House of Representatives
21 June 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4635

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to nsk the PostmasterGeneral a number of questions concerning the mutilation of certain broadcasts by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The honorable gentleman has already made a statement dealing with the way in which descriptions of important sport contests, such as Rugby League and Rugby Union international matches, have been interrupted, and I now ask him to investigate the circumstances of the broadcasting last Saturday afternoon of a description of the RugbyLeague football match between Queensland and England. At the most crucial stage of the match, listeners in Canberra, and doubtless elsewhere throughout Australia, were out off from the description and were transferred to a broadcast from some obscure race-course. The whole effect of the description of the football match was destroyed, especially as an important change in the game took place in the few minutes during which the racecourse broadcast was substituted. Has the Postmaster-General approved of the mutilation, in the introduction to the regular news sessions, of the tune “Advance Australia Fair “ to a condition in which the air is hardly recognizable? In the process of investigating these matters, will the honorable gentleman take steps to reestablish the statutory Broadcasting Committee of this Parliament, or does he intend not to observe the terms’, of the law that was passed by .the Parliament ?

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I shall answer the last question first. I announced at the beginning of the term of office of this Government that the parliamentary Broadcasting Committee would not be reconstituted.

Dr Evatt:

– It is provided for in thu statute.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I announced at the time of making that statement that legislative provision to give effect to that determination of the Government would he introduced as soon as possible. The Broadcasting Committee had not met for about eighteen months prior to the dissolution of the previous Parliament. Since the Australian Broadcasting Control Board had been established by the previous Government, the functions of the parliamentary committee as an advisory body had largely disappeared. Therefore, the committee will not be reconstituted. I realize that the broadcasting of “ Advance Australia Fair “ as an introduction to the Australian Broadcasting Commission news sessions is close to the heart of the right honorable member because he was responsible for the substitution of that tune for the tune “British Grenadiers”. I am not aware that “ Advance Australia Fair “ has been mutilated, and, indeed, I doubt whether it could be mutilated. However, I shall examine that aspect, and inform the right honorable gentleman of what has been done. Two or three weeks ago, he raised the matter of the Australian Broadcasting Commission interposing descriptions of racing and other sporting events between the broadcasts of play in test matches. I remind him that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has to compete with the commercial broadcasting stations for the listening public, and, therefore, it has to cater for all sections of the community. In an endeavour to do so, it broadcasts descriptions of the play in test matches, and breaks off for a3 brief a period as possible to give interested persons the results of various events in other branches of sport. If the right honorable gentleman were listening to the broadcast of a test match from a commercial station, he would find that the descriptions of play were_ interrupted from time to time by advertisements for McGinty’s pills, or something like that. The Australian Broadcasting Commission must try to serve all sections of the public, and is doing its utmost to meet ite obligation in that respect. However, I shall examine the details of the matters that he raised, and supply him with an answer.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral state whether consideration has been given to the granting of more commercial broadcasting licences to country areas throughout Australia? How many applications for commercial licences have been received for the operation of additional broadcasting stations? What is the position in respect of television? Has a determination yet been made concerning the introduction of this new development to Australia? Will commercial licences be granted for television stations? How many applicants have already sought such licences?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Investigations are now being conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board of the possibility of allocating more commercial broadcasting licences. Only a limited number of channels is available asAustralian broadcasting operations are conducted under international arrangements with other countries. Of the present commercial broadcasting stations in Australia, numbering, I. think, about 102, more than half are working on shared channels: Consideration is now being given to the matter of raising the power of the stations .that are working on shared channels and an effort is being made to ascertain how many new commercial licences can be issued and what districts are most entitled to them. I think that there are about 950 applications for commercial broadcasting licences in the file of the department.

Mr Calwell:

– There used to be 5,000.

Mr ANTHONY:

– There are about 950 now. I think that they were reexamined when the last Government went out of office. The subject of television is at present being considered by the Government, a very complete investigation having been made of the matter by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which submitted certain recommendations, and a decision will be made, at a very early date. About 50 applica- tions have been received for television licences, but until the act is amended none can be granted.

page 4636

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation been informed of the statement that was made by Mr. R. N. Ansett in Melbourne last night to the effect that taa pilot of the DC8 aircraft that collided, while taxi-ing, with a coal train at Mascot last Sunday evening; acted on instructions he had received from the Department of Civil Aviation’s control tower at that airport? Has the Minister also been informed that. Mr. Ansett is reported in the press as having said that, the captain of the aircraft stated that norecordings were made of the instructions that were given from the control towerto the pilot? In view of those statements,, does the Minister intend to order that a public- inquiry be held into the cause of ‘ the collision between the airliner and thecoal, train?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

– The accident to which the honorable member has referred is now being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Committee of the Department of Civil Aviation. I do not expect that its report will be made available to me before the Minister for Civil Aviation arrives in Australia a few days hence, and I believe that he will determine, on the evidence that is forthcoming, whether a further form of investigation is necessary.

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation seen a press report that a Captain Bradshaw proposes to fly across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand with his wife and child as passengers in a singleengined aircraft? Does the Minister approve of such a venture? If not, does he possess the necessary powers to prohibit it?

Mr CASEY:

– I am aware that a Captain Bradshaw proposes to. fly from Tasmania to the south island of New Zealand. I, personally, am not without experience of the capabilities of singleengined aircraft, and in my view such a flight would be extremely foolhardy. I have consulted with the officers of the Department of Civil Aviation upon the matter and we have raised it with the civil aviation authorities in New Zealand. As they also agree that the proposed flight would he foolhardy, I have instructed officers of the Department of Civil Aviation to use all the power that they possess to stop the flight.

Mr HASLUCK:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation a question which arises from another question that was directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation earlier in this session. Has there been any result of discussions between interested .parties concerning the improvement of air services to and from Western Australia, particularly by adjusting timetables so that aircraft of TransAustralia Airlines and Australian National Airways shall not continue to fly side by side but shall provide day and night services in hoth directions? Has there been any outcome of discussions with the Postmaster-General regarding the improvement of air-mail services between Perth and the eastern States, particularly by providing that if timetables are adjusted mails will -be carried by all aircraft flying between Perth and Melbourne? If the discussions have not yet led to any concrete results, will the Minister give an assurance that they will be renewed and that in the renewed conversations the Government will urge that the primary and overriding consideration shall be a better service to the public, in respect of both carriage of mails and transport of passengers ?

Mr CASEY:

– I can answer the honorable gentleman’s question best by saying that the Government proposes, at the earliest practicable date, to take into consideration the rationalization of the commercial air services in Australia in the interests, as the honorable gentleman has stated, first of economy, secondly the convenience of the travelling public, and also the more efficient transport of mails by air. That matter will be’ taken into consideration as soon as the Government can get round to it.

page 4637

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Health yet in a position to complete negotiations with the British Medical Association regarding his national health scheme? Will he inform me whether it is a fact that the chemists and dispensers are not favorably disposed towards the scheme, and if his answer is in the affirmative, will he say whether he has composed his differences with them ? Furthermore, will he state whether the friendly societies have yet been consulted about the scheme, and inform me of their attitude towards it? In view of the fact that, for a considerable time, the public have been paying their social services contributions to the National Welfare Fund, will the right honorable gentleman be prepared to make a statement, or produce a bill, at an. early date setting out his entire agreement with the various bodies that I have mentioned ?

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The social services contributions, to which the honorable gentleman referred, were collected for eight years by the previous Government, yet nothing was done to implement a national health scheme. The agreements with the various bodies that he mentioned will he set out in the legislation.

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Shortly after the last general election the Minister for Health announced that a conference of State Ministers of Health was to be convened and that details of the proposed Commonwealth health scheme were to be placed before them with a view to securing their co-operation in the scheme. As no such conference has yet been held, can it be assumed that the Government has not any plans to place before the State Ministers; or is there some other reason why the conference has not been convened, and, if so, will the right honorable gentleman state what it is?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– There is a very good reason why the conference has not been held. Six State elections have been held this year, and the State governments have been too ‘busy to consider other 11 1 titters.

Mi. BEAZLEY. - In view of the right honorable gentleman’s statement that the State governments have been too occupied with election matters to enable a conference of State Health Ministers to be held, will he state whether he issued an invitation to any State Minister of Health to attend such a conference and whether he received a reply that the State Minister concerned could not do so because he was too busy with election matters?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I consulted the State governments in regard to various health matters and found that that was the position.

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it true that last week the Minister for Health released a statement to the press in which he said that, in his Government’s free medicine scheme, it was proposed to restrict the provision of free medicines to life-saving and disease-preventing drugs, iri order to prevent wanton waste of medicines, as had occurred under the Chifley Government’s scheme? Is it also true that the right honorable gentleman has found instances of doctors, without justification, and in an endeavour to defeat the Chifley Government’s free medicine scheme, having wilfully prescribed medicines for patients who did not require them? Did he refer to one instance in which a gallon of elixir cascara, or the equivalent of 5.000 doses, was prescribed, and another in which SO vials of penicillin, each of 500,000 units or 40,000,000 units in all, were prescribed although not required by the patient? Did another doctor prescribe eighteen months’ supply of insulin for a patient who did not require it? If such prescriptions were issued will the Minister state whether it is the intention of the Government toprosecute the doctors concerned ? Will he consider the extension of the new formulary so that all necessary medicines may he obtained free by the workers in thelower income groups who cannot afford to pay for them ?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The number of doctors who have prescribed free medicines is about 2 per cent, of all the doctors in Australia. Many of them arc doctors who have refused to join the ‘British Medical Association or have been black-listed by that association for unprofessional conduct. The list of such doctors includes quite a. number who, during the inquiry into communism held recently by a royal commission in Victoria, were mentioned as being Communists. Because of the waste that has taken place I have insisted in all my discussions with both chemists and doctors that there shall be a disciplinary committee consisting of doctors and chemists to make certain that penalties will be imposed on those guilty of such waste. So far as doctors are concerned such committees have already been nominated and contain the names of some of the most, eminent men in the profession in Australia.

page 4638

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr GILMORE:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force is constantly training air crews and that Australia’s immediate defence concern is the Pacific sphere of influence, will the Minister acting for the Minister for Air consider establishing a training station at the aerodrome at Mareeba in north Queensland in order to enable trainees to obtain tropical experience under conditions of jungle and tropical rain-storms?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– I take it that the honorable member refers to civilian citizen air force squadrons. It is the intention of the Royal Australian Air Force to increase the number of such squadrons. ^formally they are based on parent squadrons in centres of population where full accommodation facilities exist. As such facilities are not available at Mareeba, I should say that it will not be possible in the near future to establish a citizen air force squadron at that centre. However, the Minister for Air is due to return to Australia shortly, and when he does so I shall bring the honorable member’s question to his attention.

page 4639

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– At present, totally and permanently incapacitated and also temporarily incapacitated ex-servicemen are allowed to travel at concession fares for short distances from suburbs to city areas. “Will the Prime Minister refer to the Cabinet sub-committee that is now considering the problems of ex-service personnel the possibility of granting quarterly privilege passes on transport utilities to incapacitated ex-servicemen to entitle them to travel to distant pleasure resorts? Many of these men, who are suffering from war neurosis and require a change of environment, have indicated to me that they would like the privilege to be made available to them. They are deserving of such privileges. Will the right honorable gentleman favorably consider this matter?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall certainly bring the honorable member’s suggestion to the attention of the sub-committee to which he has referred.

page 4639

QUESTION

CHINA AND SPAIN

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the recognition by the United Kingdom Government of the Communist Government of China and the reported decision of that government to. vote for the admission of the Chinese Communist Government to the United Nations organization, will the Minister for External Affairs inform the House of the nations that have already recognized the Communist Government of China and of those that have indicated that they will vote for the admission of that Government to the United Nations organization? Is there any moral distinction or any distinction under international law between the totalitarian governments of China and of Spain? If not, will the Minister give similar particulars with regard to Spain that 1 asked him on a previous occasion to supply with respect to China? Will he also explain the reason for the Australian Government’s non-recognition of the Franco Government?

Mr SPENDER:
Minister for External Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Naturally, I cannot furnish offhand the details for which the honorable member has asked. As the matter that he has raised is important I shall have the answer prepared. I hope to be able to present it to the House before the Parliament goes into recess.

page 4639

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS AND HOUSING

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Works and Housing been directed to a statement reported to have been made recently by the secretary of the Queensland Chamber of Manufactures in which he criticized what he described as “ excessive red tape “ in connexion with specifications required for projects by the Department of Works and Housing? Will the right honorable gentleman investigate the position in order to ascertain whether there is any substance in this criticism, and if such is the case, will he take steps to eliminate any unnecessary requirements?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– I am constantly discussing matters of that sort with the Director-General of Works and it is my present impression that such criticism is not justified. I have not read the reportto which the honorable member has referred. If it is made available to me, I shall certainly look into the complaint.

page 4639

QUESTION

EGGS

Mr HAMILTON:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of repeated requests by organizations of poultry farmers for a subsidy on eggs, can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the House of the present position of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments relating to the export of eggs to the United Kingdom?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– Negotiations with the United Kingdom have reached what I regard as the concluding stage. The United Kingdom Government has indicated that it would ‘be willing to pay some increase above last year’s contract price. I and the officers of my department have constantly consulted the chairman of the Australian Egg Board and through him all the members of that body on the progress of the negotiations with the United Kingdom. I hope to be able to announce at an early date that the negotiations have been finalized and to state the price agreed upon.

page 4640

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr KEON:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of the Minister for Trade and Customs that no increase of the price of women’s clothing would be warranted on account of the increased duty on rayon that the Government has announced ? If he agrees with that statement, will he say what action the Government proposes to take, either by itself or conjointly with the States, to prevent the increases of prices which, according to retailers and manufacturers, are likely to occur ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have the greatest confidence in my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs. I am not aware of the particular statement to which the honorable gentleman has referred, but whatever statement that Minister makes in relation to the administration of his department can be taken as having my personal support.

page 4640

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether it is a fact, as has been stated in some newspapers, that his department is preparing a plan for the admittance into Australia of 40,000 young Germans? If this is a fact will the Minister, before agreeing to the admission of Germans, consider the claims of Norwegians, Danes and Dutchmen who served in the underground movement during the war and who are anxious to come to this country? If the Minister decides to admit the Germans to this country will he give consideration to the most drastic screening of these people in view of the disturbed conditions in Germany at the present time?

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government’s immigration programme for the year 1951 has not yet been determined. It is clear that the International Refugee Organization scheme will not function for very long after the end of March of that year and if the rate of immigration ‘s to be maintained at approximately 200,000 persons a year a substantial proportion of that number of immigrants will necessarily come from Europe. Nodecision has been made as to the actual countries from which European immigrants will be drawn, but, in dealing with that matter, I shall certainly consider the points raised by the honorable member. I can assure him that immigrants are being checked by as close a security method as it has so far been possible to devise. The honorable member is familiar with that method.

page 4640

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Wm the Prime Minister consider the advisability of either calling a conference of, or receiving a deputation from, the Lord Mayors of Australian cities for the discussion of problems of local government in relation to the Commonwealth? The discussions could deal with matters such as national development, petrol tax, grants in lieu of rates and similar matters other than those that are solely of State concern. If the Prime Minister accepts this suggestion will he confer with the right honorable the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, who recently convened a similar meeting in Melbourne at which such matters were discussed? Even if the right honorable gentleman cannot do this, does he not think that such a conference would prevent a lot of unnecessary questions, correspondence and discussions, and at the same time improve the relationship between the Commonwealth and local government bodies ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The Government appreciates to the full the immense significance of the cities to which the honorable member has referred, but it will be appreciated that as a Commonwealth our direct relationship is with the governments of the States in matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the States.

All the bodies mentioned are the creation of State laws, and have no immediate relation to the Commonwealth. It is therefore very desirable, as a general principle, that any discussions should be with the .States. Any matters connected with municipalities must come to the Commonwealth through the States. I am sure that the honorable member can appreciate the full point of that. In the broad sense the underlying suggestion that he has made will at all times receive consideration. pensions.

Mr. 011111117. - Information received from a number of age and widow pensioners shows that 10s. is being deducted from their pensions each pay by the Government, because of an overpayment during a period in which they earned wages. In some cases that overpayment amounted to £100, and the people overpaid will be required to live on their reduced pensions at the bare existence level for a considerable time. Will the Prime Minister inform this House of the number of pensioners who have had their pensions so reduced during the last six months, and also the total, amount deducted from pensions since the Liberal Government took office?

Mr MENZIES:

– Not only shall I provide the information asked for by the honorable member but I shall do better. I shall endeavour to secure the figures for the last eight years.

page 4641

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– As this particular matter should be made clear to all, I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is a fact that the purchase price of wheat for consumption in Australia is 6s. Sd. a bushel, at ports? Is the return to the wheat-grower 6s. 8d. a bushel plus a Government consumer subsidy of 5d. a bushel to which the wheat-grower contributes, making the price 7s. Id. a bushel less freight and administrative charges? What is the approximate cost a bushel of freight and administration for home consumption wheat, and what is the approximate present price of export wheat?

