House of Representatives
5 March 1952

20^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SOUTH AWD SOUTH-EAST ASIA
QUESTION
- COTTON
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- SUBSIDIES
QUESTION
- DAIRYING
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- FOOD PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- KOREA
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- TEXTILES
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICY
QUESTION
- ANSWER TO QUESTION
OFFENSIVE REMARK
FORMAL MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT
- Precedence
KOREA
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- KOREA
UNITED NATIONS
- Text of Resolution
- The General Assembly,
TARIFF BOARD
- Timber
FISHERIES BILL 1952
PEARL FISHERIES BILL 1952
- Second Reading
LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1952
- Second Reading
ORDER OF BUSINESS
GOLD
- Gold Policy - Ministerial Statement
QUESTION
- MIDDLE EAST
NATIONAL SERVICE
NATIVE WELFARE
- Native Welfare -Report of Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, Canberra, 3rd and 4th September, 1951, and Native Welfare Conference - Ministerial Statement
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
ADJOURNMENT
- Mr. Pearce. - Yes
- Later:
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Immigration - Housing - Broadcasting - Olympic Games - Public Service: - Motor Vehicles - National Service - Pensions - Textiles
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Telephone Services
- Postal Department
- Merino Sheep
- Royal Visit to Australia
- Flood, Drought and Bush Fire Relief
- Social Services

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

page 849

QUESTION

SOUTH AWD SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– .Will the Minister for External Affairs inform me of the purpose of the visit abroad of the secretary of the Department of External Affairs and, at the same time, tell the

House the position with regard to the forthcoming, committee meeting arising out. of the Colombo conference?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– “With the approval of the Prime Minister I have asked the permanent head of the Department of External Affairs, Mr. Watt, to spend some time, as yet indeterminate, in SouthEast Asia. The visit is a reflection of my personal anxiety and, I think, of the anxiety of the Government, about the situation in South-East Asia as a result of the internal Communist problem in each of the countries of that area, and particularly’ about the potential Communist menace to the area from outside. The centre of Mr. Watt’s activities will be -Singapore where he will spend a third of’ his time. The rest of his time will be spent in travelling to each of the countries of South-East Asia. . I hope to meet him in Singapore, in a month’s time while 1 am on my way back from the - meeting of the consultative council of the Colombo plan in Karachi. By that time Mr. Watt will have spent one month in South-East Asia. I shall decide after consulting with him whether he is to remain there longer and what we shall require to do to strengthen Australia’s representation in the area generally. The meeting in Karachi is the annual meeting, on a ministerial level, of the consultative council of the Colombo plan, and will be held from the 24th Marsh to the 1st April. I shall represent the Australian Government at that conference.

page 849

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Minister for External Affairs, who is in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a question that relates to cotton growing in Australia and to the fact that the next cotton planting season is not far off. I believe that increased production of Australian cotton is vital not only in areas at present under cultivation but also in other areas. We are paying, I believe, a large subsidy on our own crop and the tonnage imported is costing us dollars. There are growing industrial facilities in New South Wales to handle cotton. I ask,- therefore: Has the experimental work carried out by the Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization at- Griffith, Katherine and the Ord River given definite confirmation as to suitable areas ? Saa consideration been given to the highlands of the central north-west slopes of New South “Wales, which by environment should be suitable for cotton growing? Will the right honorable gentleman forward to me any late information that would be of advantage to those interested in growing cotton ?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– The honorable gentleman is correct in believing that experimental work has been going on for, I’ think, four or five years at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization’s experimental stations at Katherine and the Ord River. I am not aware, although I may be uninformed on the point, that the organization is doing any experimental work at Griffith in relation to cotton production. The organization is not engaged in experimental work on the central or northwestern slopes of the Great Dividing Range in New South Wales. Most of its experimental work is being done in Queensland in which State the Department of Agriculture and Stock has been very active over the years in the same sphere. The results of the department’s work are circulated through a body of whose name and address I shall advise the honorable member later when I shall alao be glad to ascertain whether papers, publications or contacts that he may require may be made available to him.

page 850

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Works and Housing; it relates to the construction of prefabricated houses by Melbourne firms in New South Wales. Why are not firms in New South Wales that are prepared to tender for this work given an opportunity to do so? Is it a fact that Melbourne firms are doing a considerable volume of work in the construction of prefabricated houses in New South Wales under contracts let by the Australian Government? Is it also a fact that tenders for such work are not called through the New South Wales Building Trades Journal and, consequently, builders in that State are severely handicapped whilst Victorian firms are given an advantage over them? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that New South Wales builders, who could probably do the work cheaper as their plants Are more handily situated, shall be given equal opportunity with Victorian firms in tendering for these jobs?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I think that the houses to which the honorable member has referred are a certain number which were bought from the Victorian Railways Department. They are of a special type and were imported from Great Britain. They are really not prefabricated houses but pre-cut houses, and the Department of National Development required that they be erected in the particular district as quickly as possible. In those circumstances, the Department of Works and Housing, so far as I know, included the work in a contract, that already existed with the Victorian Railways. It was my task to arrange for the importation and the original erection of these houses. It was found that when contracts for their erection were let to a number of different contractors delay was caused by reason of the fact that each contractor bad to learn the mechanics involved in erecting them - each house might be described as a timber meccano set - and that loss of time increased the cost of erecting them. Finally, the Victorian Railways assembled a team to undertake the erection of the houses. I think that one of the larger contractors in Victoria did all the work. Furthermore, the parts of these houses are stored at what might bc termed the Victorian Railways ordnance store and the parts and building quantities are drawn as required from that store. As a special number of these houses were to be built in the area to which the honorable member has referred, it was decided that it would be far cheaper and that the work could be done more quickly by extending the contract with the Victorian Railways to include the work rather than to call for open tenders for it.

page 850

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr DAVIS:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether- it is correct, as I have been informed, that members of the Citizen Military Forces are being called up under the national service training scheme and whether call-up notices ave being issued te men in the 20 to 23 years age group? If this be correct, is such action in accordance with the policy of his department ?

M’.r. HOLT. - It is quite possible that members of the Citizen Military Forces would be or could be called up for service under the national service training scheme. The obligation to serve under that scheme applies to young men who reach the age of eighteen years after the 1st November, 1950, and quite possibly, some members of the Citizen Military Forces are in that situation. The fact that they are members of the Citizen Military Forces does not relieve them of their inability to serve under the national service training scheme. It would not be correct to say that men in the 20 to 23 years age group would be called up. As I have stated, the obligation applies to those in the other age group to which I have referred. I should be astonished to learn that through some error call-up notices had been sent to older men, but I shall be glad to have any specific instances brought to my notice.

page 851

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address the following questions to the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that for years the Australian consumers, including age pensioners, subsidized primary production, particularly butter, wheat, sugar end dried fruits, by paying a home consumption price far higher than the world price for those products, and much higher than the price at which such food could have been imported ? Is it not also a fact that millions of pounds have been provided for non-paying transport and postal facilities in country districts, and in freight concessions, bounties, subsidies and other handouts? Can the Prime Minister say what is the estimated annual value of these concessions, and will he give a guarantee that the contribution made, particularly by pensioners and people on low incomes, to subsidize primary producers will be taken into account when he is considering the demands of primary producers for world prices for their products, now that world parity is higher than the Australian price? By way of explanation–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman’s question is far too long already.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable member for West Sydney invites me to put in hand a very lengthy calculation extending over many years, and I have no doubt that such an inquiry would be extremely costly. Perhaps I may summarize the answer to his question by saying that it is undeniable that over a certain period the consumer in Australia subsidized to a degree certain export industries, of which wheat is an example. For a number of years, the home consumption price charged for wheat was in excess of export parity. That, as the honorable member will realize, has not been the case for a considerable period, and if one were to isolate the wheat industry, it would be easy to show that the subsidy, in effect, which was paid for some years in respect of wheat by the local consumer is far more than off-set by the concession made by the wheat-grower to the local consumer. I never feel a strong inclination to start a heated argument about such matters. They merely illustrate the fact that in a well-balanced and civilized community primary industries and secondary industries must act in aid of each other, and that consumers must take benefits and burdens from time to time in the interests of the productive industries.

page 851

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr BROWN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture give to the House any information on the suggestion that the control of butter prices be handed over to the Commonwealth? Will he consider the possibility of making the cost-of-production adjustments twice a year instead of annually, as is now the case? Will he ensure that the Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Committee shall have the figures ready well before the adjustment is due?

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

– The Commonwealth has said that, as a matter of policy, it wishes ‘to subsidize the dairying industry. Any plan that has been proposed for the purpose of stabilizing that industry is related to some guarantee by the Commonwealth of a return to dairy farmers. We had the experience of an intolerable situation in which the Australian Government was liable under a guarantee, but the State governments were completely free to fix whatever selling price they cared to fix. In that situation, the Australian Government had no control of its liabilities. This Government has now announced that, as an essential preliminary to the conclusion of another guarantee arrangement, the States must transfer to it control of the prices of butter and cheese ex factories.

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

– The Government took two and a half years to wake up.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Labour Government never woke up.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Minister should ignore the interjection.

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Committee may or may not be the cost finding authority, but I assure the honorable member that, whatever authority is appointed, the cost will be calculated and revealed in plenty of time to provide for a price adjustment from the 1st July as is customary. The question whether adjustments should be made twice yearly is a matter of Government policy which will be considered in conjunction with a general stabilization scheme.

page 852

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr CLAREY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform me whether the Australian Wheat Board intends to assist wheat-growers by erecting bulk storage heads in wheat-growing centres where silos are not now available ?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I think that I can safely say that the Australian Wheat Board does not intend to do so. The board handles funds that are the proceeds of wheat sold on behalf of growers. Those funds belong to the growers, and I believe that I am correct in saying that the investment of growers’ capital in that way would be untenable in law, as well as unjustifiable in equity. However, the States have bulk handling authorities, and bulkheads have been built at various places in Victoria by the Grain Elevators Board and in New South Wales by an equivalent authority.

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Tamworth: district of New South Wales is the chief poultry-farming district outside the metropolitan area of that State. Has the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been directed to the very serious shortage of poultry foods due to the fact that the mill at Tamworth is running only one shift because of the shortage of wheat? Will the Ministertake steps, if necessary in conjunction, with the Australian Wheat Board, to ensure that this critical position shall be relieved as quickly as possible?

Mr McEWEN:

– I have no knowledge of the position at Tamworth in particular, but I do know that there is such a shortage of locally grown wheat in New South Wales that that State is said torequire the importation of 8,000,000’ bushels of wheat in order to maintain something substantially less than a normal milling run. Without that there will be a serious shortage of mill offals for poultry and other industries. The Australian Wheat Board is concerning itself with this position and I shall be glad totake the matter up with it. Frankly, plansmight have been made to meet this position if the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture had disclosed to the Australian Government that there was an impending shortage of wheat in New South Wales when the problem was being discussed in relation to other States in November last.

page 852

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I wish, to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to the provision of tax relief for primary producers who have suffered from the effects of bush fires and drought. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation at Brisbane has informed me that hisrepresentatives will visit the Wide Bay electorate and other areas in Queensland’ in order to make inquiries concerning thelosses sustained by primary producers asa result of bush fires. These visits are te- be made in accordance with a decision that was announced in this House by the Prime Minister. The object is to grant deferment of certain provisional tax payments for the benefit of bush fire victims. Will the right honorable gentleman have these inquiries extended with the object of providing relief also for producers who have suffered tragic losses as. a result of devastating droughts? Many of them have invested a large proportion of their assets in stock feed but now have no use for the feed because of the destruction of stock. I ask the right honorable gentleman to grant relief on equal terms to sufferers from bush fires and droughts.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The announcement that I made on this matter as Acting Treasurer in the absence of the Treasurer related to fires. The action that was taken was prompted by the fact that bush fires had caused an extremely sudden and devastating calamity. Officers of the Taxation Branch of the Department of the Treasury and of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture have, as the honorable member has said, announced that they will visit various places, and they will deal with applicants on the spot. They have ample authority. To expand that to other cases might be to cause very great delay in dealing with the cases that we were aiming to deal with, and I do not want to have any delay that is avoidable in these matters. However, I may tell the honorable member that the position of drought areas is related to distinct problems under consideration at present by the Treasury.

page 853

QUESTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Is it a fact tha,t the honorable member for Macarthur is the chairman of what has been called a small committee of Government supporters which has been formed to study the problem of increasing food production in Australia? Is it also a fact that this small committee consists of at least 31 senators and representatives? If these are facts, is this unofficial committee functioning under government patronage, and is it being provided by the Government with transport to visit steel works and other industrial enterprises? Will the Minister say how many meetings of the committee have been held and when he expects to be in a position to present the report of the committee to the Government? Are any fees or expenses paid to members of this committee? Are government cars used in connexion with their transport?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The honorable member for Macarthur is the secretary of a committee of very experienced members of both the Government parties who are good enough, out of a sense of public duty, to spend their time, for no fee or reward, in acquainting themselves with the problems of primary industry in this country, and advising the Government upon them. They may or may not use government cars. If I were asked to supply them with a government car I should be very glad ‘ to do so. I think that the total number on the committee may be about 30. From memory, that is about one-third of the number of private members which the last Labour Government sent round the world for purposes which none of us can remember. However, I think that the honorable member for Grayndler, who is the Opposition Whip, could give some information about that matter.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I received a letter from the trade union to which the honorable member has referred, over the signature of Mr. Burke. I have to-day forwarded an answer to it and I shall be very glad to provide the honorable member with a copy of that answer. No doubt the union itself will circularize the contents of my letter to other interested parties, but I shall ensure that the honorable member will receive a copy of it.

