered on election day that the Liberal party had larger signs that the returning officer accepted as perfectly legal. Consequently I was placed at a disadvantage compared with my political opponent, because I had placed on that particular provision of the act an interpretation different from that which he had placed upon it. The bill clarifies many of the matters upon which, interpretations that were not always to our benefit had been placed.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr DALY:

– As I pointed out earlier, the Opposition offered no resistance in 1946 to the passage of a measure almost identical in its provisions with the bill that the committee is now considering. In replying to accusations that the Opposition had not objected to the bill, the Leader of the Opposition endeavoured to convey to honorable members an impression that his party had not considered it and that, as it was debated in the middle of the night, he had been too tired to deal with it or something to that effect. I have taken the trouble to check the progress of the debate that took place in 1946 and I have found that, after the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) made his second-reading speech on the 23rd July, the debate was adjourned until the 8th August. It would be too much to expect honorable members to believe that consideration was not given lo the measure by the Opposition parties in the intervening period. The real truth is that honorable members opposite were in agreement with that measure and saw in it none of the fell purposes that they claim to see in it on this election eve. The Leader of the Opposition stated that he did not feel inclined to discuss the legislation in 1946 at 1 a.m. during a long sitting. I accept that statement. One o’clock in the morning is a very late hour, and none of us are likely to be as lively as we might wish to be at such a time. But for the life of me I cannot believe that the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator McLeay, was asleep at 12.30 p.m. in the middle of the day when the measure came before the

Senate, and that he was not in a fit state physically to debate such an important issue. If that were the case, the Opposition parties should have awakened long ago to the fact that they need leaders who are capable of debating important matters.

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. What the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) is saying appears to me to be quite out of order taking into consideration the ruling that you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, gave when I was speaking.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - I do not agree that that is so. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) was speaking about signs that had no relation whatever to elections or referendums. The bill that the committee is discussing relates to election signs.

Mr Turnbull:

– The remarks of the honorable member for Martin have no relation to the clause before the committee. That is my point.

Mr DALY:

– It is a sorry commentary on the Opposition that, although its members did not oppose the original measure in 1946, they to-night describe the bill before the committee, in the words of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) as an arrogant abuse of power and an unwarranted intrusion into the rights of candidates.

Mr Menzies:

– Hear, hear !

Mr DALY:

– The Leader of the Opposition now interjects “ Hear, hear ! “ Why did he not attack the 1946 legislation? Is it not an indication of lack of concern for the needs of the public that honorable members who describe this legislation in such violent terms allowed a similar measure to be passed by the Parliament, in 1946, in the early hours of the morning simply because they were too tired to debate the issue? The only reason why the Opposition is so critical of the clause before the committee is that the general election is approaching and they seek to use the full resources that finance can make available to them in order to decorate the hoardings of this country with monster signs. They want to use the funds of the banking institutions which back them to take up all available advertising space in the Commonwealth. They want to use the power that money can give them in the field of propaganda in an effort to mislead the people into voting the Labour administration out of office.

Mr Spender:

– Tell us about the money that the Labour party gets from the breweries.

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) is taking advantage of one of his occasional visits to this chamber in order to interject again.

The bill that is before the committee will give equality of opportunity to all candidates at the election so that those who lack the huge financial resources of honorable members opposite will be enabled to present their arguments to the people adequately. The bill is an indication to the people that the Labour party believes in giving all candidates a fair chance to win seats in this Parliament, irrespective of their financial backing. The honorable member for Fawkner talked about attacks on liberty. The only attach on liberty that he knows is the attack that can be launched by the banks and other financial institutions through the support that they give to honorable members opposite.

Mr Spender:

– Tell us something about the breweries.

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) knows all about the financial assistance that is given to the Opposition parties. The clause that the committee is considering will guarantee a fair go for all candidates at the general election. It will provide equality of opportunity in the presentation of posters for the nation-wide dissemination of propaganda on the grave issues that will be placed before the people. Furthermore, it will give a clear interpretation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which, as I have said, was interpreted in many different ways by different candidates, returning officers, and others interested in elections. Not only will it provide equality of opportunity for candidates, but also it will clarify the objects of the 1946 legislation. My final word-

Mr Beale:

– Hear, hear !

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) will want something more effective than 10-in. by 6-in. posters if he is to be re-elected. It ill behoves him and other honorable members opposite to attack this measure only for the sake of political window-dressing. Their criticism is only a sham attack upon a principle that they support in their hearts. The true attitude of the Opposition parties to the principle of the bill was made crystal clear by their leader in the Senate in 1946, when his second-reading speech on the bill that was passed then was limited to four words, “ I support the measure “. If the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber were sincere he would not have endeavoured, as he did earlier in this discussion, to mislead us into believing that he was too tired to debate this issue in 1946. He would have said instead that honorable members opposite support the measure in principle hut oppose it to-night only because an election is in the offing and the legislation will tie up the huge financial resources that the banks are putting behind them in an effort to throw this Government out of office.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- It was the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) who recently fired one of those familiar inspired questions at a Minister asking whether some excellent production of a government department could be produced in such quantity that everybody could have a copy, at the public expense, of course. The answer was-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! This has nothing to do with the clause before the committee.

Mr WHITE:

– I think it will be agreed that the advertisement that I hold in my hand has something to do with the clause. It is headed, “Labor Puts Women and Children First ! “ The object of the measure that we are discussing is to reduce the size of election posters to 60 square inches. This advertisement is published in this week’s issue of the Australian Women’s Weekly. In the lower corner, not in such large type a8 the heading that I have quoted, is the following matter: -

Help Labour’s Election Fighting Fund. The smallest contribution counts. Send your contribution now to the Rt. Hon. J. B. Chifley, Dr. H. V. Evatt or Senator J. I. Armstrong (Trustees), Parliament House, Canberra.

This advertisement is by no means as small as 60 square inches. It shows the hypocrisy of the Labour party which, whilst introducing a bill to reduce the size of election posters, publishes an appeal of that kind under the caption, “ Labor puts women and children first “, as though it did.

Mr Holt:

– Did public money pay for that advertisement?

Mr WHITE:

– I do not think so in this case, but the advertisement appeals to women and children to pay the Labour party’s electioneering costs, which makes me hope that the petition that I presented to this Parliament a few weeks ago from 2,700 war widows-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! The honorable member is not going to use this clause as a vehicle for propaganda. There is a specific clause before the committee. He must confine his remarks to that clause.

Mr WHITE:

– I am glad to know that it is not a propaganda bill, Mr. Chairman. I may have erred, but at any rate I have no apologies to offer for anything that I have said. Election posters are to be limited to a size of 10 inches by 6 inches, but Ministers of the Crown are using public money to issue Labour party propaganda. Every Minister has produced his little book.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The honorable member may not continue in that strain. The Chair has invited the honorable member to speak to the clause. If he does not do so he will be ordered to sit down,

Mr WHITE:

– As the debate has become circumscribed to a “ six by ten “ basis, I prefer to sit down.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) gave the committee some information about lazy Liberal leaders who, after agreeing to a provision in the principal act, are now professing to find something sinister in the same provision as it is applied by this measure. This poster war has taken an extraordinary turn because of the imminence of a general election. What is wrong with the proposal to reduce the huge election posters of other days to the dimension of 6 inches by 10 inches ? The huge Liberal election posters of the past that desecrated the hoardings with their invitations to “ Vote for Bloggs “ can only be improved by being reduced in size. Political parties should have taken a reef in their sails in this matter of wholesale propaganda long before an election was due. It is time we put an end to the saturation of the air with radio snippets on political subjects while a general election is still two years off ; and to the suborning of the press by diaries allegedly written by journalists, but paid for as advertising. Such things are a danger to democracy. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) explained the matter adequately. When members of the Opposition speak of the arrogant use of power, they should really speak of the arrogant use of money, which enables them to put slogans for the Liberal party on the biggest and most hideous hoardings. The experience of 1946 showed that the public were anxious that an end should be put to all this political ballyhoo. Election campaigns should be conducted in such a way as to permit people to judge the issues calmly for themselves, and vote accordingly. In the past, the ballyhoo has tended to get out of hand. Recent events in Queensland showed that, since the law as it stood could, apparently, be evaded, something had to be done about it. No one can convince me that the legal men of the Opposition parties did not know that they were breaking the law in the spirit, if not in the letter, and any government worthy of the name would try to correct the position that developed. The question is whether we should have small political signs, or whether we should allow the countryside to be plastered with circus posters. I do not believe that it matters a tinker’s cuss to any party if it has to keep its election posters down to a prescribed size. Political arguments can be stated just as well on a small poster as a huge hoarding. On the admission of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr.

Francis) himself, three-ply timber, instead of paper posters, was used for election signs in Queensland, and we know which is the dearer and the scarcer. Three-ply timber was used at a time when the newspapers, whose job is to give news to the nation, were not allowed to display contents posters outside the news stands. Obviously, the organization in Brisbane that was responsible for this use of timber signs, had no very high national principles.

The present proposal will be useful on other than political grounds. It is time that we introduced some sanity into election campaigns. If we allow elections to develop into a kind of political circus every three years, the whole system will be destroyed by its own absurdity. Some attempt should be made to preserve dignity at a time when the people are making their political choice. I believe that posters 6 inches by 10 inches will be adequate. There is nothing to prevent the publication of booklets by any one who wants to tell the public how he feels about things. Such publications are not proscribed by the law, but only the disorderly, bawdy hoarding advertisements that have offended public taste in the past. On the question of publicity, the Liberal party is using strange sources of assistance while accusing the Labour party of the same thing. The Bank Officers Association has been paying for the publicity on behalf of some Liberal candidates. I spoke to the printer of some of the matter, and he told me that he had not seen the candidate, but that the representative of the Bank Officers Association used to come along and pay the bill. Frequent reference has been made by members of the Opposition to publicity matter printed by government departments.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The Chair has refused to allow that topic to be discussed under this clause.

Mr HAYLEN:

– It was discussed under another chairman before the dinner recess. I thought that I might be allowed to discuss it, also. The Government is not attempting to use its power arrogantly. This measure represents an attempt to introduce common sense into election campaigns. It does not constitute an attack on the enterprise of the Liberal party so far as other methods of publicity are concerned. There is no fascism about it, but merely a lol: of good taste and good sense. I support the bill.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- My contribution to the debate will be short; but, unlike the contributions of seme of the honorable members opposite who have interjected “Hear, hear!”, it will be, I think, of some value. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) spoke of ballyhoo, and the arrogant use of money. It seems to me that all the ballyhoo has come from the other side of the chamber. This measure is a pettifogging, miserable piece of Labour party tyranny. It is proposed that election posters shall not be greater in size than 6 inches by .10 inches, or 60 square inches in area, let me add for the benefit of the arithmeticians. The avowed purpose of the measure is to make things easier for the Labour party at the next election. The Labour party is in power, and is therefore in a privileged position compared with the Opposition, which is attempting, successfully as events will show, to pull the Government down. It always happens that a party that has been in power for a while believes that it has a God-given right to remain in power, and to push every one else around. Can it be said on any basis that it is wicked or immoral for a party to issue “ how to vote “ posters measuring, say, 11 inches by 1 inches, instead of 10 inches by 6 inches? Having regard to the fact that in New .South Wales this Government has gerrymandered 22 electorates to make them safe for the Labour party as compared with only six safe seats, by over 6,000 votes, for the Liberal party.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The honorable member is reflecting upon a previous decision of the Parliament.

Mr BEALE:

– I am making a passing reference to the fact that in New South Wales 22 seats have been made absolutely safe for the Labour party while only six are similarly safe for the Liberal party-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member cannot proceed along those lines.

Mr BEALE:

– Having regard to the position that I have indicated, can it be said that this proposal has not arisen out of the thirst of the Labour party to push people around and to make it easier for Labour candidates to secure election and harder for non-Labour parties to display their posters at the next general election? Honorable members opposite may interrupt, for we realize that the truth is unpalatable to those who are the custodians of falsehood as the Labour party is. The first pretext offered for the introduction of this proposal was a shortage of paper. That was the reason why the relevant provision was inserted in the principal act in 1946, but it cannot be said that there is a shortage of paper now. One has only to turn up the evening newspaper in Melbourne and the Sunday newspapers in Sydney to realize that fact. Pages and pages of those newspapers are filled with advertising matter. That is done with the acquiesence of the Government. Having regard to that fact and also to the fact that millions of pages of vulgar, cynical Government propaganda has gone out, and is going out, from the Department of Information and other departments for the express purpose of peddling the wares of the Government, it cannot be said that there is any shortage of newsprint. In fact, the Government has abandoned the shortage of paper as a pretext for the introduction of this proposal. The next excuse upon which it relies is that the use of posters of a size larger than that 10 inches by 6 inches is naughty, as the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) has said. That excuse also is groundless because in a case that arose in Queensland, although somebody said that it was not legal to do so, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in that State ruled that it was quite legal to issue posters of a larger size before the writs were issued for the next general election. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. No one was game to test the matter in the court. Thus, naughtiness is not the real excuse for this proposal. The next excuse advanced for it was that mentioned by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) who said that it was aimed at the wicked interests who have un limited funds for electioneering purposes whilst the impoverished Labour party cannot afford to expend money on electioneering. The Labour party obtains hundreds of thousands of pounds from various sources, including certain business interests who want to play along with it, as they have been playing along with it for the last six years.