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The price for wheat for home consumption is charged by the Australian Wheat Board at the rate of 6s. 8d. a bushel for bulk wheat free on rail at ports. The return to wheatgrowers for wheat supplied by them for home consumption is 7s. Id., that being the found cost of production according to the last investigations the results of which were put in the hands of the Government last November or December. To prevent an increase of the cost to the public of bread and flour products, the present Government, instead of raising the price of wheat for home consumption to the cost of production level, that is, from 6s. 8d. to 7s. Id. decided that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should carry the additional costs. Therefore, the price of wheat to the public for local consumption is still 6s. Sd. The wheat-grower receives .by this means and by means of a consumer subsidy, 7s. Id. a bushel. It is quite true that the wheat-growers, as ordinary taxpayers, make a contribution towards the 5d. a bushel that is paid from Consolidated Revenue. However, their contribution is no more and no less than that of the average taxpayer. It is not possible to indicate separately the freight and administration charges for wheat used for home consumption as distinct from the total quantity of wheat handled. However, these costs for all wheat, including handling and storing charges, are estimated to total ll£d. a bushel. That is the figure that has been computed by the Australian Wheat Board from its experience of the season 1949-50. The present maximum price for export wheat under the international agreement is 16s. Id. a bushel f.o.b. bulk basis. The price for free wheat, which is the wheat that is sold outside the terms of the agreement, is 18s. 6d. a bushel f.o.b. bulk basis. In each instance the price of bagged wheat is ls. lid. higher.

page 4641

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Mr CALWELL:

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether it is a fact that, because of the increase of the cost of living during the quarter that will end on the 30th of this month, a further increase of the basic wage by at least 3s. a week is likely to be announced in the middle of July. Is it also a fact that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court will make its determination in the basic wage case during August and will possibly grant an increase of £1 .a week? If these are facts and the basic wage will rise in consequence to £9 a week within about two and a half months, what action does the Minister propose to take to reduce the cost of living so that this ever-increasing motion in the spiral of inflation shall not continue to the detriment of the whole economy and of all sections of the community, particularly the working class?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– The honorable member has indulged in some interesting speculation concerning the future. I am, of course, unable to give him any precise details about matters that certainly are not known to me and that I do not think can be known to any person at present. The general policy of the Government in relation to the cost of living has been stated by the Prime Minister in this House on many occasions. “We hope that, with the co-operation of industry and those engaged in industry, both employers and employees, and also with the cooperation of the Parliament in enabling us to pass legislation that is essential to our programme, we shall be able to effect a substantial improvement of the economic situation.

page 4642

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr KEKWICK:
BASS, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Supply informed me recently, in reply to a question that I had asked about the aluminium project at Bell Bay, Tasmania, that the plant would be in production in 1952 if the State Government could supply electric power to it by that year. Can the Minister inform me whether adequate supplies of bauxite will be available for the manufacture’ of alumina in 1952 and whether it is proposed eventually to use Tasmanian bauxite at the plant ?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As the honorable member has said, I informed him that production could be commenced at the Bell Bay plant in 1952 if the production of electricity was up to schedule. We do not expect to be able to use Tasmania^ bauxite by 1952, but the Commonwealth has other sources of supply upon which it can draw. We hope to be able to use the Tasmanian raw material eventually. Bauxite is derived from various parts of Australia, including Tasmania. I appreciate the interest that the honorable member has shown in this extremely important project. I hope to visit Tasmania early in the forthcoming parliamentary recess in order to inspect the progress that is being made at Bell Bay.

page 4642

QUESTION

FLOOD DAMAGE AND RELIEF

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that many municipalities and shires in New South Wales have sustained considerable financial loss in repairing flood damage to roads and structures. The expense involved is beyond the capacity of localgoverning bodies to bear. Will the right honorable gentleman consider acting in conjunction with State governments to make funds available for the assistance of local governing bodies in carrying out such repair works ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member for Paterson asked me a question on the same subject yesterday. I then indicated the general attitude of the Government. I refer the honorable member to that answer.

page 4642

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– As discussions are taking place to-day concerning defence matters that affect Australia and other members of the British Commonwealth in the Pacific sphere, and in view of the vital importance of New Guinea to Australia’s security, will the Minister for External Affairs assure the House that the territories of Papua and New Guinea, which are under Australian administration, will be included in the Australian regional zone of defence responsibility? As the whole of the New Guinea mainland is equally important from a defence standpoint, will the Government consider making an approach to the Netherlands Government with a view to negotiating an agreement for the inclusion of Dutch New Guinea in the Australian zone for regional defence? Is the Minister aware of certain unofficial reports to the effect that Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, during a recent visit to Indonesia., indicated his support of Dr. Soekarno’s claim to Dutch New Guinea? If the Minister is aware of those reports, does he know whether they represent the considered opinion of the Republic of India or are merely the personal opinion of Nehru ?

Mr SPENDER:
LP

– The subjects of the first two questions are within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Defence, and 1. am sure that he will take note of them and reply to them. I have noticed the various statements in relation to Dutch New Guinea that have been attributed to Pandit Nehru. Some of the reports have been at variance, and I am trying to ascertain precisely what he did say. No doubt he was expressing his own views. One statement that he did make was important. It was to the effect that, in determining the future of Dutch New Guinea, the interests of the native people of that territory were of singular, if not prime, importance. All that I need say al the moment is that the views of the Australian Government on this matter “have been expressed a,nd that they have not been altered.

page 4643

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some time ago I asked the Treasurer a question concerning the shocking condition of roads in the industrial area of Port Kembla that had been caused by heavy lorries carrying steel to various parts of the Commonwealth. I now ask the right honorable gentleman whether it is a fact that the shortage of railway rolling-stock in New South Wales makes it necessary for heavy road lorries to ,be used to transport steel. Will he make a portion of the petrol tax available to the City of Wollongong so that the roads may be properly repaired?

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The method of allocating the revenue from the petrol tax is the subject of an agreement between this Government and the State governments. Therefore, the City of Wollongong will have to deal with the Government of New South Wales in relation to this matter.

page 4643

NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) - by leave - agreed to -

That Standing Order 104 - 11 o’clock rule - bc suspended for the remainder of this week.

page 4643

STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1950

Motion (by Mr. Holt) agreed to -

That leave bc given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act .1949.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949. The amendment relates to a matter of procedure and is, as I think honorable members will agree, non-contentious. It will be retmembered that in October, 1949, awards were made by the Coal Industry Tribunal and the Central Reference Board by which long service leave benefits were granted to members of the miners’ federation and certain other unions that are engaged in the coal-mining industry. The effect of those benefits was to place a substantial financial burden on the employers who were bound by the awards. The previous Arministration was of the opinion that the financial burden involved should be spread equally over the whole of the coal-mining industry, and decided that, if the States would undertake to reimburse to employers the cost of the long service leave, the Commonwealth would assist the States financially in relation, to not only such reimbursements but also the expenses of the administrative machinery that would have to be set up by the States. To meet the cost to the Commonwealth, an excise at the rate of 6d. a ton was imposed on coal that was produced in Australia after the 1st November, 1949.

To give effect to those decisions, the Parliament passed the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949 and the Coal Excise Act 1949. The former is a short act that established a coal mining industry long service leave fund, into which are paid the amounts that are collected as excise on coal, or contributed by the States in lieu of excise on coal that is produced in State mines. The act also authorizes the payment by way of grant of amounts determined by the Treasurer to those States that have undertaken the liability of reimbursing to employers the cost of long service leave, but only where the State has entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth, and that agreement has been approved by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the State.

When the present Government assumed office no agreement had been entered into with any State. After an examination of the matter, the Government decided to adhere to the decisions that had been made by the previous Administration, and to enter into negotiations with the States accordingly. This has been done in the case of all black coal producing States. However, the Government considered that the principal obligations of the States ought to be embodied in statutory form, leaving only minor matters of detail to be covered by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The State of New South Wales, with which the negotiations have reached the most advanced stage, agreed with this view, and promptly introduced appropriate legislation which has now been passed, namely, the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Act 1950. The detail that will be covered by the agreement is in the latter stages of finalization. In the negotiations that are in progress with the other States, the Commonwealth has proposed that legislation similar to that passed by New South Wales shall be enacted by them, and has indicated the detail that would be covered by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States.

In those circumstances, the Government considers that the present requirement that any agreement shall be ratified by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and each individual State is unnecessary, since only detail will be traversed. Therefore the bill proposes to remove this requirement of parliamentary ratification. In short, we are reaching the objective that was in mind when the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act was passed, but by a somewhat different method from that which was then contemplated. Instead of having a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States covering substantially the matters that have to be provided for and having this agreement included as a. schedule to ratifying acts of the Parliaments of the ‘Commonwealth and the States, we shall now have, in addition to the Commonwealth act authorizing grants to be made to the States, State acts covering the principal of the obligations to be undertaken by the States with matters of administrative detail covered by the exchange of correspondence between the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States. Many acts of this Parliament do, in fact, authorize advances to a State in accordance with agreements which the legislation leaves to be negotiated by the Commonwealth with the States without the requirement of ratification.

The amendment is, as I have said, of a procedural nature. I commend its passage to the House, so that arrangements may be put in band immeditely to permit of grants being made to the Commonwealth and thus enable those entitled to benefits under the awards to receive them without delay. I have placed the details of this proposal before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), and have advised him of the reasons that have motivated the Government in the matter. I understand that it is his pleasure that we proceed with the secondreading debate, and to other stages of the ‘bill forthwith.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– What is the amount of the subsidy or grant that is paid by the Commonwealth to the States ?

Mr HOLT:

– The amount is raised, as I indicated, by an excise on coal.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– An excise on black coal?

Mr HOLT:

– Yes.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Is subbituminous coal, such as Leigh Creek coal, subject to the excise?

Mr HOLT:

– No.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– What about brown coal? Is Leigh Creek coal regarded as brown or black coal ?

Mr HOLT:

-For the purposes of this legislation, it is regarded as brown coal.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · Macquarie

– The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) was good enough to arrange for his officers to discuss this proposal with me, and he himself gave me certain reasons for the introduction of the bill. The House will recall that legislation to impose a levy on coal was introduced by the previous Government, after an award had been made by the Coal Industry Tribunal providing for long service leave for coal-miners. The Minister has encountered certain procedural difficulties since that legislation was passed, and the bill is designed to overcome them. The Opposition has no desire to delay its passage in any way. We understand that it does not alter, in any respect, the principles that have been laid down regarding the provision of long service leave for coal-miners.

However, I should like to sound a note of warning. I advise the Minister to be sure that proposals of this kind are set out in detail is correspondence between the Commonwealth and the States that are concerned, .because experience has taught us that the representatives of the Commonwealth may be involved in a good deal of argument with a new Premier or Treasurer of a State about the interpretation of certain phrases that appear in letters. That was one reason why, when we were in office, we were always anxious, where it was possible to do so, to embody such conditions in legislation. For that reason, and also in view of the fact that the bill does not alter the benefits provided under the principal act that was passed by the preceding Government, the Opposition does not oppose the measure.

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 4645

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) ASSESSMENT BILL 1950

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill foi an act to amend the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 4645

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1950

In committee: (Consideration of Senate’s message).

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

– I move -

That the committee insists on its amendments (vide page 4358), disagreed to by the Senate.

This measure, having been introduced to the Senate in a form proposed by the Government, was amended in that chamber in a form that was not acceptable to the Government and it came before us in that shape. As honorable members will recall, we had a lengthy discussion on it and the House decided to restore the bill to the form in which it had been originally introduced to the Senate. The measure then went back to the Senate with an expression of our will as a House of Representatives embodied in it, and the .Senate has now gone through the procedure of advising us that it disagrees with our amendments. The Senate has given reasons for its disagreement in very brief terms. They are -

  1. Because there is an obligation on the Parliament to ensure that the grant of Child Endowment is not defeated by the action of a body other than the Parliament.
  2. Because an additional family endowment of five shillings per week is inadequate.

I do not propose to reply at length to those reasons. As I said earlier, these matters were canvassed thoroughly by this committee when the bill was previously before us. It was then seen that the differences that exist between the two houses relate to two matters. The first is, whether the endowment to be provided for the first child shall be at the rate of 10s. a week or 5s. a week ; and the second is, whether or not a specific instruction shall be inserted in the bill directing the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to ignore the impact of any child endowment payment when it is computing the basic wage. The Government had all the arguments before it on the last occasion on which it considered the bill, and it indicated its views very clearly at that time. With respect to what the rate of endowment to be provided should be we explained that the payment of 5s. represented the limit to which the Government was prepared to go at present having regard to its many financial commitments in other directions. In addition, we explained that the amount of 5s. was clearly the amount that the present Government parties, during the election campaign, when they were in Opposition, undertook to provide. That promise formed an important and wellunderstood part of the joint policy speech of the present Government parties. We were returned on a programme that included this important item. There can be no question, therefore, of any change on our part in relation to the amount proposed in discharge of the obligation that we assumed when we inserted that provision in our policy speech; and we have set out to embody that obligation in this legislation. I shall not cover the ground that was transversed in the’ previous debate on this measure. I point out that during the recent general election campaign the Labour party criticized us for proposing to provide any endowment benefit at all for the first child of the family. That party refused to do so; but it has now turned a remarkable somersault on this legislation. It now insists that the Government shall provide benefit at the rate of 10s. a week. The Government cannot accept that proposal. It must insist that the undertaking that it gave in its policy speech shall be carried out in the manner in which it was then proposed.

The second matter in respect of which the Senate has disagreed is its proposal to embody in the legislation a provision directing the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to ignore the payment of this endowment when- it is computing the basic wage. Previously, my colleagues in the Senate and I, explained on behalf of the Government the reasons that impel it to reject this proposal. First, it is bad in principle; and, secondly, it is of such doubtful constitutional validity that its inclusion in this legislation might very well involve further delay in giving effect to the basic wage determination, because some challenge might emerge out of such an instruction to the court. The Government believes that any court of justice should, as far as is practicable, be untrammelled in its capacity to determine what is a just decision on all the facts and evidence placed before it.

For those reasons and others that were discussed in detail when this measure was before us earlier, the Government repudiates for a second time the bill as it was passed by the Senate. I make it clear to members of the Opposition and to their colleagues in the Senate, that the Senate by rejecting the amendments of the House of Representatives, hae forced the Government to adopt this position : We are not prepared’ to confer with managers from another place, should that be proposed, because our position has been made clear. The only two points in difference between us are the points stated in the Senate’s message, and on both the Government does not propose to change the stand that it took earlier on this measure. Consequently, if the Senate persists in the attitude that is indicated by the reasons set out in its message, the net result necessarily will be that this legislation cannot he put into effect in the course of the current sessional period, and all that the Government can do to give effect to its general election undertaking will be to present the legislation again during the next session of the Parliament. It is the intention of the Government to do that.

For the reasons we have given both now and at an earlier stage, we believe that in taking such a stand wc have the full support of the members of both Government parties. We advise the representatives of the Australian Labour party in this chamber, and through them their colleagues in another place, that that will be th.i inevitable result of their refusal to meet the Government in this matter. I hope that common sense will prevail and that they will take the attitude that the Australian mothers expect to receive this benefit, that they were promised it, and that it is the intention of the Government that they shall receive it. Obstruction by the Senate in this matter can only have the effect of denying to Australian housewives, whose difficulties are ventilated daily by Opposition members, an immediate additional 5s. a week, which, I am sure, they would regard as a very welcome contribution to their domestic budgets. I do not propose to labour the matter. I hope that if Opposition members remain adamant they will realize what the consequences of their action will be. I make the position as clear as I possibly can so that there will be not doubt in the minds of Opposition members about the fate of the measure if. when it is returned to the Senate, the Labour Opposition in that chamber insists on the insertion of its amendments.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has threatened the Senate that if it does not pass the bill in the form desired by the Government, the women of Australia will not receive child endowment in respect of the first child in their families. That is the simple story. He has argued that the Senate’s first reason for disagreeing to the amendments made in this House -

Because there is an obligation on the Parliament to ensure that the grant of child endowment is not defeated by the action of a body other than the Parliament. - is not worthy of consideration by this chamber. He said that the provision inserted in the hill by the Senate in an attempt to protect the basic wage is of doubtful constitutional validity. What right has he, or for that matter any other lawyer, to make such a statement? Only the High Court can decide whether or not such a provision is constitutionally valid, but it has never been asked to express an opinion on such a matter. This Parliament, in any case, has possessed power to pay child endowment only since 1946, when the Constitution was altered to enable it to do so. Before that alteration was made the payment of child endowment by the Commonwealth was of very doubtful constitutional validity. The Chifley Government arranged for a referendum of the people to be held to make sure of the validity of child endowment payments, and also to ensure that the Parliament should have power to pass legislation for the provision of free medicine to make grants to students and to do certain other things. Although this referendum proposal was placed before the people by the Chifley Government, it was not opposed by the members of the political parties that now form the Government. The proposal was accepted by a majority of the people in all the States. The validity of this Senate amendment now before us can be tested under the provisions inserted in the Constitution when it was last altered and not under the arbitration power. A law must first bo passed before its validity can be tested. We could not approach the High Court with a hypothetical case and ask it to decide whether the Commonwealth Parliament can legally pass legislation under a certain head of power. The Government should allow the provision inserted by the Senate to remain in the bill so that it may be tested, if somebody wishes to test it, and to ensure that the basic wage shall be protected. If the court subsequently holds such a provision to be ultra vires the Constitution no harm will be done to the remainder of the legislation.

Mr Hulme:

– Does the honorable member suggest that it is not the duty of the Government to consider whether or not its legislation is constitutional?

Mr CALWELL:

– It is the duty of the Government to protect the basic wage, but this Government is not at all worried about the fundamental social aspects of this matter. Whilst it is the duty of the Government to obtain constitutional advice, it also has the duty of carrying out its pre-election promises. The Government promised that it would pay 5s. a week endowment for the first child and that the payment of such endowment would not result in a reduction of the basic wage. The provision placed in the bill by the Senate expresses in legislative form a promise that the Government made to the people. It is rather incongruous that the Government should object to the inclusion of a provision in its legislation that is strictly in accordance with its election policy.

Mr McColm:

– It objects to the provision because it was inserted in the bill by the Senate only for obstructive purposes.

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) may have his own views about these matters. It hasbeen my experience in life that those who suggest unworthy motives generally act from unworthy motives themselves. The Minister has said that we should give a lead to our colleagues in the Senate in this matter and that if we do not do so the hearing of the basic wage case may he delayed. That is nonsense.

Mr Holt:

– I said that it might result in delay in having the new basic wage given effect.

Mr CALWELL:

– That is even worse. The honorable gentleman contends that the whole bill could be adjudicated upon by the High Court without regard to the severability of its clauses. He knows only too well that the clauses of the bill are severable. In the Banking case the High Court held that certain iportions of the Banking Act 1947 were invalid, that other portions were valid, and that certain portions that were invalid could be made valid. .

Mr McColm:

– That legislation has not operated.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not dispute that fact. The Minister has contended that the bill must be accepted or rejected as a whole. That may be the political attitude of the opponents of democracy, but it is not a good legal attitude. I am arguing only about the validity of the provision to which the Government has objected. Inquiries of the Minister were made so as to elicit what he must know in regard to the inevitability of a further increase of the cost of living as a result of the hearing now in progress before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. If the basic wage is increased to £9 a week why should we insult the Australian mother by asking her to maintain her first child on 5s. a week. The court may take the payment of that amount into consideration. I wish the honorable member for Kingston (Mr.