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether there is any limit to the number of words that will be accepted by his department for transmission as an urgent telegram. Is there any concession in relation to the rate charged, when the wordage of such a telegram is in excess of a certain number ? If so, would such a concession apply to an urgent telegram of 1,105 words that I received recently?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I hope that there, are enough people with enough money to send at urgent rates such lengthy telegrams as the honorable member has described, because, if there are, my problems as Postmaster-General for this financial year will be considerably eased. There is no limit to the number of words that the Postal Department will accept as an ‘ urgent telegram, but however lengthy such a telegram may be no concessional rebate is allowed. If the honor-; able member can encourage transmission of more such lengthy telegrams I shall possibly extend a personal concession to him by way of commission.

page 855

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

page 856

OFFENSIVE REMARK

page 856

FORMAL MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT

Precedence

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron). - I have received letters from the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) and the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) each of whom intimates that he desires to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Standing Order 48 reads -

In the event of more than one motion being submitted for the same day, priority shall be given to the motion which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is the most urgent and important.

In accordance with that standing order, I give priority to the motion of which the honorable member for Mackellar has given notice. I point out to the honorable member for Lalor that the motion of which he has given notice attempts to deal with a matter that is already listed on the notice-paper and, consequently, a debate on it at this juncture might offend against the standing order that provides that no honorable member shall attempt to anticipate a debate on a matter that is already listed on the notice-paper. Is the motion of the honorable member for Mackellar supported?

Mr Pollard:

– It has not yet been read from the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall read it now.

Mr Calwell:

– The Chair should read both motions of which notice has been given.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The Standing Orders provide that the Chair shall read only that motion which the Chair rules to be in order.

page 857

KOREA

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Mackellar wishes the House to discuss the following definite matter of urgent public importance: -

Certain subversive and seditious statements which are being put forward by an official journal of the Australian Labour party, and which are calculated to lower the morale of Australian troops now fighting in Korea, to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United Nations, and to impair the defences of Australia.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

.- I move-

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion supported ?

Mr Pollard:

– Under Standing Order 101 I move -

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to order. I again direct attention to the last paragraph of Standing Order 48, which you, Mr. Speaker, read earlier. It reads -

In the event of more than one motion being submitted for the same day, priority shall be given to the motion which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is the most urgent and important.

– I again point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) that Standing Order 48 provides that -

In the event of more than one motion being submitted for the same day, priority shall be given to the motion which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is the most urgent and important.

In my view action taken by the Chair under that provision is not open to any challenge whatsoever.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. You have given an opinion and the question now arises whether or not that opinion is correct. First, you gave priority to the motion of which the honorable member for Mackellar has given notice. That was objected to and on the question of whether the preference you determined could be challenged under the Standing Orders, you ruled that it could not be so challenged. That also is a ruling, and, surely, an honorable member can question it in the ordinary way. The House may uphold your ruling. You have interpreted the Standing Orders to provide not merely that you may give preference to one motion, but also that the grounds on which you reach your decision are not examinable by means of an appeal against that ruling to the House. I submit that you are bound to hear the challenge to your second ruling.

Mr Anthony:

– If the House is to accept Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this issue, Standing Order 101 has no application to a situation that may arise should a ruling be incorrect. In such circumstances, the House would be completely impotent. Mr. Speaker may give, from his standpoint, a perfectly honest ruling, yet the majority of honorable members may regard it as incorrect, unfair and unjust. I suggest that those who drafted the Standing Orders visualized, in their wisdom, just such a position as has arisen this afternoon, and, accordingly, formulated Standing Order 101. In those circumstances, I submit that the motion of dissent submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and seconded by myself is in order.

Mr Holt:

– I propose to discuss only one point, but I regard it as of some consequence to the House. The view has been expressed by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) that a faulty ruling by Mr. Speaker would leave the House impotent. The position, if that opinion were correct, would be serious, but, of course, the House, as the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and the honorable member for Lalor know, is always master of its own business. If it be found that the Standing Orders do not enable business to be called on and the House, by a majority vote, wishes to have it called on, a motion may be submitted for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent that item of business from being dealt with. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the House would be impotent. The House has alwaysbeen master of its own business. It has placed certain authority in Mr. Speaker’s hands for a particular purpose. The House, if it wished to take that authority out of Mr. Speaker’s hands, could do so by a majority vote.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 41

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 42

NOES: 62

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate - by leave - interrupted.

page 860

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - As I have arranged with the Government of the United Kingdom to make a co-ordinated announcement of an important matter, perhaps that could be done at this stage.

The Australian Government, after discussion with the United Kingdom Government, has decided to send a famous Royal Australian Air Force jet fighter wing to the Middle East about July to join the Royal Air Force forces in that area. Until now, Great Britain has borne the whole burden of providing garrison forces for the important Middle East area. Australia has now agreed to contribute a part of the peace-time air force garrison in the Middle East. The Royal Australian Air Force wing to bc stationed in the Middle East is No. 78 Fighter Wing, comprising No. 75 and No. 76 squadrons and supporting units. The wing is at present stationed at Williamtown, New South Wales. Its squadrons are equipped with Australian - built De Havilland Vampire jet fighters. These aircraft will not be taken to the Middle East but will remain in Australia. The wing, on arrival in the Middle East, will be provided with aircraft and equipment from Royal Air Force sources and will be stationed at a Royal Air Force base for combined and advanced training.

Great advantage will accrue to the Royal Australian Air Force from its garrison service in this area, for it will give to many officers and men training and experience in an area which presents distinctive problems to air forces. It is expected that the wing will leave Sydney by ship about June, 1952. The eventual location has not yet been decided, but the use of a Royal Air Force base in Cyprus is under consideration.

The despatch of No. 78 wing to the Middle East will mean that the Royal Australian Air Force will be operating in three places overseas. No. 77 squadron, flying Meteor jet fighters, and No. 30 - Dakota transport unit- - are engaged in the Korean war. No. 1 - Lincoln heavy bomber - and No. 38 - Dakota transport squadrons - are serving in the campaign in Malaya under the operational command of the Royal Australian Air Force. No. 78 wing is at present commanded by Wing Commander Brian Eaton, D.S.O. and Bar, D.F.C., who is one of the Royal Australian Air Force’s most celebrated fighter pilots. He fought with great distinction in the Middle East and Southern Europe in the 1939-45 war.

I lay on the table the following paper : -

Middle East - R.A.A.F. Fighter WingMinisterial Statement. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on .motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 861

QUESTION

KOREA

FORMAL Motion fob Adjournment.

Debate resumed (vide page 860).

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The endeavour of the Opposition to postpone the discussion of this matter is perhaps understandable, but it does little credit to their intelligence or integrity. When . charges had been brought against a political party that its official journals were circulating subversive and seditious statements calculated to lower the morale of Australian troops fighting in Korea, to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United Nations and to impair the defences of Australia, one would have thought that the members of the party would have been anxious to clear themselves of such charges. The fact that they have tried to obstruct the introduction of this motion convicts them of knowing that the motion itself is justified.

I do not believe that this motion will have issue in any action. It is not so designed. It is designed to bring before this House certain matters that should be considered, and that may call for action after consideration. Nevertheless, the motion is both important and urgent, first, because of the substance of the seditious statements of which complaint is made; secondly, .because the statements are not isolated but form a continuing series ; and, thirdly, because they have been made in a journal that claims to represent officially the Australian Labour party which sponsors considerable members opposite. The statements have been made in a feature article which has appeared in a certain journal almost every week for some time. The feature article always has the same author and is known as “ Canberra Commentary “. These articles are published in the paper called the Labour Herald, which is officially described as ‘being published at “ 20 Trades’ Hall, Adelaide”. It also describes itself as “ The official organ of the Australian Labour party “ and a byline is added - “ Expressing the official viewpoint of the united trades and labour councils of South Australia representing 80,000 trade unionists “. I do not believe that, because I do not believe that there are 80,000 traitors among the South Australian trade unionists.

Honorable members of this House who come here under the sponsorship and patronage of the Australian Labour party must be involved in the publication of this official organ. They must either disown their own publications or convict themselves yet further. I shall now bring to the’ notice of the House the nature of the publications. I refer to an article in the Labour Herald, of the 5th February, 1952, in which the author, after discussing Korea, made this statement -

The soldiers fighting in Korea under the flag of the United Nations should be told that they are not fighting for the purpose of keeping South Korea free, they are embroiled in the extension and strengthening of American imperialism in Asia.

Oan’ one imagine a more dastardly or damaging statement? I again remind honorable members that that statement was made in an official journal of the Australian Labour party.

Mr James:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that a question cannot be based upon a press report. The honorable member for Mackeller (Mr. “Wentworth) is now basing his speech on a press report. I seek your ruling as to whether he should be allowed to continue along the lines he has indicated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Mackellar is in order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The author of this article endeavours to justify himself by referring to the authority of a Mr. Pritt and a Mr. Pratt. Mr. D. Pritt, the authority that the author has cited here and elsewhere is a traitor. He is a member of the Communist party although he has been a member of the British House of Commons. In order to prove that, I cite again an official

Labour publication, the New South Wales Standard of the 26th April, 1946-

Communist affiliation is the mosttalkedofsubject in British Labour politics to-day. The Communist Party in Great Britain has campaigned vigorously and effectively among the union.? for affiliation support.

The well known Communist lawyer, Mr. D. Pritt, has applied to the Transport House Executive for readmission

It is claimed by the London Daily Herald that Pritt’s application is a test case. If Mr. Pritt succeeds in transferring from the Communist Party to the Labour Party it opens the door to others; . . .

Therefore, there is no question about the treasonable character of this Mr. Pritt. If one were to read his articles one would soon come to the conclusion that he is an active and vicious Communist agent. Of Mr. Pratt I know little, but I think that in view of the nature of what is known about Mr. Pritt the Pritt-Pratt axis does not amount to much.

The second article that I wish to bring to the notice of honorable members is far more serious. It is so serious that I propose later to-day to circulate copies of it to all honorable members of this House so that they may judge fully its nature. It was published in the Labour Herald of the 30th November, 1951, and it starts off with a diatribe against the sincerity of the United Nations. Then it continues -

Workers should not allow themselves to be unduly impressed by the so-called peace talks in Paris.

The author then avers that the United Nations is a phoney organization. That is not the exact word he uses, but it summarizes his views. Lest anybody should think that he is referring to the Russians, the statement continues -

In the circumstances it should be quite obvious to workers that the representatives of the member nations of the United Nations Organization cannot be expected to do anything in the nature of establishing and maintaining world peace beyond, when they are compelled to do so, making virtues of necessities. Practically all of them are supporters of the capitalist system who act politically through the medium of anti-Labour Governments. As such, they will continue to talk at length about the need for world peace but will not be prepared to do anything constructive to make it possible or lasting.

That is a direct attack on the sincerity of our side in the United Nations. But even that is not the worst, because this author goes on to counsel workers that, if the United Nations is engaged in a war, they use their industrial power to stop that war. He stated -

Whether there will be another world war or not or whether there will be a lasting world peace or not will depend much more upon what the masses of the workers will be prepared to do, either one way or the other, than it will upon what the United Nations Organization can or is prepared to do. In other words, either war or peace becomes the order of the day to the extent only that workers make it possible to be so. They and they alone constitute the labor power required either to be used for the purposes of war or those of peace.