Mr Spender:

– From the breweries.

Mr BEALE:

– Yes, and from other interests who love the Labour party because they can lead it up a gum tree and get what they want out of it. The first pretext offered by the Government for introducing this proposal was that there was a shortage of paper; the next was that the use of larger posters was immoral, and the next was that it was designed to combat the wicked money power. The lastnamed pretext falls to the ground because every honorable member knows, as most people know, that the Labour party has larger funds at its disposal for electioneering purposes than any other party has.

Dr Gaha:

– What a lot of rot!

Mr BEALE:

– The Labour party possesses such funds because it has been proved to be a blackmail party.

Mr Conelan:

– I rise to order, Mr. Deputy Chairman. The honorable member for Parramatta, who is alleged to be a legal man, has made a charge of a criminal nature against honorable members on this side of the chamber. His application of the term “ blackmail “ is offensive to me, as, I am sure, it is offensive to my colleagues, and I ask that he withdraw that remark.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - The term “ blackmail “ is unparliamentary and as an honorable member has objected to its use I ask the honorable member for Parramatta to withdraw it without qualification.

Mr BEALE:

– I withdraw the term without qualification so far as the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) is concerned. In matters of finance the Labour party has been proved to be an intimidating party. As for all the talk by honorable members opposite about the money power, the Labour party to-day is more a money-power party than any other party has ever been in the history of the Commonwealth. This proposal has been introduced for the express purpose of .benefiting the Labour party and of placing the anti-Labour parties at a disadvantage in the conduct of general election campaigns. It is a miserable piece of Labour party tyranny and should be denounced absolutely.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– I was interested to hear the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) say that the Labour party resorts to intimidation in order to obtain electioneering funds. Some years ago a Liberal party member of the Parliament of South Australia said to me, “ You people do not know how to get money. What we do is to go along to a country town where we notify the bank manager of the different people who should contribute to our funds and what their donations should be, and we see that we get them “.

Mr Menzies:

– What was his name?

Mr THOMPSON:

– The statement that I have just made is perfectly true. When an honorable member opposite endeavours, as the honorable member for Parramatta has done, to put over the sort of stuff that he has just tried to put over, 1 am entitled to tell the people just exactly what the Opposition parties do in these matters.

Mr Menzies:

– The honorable member for Hindmarsh is not game to name the member of Parliament who, he said, had made that statement to him.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I do not intend to give his name; but I repeat that the statement I have just made is perfectly true. Many people who are listening to this debate which is being broadcast may be wondering what it is all about. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the crux of the bill is proposed new section 164b (2a.) which reads -

Tt is hereby declared that the application of the last two preceding sub-sections extends in relation to an election or referendum although the writ for that election or referendum has not been issued.

Ever since 1940, it has been an electoral offence to put up placards or posters the dimension of which exceed 60 square inches. Some clever Liberal in Queensland came to the conclusion that that prohibition applied only after the issue of the writ. The Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Brisbane, when asked whether that was his opinion, said that it was, but, when the Chief Electoral Officer discovered that that advice was being acted upon he advised the Liberal party, in polite language, that it was not entitled to do as it was doing. The only reply was acknowledgment of his letter and a statement that the party was considering it. The bill removes any doubt whether it is legal to do before the issue of the writ what it is illegal to do after the writ has been issued. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that the 1946 legislation had been brought down in the middle of the night and that, not having had sufficient time to give it proper consideration, he had agreed to its passage, that the 1943 election campaign was conducted under exactly similar conditions, because the provisions of the 1946 act were contained in a regulation made under the National Security Act. Neither in 1943 nor in 1946 was there any outcry from the people against the ban on posters on hoardings which advocated the cause of one political party or another. Businessmen were glad to get rid of the hoardings. In the old days, when their use in election campaigns was legally unobjectionable, a political candidate, or one of his supporters, would, if he saw a store that had a balcony from which a sign of, say, six feet by three feet could be hung would go into the store and say to the storekeeper that he would like to hang such a sign from the balcony. The storekeeper would not want to offend the candidate and would allow the sign to be hung. Immediately customers who favoured the opposing political party would accuse him of having favoured the other side. The storekeepers were in an invidious position. Of all people in the community they are the most pleased with the elimination of electoral posters.

Mr Beale:

– The posters have not been eliminated, their size has been reduced.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Does the honorable member think that passing motorists would be able to read a 6 inch by 10 inch poster hanging from a balcony ?

Mr Beale:

– But what about shop windows ?

Mr THOMPSON:

– A poster of 60 square inches would not attract much attention, even in a shop window. The objection of shopkeepers was to posters or cards of such sizes as, say, 24 inches by 18 inches, with the candidate’s photograph and all the rest of the paraphernalia. They did not like to refuse requests that they hang such posters outside their premises or place them in their windows. If wireless broadcasts, picture screen advertisements, and literature are not sufficient to enable people to decide how to vote and for whom to vote, I do not think hoardings would help them to reach a decision. I agree with the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that the hoardings, when they were used, were an offence to many people. I remember the posters on the hoardings of years ago that honorable gentlemen opposite would like to be able to use now. They depicted the allegedly ugly hands of Labour stealing the people’s savings and displayed such captions as “ Vote against Labour ! “ They were designed to instil fear in the hearts of the people. The Leader of the Opposition chuckles. I can well understand why. He knows how his party “ got away with it “. The honorable member for Parramatta talks about our intimidating the people. If we had been able to intimidate them by spending a lot of money on hideous hoardings, as did honorable members opposite, we should be a mighty party now. We should put political hoardings behind us. It is refreshing to read what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1946, when the prohibition of posters on hoardings was first enacted. He said then that it was not necessary for political parties to tell the people about their good qualities on hoardings. Honorable gentlemen opposite have asked why it is thought necessary to forbid the use of posters of a larger size than 60 square inches and why it is not thought necessary to prohibit political advertisements on the screens of picture theatres. When I was a member of the House of Assembly in South Australia, political candidates could display posters on hoardings but could not advertise on the picture theatre screen. Now the Liberals in the federal field find that they can use the picture theatre screen but not hoardings. We are described as fascists because we prohibit the use of hoardings. I suppose the members of the South Australian Government are democrats because they will not allow political advertisements to be screened. A lot of noise is being made about a bill that should have been allowed to go through without difficulty. I hope that whatever party is in power it will not bring back the days of posters on hoardings. They are obnoxious. Their purpose is to intimidate people with exaggerations and lies. If political aspirants have a policy to place before the people, let them place it before them moderately, and the people will reason things out for themselves. The Leader of the Opposition said that we were discussing this measure in the daytime and not in the middle of the night. I said that that was quite right and he said that he agreed with me. I am pleased that he did so, but I should also like him to agree with me that the people should be permitted to think things out and come to a decision without having to look at large propaganda posters. The right honorable gentleman should consider that, just as it is right to reason things out in this Parliament in the light of day, it is right for the people to reason things out in quiet thinking rather than to be bludgeoned by fear because of some advertisement on a hoarding that is trying to frighten the life out of them. The provision regarding the size of election posters is not new. It has been in operation since before the 1943 elections. The people have not cried out for larger election posters. It will be hard to turn on the wireless between now and the general election without hearing election propaganda, or to open a newspaper without encountering similar propaganda. The people will also find political advertisements in their letter boxes. Should the people also be subjected to having large hoardings containing election propaganda placed before them’, I do not think that the use of large hoardings is necessary, and I hope they will not he permitted. I do not intend to lay charges against any particular party or person when I say that I know that in the past the use of hoardings for election propaganda purposes has not been all that could he desired. Glaring signs are not in the best interests of the community, and I am pleased that the passage of this legislation will ensure that effect will be given to the intentions of the 1946 act. Judges have often stated during the hearing of cases that they must come to their judgments in accordance with a particular act itself, and not in accordance with what somebody has said in the Parliament. Therefore, if there is any doubt regarding the proper interpretation of a statute, we should clear it up as soon as we can to avoid difficulties in the future. “What the Minister has done in this bill is to introduce an amendment that will make the 1946 act, to which nobody outside this Parliament has objected, perfectly clear and understandable. This measure will work in the interests of the people.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The Government proposes in this legislation to enforce a provision that the size of posters that may be displayed for election purposes shall be limited to 10 inches by 6 inches. It seems almost absurd to describe such an item as a poster. So that the committee may have an accurate idea, by example, of the maximum size of poster to be permitted, I now show honorable members a full-page advertisement that appeared in the latest issue of the Australian Women’s Weekly. The advertisement was inserted under the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and two other trustees of Labour’s election fighting fund, namely, the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) and the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt). I have folded the advertisement in half, because by so doing I am able to show honorable members the precise maximum size of the election posters that this legislation will permit to be displayed. It is apparently a good and proper thing for the Prime Minister and his co-trustees, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Supply and Development, to insert in a journal that has an Australia-wide circulation of hundreds of thousands an advertisement that is precisely double the maximum size of the posters the display of which is to be permitted under this legislation. I do not desire to give the Australian Women’s Weekly a publicity boost over the air. but I am forced to mention it in order to make my point. I understand that that journal has a weekly circulation of some hundreds of thousands, and I repeat that it is apparently proper for the Government to insert what is in effect a poster in that journal, which will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people, while this legislation limits the size of the posters that a political candidate may cause to be displayed in the electorate which he is contesting to half the size of this advertisement, although the posters in any one electorate would be seen by relatively only a few thousand people. I find it very difficult to discover the logic in any proposal that makes it proper and good to insert an advertisement of a certain size in a journal reaching hundreds of thousands of people, but which makes it evil for a political candidate to display a poster of more than half the size of the advertisement.

There is another point of interest in this matter. I notice that this poster - I shall call it that - which appeared in the Australian Women’s Weekly h its top line, the word “ Labor “. Then follow the words, “ Puts women and children first “. It intrigues me that the word “ Labor “ is spelt without the letter “ u “. The Government has dropped the “ u “ out of Labour. I think there is something very symbolical in that. I believe that that is the great trouble with this Government. It has dropped the “ you “ out of labour, which is something apart from “ you “. If any honorable member here desired to display a poster of this size in his own electorate lie would not be permitted by law to do so. In order legally to display in his electorate a poster of the same size as this advertisement he would have to cut it in two and display one-half of it in one part of his electorate and the other half in another part. He could not display the two halves together.

In the second half of the advertisement we find a pathetic appeal for contributions. This is made by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Supply and Development, as trustees of Labour’s election fighting fund.

Mr Menzies:

– Is that an appeal to people with money, or to people without money?

Mr HOLT:

– It is apparently an appeal to people with money in the banks, because what the Government is saying in effect is, “ Take your money out of the banks to give to us so that we can take the banks away from you “. I know that you would not allow me, Mr. Temporary Chairman (Mr. Lazzarini), to make more than a passing reference to that particular aspect, but I consider that honorable members will realize from what I have said how ridiculous this proposal of the Government is when the Government itself say?, in effect, that it is fit and proper for the Labour party, or any other organization to insert large advertisements in journals with big circulations without any objection being taken, while it is not fit and proper for a candidate in any part of his electorate to display posters larger than 6 inches by 10 inches. Why was this proposal ever brought before us? First of all, it came before us in the form of National Security Regulations during the recent war. At (hat time we were told that the proposal was justified because we were at war and therefore we desired all the material that wc could get, and that paper was n vital material necessity for the conduct, of the war. So we reduced the size of posters during war-time in order to con.serve paper. Then we came to 1946. By that time the Government considered that it would be difficult to support those regulations before the High Court of Australia by relying on the Commonwealth’s defence power, and so it introduced a bill to the Parliament which was passed because of the Government’s regimented majority. It would have been passed whatever we said about it. We were told then that paper was still in short supply, that newspapers were rationed regarding supplies of newsprint, and that it was necessary in order to save paper to maintain a limit on the size of political posters. The Government pushed that measure through at one o’clock in the morning of the last day of the session before the election of 1946. It can hardly be claimed now that we are at war and require to save paper, or that there is any shortage of paper, for we find every

Minister and every department pouring out, week after week, propaganda blurb pamphlets with pictures of Ministers concerned on their front pages It cannot bs claimed that there is a shortage of paper when these things arc going on. We ask therefore, “Why is the Government doing this?” The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) has not attempted to give a fair explanation of the measure. He has simply sal( that the Government is making effective the legislation of 1946. He has noi attempted to use any more powerful argument than that which he possessed in 194C, which was the war-caused shortage of paper. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) complained bitterly that the Liberal party in South Australia had been able to get all the best hoarding sites. He said, in effect, “ The Liberals were too enterprising for us, so we are going to stop them “.