Handby), who is continually interjecting, would keep quiet. His voice annoys me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Honorable members should allow the honorable member for Melbourne to proceed in silence.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am getting under the skins of honorable members opposite, but I have to do it. The truth is that no mother in Australia can maintain a child on 5s. a week. If the court decides to take the payment of that amount into consideration when it makes its decision - and it may do so without admitting, that it has done so - thebasic wage workers of Australia will lose 5s. a week in wages. In view of that fact the endowment for the first child should he at least the same as it is for the succeeding children. It should be at least 10s. both because of the possibility of the ill effect that would result if the court were to take the payment of endowment for the first child into account when fixing the basic wage and also because of the inadequacy of the amount now proposed by the measure. As I have stated before, prices are becoming higher and higher and we ought to face up to the necessity of bringing down legislation to endow each child, including the first, at the rate of 12s. 6d. or 15s. a week. The more money we spend upon the families of Australia the brighter willbe the future of this nation.

The Minister talks about common sense. I consider that the main question in this matter is one of common decency, which demands that we shall make the position of the legislature demonstrably clear. If the court chooses to disregard the advice of the legislature it takes the responsibility for its action. Common decency demands that we pay 10s. a week for the first child. What would such a payment cost in the aggregate? It would cost another £15,000,000 a year, which would mean only that the members of the taxpayers’ association would receive £15,000,000 less relief under the budgetary provisions for tax relief to be brought into effect later in the year. The Minister says that members of the Government parties will be pleased with the Government’s decision to stand pat and rob the women of Australia. Of course, they will. They all will be pleased to see the mothers of Australia getting 5s. a week instead of 10s. a week. They would be more pleased to see them getting nothing at all, although they have put up a sham fight in an attempt to delude the people.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has said that i have a number of motives. That may be so, but they are honest motives. One of them is to see that effect shall be given to the will of the people in legislation, and that such legislation shall be put into operation. Now that this measure has come back from the Senate we are hearing again the same arguments as were advanced when we dealt with it previously. The honorable member for Melbourne has just given us an example of such repetition and i can see that it will not be very long before we shall have another example from the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt).

Mr Gullett:

– Do not encourage him.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The right honorable member does not need any encouragement to be repetitive. He will repeat this afternoon exactly the same arguments as he used before. There is not the slightest doubt that the speeches of members of the Opposition in. this debate are designed to delay the passage of this legislation, which the Government wishes to put into operation as soon as possible. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has made it very clear that when the bill leaves this House to go to another place the members of that chamber will know that we mean business, and the responsibility will be upon them to decide whether the women of Australia shall receive the amount provided in the measure.

During the last general election campaign only one Labour party candidate mentioned anything about the payment of endowment for the first child. I refer to the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey). He said on that occasion that he advocated payment for the first child. He was the exception among Labour party candidates, and he had not the support of his leader. The honorable member for Melbourne generally makes a loud noise in this chamber, but what he says does not mean very much. When he went before his constituents at .the last general election he did not say anything about payment for the first child. If the mothers of Australia receive the 5s. a week that the Government is offering to them, it will be an amount that they would not receive under any other circumstances.

The Government has pointed out that it was never intended that the amount of 5s. a week should be regarded as what is needed to maintain a child. We all agree with that view, yet the honorable member for Melbourne has again advanced the old argument that no child could be maintained on 5s. a week. No one in this country thinks for one moment that a child could be maintained on such a sum. The necessary amount would be nearer to £1 10s. or £2 a week. The Government is offering this payment of 5s. a week so as to render some assistance to the mothers of this country. The Labour party now claims that the amount should be 10s. a week. It seems to me very illogical that a party that would not give anything at all in this respect should now demand that the Government shall double the payment that it wishes to make. The honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) has just stated that we should make the payment 10s. I should like the honorable member to tell the committee whether, during the general election campaign, he advocated the payment of 10s. a week for the first child. As I stated when the bill was previously before this chamber the Labour party has always been against the payment of endowment for the first child.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Not now.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honorable gentleman’s interjection helps me, because it raises a matter with which I wish to deal. The Labour party thought that by some miscarriage of electoral justice it would be returned to office at the last general election, but justice prevailed and it was annihilated as a government. Now that the members of the Parliamentary Labour party have no financial responsibility, they wish’ the

Government to pay 10s. a week instead of 5s. a week in endowment for. the first child. It is just a political trick that is not in the best interests of the prestige of government in Australia.

Dr EVATT:
Barton

.- I wish to 3peak on the second aspect of the matter and to put a proposition to the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Holt). My proposition is in connexion with the proposal of the Senate that the Parliament shall make a declaration in the following terms: -

That endowment payable under this Part is intended to be and is a social service for the welfare of children of all members of the community . . .

That is a correct statement. I think the Minister himself has said that, and the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Handby) certainly said it during the earlier debate on the bill. The amendment continues - . . that it bears no relation to the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes or to any industrial matter and that it is to be enjoyed quite irrespective of whether either parent of a child is an employee earning salary or wages, is an employer or has any other means; . . .

In other words, the amendment states that the social services payments made under the legislation passed as a result of the alteration of the Constitution in relation to the power of the Parliament to legislate in respect of social services, to which the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has referred, are given without any regard or relation to interstate disputes. If that is a fact, as undoubtedly it is because the benefit goes to families of employers, why not say so in the bill?

The second part of the clause is a direction to the court not to take this payment into account in assessing wages, including the basic wage. It is not correct to state, as has been stated by the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull), that the Labour party has been opposed to endowment for the first child unless an important qualification is added. It was a Labour government in New South “Wales that first introduced child endowment.

Mr Turnbull:

– Who was the leader of the party in New South Wales at that time?

Dr EVATT:

- Mr. Lang. The Labour party introduced child endowment for all children including the first. It was then confronted with the problem of the basic wage, and a subsequent anti-Labour government discontinued the .payment of endowment in respect of the first child. There has always been a fear in the Labour movement that, under the present system of wage fixation, the endowment of the first child might result in a reduction of the basic wage which would be completely unjust. It is obvious that if the benefit of this legislation is to be given to the family whose breadwinner is not a person affected by the basic wage and the basic wage is reduced for the rest of the community as a result of the granting of the benefit, an injustice will be done to those whose incomes are regulated by the basic wage.

It is corect, as the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has said, that the social services power in the Constitution should enable the Parliament to proclaim that a social service, whether child endowment, the widows’ pension or any other form of assistance, is given quite irrespective of the other powers in the Constitution, such as the industrial arbitration power. Therefore, while agreeing with what the honorable member for Melbourne said about the amount, I submit that it is essential from the standpoint of the Parliament’s relationship to the court to make the declaration for which the Senate has provided. Does anybody in the committee query the correctness of the declaration? They do not. It is quite correct. It is proposed that the endowment shall be paid to the mother whose husband is an employer so why should it be taken into account in the assessment of the basic wage? That problem has never been faced by the Minister. He has simply said that the declaration might invalidate the payment of the 5s. or 10s. In the Acts Interpretation Act there is a provision that every clause of every bill shall be treated separately from every other part of the bill and that each clause may retain its validity even if other portions of the act are declared to be invalid. If the Minister wants to guard against the possibility, which seems to me to be imaginary, of the bill being deemed invalid because of the Senate’s declaration, such a provision could be specifically inserted in this bill.

Mr Hulme:

– Has the Parliament ever issued an instruction to the High Court concerning the basic wage?

Dr EVATT:

– No. But this is not an instruction. Nobody could call the first part of the clause an instruction. The second part is a direction to the court. The Minister cited a case concerning preference to unionists in which the Parliament did in effect lay down that preference to unionists should be granted only on certain conditions and the High Court, in the case of Anthony Hordern, which was heard many years ago, decided that that was a valid instruction by the Parliament to the court. I do not want to go into the metaphysics of constitutional power. I admit that there is a difference of opinion on the second part of the clause sought to be inserted by the Senate. Supposing the provision is not valid; that would have to be determined in the ordinary course by the courts, but why should that prevent the committee from approving of the insertion of the general declaration? If the provision were inserted I believe that the court would not take the 5s. payment into consideration when assessing the basic wage. The crucial point is that three governments which are opposed to the Labour movement, the Governments of South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria, have all put a case to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to the effect that social services payments should be taken into account in assessing the basic wage, with a view to its diminution. I submit that the Prime Minister’s policy speech implied that he intended to do what the Opposition has asked him to provide for in the second part of the clause, because he said -

If the basic wage, whether increased it. amount or not, remains on the same foundations as at present, we will give some extra help to families by providing an endowment of 5s. per week for the first child under sixteen years, the second and subsequent children continuing to be endowed as at present, at 10s. per week.

If that is the view of the Government, its duty is to ensure that the basic wage shall not be prejudicially affected by this payment. If it is not prejudicially affected, an enormous step will have been taken towards the solution of this recurring problem as a result of which the wage-fixation system is endangered by the great social services benefits of Australia. I remind the honorable member for Mallee that the Labour party, when it formed the Government, although it increased the amount of endowment payable in respect of children other than the first, was anxious about the possibility of endowment in respect of the first child affecting the basic wage. Here is an opportunity to obtain a solution of this problem that the Government and the Minister should grasp. Honorable members of the Opposition support the principle of endowment for the first child, but they do not agree that such a payment should be allowed prejudicially to affect the position of wage and salary earners. A “ stand and deliver “ attitude is a dangerous one for this House to adopt towards the Senate. This problem could be taken a long way towards a just and permanent solution under the Minister’s auspices if he would review the position, especially in relation to the first part of the clause.

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

in reply - When the matter was considered previously, a good deal of discussion took place on the point on which the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) has addressed the committee. I then dealt with it in considerable detail. At the present time I shall only say that if there is any genuine fear on .the part of honorable members of the Opposition that the Government’s proposals might in some way prejudicially affect the basic wage, then, quite clearly, they have not studied the approach that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has made during recent years to the determintaion of the basic wage. The prime factor that has been in the mind of the court, as it has indicated time and time again, has been the capacity of industry to pay. The payment of this 5s. will in no way prejudice the capacity of industry to pay what is awarded. When the original child endowment legislation was before the Parliament there might have been some force in this point because of the £11,000,000 required for child endowment at that time £9,000,000 was financed from the pay-roll tax, which was a direct levy on industry, and, to the extent that industry had to meet the payroll tax, its capacity to pay was affected. The £15,000,000 that will be required to meet the 5s. a week payment will not represent a direct charge on industry. The money will be drawn from the general revenues of the Commonwealth, which are collected over a much wider field. Nothing that the Government has provided in this legislation is likely to affect the mind of the court because it will not affect the capacity of industry to pay.

It is all very well for the right honorable gentleman to brush aside the objection that this matter is of such doubtful constitutional validity that it could hold up a final decision in relation to the basic wage. A decision by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court could be given easily enough, but it would be a decision after a challenge to its jurisdiction had been disposed of. If anything is needed to confirm my argument, it is supplied by the concession made by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who said that some parts of the legislation are severable; if the court found that some parts were invalid it could sever them from the good parts. What sort of sense of responsibility would we have as a Government, or a Parliament, . if we included in a piece of legislation affecting the basic wage, provisions that we knew stood a good chance of being challenged before the High Court at a time when the basic wage was under review by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court? The safe and sensible course is to go ahead as the Government has proposed.

The right honorable member said that it was not very wise of the Government to threaten the Senate, and to adopt a take it or leave it attitude towards the Senate. If we are to have a determination of what is proper in these matters, I put this test to the committee. Is the will of a Government recently elected by the people of this country to prevail, or is the will of the Senate, the majority of whose members represent a party which was defeated at the polls in December last, to prevail ?I am told that it is unwise to threaten the Senate with a standanddeliver attitude. I say that it is unwise of the Senate to threaten a Government so recently elected by the people with obstruction and delay of the programme of legislation upon which it was returned. If the matter be one of responsibility, and of where the responsibility lies, we, as the Government parties, are quite prepared to leave the decision to the people. To-day, matters that were previously thoroughly discussed should not be further canvassed. It is for the committee to determine now whether it will accept the amendments of the Senate or will insist upon the amendments that it submitted to the Senate. That point has been made clear by both the Government and its supporters. We do not propose to delay this discussion by again traversing the ground that has already been adequately covered. I therefore move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Me. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 69

NOES: 39

Majority . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the committee insists on its amendments (vide page 4358) disagreed to by the Senate.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 69

NOES: 40

Majority . . 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4653

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1949-50

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 20th June (vide page 4539), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide

.- Many subjects have been discussed during this debate, but the one that has occupied most attention has been the sharp increase of the cost of living that has occurred in recent years. Various reasons for the steep rise have been advanced, but, after a careful survey of the whole situation, I am convinced that the greatest influencing factor has been the discontinuance of prices control by the Australian Government. I believe that every member of the Opposition and all other right-thinking Australians will agree with that statement. Honorable members have remarked, of course, that prices began to rise gradually soon after the outbreak of “World War II. The reason for that movement is readily apparent. Prior to the war there were many unemployed persons in Australia and the general output of our industries exceeded the demand. The. purchasing power of the people was much lower than it is to-day. When the war broke out, we had full employment in Australia almost for the first time. Since then, there has been a general increase of wages and a shortening of the standard working week. I have maintained consistently that the reduction of the working week from 48 hours to 44 hours, and finally to 40 hours should not have had any marked effect upon the costs of commodities. During the period of over 40 years in which the 48-hour week was in force, science and the mechanization of industry caused a steady speeding up of production so that costs of production, when working hours were reduced, should not have been much greater than they had been before industries were modernized.

Under National Security Regulations that were promulgated during the war, the Australian Government had the power to control prices, and the exercise of that power imposed a strong steadying influence upon the cost of living. However, the regulations lapsed after the war and the people were asked, at a referendum, to decide whether the Commonwealth should continue to control prices. The opponents of Commonwealth control declared that the State governments could do a better job, but the Labour Government held otherwise. I believe that experience has confirmed the opinion of that Government. The task of restraining the upward trend of prices could have been performed satisfactorily by the State Governments had they agreed to act in concert. However, a situation arose in which some States were prepared to control prices whilst others were not willing to do so. In that situation, manufacturers naturally sold their products in the States where, because of the lack of prices control, they could obtain the best financial returns. For that reason, control of prices by the States proved to be unpractical. I believe that, even though a reversion to Commonwealth control would not be altogether satisfactory at this late hour, the people would be prepared now, if another referendum were conducted, to alter their previous decision and so give the Australian Government full authority to control prices again. Prices will continue to soar until such power is vested in the Australian Government once more. The steadily increasing cost of living is causing grave distress to the people. The opponents of prices control say, “ Well, wages are rising too “. That is true. Experience has taught us that wages are always in pursuit of, and never succeed in overtaking, prices. I am sure that many Australians would be happy to have an opportunity to indicate whether they are willing to vest in the Commonwealth power to control prices.

Some honorable members who have spoken in this debate have criticized the Australian coal-miner. That criticism is not new, because for many years tinthinking persons have criticized him. The coal situation is more serious to-day than it has ever been in the past. Prior to the outbreak of World War II., the industry was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and the miner suffered from a fear psychology that, as soon as stocks of coal were accumulated at grass, he would become unemployed. I am sure that every honorable member will admit that before the last war, when Australian industries were not so extensive as, and our requirements were less than, they are to-day, the life of the coal-miner was precarious. No honorable member should presume to condemn or criticize the miner until he has visited the coal-fields throughout the Commonwealth, and particularly those in New South Wales. It was the custom for generations that, if the father was a coal-miner, his sons became coal-miners. But the extension of education has gradually changed those conditions. The sons of coal-miners have been given the opportunity of a primary and secondary education, and they realize that there are better, cleaner and healthier occupations than those provided in the coal-mining industry. Therefore they migrate from the coal-fields to more congenial jobs. Provision was not made in the past to improve conditions on the coalfields. Honorable members who visit the Maitland, Kurri Kurri, Cessnock and Paxton areas see, even to-day, the deplorable conditions under which coal-miners live and work. No attempt has been made to improve their standard of living.

It will be contended that the miners receive good wages, but something more than a mere monetary reward is needed if the coal-mining industry is to thrive, and the miners are to produce sufficient coal to meet Australia’s growing requirements. I believe that the only way in which we shall obtain complete satisfaction is to nationalize the coal-mining industry.

When I make that statement, I do not suggest an act of socialization, or a “red-rag” approach. I realize the great value of the coal-mining industry to Australia. Coal may be described as the life-blood of this nation, and until some other medium of power is discovered, this country will be dependent on its coal-fields. I believe that the only way in which the life of the coal-miner will be improved is for the Commonwealth, that is, the nation, to take control of and mechanize all the coal mines, improve the living conditions of the coalminer, and do everything possible to give him better conditions than he has in the past. Honorable members may point out that some mines have already been mechanized, but I remind them that private enterprise cannot provide the amount of capital that will be required to make working conditions in the mines and on the coal-fields satisfactory. I believe that in order to achieve all the objectives that I have mentioned, coal may have to be produced at a loss. Private enterprise will not invest capital in an undertaking that cannot make a profit, and I have no complaint on that account, but I believe that the only way in which the living and working conditions of the coal-miners can be improved is for the Australian Government to subsidize the industry, and to assist in the mechanization and improvement of the mines to the greatest possible degree. Satisfactory homes should also be built for the miners, and open-cut mines should be worked where.ever possible.

The conditions of coal-miners in States other than New South Wales .prove that the employees, if they are given continuity of work and cause to have complete confidence in the industry, will display a positive realization of their responsibilities to the community. I have not visited the coal-fields at Collie, in Western Australia, but I have read a good deal about conditions, and have spoken to persons who are closely associated with the miners and the mines there. Much has been done by Western Australian governments to improve not only the working conditions but also the living conditions of the Collie miners. Comparatively few industrial stoppages have occurred on those coal-fields. The experience in South Australia proves that there is much to be said for governmental control of some industries. I invite any honorable member from any other State to visit the Leigh Creek coal-field, which has been developed by the Government of South Australia with financial assistance from the Commonwealth. It is an open-cut mine, and modern machinery is used in the workings. The employees live in one of the most up-to-date areas in that State. The area has been developed and is controlled entirely by the State Government. Those facts prove that the coalminer, if his working and living conditions are improved, and if he is not always being accused of failing to pull his weight, will give of his best. I believe that the coalminer has pulled his weight, and that the shortages of coal at the present time are attributable to the ever-increasing demands of Australian industries. I have referred to this subject because I believe that some defence should be made of the Australian coal-miner. I am of opinion that the only way in which to win his confidence and to assure him of continuity of employment is for the Commonwealth to take control of all the coal mines and coal-fields. Otherwise the day will come when men will migrate from the industry to more congenial occupations. The coal-fields of New South Wales are of the utmost importance to the economy of this country. The loss of workers from the mines, particularly those who are engaged in deep mining, from which some of our best coal is obtained, will have most serious effects. I urge the Government to examine the various matters that I have mentioned, and do everything in its power to improve the conditions of the coalminers. The miners should not be discouraged. They have done a great job. They live under dirtier and more distressing conditions than probably any other persons in the community. I wonder why men remain on the coal-fields of New South Wales. A pilgrimage of honorable members to those coal-fields should be organized in order that they may understand the miner’s way of life, and witness for themselves the horrible conditions under which he lives and works. I believe that SO per cent, of the members who would make such a pilgrimage would return to Canberra and ask the Government to take action to vest in the Commonwealth complete control of the coalfields of Australia. The industry is of the utmost importance, and must not be sacrificed.