That taken in conjunction with the rest of this vicious article, is a direct incitement to the workers to down tools and allow the enemy to run over us should the United Nations he involved in war. The full infamy of that attitude can be gauged by the fact that it is an echo of a well-known Communist line that was first put out in 1915 by Lenin in a thesis The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War. That line was continued by George Dimitrov in his pamphlet The War and the Working Class that was published in October, 1939. It affirmed the directive on which the Communist party of Australia and certain sections of the Australian Labour party tried to sprag the war effort. Dimitrov stated -

For the working class, there is only one correct stand, an irreconcilable, courageous struggle against the imperialist war, a struggle against the culprits and the agents of this war primarily in their own country.

– I withdraw without reservation.

Dr EVATT:

– No slander or intimidation should be used by an honorable member to prevent expressions of opinion so long as they are not breaking the law that has been passed by the Australian or the State parliaments. If an opinion is not calculated to cause disaffection or disturbance it is not seditious. This House cannot dare to express an opinion about the seditious character of an article that its members have not even read. The honorable member has said that he intended to send copies of the article round to honorable members after the motion had been moved. Just imagine! Condemn first and look at the facts afterwards! That is the kind of justice we should have in this country under the honorable member for Mackellar. I believe the attack that he has made is completely unworthy of this House. He has not pressed it seriously. As a matter of fact, the objective of the attack i.3 so party-political that it amounts to sheer malevolence. I consider that the honorable member, by making it, is himself guilty of the very thing that he attributes to the Labour party - subversion. What he is attempting to do io to subvert the processes of the Parliament, to substitute for the courts of law the ex parte tribunal of the Parliament. I believe that his own party could not support such a revolutionary proposal unless it saw all the facts and considered that they justified the proposal. I do not believe that the facts would justify it. I say that if there is any subversion it is on the part of the honorable member, and that he has not produced one tittle of evidence of any other sedition.

There is a deeper and more sinister aspect of the matter. This kind of thing may well represent an attempt to introduce into our Australian democracy, of which this Parliament is representative, the doctrine known as “ Macarthyism “, which specializes in the slur, the- sneer, the innuendo and the quotation of passages out of their context. The honorable member has not even told us the name of the author of the articles. No, he will distribute the article later on! I think that the motion has the same object as that of another motion that was submitted recently, and that it is intended to refer to a distinguished senator. I say further that the honorable gentleman’s attack is in keeping with other speeches that he has made, which indicate a desire to convict people without a hearing. He is to be the judge of whether a person is, or is not, guilty of sedition. Just imagine the honorable member, with his so very apparent prejudices, as a member of a jury sworn to give an impartial verdict in a case in which the defendant was charged with sedition. Is the House going to be any less attentive to an issue of that kind than a jury would be? I do not believe that anybody, no matter how politically biased he was or how much he detested his opponents, could be so obsessed with hatred as to support a motion of this character.

The honorable member has said that he does not know whether any action will be taken as a result of his motion, but he wants the matter considered. There is a doctrine known to the law as “contempt of court “. There ought also to be a doctrine known to the law as “ contempt of parliament “. Judges have laid it down that before a case is presented by the prosecution it is possible to prejudice the community against the defendant. The court sums it up by saying that it is possible to poison the fountains of justice before, they begin to flow. That is what the honorable member is trying to do. Just imagine it being possible to hold a proper hearing after an attack such as that levelled by the honorable member ! If it be a reference to an honorable genusman who is a former Minister of the Crown, then it is a reference to a man who is himself an ex-soldier, who fought for Australia, who is the father of a man who lost his life in war and of another son who also served his country at the front. If that be the case, then it only adds to the contempt with which the honorable member is treating this Parliament. But worst of all is his pretended support of the United Nations. Just look at the record of his statements about the United Nations over the last two years. He made a most savage, violent, and unjustified attack on Mr. Trygve Lie, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Honorable members will recall that attack quite clearly. Its terms were so extravagant and abusive that I do not suppose anybody paid much attention to it, hut it is on record, and I shall not refer any further to it. He has not said anything in opposition to the United Nations since the outbreak of the Korean war. In fact, he was not interested in the good work performed and able to be performed, by the United Nations until the Korean war started. Prior to the outbreak of the Korean war he was an open opponent of the Secretary-General of the organization.

It is difficult to take the honorable member seriously, but it is a serious thing to impute subversive activities to a political party, when the only basis for the imputation is the kind of proof that the honorable member has produced. Just imagine placing such proof before a magistrate ! The case would be thrown out of court as rubbish, which is a good description of the case that the honorable gentleman has placed before us to-day. I ask this House never to condemn people until they have been heard. We do not even know the nature of the document on which the honorable member is relying for his allegations. He has given us no proof of what he has said. He has read one sentence out of what he admits to be a lengthy article. In a court of law the jury would be instructed to acquaint itself with all the facts, and not just some of them, before it decided whether sedition had occurred. If the Crown Prosecutor said, “ My case relies on the last sentence of a lengthy article that covers many pages “, but kept the rest of the article secret, the court would instruct the jury to dismiss the charge. I ask the House, which is, in a sense, the jury, though it is not exactly in the same position as a jury, to treat this motion with the utter and absolute contempt it deserves.

Mr OSBORNE:
Evans

.- I shall not attempt to simulate the simulated heat that was shown by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt). I rise to support the action of the’ honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) in directing attention to a series of seditious and subversive’ articles in the South Australian Herald, which is an official Labour’ party organ. The Leader of the Opposition has said that this motion is unworthy of. this House. I say that these articles are unworthy of the Labour party, which must’ say, in the interests of our national security and unity, where it stands in relation to them. The Leader of the Opposition has not by any means answered the charge that has been levelled by the honorable member for Mackellar. He has contented himself with making a vicious attack on the mover of the motion, and has made no attempt to answer the charges contained in the motion itself. He has complained that the honorable member’s letter supplies him with insufficient particulars. Yet he has before him a copy of the journal concerned, and so has the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). How can they possibly complain justly that they do not know the particulars of the attack? In case there is any possible doubt about these particulars I shall give to the Leader of the Opposition some information about the articles of which we complain. On page 5 of the Herald of the 15th February, one of them appears. This newspaper is described as an official organ of the Labour party, and is published in Adelaide at a price of 3d. a copy. Can the right honorable gentleman justly claim any longer that he has not sufficient particulars ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) who has been interjecting, must remain silent.

Mr OSBORNE:

– The other article is from an issue of the same newspaper dated the 30th November and also appears on page 5 in a feature entitled “ Canberra Commentary”. Has the right honorable gentleman that newspaper before him? If he has not we shall be glad to show it to him.

Dr Evatt:

– I should like to see it.

Mr OSBORNE:

– The right honorable gentleman made this nonsensical complaint that he has not sufficient particulars when he knows, as we all know, that the matter has been debated elsewhere. I say that his statement that he has not sufficient particulars of the matter is completely hypocritical. The two articles to which the honorable member for Mackellar referred are serious enough in themselves, but if any honor able member takes the trouble to read previous articles contained in back numbers of this newspaper, in the column entitled “ Canberra Commentary “, by the same author, he will find that they are a part of a serious and studied plan. They teach a political and economic philosophy based on the theme of class war. They say that war is caused by profit-mongering armament-makers, and that innocent workers are led blindly to the slaughter by such people on both sides in any war, so that the armament-makers may be assured of profits. The writer goes on to state that there is no hope in the United Nations, but that the only hope for mankind is mass action by the workers - in other words, by a revolution of the proletariat. If any honorable member doubts the force of my contention, I can give to him a number of similar examples.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– .Orde: ! If honorable members persist in interjecting I shall name them. I intend that speakers on both sides of the House shall be given a fair hearing.

Mr OSBORNE:

– Perhaps ‘any of these articles by itself might be described as innocent, but taken together in series they provide irrefutable proof- of a chain of argument, the purpose of which is to teach that the only hope for mankind lies in a revolution of the workers. Another issue of the Herald, that of the 25 th January, 1951, contains this paragraph in the same feature article, “ Canberra Commentary “ -

Already, aggressive and predatory financialism, primarily, has been responsible for two world wars, to say nothing of numerous other wars both before and since the two world wars. Whether it will be allowed to become the cause of another or third world war remains to be seen.

The same feature article in the issue “f the 23rd February contains the following paragraph : -

Their wars of the past, which have now developed into the world wars of nowadays - two of which have already taken place - and their policy intended will be to enforce both by direct and indirect means a master plan of imperialism with America leading the way. And representing, as it would, the highest phase of the development of capitalism that has yet been reached, . . .

The issue of the 2nd March contains the following paragraph, again in the same feature article: -

Thirdly, that economic capitalist warfare for world markets and monopoly control of raw materials by competing capitalist groups of imperialisms, has been intensified since the ending of the world war of 1939-45 and, primarily, is responsible for the war now being waged in Korea.

Nothing is said about Communist imperialism, and nothing about the Communist breach of the conditions and orders of the United Nations. Instead, the article claims that the Korean war was caused by “ competing capitalist groups “. The whole plan of the argument is plain. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that this is not the place to raise these matters if they involve sedition. We have directed the attention of the House to them in order that the Opposition may not remain in ignorance of the sort of thing that is being done in the name of the Labour party.

– I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr HAYLEN:

– Just before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I had said that the honorable member for Mackellar had not the fundamental “ guts “-

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron). - Order! I ask the honorable member to withdraw that term.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I withdraw it. Th: honorable member for Mackellar has not named the man whom he has charged with the most atrocious crimes of sedition and treachery. The honorable member has sought to advance a step further towards the introduction of thought control into the Parliament. All that the writer, about whom he complained has done has been to propound a point of view about the campaign in Korea. I remind the honorable member that statements’ of the kind which he now condemns have been published in conservative newspapers. But he has not directed attention -to those statements. The basis of this motion is a series of articles that were published in the Bulletin. I propose to show that the charge that the honorable member has levelled against the writer of the articles in Labour journals to which he has referred must also be preferred against the author of the Bulletin articles. If, as the honorable member has said, the former articles were written with the object of weakening unity among the Allies, the latter articles are more to be condemned. The writer of the articles in Labour Gall and Herald took as his text those that had been published in the Bulletin. The contention of the articles as a whole was that the Chinese Communists and their North Korean allies were better fighters than the Americans. Referring to the Chinese Communists, the writer said -

They did not come to the hill merely to take a hummock. There were plenty more like it behind them if they wanted hills. What they came for was to surprise and embarrass the Americans as they sat round their wellwarmed crap-game drinking beer with turkey sandwiches’ and reminiscing about Mamie and Dinah.

Those statements are utterly subversive and intended to prejudice American servicemen in the eyes of the readers of that journal. They are infinitely more dangerous than are the other articles in which the author genuinely raised the question of whether there might not be something wrong with the set-up in Korea. On the other hand, the author of the Bulletin articles, in order to drive home his messages, harped upon thu claim that the North Koreans and Chinese Communists were infinitely superior to the troops of the United Nations. Referring to the Communists he wrote -

Even though the Chinese Army is becoming modernized in Korea it is becoming modernized with a strong difference. Its modernization is strictly utilitarian. It strives after none of the democratic appeasement of the soldier and tender care of the moral, political and stomachic comfort which Communist propaganda have been largely responsible for teaching an absorbent Western Press and political world that the democratic warrior is entitled to.

It still applies its discipline with a strong hand and there is none of the silly tenderness of outlook which balks at calling soldiers “ privates “ or “ men “ lest they should feel that they were not as good as their officers. They are just plain gun-fodder.

The writer in the Labour journals was making an honest attempt to analyse articles that had been published in the Bulletin and had been written by a man who had visited Korea. The only passage in the former articles that is really in question is the following: -

The answer to the representative of the Sydney Bulletin is that the soldiers fighting in Korea under the flag of the UN should be told that they are not fighting to keep South Korea free. They are fighting to extend and strengthen American imperialism in Asian countries, and nothing else.