Mr Scully:

– The Liberal party had more mon sv.

Mr HOLT:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully), from whom we seldom hear in this chamber unless he is moving for the application of the gag, interjects that the Liberal party had more money. That is an interesting comment. A similar remark was made by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen). When Opposition speakers said earlier to-day that this legislation was an arrogant use of power by the Government, he said that there had been an arrogant use of money by the Opposition.

Mr Calwell:

– Hear, hear !

Mr HOLT:

– We shall leave it to the general public to judge who is making an arrogant use of money. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), who says “ Hear, hear ! “, knows all about the arrogant use of money, because he managed to cram into a vote for post-war education the sum of £52,000 which was expended on a referendum campaign.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lazzarini:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member must not deal with side issues.

Mr HOLT:

– I thought that they were very relevant to the matter now under discussion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair does not think so.

Mr HOLT:

– If the Minister for Information is permitted to interject, I am surely permitted to reply, and that is all that I have attempted to do. “What is the purpose of this bill? Is it to protect the public from unsightly hoardings on the countryside, as one or two honorable members opposite have naively suggested? The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that a man who was forced to listen to incessant radio propaganda did not want to see unsightly hoardings when driving around the countryside. Is any one in this chamber so ingenuous as to imagine that that is the Government’s motive? Obviously it is not. The reason for this legislation is that the Government is prepared to use whatever power it possesses in whatever way it can conceive to defeat its political opponents and to retain its occupancy of the treasury bench, against the will of the people or otherwise. It has no other purpose than to frustrate the efforts of those who, deprived of the facilities of ministerial office, and of the opportunity that has been so readily availed of by honorable members opposite to use public funds for propaganda purposes, must employ any other means they can to make their message known to the country and to bring to the notice of the public the names and attributes of their candidates. It is only a short step from the repressive, unwarranted provisions of this legislation to the stage that was reached in Europe some years ago where people had only one party to vote for. If we, as a Parliament, accept this proposal we shall find that it is only the thin end of the wedge. It will not be very long before the people of Australia will not only be confined to posters of 60 square inches in area, but also will be confined to a choice of only one party - the social fascists who to-day occupy the Government benches in this Parliament.

Mr JOHNSON:
Minister for the Interior · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– The clause now under discussion has no relation whatever to the size of posters. Its aim is to clarify a provision which was inserted in the Electoral Act by the 1946 legislation. That provision has been defied by one section of the community. As I said this afternoon, the sole purpose of the measure is to make the law so clear that even the most ignorant person in the country will not have any excuse for interpreting it wrongly. I have already pointed out that honorable members opposite who are making such a fuss about this bill had an opportunity to object to the principle of this legislation when the 1946 bill was before this House. The provision curtailing the size of election posters has been in operation in this country for eight years, but this is the first time that a protest against it has been made in this chamber by a member of the Opposition parties. Why is this belated attack being made? Obviously, it is being made for propaganda purposes, but the Opposition parties have shown up rather badly. They have failed to score because right is on the side of the Government, which is insisting that the law of this country, established by the Parliament, shall be observed by all sections of the community, including the Liberal party of Australia.

A comparison has been made with newspaper advertisements, but I remind the committee that all parties have equal access to the newspapers. In fact, the Opposition parties probably have an advantage there, because they are supported by the press monopoly in this country. All that this measure aims to do is to clarify certain provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which, apparently, have been open to misinterpretation. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) said that the Labour party had dropped the letter “ u “ from the word “ Labour “. But let us look at the history of the Liberal party. When I was a boy in knickerbockers the organization which consisted of people of the political views of honorable gentlemen opposite was known as the Liberal party. Then it became the Nationalist party. Subsequently, it was changed to the United Australia party, and now we have a brand new Liberal party, all wool and a yard wide. Every time honorable members opposite have been disgraced in the eyes of the public, they have changed the name of their party. Opposition speakers in the course of this debate have sought to create in the public mind the impression that the Government is attempting to enforce a provision which is quite new. They would have us believe that an attempt is being made to prevent members of the Opposition parties from publicizing their wares at election time. The truth is, of course, that when it comes to publicizing achievements, even a poster 10 inches by 6 inches would be unnecessarily large for the Opposition parties. Theirs is a sorry record in this fair country of ours. Unfortunately, I shall not be allowed to go into that matter to-night, so I shall content myself by saying that their history is one of repeated attempts to camouflage their intentions and fool the people. I stress again that the provisions to which objection is now being taken by the Opposition originated in regulations passed under the National Security Act in 1941, and were embodied in legislation in 1946, without opposition either in this chamber or in the Senate. If they were good and fair in 1941, and again in 1946, what is wrong with them to-day?

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

.- The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson.) has just claimed that the National Security Regulations which limited the size of electoral posters were unchallenged when they were promulgated in 1941 and that their principles were confirmed without opposition when in 1946 the provisions of those regulations were embodied in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. He contended that if they were good and fair then, they should be good and fair to-day. I disagree with that contention. In the first place the size of electoral posters was limited as a war-time measure. That was one of the controls which were necessarily imposed at a time of national emergency. As honorable members on this side of the chamber have already said, the war was barely over when the amending bill was introduced in 1946. The war ended in 1945, and the amending bill was introduced early in 1946.

Mr Thompson:

– The amending bill was not introduced until August, 1946.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The amending bill was introduced within twelve months of the cessation of hostilities. Honorable members opposite then pointed out on countless occasions that the full impact of the war was still being felt. When we sought reductions of taxes at that time we were told that, although hostilities had ceased, the war had not officially ended. Three years have elapsed since then and many changes have taken place. I am not concerned whether the size of electoral posters be limited to 6 inches by 10 inches or 6 feet by 10 feet. I am concerned, however, about the fact that, as a matter of principle, this Government will not willingly surrender even one of its war-time controls. On the contrary, it seeks to maintain as many war-time controls as possible. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) has said that the limitation of the size of electoral posters is fair because it applies to all political parties. Members of the Australian Labour party are accustomed to regimentation and all the restrictions that are contained in the make-up of a socialist. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are more enterprising. We do not believe in controls. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has also said that motorists do not want to drive around the countryside and at every turn be confronted with huge hoardings that offend their sensibilities. The clause which we are now discussing affects only electoral posters. It has no relation to the erection of hoardings or to the display of advertising matter other than electoral posters. The erection of hoardings is controlled by local governing bodies. An advertiser may not erect hoardings where he likes in, say, Middle Park or St. Kilda. Local governing authorities determine where posters and advertising material may be displayed. The honorable member either knows very little about these matters or he wants to softpedal the truth in relation to the display of advertisements on hoardings. I had thought that when the war was over we would return to normal times and that we would quickly rid ourselves of irksome war-time restrictions; but as long as this Government remains in office we shall not do so. It should not matter how big or how small electoral posters may be because the law in this respect applies equally to all political parties, but the Labour Government has printed many booklets of a propaganda character-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lazzarini:

– Order ! The Chair has consistently refused to allow honorable members to refer to booklets and publications. I remind the honorable member that the clause before the committee relates to the display of electoral posters. There is nothing in it which relates to booklets or other publications.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The Minister has said that this bill merely confirms the principles which are embodied in the parent act. That is not so. Before the writs were issued it used to be permissible for a political party to display electoral posters of any size. The Government wanted to overcome any disability that it might suffer from that fact and it has introduced a measure enabling it to limit the size of political posters all the year round. Such a provision does not constitute merely a confirmation of the principles of the parent bill. On the contrary, it considerably widens the powers given to the Government in the parent bill and this at a time when Government controls should be eliminated altogether. As long as the present Government remains in office war-time controls will not be completely eliminated. It will seek to retain them as long as it possibly can.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- Honorable members generally will agree that the honorable member for “Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) should be very grateful that electoral posters are limited in size to 10 inches by 6 inches because it is to that very limitation that he owes his presence in this Parliament. Many red herrings have been drawn across the trail during this discussion. As the Minister has explained, this legislation has been in operation for eight years. It is only because we are on the eve of a general election, and because our proceedings are being broadcast that the Opposition has decided to put up a sham-fight on this measure. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) made a great play about a certain advertisement inserted in the Australian Women’s Weekly by the Labour party. He suggested that only the Labour party is inserting advertisements of that kind in that journal. That statement was politically unfair.

Mr Holt:

– I did not make such a suggestion.

Mr CONELAN:

– I hold in my hand a copy of the Australian Women’s Weekly which contains a very large advertisement which was inserted by the Liberal party. That advertisement contains what I should describe as many untruths.

Mr Holt:

– Tell us what they are.

Mr CONELAN:

– Last night’s issue of the Sydney Sun contained a huge advertisement by the Liberal party relating to what it describes as the socialization policy of the Labour Government. The advertisement covered a space of considerably more than 60 square inches. The sole purpose of the clause now before the committee is to ensure that the Liberal party shall obey the law. The only issues in this matter are whether the Liberal party shall be compelled to obey the law, whether it shall be allowed to continue to break the law and whether a law which applies to all political parties, including tho Communist party, shall be enforced against the Liberal party. The decision which gave rise to the introduction of this amending bill was given in July last. At that time the campaign director for the Liberal party in Queensland wrote to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer of Queensland a skint! whether certain electoral posters which had been displayed by the Liberal party were illegal. He was told definitely that they were illegal. Previously the Liberal party had approached Mr. Stewart, the then Commonwealth .Electoral Officer of Queensland, on the matter. Mr. Stewart, who had been very ill for twelve months prior to his retirement, ruled that the posters did not contravene the provision of the act. The party thereupon expended several hundreds of pounds in displaying the posters all over Queensland. Although the head-quarters of the Liberal party is located in New South Wales, the party sought a decision on this matter, not from the Chief Electoral Officer at Canberra, but from the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Queensland. When Mr. Stewart’s decision was upset by the Chief Electoral Officer, (he Liberal party decided to break the law by continuing to exhibit posters which exceeded the stipulated maximum size. The Commonwealth

Electoral Officer of Queensland, who succeeded Mr. Stewart when that gentleman retired owing to illness, interpreted the law in the way in which the Parliament, eight years previously, had intended it to be interpreted, but the Liberal party was not prepared to accept his decision. It was prepared to accept the decision of a sick man, because it suited it to do so; but when the successor of that sick man gave a decision that was adverse to it, it did not accept the decision and broke the law of the land. Then the members of the Labour party in Queensland and other persons asked for a ruling on the matter. The Chief Electoral Officer ruled that most of the Liberal party posters in Queensland were illegal, and that ruling was confirmed by the Crown Law officers. This matter has been dragging on for over three months. The replies of the Liberal party have been made through the medium of the press. Its members have not had the common decency to reply to the long letters explaining the position that have been addressed to them by the Commonwealth electoral officers.

The Government is now doing what it believed it had done in 1941, when it introduced regulations that were designed to limit to 60 square inches the size of posters used in federal election campaigns. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has asked what difference it would make if he put up a poster 11 inches by 7 inches in size instead of one of 10 inches by 6 inches. The point is that if the honorable gentleman put up a sign 11 inches by 7 inches in size he would be breaking the law of the land, and anybody who does that must be dealt with. Honorable gentlemen opposite have asked why the Government has not prosecuted the members of the Liberal party who are responsible for the exhibition of the posters in Queensland. If that had been done, there would have been an outcry from honorable gentlemen opposite and their supporters about victimization of the opponents of Labour. The Government did not take that step. There were ma.ny persons in Queensland who were willing to break the law and pull these posters down, but we would not consent to that being done. We told them that the fact that other people had broken the law did not afford them a justification for themselves doing so. Most of the signs in Queensland to which reference has been made are still on display. Painters who are required by the building industry were employed to paint them, and building materials that are in short supply were used in making them. The members of the Liberal party in Queensland have told the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in that State that they have spent hundreds of pounds upon the signs and that they desire them to remain on display, despite the fact that they constitute a breach of the law.