When I became a member of the Parliament in 1943, I referred in my speech on the Address-in-Reply to the importance of granting marriage allowances. I re-stated my views subsequently when I became a Minister, and I continue my appeal this afternoon. Many millions of pounds are being expended by the Government in bringing to this country’ persons who are not of British stock. I am not opposed to our immigration policy, because I realize that it is necessary to increase our population as rapidly as possible, hut I believe that Australian babies are the best increase of population that- we can have. Whilst we should continue to bring the nationals of other countries to Australia, we should not overlook the importance of fostering our natural increase of population. I have contended in the past, and I contend again to-day. that provision should be made for marriage allowances. The cost of living has outstripped wages to such a degree that a young couple, by the time they have saved sufficient’ money to purchase furniture and pay a deposit on a home, are too old to have a large family. Whilst that suggestion may sound amusing- to some honorable members, I believe that it will be generally accepted. A scheme of marriage allowances would encourage our younger men and women to marry early because they would thus be enabled to meet the financial difficulties involved in the establishment of a home and family. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to the three points that I have made. It should again ask the people at a referendum to give to this Parliament power to control prices on a nation-wide basis; it should show greater appreciation of the work that the coalminers are doing in the interests of the nation as a whole; and it should establish a scheme of marriage allowances in order to encourage the growth of a really Australian population.

Mr PEARCE:
Capricornia

.- The speech that the honorable member for

Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) has just made is typical of the speeches that we have become accustomed to hear from many of his colleagues, whose remarks usually constitute an indictment of the very governments that they supported. I was particularly interested in what the honorable member for Adelaide said about prices control. When the Chifley Government sought to retain control of prices in peace time it did so only for the sake of exercising additional power. That Government knew full well that it could not, in fact, check the inflationary spiral merely by administrative controls. It sought to retain that power as part of Labour’s plan to introduce socialism in this country, and had it succeeded the way would have been open for communism to develop and expand in Australia. That has been the experience of other countries which the Communists now control. The honorable member for Adelaide also had much to say in praise of the coal-miners. He implied that the coal-mining industry should be nationalized. Although honorable members opposite appear to have changed their views a little with respect to nationalization, that goal remains dormant in their minds. It is still their ambition to drive forward towards nationalization and socialization. They believe that socialism offers the only hope for the welfare of the nation. The honorable member for Adelaide suggested that supporters of the Government should visit Western Australia and South Australia in order to see at first hand the success that has attended the nationalization of the coal-mining industry in those States. I suggest that he should visit Queensland to see for himself the disastrous effects that have attended nationalization of industries in that State. Not so long ago a socialist government in Queensland purchased and directly controlled coal-mines farms and butchers’ shops. In fact, at that time the socialists in Queensland were well ahead of the socialists in this Parliament, and they tried to socialize practically every industry. However, their experiments failed miserably.

The honorable member for Adelaide had much to say about the need to check rising prices. I remind him that when the present Government was elected on the 10th December last, it was confronted with chaotic administrative conditions. During the preceding year, approximately 1,000 strikes had occurred in industries in this country due to the laxity of the Chifley Government and its desire to fall in with the overall socialist plan. Weekly man-hours worked in 1947 totalled 33,520,000 compared with 33,559,000 man-hours worked in 1939 or an increase of only 39,000 man-hours despite the fact that during that period the number of employees on the payrolls of industries in this country had increased by over 70,400. That fact provides a glimpse of the industrial picture under Labour governments. While such governments were in office, strikes were constantly occurring in every industry. The object of the strikes was not to achieve better conditions for employees, they were simply stupid, Communistinspired strikes that had been deliberately planned and controlled with the object of disrupting the national economy. With one exception the Labour Government stood magnificently aloof from all of them and took no step whatsoever to bring them to an end. If there is one thing upon which Communists thrive it is economic instability, and they like to see a socialist government in office because socialism opens the gateway to the ultimate aims of communism. Under Labour governments production was practically upside down. Whereas luxury goods were in plentiful supply, essential materials such as iron and steel were unobtainable. Farmers could not obtain supplies of fencing wire, roofing, materials for the building of tanks and piping for water reticulation. Thu3 they were unable to produce to their full capacity. But the only reaction of Labour governments to such conditions was to make a magnificent pretence of doing everything while doing nothing. When the present Government assumed office there was a shortage of 300,000 homes. Chaos reigned on the countryside. Young people who wished to marry had the option of abandoning that hope or of accepting residence in a house with i number of other families. Labour governments did nothing to remedy those conditions. They failed to tackle the problem on a national basis or to realize that our young people who provide our best immigrants were entitled to adequate housing accommodation. However, that attitude fitted into the general socialist pattern of creating chaos and misery. At that time hospital accommodation throughout the Commonwealth was 20,000 beds short of requirements. Again, Labour did nothing to bring order into the muddle. What did Labour governments achieve during the eight years that they were in office? They attempted to nationalize the banks and would have succeeded in doing so but for the indignation that that attempt aroused among the people as a whole. In the international sphere, those governments did nothing to win the friendship of our near neighbours. On the contrary the immigration law was administered in a way’ that insulted those peoples.

Whilst Labour governments may have taken pride in their achievements as planners, their efforts caused only chaos. The reason for their failure is clear. Their plans were made to fit into the socialist pattern of government of which abundant evidence is available in many other countries. The disruptive Communist element was allowed to carry on its activities unchecked, whilst unions dictated to the governments. That state of affairs was all part and parcel of a plan with which every Australian should become familiar because it was designed to place the Australian people under the yoke of socialism which, whether or not the planners themselves realized it, would eventually have been forced to give way to communism. Under Labour governments the runaway train of socialism was allowed to career downhill towards communism. The present Government now has the responsibility of checking that, train. Unfortunately, the Government cannot simply derail it. The train must be gradually brought to a standstill. During the six months that the present Government has been in office it has already done a magnificent job, and I pay tribute to each of its Ministers for the work that he has performed in the face of great difficulties.

Mr Curtin:

– Judging by the results of recent State elections, the people do not agree with the honorable member.

Mr PEARCE:

– Supporters of the Government are quite happy about the results of recent State elections and in the near future, perhaps, we shall be equally happy about the result of another federal general election. At present, the people are most unhappy about the damage that the socialists, who masquerade as the Labour party, caused during the eight years that they were in office. For that reason, the people overwhelmingly defeated Labour at the recent general election. It would appear that honorable members opposite are only now recovering from the shook that they then suffered. They are still taking their orders from Communist-controlled trade unions and are still intent upon thrusting socialism upon the country. Although some honorable members opposite are prepared to co-operate with the Government in fighting the Communist menace, the Opposition itself is ruled by the iron hand of communism. It feels the iron fist of communism. I can only say that I feel sorry for those honorable members opposite who seek to make peace with their consciences. The socialist plan is still being pursued. Members of the Australian Labour party must blindly obey the direction of their masters to destroy the economy of this country by throwing this Government out of office in the hope that they may be able to seize power and again plunge this country into the state of misery which they left behind them on the 10th December last as a’ legacy for the incoming Government. It is high time that the people knew exactly what this plan involves. The cant, humbug and hypocritical statements in which Opposition members have indulged during the last few weeks are al] part of a plan to further the interests of socialism so that eventually the Communists may be able to control this country. I have faith in the wisdom of the Australian people. They know the problems that this Government inherited from its predecessor on the 10th December and the means that we have taken to solve them and they are willing to trust the future of this country to it.

Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo

.- I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech that has just been made by the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Pearce). In only one respect are we on common ground. I, like him, have faith in the wisdom of the Australian people. Many of the conclusions he has reached are open to question. Towards the conclusion of his speech he said that members of the Australian Labour party are still taking orders from the Communistcontrolled trade unions. While the honorable member doubtless made that statement in good faith, it shows his lamentable lack of knowledge of the methods by which the Australian Labour party is governed. Trade unions that are- under the control of Communist leadens are not affiliated with the Australian Labour party, and, consequently, are unable to affect its policy or administration. On reflection, I am sure that the honorable member will realize that many of his conclusions are entirely incorrect.

It is rather interesting that the honorable member should have dealt with the subject of prices control because I have secured from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics figures relating to that subject which cover the period since the outbreak of the war. They indicate that only after prices control passed from the Commonwealth to the States was a strong inflationary tendency manifested in this community. From the quarter ended September, 1939, to the quarter ended December, 1941, a period which covered the early stages of the war, the prices of food, rents, clothing and miscellaneous household items increased by no less than 12.3 per cent. The Curtin Labour Government could not be blamed for that increase because it did not occupy the treasury bench until October, 1941. In 1942, most effective measures to control prices were put into operation to safeguard the Australian economy during the war period. Drastic controls were exercised in relation to not only capital issues but also rates of wages, prices of commodities and many other matters. During the period from 1942 to 1945, which may be regarded as the most eventful and critical years of the war, prices rose by only 3.2 per cent. Between 1946 to 1947, when wage-pegging was lifted, but when prices and other economic controls were still in operation, prices rose by 3.8 per cent. Thi? greatest test of our capacity to prevent inflation was imposed in 1948, when the High Court ruled that the Commonwealth could no longer rely on its defence power to continue prices control. From the beginning of 1948 to the end of 1949 prices rose by 9.3 per cent. During those two years, when economic conditions in this country were entirely different from the conditions that existed during the war years, the percentage increase in prices was not nearly so great as it was in the first two years of the war. In the period from the 1st January to the 31st March this year prices have risen by 1.7 per cent. It is useless for honorable members opposite to blame the Chifley Government for its inability to prevent an inflationary tendency when it had not full power to take the necessary steps to protect the country from the perils that arise from economic conditions within its own borders.

These considerations bring me to the Government’s promise to put value back into the £1 which is the principal matter with which I propose to deal. I frankly admit that grave difficulties must confront any government that seeks to restore value to the £1. That ambitious promise was made without due regard to the grave economic difficulties, both national and international, that confront the Commonwealth under existing conditions. On one occasion when the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was asked how he proposed to restore value to the £1 he made the very common-sense reply that the steps he proposed to take were, first, to check the increase of prices, secondly to stabilize prices and finally to endeavour to use the economy of the nation for the reduction of prices. Very great difficulties confront the governments of all countries in checking inflationary tendencies in the communities under their control. Many statements have been made in this House on this very important subject. Some honorable members have dealt in minute detail with our economic problems; but all honorable members appear to have overlooked the greatest factor that bears on this problem, the solution of which will test the ingenuity of not only the Australian Government but also the State governments. At no time has the economy of this country, or of any other country with the possible exception of the United States of America, been geared to enable all the requirements of the people to be supplied.

Our economy has been developed on the basis that at no time will it be possible for all the requirements of all the people to be met from within our own productive resources. For that reason our economy was developed only to meet the demands that were expected to be made on it. I shall endeavour to demonstrate what I mean by placing before the House certain statistics relating to unemployment from the beginning of this century. These figures will show that our economy could never supply all the requirements of the people in a period of full employment. From 1901 to 1910 unemployment among the unionists and workers in Australia averaged 6.1 per cent. In the period from 1911 to 1920, although production per man-hour and total output were increased unemployment rose to 6.6 per cent. In the decade from 1921 to 1930, which includes the years from 1921 to 1928, which certain American economists regard as the seven years of plenty, average unemployment in Australia was 10.1 per cent. That decade covered the minor depression of 1921 when unemployment rose to 11 per cent, and the period in 1928 and 1929 when the first signs of the great economic financial and economic depression were clearly evident though little notice was taken of them. In spite of continually increasing production unemployment rose during that ten-year period to 10.1 per cent. During the following decade, from 1931 to 1940, the very serious effects of the economic cataclysm of the early ‘thirties are clearly evident, for the average unemployment rose to 16.6 per cent. In one of the basic wage cases - I think it was the case that was presented in 1934, but I speak subject to correction - Professor Copland, in giving evidence in respect of an application by the trade union movement for the recision of the 10 per cent, cut in wages, expressed the view that when conditions had returned to a state of normalcy and the effects of the then current depression had passed, we should be faced with a permanent unemployed army of 10 per cent, of the workers of the community. As I have shown, during the ten-year period from 1931 to 1940, average unemployment was 16.6 per cent. During the last ten years, from 1941 to 1950, because of the entirely different economic conditions that resulted from a wide variety of factors, average unemployment was 1.5 per cent.

In existing circumstances the psychological attitude of the community to the satisfaction of needs and wants has completely changed. On the assumption that average unemployment in prewar years was 10 per cent., the productive resources of the community would be geared to supply at most possibly only 80 per cent, of the needs of the people. In the absence of social services benefits in pre-war years those who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed would have very little purchasing power. We may safely say that an additional 10 per cent, of the people, fearing that tomorrow might bring them insecurity, would reduce their spending to a minimum, and restrict their purchase of goods and services considerably. Bocause of the actual lack of purchasing power and the psychological effect of the fear of insecurity in the future which further reduced purchasing power, our productive resources would not be required, even when in full operation, to satisfy more than, at the most, 80 per cent, of the real requirements of the people. Then, because of a variety of causes - the outbreak of war, the planning of the national economy to meet the perils of that war, and the putting into operation of many controls and expedients that normally would not have been employed - an entirely different position arose, and that position continues because for the first time in history full employment has commenced to operate in this country and in other countries. With full employment operating and continuing to operate the two factors that I have mentioned bear upon the position. The first is that an additional 10 per cent, of the community which is in employment is exercising a constant purchasing power. The second factor is that the remainder of the community has a greater sense of security which means that it is prepared to spend money in order to satisfy needs that hitherto it had to repress.

The result of the existence of these factors is that an enormous strain has< been placed upon the productive resources of the nation. Everybody wants to satisfy his requirements, but the productive resources of the community are not sufficient to enable all the people to do so. On top of that we have certain other factors that place a further strain upon the community’s productive resources. First of all we have the very substantial increase of the incomes of primary producers which has pleased everybody in this country. For the first time for many years not only have good pi-ices been received overseas for our primary products, but these good prices have been constant. They have operated over a number of years and have had a tendency to rise. As a consequence of that fact a very substantial portion of the community has gained a tremendously enhanced purchasing power and it desires to use that purchasing power to provide itself with more of .the good things of life than it had previously been able to get. Two sources of demands and two sources of purchasing power have risen tremendously and have thrown a greater strain upon our productive resources. That problem might have been overcome by the simple” process of the expansion of industry generally by means of the provi-sion of bigger buildings, better plant and a number of other things that readily occur to one’s mind. Unfortunately, that has not been possible because, after the conclusion of the war, we had to face the necessity of solving our most urgent problems first and for’ humanitarian reasons we were compelled to concentrate on the problem of housing. As a consequence the resources that might have been p.°ed to achieve greater productive power have had to be used in other directions to the detriment of production generally.

I agree with concentration upon housing by the various State governments because I consider that housing is the most essential problem to be met, being a human problem that affects the interests of men, women and children. It is a problem that particularly affects the health of the community and it has therefore been necessary that that problem should bc solved first. In attempting to solve it we have had to defer tackling the greater problem of how the productive resources of Australia are to be increased and geared up to meet the two new demands that I have mentioned, plus a third demand represented toy new needs that are constantly arising. “When the people’s income remains fairly static new needs do not loom very prominently in the economic picture, but once the people’s income commences to rise constantly, whether it ‘be through increased prices for our exports or through a general increase of the standard of living, the concomitant of which is an improvement of social services, then new needs arise and the satisfaction of those needs places an additional strain upon the economic resources of the country. I believe that the promise of the Government parties that they would put value hack into the fi was made without a proper consideration of, first, the lack of power possessed by the Commonwealth in many respects to bring about that very desirable end ; and, secondly, the enormous physical and economic difficulties that have to be overcome by the Government if it proposes at an early date, or in fact at any time during the next three years, to be able to resolve this problem properly.

Mr Wilson:

– Would not an increase of imports solve the production problem?

Mr CLAREY:

– More imports would help the position to a certain degree in that they could close the gap in the provision of goods’ that are now not available in sufficient quantities from local production. But the general importation of goods from other countries will not by itself reduce the cost of living. Figures that I have received from the Commonwealth ‘Statistician indicate that the same inflationary trend that has shown itself in Australia has also been evident in other countries. For instance, a comparison of the cost of living in Australia with the cost of living in other countries over the period that I have previously mentioned - from September, 1939, to the December quarter of 1949 - shows that the cost of living in other countries has risen by about the same degree, and in some respects by a slightly higher degree, than it has risen in Australia. The cost of living in Australia increased by 60 per cent, in that period. In the Union of South Africa the cost of living in regard to food, rent and miscellaneous expendi ture rose by 55 per cent, over the same period ; in Canada it rose by 61 per cent., and in the United States by 67 per cent., when judged on a comparable basis with the rise of the cost of living in Australia. Unfortunately the Statistician was unable to supply me with the figures for New Zealand and the United Kingdom on a comparable basis with the Australian figures. The information that I have given very clearly indicates that the other countries that I have mentioned have experienced the sam* problem of a rising cost of living as Australia has experienced. Each of those countries has had to face the same set of economic conditions in regard to employment as we have had to face in Australia. Those are factors that must inevitably cause greater and greater strains upon our economy while they continue to exist, and that will be until in thenormal course of events we have been able first, to overcome our grave existing shortages, and then to concentrate on the more important task of a general expansion of the means of production by providing better and more plants, improved technical processes and so on.