In the guise of patriotism, the writer of the Bulletin articles made a miserable and sneaking attack upon the honour of United Nations soldiers whereas the writer of the articles that were published in Labour journals courageously dealt with doubts that had arisen in his mind. The honorable member, in his quaint phraseology, said that he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The man whom he has condemned gave great discomfort to the enemy when he carried a carbine as a member of the Australian Light Horse in South Africa many years ago. Furthermore, his familyhas been sorely stricken as a result of war. One of his sons gave his life in World War II. whilst another son was in the merchant navy, the members of which are the heroic, unsung heroes of the seas. However, the honorable member for Mackellar does not worry about facts of that kind. He has sought merely to destroy a man because of his own insensate hatred of those who hold views different from his own. He has dedicated himself to the proposition that single-handed he can destroy the menace of communism. As he suffers from that abberation it is impossible to help him. As the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has said, the case that the honorable member made was completely muddied. It was discursive and so far has been supported only by the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne). Those honorable members gave a horrible example of spleen and posturing in making a most atrocious attack upon a man who had the courage to speak his mind and to stand up to what he said, knowing that in a democracy others who might defy him to the death would recognize that he had a right to state a point of view. It will be a sorry state of affairs if thought control should be introduced into this House and, as a concomitant of the treaty of peace with Japan a new menace, the Kempei Tai, should be brought here, mainly through the efforts of the honorable member for Mackellar, in order that the thoughts of honorable members shall be conditioned. All honorable members should recognize the rottenness of the case that the honorable member has made and reject the motion forthwith.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 41

Majority . . . . 13

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 870

UNITED NATIONS

Mr CASEY:
LP

– On the 22nd February, the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) requested me to prepare for the information of the House copies of the actual resolutions agreed to at the General Assembly of the United Nations, and to indicate in each case how Australia voted. I now have that information, and with the consent of the House, I shall incorporate it in Hansard. It is as follows : -

KOBE A.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the 5th February, 1052 by 51 votes (including Australia) to 5 against (Soviet bloc) with 2 abstentions (Chile and Yemen) relating to the Problem of the Independence of Korea.

Text of Resolution.

The General Assembly,

Desiring to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the negotiations in Panmunjom and the conclusion of an armistice in Korea, and

Wishing to avoid premature consideration of items .17 and 27 of the agenda of the present session,

I.

Decides that («) upon notification by the Unified Com nui uri to the Security Council of the conclusion of an armistice in Korea, the Secretary-General shall convene a special session of the General Assembly at the permanent Head-quarters of the United Nations to consider the above-mentioned items, or (ft) when other developments in Korea make desirable consideration of the above-mentioned items, the Secretary-General, acting in accordance with Article 20 of the Charter and with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, glial 1 convene a special session or an emergency special session of the General Assembly at the permanent Head-quarters of the United Nations.

II.

Requests the Negotiating Committee for Extra-Budgetary Funds established by the resolution adopted at the 352nd meeting of the General Assembly on 7 December, 1951, to undertake negotiations regarding voluntary contributions to, the programme of the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency for relief and rehabilitation of Korea.

DISARMAMENT.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the 11th January, 1952, by 42 votes (including Australia) to 5 against (Soviet bloc) with 7 abstentions (including India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Argentina and Egypt) relating to the Regulation, Limitation and Balanced Reduction of all Armed Forces and all Armaments.

Text of Resolution.

The General Assembly,

Moved by anxiety at the general lack of confidence plaguing the world and leading to the burden of increasing armaments and the fear of war,

Desiring to lift from the peoples of the world this hurden and this fear, and thus to liberate new energies and resources for positive programmes of reconstruction and development.

Reaffirming- its desire that the United Nations develop an effective collective security system to maintain the peace and that the armed forces and armaments of the world be progressively reduced in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter,

Relieving that a necessary means to this end is the development by the United Nations of comprehensive and co-ordinated plans, under international control, for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and all armaments, for the elimination nf all major weapons adaptable to mass destruction, and for the effective international control of atomic energy to ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only,

Recognizing that a genuine system for disarmament must include all kinds of armed forces and armaments, must be accepted by all nations whose military resources are such that -their failure to accept would endanger the system, and must include safeguards that will ensure the compliance of all such nations,

Noting the recommendation of the Committee of Twelve established by resolution 49fi (V) that the General Assembly should establish a new commission to carry forward the tasks originally assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments,

Establishes under the Security Council a Disarmament Commission. This Commission shall have the same membership as the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments, and shall function under the rules of procedure of the Atomic Energy Commission with such modifications as the Commission shall deem necessary;

Dissolves the Atomic Energy Commission and recommends to the Security Council that it dissolve the Commission for Conventional Armaments;

Directs the Disarmament Commission to prepare proposals to be embodied in a draft treaty (or treaties) for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all forces and all armaments, for the elimination of ail major weapons adaptable to mass destruction, and for effective international control of atomic energy to ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only. The Commission shall be guided toy the following principles: -

In a system of guaranteed disarmament there must be progressive disclosure and verification on a continuing basisof all armed forces - including para-military, security and police forces - and all armaments including atomic;

Such verification must be based on effective international inspection to ensure the adequacy and accuracy of the information disclosed; this inspection to be carried out in accordance with the decisions of the international control organ (or organs) to be established;

The Commission shall be ready to consider any proposals or plans for control that may be put forward involving either conventional armaments or atomic energy. Unless a better or no less effective system is devised, the United Nations plan for the international control of atomic energy and the prohibition of atomic weapons should continue to serve as the basis for the international control of atomic energy to ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only;

There must be an adequate system of safeguards to ensure observance of the disarmament programme, so as to provide for the prompt detection of violations while at the same time causing the minimum degree of interference in the internal life of each country;

The treaty (or treaties shall specifically be open to all States for signature and ratification or adherence. The treaty (or treaties shall provide what States must become parties thereto before the treaty (or treaties) shall enter into force;

Directs the Commission, when preparing the proposals referred to in the preceding paragraph, to formulate plans for the establishment, within the framework of the Security Council, of an international control organ (or organs) to ensure the implementation of the treaty (or treaties). The functions and powers of the control organ (or organs) shall be defined in the treaty which establishes it;

Directs the Commission, in preparing the proposals referred to in paragraph 3 above, to consider from the outset plans for progressive and continuing disclosure and verification, the implementation of which is recognized as a first and indispensable step in carrying out the disarmament programme envisaged in the present resolution;

Directs the Commission, in working out plans for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and all armaments ;

To determine how overall limits and restrictions on all armed forces and all armaments can be calculated and fixed;

To consider methods according to which States can agree by negotiation among themselves, under the auspices of the Commission, concerning the determination of the overall limits and restrictions referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above and the allocation within their respective national military establishments of the permitted national armed forces and armaments ;

Directs the Commission to commence its work not later than thirty days from the adoption of the present resolution and to report periodically, for information, to the Security Council and to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations when the General Assembly is not in session. The Commission shall submit its first report not later than 1 June, 1952;

Declares that a conference of all States should be convened to consider the proposals for a draft treaty (or treaties) prepared by the Commission as soon as the work of the Commission shall have progressed to a point where in the judgment of the Commission any part of its programme is ready for submission to governments;

Requests the Secretary-General to convene such a conference when so advised by the Commission ;

Bequests the Secretary-General to furnish such experts, staff and facilities as the Commission may consider necessary for the effective accomplishment of the purposes of the present resolution.

(APPROVAL OF THE WORK OF THE COLLECTIVE MEASURES COMMITTEE AND EFFORTS TO ENSURE RESISTENCE TO AGGRESSION.)

Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the 12th January, 1952 by roll call vote. Resolution A adopted by 51 to 5 (Soviet bloc) with 3 abstentions (Argentina, India and Indonesia). -

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming that it is one of the foremost Purposes of the United Nations to “ take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the “ peace “,

Recognizing that the establishment of an effective collective security system is in harmony with other United Nations Purposes and Principles as embodied in the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of disputes, which must be fulfilled if an enduring peace is to be secured.

Reaffirming its desire, as expressed in its resolution 377 A (V) entitled “Uniting for Peace “, to ensure that the United Nations has at its disposal means for maintaining international peace and security pending the conclusion of agreements provided for in Article 43 of the Charter,

Recognising that the ability and readiness of States to contribute armed forces and other assistance and facilities in support of United Nations collective action are essential to an effective security system,

Having received the report of the Collective Measures Committee rendered in accordance with paragraph 11 of resolution 377 A (V),

Noting the responses from Member States to its recommendation contained in that resolution that they maintain elements within their national armed forces which could be made available for United Nations service.

Convinced, moreover, that additional action should bc taken by States and further study undertaken by the United Nations for the establishment of an effective system of collective security under the authority of the United Nations,

Recognising that regional and collective selfdefence arrangements concluded in accordance with the terms of the Charter can and should constitute an important contribution to the universal collective security system of the United Nations,

Recognising that United Nations collective action, to lie most effective, should be as nearly universal as possible and that in the event of need States not Members of the United Nations should unite their strength with that of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter.

Takes note nf the report of the Collective Measures Committee and of its conclusions and expresses its appreciation of the Committee’s constructive work in the study of collective security ;
Recommends to Member States that, in accordance with paragraph 8 of resolution 377 A (V), each take such further action as is necessary to maintain within its national armed forces elements so trained, organized and equipped that they could promptly be made available, in accordance with its constitutional processes and to the extent to which in it? judgment its capacity permits it to do so, for service as a United Nations unit or units without prejudice to the use of such elements in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 nf the Charter and without prejudice likewise to internal security;
Recommends to Member States that they take such steps as are necessary to enable them, in accordance with their constitutional processes and to the extent to which in their judgment their capacity permits them to do so, to provide assistance and facilities to United Nations armed forces engaged in collective military measures undertaken by the Security Council or by the General Assembly;
Recommends to Member States that they determine, in the light of their existing legislation, the appropriate steps for carrying out promptly and effectively United Nations collective measures in accordance with their constitutional processes ;
Recommends to Member States that they continue the survey of their resources provided for in paragraph 7 of resolution 377 A (V);
Recommends to Members of the United Nations which belong to other international bodies, or which are parties to international arrangements concluded in accordance with the Charter, that, in addition to their individual participation in the collective security system of the United Nations, they seek to obtain, when appropriate, in and through such bodies and arrangements within the constitutional limitations and the other provisions of those bodies and arrangements, all possible support for collective measures undertaken by the United Nations;
Invites States not Members of the United Nations to take note of the report of the Collective Measures Committee and consider ways and means, in the economic as well as in other fields, whereby they could contribute most effectively to collective measures undertaken by the United Nations in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter;
Requests the Secretary-General to appoint as soon as possible the members of the panel of military experts provided for in paragraph 10 of resolution 377 A (V), to the end that they can be made available on request to States wishing to obtain technical advice, regarding the training, organization and equip ment of the United Nations units referred to in paragraph 2 above:
Directs the Collective Measures Committee, in consultation with the SecretaryGeneral and with such States as the Committee finds appropriate, to continue for another year its studies on methods which might be used to maintain and strengthen international peace and security in accordance Wit the Purposes and Principles of the Charter, taking account of both regional and collective self-defence arrangements, and to report thereon to the Security Council and the Genera] Assembly before the Seventh Session of the General Assembly.
Recognizes that nothing in the present, resolution shall be construed to permit any measures to be taken in any State without the free and express consent of that State.

Resolution B adopted by 57 (including Australia) to none against with 2 abstentions (Argentina and China).

Text of Resolution

The General Assembly,

Considering that a basic task of the United Nations is to secure and strengthen international peace and security, and bearing in mind that under the Charter the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security has been conferred on the Security Council

Recommends that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 28 of the Charter, should convene a periodic meeting to consider what measures might ensure the removal of the tension at present existing in international relations and the establishment of friendly relations between countries whenever sucha meeting would usefully serve to remove such tension and establish such friendly relations in furtherance of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter.

page 873

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

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

– I lay on the table the reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: -

Timber

Ancillary equipment for textile industry.

Fish oils.

Copies of the reports are not yet available for circulation to honorable members.

page 873

FISHERIES BILL 1952

Debate resumed from the 28th February (vide page 567) on motion by Mr. McEwen -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss the Fisheries Bill 1952 and the Pearl Fisheries Bill 1952 together, because they are cognate measures.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As no objection is raised to the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, permission is granted.

Dr EVATT:

– The Fisheries Bill 1952 deals with general fisheries in Australian waters, and the Pearl Fisheries Bill 1952 is drafted in much the same way. It will simplify the consideration of the two bills if I point out that this Parliament has the constitutional power to make laws with respect to fisheries in Australian waters beyond the territorial limits. That is a most important power. The territorial limits, broadly speaking, define the jurisdiction of the States, and beyond those limits, and only beyond them, the Parliament of the Common wealth may pass laws and make regulations on the subject of fisheries.

Mr Thompson:

– Is there a maximum limit to Australian waters?