The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) has reminded the committee that Mr. Wanstall, the lawyer of the Liberal party, has said that if the Government had launched a prosecution in relation to these posters, the case would have been fought in the courts. The Liberal party would have attempted to gain some political advantage by claiming that it was being persecuted by the Government. If the decision in the lower court had been adverse to it, it would have appealed to a higher court. Legal proceedings would have dragged on, and the signs would have remained on display during that time. It is the intention of the Government to close up any loopholes that may exist in the legislation so that these signs will have to be taken down. Then all political parties will be on the same footing.

I shall refer now to the vile abuse of the Government that has been uttered by the honorable member for Parramatta, who has probably been inflicted upon the Parliament as a result of the legislation restricting the size of election posters. The honorable gentleman referred to intimidation of the people. The Chamber of Manufactures is intimidating its members by convening meetings throughout the Commonwealth and demanding contributions from them based upon the size of the staff that they employ. It is intended that the money that is obtained in that way shall be expended upon the erection of illegal signs. The Institute of Public Affairs is engaging in similar conduct. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr.

Holt) laid great stress on an advertisement that was inserted in the Australian Women’s Weekly by the Labour party. It was not a poster. I have a copy of the Argus of the 26th September in which an even larger advertisement appeared. It was inserted on behalf of the Liberal party and was authorized by a gentleman who is connected with a bankers’ association. In Victoria the members of the Country party and the Liberal party are fighting amongst themselves about funds for expenditure on election posters. A prominent member of the Liberal party in Victoria, Mr. Kent Hughes, protested in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial last Friday about the Country party-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lazzarini:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr CONELAN:

– The funds are to be used to put up election signs in Victoria. I suggest, therefore, that my remarks are relevant to the question before the Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable gentleman’s remarks are too far away from the question.

Mr CONELAN:

– The agents of the Liberal party in Queensland have taken up a lot of the time of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in that State. When a decision regarding the posters was given that did not suit them they decided that they would not abide by it, although they had agreed previously to abide by a decision favorable to them that had been given by a sick man.

In the course of this debate honorable gentlemen opposite have drawn many red herrings across the trail in an attempt to gain some political advantage. As the Minister has explained, the issue is a very simple one. All that the measure is designed to do is to close up any loop-hole that may exist in the legislation in relation to the size of election posters. When the bill designed to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act by including in it a provision relating to the size of election posters that previously had been the subject of National Security Regulations was before the Parliament in 1946, the Leader of the Oppo sition (Mr. Menzies) spoke for only five minutes upon it. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate expressed his approbation of the measure in eight words. Now, on the eve of a general election, the Opposition is trying to gain some political advantage from its opposition to this measure, which is intended only to close up any loop-holes that may exist in the 1946 legislation.

Mr. WHITE (Balaclava) [9.18 J. - There is some merit in conserving paper at election times, and I am all for it; but it seems that that is not the real intention of the Government. If it were, the provision relating to the size of posters would be extended to apply to advertisements in newspapers and other publications. Of course, the Government does not propose to do that.

I direct the attention of the committee to the advertisement to which the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has referred. Folded in half, it is of a size that could be used in a candidate’s committee room. It is a fine legal point whether it is legal to publish an advertisement such as that in a newspaper but illegal to post it up in the committee room of a candidate. The Government is making such a great to-do about this matter that it must be afraid of something. In spite of the frequent curses of the press uttered by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), the Government is afraid to antagonize the press by providing that newspaper advertisements shall be reduced. It knows that that would react against it. However, by introducing legislation to reduce the size of the advertisements that may be displayed in committee rooms and other places during the election campaign, it imagines that the people will not see through its sins of omission and commission, which are so glaring. Our experience in this chamber of the frequent use by the Government of the gag and the “ guillotine “ indicates the lengths to which it will go in order to stifle debate. We also know that of the total annual output of the paper-mills at Burnie, Tasmania, amounting to approximately 20,000 tons, nearly half is used by the Government, notwithstanding that paper is badly required for the publication of books and periodicals.

Whilst I am opposed to this measure, I should like the Government to take some action to prevent disfigurement of public places by the exhibition of electioneering signs on telegraph poles and railway sidings and premises. At election time we frequently see on telegraph poles and railway premises disfiguring propaganda issued by the Communist party, and sometimes also by the Australian Labour party. Despite all the talk by supporters of the Government of the activities of vested interests, the biggest vested interests in this country are undoubtedly the trade unions. Although the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the banks and other institutions have all been mentioned unfavorably by supporters of the Government, I repeat that the most powerful vested interests in this country are the trade unions, which have, in many instances, fallen under the domination of men who are enemies of the people. The powerful trade unions have ample funds to expend on posters and other electioneering matter if they want to. However, the reason why the Government is afraid of the use of electioneering posters is that its members fear that those posters will display all too clearly the faults of the Government. If, unhappily, this socialist Government, with its Communist allies, should be returned to office - I am quite sure it will not be - it will continue to regiment the people. Its members love to push the people around, to prohibit the use of pink icing and to order that only tailless shirts shall be manufactured. If electoral posters are to be reduced to the size of 1.0 inches by 6 inches, it will be easy for any socialist administration of the future to order that they shall be reduced to an even smaller size, until ultimately the present Minister for Information may introduce legislation to provide that oven postage stamps shall be used to persuade the people to “ vote Labour “.

Mr Menzies:

– Anyhow, they take a licking.

Mr WHITE:

– As I am reminded by my right honorable friend, the Government will undoubtedly take a licking at the forthcoming election, so that it will not be possible, at least for some time to come, to use postage stamps to persuade the people to “ vote Labour “. However, the idea of using the postage stamps is quite within the ambit of the genius of the Minister for Information. No doubt he would not be happy until pictures of the Trades Hall and the injunction “vote Labour “ appear on the postage stamps, with, no doubt, the insignia of their masters, the hammer and sickle in the corner. The Government is not sincere in its proposal to reduce the size of electioneering posters. The proposal itself shows how scared its members are. In conclusion, I again warn the people that if Labour is returned to office the regimentation of the people will continue.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information and Minister for Immigration · Melbourne · ALP

– Members of the committee and those who have been listening to the broadcast of to-night’s proceedings must have been appalled at the nonsense that has just fallen from the lips of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). He has been a member of the Parliament long enough to know that the whole spirit of the electoral legislation is to restrict expenditure by candidates in order that every candidate who presents himself for the suffrages of the people may have, as far as possible, an equal opportunity with his opponents to state his case. The whole spirit of that legislation is to prevent the abuses which invariably accompany the expenditure of excessive amounts of money on electioneering campaigns. The present legislation, which was introduced in 1946 and is to be made effective by the amending legislation that the committee is now discussing, emphasizes how necessary it is that there shall be equality of opportunity for all candidates, not only by providing that posters shall be of small size, but also by emphasizing the maximum amount that may be expended by any candidate in his election campaign. That legislation provides that a candidate may spend only £250. How far would £250 go in the purchase of space on hoardings? How far would it go towards paying the scrutineers and meeting all the other expenditure that falls upon a candidate? The whole spirit of the legislation is that people shall not be misled by the misuse of money, and that principle is to be found in all the electoral legislation of the colonies both before and after federation. Yet honorable members opposite plead that they shall be permitted to use their huge slush fund of half a million pounds to place hoardings everywhere.

The honorable member for Balaclava said that he objected to the display of electioneering signs on railway sidings and bridges. I remind him that that practice is constituted an offence by the present legislation. However, whilst the honorable gentleman objects to the display of electioneering matter on the outside of railway premises, he would not have the slightest objection to . his party being enabled to purchase all the advertising space inside railway premises for the display of electioneering propaganda. That would be quite another matter! Honorable members opposite know that if they did not have the vast power that their party funds confer upon them their parties would not succeed in having any representatives elected to the Parliament. I hope that the day will come when we shall have real equality of opportunity for all political candidates. Already the broadcasting stations provide equal opportunity, as far as it is possible for them to do so, by giving Labour party candidates and non-Labour candidates equal opportunity to purchase broadcasting time. The Australian Broadcasting Commission also provided, so long ago as 1932, that all political parties shall have equal opportunities. However, members of the Opposition are not satisfied with such arrangements. They want to be able to scoop up all available space on the hoardings and other places for the display of their propaganda. They have been reading Labour advertisements in newspapers to the committee and comparing the size of those advertisements with the size to which it is proposed to restrict electioneering posters. At least it can be said for the Labour party’s advertisements, that they are factual, and that they appeal to the reason of electors and are not the “ scare em stiff” propaganda of the type published by the Opposition parties. Honorable members opposite have displayed newspaper advertisements this evening and said, in effect, “ Labour can adver- tise to this extent, but we are to be prevented from displaying similar advertisements on hoardings “. Of course, they omitted to mention that they would lease hoardings as large as they can obtain, in fact, hoardings as large as Parliament House if they could obtain them.

Mr Fuller:

– Even that would not save them.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course, nothing can save them. The honorable member for Balaclava asked what the Government was afraid of. It is afraid of nothing. It is certainly not afraid of the Opposition. If the Opposition parties cannot put up something better in the way of policy and propaganda and adduce some more concrete proposals for the betterment of the community than they have done, they will remain in Opposition for the next twenty years. The abuse uttered by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), who referred to members of the Government as “ social fascists “, shows the depth of their fear and the degree of their frustration. If there are any “ social fascists “ in the Parliament they are to be found amongst the present members of the Opposition. What honorable members opposite want to be able to do is to buy space on hoardings in order to suggest that we are moving towards the socialized state by simple socialist steps in an attempt to exploit the emotional appeal and raise the bogies with which they have snatched electoral victories in other days. Labour will get no advantage out of this piece of legislation, which makes effective the 1946 act. We shall get no more opportunity out of it than our opponents will obtain. We emphasize that they will have no less opportunity than we will have, but they object, not because they are losing anything, but because they are not getting anything more than others will receive. They have £500,000 in Victoria which they a.re handing over to fools ; it is doing them more harm than good. Now they want to plaster a few hoardings.

Mr Barnard:

– They want to disfigure the landscape.

Mr CALWELL:

– They also want to mislead the people. In addition to affronting the people’s ears on the air, they now want to affright their eyes by the use of hoardings. By these means they hope to be elected to office. The Australian Labour party has a discipline that is the envy of members of political parties opposite. There is no question of regimentation in this matter. We present a united front in this Parliament and speak with one voice. In their lust for power, honorable members opposite do not hesitate to criticize each other, even on election signs. The Liberal party wants the hoardings in order that it cun advertise its political wares as being superior to those of the Australian Country party even in country districts. That competition exists in Victoria, and will no doubt be practised elsewhere. Itexists in Western Australia, where the Liberal party is after the scalp of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton), and on present indications, looks like getting it. The electoral legislation of this country, in which the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) is beginning to take some interest, contains a provision, dating back to the first days of thi& Parliament, that there shall be equality of opportunity. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1946 limits the amount that each candidate for election to the House of Representatives may spend on electoral expenses to £250, under the following headings : - advertising and broadcasting, publishing, issuing, distributing and displaying addresses, notices, posters, pamphlets, handbills and cards; stationery, telephones, messages, postages and telegrams; committee rooms; public meetings and places therefor; and scrutineers. Every member of this Parliament knows that it is physically impossible for any person to wage an electoral campaign and cover all of those items within an expenditure of £250. So parties came into the field. But some people who want to buy space on these hoardings do not belong to any political party, but are the hangers-on of the parties of reaction led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). The Australian Constitutional League wants to buy hoarding space. Although this organization wants to get rid of the Chifley Government, it has the extraordinary temerity and the odious effrontery to proclaim itself a non-party organization.

Mr Adermann:

– What about the Australian Labour party?

Mr CALWELL:

– The Australian Labour party gets its finance from its few friends amongst Australian manufacturers. It gets nothing from the Chambers of ‘Commerce or other sections of the black labour brigade. When the Australian Labour party publishes its 10 in. by 6 in. advertisements, which it has a legal right to exhibit, it defrays the cost out of contributions from trade unions. It pits the pennies of the people against the pounds of the profiteers. The representatives of the profiteering classes are to-night protesting against the Government’s attempt to make effective legislation that was enacted in 1946. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that that legislation was passed at 1 o’clock in the morning when he was too tired to take an interest in it. It was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition in another place in four words, as the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) has said - “ We support the measure “. Senator McLeay was either sleep-walking or talking in his sleep, but it was only half an hour after noon on the same day as that on which the Liberal party leader said that he was too tired to be really interested in the legislation. After the legislation was passed it was accepted by the people. There has been no objection by the great masses of the people to this legislation. No demands have come from the Chamber of Manufactures, or the Chambers of Commerce. Not even the Employers Federation has said that the legislation ought to be repealed. It is too late for the lazy leaders of liberalism, or for their comatose comrades of the Country party to make effective protests against this particular piece of legislation, which is good legislation. It is legislation which ought to be extended in the electoral laws of the Commonwealth. I hope the day will come when neither the Australian Constitutional League, nor the League of Rights, nor indeed any other such bodies will bo able to display their opposition or take any part at all in the electoral affairs of the people of Australia. I know what is going to happen. This is going to be one of the dirtiest elections ever held in Australia if the Opposition gets its way.