When we take into consideration the way in which we have had to adapt ourselves to our difficulties and to develop our resources as be3t as we can under adverse conditions it is astonishing how the general production of commodities such as timber, bricks and other raw materials used for construction purposes has increased enormously. In our general desire to deal with this question, and sometimes to secure a political advantage, there is a tendency for us to select for discussion the black spot3 in our economy and to ignore the good spots that are represented by the progress and improvements that we have made and of which we should be proud.

T am making these statements, not because I desire to embarrass the Government or this House while it is dealing with a very difficult problem, but because I desire to point out the many difficult factors associated with the matter. Unless we approach the subject constructively there is no hope of the community getting anywhere in regard to it. I desire to make a number of suggestion?, that will, I believe, be very helpful. One of them is based on my belief that the

Australian Government is very badly equipped indeed in the case of a national economic emergency to deal with many nf the problems that assail us. “ I believe that there should be power within our Constitution that would enable the Australian Government of the day to declare a state of national economic emergency and as a result of that declaration to wield all the powers necessary in regard to the national economy and other matters associated with it and be able to take all the steps necessary to protect the people against a peril within its own borders which could be as grave, so far a3 the men, women and children of this country are concerned, as a peril from outside.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member has told us that all the other countries he mentioned have experienced price increases and yet they have full powers.

Mr CLAREY:

– Admittedly ; but T say to the right honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Hughes), with great respect, that their methods of dealing with things are different from ours. Admittedly, we might conceive a method of dealing with the problem much better than we have evolved so far. As far as the control of prices is concerned, we have six different States all pursuing entirely different and independent policies. I point that out because I think that honorable members will agree that it is far better to deal with a problem that faces Australia as a whole under one authority than to deal with it under six authorities. We have the extraordinary position of the State of Victoria espousing the de-control of prices while the State of New South Wales is endeavouring, under very great difficulties, to control the prices of both goods manufactured in that State and goods imported from other States. Statistics will prove that the prices controls that were in operation in Australia during the period between 1942 and the middle of 1946 were much more effective and gave better results than was the case in any other country in which somewhat similar controls were in operation. Our; controls during that period - and I am not speaking of this matter from a political party point of view, but from a national standpoint - enabled us to keep prices in Australia lower than they were elsewhere. I point out that during that period wages were controlled in the United’ States of America, England, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, and in spite of the fact that all those countries had a somewhat similar form of control we were able to keep the prices at a lower level than they were able to achieve. The price level in Australia in 1946 was of tremendous economic advantage to this country. It enabled Australia, in that year, to build up a very big export trade in secondary products which could not have been built up under other circumstances.

Mr Wilson:

– Does the honorable member consider that prices can be controlled if wages are not controlled?

Mr CLAREY:

– Yes.

Mr Wilson:

– How?

Mr CLAREY:

– I cannot explain that in the half minute of allotted time that I still have at my disposal. However, if the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) will give me notice of that question, I shall do my best to answer it next time I speak.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- I think I can answer the question that was asked by the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) by saying that it is possible to reduce the cost of living, not so much by controlling wages, as by controlling costs. Value could be put back into the £1 by the elimination of profiteers.

I think that the time is opportune to examine some of the promises that were made by the Government before the last general election with a view to ascertaining the extent to which they have been fulfilled. I have here a copy of a promise that was made on behalf of the Liberal party before the 10th December last, and I am sure that this publication is authentic because it bears a beautiful photograph of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). It has been said that photography was meant to glamourize people and I think that it has done a very good job in this case. Prior to the last general election a very deliberate promise was made by the present Prime Minister in relation to progressive social services. To date, no one has received any payment in fulfilment of the Government’s social services promises. Endowment has not even been paid to mothers in respect of their first children because the Government is too mean to grant 10s. a week. It has also failed to carry out its promise to reduce the cost of living and put value back into the £1. Dp to the present time, not one promise of this Government lias been fulfilled with the exception of that concerning the abolition of petrol rationing and there may be a catch in that. In various metal industries nien are working on short time because machinery and certain metals cannot be obtained from dollar areas. It is possible that dollars are being used to purchase petrol with which to fill the cars of wealthy people who want to tour around the country instead of being used for the purchase of equipment and materials for these industries.

A matter which has not been discussed in this House is the treatment of the lower-paid workers in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. These workers were recently given a. new award. They had requested that a lesser number of increments should intervene between” their minimum and maximum salary rates than at present applies. The postal unions have been pressing for better payments for base rate men for many years and for the scaling down of the period within which increments are payable. These men enter the service of the Postal Department at the age of about fifteen or sixteen years. They complete their apprenticeship by the time they are about 21 years of age and they then receive what is known as the adult wage. Then they have to set out on another long string of increments before they receive the wage that should really be paid to any qualified worker. Other workers such as ironworkers or boilermakers complete their apprenticeship at the age of- 21 and immediately receive the full award wage for their trade. That principle does not operate in the Postal Department. Some men have to work for twelve years after they commence receiving the adult wage before they reach the maximum of their grade. Even then they may have to pass another examination in order to receive another string of increments. As a result of this treatment of these employees there is a labour turn-over of 48 per cent, in the Postmaster-General’s Department to-day. That is to say that half of the men who are classified as permanent employees of the department leave their employment soon after taking up duty. The labour turn-over in relation to temporary employees is very much greater. I believe that if these employees received proper recognition the wastage of labour would be greatly decreased. The money that would be expended in giving them a decent wage would be saved. Also the efficiency of the service would benefit.

I shall deal now with some of the awards that were made recently in respect to the lower-paid workers, such as the postal officer, the postman, the mail officer, the postal assistant, the postal clerk and lineman in the engineers’ department. The engineers’ department, which installs telephones, is having a great struggle to hold its men. A new award was made recently for the postal officers and men who do the general work at post offices. The union had presented a Cam for men who were on the base rate. The award, however, was made in respect of men who were in receipt of the maximum rate and they received a paltry increase of £12 per annum. As that increase applied only to the maximum rate, a man may have to wait for four or five years to receive it.

The mail officer was treated similarly, although he received a greater increase in his maximum rate, but anstead of applying the increase directly to the maximum rate, the increase was granted in the form of two additional increments. Whereas it took those men eight years to progress from their minimum to their maximum rates they now have to wait for ten years to progress from £402 per annum to £498 per annum. Postal assistants and postal clerks have to wait seven years in order to progress from their minimum to their maximum rate. It would be a good thing for the nation generally if young men were paid an adult wage at the age of eighteen years. Because of -their economic insecurity, men usually wait until they are about 30 years of age before they get married. A wage which would encourage them to marry earlier would be a contribution to the solution of Australia’s population problem. Men should have four or five children by the time they are 30 years old instead of just getting married at that age.

I should like to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) to a statement that he made when the Supply Bill was under discussion last year. To-day, as the Postmaster-General, he has an opportunity to use his influence to do something about this problem. When debating the Supply Bill last year, the Minister said -

Whatever else the Postal Department may be accused of being extravagant in, it cannot bc accused of extravagance in the matter of wages that it pays its staff. I. have taken out some figures relating to the rewards that are paid to various officers of the Postal Department and it is no wonder that there is a big turnover of staff. It will probably be suggested to me in a moment, by some honorable member on the Government side, that I am advocating improved salaries for the staff, which, in turn, would enormously increase the cost of the department. But I want to say that there are many of the employees in the Postal Department who would sooner have had an increase in salary than a shortening of hours, so that they could meet their commitments and keep themselves, their wives and their families better than they are now able to do. Postal Department employees have no opportunity to “black market” their labour and take another casual job at week-ends. They must live within the limits of the salary provided by the Government, every shilling of which is taxed to the utmost. They have no hope of putting something away into savings as people in other sections of the. community have.

He then went on to quote various rates of pay. I request the Postmaster-General to examine the awards that 1 have mentioned and to take action similar to that which was taken by the Labour party in 1948. When a similar situation arose in 1948, the Labour Government conferred with the Public Service Board and, by consent, gave employees a £22 per annum increase on their minimum rate and applied it to every incremental subdivision rate. In addition, the maximum rate was increased by £20. Tinder the existing award, although the arbitrator in some instances gave only £12 a year increase, that increase applied only to the maximum of each incremental scale. Some officers have to wait five years for their increase. The lower paid worker at the beginning of the scale gets nothing, and in one instance where .the scale of increments extends over ten years, those on the lowest scale will have . to wait for ten years before they get the benefit of this stupid .award which is to-day depleting the Postal Department of many of its valuable men. A number of well-trained men at present working in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department desire to remain in their employment and render to the public the services for which they have been trained; but they cannot afford to do. that, as they must look for jobs which will return them a satisfactory living wage. . I hope’ that, the Government will bear my remarks in mind when the award is being tabled in this House. Both the Government and the Public Service Board can help these employees if they are inclined to do so.

The honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes) said that during the last eight years the Labour Government completely overlooked the matter of improving the conditions of pensioners. A lot of honorable members in this House laughed when they heard him make that statement because they know that during the last eight years, notwithstanding the fact that the Labour Government had to steer Australia through a great war, it increased social services by 100 per cent, and was also responsible for new social services. The new legislation enacted at the request of the Labour Government includes the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act 1944. That is. one of the best pieces of legislation ever to come before this Parliament. I have had concrete evidence of its value to people in my own electorate. I refer the House to the case of a married man living in my electorate who has a family of five children. When he was ill, he got £2 5s. a week for himself and his wife under the Labour Government’s legislation. He also received 5s. for his first child. In addition, endowment of £2 was paid in respect of the other four children. He was a member of a friendly society, and from that source he received another £1 a week. Then under the Government’s hospital benefit scheme he received free hospitalization. All those benefits gave him the equivalent of over £5 10s. r. week. He told me that the fact that he knew the wolf was being kept from his door while he was suffering in hospital contributed more to his recovery than did anything else. The honorable member for Lawson said that the Labour Government had done nothing for pensioners during the. last eight years. To show how wrong he is I- have quoted one instance of benefit that people can receive under the Labour Government’s improved social services legislation. The Labour Government also introduced widows pensions into all the States of Australia. Widows pensions were previously paid only in New South Wales. In fact, the State of New South Wales initiated all the social benefits that are now being received, by people 1 living in other States through the action of the Australian Labour governments.

Mr Eggins:

– Who introduced age pensions ? Mr. COSTA.- They were first paid in New South Wales, but the legislation introducing them was enacted before there were any Labour governments. In 1.909 the Labour party held the balance of power in the New South Wales Parliament, and because of that it was able to force through the first legislation for age pensions. Another benefit given by the Labour Government was an allowance for wives of invalid pensioners. That was introduced in 1943. Previously the wife of an invalid pensioner who was under the age of 60 was paid nothing. The Labour Government gave the wife a pension of £1 4s. a week plus 5s. a week for her children, if any. That was in addition to the husband’s invalid pension. Moreover, to-day any one can go to a public hospital and receive free medical attention. That situation was brought about by the Labour Government. The Labour party also initiated in 1943 a funeral fund for pensioners. It also introduced a scheme for rehabilitating invalid pensioners. Previous to this legislation men who were declared to be invalids were thrown on the industrial scrapheap. Under the rehabilitation scheme suitable pensioners are trained to take their places in industry. In 1948, 500 people who otherwise would have been permanent invalids were rehabilitated and are now working as wage-earners at various trades. In 1949 a greater number were rehabilitated. Not only did we introduce many new social services, but we liberalized the existing services. The Labour Government increased child endowment, which was initiated by a nonLabour government in 1941, making it 10s. for each child instead of 5s. During the last eight years the Labour Government raised the permissible income of married couple pensioners, which in 1939 was £3 7s. a week, to £7 5s. If we do not have a double dissolution and so get rid of this Government, no pension rates will increase any further.

When the Labour party took office, the age pension rate was 21s. a week, and now it is 42s. 6d. a week. The Liberal party promised, as a bribe to the electors at the last three general elections, that it intended to abolish the means test. However, as soon as a Liberal government assumed office it found that such an abolition would cost £70,000,000. Now we hear that the Government will reconsider the matter in 1952. I suggest that it will not be a government at all in 1952. At one time pensions were stopped when pensioners entered hospital. The Labour Government corrected that anomaly, and now when a pensioner goes to hospital he gets the full benefit of his pension while he is there. If any benefits accrue to him through membership of friendly societies he gets those also. If anything accrues to him through membership of his union, he also gets that. If he maintains any children he gets child endowment as well. Pensioners can also accept gifts from their children. All that i* due to the actions of the Labour Government.

T think that the greatest problem facing the Government, as the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) said, is that of putting value back into the £1 and thus arresting the rise in the cost of living. The Government has done nothing to solve that problem. There is only one way to improve the position. The power to control prices should be returned to the Commonwealth, which was certainly doing something about the cost of living before that power was refused it on the bad advice of the present Prime Minister. He told the people, at the referendum, to allow the power to return to the States which would be able to fix up the whole matter.

Mr Eggins:

– The honorable member knows that he cannot fool the people.

Mr COSTA:

– I think the people are fooled at times, and the sooner we get this double dissolution the better it will be for every one. We should get down to fighting another election when the people will put the Labour party back into office. I think that the Government should postpone the parliamentary recess until it does something to increase pension rates. It would give me the greatest pleasure if the Prime Minister announced to-night or to-morrow that we would be here for another fortnight so that we could deal with pensions.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Motion (by Mr. Spender) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) from concluding his speech without limitation of time.

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

in reply - /The House has been debating measures that represent essentially an inheritance from the former Labour Government. Very many speeches have been made, some of a constructive nature and others of a destructive and highly critical nature. Generally, the debate has produced a most helpful survey of the economic problems that confront Australia. In fact, the House has conducted a post-mortem examination of the last Chifley budget. The financial measures that we are considering have sprung mainly from the plans and commitments that were undertaken long before this Government assumed office. This Government can accept no responsibility for those plans and commitments, upon which its estimates of receipts and expenditure naturally had to be based. Some honorable members and certain sections of the press have said that a deficit will be recorded for the first time in three years, and that this Government will be to blame. That is not true. The deficit that is expected to accrue by the 30th June will be the result of the economic plans of the Labour Government.

The Government has been criticized because it has not presented a complete review of the national financial situation during the current sittings of the Parliament, but I remind the critics that half the financial year had passed before it had been formed. By that time, the Labour Government’s budget measures had largely worked themselves out, and it was wholly impossible for the new Government to reconstruct the budget for this year. Furthermore, it could not announce its plans for the next financial year until it had fully surveyed the situation and decided what could be done. Hence, it had no alternative but to wait and present its own budget, which it will do in the proper way and at the proper time. It refused to allow itself to be stampeded into premature action and to present a budget which, at the very best, could have been only half a budget. Members of the Opposition have complained that the Government has not indicated its tax plans. The fact is that it took prompt action on two important parts of its taxation policy. In accordance with its promise to .the people, it appointed an expert committee soon after it assumed office in order to review and simplify existing legislation and remove anomalies and injustices. The committee has been actively engaged upon that task. The Government also proposes to establish an additional board of review in order to expedite the hearing of appeals by taxpayers against assessments. The hearing of appeals is now almost four years in arrears. Obviously, this has been disadvantageous both to taxpayers and to the Taxation Branch, especially as taxpayers must first pay the amounts assessed before their appeals can be heard.

The considerations that apply to the budget situation apply even more strongly and in a much wider sense to the general economic situation. The Government inherited the consequences of eight years of socialism and obstruction, under Labour administration. When it took office, there was full employment, but nevertheless there was an acute shortage of labour in very many places, especially the basic industries. Production has been improving in some industries, but it has been retarded by shortages of basic materials, particularly coal, steel, and housing requirements, by labour slackness, and by the too wide spreading of our labour forces. Overseas supplies are much more scarce than they ought to be because of hard currency restrictions upon imports from the United States of America, Canada, and other countries. Prices and costs are rising, as they have been rising for two or three years, at the dangerous rate of between ten per cent, and twelve per cent, annually. Revenue is still buoyant, but that is not due to any planning by the former Government. It is due entirely to the high prices that we are receiving for our exports. Parallel with the buoyant revenue, expenditure also is increasing rapidly, largely as the result of commitments that were undertaken by the Labour Government. There is an acute housing shortage, and the situation is becoming worse, because both of unsatisfied demands and the increasing demands of new citizens who are coming to the country under the immigration scheme. The general situation is highly inflationary. There is an intense demand both for consumption goods and for all kinds of capital goods that are needed for industry, public works and the lagging social amenities of the community. Not only has an enormous potential output been lost in recent years through shortages of steel, coal, building materials, tractors, farm machinery, and wire netting - an output that would have overcome the present back-log of demand - but also the whole tempo of production to-day is still slowed down by obstructions and bottle-necks. This was our inheritance from the Labour Government.

The situation could not have been dealt with by the mere use of palliatives. The Government had to strike at the root of the evil. Therefore, it dealt firmly with industrial stoppages by issuing a proclamation that prevented a continuation of rolling strikes. It is endeavouring to root out the Communist menace. It has taken administrative measures to abolish unnecessary controls and to end the needless and harmful petrol shortage. It has stimulated the flow of essential materials and equipment from abroad, and it has increased the rate of immigration. All those measures are fundamental. They provide no cheap or easy remedies, and their results will not all appear immediately. However, they have provided a basis for the sound solution of the economic problems of the nation.

I refer now to prices. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about the value of the £1- Who too the value out of the £1. I shall tell the story again. In two years, from 1946 to 1948, retail prices rose by 15 per cent. In eighteen months, from June, 1948, to December, 1949, retail prices rose by 20 per cent. The really pernicious inflation in Australia began when the Chifley Government threw subsidies overboard and handed over to the States all responsibility for prices control. The position became worse with every month that the Labour Government remained in power, yet it did not do one hand’s turn to arrest the dangerous movement.