Dr EVATT:

– That is an important point. The Constitution does not define the term “ Australian waters “. It has proved to be a broad and extensive concept. In the days before federation, the Federal Council of Australasia, which was a legislative body, and included New Zealand, passed legislation, with the authority of the Imperial Parliament, under the Federal Council of Australasia Act 1885, on various subjects, one of which was pearl fisheries. That act is to be repealed and replaced by this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to give power to regulate fishing craft and fisheries. That power is very wide, and includes authority to regulate, and authority to prohibit. It is important that the gap now existing in legislative enactments be filled. There is no power at present for the regulation of fisheries outside the territorial limits. The Commonwealth has the constitutional power to do so, but has never exercised it. The States have the power of regulation only within the territorial limits. It is extremely important that the Commonwealth’s power should be exercisable by the appropriate department in respect of fisheries extending towards Australia, and Australian fisheries extending towards other places, and that the Parliament should give the necessary authority for such regulation.

Mr Ward:

– How far does the Commonwealth’s power extend?

Dr EVATT:

– It extends to fisheries in Australian waters, but the term “ Australian waters “ is not defined by the Constitution. It is left to the courts to define “ beyond territorial limits “. The authority must relate to fisheries that are not within the territorial limits, because the regulation of such fisheries is the exclusive prerogative of the States, and must apply to what are called “ Australian waters “. In my opinion, that is a broad concept, and any area known to-day as Australian waters comes within the scope of that power. Let us suppose, for instance, that Japanese fishing craft come to the waters round New Guinea, whether it is the trust territory of New Guinea or Papua, or to the Australian coast, but well outside the three-mile limit. This Parliament has power to pass laws on that topic.

The importance of Japanese fisheries is not simply a subject for argument because the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) mentioned in his speech on the Peace Treaty (Japan) Bill 1952 that Canada and the United States of America already have firm agreements with Japan that keep Japanese fishermen away from their waters well outside the three-mile limit. Such waters are fished by the nationals of Canada or the United Stales of America respectively. We have no such arrangement, as yet, but Japan agrees in the peace treaty to negotiate on this matter. So long as the power deals with fisheries in Australian waters outside the territorial limits, there are no restrictions upon it legally. That is to say, “ Australian waters “ may extend 50 or 100 miles outside the territorial limits as long as such waters are Australian. I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) to consider this point, because it is my firm conviction that “ Australian waters “ is not limited to the area round the continent of Australia, but extends to all the waters round our territories, including New Guinea, to the Admiralty Islands and the equator, the territories to the Antarctic, such as Heard Island, and the territories in the Pacific, such as Norfolk Island - in short, all those vast territorial interests of Australia outside the continent. Can those areas of ocean be fairly called “ Australian waters “ ? I believe that, legally, the Parliament can pass legislation that the Australian courts will uphold, and effectively prevent Japanese fishing craft from coming south of the equator in the area to which I have referred. When I make that statement, I do not mean that the Japanese can be prevented by our laws from fishing south of the equator well to the east and to the west of Australia. But I consider that such measures may be taken in respect of our possessions to the north of the Australian mainland.

I come now to the broader, international aspect of this legislation. The Minister for External Affairs has stated correctly that legislation, authorized by this Parliament, is needed and that the Japanese fishing craft should be pinned down to a specified area. I do not think that the Japanese should fish south of the equator, which is an enormous distance from their own territories. When I make that statement I am not speaking of the Antarctic, although there are matters about fisheries in those waters that deserve special consideration, because the Japanese have broken every agreement that has ever been made with respect to the method of fishing in that area. I am thinking now of the fisheries nearer Australia. It is perfectly well known that before the last war the Japanese used their fishing craft for the purposes of observation and espionage in the waters that they subsequently tried to encompass, and indeed, nearly did completely encompass, to our disaster. The Government is in a difficult position regarding this matter, because Australia has not obtained what the United States of America and Canada took care to secure before the peace treaty with Japan - a firm agreement to keep the Japanese outside the Canadian and United States fisheries. A big protest meeting was held in California against an attempt by the Japanese to come to those fishing grounds. It is not that we wish to exclude the Japanese from access to raw materia] - in this instance, fish - but the Japanese have many fishing grounds nearer their own territory than are Australian waters. I hope that the Government will watch the position most carefully in order to ensure that our interests shall be protected. I am satisfied that he will have legal power, which Australian courts will recognize, to do this effectively under the terms of the bill. My remarks apply equally to the Pearl Fisheries Bill. Here is an instrument that is given by the Parliament to the Government in order to enable it to protect Australian fisheries and, indirectly, to prevent any abuse of Australia’s security. The instrument is sharp enough for the purpose. The Government now has the responsibility of using it effectively, and I hope that it will do so. The Opposition supports the bill on that basis and it will watch with keen attention the action that the Government will take to implement the measure, having regard to the menace that I have mentioned. The Minister referred to nations other than Japan. He said that it should be easy for Australia to make agreements with Indonesia and Holland in respect of Dutch New Guinea and with Portugal in respect of Portuguese Timor. It should attempt to make such agreements as soon as possible. The most important task, however, is to make an agreement with Japan that will protect not only Australian fisheries but also, looking well ahead, Australian security. The course that I have suggested is the course that the Government should adopt in relation to both measures.

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

f4.47]. - in reply - I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and the country that the purpose that the Government had in mind in introducing this legislation was, not merely to safeguard Australian fishing interests by enforcing conservative methods, but also to protect Australia’s interests in the widest sense. The opinion expressed by the legal advisers of the Government, as I understand it, does not coincide exactly with the expressed legal view of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Government’s advisers are doubtful whether international law would permit the exercise of Australian authority under Australian statute law over foreigners in waters outside our territorial limits.

Mr Johnson:

– That is, beyond the 3-mile limit?

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes. There is some doubt on that point. Therefore, if control could be secured by means of agreement, a positive step forward would be made. It would be unreasonable, and possibly futile, to attempt to persuade any foreign power to accept limitations on its fishing rights outside Australian territorial waters unless the Australian Government had statutory power to impose similar limitations on Australian nationals in the same waters. Qnorum formed.] This bill, when translated into law, will establish such power. I remind the House that Japan is under an obligation, according to the terms of the peace treaty, to enter into negotiations for an agreement in respect of fishing rights if it is called upon to do so by any one of the parties to the treaty. Australia, of course, will exercise that right. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong when he said that the Governments of the United States of America and Canada had secured from the Japanese, prior to the signing of the peace treaty, an agreement which entirely prohibited the Japanese from fishing in waters contiguous to the west coast of the North American continent. My advice is that the agreement placed limitations upon the quantity of fish that could be taken from those waters by the J Japanese and probably also upon the period of fishing and the area in which fishing operations could be conducted. The Government considers that this bill is essential to its plan for the conservation of Australian fishing resources and is a necessary preliminary step towards the negotiation of agreements with foreign countries.

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 875

PEARL FISHERIES BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2Sth February (ville page 568), 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 reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 875

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27 th February (vide page 434), on motion by Mr. Anthony -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The introduction of this short amending bill has been made necessary because, in the opinion of the Government’s legal advisers, the power of the insurance commissioner, under section 19 of the Life Insurance Act, to refuse registration to a company that wishes to enter the field of life insurance is not sufficiently wide. At least two companies that are already engaged in other forms of insurance are known to have such heavy expense rates that it would be unfair to the insuring public to allow them to obtain automatic registration as life insurance companies. Under the act as it now stands, the insurance commissioner would be required to grant them registration. The original life insurance legislation introduced in 1945 by the Chifley Government represented the first attempt that had been made in 45 years of federation to enact Commonwealth legislation for the protection of the general public in all matters associated with life insurance. Previously, life insurance was regulated by State legislation, which differed widely. In some States, particularly New South Wales, there was virtually no protective legislation. The Victorian Parliament, in 1936 or 1937, gave effect to the recommendations of a royal commission on life insurance that it had established, Strange as it may seem, all the recommendations of the commission were adopted in full. It was one of the few royal commissions of which that can be said. The Chifley Government incorporated the same principles in its legislation in 1945, and, up to date, the act has worked remarkably well. Persons who wish to invest their money in life insurance premiums for the benefit of their dependants and their heirs are able to buy insurance at a reasonable rate. Premiums are fixed according to the average period of expectation of life determined by the last preceding census. Surrender values and paid up policies are provided for. In every respect, the act is one of the best pieces of legislation governing life insurance in any part of the world.

However, the Government has now discovered a weakness that could not have been foreseen in 1945. It proposes that any insurance company which is not already registered for life insurance pur poses but which wishes to engage in that class of business shall not be granted registration automatically and that the Treasurer shall have the right to refuse registration on the recommendation of the insurance commissioner if in the opinion of the commissioner, its expenses of management are excessive. It is not commonly realized that in some departments of life insurance offices, particularly in the industrial departments, the expense ratio has always been high. In the 1930’s in Victoria as well as in other States, some companies had expense ratios of over 50 per cent., and some even 60 per cent. It should be noted that head offices of most of those insurance companies were situated in Sydney, and that there was no legislation on the New South Wales statute-book that gave any protection in this regard to the people of New South Wales. But the companies had to conform to such laws as were enacted in the States and particularly in the State of Victoria, where they had to conform to that splendid law enacted in the late 30’s. One of the best insurance companies, the Australian Mutual Provident Society, had an expense ratio of 28 per cent. in its ordinary department and 42 per cent. in its industrial department. I think that the Government is to be commended for trying to protect the general public and, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I congratulate it on following the general lines of the legislation that was so excellently initiated by the Chifley Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 876

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I move -

That Order of the Day No. 4 be postponed until after Orders of the Day Nos. 5 to 10, Government Business.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I desire to move, by way of an amendment -

That all words after “That” he left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “Orders of the Day Nos. 4 to 10 be postponed until after Order of the Day No. 11, Government Business”.

Order of the Day No. 11 which has reference to war service homes is, I believe, the most important on the noticepaper. As we are constantly hearing references to this matter in the ranks of the Government parties we should like to know what it is all about.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I rule the honorable member’s amendment out of order.

Mr CALWELL:

– I respectfully ask why it should be ruled out of order. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has moved that the business of the House be dealt with in a certain order. I have moved, by way of amendment, that the order of business be somewhat different.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) objects to the motion he may vote against it.

Mr CALWELL:

– I move-

That the ruling be dissented from.

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

– I rise to a point of order. My motion was couched in a form that is used only on special occasions. It has already been resorted to to-day, and it seems that the amendment of the honorable member for Melbourne is designed merely to obstruct Government business. I claim that it is entirely out of order and that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The amendment of the honorable member for Melbourne is entirely out of order and his motion of dissent also is out of order. Standing Order 106 reads -

Ministers may arrange the order of their Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day on the Notice Paper as they think fit.

The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) is merely exercising his authority under that standing order.

Mr Calwell:

– Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that a member is not entitled to move to alter any order of business proposed by the Minister? If the Government submits a motion surely the House can dissent from it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The House can vote against it.

Mr Calwell:

– Surely an honorable member can move an amendment to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I must rule that no amendment is permissible. The standing order gives to the Ministry the right to fix the order of business of the House as it thinks fit.

Mr Ward:

– Standing Order 106 reads -

Ministers may arrange the order of their Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day on the Notice Paper as they think fit.

That standing order may be interpreted to mean that the Government is in charge of the notice-paper. But the motion to vary the order of business on the noticepaper is an entirely different matter. In my opinion, once the Government proposes to alter the order of business on the notice-paper, it is quite clear that a member of the Opposition would be in order in moving an amendment to provide that a different order of business be laid down from that proposed by the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My ruling is against that. If the Opposition objects to the Minister’s motion it is at liberty to vote against it. If the motion of the Minister be defeated the Opposition will then be in charge of the House, and will presumably be entitled to arrange its business as it thinks fit.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 31

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 878

GOLD

Debate resumed from the 9th October, 1951 (vide page 403, Vol. 209), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the following paper be printed: -

Gold Policy - Ministerial Statement

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– I have yet to learn that the wages and conditions of workers in the gold-mining industry, and other industries, are not fixed by the method of arbitration, but the returns of gold producers are not fixed in that manner. When honorable members opposite interject and try to make party political capital out of this matter. [Quorum formed.] When I was so abruptly interrupted I was proceeding to state that it was arrant humbug for honorable members opposite to endeavour to make party political capital out of the fact that this Government has differentiated in relation to taxation by exempting the profits of the gold-mining industry and not the wages of the workers in that industry. The terms of a worker’s employment are governed by the principle of arbitration.

Mr Keon:

– That is nothing to do with the tax that he pays.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– It ill becomes the Labour party to direct attention now to what it describes as a discriminatory principle, when it held office for eight years and had every opportunity to give effect to the policy that its members now hypocritically enunciate.