Mr Menzies:

– If the Minister for Information is in charge of the Australian Labour party’s election campaign, it will be the dirtiest on record.

Mr CALWELL:

– The Opposition is upset because it will not be able to make it dirtier still by the use of hoardings. Honorable members opposite will try to put the propaganda of the banks into the workers’ pay envelopes on the eve of the election. They will stoop to anything. However, in spite of that, democracy will triumph and the Government of this country will be carried on in the interests of the people of Australia, and not in the interests of the money power.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– It is always agreeable to listen to an expert on his own subject, and I therefore listened with great interest to the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) on the subject of dirty campaigns and misrepresentation. As it now turns out that this bill is not a bill about hoardings, but about party funds and other things that have been discussed very freely during the last fifteen minutes, I shall say a few words about them.

Mr Ward:

– This will be interesting.

Mr MENZIES:

– Yes, and illuminating, too. But before I come to that matter I should like to illuminate one other. It has been some fun for the Minister, and, I gather, the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) to take exception to the idea that an Opposition completely overwhelmed by weight of numbers, should, in the middle of an all-right sitting, give up arguing about some bills, particularly when the House is going to be dissolved the following afternoon. I require no lecture from the honorable member for Martin, whose contributions in this chamber are usually organized stooge questions to Ministers, on the performance of my parliamentary duty. Whatever else will be said about me in this chamber, it will be freely recognized that I do as much work on my parliamentary job as any other man in this building does on his job. The Minister, having given hia benediction to that remark, talks as he frequently talks about huge slush funds.

Mr Fuller:

– Tell us about the slush funds.

Mr MENZIES:

– The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) should keep out of this discussion. I was hoping to maintain the debate on a certain level. The Minister talks about huge slush funds. There is a disagreeable suggestion about “ slush funds “. The reason that the Minister talks about these things, in a note almost of envy, I sometimes think, is to be found in two propositions. The first is that the constant steady revenues of the Labour party from the trades union movement are greater than the constant revenues of any other political party in this country. The second thing which troubles him is this. I have the great honour to lead the Liberal paTty of Australia, which was constituted in this country in 1944. From its inception, that party established the principle that it would raise and control its own funds. I want to say to Ministers, however much it may disappoint them, that the Liberal party is supported by no chamber of commerce and by no chamber of manufactures. Honorable members opposite laugh. Very well ! I shall make a perfectly sound proposition to the Minister. I tell him that the Liberal party of Australia has refused donations from the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Manufactures because it has said repeatedly that it will not accept contributions from any organized body that would put it under obligation to that organized body. All right! The Government has all the snoopers in the world at its command. Turn them on!

Mr Duthie:

– What about the private trading banks? Do not they contribute to the Liberal party’s funds?

Mr MENZIES:

– We shall keep toone thing at a time, if the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) is capable of doing so. The Government has all the means of inquiry. Speaking in my place as the responsible leader of the Liberal party of Australia, I say to the Government, “Put your snoopers on. I defy you to disprove the statement that I have made.”

Mr Ward:

– Let us have a balancesheet.

Mr Holt:

– Will the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) let us have his balance-sheet?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr MENZIES:

– All that, I readily agree, is highly irrelevant to this hill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he leave the matter at that.

Mr MENZIES:

– I merely pursued it for such time as you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, would allow me, and I am quite happy-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The matter had been raised earlier, and the Chair allowed the Leader of the Opposition a reasonable opportunity to make his reply.

Mr MENZIES:

– I realize that, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I appreciate it. I now turn to the real subject-matter of the bill and that is publicity, posters and communications to the people on the subject of elections. I was delighted when the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) produced an advertisement which apparently proceeded from my friends opposite, and which read as follows: -

Labor puts women and children first.

That i9 very appropriate. After all, it is an historic slogan as the ship goes down. But let us return to hoardings. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) is usually most good natured. When he put this original provision before the Parliament in 1946, he explained that the reason for adopting it was the shortage of material. This evening, he has offered another explanation, the effect of which is, “ Well, after all, if it was good enough in 1941 and 1946, why is it not good enough in 1949 ? “ That is a dangerous exercise in logic, and I do not recommend the Minister to pursue it. I state another proposition. If industrial conscription was good enough in 1942, is it not good enough in 1949? Would the Minister find the logic of that proposition irresistible? Of course not!

Mr Johnson:

– Circumstances are different.

Mr MENZIES:

– The Minister must recognize that when a country is at war that is one state of affairs. When a country is emerging from war and there are certain post-war problems, that is another state of affairs. But when we imagine that we are living in a period years after the war, that is a third state of affairs; and what the Minister has to do now is to satisfy, if not this committee because it is already satisfied, then the electors of Australia, about the reason why it is necessary, in the interests of democracy, to deny people freedom in relation to hoardings, though they have, by his own decision, complete freedom in relation to cinematograph screens and newspaper advertisements and, as the result of our recent deliverance from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s order, complete freedom over the air. The Government should really address itself seriously to this matter. It approves the use of cinematograph films and newspaper advertisements of any size. I suppose that those forms of advertising have to be paid for out of slush funds, or otherwise, but apparently they may be used -with impunity. The Government has not stipulated that if one political party gets one newspaper advertisement, another political party must not get two advertisements. Yet, if the Government can control the poster that may be used in an election campaign, it can equally control the advertisement that may be inserted in a newspaper. So inconsistent is the Government that it says, “We shall not worry for a moment about newspaper advertisements because we are advertising in the newspapers, and we think we are using that medium rather cleverly. Therefore, we shall leave that matter alone. We shall not worry about cinematograph films, now that there has been an uproar because we were proposing to give the Communists equal access to the air. We shall not pursue the order that we made on that matter, but let it be understood that no posters shall be used at all “. It is silly to talk about regulating the size of a poster. A wretched little thing measuring 10 inches by 6 inches is not a poster. It is a mere dodger. Therefore, this legislation is designed to prohibit the use of posters. My intensely genial friend, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson), who is a man of sensitiveness, becomes conscious of the imperfections of the Government’s case from time to time, and says, “ After all, these are wretched things that defile the landscape “.

Mr Thompson:

– Hear, hear ! So they do.

Mr MENZIES:

– I agree with the honorable member. May we make a point of contact on that matter? The honorable member said that the display of posters along beautiful scenic motor roads raised an aesthetic problem. I am with the honorable gentleman on that point. But his aesthetic sense is extremely limited, because he says “ I do not mind if you advertise pickles, or films “-

Mr Pollard:

– Or Doan’s backache pills.

Mr MENZIES:

– Or throat lozenges for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard). The honorable member for Hindmarsh says, in effect, “I do not care if you advertise any of those things on hideous posters, but you must not put the name of a candidate for Parliament on one of them. When I hear that proposition, I find that I have reached the limit “. Of course, it is the most utter nonsense.

Mr Ward:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition want to display the slogan “ Pig-iron Bob”?

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall not prevent the Minister from’ using it. Whenever I hear that slogan, I remember that for two years it was only the Communists who used it, and then you boys picked it up. I am not worried about it.

I come now to the heart of this subject. It is not a matter of whether we like some particular form of advocacy or not.

I, for example, have a great disregard for political newspaper advertisements. It is the despair of some of ray colleagues. I do not happen to like them, but a lot of people do and they know a great deal more about advertisements than I do. I do not happen to like political films at the picture theatre, but a lot of people do. Because I do not like them, there is no reason why I should abolish them if I am in a position of power. After all, what I like most of all is freedom. If people like films, let them have films. If they like newspaper advertisements, let them have newspaper advertisements. If they like hoardings, let them have hoardings. The moment that we accept without protest the position that a government, finding itself in office, can tell the people how much newspaper advertising they shall be permitted to read on politics, how many films they shall be permitted to see on politics, and what posters they shall be permitted to see on politics, then in that moment we give away freedom and become the completely regimented State. That is the essence of this problem, and it is not to be escaped from by a lot of side issues of the kind that have been raised here to-night.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- The main concern of the Opposition about the legislation that the committee is considering to-night is that it cannot find enough vehicles of expression upon which to spend the thousands of pounds of money that it has dragged into its coffers for the forthcoming election fight. I estimate that the Opposition parties will expend almost £1,000,000 on this election campaign through their party machines and subsidiary bodies such as the bank organizations, chambers of commerce, the Constitutional League and the Freedom League. We heard a bedtime story to-night from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), who said that his party did not receive any funds from chambers of commerce and such groups. That was perhaps the most fantastic statement that the right honorable gentleman ever made in this chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The subject of funds was raised by an honorable member on one side of the chamber and I allowed a reasonable answer to be made to his statements from the other side. The honorable member must not pursue the subject of party funds when dealing with this clause.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I shall make only one more reference to the subject. For the right honorable gentleman to try to convince us and the people that his party was not helped financially by outside organizations was completely untruthful.

We can see evidence every day in the newspapers that many organizations, including the trading banks, support the Liberal party.

One great feature of the bill before the committee is that it will place the Liberal party, the Australian Country party, the Labour party and the Communist party on an equal footing in respect of poster advertisements. The Opposition, wanting to have an open slather on hoardings throughout the country, would, of course, give the Communist party an equal chance to do likewise. We are always wondering where the Communist party gets its funds. It would certainly take advantage of the chance to have an “ open go “ with hoardings. Therefore, the Liberal party in opposing this measure is, in effect, seeking to open the way for the Communist party to spread its propaganda throughout the country. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) accused the Labour party of using intimidatory tactics and of committing blackmail. He was made to withdraw the statement about blackmail

Mr Beale:

– I am a lawyer. I meant it just the same.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That was a shameful statement for a lawyer to make, and I am glad that the honorable gentleman was forced to withdraw it. He spoke as though the Government had played on people’s hopes in order to make them support it. He may be interested to know that funds for the Labour party’s election campaign are coming in quite voluntarily from such organizations as the trade unions. I can give an illustration of the methods that are used by the Liberal party to gain funds. An employer in a town in the electorate that I represent, who is a member of the Liberal party, has a Labour man working for him. When the employee received his pay envelope one week, the money in it was less than the proper wage, so he went to his boss and said, “Look here, I am 2s. 6d. light this week”. The boss replied, “ Oh that’s all right old chap, you are a member of the Liberal party now “. Was that blackmail or intimidation ?

Why is the Opposition concerned about this measure? It has many avenues available for the dissemination of its propaganda. It has the radio, for instance, and I believe, calculating costs on a technical basis, that it is spending about £50,000 a year on two serials that are broadcast over national networks, lt has pamphlets and it has newspaper advertisements. Those mediums of propaganda will not be ruled out by this measure. It also has its committee rooms, and it will be allowed to erect large posters in those rooms throughout Australia. It is able to use the films and all the other means of publicity that are available to every political party. Yet honorable members opposite talk about the denial of freedom ! They do so simply because they will be prevented from spending thousands of pounds in order to stick posters on great hoardings throughout the length and breadth of the country. Obviously this measure will foil its plans for the disbursement of its swollen funds. The Opposition parties are not putting reasonable arguments before the people through their propaganda. They seek to play entirely upon the fears of the people. The Liberal party can scarcely complain in all justice about the size of ten-inch by six-inch posters. A postage stamp would be large enough to enable it to record its achievements. Obviously the people of Australia are looking for some kind of order in election campaigning and advertising. They are suffering from political indigestion, having been fed the propaganda of the Liberal party for nearly a year. Some of the Liberal party’s candidates for the general election were endorsed fourteen months ago, and bank clerks have been touring the country in motor cars in support of its campaign. I believe that the people generally will welcome any limitation of election advertising. I shall be happy to use 10-in. by 6-in. posters in shops in the country towns of my electorate. I think that the size is quite large enough for the purposes of political candidates. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) said, many business people will welcome the prohibition upon the use of large posters because they do not want to exhibit such placards in their windows, obscuring the gOod- that they offer for sale to the public. Small posters have been accepted whenever I have asked storekeepers to exhibit them. If they are well printed, they may even attract attention to shop windows. The action of the Government in seeking to bring some order out of chaos in poster advertising is democratic, and will be welcomed by 90 per cent, of the people. At election time, the people are deluged with political propaganda from all parties, so that one could not blame them for wishing to get out into the country where they could avoid seeing newspapers, advertisements, hearing the radio or listening to any one bellowing from a soap box.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- Having already said my say, I should not have risen again except for the statement of the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) that he estimated that in the forthcoming election the Liberal party would spend £1,000,000. That was a wicked and wilful falsehood and was particularly reprehensible coming from one with his background. I am surprised that he, of all people, should come out with a falsehood like that. I was a member of the original executive of the New South Wales Liberal party. I can confirm the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) that, when we founded the Liberal party in New South Wales, we pledged ourselves to one supreme principle: we would not take money from any associations. We accepted money from individuals who believed in the things we believed in, but again and again we refused to accept money from associations, individuals or organizations of the right or the left.