I come now to the very important subject of dollars, and I propose to reply to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), who said that the Government should have presented to the House a full review of the dollar situation as it affects Australia. As the right honorable gentleman knows, it would be impossible at this time of the year “to present anything like a full set of figures on matters involving overseas trade and payments. Moreover, it is too early for us to be certain about the effects of measures that were taken only a few months ago. The Government’s policy is, and always has been, to co-operate fully with the United Kingdom and other countries in the sterling area in all economic and financial matters. That policy is being carried out in all fields. It includes the supply of essential foodstuffs to the United Kingdom, the implementation of means of earning dollars and saving dollars, and the making of efforts to improve the economic position of countries in the south east Asian area. But a policy of co-operation does not require the abandonment of Australia’s vital interests, and this Government has been alert and energetic in the maintenance and protection of those interests. It recognized the opportunity to abandon petrol rationing that was afforded by the increased output of British controlled companies. The fact that the United Kingdom and other countries in the sterling area have since followed the same course of action speaks for itself. Since petrol rationing ended, the rate of consumption in Australia has been slightly less than 500,000,000 gallons a year. After providing for the increase due to new motor vehicle registrations - which would have taken place even if rationing had been continued - the rise attributable to de-rationing is not more than about 7 per cent. Honorable members will recall that the present Opposition, when it was in power, strenuously opposed the lifting of rationing on the ground that it would lead to an increase of consumption of between 15 and 20 per cent. The total quantity involved is relatively small in relation to the increased output of the British-controlled oil companies. The additional quantities available already amount to many hundreds of thousands of tons, and output is steadily increasing. The Government’s decision to discontinue rationing, therefore, need not add to the sterling area’s dollar outlay on oil. We are cooperating with the United Kingdom in ensuring that a dollar saving shall be achieved by making full use of the additional petrol supplies that are becoming available from British-controlled sources.

I turn now to Australia’s overall position in relation to dollar earnings and dollar expenditure. As I have said, the figures for 1949-1950 will not be available until some time after the close of the financial year.

On the export side, increased dollar receipts from the sale of wool have been offset by reduced sales of other items such as lead and rabbit-skins. The total recorded exports to the United States of America and Canada for the ten months’ period ended the 30th April, 1950, were the equivalent of 110,000,000 dollars as against 118,000,000 dollars for the corresponding period of 1948-49. Since the present Government assumed office, the issue of licences for goods that are covered by the dollar import budget has been kept to a rate that is consistent with the undertakings that were given to the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries of the British Commonwealth last year. The House will recall that a British Commonwealth conference was held in London in July, 1949, to discuss the action to be taken to check the rapid drain on the sterling area gold and dollar reserves, which had developed during the second quarter of 1949 and was still continuing at that time. Following the recommendations of that conference, the previous Government undertook, in common with the other British Commonwealth governments that were concerned, to make a further substantial cut in the dollar expenditure on imports. The effect of the decisions that were then taken is being reflected in a reduced flow of dollar imports at the present time.

Whilst those measures may have been unavoidable in order to meet the emergency with which all sterling area countries were confronted last year, I have always held that it would be a defeatist attitude to base “longer-term dollar policy primarily on the restriction of imports. We must work towards a position in which we shall be able to obtain a greater flow of imports of those categories of equipment and material which are available only from the dollar area and which we need in increasing quantities to meet our growing developmental and immigration programmes. It is our belief that, over the years, the previous Government took too narrow a view of the capacity of Australia to contribute to the solution of the dollar problem by greater dollar earnings through exports. The policy of the present Government is to give greater emphasis to positive measures to promote dollar earnings, and also to explore, as may be necessary, the possibility of securing dollars to ensure that vital national projects shall not be retarded by the inability to secure materials and equipment that are available only from the dollar area. It is in the interests, not only of Australia, hut also of the United Kingdom and of the British Commonwealth generally, that our population shall be increased and our development plans translated into practical achievement as rapidly as possible.

In the meantime, dollars remain in short supply, and a strict limitation must be maintained on dollar imports. It must be realized that while this position continues, one section of the community can get a larger share of the available dollar goods only at the expense of some other section of the community. It is too early to make a firm assessment of the effect of the devaluation of sterling on the dollar problem. However, the signs are hopeful. During the quarter ended the 31st March, 1950, the sterling area’s reserves of gold and. dollars rose by 296,000,000 dollars. At the 31st March last, the reserves stood at 1,984,000,000 dollars, compared with 1,688,000,000 dollars at the 31st December, 1949, and 2,241,000,000 dollars at the 31st March, 1948, immediately before the Marshall aid plan became operative. The improvement has been striking, and I am hopeful that it will continue. But it would be rash to make any firm predictions at this stage.

There are many uncertain factors. The Marshall aid allocation to the United Kingdom for 1950-51 has not yet been finally determined. The latest indications are that the 1950-51 allocation may be. only about 558,000,000 dollars as against the 962,000,000 dollars that were allotted in 1949-50. A development that may prove to be of great significance is the proposal to establish a new European Payments Union, negotiations for which are still proceeding. The proposed payments union may do much to remove the payments difficulties that have impeded trade between the sterling area and the hard currency countries of Western Europe. The Government has been prompt to make some relaxation of the trade restrictions on Belgium, Western Germany and Portugal. That action has been possible without causing any loss of gold or dollars from the sterling area, and it will contribute materially to increasing the flow of necessary imports to Australia. As soon as the necessary information is available, the Government will give to the Parliament a full review of the whole dollar situation.

The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) saw fit to criticize the Government for having discontinued the control of capital issues. He expressed the opinion that its decision in that matter was adding to the present inflationary conditions, and said that it had done a disservice to the economic well-being of Australia. The honorable member knew perfectly well that, as carried on under the Labour Government, the control of capital issues had become little more than a farce. I was one of those who regarded the control of capital issues as highly necessary during wartime, and during my term as the Treasurer in 1940 and 1941, the control was strengthened. I also believed that the control was necessary, in a modified form, during the transition period after the war. But it inevitably became less and less effective, and serious doubts had arisen whether, four years after the war had ended, the regulations could be upheld at law if they were challenged in the High Court. At most, the control could touch only one part of capital expenditure, and companies and private businesses with resources of their own were free to expand in any way that they liked. Let me cite facts to indicate what little effect it was really having when this Government was elected. In the first half of 1949, the amount of capital for which approvals were given totalled £38,000,000, and in the second half of that year the total was £43,000,000. In the five months of thi9 year that have elapsed since applications have been automatically granted, approvals have totalled £36,000,000-. From that evidence, it- appears that the control was having hardly any influence on the situation. It was one of those restrictions that the Labour Government had been keeping in force, apparently just for “ restriction’s sake “.

The honorable member for Melbourne also mentioned bonus share issues, and said they were having an inflationary effect. I can tell him that, although there has been an increase of the amount of bonus issues approved, many of them represent the capitalization of earned profits for which approval would have been given under the former control. In any case, it cannot be said that the issue of bonus shares i9 an inflationary influence in the way that payment of dividends would be.

Mr Ward:

– Of course it is. It could be nothing else.

Mr FADDEN:

– I shall now refer to the alleged reserve funds which, the Opposition claims, were bequeathed to the Government. We have been given in the House, and outside it, a good deal of misleading information about the existence and the utility value of those reserves.

I may also add a point or two on the subject of reserve funds, about which the Leader of the Opposition had something to say. We used to hear a good deal about those reserves, which, the Labour Government claimed, it was prudently establishing against a day of difficulty. There was the National Welfare Fund, in which the Labour party took much pride, and the War Gratuity Reserve, which, the country was led to believe, was established in order to meet the war gratuity commitments that will fall due next March. The welfare fund was established by taking away from the public in successive years, far more than was needed to pay for social services and make reasonable provision for the future.

What is the substance of these reserves? The cash that was taken from the public to put into them has long since been spent - every Id. of it. It has been used to redeem treasurybills that were owed to the Commonwealth Bank. In its place there are so-called internal treasury-bills, which represent, in effect, debts that are owed by the Government to itself and in respect of which, a small rate of interest is credited to the welfare fund. Two points should be made clear so that any deception in connexion with the real value and availability of those reserves may be made known, without equivocation. There are not, as the Labour Government would have had us suppose, great funds of cash behind these reserves. There is no such thing. Before the Government can expend anything against those reserves, it will have to find cash by borrowing. For example, when it has to meet the payment of war gratuity in March of next year it will have to find cash amounting to approximately £67,000,000. Iin order to do so, it will have to borrow. What the Labour Government did was simply this: It took credit for establishing reserves and, at the same time, for spending the cash that they represented. It actually levied and collected a social services contribution in cash and then promptly used the cash so levied, not for the purposes for which it was collected, but to reduce the Government’s indebtedness. The money is not available to-day.

Opposition members interjecting ,

Mr FADDEN:

– If the money is required, it will have to be borrowed-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is not so.

Mr Bryson:

– What about the hidden reserves about which the right honorable gentleman confidently spoke when he was in opposition?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Members of the Opposition must restrain themselves. There are too many interjections. This debate has been proceeding for several days, and the Treasurer is entitled to be heard in silence when he is replying to it.

Mr FADDEN:

– Having shown that the reserves have been dissipated like ice cream in the sun, I turn to another matter about which a good deal of misconception has been in evidence, and misinformation has been given. We have heard that the Government has failed to do anything about the number of persons on government pay-rolls. The facts about that position have already been given.

In answer to a question, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave full particulars of the numbers of employees of Commonwealth authorities of all kinds, including permanent, temporary and exempt employees. The fact that the right honorable gentleman’s reply showed an increase of 3,037 employees has been cited as a growth of the Public Service, and of bureaucracy. I shall give the figures, grouped in departments according to the functions that they perform, and showing the increases during the period from December, 1949, to March, 1950 -

Those increases of the numbers of government employees engaged in works, business undertakings, services and factories, total 3,615, the present grand total being 173,668. Employees in what may be described as administrative departments, not included in the above figures, actually decreased by 578 from December, 1949, to March, 1950, and the grand total now in this category is 26,024.

The advisory committee on the review of Public Service organization has been tackling the problem of a swollen Public Service. Initially, its attention was directed towards the problem of the functions of departments and their reorganization from a functional standpoint. At the same time, the committee has directed t.he attention of the Ministers concerned to the activities of departments which appear to warrant close examination. The committee is now getting down to the task of discussing departmental organization, staffing, &c, with the permanent heads of departments. As a result of discussions with the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service, it is expected that the employment service will reduce its staff establishment by a net 300 positions and the number of persons employed in the service by 200. Reductions are to be made also in the activities and the staff of the Industrial “Welfare Division.

Members of the Opposition .persist in saying that the Government has achieved nothing since it assumed office six months ago. Surely, they do not expect the people to believe that the Government has not yet achieved anything of benefit to the people. Although the Government’s legislative measures have been held up by the tactics of the Opposition and ‘the refusal of honorable members opposite to cooperate with it, it has acted quickly and firmly by administrative means. Let us examine what the Government has achieved in the brief period during which it has been in office. We have checked a further rise of the cost of living by subsidizing the home consumption price of butter and wheat. The previous Government procrastinated on those matters. We have abolished petrol and butter rationing. We have set up a special committee to report upon ex-servicemen’s pensions.

We have discontinued capital issues control, appointed an expert committee on taxation and established an additional taxation board of review to overcome the lag in appeals. We have also initiated a plan to subsidize imports of steel, coal and prefabricated houses. We have provided for the importation, free of duty or, at reduced rates of duty, of a large range of building materials and producers’ requirements. Materials now admitted free of duty include prefabricated houses, roofing tiles, asbestos cement sheets, wire netting, barbed wire and a large variety of structural steel products. Other materials admitted free when eligible under the British Preferential Tariff include timber, nails, baths and basins and other iron and steel products. These materials are otherwise admitted at 12£ per cent. duty. Previously, the tariff was as high as 57£ per cent, on certain of these items.

The Government has established a Ministry of Development and has steppedup the immigration programme. Whereas the previous Government applied a policy of restriction, the present Government believes that our national problems can be solved only by positive forwardlooking action. The Government has introduced several urgent measures, but their passage has been delayed by the tactics of honorable members opposite. It has introduced a measure to provide endowment for the first child in the family. If the mothers of Australia do not receive that benefit as from to-morrow they will have nobody to blame but the Labour Opposition. The Government has tried to repeal the Chifley Government’s legislation to nationalize the private trading banks and also to increase the capital of the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank requires additional capital to enable it to compete on a fair basis with the trading banks. However, the Opposition has delayed the passage’ of that legislation. In addition, the Government has introduced a measure to outlaw Communists, whose activities strike at the heart of our industrial efforts. Every Australian realizes that we must destroy the menace of communism as the first and fundamental prerequisite to putting value back into the £1. The Opposition has delayed the passage of that measure. The Government has brought in legislation to provide a new method of electing the Senate after a double dissolution. In all these matters the tactics of the Opposition have been to retard and frustrate the work of the Government.

Every thinking Australian knows that disruption in our industries is deliberately caused by a foreign-inspired Communist plan that operates principally in two ways. First, it consists of irritation strikes, and, secondly, it applies a policy of go-slow, scientifically planned to retard production. These policies are, unfortunately, often aided and abetted by the very victims of the Communists. Every strike and hold-up in industry destroys the people’s savings and their purchasing power. One strike alone in Queensland cost the people of that State £200,000 in increased electricity charges alone. That experience can be multiplied thousands of times and in hundreds of places during the last few years. We stand for free competition and free men as the basis of our policy of a free economy, which must cater for every branch of human activity in due and just proportion. We propose to take the remedial measures outlined in our policy speeches, and these measures will be implemented, regardless of any opposition that may be put up by socialists, intellectual pale-pinks or the Communists themselves.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4672

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1949-50

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3988), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · Macquarie

– By mutual arrangement, and with the permission of Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that this measure and the three associated measures should be covered by the one general debate. In view of that arrangement, from which I do not propose to depart, I was astonished to hear the speech that has just been made by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) in reply to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1949-50, which has just been passed. When that general debate was commenced, I expressed astonishment that bills of this nature should be introduced without any statement having been made about Commonwealth finances generally. Yet this evening the Treasurer in replying to the general debate, made a statement that should have been made before that debate was commenced. I did not expect the Government to make a statement dealing with matters of financial policy, but a statement giving a financial review, however short, should have been made. However, the Treasurer introduced these measures practically in a formal manner and after allowing the general debate to proceed to its conclusion, made a statement that should have been made before it was commenced. That procedure is extraordinary, and, in the circumstances, the Opposition would be more than justified if it now embarked upon a general debate on each of these measures in order to reply to the right honorable gentleman’s statement. I need hardly say that many of his claims could be blown sky-high by any honorable member who knows anything about the matters to which he referred. For instance, he told us all about the money that the Government would have to borrow, yet last year, when he was in Opposition, he alleged that the Government of the day had great secret reserves. Apparently, he has not been able to find those reserves. The fact is that they do not exist. However, whilst I shall keep to the arrangement that the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1949-50 and the three other bills associated with it shall be covered by the one general debate, I understand that a few honorable members wish to raise certain matters.

Mr Spender:

– Is not that contrary to the arrangement that was made?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– We agreed that the Appropriation Bill and the three measures associated with it should be covered by the one general debate.

Although I should like to say a great deal in reply to the speech that has just been made by the Treasurer when he closed that debate, I shall confine myself to repeating the Opposition’s complaint that the Government should have submitted a statement on financialmatters generally before that debate was commenced. I also repeat that the right honorable gentleman should have made his speech before those bills were introduced.

Mr Spender:

– Does not the arrangement that was made apply to this measure, to Supply Bill (No. 1) 1950-51, and to Supply (Works and Services) Bill (No. 1)1950-51? The Leader of the Opposition now says that several private members propose to speak generally on this measure.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I understand that several honorable members wish to raise certain matters on this bill.

Mr Spender:

– That will be a breach of the arrangement.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Opposition will not break that arrangement, but I understand that a few ofmy colleagues wish to deal with one or two matters in general.

Mr Beale:

– In general ! Not in particular ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I remind the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) that I have been a member of this Parliament for a considerable time and that I have held positions of some responsibility. I have been accused of many things, but never of having broken my word. I do not propose to speak on the motion for the second reading of these measures, but some of my colleagues want to raise some matters before the bills are finally disposed of. This is the only opportunity that will be given to them to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When it was decided that these four bills should be debated together I regarded the decision as applying only to the second-reading debate. I have no knowledge of what takes place in the committee. What the committee may decide is entirely a matter for itself. The point that I raised, which was well founded on parliamentary practice, was that a debate in the Committee of

Supply should precede the introduction of the legislation. I have raised this matter time and again in the Parliament. I simply suggested that when financial measures are to : be brought before the House next year we should revert to the correct parliamentary procedure of discussing grievances in Committee of Supply before they are introduced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4673

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1950-51

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3988), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Schedule.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I take this opportunity to raise some matters whichI regard as of importance. The first relates to the use of a government motor car by the wife of a member of the Government about which I endeavoured to elicit some information yesterday by way of question. I then asked whether it was a fact that the car had two number plates - A.C.T. 817, and C. 57710. Instead of obtaining the information that I sought, I was subjected to a great deal of personal abuse. Despite the tactics employed by the Government, I propose to press for the information. It is astonishing that a government car should be issued with two number plates. I ask the Minister for the Interior to inform me why such a subterfuge was resorted to and whether it is legal for a registered motor car to carry an Australian Capital Territory plate, and also a “ C “ plate which is kept in the boot when the vehicle is operating in the Australian Capital Territory. When I asked a question on this matter yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) took it upon himself to make

Home sort of reply, but he failed to indicate why it was necessary to adopt the practice of issuing two number plates. He tried to defend it on the basis of economy. He cannot make such a claim, because the transfer of the Holden motor car to his wife from Mr. McLaren, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, necessitated the purchase of a new Holden car for Mr. McLaren’s use. The Government has tried to cover up this matter. I did not suggest that the vehicle was being improperly used.

Mr McColm:

– The honorable member did make such a suggestion.

Mr WARD:

– If the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) cares ,to examine the Hansard report, he will see that I did not do so, and that I asked only for an explanation of the need for such a secretive arrangement. The Prime Minister was so sensitive about it that he tried to howl me down.

Another matter that I propose to raise affects the Attorney-General’s Department, and probably will also disturb the Government. Last Wednesday night the Prime Minister addressed an election meeting in the Sydney Town Hall on behalf of the State Liberal party of New South Wales. During his address a number of people were ejected from the hall by the members of the New South Wales police force. The front page of the following day’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald contained a photograph of a young lady being forcibly ejected from the hall by policemen. I have been given to understand that the young lady concerned was a Miss McCallum and that she is a daughter of a Liberal senator. i do not hear the claqueurs on the Government side coming in now. What action does the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) propose to take in regard to this matter? According to information that has been furnished to me, the young lady has since made a declaration that she has never been a member of the Australian Communist party or been associated in any way with it and that when she protested at the manhandling of an ex-serviceman who was being ejected from the hall she herself was subjected to similar treatment. I have been advised’ that she made a statement to that effect to responsible officials of the Sydney Morning Herald, which published the photograph, and also to the Sydney Daily Telegraph. The fact that neither of those newspapers has seen fit to publish it proves how dangerous it is for us to allow certain elements to control this country. This matter has caused great concern in the’ office of the Sydney Morning Herald and there has been a great deal of discussion about it.

Mr Berry:

– Where did the honorable member get that story? Did he get it from Frank Browne?

Mr WARD:

– I have my own ways of ascertaining the facts. I assure the honorable member that if he makes inquiries he will learn that what I have said is true. Although the publication of the photograph and the subsequent explanation caused a great deal of concern in the office of the Sydney Morning Herald the lady involved has been given no redress and no attempt has been made to present the facts to the public. Surely if a metropolitan newspaper in a country which boasts of the freedom of its press, publishes a photograph of a young lady in such circumstances, with an implication in the caption that she is a supporter of the Communist party when the reverse is the case, the Attorney-General should compel it to correct the misrepresentation and to publish a retraction. If my information is correct, and the young lady concerned is in fact the daughter of a Liberal senator, it is astonishing that members of the Government should have left it to a member of the Opposition to direct attention to the matter.

Another matter to which I wish to refer before I conclude is the victimization of a Labour Government appointee to an important post on the No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. The gentleman concerned, Mr. Charles Gordon, who was induced to accept a position on the tribunal by the Labour Government, gave up an important post in Tasmania. He was not given to understand that his appointment was to be only of a temporary character. He transferred his family and his belongings from Tasmania to

Sydney at great inconvenience and expense, and merely because this Government suspected that, having been appointed by the Labour Government, he may be a sympathiser of the Australian Labour party, it removed him from his post. His qualifications for the position are undoubted. Honorable members on both sides of this chamber who represent Tasmanian constituencies are aware of his wide experience in repatriation matters and of his complete knowledge of the provisions of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. It has not been suggested that he failed to carry out his duties efficiently. The Government decided to abolish the Number 2 tribunal and to have the work previously undertaken by that body done by the Number 3 tribunal ; but it did not give Mr. Gordon an opportunity to apply for appointment to the latter tribunal. On the contrary it was determined to victimize him merely because he had been appointed by a Labour Government. All I can say to my colleagues on this side of the chamber is that they should profit by their experience of the sort of tactics that this Government employs and that when they in their turn assume office they should not be finicky about removing from official positions persons who had been appointed by anti-Labour Governments.

I also take this opportunity, which will probably be the last that I shall have before the Government hurries the Parliament away on its four months’ holiday, to refer to the alleged achievements of the Government since it assumed office on the 10th December last.

Mr Gullett:

– Why are you not. in gaol with your mate?

Mr WARD:

– You dirty little mongrel !

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) will withdraw that remark and apologize to the Chair.

Mr WARD:

– I refuse to withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– T want to be tolerant. I again ask the honorable member to withdraw.

Mr WARD:

– Did the Chair hear what was said to me?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to withdraw his remark and apologize to the Chair.

Mr WARD:

– I refuse to withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I name the honorable member for East Sydney.

Mr Pollard:

– I rise to order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! There is no point of order.

Mr Pollard:

– The Chairman is unaware of what the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) said to the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). The honorable member for Henty walked to the end of the ministerial table and asked why the honorable member for East Sydney was not in gaol. The honorable member for East Sydney was completely justified in what he said in return.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr Pollard:

– You may put me out if you like.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman will be dealt with in due course.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member for Henty’s remark was provocative and filthy.

In the House:

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have to report, Mr. Speaker, that I have named the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) for having wilfully disobeyed the Chair, for having used unparliamentary language, and for having refused to withdraw and apologize.

Question put -

That the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) be suspended from the service of the House.

The. House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

Ayes . . . . . . 69

Noes . . . . . 36

Majority 33

In division:

Mr Pollard:

– This is outrageous .’ What are you going to do about the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr. Pollard. - Would I be in order in directing your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes) has left the House, apparently disgusted with the proceedings ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is not in order and must not impute motives to other honorable members.

Mr Pollard:

– May I ask you a question on my point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member may not do so in division. He will resume his seat.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) stands suspended from the service of the House until 9.9 p.m. to-morrow and will not be on any part of these premises until that time.

The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! While the committee was awaiting the arrival of Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) made a reflection upon a ruling of the Chair. I wish that honorable member to appreciate the fact that whatever provocation existed the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), whom I named, took the law into his own hands, and that any action by any other Honorable member could not have been dealt with at that stage. The honorable member for Lalor said that the action of the honorable member for East Sydney was justified and he made a further reflection upon the Chair. I ask the honorable member for Lalor to withdraw that reflection and to apologize to the Chair for having made it.

Mr Pollard:

– I consider that I was justified.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Older ! I ask the honorable member to withdraw his reflection upon the Chair.

Mr Pollard:

– I withdraw it, but with a. mental reservation.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to make an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr Pollard:

– I make an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr Chifley:

– I rise to order. I do not want to refer to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) will agree that the remark that he made l:> the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) at least requires some explanation and that he should withdraw it. The incident happened very suddenly and therefore was very difficult for you to deal with, but I am quite sure that the honorable member for Henty regrets that he caused the scene that has just occurred. I think that there was great provocation.

Mr Spender:

– What! For the use of such language as was used by the honorable member for East Sydney? The right honorable gentleman would justify anything. He justified what the honorable member said last night and what he said to-night.

Mr Gullett:

– It is true that I interjected in such a way to the honorable member for East Sydney as to give him great provocation. I did this deliberately because, for the last two days we have had to listen to the honorable member cast reflections of a personal and disgraceful character upon honorable members of this chamber. I regret .what I said about the honorable member for East Sydney, but it was said under great provocation. I now withdraw it ‘ unreservedly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In reply to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) I wish to state exactly the reason for my decision. I could make no other decision. I was tolerant about the matter and gave the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) about three chances to put himself right with the Chair because I considered that there had been provocation, but as the honorable member took the law into his own hands and did not seek the protection of the Chair and ask for a withdrawal by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) I had no option but to take the course that I took. Had the honorable member for East Sydney originally sought the protection of the Chair, I certainly would have protected him.

Mr Tom Burke:

– I rise to a matter of privilege. When words that are unparliamentary, provocative or personal are used, the honorable member affected is not obliged to intervene to seek their withdrawal; the Chair can require a withdrawal on its own initiative. But when the honorable member replies to the words it seems to me that in fairness to both-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I do not consider that the honorable gentleman is raising a matter of privilege.

Mr Tom Burke:

– I consider that the matter affects the privileges of honorable members.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The matter is not one of privilege.

Mr Tom Burke:

– Then if the matter is not one of privilege I shall raise a point of order. I suggest that when a situation arises such as that which arose a few minutes ago, not only in fairness to honorable members but also in order to observe a practice that can be maintained, it is surely right and just that both parties to the incident and not one party alone should be asked to withdraw. I consider that my view is confirmed by subsequent happenings. It would appear from the number of interjections that the honorable members making them would like to usurp the function of the Chair. If I were to reflect it would be upon other honorable members who are trying to intervene and either direct or influence your decision.

Mr Spender:

– What is the point of order ? /

Mr Tom Burke:

– The Chairman will decide that. I object very strongly to the constant interjections of the Minister.

Mr Spender:

– I have made” only one.

Mr Tom Burke:

– My point is borne out by the fact that an honorable member having been suspended for his part in the incident the other party to it has withdrawn unreservedly. That shows that the honorable member for Henty made his interjection deliberately, so as to provoke the honorable member for East Sydney. Yet, when the honorable member for East Sydney responded to that provocation he was dealt with, whilst the honorable member who provoked him had to do no more than withdraw the remark that caused the trouble.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no further point of order than that upon which I have already ruled. In reply to the contention of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Tom Burke) that I should have required a withdrawal byboth honorable members, I point out that the honorable member should have been sure that the Chairman had heard the interjection which gave the provocation before suggesting that such action should have been taken.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that you do now report to Mr. Speaker what has occurred since the House suspended the honorable member for EastSydney (Mr.Ward), so that the matter may be again considered by the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I know all the facts. The words used by the honorable member for East Sydney were deserving of censure, hence I named him. Had he taken the action for which the Standing Orders provide he would not now be out of the committee.

Motion (by Mr. Spender) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Mr Bryson:

– I wish to raise a further point of order, and to obtain your guidance, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member cannot raise another point of order on the same subject.

Mr Bryson:

– Why can I not raise a point of order ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member will remain in his seat while I am on my feet. He cannot raise another point of order. The Minister for External Affairs has moved, “ That the question be now put “.

Question put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 68

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4678

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1950-51

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3989) on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4679

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP (BURMESE) BILL 1950

Motion (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - agreed to - flint le;ive be given to bring in a bill for an Act to make certain provisions with respect to British nationality and Australian citizenship in consequence of the fact that Burma has erased to be part of His Majesty’s Dominions.

I.Jill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

by leave - I mo ve -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill that I have brought before the House deals with a subject which I believe is in no way contentious although it involves, in its minor aspects, some difficult points of law. At this stage I propose to confine my remarks to the broader aspects of the bill. I shall endeavour to make clear its background and general objectives, and shall leave to the committee stage the difficult technicalities.

The necessity for the bill arises from the fact that Burma ceased to be a part of His Majesty’s dominions on the 4th January, 1948. This has, of course, been recognized by Australia as well as by the United Kingdom and the other British Commonwealth countries. The United Kingdom Parliament passed the Burma Independence Act which came into force on the 4th January, 1948, and provided, as a logical consequence of the change in Burma’s status, that Burmese should no longer be British subjects solely because of their connexion with Burma. That act also provided that Burmese domiciled or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in ite dependencies should have the right to elect to remain British subjects.

No corresponding statute has so far been passed in Australia. I am advised that in the absence of such a statute, the common law position is that Burmese who left Burma permanently before its independence was recognized or “ within a reasonable time afterwards “ are still British subjects under our law. British nationality was lost only by those who were inhabitants of Burma at the time when it became a foreign country. This existing position under Australian law is unsatisfactory because, first of all, it differs from the law of the United Kingdom, and this means that some persons who are aliens in the eyes of the United Kingdom Government, are British subjects under our law, and vice versa. This in itself is undesirable, being a contradiction of the long-accepted principle that persons who are British subjects in one part of His Majesty’s dominions should have the same status in other parts of those dominions. Furthermore, it is not considered desirable that native Burmese should remain British solely because they were not domiciled in Burma when its independence was proclaimed. Some of these persons may have taken up residence in other foreign territory and may have as little connexion with the British Commonwealth as have those who remained in Burma. In addition, the common law position is conducive to uncertainty in determining, the national status of individuals. It must inevitably be a matter of opinion whether some individuals left Burma within a “ reasonable time “ after that country ceased to be British. For many years it has been the rule that the law pertaining to nationality should be defined by statute, so that there should be no more obscurity about this difficult subject than is absolutely necessary. The common law on the matter is at variance with the general principles of our statutory law, under which a man’s British nationality, or his lack of it, depends upon specific factors, such as his place of birth and his descent, or upon some clearly described act of his own, and not upon such generalities as departure from an area within “ a reasonable time “.

These are, I think, sufficient reasons for the bill’s introduction. I shall now endeavour to deal briefly with the main clauses, which are clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 provides, in effect, that persons who have ceased to be British subjects under the Burma Independence Act of the United Kingdom shall cease to be British subjects under our law also. Since the bill, therefore, seeks’ to bring a part of a United Kingdom statute into our law, I have caused to be made available to honorable members the relevant extracts from that statute, and I propose to outline its provisions. The latter are not by any means simple, but their effect is not in doubt, namely, that under the act no person ceased to be a British subject if either he himself, or his father, or his paternal grandfather was born in British territory, or even in British-protected territory ; and, moreover, no woman whose husband possessed any of these qualifications ceased to be British either, even if she had no other claims to British nationality. These effects of the United Kingdom act are the effects sought by this bill. The idea may be expressed in the positive way by saying that the only persons who did cease to be British subjects under the Burma Independence Act and who will therefore lose British nationality by reason of this legislation, are those whose only claim to be British subjects has been their birth in, or some other connexion with, Burma. It may, therefore, be reasonably claimed that clause 2 of the bill represents the natural consequence of Burma’s departure from the British Commonwealth.

Clause 3 gives to those few former Burmese who became Australian citizens on the 26th January, 1949 - that is, upon the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 - an opportunity, by means of a simple declaration, to retain that citizenship.

Mr Calwell:

– Does the Minister know how many such cases exist?

Mr HOLT:

– I am informed that there are very few. It is, I think, but logical that persons upon whom this country so recently conferred its citizenship should not now be summarily deprived of it. This right of election, being confined to persons who are already Australian citizens and who, therefore, have every right to reside permanently in Australia, in no way affects the long-established immigration policy of the Commonwealth in relation to non-Europeans.

I sum up my remarks by saying that the bill deals with no great question of policy, but rather seeks to “ tidy up “ our nationality law - to bring it into line with that of the

United Kingdom and with the accomplished fact that Burma is a foreign country. I commend the bill for the approval of the House.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of this bill. It is a measure that this Parliament should enact if we are to recognize the fact that Burma is no longer a portion of .the British Commonwealth of Nations. That country is now an independent state, and there is no provision in our legislation to cover the cases of Burmese who were resident in Australia at the time of the passing of our Nationality and Citizenship Act and who would now, if this legislation were not enacted, be in a different position in regard to British citizenship than if they had been residing in Great Britain when the United Kingdom and Colonies Nationalization and Citizenship Act was passed. Consequent upon ‘the secession of Burma from the British Empire, the United Kingdom Parliament passed legislation for the benefit of people who, although born in Burma and nationals of that country in one sense, have divested themselves by residence in England of any allegiance to a foreign power and are now citizens of the United Kingdom and entitled to the protection of its Government. Burmese are Asiatic people and, although like other Asiatics they are entitled to apply for Australian naturalization, it has been the almost invariable practice since federation for Australian governments to refuse naturalization to Asiatics. The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) said that he doe3 not know how many cases will arise, and I cannot recollect whether they are many or few, but if only one arose it would be necessary to have this legislation.

Mr Holt:

– I understand that there are twelve such cases.

Mr CALWELL:

– I thank the Minister. Complications could be caused if any of those people left Australia and went to Great Britain. When the Chifley Government decided, consequent upon the decision of an Imperial Conference, to establish in common with other portions of the British Commonwealth a separate citizenship for each of the component parts of the British Commonwealth, it knew that at the same time difficulties might be caused in other directions. This is one difficulty that has arisen. It is now being, in the words of the Minister, “ tidied up “. I do not know whether any other countries are similarly affected. As Minister for Immigration I dealt with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, the first two having left the British Commonwealth. Ceylon citizenship is covered by the British act which established “United Kingdom and Colonies “ citizenship.

Mr Holt:

– Ceylon is a British dominion.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, it is a dominion now and our Commissioner in Ceylon will soon have to become our High Commissioner. That will be another consequence of the action which has been taken. I give this bill my blessing. It is one of the few pieces of legislation that will find a place on the statutebook during this session of the Parliament.

Dr EVATT:
Barton

.- I merely wish to supplement the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). The decision of Burma to withdraw from the British Commonwealth was a decision which the Chifley Government endeavoured to prevent. I have always thought that its withdrawal was a great blunder. The people of Burma, in their move for self government, travelled too quickly in becoming independent of the British Commonwealth. To-day they find themselves in a most invidious position because of the celerity with which they left the British Commonwealth. I have always hoped, and I have previously expressed the hope, that the time would come when Burma would be able to get over the dreadful troubles threatening it to-day by again becoming a member of the British Commonwealth. India has remained in the British Commonwealth after a troublous period during which it seemed impossible that it would remain a member. Pakistan and Ceylon are Asiatic nations within the British Commonwealth, and I hope that the time will come when Burma will return to the Commonwealth and this measure will no longer be law in Australia. However, the legislation is necessary at present.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Third Reading

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a third time.

In submitting this motion, I should like to express the Government’s appreciation to the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who represented the Opposition, and to other honorable members of the Opposition for the co-operation that they have given to ensure the speedy passage of this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4681

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL 1950

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 13th June (vide page 4148), on motion by Mr. McEwen -

That the rate of the charge . . . (vide page 4142) .

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

. -I ask for leave to withdraw the motion in relation to the contributory charge that I submitted on the 13th June. In asking for this leave, I explain that I have been advised that for legal and technical reasons it is preferable that the subjectmatter of the proposed resolution be dealt with in two resolutions. When the House has given the necessary leave, I shall submit two new motions. They will not in any way alter the substance of the measure before the House. Under the Standing Orders, honorable members will be at liberty to discuss the substance of the proposed new resolutions, but the debate on my original proposed resolution has shown such a wide measure of agreement with the proposals of the Government that I am sure that honorable members will not wish to re-open the debate.

Leave granted; motion withdrawn.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

. -I move -

Wool (Contributory Charge) (No. 1).

That, in lieu of the contributory charge im posed by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 on the wool to which this resolution applies, a contributory charge be imposed, in accordance with the succeeding paragraphs of this resolution and subject to the provisions nf the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950 for preventing charge from being payable on any wool both under the Act and miller the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1050, on all wool-

produced in Australia; and

on or after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fortysix -

sold by a broker at auction ot otherwise;

purchased by a manufacturer; or

subjected by a manufacturer (whether or not he is the producer or owner of the wool) to a process of manufacture.

That the rate of the charge be -

on and after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six, up to and including the thirty-first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fortyseven - five per centum of the sale value of the wool;

on and after the first day of August, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, up to and including the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight - three-quarters of one per centum of the sale value of the wool ; and

subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this resolution, on and after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, up to and including the day immediately before the commencement of regulations prescribing a percentage for the purposes of the next succeeding paragraph - one-half of one per centum of the sale value of the wool.