The honorable member for Yarra has raised a very important point with regard to the possibility of a gold-mining company receiving disadvantageous treatment in respect of the tax-free exemption because it produces sulphur as well as gold. That matter has received, and is still receiving, the consideration of the Government. Several conferences have been held with the interests concerned and a policy on the matter will be announced at the appropriate time.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 881

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST

Debate resumed from the 16th October, 1951 (vide page 680), Vol. 209), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the following paper be printed: -

Recent Events in the MiddleEast - Ministerial Statement, 16th October, 1951.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · La Trobe · LP

.- This debate arises from a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in relation to Middle Eastern affairs generally, which he delivered in the House on the 16th October of last year. I made a statement recently in the House on a variety of matters connected with international affairs, amongst which I dealt with Middle Eastern affairs. That statement brought my report to the House on that important part of the world reasonably up to date. Since then the only event of signal importance that has occurred in the Middle East has been that the former Prime Minister of Egypt, Aly Maher Pasha, has been replaced by His Excellency Naguib Hilaly Pasha, who has now held office for slightly more than a week. It is too early yet to make any reference to any trends that may develop out of the new Prime Minister’s administration. I therefore have nothing useful to add to my previous statement to the House. The Government is kept fully informed of Middle Eastern affairs through our representatives in Cairo and also through the office of the Department of External Affairs in London. There is no outstanding matter of which I can acquaint the House that would be of particular importance to honorable members, so I shall not detain the House any longer on this matter.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr Calwell:

– Mr. Speaker, you said that the “ Noes “ had it, although it seemed to me that the “ Ayes “ had it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I always give itto the “ Noes “.

page 881

NATIONAL SERVICE

Debate resumed from the 23rd October, 1951 (vide page 970), Vol. 209), on motion by Mr. McBride -

That the following paperbe printed:-

National Service Trainees - Rates of pay - Ministerial Statement.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 882

NATIVE WELFARE

Debate resumed from the 21st February (vide page 222), on motion by Mr. Hasluck -

That the following papers be printed: -

Native Welfare -Report of Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, Canberra, 3rd and 4th September, 1951, and Native Welfare Conference - Ministerial Statement

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- The papers on native welfare that we are now debating were long and serious statements, just as other papers that we have had on this subject have been. Any honorable member who studies the situation that has existed over the last five years will come to the conclusion that, in common with all the other statements on the subject made by any government, this statement means exactly nothing. I mean that no change takes place as a result of the statement in the condition of the aborigines, particularly in the Northern Territory. Whilst we always get in these statements a plethora of principle, we also get a minimum of action. That is true of this report. At a scientists’ congress that was held at Brisbane about eighteen months ago, Dr. Cook read a paper on native health. Having regard to the facts that it revealed, it was one of the most brutal papers that could have been read on the subject. Dr. Cook, who was speaking to a critical audience, described the natives of the Northern Territory and Australian aborigines generally as centres of infection. The time has arrived when papers that are tabled by the Minister should set out evidence of a definite programme. They should reveal facts, such as the number of doctors who have been appointed to a real medical staff to deal with native health. Honorable members, regardless of party affiliations, are tired of having presented to them papers of the kind that we are now discussing. We require to be supplied with evidence of a programme which, if it is to mean anything, must clothe itself in physical facts. We should be informed about the setup of an actual organization that is really capable of doing something at the minimum level, which is the health level, for our native people. The paper now before us is similar to those that have been tabled in this House during the last twenty years. Honorable members will recall the Bleakley report which referred to native health, tuberculosis, and lack of training for half-castes. The Thompson report, which was published ten years ago, was couched in similar terms. Neither of those reports meant anything at all insofar as a change of government policy was concerned.

Although the present Government has been in office for only two years, I direct the attention of the House to its record in respect of native affairs. On three occasions I asked the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) whether he would set up a health organization in the Northern Territory, and on each occasion he merely replied that he was conferring with the States on that matter. The States have no authority and no responsibility in the Northern Territory; but the Minister thought that that reply was adequate. Subsequently, I changed the line and asked him whether new Australian doctors could be appointed to posts in the Northern Territory in precisely the same way as such doctors have been appointed in New Guinea. ‘ After all, the non-registration of qualified new Australians as medical practitioners is a sham. It is due not to lack of qualifications but to a trade union principle. Australian doctors do not want too many doctors in practice in this country. However, if the Government, because British doctors are not available for appointments to such posts, can enable new Australian doctors to practise in New Guinea in positions in which they are responsible for the. health and lives of both whites and natives, why cannot new Australian doctors be appointed to posts in the Northern Territory to care for the health of the natives? The Minister for Health hasevaded giving a real answer to questions that I have addressed to him on that point. I do not speak accusingly, because I do not think that any government in the history of Australia has ever got really excited about the problem of native health. Periodically, humanitarian and church organizations have taken up the matter. But it has been merely a case of some officer being sent to the territories to make a survey just as was done when the Bleakley and Thompson reports were furnished.

Dealing with the problem of the prevalence of yaws among aborigines Dr. Thompson, in his report which was made fifteen years ago, said that the affliction could be remedied by a simple course of injections and that as far as he could ascertain the natives were willing to subject themselves to the injections. Indeed, they coined a native term to describe the injection. Dr. Thompson did not think that it would be difficult to set up an organization to carry out that work. Dr. Cook, in a scientific paper that he wrote recently, made similar criticisms. Whilst I do not claim to be thoroughly informed about this matter, I assume that medical doctors would know their own fields and that when they made certain recommendations they would know what they were talking about. It would, indeed, be a change if instead of the kind of ministerial statements that have so far been presented to the House we were given reports that would indicate future Government policy and give definite facts about some organization that had actually been set up to handle the problem of native health. We want reports that contain statistics of treatment, because if the job is to be done somebody must be treated. A worthwhile survey of the problem would show that some improvement had been effected. I have no intention of attacking the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). Indeed, long before he ever thought of entering politics he disclosed an excellent approach on his part towards this problem. I submit that an increased appropriation should be made in respect of this section of his department for the purpose of establishing an organization to cope with the problem of native health. If the Government cannot recruit Australian doctors with the requisite qualifications, it is time that it enlisted the services of highly qualified new Australian doctors, because it has complete authority over the registration of doctors in the territories that it administers.

Kr. NELSON (Northern Territory) [5.52]. - I agree with what the honor able member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has said, and I shall not repeat his remarks. I propose to refer only to that section of the report that deals with the problem of mixed blood. The problem that arises in relation to full blood, including the education of the natives and fitting them to take their place in the community, is a long-range proposition; but the problems in relation to mixed blood, particularly the problem of giving them rights to which they are justly entitled, can be dealt with immediately. The Australian community has every reason to be ashamed of the injustice that it has inflicted upon these people- It is true that under existing laws natives of mixed blood can be exempted from the provisions of ordinances that apply to aborigines aud thus be enabled to enjoy, as a right, the privileges that are enjoyed by white Australians. At present, the onus is placed upon the person concerned to prove that they have the right to full citizenship that is enjoyed by their white brethren. That right should be mads available automatically to natives of mixed blood. To-day, they are placed in a humiliating position. They are liable to pay income tax and also to conscription for service in the defence of Australia. Yet, they are still denied rights inherent in full citizenship. The Parliament cannot possibly justify that position. A male of mixed blood is entitled to vote at general elections. Indeed, after he reaches the age of 21 years, he is obliged under penalty to vote as an ordinary elector. If natives of mixed blood are deemed capable of performing these duties and are also under an obligation to perform them they are obviously entitled to the rights and privileges of full citizenship.

I make this plea, on behalf of not only natives of mixed blood now living in our midst, but also unborn generations, because the latter will feel to a greater degree the humiliating position in which natives of mixed blood are placed to-day. That humiliation will be felt more acutely as the barrier of colour tends to disappear in succeeding generations. I again urge the Government to remedy this injustice immediately, not only in our own interests, but also in the interests of humanity. Considerable discontent exists among the coloured community, not only in the Northern Territory, but also wherever they may be found throughout Australia. They are now asking for rights to which they are justly entitled, and I believe that as a white community we should make those rights available to them, not only out of a spirit of generosity, but also on the ground of natural justice. In this matter the Australian Government should give a lead to the States by granting to natives of mixed blood in the territories that it controls full rights of citizenship which have been denied to them for many years.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– in reply - On behalf of the Government, I express appreciation of the manner in which honorable members have approached the matters that have arisen from the report that I have tabled.

Mr Ward:

– Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the state of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A quorum was called for less than half an hour ago.

Mr HASLUCK:

– The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), who led the debate on behalf of the Opposition, spoke in appreciative terms about the report that has been tabled and indicated that with very few exceptions members of the Opposition were prepared to deal with the problem of native welfare as a matter of national importance that should be divorced from party politics.

The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) made certain criticisms. Whilst I appreciate the force of a good deal of what he said, I point out that this report does not purport to be a survey of administrative action. It has been made as a result of a conference that the Australian Government initiated between Commonwealth and State representatives with a view to drawing up a programme of action. The report does not purport to give a review of what has been done. It sets out a programme of action in which the Commonwealth and States have agreed to take certain steps in- their respective administrative spheres during the coming year. The honorable member for Fremantle referred to the report that had been furnished by Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook collaborated with other Commonwealth officers in the preparation of that section of this programme of action which sets out in some detail matters- with respect to native health. He was one of the authors of that section of the report which deals with the health matters towhich the honorable member has referred-

I was very pleased to hear the remarksthat the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) made. One of the most encouraging and heartening signstoday in Australia so far as native welfare is concerned is that persons who> have lived in the Northern Territory and have been in daily contact with nativesand people of mixed blood are among the stoutest champions of the rights of our native people. Contrary to the impression held by some people in the southern parts of Australia, a very large number of the people in the Northern Territory are to-day sympathetic towards the future of the natives and have constructive ideas regarding the best means of helping them. It is also true, of course, that there arestill some who discuss the problem without sympathy. However, it would bequite wrong to imagine that the people of the north who know the problem best do not wish to see great improvements made. In fact, since I took office, I have found great encouragement in the attitude of the people of the north and, in contrast, have found that i» the southern areas of Australia, whilst it is true that many advocates of natives’’ rights have both experience and understanding of the subject, many persons whoclaim to be most certain of what should be done for aborigines and people of mixed blood have not first hand knowledgeof it. I welcome the remarks of the honorable member for the Northern Territory, and I assure him that what he said in relation to the rights of the people of mixed blood accords with the accepted policy of the Government which is endeavouring to ensure that all persons living in Australia shall have the privileges of citizenship as a right and that such a right shall be withheld from them only if, by reason of their present conditions, it be found that special arrangements are- needed for their guardianship and tutelage during a transitional period. I assure him that the Government will give serious consideration to the particular representations he has made-

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 885

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Message received from the Senate intimating that the following senators had been appointed members of the Foreign Affairs Committee: Senator Gorton, Senator Maher, Senator McCallum and Senator Wordsworth.

page 885

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Ministers of State Bill 1952.

Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1952.

Parliamentary Retiring AllowancesBill 1952.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1952.

page 885

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Debate resumed from the 21st Febru ary (vide page 189), on motion by Mr. McBride -

That the following paper be printed : -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I announced that the question was resolved in the negative and I shall not alter my decision.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 886

ADJOURNMENT

CANBERRA - Housing.

Motion (by Mr. ERIC J. Harrison) proposed -

TI) at the House do now adjourn.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I direct the attention of the House to a condition of inequity in the Australian Capital Territory which, I consider, lies within the power of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) to correct. For some time there has existed in Canberra an organization known as the A.C.T. Hire Car Proprietors’ Association. For several years, every hire car proprietor in the territory was a member of that organization. “Within recent years, the association, with the approval of the Department of the Interior, had telephone ‘boxes erected on the several hire car ranks. The telephones were leased to the hire car proprietors’ association and its members had the exclusive use of them. That system worked satisfactorily until about halfway through last year, when one member of the association, having fallen out with his comrades, resigned officially from it. As a result of that decision, he was debarred from using the telephones at the hire car ranks. The A.C.T. Hire Oar Proprietors’ Association, quite legally and properly, placed locks on the telephones so that only its members, who were provided with keys, could use the instruments. The effect of that move was to deprive the non-member of the association of the full use of the hire car ranks which, as I have pointed out, were established and are maintained by the Department of the Interior.