Mr Ward:

– What rot!

Mr BEALE:

– Fancy the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward), in the light of his experience, daring to controvert anything said by any other honorable member in this chamber, and expecting to be believed ! I know something of this matter, because I came into the Liberal party on the organization side long before T became a member of the Parliament. The honorable member for Wilmot pretends to be a man with a religious background, and he ought to know better than any one else-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! The honorable member must discuss the clause.

Mr BEALE:

– I am entitled to refer,, within reason, to arguments advanced by previous speakers.

Mr Ward:

– Come up out of the sewer.

Mr BEALE:

– To hear the Minister for Transport talk about sewers would make a cat laugh.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The committee is considering clause 3. It appears that the honorable member did not rise with the intention to discussthe clause at all. If he does not connect his remarks with the clause, I shall order him to resume his seat.

Mr BEALE:

– I was only answering certain observations by another honorable member, and I think I have answered them adequately. Thepurpose of the clause is to give the Labour party, which is in office, an advantage over its political opponents. The Government can put its propaganda out in many forms. The Opposition, in challenging that propaganda, is at a great disadvantage, because it has not at its disposal the same facilities as the Government has. The Government, being aware of this fact, is seeking to limit the size of election posters. What does it matter to the people whether election posters are 6 inches by 10 inches or 10 feet by 10 feet? All this claptrap about not affronting the aesthetic sense of the people is just so much rubbish. The Government is seeking, to limit the opportunity of the Opposition to put its case to the people, but in that respect the Government is like a boy who whistles to keep his courage up while going past a graveyard. The Government knows that it is on the way out. This bill represents a last desperate throw by the Government to defeat the will of the people. When the numbers go up on the 10th December, it will not matter whether political posters were 10 inches by 6 inches or any other size. When that time comes, the people will spue the Government out. In the dark limbo of forgotten things-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must address himself to the clause.

Mr BEALE:

– I was quoting a passage from Revelation–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It would he more relevant if the honorable member were to quote something from the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– My remarks are not irrelevant. “When the numbers go up on the 10th December, it will be seen that the people have treated the Government, for this shady and deceitful trick, in the same way as is recorded of the Laodiceans in Holy Writ -

I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Motion (by Mr. Johnson) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 18

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1525

STATES GRANTS (COAL STRIKE EMERGENCY) BILL 1949

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th September (vide page 42), on motion by Mr. Dedman) -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

.- This is the resumption of the second-reading debate on the States Grants (Coal Strike Emergency) Bill, which is properly described in its long title as “ A Bill for an Act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a Sum for the purpose of Financial Assistance to the States by reason of the losses and costs incurred by the States as a result of the Coal Strike “. The bill is, therefore, a very important one. It serves as a suitable reminder of the great damage done to Australia by the recent coal strike, and, therefore, describes the amount of the damage done to Australia by the Communist party, which by the common consent of both sides of the House was the instigator of the strike, and maintained it for the purpose of inflicting damage upon the Australian economy. It has been stated, and. I think, quite accurately, in round figures that the recent coal strike cost Australia in terms of national income something of the order of £100,000,000. It cost Australia in terms of production something between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 at a modest estimate. Those costs are, of course, not the costs that are being dealt with in this bill. What this bill does is to face up to the fact that because of that strike which had those consequences the State governments found themselves deprived of revenue or, on the other hand, found themselves compelled to lay out substantial sums of money by way of emergency provision.

It is worth-while reminding the House - because the Minister made his secondreading speech some weeks ago - that the total amount which is now to be provided for the State governments by the Commonwealth is no less than £8,000,000. If anybody has any doubt in his mind as to the almost universal effect of that strike upon Australia he will see it by looking al the figure that was stated by the Minister in his second-reading speech. Of the total of £S,000,000 these are the sums that are to be paid to the various State governments - New South Wales £3,250,000, Victoria £1,S31,000, Queensland £1,309,000, South Australia £687,000, Western Australia £662,000 and Tasmania £252,000. Again I give round figures. So, every one of the six States of Australia was affected to a greater or less extent, and. in the result, the Australian Government is providing by this measure, the principle of which, I think, will not be challenged, for a payment which is, in effect, a payment by way of compensation to the various State governments for the losses that were directly occasioned to them by the coa] strike.

It is proper on an occasion like this to say a few words about the strike which is the cause of the legislation now before us. There has been a disposition in some quarters to say that the Communists had a great defeat and are on the run. Nobody would be happier than I to think that that was true, but I take leave to doubt it. After all, what was the Communists’ objective in the coal strikes? The Communist organization, and in particular the organization that the Communists control, namely, the coal miners’ federation, were not primarily concerned with the making of industrial demands. It is a great mistake to regard the coal strike as arising from an industrial dispute in the ordinary sense of the term. It is quite true that claims were made for a 35-hour week, long service leave and some increases in pay; but, as every honorable member knows, and, I trust, as the people of Australia know, the position was that before the tribunal, having heard a certain amount of evidence on at least one of those claims, could as much as give a decision, indeed when it was on the very point of giving a decision, the strike was called. The strike was called at that time because the Communists were not looking for better industrial conditions.

Mr Sheehy:

– They never are.

Mr MENZIES:

– They were looking for the destruction of Australia’s industrial system, and, as the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) says quite truly, they never are looking for better industrial conditions. It is one of the grim things about Communist-inspired strikes in Australia in the last three years that the claim has never been an industrial claim against the employer for something better for the employee. The claim has almost always been put forward as a mere excuse for tying up industry, for dislocating industry, and for causing unemployment for hundreds of thousands of people right down the line. When one states that - and I think I am stating it with the approval of honorable members generally in this House - it becomes necessary to ask another question of very great significance: Have the Communists, going after this completely illegitimate purpose, been restrained by the authority of government, or have they been encouraged by the absence of authority of government ? The answer to that question is clear enough. We, in this House, have heard Ministers, at their places at the table, speaking for the last few years about Communist activities, and almost every time what has been said, in the very crisis of the particular issue, has been something designed, not to reprimand these people, not to put them back, not to defeat them, but to encourage them. Let me take one example. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), hae travelled a certain distance along the road, because, in the last coal strike, which I am discussing, he offered, in a speech in the Domain, in Sydney, pains and penalties beyond the wildest dreams of an Opposition leader. He spoke about concentration camps on that occasion. Yet, it is interesting to recall that, so recently as the 7th April, 1948, in a passage that may be found on page 630 of Hansard for that day, the Minister, speaking from his place in this House said -

Many of the dreadful things that are said about what the Communist party is going to do in this country aru so much nonsense. Communists in Australia are not in a position to do any harm, and even if they were, we have a competent security service which would protect the community.

The Communists are not in a position to do any harm ! Yet, those very harmless Communists, upon whom the soothing hand of that statement had to be laid in April, last year, have just, with malice aforethought, cost this country - and they are delighted with the result - between £100,000,000 and £150,000,000 and have involved the Commonwealth of Australia, which has its own normal financial obligations, in the payment of £8,000,000 . to the State Governments to repair damage done to their budgets.

Sir Earle Page:

– And they helped to make the petrol shortage.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– They created it.

Mr MENZIES:

– Of course! The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) himself has time and time again in this House said that the Communists are a perfectly legitimate body of people and are as much entitled to their own political philosophy - and he has used these very words - as are the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. In other words, the head of the Government of this country, time and time again, has said about the Communist party of Australia, “ This is a political movement that is quite legitimate, just as legitimate as is the Liberal party, the Australian Country party or the Australian Labour party”. Those are not words that discourage the Communist movement. Speaking in this House, when he was challenged as to why the Government did not take the strongest possible measures to get coal - getting coal was the real and effective answer to a coal strike - he said, on the 21st June, of this year, about the coal-miners -

They are the people who dig the coal, and, after all, they are the only ones who can provide coal for the community.

That is a statement that I cannot believe for one moment was discouraging to the Communists, because the Communists had control of the miners’ federation. It was the Communists who had called on the coal strike for the purpose of damaging the Australian people and the Australian economy, and to say to them, “Well. it is all right; we are sorry; we think you are wicked, but, after all, you are the only people who can get coal and, so long as you stay out, we shall go without coal”, was the opposite of the kind of treatment that should have been meted out to them. As the result of Communist activities in the coal industry the position has deteriorated beyond all recognition. I shall give to the House a few figures - only a few, because it is difficult to follow a mass of figures in a debate of this kind. In 1946 this country lost as the result of disputes - I shall call them “ industrial disputes “-1,347,000 tons of coal. In 1947, Australia lost 1,671,000 tons of coal, and, in 1948, it lost over 2,000,000 tons of coal. In other words, in the last three years, we have had a progressive increase of the loss of coal in this country as the result of industrial stoppages. Figures of that kind have been mentioned in this House before to-day, and it is not uncommon to hear Government representatives retort, with what comfort I do not know, that in some previous year there was a heavy loss of coal. That is quite true, but the vital thing - and this is of significance to Australian industry - is that, when this Government came to office, there were adequate reserves of coal for Australian industry. What Australia needs is reserves of coal, unless we are to be constantly held to ransom by these outlaws, these Communists, who manage to control the great coal industry. We must have a reserve of coal so that industries may continue to operate even though the coal-miner has, for the time being, knocked off work. When the Government took office there were substantial reserves of .coal, but those reserves have disappeared. Industry lives from hand to mouth. Vital industries have, at the very best, a few days’ supply of coal at grass. The increasing annual loss of coal is a deadly blow aimed at Australian industry. I do not need to tell honorable gentlemen opposite that if there is one thing that is vital to productive enterprise in Australia it is a high volume of production of iron and steel. Here is a great basic manufactured commodity, iron and steel, and all honorable gentlemen in this House will agree that, whatever minor criticisms there may be of it, the iron and steel industry is an efficiently conducted industry in Australia. I have heard Ministers say frequently, I am very happy to say that, so far as my person/al observations have led me, the man who works in the iron and steel industry is himself an industrious and highly competent man. And yet, what is the result? In the year 1948-49, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, the major steel producer in Australia, operated at 64.7 per cent, of its capacity; in other words, we were losing 35.3 per cent, of the total of the iron and steel that could have been produced in this country during that year. Why did that happen ? Not because management was incompetent! Not because the iron and steel worker was idle or incompetent ! It happened for one reason only - a shortage of coking coal. In the result the coal strike and the chronic shortage of production in the coal industry have therefore brought about the most tremendous injury to Australian industry as a whole.

I have referred to those facts because it is well to have them in mind, as they constitute the most clear proof that the Communist in Australia has, unfortunately, not failed. He has succeeded. If anybody supposes that the Communist can be credited with a defeat because some strike that he starts peters out, my reply is, “ Do you suppose for one moment that the Communist thinks the strike he starts will go on for ever ? “ Does anybody suppose that the Australian Communist party thought that the recent coal strike would last for years? Of course not! Does anybody suppose that the Communists started that strike because they desired to enforce some industrial demand? Of course not! They did not care a hoot about industrial demands except as a mere excuse. After all, the Government has to admit that, because the Government itself, by advertisement after advertisement, said in effect to the people of Australia, “ This is not an industrial dispute about genuine industrial claims; this is a Communist conspiracy”. All honorable members will remember those advertisements. In other words, the Government itself has admitted that the Communists were not seeking an industrial result of a positive kind; they were seeking industrial destruction, and they succeeded, because they destroyed £100,000,000 of national income and £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 of national products. They destroyed State budgets to the tune of £8,000,000, which this Government has now to find.