That, subject to this resolution, the rate of the charge be such percentage as is proscribed by regulations under the Act from time to time of the sale value of the wool, being a percentage not exceeding the percentage which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, after taking into consideration any advice tendered to the Minister by the Australian Wool Realization Commission, is necessary in order to produce, together with the amount likely to be produced under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950 if the same percentage is prescribed by a correspond- ing regulation under that Act, an amount equal to the sum of the following amounts: -

the amounts required to meet the share of the industry in the operating expenses of the Joint Organization as provided in paragraph three of Part III. of the Disposals Plan, being the plan a copy of which is set forth in the Schedule to the Wool Realization Act 1945 ; (b) the amounts required for payment of interest, at such rate as the Treasurer determines, upon the amount from time to time expended by the Commonwealth in purchases of wool in pursuance of the Disposals Plan and unrecouped; and (c) the amounts required for payment into the Wool Use Promotion Fund in pursuance of section sixteen of the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945, as affected by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950.

That, subject to paragraph6 of this resolution, the regulations under the Act may from time to time prescribe a percentage, distinct from the percentage (if any) prescribed for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, being a percentage not exceeding the percentage which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, after taking into consideration any views on the matter which have been expressed to the Minister of State for Commerce and Agriculture by the Commission, the Australian Woolgrowers’ Council, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and the Australian Primary Producers’ Union, is necessary in order to produce, together with the amount likely to be produced under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950 if the same percentage is prescribed by a corresponding regulation under that Act, an amount equal to the sum of the amounts required, or likely to be required, to be contributed by the wool industry to the cost of establishing a scheme of reserve prices for wool after the Disposals Plan ceases to operate and to the cost of operating that scheme.

That, where regulations are in operation prescribing a percentage for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, the rate of the charge be a percentage of the sale value of the wool equal to the percentage so prescribed or, where a percentage is also prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 3 of this resolution, equal to the sum of the percentages prescribed for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph and paragraph 3 of this resolution. fi. That the rate of the charge do not at any time exceed ten per centum of the sale value of the wool.

That the provisions for giving effect to this resolution (other than paragraphs 4 and 5) be expressed to be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six, but that charge already paid under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 in respect of wool to which this resolution applies be deemed to have been paid under the Act.

That the provisions for giving effect to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this resolution be expressed to come into operation on a date tobe fixed by Proclamation. 9., That expressions used in this resolution have the same meanings as those expressions have in the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1045-1050.

That, in this resolution - “the Act” mean the Act passed to give effect to this resolution; “the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950” mean the Act passed to give effect to the Wool (Contributory Charge) (No. 2) Resolution; and “the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950” mean the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945, as proposed to be amended by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Bill 1950.

Wool ( Contributory Charge) (No. 2).

  1. That, in lieu of the contributory charge imposed by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 on the wool to which this resolution applies, a contributory charge be imposed, in accordance with the succeeding paragraphs of this resolution and subject to the provisions of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950 for preventing charge from being payable on any wool both under the Act and under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1 ) 1950, on all wool produced in Australia and, on or after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fortysix, exported from Australia.
  2. That the rate of the charge be -

    1. on and after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six, up to and including the thirty-first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fortyseven - five per centum of the sale value of the wool;
    1. on and after the first day of August, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, up to and including the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fortyeight - three-quarters of one per centum of the sale value of the wool ; and

    2. subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this resolution, on and after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, up to and including the day immediately beforethe commencement of regulations prescribing a percentage for the purposes of the next succeeding paragraph - one-half of one per centum of the sale value of the wool .

  3. That, subject to this resolution, the rate of the charge be such percentage as is prescribed by regulations under the Act from time to time of the sale value of the wool, being a percentage not exceeding the percentage which, in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral, after taking into consideration any advice tendered to the Minister by the Australian Wool Realization Commission, is necessary in order to produce, together with the amount likely to be produced under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1) 1950 if the same percentage is prescribed by a corresponding regulation under that Act, an amount equal to the sum of the following amounts: - (a.) the amounts required to meet the share of the industry in the operating expenses of the Joint Organization as provided in paragraph three of Part III. of the Disposals Plan, being the plan a copy of which is set forth in the Schedule to the Wool Realization Act 1945;

    1. the amounts required for payment of interest, at such rate as the Treasurer determines, upon the amount from time to time expended by the Commonwealth in purchases of wool in pursuance of the Disposals Plan and unrecouped; and
    2. the amounts required for payment into the Wool Use Promotion Fund in pursuance of section sixteen of the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945, as affected by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950.
  4. That, subject to paragraph6 of this resolution, the regulations under the Act may from time to time prescribe a percentage, distinct from the percentage (if any) prescribed for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, being a percentage not exceeding the percentage which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, after taking into consideration any views on the matter which have been expressed to the Minister of State for Commerce and Agriculture by the Commission, the Australian Woolgrowers’ Council, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and the Australian Primary Producers’ Union, is necessary in order to produce, together with the amount likely to be produced under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. . 1) 1950 if the same percentage is prescribed by a corresponding regulation under that Act, an amount equal to the sum of the amounts required, or likely to be required, to be contributed by the wool industry to the cost of establishing a scheme of reserve prices for wool after the Disposals Plan ceases to operate and to the cost of operating that scheme.
  5. That, where regulations arc in operation prescribing a percentage for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, the rate of the charge be a percentage of the sale value of the wool equal to the percentage so prescribed or, where a percentage is also prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 3 of this resolution, equal to the sum. of the percentages prescribed for the purposes of the last preceding para- graph and paragraph 3 of this resolution.
  6. That the rate of the charge do not at any time exceed ten per centum of the sale value of the wool.
  7. That the provisions for giving effect to this resolution (other than paragraphs 4 and 5) be expressed to be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six, but that charge already paid under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 in respect of wool to which this resolution applies be deemed to have heen paid under the Act.
  8. That the provisions for giving effect to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this resolution be expressed to come into opertaion on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.
  9. That expressions used in this resolution have the same meanings as those expressions have in the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950.
  10. That, in this resolution - the Act’ mean the Act passed to give effect to this resolution; “the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1) 1.950” mean the Act passed to give effect to the Wool (Contributory Charge) (No. 1) Resolution ; and “ the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950” mean the Wool ( Contributory Charge ) Assessment Act 1945, as proposed to be amended by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Bill 1950.

The first proposed wool (contributory charge) resolution is designed to impose an excise tax on all wool produced. The second proposes a customs duty on all wool produced in Australia and exported. The two resolutions will, together, have the same effect as the one that I have just withdrawn.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolutions adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. McEwen and Mr. Francis do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 4684

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 1) 1950

Bill presented by Mr. McEwen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr. McEWEN (Murray - Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture) [9.45]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the resolution passed by the committee imposing a contributory charge on all wool produced and sold in Australia. The charge thus imposed will be an excise charge.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4684

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) BILL (No. 2) 1950

Bill presented by Mr. McEwen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the resolution of the committee proposing the imposition of a contributory charge on all wool produced in Australia and exported. The charge thus imposed will be, in effect, a customs duty.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4684

WOOL (CONTRIBUTORY CHARGE) ASSESSMENT BILL 1950

Second Reading

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In the co.urse of my remarks last week in the Committee of Ways and Means, when I explained the legislation dealing with the imposition of an additional contributory charge to provide funds for a future scheme of reserve prices for wool, I indicated that no amendment of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act was necessary. That is the act which sets out the manner in which the present charge is collected. I said then that the proposed additional charge would be raised in the same manner as is the present charge. That is still the position, although, as I have already explained, the Government proposes now to replace the

Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 by two acts. That course has necessitated a re-examination of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act and the introduction of this bill to effect consequential amendments to it. Apart from those consequential amendments, which can be noted when the bill is in the committee stage, this bill will amend section 10 of the existing Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act. The purport of that change is to declare merely that the machinery provisions of the assessment act shall apply to the assessment and collection of the charges imposed by the two rates acts. Finally, the bill contains a provision to effect the repeal of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 because it is intended to replace it by the two new charges acts.

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 4685

WOOL REALIZATION BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th June (vide page 4148), on motion by Mr. McEwen -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of an amendment to be moved by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in a bill for an net to amend the Wood Realization Act 1945- 1940.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section sixteen of the Wool Realization Act 1945-1940 is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “the amounts raised under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945 “ and inserting in their stead the words “ so much of the amounts raised under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945-1950 as is attributable to the percentage prescribed for the purposes of section four of that. Act “.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I move -

That the words “the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945-1950 as is attributable to the percentage prescribed for the purposes of section four of that Act”, be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “the Wool ( Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1) 1950 and the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950 as is attributable to the rates prescribed by or under section five or section six of each of those Acts “.

As I stated in my second-reading speech, the purpose of the bill is to amend the W ool Realization Act so as to ensure that a distinction shall be maintained between moneys collected for the existing wool disposals plan and moneys collected for a possible new scheme. The amendment that I now propose is consequential upon the decision to have two contributory charge measures’ instead of one measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4685

WOOL (RESERVE PRICES) FUND BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th June (vide page 4149), on motion by Mr. McEwen -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of an amendment to be moved by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in a bill for an act to establish a fund for the purposes of a scheme of reserve prices for wool, and to make provision for the distribution of the moneys in the fund if the scheme is not in operation on a certain date.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 - (2.) There shall be paid into the Fund, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (which is, to the necessary extent, hereby appropriated accordingly), amounts equivalent to so much of the amounts from time to time collected as charge imposed by the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945-1950 as is attributable to the additional percentage prescribed under section four a of that Act.

Mr MCEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.), the words “the “Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945-1950 as is attributable to the additional percentage prescribed under section four a of that Act”, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ the Wool ( Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1) 1950 and the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950 as is attributable to the percentage prescribed under section seven of each of those Acts “.

The purpose of the amendment is to strike out the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945-50, which defines the source of the fund, and to substitute the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act (No. 1) 1950 and the Wool (‘Contributory Charge) Act (No. 2) 1950, which will now be the source of the fund.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 - (2.) If there is not in operation, on the thirtieth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, a scheme of reserve prices for wool, being a scheme which the Minister, after consultation with organizations of wool-growers, is satisfied has the general approval of wool-growers in Australia, the amount standing to the credit of the Fund shall, subject to this section and to the regulations, be distributed so as to effect, in respect of every amount of charge which is represented in the amount to be distributed, a refund -

  1. where the amount of charge was paid by a person who was, under the provisions of the Wool (Contribu tory Charge) Assessment Act 1945, entitled to recover from another person, or retain out of moneys payable to another person, that amount of charge - to that other person; or (4.) The provisions of sub-section (2.) of this section shall not apply to amounts standing to the credit of the Fund representing -

    1. additional charge collected by virtue of section twenty-six, or sub-section (3.) of section twenty-seven, of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assess ment Act 1945,

Amendment (by Mr. McEwen) agreed to-

That, in sub-clause (2.) (a), the words “Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1 945 “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950 “.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (4.), paragraph (6) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph: - “ (6) additional charge collected by virtue of section twenty-six, sub-section (3.) of section twenty-seven, paragraph (o) of section thirty-seven or sub-section (1.) of section forty-four of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950,”.

This amendment merely replaces paragraph (b) in the existing print of the bill with a new paragraph that includes a reference to two other sections of the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act 1945-1950, under which penalties may be received, and to ensure that such penalties shall be applied to meet any expenses of the distribution of a refund, and, in the event of any balance, to the benefit of the wool industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4686

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1950

Bill presented by Mr. McBride, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McBRIDE:
Minister for the Interior · Wakefield · LP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to alter the basis of the remuneration of the chairman and other members of the Tariff Board. Section8 of the Tariff Board Act 1921- 1934, as amended by the Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Act 1947, fixes the salary of the chairman at £2,250 per annum, and provides that other members of the board shall be paid a remuneration of seven guineas a sitting, with a maximum of £1,750 in any one year. It has become desirable to alter this provision, and. to substitute a more flexible manner of fixing salaries. It is considered that the salaries of the chairman and of the other members of the board should be subject to review from time to time in the light of such factors as living costs and the salaries paid to persons holding comparable statutory offices.

The bill provides that the salaries and allowances of the chairman and other members of the board shall be such as the Governor-General determines from time to time. It is further provided that the salary of a member shall not be reduced during his term of office, and that a member shall be deemed to have vacated his office if he engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office. This emphasizes the full-time nature of the work. The opportunity has been taken to repeal section 15 a of the principal act, which refers to the director of economic research. This office was provided for by the Economic Research Act 1929, but it has never been filled. It is the Government’s intention to repeal the act.

It is proposed that the bill shall operate on and from the 21st March, 1950, being the day from which most of the present appointments to the board were dated. If the bill is passed, it is the Government’s intention to recommend to the Governor-General that the chairman and the other members of the board shall receive salaries substantially higher than the remuneration that is at present provided. This action, it Las been found, is necessary in order to make membership of the board attractive to persons of a calibre equal to the responsibilities that are involved. I commend the bill to honorable members for favorable consideration.

Debate (on motion by Mr: Tom Burke) adjourned.

page 4687

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1948-49

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3990), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4687

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1948-49

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th June (vide page 3991), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 4687

SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Debate resumed from the8th June (vide page 4055), on motion by Mr. Spender -

That the following paper be printed : - South and South-East Asia - British Commonwealth Consultative Committee Conference, Sydney, May, 1950 - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4687

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

Debate resumed from the 1st March (vide page 214), on motion by Mr. Eric J. Harrison -

That the following paper be printed: - Sugar - Protocol Belating to the International Sugar Agreement (signed in London, 31st August, 1949).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4688

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Debate resumed from the 8th March (vide page 497), on motion by Mr. Francis -

That the following paper be printed: -

H.M.A.S. Tarakan Disaster, January, 1950 - Ministerial Statement

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4688

TINPLATE

Debate resumed from the 25th May (vide page 3206), on motion by Mr. Beale -

That the following paper be printed : -

Tinplate - Ministerial Statement

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4688

MALAYA

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 3351), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the following paper be printed: - Situation in Malaya - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed from the 31st May (vide page 3465), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the following paper be printed: -

Situation in Malaya - Australian Assistance - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4688

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of the Interior - J. H. Hunter.

Norfolk Island - Report for year 1948-49.

Scat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance - 1950 - No. 3 - United States Educational Foundation in Australia.

Superannuation Fund -Report of the fifth quinquennial investigation of the

Fund, as at 30th June, 1947.

United Nations -

Food and Agriculture Organization - Fifth

Session, held at Washington, U.S.A..

November-December, 1949 - Report of

Australian Delegation.

House adjourned at 10.11 p.m..

page 4688

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Means Test.

Office Accommodation

Mr Peters:
BURKE, VICTORIA

s asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notices -

  1. Is it a fact that space has been reserved at Vaughan House, Melbourne, for at least the last four months for the use of the Reporting Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department?
  2. Is it a fact that this space has not been occupied because the Attorney-General refuses to agree to his officers being shifted?
  3. Is it a fact that rent has been paid for this unoccupied space and that this condition of affairs is likely to continue indefinitely?
  4. Is the refusal of the Reporting Branch to move from the fourth floor of the Federal Members’ Rooms causing serious inconvenience to senators and members of all parties who desire to occupy rooms on that floor, and to members of the public who desire to interview such senators and members?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following information : -

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. and 4. In view of the particular nature of the work performed by the Court Reporting Branch, arrangements were made for the transfer of the branch to Vaughan House to be deferred until such time as the necessary structural alterations in Vaughan House have been completed. Members of the Reporting Branch are required to dictate their shorthand notes to typists in cubicles. It would be impossible for this to be done whilst structural alterations, with attendant noises, are in progress. The Department of Works and Housing has been asked to effect the necessary structural alterations in Vaughan House and that department is being pressed to complete the alterations with all possible speed. It is regretted that in the meantime some inconvenience is being caused senators and members who are awaiting accommodation in the Federal Members’ Rooms, but the honorable member may be assured that the Reporting Branch will not remain where it is at present located any. longer than is necessary.

Canberra.

Dr.Nott asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice -

Has any investigation been made by the department regarding thesale price possibilities of government-owned homes in the Australian Capital Territory?

Has a summary result of any such investigation been communicated to the AuditorGeneral for comment?

If so, can a copy of the Auditor-General’s reply to the department be made available to honorable members of this House?

Mr McBride:
LP

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

  1. The Government decided to Bell governmentowned houses to tenants in order that they might have an opportunity of purchasing their own homes. Having regard to prices realized at recent sales, it is felt that if these houses were to be offered by auction tenants would not be able to purchase them ata reasonable price. 2 and 3. The Auditor-General has not been consulted on the subject, nor is it necessary or appropriate that he should be.

Telephone Services

Mr Bird:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

d asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. In the allocation and installation of telephones is preference given to the owner of a partly constructed residence which is being completed with week-end labour, and will not be ready for some months, against an applicant with a residence and business on the opposite side of the same street who is unable to procure a telephone although an application for a transfer from his previous business address has been in for two years?
  2. Will he give instructions that no telephones are to be allocated to unfinished houses whilst there are people who desire them residing in the same locality?
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Applications for telephone services are completed under a system which provides for priorities to be allotted according to the extent to which the facilities are required in the interest of the community generally.
  2. It is felt that the existing procedure is satisfactory, but if the honorable member has any specific case in mind, 1 shall be pleased to investigate the circumstances if he will furnish me with particulars.

Trade with Russia.

Mr Keon:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice-

  1. What commodities of those sold to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are responsible for the increase of Soviet Russia’s purchases of Australian produce from £541,207 in 1945-46 to £12,360,186 in 1918-49?
  2. Is the Government aware of any reason for the heavy increase in the purchase of these commodities ?
  3. Is it a fact that, to pay for the £12,300,186 purchases of Australian goods, Soviet Russia exported to Australia only £189,767 during 1948-49 and that credits have had to be provided to finance the balance of these purchases ?
  4. How have the necessary credits to enable these purchases to be made been provided?
  5. What balances are at present owing to Australia by Soviet Russia, in what form are these amounts being held and what use is being made of them?
  6. Are they convertible to dollars or sterling ?
  7. Is the creation ofsuch a huge volume of credit in Australia to finance Soviet Russia’s purchases which are not offset by corresponding imports from that country having an inflationary influence on our economy?

    1. What assurance has the Government that these credits are not being used for the stockpiling of strategic war materials by Soviet Russia?
Mr Fadden:
CP

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

  1. Wool.
  2. Therehas been a strong demand for Australian wool from many countries in recent years.
  3. Goods exported from Australia to Soviet Russia during 1948-40 were paid for in sterling from Russian accounts in the United Kingdom under usual commercial terms. Australia n credits were not provided to finance pay ments for these exports. 4, 5,6, 7 and 8. See answer to No. 3.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 June 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1950/19500621_reps_19_208/>.