I do not cavil at the decision of the association to place locks on the telephone boxes, but I do take exception to the condition which so limits the activities of a man who has been granted a licence to operate as a hire car proprietor. When the ranks were provided with telephone boxes, the public in the Australian Capital Territory were persuaded by newspaper and radio advertisements to discontinue the practice of telephoning individual hire car proprietors, and to use the numbers of the several hire car ranks. The hire car proprietor affected by this decision approached me, and claimed that his living, and his right to make full use of the hire car ranks, were being limited. I had several discussions with him and also with officials of the A.C.T. Hire Car Proprietors’ Association at that time, and with the responsible officers of the Department of the Interior. The general decision among* them was that the best way in which the position could be resolved would be for the hire car proprietor concerned to rejoin the association so that, once again, all the hire car operators would be able to use the telephones on the ranks.

Possibly, the hire car proprietor to whom I refer is an irascible and perhaps a litigious man, but he did agree to sink his pride and rejoin the association, on the understanding that he would be welcomed back as .a member and that the position would be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. He made an application to the association for re-admission; it was dealt with at a meeting of the association last night. The application was rejected by one vote. The position now is that this man, although he is a registered hire car proprietor and holds a licence from the Department of the Interior, is denied full use of the facilities provided by the department for the use of hire car proprietors and the general public. I do not hold a brief for the hire car proprietor concerned or for the A.C.T. Hire Car Proprietors’ Association, and I am critical of neither one nor the other, but I believe that the decision that was taken last night by the association points to the need for action by the Department of the Interior. Regulation 26 of the Motor Hire Car Regulations, published in volume 2 of the Laws of the Australian Capital Territory reads -

Where more than one public hire car is upon a public stand the vehicle nearest to the telephone box on such a public stand shall, unless the person hiring selects a particular vehicle, have a right to the hiring.

– My remarks, Mr. Speaker, merely constitute a paraphrase of the letter that I have received from the man.

The second case that I have in mind is that of Ronald Archibald Davis, of 155a Denison-street, Dulwich Hill. This young man lives in a house occupied by eight persons. He has a wife and one child, and he has tried by all means at his disposal to obtain more suitable accommodation than he has at present. He located a house, for sale at Herne Bay, not far from the housing settlement there. He was told that an amount of £700 would have to be paid as a deposit. The negotiations were of such a nature, he has informed me, that it was necessary for him to conclude the deal swiftly. Otherwise there would have been no sale. The tentative contract would have been ‘ cancelled by the vendor. Last Monday the vendor notified him that, unless the remainder of the purchase money was produced, the sale would be cancelled. The deposit of £700 was in jeopardy. The ex-serviceman immediately approached the War Service Homes Division and asked that financial aid be expedited, but he was bluntly told that no more money could be made available for houses other than new houses and that he had been guilty of a careless gesture in. paying a deposit of £700. He thought that it was very strange to hear such talk from officials of the division merely because, in his anxiety to obtain a house for his wife and child, he had not consulted them in the first instance. Because the Government will not honour its promise, he is in danger of having all the money that he has saved since the war whipped away from him. Those savings include his deferred pay and the war gratuity that was conserved for the purpose of helping men to obtain houses. He has mentioned all these facts in a letter in- which he has made an appeal to me, which now I make to the Minister for Social Services. This man is under notice of eviction from the temporary premises in which he now lives under appalling conditions. As he has pointed out to me, his treatment, by the War Service Homes Division is a poor reward for the honest, unswerving service that he gave to his country.. He has suggested that, if the Government is in a dilemma, it can escape only by providing more money. It should not let this dreadful situation remain in the air until the Parliament goes into recess so that it will be left to the decision of public servants.

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 9

NOES: 73

Majority . ‘. . . 64

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr. Pearce. - Yes

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will return to the other side of the House.

Later:

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Lalor! Where did you come from? Were you inside the chamber when I appointed the tellers?

Mr Pollard:

– I am not required to say whether I was inside the chamber. All that matters is that I am here now.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not so. If the honorable member was outside the chamber, he will return to the place whence he came.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr HAYLEN:

– When I was interrupted by an ex-serviceman who apparently did not want to hear anything about the problems of ex-servicemen, I was trying to show, by reading two letters that I have received from constituents, how difficult it is for exservicemen to get houses. The first letter concerns a man who wanted to build a new house but. who found that in spite of the fact that he had £700 in cash it was impossible for him to do so.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. The honorable member quite clearly is defying your ruling about this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) will please refrain from any general discussion of war service homes.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I was speaking about this one man’s desire for a home. The second letter that I have already mentioned was written by an ex-serviceman who had bought a house for his wife and child but was unable to obtain any financial help from the War Service Homes Division. In his letter he said that owing to the shortage of money-

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order! With great respect, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you intend to enforce your ruling about this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! With equally great respect to the Minister, may I say I cannot keep track of what honorable members are saying while addressing me and at the same time hold a discussion about procedure in this House. There are too many interjections from both sides of the House. I ask the honorable member for Parkes to come to the point of his remarks.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 33

Majority . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the House do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 4

NOES: 79

Majority . . . . 75

In division:

AYES

NOES

Conversation being audible,

Speaker, that it is not the practice to call a former Minister as a teller.

Conversation being audible,

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 892

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

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

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– The Opposition opposes this motion. During the last three quarters of an hour, honorable members have seen once more that the Government is taking extraordinary pains, which are obvious to all, to avoid discussion on an item of importance which is on the noticepaper relating to war service homes. The hour is early and it would be quite possible to have a discussion on the subject. I am not going into the merits of the question, as I know that there are divisions of opinion on it which extend even to the Government side of the House. I propose, therefore, to move an amendment to omit all words after “ to “, first occurring, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following word : “ to-morrow “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) that the procedure in this case would be to vote against the motion. If the motion were defeated, the House would be forced to meet to-morrow.

Dr EVATT:

– I appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, and respectfully concur with it, but the amendment would have the same effect as the defeat of the motion. The main point put forward by the Oppo sition is simply and primarily that the House has an important matter to discuss. The Government is determined to use its majority to force the closure in order to prevent that matter from being discussed to-night. We wish the House to discuss that issue so that we may have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the House about whether this repudiation of the Government’s obligations to ex-servicemen in respect of existing homes shall take effect or not. We say that it should not take effect, and we shall therefore vote against the motion.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

. -The effect of thecarrying of this motion will be that this House will adjourn indefinitely. If the Government had disposed of all the business beforetheHouse there might have been some justification for such an adjournment, but in actual fact the Government wishes to adjourn the House, not because it has no business to transact, but because it has become greatly embarrassed by the revolt of certain of its own members against it because of its failure-

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 31

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 893

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harbison) agreed to -

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

page 893

ADJOURNMENT

Immigration - Housing - Broadcasting - Olympic Games - Public Service: - Motor Vehicles - National Service - Pensions - Textiles

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOLT:

– I accept the amendment that the honorable gentleman now puts forward. The whole problem requires more careful thought than possibly he has given to it. We in Australia cannot expect people to come here and accept all the difficulties that settlement in a new homeland brings with it while denying to them the opportunity^ which is one of the fundamental opportunities offered in any civilized country, to acquire their own, dwellings. I agree that we do not want newcomers to dispossess Australian citizens in order to acquire houses for themselves, and, therefore, I consider that this Government and, indeed, this Parliament can serve the country better by concentrating on the positive measures that can be taken to encourage housing instead of” looking for an additional restriction that will make conditions even -more difficult for those who embark upon the tremendously difficult business of settling in a new country. I claim that this Government has done a great deal in that direction, and my claim is based not on words but on actual results. I have before me an article that was published as recently as yesterday on the leader page of the Age newspaper, which, I think, enjoys the high respect of Opposition members. The article bears the heading,” “ What the figures show” and the sub-heading, “ New houses overtaking the urgent demand “. The article states, in part -

Slowly but surely the rate of home building in Australia is narrowing the long standing gap- between supply and demand.

The article points out that the number of completed houses in 1949-50 was 8 per cent, more than in the previous year, and that last year, the rate for 1949-50 had been improved by 20 per cent. The article continues -

The figures of the statisticians show that while home building is still a long way behind the demand it is increasing in a ratio which gives much ground for hope.

The figures in the article reveal that in 1948-49, 52,684 houses, including new flats were built; in 1949-50, 56,900 new dwellings; and in 1950-51, the first complete year in which this Government was in office, more than 69,000 new dwellings. Up to the 30th June last - and this is a significant figure - 83,722 houses were under construction compared with 68,000 in the corresponding period in the pre vious year, or an increase of 15,000 new houses in that period. That is not just a fortuitous result. This Government has recognized that, if it is to bring new settlers here, it must accept the responsibility for ensuring that they shall obtain accommodation and make their contribution to the problem of providing housing.

Mr Ward:

– Has not the Government any responsibility to Australian citizens in the matter of accommodation?

Mr HOLT:

– I inform the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that this Government has been able to provide more war service homes in two years than the previous record number in the history of war service homes construction. However, I do not propose to develop that theme, because in doing so, I should contravene. Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The figures that I have given for domestic housing speak for themselves.

I wish to deal particularly with the point raised by the honorable member for Melbourne about the purchase of houses by immigrants. I point out that such persons have been required to make a contribution to the housing position. Many of them have been under contract to the Government to work where required for a period of two years, and a substantial proportion of them have been placed in the timber, brick, cement and tile industries, which are directly related to housing. They also assist to build houses that they may later occupy. That, in itself, has been an important direction in which newcomers have been used during the first two years of their residence in this country. Europeans who come to Australia under the Commonwealth scheme are provided with accommodation. Other persons come here on the nomination of a friend, relative or employer upon whom we throw the responsibility of providing their accommodation. So, in order to relieve the pressure on Australians in regard to the acquisition of homes, we have acted in various important directions, such as placing labour in places where it can do the moat good, and in the industries that assist in the erection of homes. I shall not elaborate those matters because I believe that the facts that I have placed before the House speak for themselves. I hope that no political party, whether in the Commonwealth sphere or a State sphere, will try to impose upon new settlers restrictions so onerous that we shall discourage people from coming to Australia and helping us to develop this land and make it more secure. Australia i3 only one of many countries that are trying to attract new settlers at the present time, and I know of no other country that has placed upon the acquisition of houses the kind of restriction that the honorable member for Melbourne has recommended. I hope that his statement does not represent the settled policy of the Labour party, and that it will not be adopted before it has been carefully considered.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- Although the Government has not made a definite announcement, it can be assumed that the Parliament will be closed for at least a few months. Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to direct attention to certain matters that I regard as of the utmost importance. I have not yet been able to raise them in the House during the few weeks it has been open. First, I shall refer to housing. I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) that the situation in regard to the purchase of new and occupied houses by new arrivals is completely unsatisfactory. A housing official in New South Wales informed me that he and his colleagues know to the day how long a new Australian has been in this country, because the moment the new Australian completes twelve months’ residence, he applies for emergency accommodation. Nobody knows exactly where he has been accommodated in the interim period. It is all very well for the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) to read figures and passages from newspaper articles in an attempt to make it appear that the housing position is improving. Let him consider the position of one of the unfortunates who has been registered with a State Housing Authority for a long time ! He does not hope to get a permanent dwelling; he is merely seeking emergency accommodation; yet he has to wait for years before it becomes available. It will be poor consolation to such a person to learn that the Minister considers that the housing position is improving. The State governments cannot provide emergency accommodation for many persons, a considerable number of whom are ex-servicemen. The Minister has spoken of the Government’s obligation to new arrivals in this country. I do not blame the unfortunate individuals, who have been induced to come here, for the position, because they are human beings and must have somewhere to live; but the Government is to be condemned for having brought those people to this country, to add to the existing difficulties of the Australian community. A number of opinions has been expressed by experts about the housing lag, which has been estimated at times to be as high as 300,000 houses. The Government requires at least four years to overtake that lag, and that calculation does not take into account the provision of dwellings for new arrivals and young couples who will marry during that period. Therefore, those unfortunate people who are being dispossessed of their homes by new Australians with plenty of money must be in despair. Many of the persons who have been evicted are ex-servicemen. Whilst it is true that an ex-serviceman may make application to the War Service Homes Division, he is simply listed among those waiting for a house and, in fact in many instances he will be kept waiting for years. The housing shortage will become more acute as a result of the Government’s credit restriction policy, yet the Minister has the audacity to claim that the position is improving. I do not consider that it is improving. In my electorate, people continually ask me whether I can help them to obtain any kind of accommodation for themselves and their kiddies. Many of them live in basements, and the health of their children is being affected.

It is an absolute scandal that the Government should seek to close this Parliament for some months while people are faced with such urgent problems.