Sir Earle Page:

– They also threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Mr MENZIES:

– I have spoken about this matter in terms of money, but I have been reminded by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) that for a period of time the Communists also destroyed the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Australians. I put the matter in that way because the last thing that we can afford to have in our minds at this time is a feeling of smugness about this matter. We should not think to ourselves, “ After all, we took them on and they were defeated “. I say that the Communist does not look at it in that light at all. He says, “What was my object? It was to destroy, to cause losses, and to throw people out of employment. Did I succeed? Of course I did ! “ The Communist succeeded to the degree that I have stated. As a matter of fact I may call in aid of myself, not the general secretary of the Australian Communist party, Mr. Sharkey, because he is no longer a qualified witness, but an equally celebrated Australian Communist, Mr. Dixon, who is the president of that party, fie has recently been travelling in foreign parts, and in his more literary moments he wrote an article for the Cominform journal. It appeared on the 1st August. In that article he says that the coal strike wa9 deliberately promoted in order to weaken the Australian economy at a time of crisis and to prevent preparation for war. He makes no bones about it. One thing about Communist leaders is that, as a rule, they are uncommonly frank. Mr. Dixon makes it quite clear that that was the purpose of the strike ; and if that was the purpose of the strike then it succeeded. Let honorable members recall that when we are dealing with Communists we are not dealing with people who are concerned with legitimate industrial claims. They are not legitimate trade unionists. Their strikes are not genuine strikes. They are rebellious against authority, and the Government itself on a former occasion was forced to admit that fact in connexion with the guided missiles testing range project because, as honorable members will recall, the Government was compelled to say, through the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), that the Communists’ actions and threats in respect of that project constituted a deliberate attempt to sabotage a vital defence work in the interests of a foreign power. Because of that fact, this House unanimously, at the request of the Government, passed the defence projects legislation, which gave extraordinary powers to the authorities to deal with people who committed offences in relation to matters of that kind.

I turn now to one other aspect of the coal strike that gave rise to the necessity for this measure. The strike was a result of a decision made at mass meetings of miners. It began on the 27th June. It was preceded by stop-work meetings on the 17 th June. On the 16th June, the Coal Industry Tribunal established by this Government made an order prohibiting the stop-work meetings. Mr. Gallagher, who constitutes that tribunal, said, “ I make an order. I prohibit the holding of stop-work meetings on this matter “. The stop-work meetings took place. The Government did nothing. It launched no proceedings against the people responsible for the stoppage, although it had ample power to do so under its own legislation. Those meetings took place, a decision was made by the miners, and then we had debates in this chamber. Indeed, on the 21st June, six days before the strike actually began, I made a statement in this chamber and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) made a reply. In the course of my statement, which I made on behalf of the Opposition, I discussed how we could obtain coal, and I referred at that time to the necessity for getting coal by the development of open-cut mining at the quickest possible rate. The answer that was made on the 21st June, which will be found at page 1182 of Hansard, was that only miners could win coal. It was a matter of waving of hands and shrugging of shoulders and of saying, “ Well, it is all right to talk like that, but only miners can win coal, so it is of no use to talk about open-cuts “. But almost five weeks later, after the community had been held to ransom for an intolerable period of time, the Government proceeded to get coal without coal-miners, and it got it by the use of troops completely untrained in industrial activities and certainly completely untrained in the winning of coal whether by open-cut mining or otherwise.

There is another aspect of the matter, because I want to remind honorable members that when the Government has found immense difficulties it has been forced ultimately to overcome those difficulties, and oddly enough it has been forced to overcome them by the very methods that we on this side of the chamber have been advocating for years. I remind honorable members of the necessity that arose to freeze the funds of trade unions during the coal strike. I very well remember when we included a reference to the freezing of the funds of trade unions in the platform of the Liberal party four and a half years ago, and when in my policy speech at the last election I made reference to the freezing of such funds, the suggestion was denounced by honorable members opposite as a wanton interference with the independence of trade unions. Yet, before the coal strike was over, the Government was forced to introduce drastic legislation for the freezing of the funds of organizations that were not on strike at all. In other words, it had to use that weapon in a very wide way and with a wide sweep.

Mr McEwen:

– The unions were given plenty of warning.

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall not go into details of that matter. We have already had some discussion upon it. All I say at the moment is that the freezing of union funds was a matter that we had put forward and one with which the Government, ultimately, had to find itself in agreement. I have made some references to open-cut mining. I shall not trespass on the delicate ground’ that is now being a little broken in the ranks of the Australian Labour party on the question whether troops should have been used to get coal from open-cuts. I know that that is a sore point because, for many years, there has been on the Labour party’s platform, a strict prohibition on the use of troops in industrial disputes. I leave honorable members opposite to fight that our amongst themselves. I merely say that that is one of the many points of division in the ranks of the great Labour movement. However, I remind the House that when we on this side of the chamber suggested an expansion of open-cut mining, the Government rejected the proposal. A month later, the Government got to work on the open-cuts, but used troops instead of other unionists. One of the great mysteries of the strike is why it was necessary to take boys from the Army and the Air Force, and throw them into open-cut mining operations instead of calling upon ordinary trade unionists to do that job which, I remind the House, is being done at present in South Australia by members of the Australian Workers Union. As far as I know, and as far as the public knows, the Prime Minister and his colleagues made no attempt whatever to get a non-Communist trade union such as the Australian Workers Union to undertake that task which was most legitimately its own. I think that we may be pardoned for believing that the one thing that really concerned the Government was that the Australian Workers Union should be kept out of the open-cut mines, because if it were allowed in, it might stay there - and a jolly good thing it would have been for Australia if that had been so, because we should then have had in charge of open-cut mining an organization that was a genuine and resolutely anti-Communist trade union. The Government has never attempted to say why the Australian Workers Union or any other trade union could not be called in.

I shall pursue my theme by propounding a question or two. Are we in this House, and in this country, to understand that the nonCommunist unions such as the Australian Workers Union are really bitter enemies of the Communists? If they are, there is a lot of hocus pocus about the whole business; but if they are not bitter enemies of the Communists, then I must come to the next question. Do they really believe that the activities of the Communists are disruptive and are aimed at the best interests of this country? Do they just regard Communists as rather more aggressive industrialists than themselves, or do they regard them as the enemies of this country? If I know anything about the state of mind of the leaders of the Australian Workers Union, I say they do believe that the Communists are the enemies of this country, and that their activities are disruptive and entirely damaging to our economy. If that answer be correct, let me proceed to my next question. Was the coal strike a genuine industrial dispute, or was it a disruptive activity and an expression of the antiAustralian policy of the Communist party? If the latter be true, then the Australian Workers Union, and any other non-Communist trade union must have found itself hostile to the Communists on this strike. Neutrality is impossible. The great non-Communist unions either believed that the wretched Communists were out to destroy this country, or they did not. If they did not believe that the Communists were out to destroy this country, I am at loss to understand the legislation that the Government placed before the Parliament, but if they did so believe, why did this good democratic Government not line them up to fight the Communists? The most effective way for the Australian Workers Union to fight the Communists was not to pass resolutions, but to do a job that its members are more qualified to do than is any member of the miners’ federation, namely, produce coal from the open-cuts.

Sir Earle Page:

– And do it permanently.

Mr MENZIES:

– Yes. I find those questions intensely difficult to answer in any other sense than that which I have indicated. Finally, in my reflections on this strike, I point out that at the last general election, the Opposition parties propounded a policy in the course of which we said that certain strikes should be regarded as illegal. We suggested at that time that the Arbitration Court should be given authority to certify certain strikes to be illegal, but what was the reaction on the Government side to that proposal? Government spokesmen said, “ This is monstrous “. I have heard the

Prime Minister himself say in this chamber that the right to strike is sacred and cannot be touched. We, who believe that certain strikes should be capable of being declared illegal were howled at as being people who wanted to interfere with the immemorial rights of trade unions. It is interesting, therefore, to recall that, in the course of this strike, but only after many thousands of men and women had lost their jobs and great damage had been done, the Government itself was forced to agree that we were right. It was forced to agree that there were at least some strikes that should be declared illegal, because it passed legislation to declare this very strike illegal. In fact, so punitive was that legislation that half a dozen union officials were sent to gaol for contempt of court because they disobeyed orders made under the measure, and, in addition, fines amounting to thousands of pounds were imposed upon trade unions. So in 1949, the present Commonwealth Government was forced by hard truth to admit as being right our statement made in 1946 that every now and again there is a strike which cannot be dismissed with pious platitudes, and must be treated as a crime against the country. It is very interesting, therefore, to find that, on getting coal by open-cut mining, on the freezing of funds, on the taking of stern measures against Communist leaders, and on the declaration of the illegality of some strikes, this Government, which held up its hands in horror at our views only a few years ago, was forced to do these things to try to save this country from the unfortunately successful damaging attempt made against it by the Communist party. So, I venture to say that this strike has taught some lessons. I have not been able to discover that it leads to any modification of the views that we have advocated, but it certainly underlines once and for all the opposition of the Government to our views. At long last we discover, contrary to the expressions that have fallen from the Prime Minister, that we can force people back to work if they are engaged in an illegal conspiracy, that coal can be won by people other than coal-miners, that we can punish people for breaking the law and that we can treat certain strikes as illegal. Learning that lesson has taken a long time. The price that we had to pay for that lesson, as far as this bill is concerned, is a grant of £8,000,000 to the State governments to make up for their losses. It is to be hoped that in future this retreat before the Communists which we have witnessed for so long will not be renewed. Indeed, the next government will take action to ensure that these people shall be fought on all fronts and at all times until they are defeated.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– This bill involves an expenditure of £8,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money solely as the result of the incompetence of this Government in dealing with the recent coal strike. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has said, the Government was compelled very tardily to adopt every one of the measures that honorable members on this side of the House advanced as inescapable measures for the settlement of the strike. So the Government, acting very tardily and very reluctantly, after the lapse of many weeks, took steps which brought the strike to an end. It is a good thing that the people of this country should have brought home to them the fact that the Government accomplished no victory either for itself or for the democratic way of life in its handling of the coal strike. On the contrary, it surrendered time and time again to the Communists. The net results of the strike were that vast misery was inflicted on the people, the country suffered tremendous losses of production which will be felt for many months, and, by this bill alone, an amount of £8,000,000 is being extracted from the people to pay for the defaults of this Government. It is a commonplace for Labour speakers to go around the country telling the people that the handling of the coal strike really reflects credit upon the Labour Administration. I have no doubt whatever that during the forthcoming election campaign the people will be told that the coal strike resulted in a victory for the Government, and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) should be congratulated on the way in which he dealt with the situation. It will be the function of the Opposition to point out to the people that the Government adopted the course of waiting for something to turn up. Week after week, the people waited patiently to see whether this Government would do anything to bring the strike to an end. Week after week, nothing was done. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 1532

ADJOURNMENT

Petrol

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Capricornia

. - I refer to the serious position which is developing in all essential industries in Australia as the result of the present petrol position. In order to show the situation that is developing in certain areas, I propose to read some telegrams which I have received to-day. The first is from the chairman of the Garage and Service Stations Association at Gladstone. At that centre, a large fleet of trucks is engaged in hauling coal produced at Callide, a distance of some SO miles from Gladstone, for transport to various markets. Obviously, the transport of that coal has made a very considerable drain on local petrol supplies, and consequently, a serious position has developed at Gladstone. The telegram reads as follows : -

T°.’.:de in serious position over petrol. Suggest allotment of 3.000 gallons for supply coal carriers only. Each of six stations to receive 5G0 gallons.

I direct particular attention to the remainder of the telegram, which reads -

All proprietors guarantee supply evidence of delivery bona fide coal carriers. Members of trade here have already supplied thousands of gallons for coal haulage and feel justified in requesting further supply for such essential industry.

If the position at Gladstone is not relieved, the haulage of coal from this recently developed field will have to stop. The second telegram was sent to me by the cane-growers executive in the Bundaberg district. Thousands of cane-farmers in that area are now harvesting their crop, and many of them are using motor vehicles to haul the cane from the farm* to the mills. The telegram reads, in part -

Unless more petrol released immediately harvesting arrangements will be disturbed suck extent cutters and fanners unable continue, leaving large quantity cane in fields.

It will be recalled that this afternoon the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) drew attention to a telegram which he had received from the Mackay district stating that a similar position had arisen there. These telegrams indicatethe widespread effect of the petrol shortage. I noticed in this afternoon’s press a statement to the effect that the northern districts of New South Wales had suffered severely from the petrol shortage, and that the haulage of primary products and perishable goods from the railways to important centres was practically at a standstill. The possibility that such a position would arise has been pointed out to the Government on several occasions during the last few weeks. It. seems to me from the replies given by the Government that it is seeking to use thepresent position for election propaganda purposes, which, it believes, will be favorable to its case. Instead of making every possible effort to relieve the present position, the Government has attempted toplace the blame for it upon the shoulders of honorable gentlemen on this side of” the chamber and upon the recent decision of the High Court relative to petrol’ rationing.

In my opinion, and in the opinion, of many other persons, all that was required to avoid the difficulties with which we are now confronted was for the PrimeMinister (Mr. Chifley), following thedecision of the High Court, to make a forthright declaration that there need beno fear of the re-introduction of petrol rationing and that steps would be taken by the Government to ensure that adequate supplies of petrol would be available for the maintenance of essential” services. Had that declaration been made, the present position would not have developed. After the abolition of petrol rationing, there was no appreciable increase of petrol consumption. Garageproprietors throughout the country reported that following the decision of theHigh Court they were selling less, not more petrol. Petrol users were relieved of the fear of a petrol shortage and of the necessity to use petrol coupons. Instead of making that declaration, the Prime Minister indicated to the nation that if the Government had its way petrol rationing would be re-introduced. The right honorable gentleman called the Premiers of the States together and informed them that some form of petrol rationing was necessary. Consequently, persons began to hoard supplies of petrol while the going was good. Had there been no fear of the re-introduction of petrol rationing, it is not likely that they would have bought petrol and paid the present exorbitant price for it merely for the sake of hoarding it.

Mr Edmonds:

– Apparently the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson) admits that petrol has been hoarded.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– Of course hoarding has been going on. Then the coal strike occurred. There is no doubt that the quantity of petrol that was used during that strike in order to maintain essential transport services was much greater than has been admitted by the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable member must not refer to that subject. It is already before the House.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– I am merely making a passing reference to it. I am pointing out that the coal strike-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not refer to that subject.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– Had the Prime Minister stated that the decision of the High Court would be accepted and that the Government would take steps to ensure that adequate supplies of petrol would be made available, we should not be facing the present difficult situation.

We have reached the stage at which it is necessary to consider what the Government can do to relieve our difficulties. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government can do nothing to alleviate the position because it has no authority relative to the distribution of petrol, but there is one way in which it can help. It has under its control a large quantity of petrol that is being maintained as a defence reserve. I understand that the quantity is more than 50,000,000. gallons. ] advocate the release of some of that petrol immediately. The Government has control of it because it has been surrendered by the cil companies in compliance with the provisions of a measure that was recently passed by the Parliament. According to the information at my disposal, it would not require the release of more than 15,000,000 gallons of petrol to tide us over our present difficulties. I have been moved to make this suggestion because of the statements that have been made recently by senior Ministers that there is no fear of Australia being engaged in a war for five or ten years. I do not agree that that is so, but that is what has been said by government spokesmen. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot justify the funereal pace at which our defence preparations are proceeding by claiming that there is no need to accelerate them because we are not likely to be engaged in a war within the next five or ten years, and at the same time argue that it is entitled to sit like a broody old hen on 50,000,000 gallons of petrol because that quantity is required for defence purposes. If a portion of the defence stocks of petrol was released immediately, it would enable the Government to accede to requests such as those that are contained in the telegrams that I have read and alleviate the present difficult position.

I consider that what I have suggested can and should be done, but I qualify my statement by saying that if petrol is released from defence stocks, that must be regarded only as a. temporary measure and should be followed by positive action by the Government to ensure that the quantity released will be replaced within the next twelve or 24 months. I am convinced that that could be done. I am fortified in my suggestion by the belief that after the next general election the present Opposition parties will be in control of the treasury-bench and will take the necessary steps to relieve the present petrol shortage and to replace petrol released from defence stocks to alleviate our present difficulties. The Government must take steps to relieve the petrol shortage if our essential industries are to continue in operation.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson) regarding the damage that the present acute shortage of petrol is doing to production in Australia. That shortage has been caused by the restrictions that the Government has imposed upon imports of petrol from both sterling and dollar countries. It is causing not only a great loss of production but also widespread unemployment. The loss of production will accentuate our dollar shortage by causing, first, a decrease of our exports to Britain, which will worsen that country’s dollar crisis; secondly, a decrease of our exports to dollar countries, which will worsen our own dollar shortage; and thirdly, an increase of the importation from dollar countries of essential goods that should be produced here. The cause of the present acute petrol shortage is the import restrictions that have been imposed by the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has said that those restrictions have been made necessary by the shortage of dollars. The present shortage of petrol in the north of New South Wales has not been caused by over-consumption of petrol. Petrol is not being consumed in excessive quantities. Garage proprietors have shown me the figures of the consumption of petrol during the last three months, of the preceding three months and also for the corresponding period last year. Those figures show that the sale of petrol during the last three months is less than it was before rationing was discontinued, following the decision of the High Court, and less than the average monthly consumption twelve months ago. It is foolish for the Government to suggest that the present shortage is due to excessive consumption. The fact is that the Government has brought about the present shortage by its actions. If, until the High Court announced its decision that petrol rationing was ultra vires the Constitution, the Prime Minister had considered that petro] rationing should continue, he should have arranged that sufficient stocks of petrol would be available. Even had petrol rationing continued, sufficient petrol would not now be available. All the big reserves of petrol in the country of 50,000 and 100,000 gallons established by the Menzies and Fadden administrations have been allowed to decline, and they have not received their quota during the last three months. It is idle, therefore, for the Government to suggest that excessive consumption of petrol is the cause of the present acute shortage. I support the suggestion made by the honorable member for Capricornia that portion of the petrol reserved for the defence forces should be made available to overcome the present situation. During the last 24 hours I have received a number of urgent telegrams complaining of the dislocation of essential services because of the shortage of petrol, and I have recently received a number of delegations from those engaged in vital industries who complain that their business is at a standstill. A telegram that I have received from the town clerk at Kempsey explains the situation very clearly. That telegram states -

Lack of petrol Kempsey threatens discontinuance flood cleaning up operations and transport fodder to farmers. Council desires you approach Prime Minister with view immediate arrangements special allocation petrol locally.

Another telegram that I have received from the Clarence River Fishermen’s Co-operation Association at Grafton explains the difficulties that confront the fishermen on the North Coast, who supply a great proportion of the total quantity of fish for the Sydney market. That telegram is as follows: -

Fishing industry faced with complete stoppage before the end of week if petrol supplies not made available fishermen and carriers immediately.

If a considerable quantity of fish is suddenly withheld from the Sydney market it must be replaced by meat in the diet of the people of Sydney. The result is, of course, that the export of meat to Great Britain must be adversely affected, and we all know the difficulties that are being experienced by the people of Great Britain in obtaining sufficient meat, and of the attitude adopted by Argentina.

Men engaged in the timber industry on the Dorrigo have been thrown out of work because they cannot obtain sufficient petrol to haul timber to the railway sidings. Those men are anxious to work in order to supply timber for the erection of houses. They work not merely 40 hours a week, but also on Saturdays and Sundays because timber is so badly required. Yet it is useless for them to cut timber if it cannot be hauled to the railhead. Similarly, the supply of milk and butter is being adversely affected by the lack of petrol for its transportation. In the Richmond River area factories which manufacture milk products have had to curtail their operations seriously. Formerly, they received two deliveries of milk a day, whereas now they are receiving perhaps only three deliveries a week, and a great deal of milk produced in the Macleay, Tweed and Richmond River areas is going to waste because it cannot be carted to the factories. In addition, I have received telegrams from the Macleay River district saying that flood rehabilitation and cleaning-up operations must be discontinued, and transport of fodder to starving stock must cease owing to the sudden cessation of petrol supplies. If war broke out to-morrow what would happen? Would one million gallons of petrol be withheld from the suppliers of essential commodities or would £1,000,000 be allowed to stand in the way of importing it? Obviously it would not. I remind the Government that it is easier to create shortages and chaos such as we are now experiencing than it is to provide plenty. We badly need statesmanship in Australia at the present time. Hundreds of millions of pounds weight of wool, wheat, butter, cheese and sugar will be withheld from Great Britain because of the Government’s attitude in the matter of petrol supplies. During the recent coal strike the supply of milk was reduced by 4,500,000 gallons. The recent serious floods caused a considerable volume of production to be lost and several millions of gallons of petrol were used by reason of railway dislocation. I therefore beg the Prime Minister to reconsider the Government’s attitude in this matter.

Motion (by Mr. Calwell) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 16

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1535

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Commonwealth Bank Act - Appointment - J. Wittenoom.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of Health - F. B. Powell, G. A. W. Pryor.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes -

Highett, Victoria.

Preston South. Victoria.

Northern Territory (Administration) Act -

Regulations - 191 9 - No. 7 (Police and Police Offences Ordinance).

House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.

page 1535

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Electoral: Political Broadcasts

Mr Rankin:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

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

  1. Have commercial radio stations been supplied with a clear definition of the recently introduced Broadcasting Control Regulations ?
  2. If so, will he furnish similar statements to party leaders and to the secretary of each, recognized political party?
  3. Will he make a considered statement to the House defining the regulations and giving all other relevant information V
Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

Since the honorable member asked his question, the Political Broadcasts (Federal Elections) Order of the Australian Broadcasting Control Hoard has been amended by the deletion of paragraphs 4, 5 and 7. Commercial broadcasting stations are now free to use their own discretion in regard to the allocation of time for the broadcasting of political matter during the election period.

Communism

Mr Bernard Corser:

r asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to newspaper reports regarding the exchange of information between General MacArthur’s officers and the United Kingdom CommissionerGeneral in South-East .Asia, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, regarding communism in SouthEast Asia?
  2. if so, has this information been made available to the Australian Government?
  3. If not, will he ask that it be made available?
  4. What action, if any, has been taken by the Government to safeguard Australia against the dangers of communism in South-East Asia?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

With regard to the honorable member’s first three questions, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, United Kingdom Commissioner-General in South-East Asia, visited Japan between the 4th and the 11th September for an exchange of information on subjects of common interest to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and the United Kingdom Authorities in South-East Asia. The talks between Mr. MacDonald and General MacArthur and members of their respective staffs were of an informal nature to enable Mr. MacDonald to learn at first hand S.C.A.P.’s problems in Japan. No questions of policy were discussed. With regard to the honorable member’s last question, the Government is fully aware of possible dangers of communism in South-East Asia and is taking every step to ensure the continued security of this country from any throat of Communist aggression.

Pharmaceutical Benefits

Mr Fadden:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. How many persons are at present engaged by the Government in connexion with the free medicine scheme?
  2. How many are in receipt of salaries of £500 a year or more?
  3. Upon what particular work are the persons in receipt of £500 a year or more engaged ?
  4. Upon what work are the other employees engaged ?
Mr Holloway:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made and a reply will be furnished at a later date.

Miss H. C. Good

Mr White:

e asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Is there any Landlord and Tenant Act which gives protection to tenants of the Crown equal to that enjoyed by tenants of private landlords; if not, why not?
  2. What were the circumstances of the eviction of Miss H. C. Good from a cabin home of the ‘Department at Salisbury, South Australia?
  3. Was any rent in arrears?
  4. Was Miss Good’s home entered during her absence on the 17th January, 1049, and her goods and chattels loft on the road outside?
Mr Johnson:
ALP

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

  1. The Crown in right of the Commonwealth is not bound by any State Landlord and Tenant Act.
  2. Miss Good’s tenancy was terminated because of her persistent refusal to permit authorized contractors to enter and carry out work on the cottage which my department, as landlord, considered necessary.
  3. No.
  4. Following an order of the local court for the recovery of possession, the cottage was entered on the 17th January, 1949, by a police constable and the Crown bailiff, to effect an eviction. This action was taken after several requests by the bailiff to Miss Good to vacate the premises in accordance with the order of the court.

Industrial Organizations: Balancesheets

Mr Francis:

s asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the details furnished to the honorable member for Moreton regarding the filing by organizations of balance-sheets in the Principal Registry of the Arbitration Court, will he state the names of (a) the employers’ organisations and (f>) the employees’ organizations; (i) which have not filed balance-sheets (ii) which failed to keep the filing of their balance-sheets up to date and (iii) whose filing of their balance-sheets is substantially up to date.

Dr Evatt:
ALP

– As I stated when furnishing the honorable member with the information asked for, the statement regarding each of the 194 organizations concerned runs into many pages and is not suitable for incorporation in Hansard as part of an answer to a question. I think the honorable member’s question can best be answered by making the file of papers available to him for inspection.

Coal Strike: Cost of Commonwealth Advertisemen ts.

Mr Archie Cameron:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What expense was incurred on Commonwealth account in advertising appeals, advice and other matter (a) in newspapers; (b) in wireless broadcasting programmes; and (c) by other methods, during the coal strike?
  2. What amounts were paid to each newspaper, broadcasting station, and other service employed ?

Mr.Chifley. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. (a)£24,58811s.1d. (b) nil. (c) nil.
  2. Amounts paid to each newspaper arc set out in the attached statement. There was, ‘in addition, an amount of £113 3s. 3d. dispersed for blocks, stereos, matrices, reprints, postages and freight.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19491018_reps_18_205/>.