I now propose to refer to retrenchments in the Public Service. Honorable members have the right to ask questions without notice, or place them on the notice-paper, but my questions during this sessional period have been met with evasion after evasion on the part of Ministers. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) a question about a matter, the answer to which would not require days or weeks of research. I wished to know whether it was a fact that exservicemen were being dismissed from government departments and were being replaced with female juniors. Many of those men had been employed by the Commonwealth for years as temporary officers. The Prime Minister replied that he had no knowledge of the matter, but would have inquiries made about it. I asked the question some days ago, yet I have not received an answer. I am in a position to say that many exservicemen, who have had many years’ experience in various departments, have been dismissed and replaced with female juniors. One man whom I have in mind was employed in the records branch of the child endowment section of the Department of Social Services. He has been dismissed and his position taken by a female junior.

The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) is in charge of Commonwealth motor car pools in the capital cities. A direction has been issued for the elimination of overtime in that section of the department. Of course, that instruction does not mean that economies will be effected by a reduction of the use of motor cars. It simply means that various private hire car services are now7 engaged in running their vehicles after hours when they are required by government officials and members of the Government. Those private transport services are being paid an exhorbitant rate for the use of their motor cars, and the Government has not effected an economy because the cost of hiring the private vehicles is greater than would have been the case had the Common- wealth service been continued. The employees of the Commonwealth motor car pools have not objected to working overtime, and, therefore, I see no reason for the change. However, this Government always prides itself on its confidence in private enterprise, and is eager to pass any plums over to the persons who make contributions to its party funds.

The Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis) has informed the House that youths of eighteen years, when they complete their training under the national service scheme, are given the opportunity to decide whether they wish to join the permanent forces, which means, in effect, that they may be sent to any theatre of operations in any part of the world. That practice, in my opinion, is wrong. A boy of eighteen is not entitled to vote in Australia, and the official viewpoint is that he has not reached an age at which he is capable of making important decisions. But such young men are being induced to volunteer for service anywhere in the world by being deliberately placed in a position in which they would be embarrassed in front of their camp mates if they refused to do so. Many of them volunteer against the wishes of their parents and without realizing the possible consequences of their action. I believe that no person in the community should be called upon to make such a decision unless he has reached the age of 21 years or, alternatively, unless he has obtained the consent of his parents. It is scandalous that the Government should permit this practice to continue.

We have heard a great deal of boasting recently about what the Government is supposed to have done to assist the pensioners. But the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) exposed the hypocrisy of those vainglorious claims when he pointed out that the percentage of the basic wage that is represented by the age pension to-day is probably lower than it has ever been previously. The position of pensioners to-day is desperate. I notice that the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) laughs. He is not worried by the problem of finding a way to maintain existence from day to day. This honorable gentleman, with his tax-free allowance and increased salary, declared in this House recently that the Government had gone to the limit with social services and could go no further. I a-n glad that the Minister for Social Services (Air. Townley) is in the chamber at present, because I shall expose the shocking state of affairs that now exists. A Brisbane newspaper publishes a column, “ Your Good Health, by Truth’s Own Doctor “. Readers are invited to submit health problems for the doctor to solve. This is a summary of a letter that was written to the doctor by a pensioner -

Has only toast for breakfast, ae meat and eggs too costly. Seeks advice regarding meat foods on market.

The doctor replied in these terms -

If a pensioner, and find meat and eggs too expensive, want you go along any doctor you like and present pension card and get him to prescribe for you some Liquid Hepasol. This is free under pharmaceutical benefits act. Would lie equivalent to eating those foods which too costly. Like you take one tablespoonful three times a day.

It is all very well for honorable members on the Government side of the chamber to laugh, but the simple fact is that many unfortunate Australians cannot afford to buy meat and other important foods and are being advised by medical men to apply for special medicines under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- The remarks that I propose to make arise from those made by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). The honorable member referred in a rather personal way to my tax-free income. That reference came very strangely from one who recently admitted to having no fewer than eight banking accounts. At least, whatever I may receive, it is not necessary for :ne to admit to judges that I make my income fortuitously by dint of my wife’s making bets on horse-races, as the honorable member had to do not very long ago. I am amazed that this man has the effrontery to refer in personal terms to honorable members opposite him, especially in view of his astonishing record not only in public life, in which he has appointed near-criminals to responsible positions and has associated with criminals in a public way-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr GULLETT:

– It is all very well for you to say “ Order “ at this stage, Mr. Speaker, but the honorable member has cast aspersions on the integrity of those who sit opposite him in this chamber, and I think it is high time that he heard one or two home truths about himself. The truth is that he is honoured by no man in this country.

Mr Curtin:

– Not even by you !

Mr GULLETT:

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I take strong exception to the Government’s decision to terminate the current series of sittings at this stage, especially in view of the present impoverished position of many Australians. The Government proposes to adjourn the House until after the Easter season, at which we shall commemorate the crucifixion of our Saviour. But many of us will go back to poverty and despair in our electorates.

As a result of the action of this Government in permitting cheap overseas goods to enter Australia, 300 of my electors were dismissed last week and 300 more will be dismissed next week. Cheap rayon goods that were manufactured in Japan have been imported into Australia under the British preferential tariff because they were shipped from Hong Kong. Members of this Parliament have improved their own financial position by passing legislation that provides for the payment to us of higher salaries and allowances. But what of others whom we are supposed to represent? What of the pensioners? They have not been granted an increase of their miserable pittance. I shall not discuss the subject at length. I merely remind honorable members that we have helped ourselves, but have done nothing for the poorest people in the community.

A serious housing problem has developed in the Hunter electorate. A former military camp at Greta, which accommodated 14,000 troops during World War II., is now being used to house 12,000 new Australians. It is a holding centre for the wives and children of immigrants who are employed elsewhere. Some of the men have been sent to Queensland, but many of them have been absorbed in the heavy industries of Newcastle. I have asked the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) to make use of two vacant blocks of huts at Greta to provide accommodation for at least some of these workers and their families.

The Government should ask the New South Wales Government to institute a daily train service for these workers between Branxton and Newcastle so that they may live with their wives and children. Does not the Government want to promote happiness and contentment amongst these new Australians, many of whom suffered privation and brutal treatment under the nazi regime in Germany? I visited Germany in 1945 and I saw many such people who were then still living in the camps where Hitler’s nazis had persecuted and tortured them, because there was no other place for them to go after the Allies had taken control.

The Parliament should remain in session because the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) has recently returned from abroad and proposes to make a very important statement to Cabinet next week. When will the Parliament be able to discuss this statement if we adjourn to-night? What are the proposed economies that the Treasurer intends to recommend to Cabinet? Will they usher in another depression? Many Australians will suffer desperate poverty over the Easter period and we should not adjourn at this stage. The Burlington and Bradford textile factories at Rutherford have been severely affected by the importation of cheap Japanese rayon goods. The Rutherford factory was a munitions establishment and it is still owned by the Australian Government. However, I suppose that the Government will soon dispose of it to private enterprise. Perhaps that is why the Government has caused trouble for the textile trade. By the end of next week, the number of dismissals from the Rutherford factory will reach a total of 600. But this House will be in recess. Nobody will then be able to say a word in protest.

Motion (by Mr. Gullett) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 47

NOES: 28

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 901

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of Defence - G. de V. Gipps, R. V. Scammell.

Reparations - Assembly of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency - Report to Member Governments.

Services Trust Funds Act - Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund - Fourth Annual Report for year 1950-51.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act - Second Annual Report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority for year 1950-51.

House adjourned at 10.7 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 901

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Uranium.

Telephone Services

Mr Cremean:
HODDLE, VICTORIA

n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has he taken any action to institute an inquiry into the allegations of excessive and unwarranted profit made by advertising contractors for the classified section (“pink pages “ ) of the official telephone directory ?
If so, what is the nature of the action taken, what progress has been made, and have any findings been reached?
When do existing contracts for the classified section expire in each State?
Will he direct the department to abstain from approving future contracts until any contemplated or current investigation is completed and the findings available for consideration?

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answers the the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. Following on remarks made by the honorable member for Hoddle in the House on the 8th November, 1951, when he stated that the returns to the contractor in respect of all advertisements on the “ pink pages “ in the Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth telephone directories were in round figures £906,000,. of which the department received only £143,500, the matter was investigated closely. My inquiries disclosed, however, that the figures quoted by the honorable member were very wide of the mark. A careful estimate based on the maximum authorized prices which may be charged to advertisers showed that the total amount which could have been received by the telephone directory contractors throughout the Commonwealth from clients for the insertion of advertising matter in the publications as to the order of £320,000 for the 1950 issue. Of this amount the department received £157,000. In connexion with the Sydney and Melbourne directories, which include complete lists of business subscribers classified under their professional, trade and business headings, the amount paid by the advertising contract covered the printing costs and returned a good margin of profit to the department. Without these classified sections the department would have had to incur substantial additional expenditure on information, staff and facilities in the two cities concerned.

The contracts for the advertising rights in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania will expire with the 105.” issue of the directories.
Before public tenders are invited for the advertising rights for a further period all aspects of the matter will be reviewed critically in the light of experience and prevailing conditions. Should it be decided to dispose of the rights to private enterprise all persons or firms interested will be encouraged to submit offers.

Postal Department

Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

z asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is any information yet available regarding the provision of a post office at Newtown, Toowoomba ?
if approval has been granted, what will bc the location?
Will an existing building be used; if not, can any delay be anticipated in the erection of the new building?

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The need for providing a suitable post office at Newtown, Toowoomba, is recognized by the Postal Department which proposes to provide the necessary accommodation as soon as possible. - Negotiations with the owner of an improved property suitably located are proceeding. If negotiations are successful the existing building on the site will be converted to meet postal requirements’.

Merino Sheep

Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

How many merino ewes and rams has the Government allowed to bc exported from Australia?
By whom have the sheep been exported?
To what countries have the sheep been exported ?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows : -

For the two years’ period from the 1st January, 1950, to 31st December, 1951, 210 merino ewes and 223 merino rams have been exported from Australia.
It is not customary for the Commonwealth Government to divulge the names of exporters of any commodity.
With the exception of three merino rams and nine merino ewes, which were exported to the United States of America for scientific purposes, all other merino sheep were exported to New Zealand.

Royal Visit to Australia

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What expense was incurred by the Commonwealth in preparation for the recently cancelled Royal Tour and what were the principal items of expenditure?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– Immediately the Government learned of the postponement of the Royal Tour, action was taken to cancel its commitments to the maximum extent possible. The moneys expended in connexion with the tour are only a fraction of the amount voted by Parliament for the purpose. The greater part of the expenditure will not need to be incurred afresh when the tour takes place.

Flood, Drought and Bush Fire Relief

Mr Brimblecombe:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

e asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the total amount of the Commonwealth grunts on the £l-for-£l basis advanced to the States for the purposes of flood, drought and bush fire relief for the last three years?
On what basis of repayment, if any, are the grants made available?
How has this total amount been distributed among the various States?
Has any request for assistance from the States for these purposes been refused by the present Government?

Mr Menzies:
LP

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

The following relief grants have been made to the States since 1948-49: -

The grants have been made to the State governments on a £l-for-£l basis and are not repayable.
Distribution of the total amount among the States has been as follows: -

In no case has the Government refused to make a grant where a request supported by a properly formulated scheme for the relief of persona] hardship has been received from a State.

Social Services

Mr Swartz:

z asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

Will he state whether recent statements attributed to him indicate that he is considering some proposals which would alleviate the means test provisions for pensioners?
Will he indicate whether, in conjunction with these proposals, some examination has been made of the suggestions for a contributory scheme submitted by the honorable member for Sturt?
Will he make a statement to the House at an early date giving details of the progress of investigations into this matter?

Mr Townley:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

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

Yes.
Yes.
This matter is at present engaging the attention of the Government and I hope to be in a position to give the House some information on the progress of the investigations at an early date.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 March 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1952/19520305_reps_20_216/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 5 March 1952

QUESTION

SOUTH AWD SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Dr EVATT:BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:Minister for External Affairs · LP

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr DEAN:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:LP

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr DAVIES:CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KENT HUGHES:CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr DAVIS:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES

Mr MINOGUE:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr BROWN:MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

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

Mr POLLARD:LALOR, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McEWEN:MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr CLAREY:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr DRUMMOND:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

KOREA

Mr DRURY:RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:LP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr BRYSON:WILLS, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr COSTA:BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:LP

Mr TURNBULL:MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:CP

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr ALLAN FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICY

Mr McLEOD:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

OFFENSIVE REMARK

Mr ROSEVEAR:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

House of Representatives
5 March 1952

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr DAVIS:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

Mr BROWN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

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

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr CLAREY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr BRYSON:
WILLS, VICTORIA

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

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr McLEOD:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton