House of Representatives
6 April 1954

20th Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1954

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 21

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Acknowledgment by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire to inform the House that, on the 16th February last, accompanied by honorable members, I waited uponHer Majesty the Queen at Government House and presented to her the Address-in-Reply to Her Majesty’s Speech on the opening of the Third Session of the Twentieth Parliament, agreed to by the House on the 15th February.

Her Majesty was pleased to make the following reply : -

Mr. Speaker,

I thank you for your Address.

Would you please convey to all honorable members my appreciation of the kind and loyal sentiments to which the Address gives expression, and say too that both my husband and I are most grateful for their kindly references to our visit to Australia.

page 21

DEATH OF THE HONORABLE KING O’MALLEY

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– Since the House last met for the despatch of normal business, the death has occurred of the Honorable King O’Malley, a member of the first Commonwealth Parliament and a former very well-known Minister of the Crown. I desire, therefore, to move -

That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of the Honorable King O’Malley, whowas at the time of his death aformer member of this House for the Division of Darwin and former Minister of the Crown, places on record its appreciation of his meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow in her bereavement.

The Honorable King O’Malley died on the 20th December, 1953, at the age of 99 years. He was the last surviving member of the first Federal Parliament. He was born inWestern Canada in 1853. He was brought up in the United States of America and came to this country in the nineties of the last century. He became very quickly interested in politics and was elected to the House of Assembly of South Australia for Encounter Bay in 1896, and he held that seat until 1898. In 1901 he was elected a member of this House for Tasmania. On the division of the State into electoral divisions he became member for the Division of Darwin in 1903 and retained that seat until 1917. He was Minister for Home Affairs in the Fisher Government from 1910 to 1913 and again in 1915 and 1916. He will always be regarded as one of the notable men of the early days of federation and of the early days of the establishment of national policies in Australia. He was associated with many interesting events in the history of Australia. It was he who submitted in the House of Representatives the motion that utimately established the site of the Australian Capital Territory. It was he who called for designs for the National Capital. It was he who recommended in 1906 the establishment of Australia House in London. He was largely responsible for organizing the construction of the Trans-Australia, railway - the east-west line - and every honorable member knows, because we have debated the matter with such warmth and fervour on many occasions, that he was intimately associated with the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. That is a remarkable list of achievements for any man who has sat in the Parliament.

I did not have the pleasure, and I suppose that most of us did not have the pleasure, of sitting in the Parliament with him, but I remember perfectly well that, as a young man, I regarded Iris as a most picturesque and colourful figure. In this House, he employed a vocabulary that was extensive and full of life and picturesqueness, but I think that it is also true to say that in spite of all those dangerous attributes, he enjoyed great personal popularity in the Parliament. It is a very interesting, and yet in many ways a very sad thing for us, despite the great age of Mr. O’Malley at the time of his demise, that we now record the death of the last surviving member of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth. That Parliament lias an historic significance for us, and I hope that it will always be so. We do well to pay our last tribute to the memory of a man who, full of years, could look back over the entire life of the Australian Parliament, and, surveying the achievements of the country, say, “ These have been great achievements in which I myself played no small part “. On behalf of .everybody in this Parliament and many thousands of people outside it, I extend our expressions of respect and sympathy to his widow.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of . the Opposition · Barton

– I second the motion, which expresses our appreciation of the public services rendered by the late Mr. King O’Malley, and extends our deep sympathy to Mrs. O’Malley. I had the honour of being acquainted with King O’Malley, and I had, too, the honour of being with him on .the 99th anniversary of his birth. He had a remarkable career. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has dealt with it extensively, and I shall not repeat his references to it, but it will be observed that Mr. O’Malley was associated with crucial phases of the development of the young nation of Australia. Many details of his association with the establishment of the Australian Capital Territory could be mentioned, such as the acquisition by the Commonwealth of this large area of land, and the actual establishment of the National Capital. Those achievements will always be closely associated with his name. Oddly enough, no place within the Australian Capital Territory bears his name by way of a memorial to him. I am sure that that matter could easily be attended to by the responsible authorities. Reference has also been made to his work in connexion with the construction of the Trans- Australia railways. He was a pioneer in that project which linked, by rail, the east and west of this continent. Most important of all was his association with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. That great institution, at the time of its establishment, was regarded by some persons as a doubtful experiment, but Mr. O’Malley pushed on towards his goal from the first moment of his election to the Parliament in 1901. His name will always be associated with the foundation of that great bank. Indeed, it was said of him that when he was visiting Sydney on one occasion, he was asked why no memorial had been erected in his honour. He turned to the great Commonwealth Bank building and said, “ I regard that building, in a sense, as a monument to me “. He was a man of remarkable vivacity and exuberance of spirit. It is said of him in Who’s Who and other official books that he was born in the United States of America. That is not so. He was born in Canada, and he picturesquely alluded to the fact by saying that, because his birth-place was just across the border, he had escaped being the President of the United States of America by only 60 yards.

I cannot adequately describe the spirit of the man, even at the advanced age at which he died, nor would this be an appropriate occasion for me to attempt to do so. “We do well to honour his memory. I ‘believe that his name will go down in history as that of a man who was associated, not only with the physical development of Australia, but also with the growth of our spirit of nationhood, and who established the great bank which has played a notable part in the efforts of Australia, not only during “World War I. and World “War IT., but also in other periods of our history. I believe that it will be continue permanently to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable members standing in their places.

page 23

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– During the absence this week of the “Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production (Sir Eric Harrison), the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) will act as Minister for Defence Production and he will be represented in this House by the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale). For the same period, the Minister for Trade and Customs will be represented in this House by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt).

page 23

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Dr EVATT:

– I understand that the Minister for External Affairs will represent Australia at the forthcoming con ference at Geneva which will deal with the subjects of the Korean settlement and the very serious situation in Indo-China. Will the right honorable gentleman make a statement to the House as early as possible on the proposals, if any, which he will put forward on behalf of Australia at that conference, so that, if possible, they may be debated during the present short sessional period before the Minister leaves to attend the conference?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– Yes, I shall seek an early opportunity to make a statement, on behalf of the Government, on the conference.

page 23

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– During the last sessional period I made representations to the Treasurer for some improvement of the conditions of superannuated government officers. The Treasurer said then that the matter was under consideration by Cabinet. Has Cabinet yet considered the matter? If so, what decision has it reached?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– Yes. Cabinet has considered the matter and has reached a decision. A bill will be introduced later to-day to provide for an increase of superannuation payments.

Mr HAMILTON:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer say whether the foreshadowed superannuation legislation make provision for transferred officers of Western Australia ?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– It will do so.

page 23

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is supplementary to the question asked by the honorable member for Sturt. Will the Treasurer inform me whether a decision has yet been made to increase the rates of compensation payable under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– Yes. Later to-day a measure will be introduced to give effect to the increases.

page 23

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr JOHNSON:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Some months ago, the Treasurer discussed with a deputation representing interests in the northern portion of Western Australia an income tax exemption proposal aimed at encouraging the development of all the area north of the 26th parallel. The Treasurer gave the deputation an undertaking that the proposal would be examined by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. I should like to know now whether that committee has yet submitted its report, and, if so, when we may expect the report to be released?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The committee has considered the matter and submitted its report, which will presently be brought before the Government.

page 24

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN” PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– -In view of the misunderstanding that still exists amongst the general public, will the Minister state whether it is true. that a second payment is to be made to former Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese? If such a payment is to be made, can the right honorable gentleman say when it may be expected?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I appreciate the interest that the honorable member has taken in this matter. I think it may be more satisfactory if I have a precise statement compiled. If the honorable member will renew his question a little later I shall then provide him with the details.

page 24

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the PostmasterGeneral received representations from postal workers’ unions criticizing his department’s proposal to replace the telegraphic systems now in use in Australia with a new American system known as the “Tress” system? Has the PostmasterGeneral any knowledge of the value and efficiency of the “ Tress “ system ? Has he discussed the matter with the unions concerned ? If not, why not ? Will he undertake such discussions now? Is the honorable gentleman aware that the new system will mean loss of employment to about 500 telegraphists? Will he cancel tenders now being called for the installation of the new system which, it is estimated, will cost about £500,000, and defer further action on this matter until fuller investigations have been made and the relevant unions consulted?

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

– I am not aware that any representations have been made by the unions on this matter. It is possible that a letter was sent in while I was absent on sick leave, but so far as I am aware personally, no representations havebeen made.

page 24

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Navy aware that there is much discontent among employees at the Williamstown naval dockyard? Is he aware that agitation for a new agreement and the settlement of a log of claims has continued for the last seven and a half years? Does heknow that the Naval Board is responsible for this delay and that, as late as last December, it refused a conference beforean arbitrator on the ground that theboard was not ready to proceed ? Can the Minister explain why the frigate Culgoapassed the dockyard at Williamstown and went up the river to be overhauled and refitted by a private company?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Air · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is the first I have heard of any discontent at theWilliamstown dockyard. If the honorable member will give me particulars of the matter to which he has referred I shall have them investigated. I did not know that Culgoa had gone upstream and I doubt very much whether the facts havebeen correctly stated by the honorablemember. However, if he gives me his information I shall check it for him.

page 24

QUESTION

ATOMIC WEAPONS

Mr KEKWICK:
BASS, TASMANIA

– In view of the keen world-wide interest and anxiety concerning the hydrogen bomb, will the PrimeMinister give the earliest consideration to making a statement for the information of the public on the United States thermo-nuclear experiments?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– A great deal of public attention has been directed to this matter. If it will be helpful, I shall be very happy at some convenient time tomake a statement on the matter, so far asI am familiar with it, so that honorable members may debate it before the end of the session.

page 24

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY FORCES

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for the Army intend to make a statement to the House on the military amphibious- disaster in the Stockton Bight? If so, when can it be expected? Will the Government be represented at the coronial inquiry? Does the Minister intend to place before the coroner the findings of the military court of inquiry? Will the relatives of the deceased soldiers be afforded legal representation at the inquiry? If so, will the Government defray the cost associated with such appearances ?

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– A public inquiry by a coroner will be opened this day week into the circumstances in which certain members of the Citizen Military Forces lost their lives in the course of an Army amphibious exercise near Newcastle last month. The Government is anxious that the fullest investigation should take place, and the Army already has done all it can do to enable the police officers who are collecting evidence for the coroner to interview witnesses. In addition, the Commonwealth will be represented at the inquest and will give every assistance possible to ascertain the facts. From the military point of view, the matter has been investigated by a military court of inquiry. I have received a copy of its proceedings, including a supplementary report that deals with additional matters that the court had been reconstituted to consider. The publication of the proceedings of military courts of inquiry has been recognized always in England and Australia as contrary to public policy, and courts of law always have held that such proceedings are protected from pro-‘ duction. For this reason, I do not propose to publish the proceedings of the military court. In any event, as a coroner’s inquiry into these very matters is to be held so soon, it would be quite improper for me to make any statement that would anticipate the coroner’s findings or pre-judge the case. But at the proper time, and as soon as possible, I shall make a statement with respect to the conclusions reached by the military court of inquiry and the recommendations that have been made to me. I have received no representations for the Government to defray the cost of legal representation at the coroner’s inquiry of the relatives of the two lads who lost their lives.

page 25

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Labour and National Service give the House any idea of the number of trade unions in Australia that have been able to rid themselves of Communist dictatorship as a result of the secret ballot legislation introduced by this Government?

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

– Offhand, I cannot give the honorable gentleman the information for which he has asked, but I can tell him that, since the legislation came into operation in July, 1951, 66 applications have been made by various trade unions under its provisions, and that 50 of those applications have been granted and elections held accordingly. I can assure him that a direct consequence of the holding of honestly conducted ballots has been, in several unions, to remove Communist officials from office, and in others, to reduce the number of Communist officials holding office. It can be claimed fairly that even in those unions in which the effect of the legislation has not been to remove a particular official from office, the knowledge that, if the policies pursued by him are too far out of line with rank and file opinion, the position can be remedied at the ballot-box has had a very salutary effect. I am quite certain that much of the improvement which has been so evident since that time in our industrial relations can be traced to the very valuable influence of that legislation.

page 25

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Treasurer make provision in the Additional Estimates to be considered daring this sessional period for age and invalid pensions . to be increased by 10s. a week ? I remind the right honorable gentleman that such pensions were increased by only 2s. 6d. a week by the 1953-54 budget, and that our worthy pioneers are now in a serious plight as a result of the greatly increased cost of living.

Sir ARTHUR ‘ FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is, “No”.

page 25

QUESTION

WINE

Mr ROBERTON:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether he will send an experienced ; departmental officer to the Mumimbidgee irrigation area to investigate the situation that has developed there as a result of the cessation of operations by certain wineries which had been engaged in processing the prolific harvest of wine grapes, with a view to the Government taking appropriate action? I point out that the present grievous situation threatens to affect adversely the economy not only of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, but also of .the nation as a whole.

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

– I shall be very glad to investigate immediately the situation to which the honorable member has referred. However, I point out that this Government does not engage in investigations of situations over which the Commonwealth has no control, or which are outside the ambit of its authority. I am not aware whether the situation mentioned by the honorable member for Riverina is within the ambit of the Commonwealth’s authority. In connexion with problems which are capable of solution only by State action, or by a combination of State and Federal action, the Commonwealth, in co-operation with, and with the approval of, the State governments, makes its officers available for investigation purposes. I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the honorable member, and if the circumstances surrounding it conform to the conditions I have mentioned, the answer to his question will be, “ Yes “.

page 26

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– “Will the Treasurer say whether the Commonwealth loans organization has published a brochure entitled Answers to Investment Problems, in which answer No. 3 states that bonds can be sold on the market and that, in order to keep the market stable, the Government is a buyer? Will the right honorable gentleman inform the House why no mention is made in the publication of the fact that many charitable institutions incurred great losses when they found it necessary to sell their Commonwealth bonds, due to the fact that increased rates of interest are payable on more recent loans? Will the Treasurer take steps to ensure that in the future, when such institutions find it necessary to sell their Commonwealth bonds, they will not be penalized by incurring capital losses ?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The honorable member should have directed his question to the Australian Loan Council.

page 26

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Can the Minister for Territories inform me whether the Government is taking any action to check the credentials and financial stability of mining companies which are interesting themselves in the mining of uranium ore and other minerals in the Northern Territory? I appreciate the fact that many reputable companies are so engaged at the present time, but in view of the national importance of uranium and the mineral development generally of the Northern Territory, I should like to receive the Minister’s assurance that adequate safeguards are in existence to prevent a repetition of the conditions of the bad old days at the turn of the century, when investors were robbed of millions of pounds by unscrupulous company promoters. The mining industry suffered such a reverse as a result of such activities during that period that it is only now recovering.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The- two functions relating to this matter which come under the Administrator of the Northern Territory are the issuing of leases or permits for persons engaged in mining, and the registration of companies. I am sure that in regard to both of these matters the Administrator is applying principles that are in the best interests of the public.

page 26

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Prime Minister a question that arises from the Royal Tour of Australia. Does the right honorable gentleman agree that the conclusion of Her Majesty’s first magnificent, visit to this country immediately gave rise to the hope in Australian hearts that she and members of her family will come here frequently in the future, and in circumstances less formal and less precisely arranged than was possible on her first ceremonial visit ? Does the Prime Minister also agree that this hope would be brought nearer to fruition if the Queen had a house of her own in Australia, and that this would remove a circumstance that seems most inappropriate - that is, that the Queen should be a guest in her own country? Will the Government consider, at the proper time, a means of allowing the Australian people to provide m house for their Queen in Australia ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The question of a residence, or some establishment, in Australia for the Queen, and, indeed, for other members of the Royal Family, has received informal consideration for some time. I think that it would be the view of honorable members on both sides pf the House that such an arrangement would he desirable. I am sure that nobody would debate a proper provision for it. One thing that really deserves close attention is that it is one thing to have a Royal visit in the form of a tour of a highly organized kind and of a very strenuous nature and quite another to have less formal visits. I think that if highly organized tours were to be the inevitable future pattern of visits by the Crown it might be difficult to have such visits very frequently. On the other hand, if we in Australia can move into the position in which the Queen or a member of the Royal Family came on a 3hort visit and took up residence here, so that she or that member of her family would be in her or his own country without the inevitable characteristics of a tour, then I think much good might come from it. My own view is that we should do well to endeavour to get the best out of this matter by accommodating ourselves to the idea that from time to time the monarch, or another member of the Royal Family, could come here without necessarily engaging in a long organized tour, and that perhaps on other occasions, at somewhat longer intervals, a tour of the kind that we have just had with such pleasure and such advantage might be engaged in. The whole matter is under consideration. I myself believe, I think rightly, that it would not be a controversial matter in this Parliament or indeed among the Australian people.

page 27

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Territories whether it is a fact that a court at Wewak, in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, has commenced the hearing of charges arising from the killing of two patrol officers at Telefomin. If it is a fact, will the Minister say whether the next of kin of the deceased officers have been informed of the proceedings? If they have not been informed, will he have them informed immediately so as to enable the bereaved relatives to be present at the hearing? Also, if the relatives have not been informed, will he take steps to adjourn the hearing to enable those people who are so vitally interested in it, to have an opportunity to be present at it, with counsel, and give such information as they are able to give to the Crown, and so permit justice to be done?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– The position in regard to the incident at Telefomin is that the officers of the Department of District Services have completed very extensive investigations and have, I think, brought in a total of 84 natives, some of whom undoubtedly will be charged with having been directly implicated whilst others may be called upon as witnesses. Preliminary inquiries are proceeding at Wewak. The trial, if it emerges, is more likely to take place in a month or two. Having regard to the fact that it will be a criminal trial in which certain natives will have criminal charges laid against them and will be prosecuted by the Crown, I suggest to the honorable member for Macquarie that the position of the relatives of the victims will not be directly involved in the proceedings. That is to say, there is no question affecting the interests of the deceased or their relatives which will come under the scrutiny of the court. Moreover, having regard to the circumstances of the deaths of the two young men, I think that it would be rather distressing for any of their near relatives to be present and to hear such evidence as may be given. The Government has made arrangements for the parents of the boy who was buried in the Territory to visit their son’s grave.

The Government has also arranged for the remains of the other boy to be brought to Australia and interred where the relatives desire. The Government will keep the relatives closely informed pf the proceedings.

page 28

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for Social Services a question relating to the rather long delay which occurred in reaching finality in applications by ex-servicemen for assistance under the terms of the war service homes legislation at the end of last year. Has the Minister succeeded in taking any action to reduce this delay, particularly in Queensland? If so, how long a time now elapses before an application for the purchase of an existing property can be finalized ?

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

– The Government has been able to eliminate the waiting period for the purchase of existing properties by ex-servicemen and instructions have been issued to the War Service Homes Division to settle all cases received by the 30th June next.

page 28

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for the Interior lay on the table of the House the tenders received for new work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme and will he indicate who the tenderers are and the amount of each tender?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– The subject to which the honorable member has referred is a matter for the Minister for National Development and I suggest that the honorable member should have the question asked in another place.

page 28

QUESTION

MANUS ISLAND

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for the Navy and Minister for Air inform the House of the stage that has been reached in the work of reconstructing the air base and naval base at Manus Island? Is this work being done by service personnel?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– All work at Manus is now being done by Navy and Air Force personnel. Manus is primarily a forward naval base and all the work essential to the activities of a forward naval base have been completed. Some work remains to be done but it cannot be classified as essential work. The Royal Australian Air Force base has gone ahead rapidly. The airfield construction squad that was sent there about eighteen months ago has done a remarkably good job, and the essential facilities now exist at the Manus airfield.

page 28

PACIFIC ISLANDS SURVEY

Mr. Ward. - Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no need for the honorable member to call out in that way because he is one of my most consistent customers.

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the .Prime Minister. When did .the United States of America first approach the Australian Government with a proposition to use Japanese personnel in the carrying out of a survey of the waters to. the north of Australia ? What action was taken by the Government following the receipt of the request, and what reply was forwarded to the United States authorities? Why was information regarding this request and the Government’s attitude withheld from the Australian public? Whatever the Government’s original reasons were for shrouding this transaction in complete secrecy, I ask the right honorable gentleman whether he will, having regard to the public’s present state of knowledge about this matter, make available to the Parliament the correspondence and messages which have passed between the United States and Australia on this subject?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I hope that I shall be forgiven for not remembering the date on which the United States of America first communicated with us, but I do know that on the first occasion on which the matter was discussed by the Cabinet we sent . a message to the United States of America to the effect that we would not accept the use of Japanese in the course of the survey. The United States of America, which had used Japanese in its own survey of its own islands, at once appreciated the point that we were making, and the state of our minds, and agreed that it would not so use Japanese. Since then other arrangements have been made, extremely advantageous to Australia, under which a survey of great importance to us will be carried out at the expense of the United States. The whole incident terminated very satisfactorily from the viewpoint of Australia. I am a little puzzled by the concern of the honorable member for East Sydney about the proximity of Japanese to New Guinea, because I remember vividly his own views, stated not so long ago, that New Guinea should be allowed to look after itself.

Mr BRUCE:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister place on the table of the House all documents and correspondence that relate to the agreement between the American and Australian Governments to use Japanese personnel in the survey of the northern Australian coast and the islands to the north of Australia ?

Mr MENZIES:

– I am always delighted to do anything that the honorable member asks me. to do, but I cannot do what he now asks because, as I have just indicated previously, there is no agreement to use Japanese personnel, and consequently I can hardly table it.

page 29

QUESTION

TUROSS RIVER BRIDGE

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for the Army relates to the broken bridge over the Tuross river which, as honorable members know, has seriously interrupted, communications to the south coast of New South Wales, an area that is largely dependent upon road traffic. Has the Premier of New South Wales attempted to get in touch with the Commonwealth authorities to ascertain whether army engineering units could help in the immediate alleviation of this situation by the use of a Bailey bridge or other equipment? If the Premier of New South Wales should contact the Commonwealth authorities about this matter, would the Army be in a position to make such facilities available, and thus assist in the restoration of normal traffic to the area concerned ?

Mr FRANCIS:
LP

– The honorable member was good enough to indicate previously his interest in this matter. I have made inquiries and have discovered that the Army has a suitable Bailey bridge available, but the procedure that has been laid down is that when Commonwealth assistance to States is desired in matters of the kind mentioned by the honorable member, a request must first come from the Premier of the State concerned to the Prime Minister. I am satisfied that if representations are made by the Premier of New South Wales to the Prime Minister, the matter will . be carefully considered.

page 29

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question of the Minister for External Affairs relates to the critical situation in Indo-China. Have any requests been received from the French Government for further Australian assistance ? Does the right honorable gentleman believe that the French forces will succeed in maintaining their present position? If the situation worsens, will the Government consider sending immediate aid in view of the evil consequences for Australia of a Communist victory in so vital a strategic area of South-East Asia?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– The answer to the first question asked by the honorable member is in the negative. No such proposal has been received from the French Government. The second question, regarding the ability of the defending forces in Dienbienphu to maintain themselves, concerns a hypothetical matter on which I cannot express any opinion other than to say that the French, with the Vietnamese, are putting up a very stern, strenuous1 and valorous resistance to superior forces. As in every battle, the fight ebbs and flows, but in the last few days the news has been appreciably better. I know of no reason to be pessimistic concerning the result. With regard to the general situation; in Indo-China, the Government, of course, has had the position under close review for a number of years. Although the situation in northern Indo-China has been unpleasant for an appreciable time, I do not myself admit that there is any immediate cause for anxiety in respect of it. I should be attempting to answer a hypothetical question if I were to try to answer directly the honorable gentleman’s question. In any consideration which the Government may give to thissubject, it will be influenced by the situation in Indo-China, by Australian interests and by the interests of the free world generally.

page 30

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture state the amount of undistributed wool disposal profits? Is it a fact that the Government has decided to withhold, for a further period of twelve months, final distribution of £12,000,000? If this is so, can the right honorable gentleman say why this amount is to be withheld?

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I am not able to state offhand the total amount of undistributed Joint Organization profits, but I shall ascertain the precise figure and supply it to the honorable member. No alteration has been made in the programme of disbursal of these profits which was announced by the Government, after the closest discussions with representatives of the wool industry, several years ago. That programme is being adhered to.

page 30

QUESTION

MARKETING

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture able to say whether it is a fact that senior officers of his department recently have been overseas investigating the marketing potential of our primary products? Was the wheat export market one of the subjects of such investigation? If it was, has the right honorable gentleman received a report from the officers concerned? In view of the uncertainty of the wheat market and the lack of accurate information regarding the present and future situation, will he make available to wheat-growers generally, as soon as possible, whatever information he obtains from his officers?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– In accordance with the practice of the Government, from time to time appropriate senior officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture go overseas in order to keep the Government and the department abreast of market conditions and trends. Frequently these senior officers, on the invitation of the various marketing boards, accompany members of the marketing boards in order to discuss the price of meat, butter, or some other commodity, for the forthcoming year. Senior officers of the department have been abroad in such circumstances lately. Indeed, the First Assistant Secretary (Marketing) is in London at the present time. I shall be glad to see that relevant information, apart from that which ought to go only to the government and the marketing boards concerned, is made widely available. The publication of an observation relating to an expected trend in the market for a certain product, possibly forecasting a lower price, would not be in the interests of the industry concerned. Subject to such qualifications, I shall see that all useful information available is distributed to those interested.

page 30

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether any decisions of importance or value to Australia were reached at the conference of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Sydney last January? If so, have any of those decisions been implemented? Will the right honorable gentleman state whether it is proposed to lift the curtain of secrecy and melodrama that has veiled the proceedings of the conference?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member’s question is rather flattering. I did not know that I had been cast in a melodramatic role. The conference issued a communique’ at the end of its discussions. It also discussed matters which did not lend themselves to pub’ic pronouncement. The honorable member should realize that when financial matters of great moment involving international negotiations are under discussion, it is not usual to publish the first information in relation to them in the newspapers. As an Australian, he will be delighted to know that the lines pursued by the Commonwealth Ministers at the conference in Sydney were closely parallel to those that were followed H President Eisenhower in his recent remarkable declaration of policy to the United States Congress. The honorable member has implied that he is anxious for quick results from the conference. Upon that point, I can inform him that I and every Commonwealth finance Mi lister present at the conference, hardly anticipated that by March the report of the Randall Commission would be completed and that messages would be conveyed to Congress by the President of the United States of America containing firm declarations of policy, all pointing in the direction and employing the methods that were discussed and advocated by the conference of the British Commonwealth finance Ministers on at least two occasions.

page 31

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr THOMPSON:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state .whether the announcement that was broadcast by national broadcasting stations to the effect that the rolls for the coming general election for the House of Representatives would close on the 23rd April means also that the Government has reached a decision upon the date for the issue of the writs? I remind the right honorable gentleman that the practice in the past has been to close the rolls on the date of the issue of the writs. If an. official statement has been issued, why have honorable members received it only by means of a news broadcast and not through the usual channels?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am indebted to the honorable member for Port Adelaide for reminding me of this matter. I had intended to announce to-day the dates for the closing of nominations and the issue of writs. I apologize to honorable members for not having done so earlier. The day for the issue of the writs is the 23rd April. Nominations will close on the 6th May.

Dr Evatt:

– What will be the date for the return of the writs ?

Mr MENZIES:

– The date for the return of the writs is a distant and almost academic matter. It will be after the election. That is all that I can say.

page 31

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr EWERT:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– What undertaking did the Postmaster-General give to the Victorian, branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in respect of its application for a radio licence in that State? Would the grant of such a licence be dependent upon the adoption of frequency modulation broadcasting? When does the Government expect that frequency modulation broadcasting will be commenced? Would listeners require new sets to receive such broadcasts ? Accordingly would the introduction of such broadcasts be delayed ?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The Victorian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia which waited upon me with respect to the granting of a broadcasting licence was informed that no frequency was available for that purpose. That reply has been given by my predecessors during the last twenty years to applicants for licences. It is not possible merely to manufacture a frequency. With respect to frequency modulation broadcasting, the preceding Government inserted a provision in the Broadcasting Act which prohibits the use in Australia of frequency modulation, and until that provision is removed by an amendment of that act it will not be possible to promise the issue of a licence for frequency modulation broadcasting.

page 31

QUESTION

COAL

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address to the Prime Minister a question that is most serious so far as I am concerned and also insofar as the country is concerned. Is the right honorable gentleman aware of the grave dissatisfaction that exists in the coalmining industry as a result of the endeavour of the coal-owners to extract pillars mechanically without taking adequate precautions to safeguard the lives of miners? If this is a fact, will he request the Coal Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, not to give any instructions for the extraction of pillars mechanically unless the lives of the miners are safeguarded by the introduction of a system of adequate stowage ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am not aware of any grave dissatisfaction on the coalfields. The matter of safety to which the honorable member has referred is receiving very close attention. We believe, as do all the experts involved, that adequate provision is being made in that respect. So far from there being dissatisfaction on the coal-fields, there must be very great satisfaction because production of black coal in this country has risen from 15,000,000 tons to 20,000,000 tons annually with resultant benefits to security, good wages and continuous employment.

page 32

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Immigration aware that last year 32,032 persons left Australia permanently, the great majority of them being English immigrants? Does he realize that this is the largest permanent exodus of persons from Australia in any of the last five years? Can he give the reason for this startling state of affairs which is an indication of dissatisfaction, either imagined or real, on the part of immigrants ?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– I am afraid that the honorable gentleman has completely misinterpreted the figure to which he has referred. The Commonwealth Statistician records a classification of permanent departures which includes any person who leaves this country for a period of more than twelve months. An analysis made by my department of the figure which the honorable member has cited reveals that the overwhelming proportion of those persons are Australians who have gone abroad on extensive visits that have been prolonged during the year under review because of the circumstances associated with the Coronation and the general prosperity of the people who now have more money available to them and, therefore, have greater opportunities to make longer journeys abroad than they were able to make previously. I could give the honorable gentleman the analysis of those departures if he desires me to do so. If he examines that analysis he will find, if my memory is correct, that the number of permanent departures is approximately one-quarter of the total to which he has referred. That does not mean that we are not desirous of reducing the exodus from Australia of permanent departures particularly of persons who have come here as settlers. Neither does it mean that we are not doing all that we can do to increase the flow of suitable settlers from the British Isles to this country. We have an active programme in that respect. The favorable publicity that has resulted from the Royal Tour has stimulated interest in this country by possible British settlers.

page 32

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Mr HOLT:
LP

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

Circuit breakers or suitable units for use at voltages of 1,000 or over.

Titanium oxide and titanium white.

page 32

TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron). - Pursuant to Standing Order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating Mr. Bowden, Mr. Tom Burke, Mr. McLeay, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Timson and Mr. Watkins to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees, when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees.

page 33

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Mr WILSON:

– As Chairman, I present the first report of the previous session from the Printing Committee.

Report read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted.

page 33

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent (a) the introduction and motions for the second rending of the following bills: - Supply Bill (No. 1) 1954-55, Supply (Works and Services) Bill (No. 1) 1954-55, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1953-54, Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1953-54, Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1952-53, Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill 1952-53, War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1954, Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1954, Loan (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) Bill 1954, Loan (Swiss Francs) Bill 1954, Superannuation Bill 1954, Transferred Officers’ Allowances Bill 1954, Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1954, Aluminium Industry Bill 1954, and States Grants (Encouragement of Meat Production) Bill 1954; and (b) the introduction and passing through all stages without delay of the following Customs Tariff bills: - Customs Tariff Bill 1954, Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Bill 1954, Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill 1954, and Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1954.

page 33

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1954

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

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

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1953, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 introduced into the House of Representatives on the fifteenth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the seventh day of April, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1953 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff”, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

The Customs Tariff Proposals which I have introduced relate to (a) circuit breakers and switch units; and (6) titanium oxide and titanium white. The effect of these proposals will, in the first place, be to widen the protective field on high voltage circuit breakers and switch units. This action is based on recommendations made by the Tariff Board in a report dated the 4th February, 1954, a copy of which was tabled by me earlier to-day. This report shows that the scope of the new protective field was agreed upon at a conference comprising representatives of manufacturers and electricity supply authorities.

There are five well known manufacturers in Australia engaged in the production of this high voltage switchgear, and they have demonstrated to the Tariff Board their ability to meet the Australian requirements for this most important type of electrical equipment. Honorable members are doubtless aware that the manufacture of switchgear in the lower voltage ranges has been established in Australia for many years. The tariff amendment now proposed is designed to accord to the industry reasonable protection in the higher voltage ranges into which production has been extended. Previously, switchgear, when for use at voltages above 15,000 or at any voltage if the rupturing capacity was 250,000 k.v.a. or higher, was admitted free of duty under the British Preferential Tariff and at 12-J per cent, under the mostfavourednation tariff.

The pigments titanium oxide and titanium white are used, in the main, in the production of paints. The commercial manufacture of titanium oxide is a comparatively new development for Australia. The industry, which is located in Tasmania, has been fully investigated by the Tariff Board, which has recommended the imposition of protective duties with the object of enabling this important industry to become fully established. The board’s report on this industry has already been tabled.

A comparison of the existing and proposed duties is set out in the “ Summary of Alterations “ which is now in the hands of honorable members. The proposed duties are scheduled to operate as from 9 a.m. to-morrow.

Progress reported.

page 35

SUPPLY 1954-55

Messages recommending appropriation reported.

In Committee of Supply:

Motions (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding £151,002,000 for or towards the services of the year 1954-55.

That there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding £31,128,000 for or towards the services of the year 1954-55, for Additions, New Works and other Services involving Capital Expenditure.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Resolutions of Ways and Means, founded on resolutions of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. McMahon du prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 35

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1954-55

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden. and read a first time.

SECOND Reading.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

“4.15]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this .bill is to obtain an appropriation of £151,002,000 required to carry on the necessary normal services of government, other than capital services, for the first four months of the financial year 1954-55. The provision sought may be summarized under the following heads : -

The bill provides for the carrying on of essential services approved by the Parliament in the Appropriation Acts 1953- 54. The several amounts provided for ordinary services represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one-third of the1953-54 appropriations. The amount of £62,068,000 for Defence Services provides for expenditure on the defence programme and requirements in Korea and Malaya, and the amount of £8,037,000 for War and Repatriation Services covers expenditure on repatriation and rehabilitation and other post-war charges. The amount of £16,000,000 for “Advance to the Treasurer “ is required to enable the payment of the special grants to South Australia, Western Australia and Tas mania to be continued pending the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and also to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure and provide for any unexpected defence requirements. Except in relation to defence, no amounts are included for new services.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 36

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1954-55

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for an appropriation of £31,128,000 to enable Commonwealth works in progress at the 30th June, 1954, to be continued until the 1954-55 budget is passed by the Parliament. Programmes for capital works are in operation in the major Commonwealth departments, including the Department of Works, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of Civil Aviation. Funds must be available for the purchase of materials in advance to enable these programmes to be continued without interruption and also to ensure continuous employment on the many projects. The bill therefore provides for four months’ expenditure on works included in the expenditure programme of £94,998,000 provided for in the Capital Works Estimates 1953-54.

In accordance with the practice in submitting a Supply bill, no provision has been made for any new services.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 36

ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES, DEBT REDEMPTION RESERVE TRUST ACCOUNT, AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES FOR WORKS AND SERVICES, 1953-54

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting (a) Additional Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1954; and (b) An appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of the year ending the 30th June, 1954, for the purposes of the Trust Account established under section 62 (a) of the Audit Act 1901-1953 and known as the Debt Redemption Reserve Trust Account, of such sums as the Treasurer from time to time determines; and also a further message transmitting Additional Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works and other Services involving capital expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1954, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of Supply forthwith.

In Committee of Supply:

Motions (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Resolutions of Ways and Means, founded on resolutions of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. McMahon do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 37

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1953-54

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill and of the associated Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for certain expenditures for which provision was not made in the 1953-54 budget. The various items for which appropriations are being asked will be explained in detail in committee. I should like to refer at this stage, however, to certain major items included in these Additional Estimates. Provision of £12,000,000 is sought for payment to the Defence Equipment and Supplies Trust Account. Because of the nature of defence preparation it not infrequently happens that, whilst large commitments have to be undertaken ahead, the fulfilment of orders does not always take place in the period for which financial provision to meet them is made, and that is happening to some degree in this financial year. On the one hand it is proving difficult to keep total defence commitments below planned ceilings; on the other hand, actual cash expenditure is tending to lag somewhat behind the rate for which provision was made in the budget. However, unless some provision is now made to meet these delayed expenditures an extra burden may be thrown forward on to the budget for 1954-55. To avoid that, provision is made in the Additional Estimates for the transfer of an amount of up to £12,000,000 to a Defence Equipment and Supplies Trust Account, the purpose of which will be to assist in financing next year purchases of equipment and supplies for which commitments have already been entered into.

An amount of £7,000,000 is provided in the Additional Estimates for the redemption of savings certificates from Consolidated Revenue Fund. This procedure, which was also followed last year, will make easier the financing of other Loan Fund commitments, including our commitment to assist the States’ works and housing programmes. Provision is also made for the transfer of £5,000,000 to a supplementary Commonwealth Aid Roads Trust Account. Under the Commonwealth aid roads legislation, the amounts set aside for roads are 6d. a gallon from customs on imported petrol and 3 1/2d a gallon from excise on locally produced petrol. Through the establishment of new oil refineries in Australia the proportion of locally produced petrol will tend to rise and the proportion of imported petrol will tend to fall. So far, this has not affected the amount of the roads payments to the States to any significant extent, but it is clearly likely to do so when major new refineries come into full production. The Government would not wish the roads grants to fall because it recognizes the great importance of roads to the development of Australia, and it has already told the State Premiers that it will take the action necessary to meet the situation that arises from the refinery programme. The existing Commonwealth aid roads legislation will expire on. the 30th June next year, and before then the Government will undertake a comprehensive review of the roads payments it makes to the States. In the meantime, it proposes to put some money aside in a trust account to supplement, as necessary, the grants payable under the existing legislation.

The provision of £1,000,000 for purchase of shares in British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited arises from an agreement reached with the New Zealand and United Kingdom Governments on a revised basis for operating air services in the Pacific-Tasman area. Purchase of the New Zealand and United Kingdom shareholdings at par will result in all British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited shares being held by the Commonwealth and its nominees. That is a first step in the transfer of trans-Pacific operations to Qantas Empire Airways Limited. After taking account of other miscellaneous items, the Additional Estimates of expenditure set out in the schedules to these two bills total £34,556,000. On the other hand, savings will be effected on a number of other items of expenditure and these savings will offset to some extent the increased expenditures envisaged in the Additional Estimates.

Various items of revenue are also expected to exceed the budget estimates. Assisted by successive relaxations of import restrictions, imports have shown a slow but steady upward trend and this has been reflected in buoyant customs revenues. Excise collections from beer and cigarettes are also higher than expected. With the improvement in business conditions, the level of wholesale and retail sales has risen fairly sharply this financial year and this should result in higher sales tax collections than were estimated in the budget. It is difficult to predict at this stage whether the amount which may be received this year from, income tax will vary significantly from the budget estimate. The greater part of our income tax collections in any year is received in the last quarter of the year, and collections in earlier months do not #ive a reliable indication of the final outcome for the year. The recent decision of the Privy Council on Joint Organization wool profits will assist collections this year in some measure, although the amount involved will not be as great as has been suggested in some quarters. A substantial part of the tax involved on distributions already made had already been collected by the 30tl June, 1953, but a portion will remain uncollected at the 30th June, 1954. Taking all factors into account, it seems unlikely that the Privy Council’s decision will add a very large sum to income tax collections in the current financial year. With three months of the financial year still to go it is not possible to say what the actual financial results of the year will be. Much will depend on income tax collections in the current quarter. If, however, it proves possible to do so, it is proposed to transfer some moneys this year to a Debt Redemption Reserve Trust Fund and a provision is included in the appropriation bill to enable this to be done. Two very useful purposes would be served by this procedure. First, the Commonwealth faces the problem of converting or redeeming during the next five or six years a huge debt approaching £700,000,000, much of which arises from Commonwealth war expenditure. As there is a possibility that large amounts of this debt will have to be redeemed rather than converted, it is important that adequate financial reserves should be at hand to meet such redemptions. As and when the budgetary position permits, it would therefore be wise to set aside funds which could be used subsequently to supplement the National Debt Sinking Fund and assist the budget to meet such a contingency. Should any such funds be available this year, it is proposed that they should be paid into the Debt Redemption Reserve Trust Fund. Besides the assistance which such a reserve could give in the problem of dealing with maturing public debt, the funds available in the reserve would assist the Commonwealth in the short term to meet its commitment to assist the Loan Council’s borrowing programmes for the current financial year. It will be remembered that the Commonwealth undertook to assist Loan Council programmes in 1953-54 up to a maximum amount of £95,000,000. This assistance could be given by investing the balance in the trust fund in a loan or loans raised under the Loan Council programme and the money would then be made available for .State works and housing. At the time of the budget the need to meet our commitment to assist the State works and housing programmes made it seem likely that some recourse to treasury-bill finance would be necessary this year. I am glad to say that, thanks to the fine success of the public loans we have floated in this financial year, it is already certain that any such call on bank credit will be considerably smaller than was then expected. To the extent that any funds become available for investment through the Debt Redemption Reserve in loans for State programmes, the need for bank assistance will be still further reduced.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 39

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1953-54

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In my second-reading speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 2), I indicated that it was necessary to seek an additional appropriation for capital works and services. This bill will effect that appropriation.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 39

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1952-53

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1953, and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, and other Services involving Capital Expenditure, for the year ending the 30th June, 1953, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of Supply forthwith.

In Committee of Supply:

Motions (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That there be granted to Her Majesty a further sum not exceeding £13,177,842 for the services of the year 1952-53, viz.: -

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Resolutions of Ways and Means, founded on resolutions of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Sir Philip McBride do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 40

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1952-53

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Supplementary Estimates of expenditure totalling £13,177,842 relate to the financial year 1952-53. The amounts set out were expended out of a general appropriation of £15,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. It is now necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure for 1952-53 which includes these items are set out in the Estimates and budget papers for 1953-54. The Estimates papers show the amount voted for 1953-54, together with the amount voted and the actual expenditure for the previous year, which is included for information purposes. Details are included also in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1952-53, which was tabled during the budget session for theinformation of honorable members.

The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. The chief items in round figures are -

Further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later date. The Supplementary Estimates for 1952-53 have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and I understand that its report thereon will be available for the information of honorable members prior to the commencement of the debate.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 40

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1952-53

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The total appropriation by the Parliament for capital works and services during 1952-53 amounted to £106,436,000. The actual expenditure was £98,301,000, or £8,135,000 less than the appropriation. However, due to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated, and it is necessary now to obtain parliamentary approval of these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items totals £1,035,415, which is spread over the various works items of the departments, as set out in the schedule to the bill. Any details that may be required will be furnished at a later stage.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 41

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for war pensions.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Sir Philip McBride do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the billbe now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to provide £40,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. It is necessary to submit a measure of this nature to the Parliament from time to time for the purpose of appropriating from revenue an amount for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid in accordance with such rates as are approved by the Parliament. The amount of £40,000,000 now requested will cover approximately a year’s expenditure at present rates. The bill has no relation whatsoever to the rates or conditions under which pensions are paid. It merely authorizes the provision of funds for the trust account from which war pensions are paid.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 41

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1954

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That leave he given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act1947-1952.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to reduce the rate of the charge payable under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act1947- 1952, the proceeds of which are used to finance the operations of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. It is proposed that the rate be reduced from11d. to 6d. a man hour. The revenue received from this charge is credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and equivalent amounts are paid to the board under the authority of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Act 1949.

Honorable members will be aware that from these funds the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board must pay attendance money and some miscellaneous charges related to waterside workers, meet its normal costs of administration, and also find funds for expenditure of a capital nature, notably on waterfront amenities, in discharge of its statutory functions.

The charge was first imposed in 1947, and the rate fixed was 4½d. a man hour. It has since been varied on three occasions by amendments of the act to accord with fluctuations in the board’s financial needs. In October, 1949, because of a significant accumulation of cash, the rate of charge was reduced to 2½d. In December, 1951, rising costs made necessary an increase in the charge to 4d. The last variation was made in October, 1952, when the present rate of11d. was fixed to meet increased current expenditure, and to assist in restoring within a reasonable period the board’s finances, which had deteriorated seriously. This resulted from a fairly sharp decline in waterfront employment, which caused not only a decrease of revenue as a result of the fewer man-hours worked, but also increased expenditure on attendance money. The latter was further enlarged by an increase of the rate of attendance money from 12s. to 16s. a day, which was granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court.

When the Parliament was last considering this matter it was informed that after the deficit in the board’s accounts had been eliminated consideration would be given to a reduction of the rate of the charge. During 1953-54 the board’s financial position has changed for the better, and thus we are able to honour the promise then made.

In submitting this measure we are following the practice of the previous Government of adjusting the charge from time to time to meet fluctuations in the revenue needed to meet the board’s proper expenditure. These fluctuations will probably continue, and further adjustments will almost certainly be necessary in the future. I might point out that the buoyant revenue under the present charge of11d. has enabled the board to embark on a substantial programme of capital works, mainly the provision of amenities and facilities for waterside workers, which will make a significant contribution to the general improvement of waterfront conditions. An amount of some £300,000 has been set aside during the current financial year towards the cost of this programme.

As I have indicated, the new rate will, so far as we can judge, provide sufficient revenue to meet the board’s estimated expenditure. The reduced rate will also result in a saving of costs to the shipowners, and the Government has already made it quite clear that it expects that shipowners will pass on the saving in reduced freights. Indeed, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has stated, we expect that the lower levy should only be the starting point for reductions of freight rates. The shipowners have already announced some freight reductions. Thus, this measure will make some contribution to the task of reducing costs in the Australian economy.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 42

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1954

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Act 1922- 1952, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purposes of this bill are to provide an increase of the pensions payable under the Superannuation Act, and to raise the maximum possible number of units of pension from 26 to 36. Since pensions were last increased in 1951 representations have been made to the Government about the inadequacy of the benefits. The matter has been considered by the Government and it is proposed that the value of a unit of pension be increased from £39 per annum, which is 15s. a week, to £45 10s. per annum, which is 17s. 6d. a week. A corresponding increase of lump sum payments by a contributor to the Provident Account is also provided for. It is also proposed that pensions payable in respect of children of deceased contributors be increased from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week. Pensions for orphan children will be increased from 12s. 6d. to 15s. a week.

The proposals contained in the bill also affect the percentage that pension entitlement bears to salary. Under the existing arrangements, for every £62 of salary up to a salary not exceeding £1,240 per annum, a contributor is entitled to elect for one unit of pension worth £39 per annum, which is 15s. a week. The pension entitlement is, therefore, equivalent to approximately 63 per cent. of salary. Where the salary exceeds £1,240 per annum, an employee may contribute for an additional unit of pension for every £124 of salary in excess of £1,240. It will be seen, therefore, that the higher the salary in excess of £1,240 per annum, the lower is the percentage which the pension entitlement bears to salary. On the highest salaries the pension is as low as 24 per cent. of salary. It is proposed to adjust the unit of salary which attracts an additional unit of pension from £62 to £65 which, with the proposed increase of the value of the unit, will increase the maximum percentage of pension to salary from 63 to 70 per cent. on salaries not exceeding £1,300 per annum. On salaries exceeding £1,300 per annum the salary unit above £1,300 will become £130, so that the maximum percentage of pension to salary reduces progressively from 70 per cent. as salaries rise above £1,300 per annum. On the highest salaries the maximum percentage of salary which could be secured as pension is rather less than 40 per cent. Summarized, the proposals are : (1) an increase of £6 10s. per annum (2s. 6d. a week) in the value of each unit of pension; (2) an increase of the maximum pension entitlement of contributors from 63 per cent. to 70 per cent. of salary, but progressively reducing in the higher ranges to 40 per cent. ; (3) an increase of 2s. 6d. a week of the pensions payable for dependent children ; and, (4) an increase from 26 to 36 in the ceiling number of units.

A number of minor machinery amendments are included in the bill to provide for simplification of administration of the Superannuation Act, and I propose to explain these provisions in detail when the bill is being dealt with in committee.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 43

TRANSFERRED OFFICERS’ ALLOWANCES BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Transferred Officers’ Allowances Act 1948-1951.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Sir Philip McBride do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this short bill is to grant allowances to former State officers who transferred to the Commonwealth service at federation. Their pension rights, which are preserved to them by section 84 of the Commonwealth Constitution, entitled them to receive, on retirement, the pension that would have been payable under the law of the State, if their service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of their service with the State. These pensioners have not participated in any general increases in pensions granted under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act from time to time, for the reasons, first, that unlike contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, they were not required to contribute for their pensions, and, secondly, their pensions were higher than the pensions payable under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act.

The Commonwealth’s attitude to this question has been, therefore, to keep the pensions of former State officers transferred to the Commonwealth in line with the pensions to which they would have been entitled had they not been transferred to the Commonwealth. As in almost every case these pensioners were formerly in the employ of the Government of Western Australia, it has been the practice to adjust pensions in accordance with increases granted by that Government to its own pensioners.

Increases were granted by the Western Australian Government in 1948 and 1951, and the Commonwealth granted corresponding increases in pensions payable under section 84 of the Constitution. Under the Pensions Supplementation Act 1953 (Act No. 78 of 1953), which was recently passed by the Western Australian Parliament, and which continues in operation until the 31st December, 1956, persons in receipt of pensions under the Western Australian Superannuation Act 1871 have again had their pensions increased. This amendment to the Transferred Officers’ Allowances Act is designed to enable the recent increases granted by the Western Australian Government to be extended to persons in receipt of what are known as “ Section 84 pensions “. Those pensions will be increased by onesixth, the maximum increase being limited to £52 per annum. As provided in the Western Australian act, the increase will continue until the 31st December, 1956, when it will be subject to review.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 44

DEFENCE FORCES. RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1954

Motion (by Sir Philip MCBRIDE agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1953.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WakefieldMinister for Defence · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill which I have pleasure in introducing makes provision for increased rates of pension for members of the permanent defence forces upon their retirement and also for existing pensioners under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. As honorable members are aware, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act provides that upon retirement from the permanent defence forces personnel become entitled to pension, or benefits by way of lump sum payments which are related to the period of their service, to their rank on retirement after attaining retiring age, or, in the case of those discharged on medical grounds, to their incapacity in relation to civilian employment. The act also provides for pensions to be paid to the widow and children of a member or pensioner. The principal act came into operation in July, 1948, and certain increases in the rates of pension then payable were provided by amending acts in 1950, 1951 and 1952 to accord more closely with the cost of living index.

The broad effect of the bill is to increase by one-sixth the rates of pension at present provided in the act for existing and future pensioners, whether they be members retired on invalidity or on the attainment of the maximum age for their rank. For widows, pensions are to be increased by the same proportion. For children, pensions are to be increased by £6 10s. per annum. All these increases will become effective from the 1st January, 1954, or the date upon which the pensioner became entitled to pension, whichever is the later. A further important provision in this hill relates to the number of units for which a member of the permanent defence forces is entitled to contribute. As honorable members are aware, it is not at present possible for any member to contribute for units in excess of 26. This bill will permit those who previously were restricted to a maximum of 26 units to contribute for units entitling them to pension on retirement which is more in keeping with their active rates of pay. The members to whom this provision will apply are those in the higher ranks who retire at the age of 60 years or close to the age of 60 years and who, under the existing act, cannot qualify for a pension in excess of £1,014 per annum. This bill will permit these officers to contribute for additional units up to a maximum of 36 and to receive retirement benefits commensurate with the total units contributed for up to a maximum, in the case of the chiefs of the naval, military and air staffs, of a pension of £1,638 per annum, should they retire on attainment of the retiring ages for their ranks.

In the case of pensioners who are reemployed by the Commonwealth in a civilian capacity, the ceiling of nondeductible pension has been lifted from £312 per annum to £364 per annum or half the pension normally payable, whichever is the higher. In conclusion I might say that, in my opinion, all the proposals contained in this bill are necessary in order to ensure that, having regard to the variations in the cost of living since 1951, reasonable provision is made for defence personnel upon retirement.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Chambers) adjourned.

page 44

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Beale) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Aluminium Industry Act 1944-1952.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Beale and Sir Philip McBride do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Beading.

Mr. BEALE (Parramatta - Minister for Supply [5.12]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the Aluminium Industry Act 1944-1952 by appropriating the sum of £2,102,600 to provide Additional funds for the project. Honorable members will recall that under the original Aluminium Industry Act of 1944 provision was made for the establishment of an aluminium project for the treatment of alumina and the reduction of the alumina to aluminium ingot. The works were to be located in Tasmania for the reason, it was stated by the late Mr. Beasley in introducing the bill, that ample hydro-electric power ‘was available there at a price comparable with that supplied to the large aluminium smelters in North America. The cost of .the venture, based on an’ estimate” made in 1942 was £3,000,000. It was to be a joint undertaking, the Commonwealth contributing £1,500,000 and the State of Tasmania the same amount. Not long after the present Government came into office, it became clear that this estimate of £3,000,000 was seriously inadequate and early in 1951 the commission prepared estimates indicating that a further £4,250,000 would be required. The Tasmanian Government having stated that it was unable to contribute its share or any part of the additional moneys required, this Parliament passed an amending act in 1952 appropriating the additional £4,250,000.

The undertaking has been pushed forward with considerable vigor since 1950 and excellent progress has been made on the construction side. The plant, which I am told is a very modern one, is now approaching the point where it can commence production of alumina which will be followed by ingot a few months thereafter. But in order fully to complete the project and set the works going as: a commercial concern, additional funds will be necessary. The Tasmanian Government still being unable to make a further contribution, the necessary money must be found by the Commonwealth, and that is the purpose of this bill. In addition to the previous appropriations, £3,250,000 will be necessary, of which £1,147,400 was appropriated in the annual vote for 1951-52, leaving a balance of £2,102,600 to be appropriated under this bill, so that, in all, the Commonwealth will have put £9,000,000 into the project.

The difference between the previous estimate and the present one is accounted for largely by a substantial rise in costs outside the control of the commission since 1951; also by additional items of plant and services recommended by the commission’s technical consultants, the British Aluminium Company Limited, on completion of the plant design. These items had not been decided upon in 1951, but they are now regarded as necessary for the purpose of producing a more efficient plant. The cost of the Wessel Island bauxite survey, which was borne by the commission, has also been a factor in increasing the present estimate, but this survey, has added 10,000,000 tons of highgrade bauxite to Australia’s resources. We have also now made provision for sufficient working capital when the plant, goes into commercial operation. The project will be ready to go into production early in 1955, the target date being January of that year. Electric power supplies have caused and are causing us much anxiety, but the Premier of Tasmania, who knows our power requirements and the time-table of them, has promised that power will be available for the works required by the commission from the beginning of the year. When the plant is completed it will produce 13,000 tons of ingot a year or sufficient for all Australia’s present requirements. As all our aluminium is at present imported from dollar sources, this will mean an easing of our dollar budget to the extent of more than 5,000,000 dollars a year.

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

– What sort of particulars has the right honorable gentleman in mind?

Dr Evatt:

– The proposed date of commencement of production, the quantity of bauxite that will be used, and so on.

Mr BEALE:

– I shall do what I can to meet the right honorable gentleman’s request, and if I can give him further information I shall do so.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 46

STATES GRANTS (ENCOURAGEMENT OF MEAT PRODUCTION) BILL 1954

Motion (by Mr. Kent Hughes) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (Encouragement of Meat Production) Act 1949.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the special grants payable to the States of Queensland and Western Australia towards the cost of improving certain stock routes in those States. The States Grants (Encouragement of Meat Production) Act 1949 appropriated £2,166,000 for payments to the States of Queensland and Western Australia to meet, first, the capital cost of constructing or improving roads in the channel country of south-west Queensland and the east Kimberley area of Western Aus tralia, and, secondly, half the capital costs, up to specified limits, of improving certain stock routes serving those areas. Enactment of this legislation was part of a drive to step up meat production in northern parts of Australia so that the export surplus available to the United Kingdom could be increased. The programmes of road and stock route improvements in Queensland and Western Australia weredrawn up by the State governments, which also furnished estimates of the costs involved. These formed the basis of the 1949 act.

In respect of improvements to specified stock routes, the act provides that the Commonwealth shall meet half the cost; subject to maximum Commonwealth payments of £75,500 and £31,500 to Queensland and Western Australia respectively. These limits were imposed because it was originally estimated that the total cost of stock-route improvements in Queensland would be £151,000, and in Western Australia £63,000. The premiers of the two States have recently requested that the limits of the Commonwealth contribution for stock-route improvements be increased to £150,000 and £50,000 respectively. The increased amounts have been sought because of the rise in cost levels since the original estimates were prepared. No works additional to those specified in the act are proposed.

The revised estimates have been examined, and are considered reasonable. It is accordingly proposed, in view of the original intention that the Commonwealth would meet half the cost of improvements to the stock routes in question, to amend the actto give effect to the revised cost estimates. It is not proposed to increase the total appropriation of £2,166,000 in the act because saving approximating the increased estimated expenditure of stock routes will probably be made on the roads and bridges sections of the programmes.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 46

LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In Committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the raising of a loan from the International Bank for Reconstruction and development, and for purposes connected therewith.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. Holt do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Beading.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move - That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the borrowing of a sum of 54,000,000 dollars from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in accordance with the loan agreement concluded with the bank on the 2nd March. This is the third loan Australia has obtained from the International Bank. The first loan of 100,000,000 dollars, obtained in August, 1950, was fully drawn last year. Import licences have been issued for the full amount of the second loan of 50,000,000 dollars made in July, 1952. The new 54,000,000 dollar-loan arranged last month will enable licences to be issued for further imports of essential capital equipment from the dollar area. It will ensure that we have the dollars to pay for a continuing supply of this equipment until 1955.

The full texts of the new loan agreement and of the loan regulations appended to it are reproduced in the schedules to the bill now before the House. Honorable members will note that in the preamble to the present loan agreement the International Bank formally records its willingness, in principle, to continue its participation in the financing of the development of the Australian economy over the five-year period which commenced in 1950. Thus the present loan is another in a series designed to provide dollar finance for capital goods purchased over a period of years.

The Government has always believed that a measure of external financial assistance is essential to permit a satisfactory rate of development of Australia’s economic resources. To obtain additional dollars to pay for equipment needed for the expansion of Australian industries, the Government embarked upon a programme of dollar borrowing more than three years ago. This has been supplemented by our recent borrowing of Swiss francs and by the continuing inflow of private sterling and other oversea capital. International Bank finance has played a vital part in recent additions to outcapital equipment. Although the bulk (‘I’ the resources, both financial and material, required for our development is found locally, imported equipment of various kinds is essential for expansion and modernization in many fields. The larger part of these imports comes from nondollar sources. There remains, however, some vital equipment which can be obtained only from the dollar area, and dollars remain in relatively short supply.

Honorable members will be interested to hear a few figures which high-light the uses to which our first two International Bank loans have been put, and which indicate the valuable contribution these loans have made and are still making to our economic progress.

Of the 150,000,000 dollars provided under our first and second loans, more than 45,000,000 dollars, or almost onethird, has been allocated to the purchase of tractors and agricultural machinery for the opening up of new lands and for the adoption of more efficient farming techniques on existing farms. Recent marked improvements in productivity in our primary industries have undoubtedly been due, in no small measure, to the increased supply of modern American farming equipment such as pick-up hay balers, combine harvesters, cotton pickers and specialized tractors. An amount of 15,000,000 dollars has been allocated to the modernization of railways. A large proportion of this has been used to pay for components for diesel electric locomotives whose operations here have resulted in big economies and improved services in the railways using them. More than 27,000,000 dollars has been spent on electrical equipment including package power plants. These have been set up in areas where acute power shortages were previously dislocating industrial activity. A sum of nearly 20,000,000 dollars from the first loan was allocated for the purchase of industrial tractors and earthmoving equipment and components which have helped to modernize our techniques of road construction and maintenance and benefited many other sectors of our economy.

Import licences worth more than 13,000,000 dollars have been issued under the second loan for heavy road transport vehicles and additional earth-moving equipment. Aircraft worth 6,000,000 dollars are being paid for out of the second loan proceeds. The mining industry has been allotted more than 6,000,000 dollars and about 15,000,000 dollars of the first and second loans has been, or will be, used to pay for a wide variety of equipment for the modernization and expansion of our manufacturing industries. Every bit of the equipment obtained under our International Bank loans is essential. Much of it is being used to expand export production, not only directly, as in agriculture, mining and various secondary industries, but also indirectly by supplying -cheaper power and transport. The Australian economy to-day is markedly more efficient as a result of the goods paid for with International Bank finance.

The third loan will ensure continued access by public authorities and private industry to productive equipment and techniques which are available only in the United States of America and Canada. The new loan of 54,000,000 dollars is for a period of fifteen years. Interest at 4f per cent, per annum - the same rate as under our second loan - is payable half-yearly on the amount of the loan withdrawn and outstanding from time to time. This interest charge includes the 1 per cent, commission which the bank, under its articles of agreement, is required to charge and pay to its reserves. A commitment charge of f per cent, per annum is payable half-yearly on the amount undrawn from time to time. This charge is to accrue from the date the loan becomes available or the 1st May, 1954, whichever is the earlier.

Repayments of principal do not commence until three years after signature, the first principal repayment falling due on the 1st March, 1957. Payments of interest and principal will then be made half-yearly in accordance with an amortization schedule on a fixed annuity basis. The final payment will fall due on the 1st March, 1969. Once the full amount of the loan has been withdrawn, and before amortization payments commence, interest will amount to 2,565,000 dollars or f A.1,145,000 per annum. From 1957 onwards, annual payments of interest and principal combined will amount to 5,778,000 dollars or £A.2,580,000.

In general, the other clauses of the new loan agreement are similar to those in the 1950 and 1952 loan agreements, which received the approval of the House on each occasion. The interest charge on the present loan - 4$ per cent, per annum - is the same as that which applied on the 1952 loan. Honorable members will, however, note that, whereas the last loan was for a period of twenty years, the present loan is for fifteen years. The reason why the period is shorter is that the average effective life of the equipment which we propose to buy with our third loan will be shorter than that of equipment obtained under previous loans. In general, the terms and conditions of the present loan to Australia are in line with those of recent International Bank loans to other countries and, if anything, a little more favorable.

As in the case of previous International Bank loans it is intended to pay the Australian currency proceeds of our third loan into the National Debt Sinking Fund. This is provided for in clause 6 of the bill, and clause 7 requires the National Debt Commission to meet repayments of principal to the International Bank as they fall due. In effect, therefore, the loan provides its own sinking fund. Payments of interest and other charges are to be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is provided for in clause S. Clause & exempts this loan from certain provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act. This is necessary because, otherwise, the Commonwealth would be obliged to pay normal Sinking Fund contributions in addition to the Australian currency amounts paid in under clause 6.

Schedule 2 of the loan agreement describes the development programmes to which the equipment financed under the loan will contribute. It also gives examples of the types of equipment which will be financed out of the proceeds of the loan. Although the precise goods to be procured have not, as yet, been completely determined, an allocation of the new 54,000,000-dollar loan among the six programmes has ‘ been tentatively agreed with the International Bank-.

This tentative allocation, which may he varied from time to time with the agreement of the bank as the needs of importers emerge more specifically, is as follows : -

Thus, once again agriculture will receive a substantial share of the total. Although much of the equipment needed to develop new areas and increase output from existing holdings can be obtained either from Australian manufacturers or from suppliers in countries outside the dollar area, there are certain types of tractors and other farm machinery which are available only from the United States of America and Canada. The loan -will ensure that our producers do not suffer by lack of access to the latest technological developments in the agricultural machinery field. Tractors and logging equipment for the forestry industry are also eligible for International Bank finance.

Imports of electricity generating equipment, especially package power plants, financed under our first and second International Bank loans, together with generating plant obtained from the United Kingdom and Europe, have been successful largely in eliminating the acute peakload shortages which hampered production and caused so much inconvenience during the post-war years. Although demand for electric power continues to expand, the bulk of new generating equipment will, in future, be supplied from non-dollar sources. This explains the reduced allocation for electric power under the third loan.

Transport equipment, especially aircraft, represents relatively a much larger proportion of the total value of the goods to be financed under the present loan than under previous borrowings from the Internationa] Bank. I am sure that honorable members will readily appreciate the vital need to expand and improve transport facilities by air, road and rail in a continent as large as ours, and with widely scattered centres of population and production. Moreover, Australia’s geographical position, at a considerable distance from existing and potential markets, emphasizes our dependence- upon, efficient air communications in the international field.

The road transport programme, for which an amount of 10,500,000 dollars has been tentatively allocated, includes not only the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges but also additions to and replacements of our fleet of goodscarrying road vehicles. For purposes of the third loan agreement, these have been redefined to include utilities on commercial chassis of 15 cwt. and over. The amount set aside for the railway programme will largely be used to purchase components for the manufacture of diesel electric locomotives in Australia.

Because the worth of an air service depends largely on the performance and efficiency of the aircraft used, it is important that Australian airlines be in a position to take advantage of improvements in aircraft design and performance. Some honorable members may be wondering why the Government proposes to sanction the spending of dollars on aircraft when we are all familiar with the splendid achievements of British aircraft designers. I wish to assure the House that we have not overlooked the new types of aircraft which will become available from the United Kingdom over the next few years. Certain Australian airlines have already placed orders for some of these. The aircraft which we propose to purchase under the present International Bank loan are all for delivery this year or early 1955. They will be supplied in advance of similar-purpose British aircraft. I should mention that the British Overseas Airways Corporation, which is the partner of Qantas on the LondonSydney route via the Middle East, is in full agreement with Qantas’ plans in this field.

An amount of slightly less than 8,000,000 dollars has been tentatively allocated to an industrial development programme. This amount is intended to cover needs for essential dollar capital equipment in the iron and steel, food processing, chemical, textile, mining and engineering industries. Investment in the manufacturing field is largely undertaken by private enterprise, and the development plans of private firms at any given time are in varying stages of formulation and execution. This has been recognized by the bank and, in order to provide a measure of flexibility, a fixed sum has not been allocated to each sector of this programme.

In effect, most sections of the Australian economy will benefit either directly or indirectly from the improvement in our productive capacity which this third loan now makes possible. Export production should rise and we should reduce our dependence upon imports. By and large, Australian industries should become more efficient producers.

There will be no difference in operating procedures between the present and earlier International Bank loans. The Department of Trade and Customs has already taken steps to notify importers of the types of goods eligible for licensing under the new loan and interested importers should submit applications to that department. As in previous loans, the importer will pay for the goods supplied through normal banking channels.

I wish to make it clear that the new loan does not in any way remove the need for continued economy in dollar expenditure. The British Commonwealth finance Ministers, at the conclusion of their conference in Sydney last January, stated that “ we should not relax our efforts to achieve a dollar surplus “. Dollar goods will not be licensed for importation against the loan if comparable goods are readily available from local or other non-dollar sources. This further loan demonstrates the International Bank’s appreciation of our continuing need to develop our resources and its confidence in the future of the Australian economy. The loan will make possible the more rapid utilization of resources whose development is urgent and vital. It will therefore benefit all Australians.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 50

LOAN (SWISS FRANCS) BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue and moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to approve the raising of a loan in Swiss currency, and for purposes connected therewith.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. Holt prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for the loan of 60,000,000 Swiss francs raised by the Government towards the end of last year and to make certain arrangements in connexion with that loan. This is the first loan that has ever been raised by an Australian government in Switzerland. Negotiations began when I visited Switzerland early in 1952 and had preliminary talks with Swiss Government and banking officials. The discussions were carried a stage further when a general manager of the Swiss Bank Corporation visited Australia in the beginning of 1953 to get a first-hand impression of the Australian economy. In October and November, 1953, detailed negotiations were carried out with a group of Swiss banks and they agreed to underwrite the loan and to act as the Commonwealth’s agents in its flotation. The loan was issued for public subscription in Switzerland on the 26th November, 1953, and proved an immediate and outstanding success. It closed fully subscribed a few days later. The results of the loan can be regarded with much satisfaction by Australians. The net proceeds, after deducting various flotation costs, were equivalent to £A.5,800,000. Although it was not a large loan, it was a new venture in a market unaccustomed to Australian borrowing, and its spontaneous reception can be taken as a sign of keen interest among the Swiss people in Australia’s progress and of their confidence in our country’s future. This hill provides the legal framework for the loan. It approves the borrowing and the issue of the necessary securities. It sets up machinery for utilizing the Joan proceeds in assisting Australia’s development and for the servicing and ultimate repayment of the loan. The Loan Agreement, which contains the terms and conditions of the loan, is reproduced as a schedule to the bill.

Before commenting on these matters, however, I should like to state the reasons why the Government decided to raise the loan, which is designed to assist Australia’s industrial development. There is immense scope for development in Australia and the greater part of it is being financed from our own capital resources, from private savings and business profits. But overseas capital, too, has an important part to play. Overseas capital supplements our own savings and enables development to proceed faster and more effectively than it would if we had to rely solely on our own resources. We can afford to borrow overseas, within prudent limits, because the interest bill on governmental overseas debt is nowadays only a small part, less than 2 per cent., of current export earnings. The scope for government borrowing overseas has been very limited in post-war years so that when the opportunity arose of borrowing in Switzerland, the Government had no hesitation in taking advantage of it. Borrowing overseas has the added merit that at the time the borrowing takes place wc receive an addition to our foreign exchange holdings. The Swiss loan is of special value in this respect, because the Swiss franc is a strong currency and no restrictions were placed on the currencies into which the Swiss franc proceeds of the loan could be converted.

The terms of the loan as set out in the Loan Agreement were approved by the Australian Loan Council before the Loan Agreement was signed. They are as follows : -

Interest is at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, payable half-yearly.

The duration of the loan is fifteen years, with an option to redeem after twelve years.

Interest and capital are to be paid at the option of the bondholders in Switzerland or in Australia. If paid in Australia, the bondholder may convert the Australian currency into United States dollars or such other foreign currency as the Commonwealth Bank may be prepared to authorize.

Payments of interest and capital are to be free of Australian taxes or duties for bondholders not resident, in Australia. This is in accordance with our existing income tax laws.

The agreement sets out the costs of the borrowing which should be borne by the Commonwealth.

The remainder of the Loan Agreement relates to procedural matters such as underwriting, the drawing up of the prospectus, issue of the bonds, listing on Swiss stock exchanges and arrangements for payment of interest and repayment of capital. As I said earlier, the loan was a success and the amount of 60,000,000 Swiss francs was raised without difficulty. After deduction of borrowing expenses the Government received the Swiss franc proceeds and sold them to the Commonwealth Bank, receiving in return an equivalent amount of Australian currency. After the Commonwealth Bank paid the equivalent of the net loan proceeds in Australian pounds to the Government’s credit in Australia it remained only to put these Australian pounds to use in Australian industrial development. For this purpose it is proposed to open a trust account, named the Swiss Loan Trust Account, to which the loan proceeds will be transferred from the Loan Fund, where they are now held. The Government proposes to use the Swiss Loan Trust Account balance in assisting the Loan Council borrowing programmes for this financial year. As honorable members know, the Commonwealth undertook at the Loan Council meeting in May, 1953, to assist the States’ borrowing programmes in 1953-54 up to a limit of £95,000,000. The £5,800,000 received from the Swiss loan will prove very useful in helping to meet that obligation. Most of the State governments’ expenditure on works is used to provide basic services necessary for the development of Australia’s economy. In this way, the object of the Swiss loan - the promotion of Australia’s industrial development - will be achieved. The Swiss Loan Trust Account will also form a sinking fund for the loan. When the time comes for repayment of the loan, the trust account investments can be realized to provide funds for the repayment. It is possible, however, that the moneys in the trust account will not be quite enough to repay the loan fully. After meeting the expenses of the borrowing, the amount payable to the trust account will be about £5,800,000 whereas the amount repayable on the loan is equivalent to about £6,000,000. This deficiency could be increased if there happened to be movements in exchange rates between now and the date of repayment. It is accordingly proposed that the trust account may, if necessary, be credited with interest received from the trust account’s investments; and provision for this has been made in sub-clause (3.) . of clause 6. To the extent that it is not found necessary to build up the trust account in this way, the interest on the trust account’s investments will, of course, be credited toConsolidated Revenue. Moreover, as provided in the Audit Act, any balance which might remain in the trust account after repaying the loan would be transferred back to Consolidated Revenue.

Because of these arrangements it will not be necessary for the Commonwealth to make normal sinking fund contributions in respect of the Swiss loan, and clause 9 of the bill accordingly exempts the loan from the provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act. Current payments of interest on the Swiss loan will be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is provided for in clause 10. This loan will undoubtedly prove of lasting benefit to both Australia and Switzerland. The Swiss have taken the opportunity of investing in Australia’s future development and have obtained a secure investment with a reasonable return. Moreover, Australia’s continued development will expand the Australian market and Swiss exporters will undoubtedly find opportunities of participating in that market. Commercially as well as financially the links between the two countries will be welded more closely. For Australia the loan is amply justified by the contribution it will also make in improving and expanding our basic developmental facilities.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.

page 52

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1954

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1) ; Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2) ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1) ; Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 1) ; Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 15th February (vide page 9), on motions by Sir Eric Harrison - [Customs Tariff Amendment (Nos. 1 and 2).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1953 be amended . . . (vide gages 9 and 12). [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1 )].

That the schedule to the Customs. Tariff (Canadian Preference). 1934-1952 be amended * (vide* page 15). [Customs Tariff (New Zealand) Preference Amendment (No. 1).].

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1953 be amended . . . (vide page 16). and on motion by Mr. Holt - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3).]

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933- 1953 as proposed to be amended . . .. (vide page 33).

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

. -I think that it will suit the convenience of the committee if we deal in one debate with the various tariff proposals that await our attention, so that honorable members may speak in general terms on the policy issues that they wish to discuss, and also on the particular matters which are under consideration. I understand that this procedure will meet the convenience of Opposition members and Government supporters.

Before I make any reference to the specific matters before the committee, I should like to deal with the general considerations which, I think, honorable members should have in mind when they are devoting their attention to tariff matters of this kind. There should be little argument in this Parliament at this stage about the industrial development of Australia, and the importance to this country ‘ of our manufacturing industries ; but I sometimes wonder whether the people have a full realization of just how rapid this development has been, and of how important the manufacturing industries have become to Australia’s development, security, and financial and social welfare. I do not feel that I am on controversial ground when [ say that the years since the introduction of the ‘Scullin tariff in 1929 have witnessed a remarkable growth of secondary industry in Australia. Honorable members will recall that, at that time, because of the decline of the prices of our export commodities, we did not have the overseas exchange that would have been required to pay for all the goods that we wanted. Consequently, we found it necessary to turn to our own manufacturing capacity, and to establish that capacity where it did not exist in order to replace, as far as we could at that time with efficient industry, the products which we had hitherto purchased overseas with the proceeds from the sale of our exports. Australian industry, as the result of what at the time seemed to us an almost disastrous experience, after the collapse of prices for our export commodities in the early 1930’s. became established on a firm basis, and has not since looked back for any considerable period of time.

The years of war brought their own demands upon Australian industry for different reasons, but left, as a consequence, a greatly expanded and more highly efficient manufacturing capacity in respect of a wide range of products. Our allies, which had supplied us with many goods in the past, were unable, because of the stresses of war, to continue ito meet our requirements. That urgency and pressure which were experienced gave Australian industry another fillip. It is now a matter of proud record how

Australian industry responded to that challenge and gave us, in a remarkably short time, a range of manufacturing capacity which we would not have thought possible in earlier years.

I confess that I was one of the many people who thought that once ‘ the war ended, Australian industry would have a difficult task in holding its own against the competition of overseas manufacturers. We had certain advantages, such as the natural advantages created by distance, because it was costly for manufacturers in the Old World to freight goods to Australia. We also had the advantage, which we made for ourselves, of a devalued exchange rate that gave some preference to our own manufacturers. Nevertheless, Australian manufacturers had to contend with the experience and skill in craftsmanship acquired by manufacturers in other countries over many generations. Australian industry was confronted with a formidable task arising from opposition and competition in the immediate post-war years, but it has been able to develop, and flourish.

I should like to place a few facts before the committee which indicate quite dramatically the growth of Australian manufacturing industry since the outbreak of World War II. In 1938-39, which was the last complete financial year before the outbreak of hostilities, 26,941 factories were recorded in Australia. For the purposes of the Commonwealth Statistician, a factory may be quite a small unit with a small number of employees, but I am comparing like with like in order that honorable members may have a reasonable means of comparison. In 1951-52, which is the last year for which the Statistician .has supplied figures, the number of factories had increased to 45,843. The number of persons employed in manufacturing industries during the same period increased from 565,000 to 977,000, and the value of production rose from £203,000,000 to £1,023,000,000. So, even when we make allowance for changes in the value of currency during the intervening period, honorable members will see that quite a remarkable increase has taken place in those three respects.

That development has had some even more important consequences for Australia. The manufacturing section of our community life has come to mean a great deal more to us in terms of employment, national security and economic balance. Australia is subject to the uncertainties of drought, bushfires and other natural disasters, but we are by no means so vulnerable to-day to those fluctuations in fortune, thanks to the highly-developed secondary industries, as we were in the years before the outbreak of World War II. We can derive real comfort from that fact, and take pride in it.

Stress should also be placed on another matter. People overseas are apt to think of Australia as a great primary producing country, and many persons in Australia to-day still think of it in those terms. Undoubtedly, our prosperity and our capacity to import the goods which we are not able to produce for ourselves, or which we cannot find among our natural resources, are still dependent almost entirely upon our ability to produce from our land the commodities which other countries need, because the proceeds from the sale of those commodities enable us to pay for our imports. But, in another sense, it is no longer true to say that Australia is a great primary producing. country. The importance of our manufacturing industries cannot be ignored. Statistics show that these industries employ almost twice as many people as are employed in primary production. This circumstance, I believe, will develop increasing importance with the passage of time.

We in Australia, regardless of our political allegiances, are committed to the development, of the continent. We need more people to help us in this task so that we may be able to hold the country against such challenges as may be directed against it in the future. All political parties represented in this Parliament subscribe to that general national policy. With that objective in view, this Government, like its predecessor in office, has pursued a policy of immigration on a large scale. It believes that Australia needs new settlers in order to promote, through development, the degree of national security that is essential in view of our geographical situation and the menacing possibilities of the future. As the process of immigration has proceeded, it has become increasingly plain that, in our plans to absorb the new adult population from overseas, we must allow for the fact that primary production accounts for the employment . of only about 15 per cent, of our total work force. Even if, by some magic, we could double’ the number of farms, flocks and herds in Australia over a short period of years, we could not absorb more than a relatively small proportion of the additional work force provided by new settlers. I can illustrate this fact a little more clearly by reference to statistics. Since World War II., the work force of Australia has increased by about 340,000 persons. Of these, only 68,000, representing one in every five, have been added by natural increase. The remainder of the total is attributable to immigration. Most of our immigrants have been absorbed in the manufacturing industries, the great public utilities and the public services of the country. Primary production has been able to take only a small proportion of the number. The placement of European immigrants has followed a different pattern from that of British immigrants because the Government has consciously followed a policy of directing European immigrants to harvesting work for which labour has been scarce. Europeans have been employed on harvest work in the sugar industry of Queensland and in the orchards and farms of the Shepparton Valley and the Murray Valley in Victoria and South Australia. By this means 35 per cent, of assisted European immigrants have been placed initially in primary industries. However, these men’ tend to enter the manufacturing industries after they have gone through a period of employment in seasonal occupations. This movement swells the number of initial placements in manufacturing industries, which represents 40 per cent, of the total of assisted European immigrants. Only 1 per cent, of assisted British immigrants have been placed initially in primary industries, whereas 55 per cent, have gone direct into manufacturing industries.

I do not say that this is a had situation. I merely state the fact so that honorable members will realize that, if we are to continue to increase the population by immigration, a large proportion of new settlers must go into secondary industries, public utilities and public services. We cannot enlarge farms, flocks and herds rapidly, and - a vitally important factor which is too frequently overlooked - we cannot dramatically enlarge the overseas demand for our primary products. People in other countries urge us from time to time to increase primary production, and I have no doubt that, throughout the world, there is a genuine need for more wool, wheat and other primary commodities that Australia can produce. But we live in a world in which such commodities must be paid for at some time by the consumers. We cannot expect our farmers to increase production merely out of a sense of charity, however well-meaning they may be. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), from his close knowledge of our primary industries, will agree with me that, if Australia were to increase primary production greatly, as our friends overseas have suggested at various times, we should have tremendous difficulty in selling our surplus products at prices that would enable the growers to continue in production. There are definite practical limits in this workaday world to the expansion of our primary production.

We can give greater security to primary producers, I believe, by steadily increasing the home market for their products. This has been proved in the case of meat. I understand that approximately fourfifths of the meat produced in Australia goes to the domestic market. I cannot recall the precise figures, and I speak subject to correction on the point, but it is clear that the home market provides a source of security and protection for our meat producers. Population growth in the United States of America has pro- ceeded hand in hand with great industrial developments that have made that country the most powerful industrial nation of the world. The United States of America, according to my recollection of the figures, produces almost one-half of the total volume of manufactured products used in the world to-day. There is, in fact, inspiration for Australia. It shows us what we can achieve by the process of population growth accompanied by healthy industrial expansion.

I have discussed this matter in some detail so that nobody need have any doubts of the attitude of the Government parties in relation to Australia’s secondary industries. We believe in the steady expansion of secondary production as an essential accompaniment to the absorption of new citizens. This is the means by which we can provide for the security of the nation and for the improvement of the living standards of the people that we all desire. Therefore, the Government has tried to pursue economic policies designed to encourage secondary industries. It has tried to keep the demand for goods buoyant inside Australia and to establish good trade relations with other countries in order to foster the internal prosperity that is essential to the healthy expansion of our industries. ‘ Looking back over the. years, I think one can fairly claim that this policy has enjoyed a considerable measure of success. Our people to-day are not only fully employed, but they are also fully employed in industries which are expanding before ing ample opportunity to exercise their skills. New settlers are being readily placed in suitable work, and we can see our eyes. Our craftsmen are findahead of us a continuation of this prosperity.

I have said these things by way of introduction because I feel that, when we come to specific proposals, we should have in our minds the things that the Government is trying to do in a general way, and their importance to Australia. Then we can examine how these sp’ecific proposals, which come to us in the form of recommendations from the Tariff Board, fit into the general picture.

For as long as I can remember, the accepted policy of this Parliament has been to give adequate protection to efficient Australian industries. That does not mean that any industry can be set going and that, regardless of its performance, its life will be assured by a safe home market. We must also ensure, if we have any sense of responsibility, that the consumers, the general public of Australia, shall be protected. Therefore, if an industry wants protection, it has a duty to be as efficient as hands and brains can make it. The operatives too have a responsibility to give of their best in order that the Australian consumer shall benefit from their production. There has long been recognition of the fact that to give attention to each request by an Australian industry for protection is beyond the competence or wit of any government. Therefore, throughout the years, ve have maintained the Tariff Board, which consists of responsible and competent men. The board is able to examine the various proposals as they come before it. It is able to hear argument from representatives of the interested parties, including both those who are seeking protection and those who consider that they would be at a disadvantage if that protection were given. The board measures the evidence that is placed before it and embodies its recommendations in its reports to the Government. In turn, the Government places the reports before the Parliament. That course has been followed in the matters now under consideration.

I believe that, before concluding, I should mention one or two points which may have a. little more novelty for us. First, I emphasize the need for us to recognize the special stresses under which Australian industry is now placed. Those stresses are fairly obvious. Immediately after the war, most countries were busily engaged in meeting shortages in the home markets that had developed during the war years. There was not the great search by manufacturing countries for overseas markets that there is to-day. They had unsatisfied home markets to supply first, and naturally, in most instances, the home market is given first priority. So, instead of a f fallin g away of manufacturing activity which we had considered to be a possibility in the years after the war, Australian industry was kept going actively meeting the demand of our own markets. Because we were at that time in a strong competitive position, we had an opportunity to take up markets in some importing countries. We did not make the best use of those opportunities, but T shall not elaborate on those circumstances to-night. At least we met the needs of our own home markets.

However, in more recent times, certain pressures have become more acute and, with our own internal cost structure now relatively high, we are disadvantageously placed in relation to some of our competitors.

I refer particularly to the United Kingdom. On that point, without going through the Tariff Board’s reports in any detail, I should like to refer honorable members to one passage which occurs on page 18 of the report on cotton sheeting, one of the items now before the committee. In that paragraph the board has set out the average hourly rates paid to workers engaged in spinning and weaving. The table shows clearly that Australia carries a heavy burden in high hourly charges. Australian Cotton Textile Industries Limited, the firm primarily concerned in the application for increased duties, pays an hourly rate of 6s. 9d. The United Kingdom manufacturer pays the equivalent of 3s. 6d. an hour in Australian currency ,-. or about half the Australian rate. India, another producer of cotton textiles, pays ls. an hour, and Japan pays ls. 6d. an hour. But that is not the end of the story. Adjustments have to be made for the superior Australian working conditions, particularly those relating to annual leave, sick leave, and matters of that kind. When these factors are taken into consideration, the comparison shows Australia to be in an even more disadvantageous position. The adjustment gives a total Australian hourly rate of 7s. 7d., compared with 3s. lOd. in United Kingdom, ls. Id. in India, and ls. 8d. in Japan. So, it will be seen that even the most efficient industries operating in this country are at a competitive disadvantage because of our high internal wage structure. That disadvantage is offset in part, as I said earlier, by the exchange rate, and, further, by the freight charges which overseas manufacturers have to meet when placing their goods on the Australian market. Yet, quite obviously, even efficient Australian secondary industries in the main require some protection if they are to get their share of the domestic market. To ensure that this share will be a fair one, and that the Australian consumer will not be exploited, we have the machinery of the Tariff .Board at our disposal. Complaints have been made about the operations of the Tariff Board, but they have not arisen from any inadequacy on the part of members of that board. Physical limitations have made delays in hearing submissions from many industries inevitable. However, in recent times the Government has increased the number of members of the Tariff Board from four to seven and now there is available, not one board, but, in effect, two separate boards, which are able to deal with double the number of applications which would otherwise have been heard. It is hoped that this development will go a long way towards meeting the difficulties that have arisen.

I do not propose to go into the details of the proposals that are now before the committee. Doubtless honorable members who are interested in particular items have read the relevant reports of the board. We, as a government, have adopted the recommendations of a board that we believe performs the useful function of umpire in these matters. In determining issues between contending parties who are seeking a share of the Australian market, it takes the view that the prime considerations are the national welfare of Australia and the interests of Australian consumers. E think all members of the committee will agree that, in view of the state of Australian industry to-day, we can claim reasonably that the board has done a good job and has served industry well. Doubtless there are differences of opinion about determinations made by the board. Some people may believe that burdens have been imposed upon consumers in this country that should not have been imposed on them. But the Government does not know of any more satisfactory method of dealing with these problems than that which has stood the test of time and enjoys the support of all parties in this Parliament.

I have not attempted to deal with the details of these proposals. I have sought to make it abundantly clear that this Government recognizes the importance to Australia of expanding secondary industries and,’ while paying due regard to the needs of consumers, is determined that Australian industry shall be given every reasonable encouragement to gain strength in the years ahead.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- These proposals to increase the tariff protection given to certain Australian industries have the support of the Australian Labour party. Labour has stood determinedly for the establishment in this country of every possible kind of secondary industry on an extensive scale. It may be that, in theory, free trade is the ideal policy for mankind generally, but hard, practical experience, has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that, especially in a world in which wars occur, the only sensible and practical policy for us to adopt is to give our industries the tariff protection they require to enable them to develop. It can be said that the Liberal party is, to some degree, though not as enthusiastically as the Labour party, a protectionist party, but its ally, the Australian Country party, is traditionally a free trade party. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) gave credit to the Scullin Administration for the stand ,it took in relation to the practical application of a protectionist policy in this country during the depression years. That administration virtually established the principle that this Parliament will at all times protect Australian industries, .because our protectionist policy now has the support of most of our political opponents.

The Minister showed how essential that policy was when he outlined how difficult it would be for this country to depend entirely upon primary production as the means of its survival. Recently, I had occasion to study the wheat-growing industry, with which I have been associated in a political sense for many years. It is a remarkable fact that 60,000 Australian wheat-growers produce enough wheat to meet the annual wheat requirements of 9,000,000 Australians and also to export annually about 180,000,000 bushels of wheat, which is enough to keep another 20,000,000 people in bread for a year. That reveals the magnitude of the problem of providing employment for a large population in this country. Only a comparatively small number .pf people is required to produce our requirements of bread, flour and other products. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) points out to me by an interjection that in other parts of the world 25,000,000 people still die of starvation each year. That is true, but I point out to my honorable friend that if the countries in which people still die of starvation were to manage their primary industries more efficiently they might be able to produce their own requirements of essential foods. I shall not deal with the position of Great Britain or Japan in relation to food production. I think the point my friend was trying to make was that reciprocal trade between nations is essential.

I am pointing out that, having regard to the small number of people who can supply all the food we need, it is essential, if we want to have a population of any magnitude, to make provision within the boundaries of this country for the employment of our people in secondary and associated industries. Divine Providence does not give even farmers’ sons the capacity to be good primary producers. In this country, there are farmers’ sons in every profession and every branch of industry. All civilized countries, and, for that matter, all uncivilized countries, are entitled to protect their own people and ensure that they will be given an opportunity to engage in the kind of work for which Providence has fitted them. It should be obvious to all thinking people that it i3 better to have industries in our own country than to depend on the industries of other countries. Employees of Australian industries work under conditions prescribed by Australian parliaments and courts. Hygiene requirements in Australian factories are determined by State parliaments. Our taxation machine enables us to take from Australian industries the portion of their profits that we believe should be taken from them. If we had continued to import manufactured goods now made in Australia a limited number of manufacturers overseas could have determined the prices that we paid for essential requirements. They could have reaped exorbitant profits, and the par- :liaments of this country would not have been able to take anything from them by the -use of the taxation machine for the benefit of the Australian economy. Let me point out something to members of the Australian Country party - the allies of the Liberal party, which the Minister has put forward as a staunch protectionist party. In 1919 there was no protection on reapers and binders. The price of most brands of those items in Australia was £105. In that year the Parliament approved of the introduction of protection in order to encourage the Australian reaper and binder manufacturing industry. The firm of Hugh ‘Victor McKay in my electorate placed the first Australian-made reaper and binder on the market at £96. Although some honorable members may think that the reduction of price of only £9 was not much of an advantage to the Australian farmers, I remind the committee that this Australian industry has provided jobs for thousands of workers. Furthermore, the Government has been able- to appropriate revenue derived from the taxation of the profits of that company for the provision of social services, as well as the development of this country.

Let us consider the difference between free trade and protection. On one occasion I heard an agriculturalist remark tersely that the difference was that under one policy the farmers were robbed by overseas manufacturers, whilst under the other they were robbed by the Australian manufacturers. As honorable members know, I am a primary producer, and it is from the ranks of the primary producers that there come the most ardent supporters of free trade. Personally, I should prefer to be robbed by our own manufacturers.

During the last two years many applications have been made to the Tariff Board, the instrumentality that was established by the Parliament to report on applications for increased protection for specific commodities. Indeed, applications in respect of particular commodities have been made to the board with monotonous regularity, and the work of the board increased to such an extent that the Government was obliged to appoint an additional tribunal to deal with the many applications for increased tariffs. When the present Government came to office in 1949 our economy was relevantly stable, and comparatively few applications for increased tariffs were being received. However, since 1949 Australia has been the victim of galloping inflation.

The Government has been unable to honour its promise to restore value to the £1 - probably a stupid promise - and, as a result of increased costs manufacturers have found themselves in an impossible position. The tariffs that were in operation in 1949 were adequate to protect the Australian manufacturers against foreign competition and dumping at that time, but during the last two years many Australian manufacturers have been unable successfully to compete against imported articles on the local market. In many instances they have also been forced to abandon export markets for their commodities. Up to 1949 Australian manufacturers enjoyed profitable export markets. Indeed, the products of Australian engineering and agricultural implement making industries were in great demand overseas. Now, however, our manufacturers have difficulty in competing on the local market with the products of other countries. That is the reason why there has been such a great flow of applications to the Tariff Board for additional assistance.

The Minister referred to efficiency in industry. Although it is true that the Australian Labour party supports the proposals for increased tariffs, I contend that due regard should be had by the Tariff Board to the efficiency of an industry before it recommends increased tariff protection for that industry. In my earlier years I had some experience in the engineering trade, and I claim to be a reasonably keen observer. Some of the products of our engineering and other industries are a positive disgrace. In a previous debate on tariff proposals I suggested that officers with technical knowledge should be available to the Tariff Board, capable of advising the board whether Australian industries which were seeking additional protection were efficient and deserving of such assistance. I have frequently compared Australian products with English and continental products. In many instances the finish of our products is inferior to that of the imported articles. There should exist some means whereby the Government would be informed of the real position in these matters. It is not fair to expect the personnel of the Tariff Board,- as at present equipped, to be able to obtain impartial evidence from the opponents of increased tariffs, the importers, or the manufacturers, about the quality of Australian products. In many instances Australian manufacturers have blamed their workmen for the inferior quality of their products. In my opinion, the supervision and inspection processes are not always as thorough as they should be. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue.

The Minister also mentioned the great contribution that immigrants from both the United Kingdom and other countries have made to the industrial development of Australia. Undoubtedly they have made great contributions in this connexion in the past, and they might make even greater contributions in the future. I remind the committee that those immigrants are here and able to make these contributions as a result of the immigration policy that was applied by the Chifley Labour Government. Under the direction of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who was Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information in that Government, there came to Australia a greater flow of immigrants than during any previous comparable period. Among those immigrants were many technicians, who have rendered magnificent service in the technical and manufacturing fields.

I shall refer now to wheat production, a matter in which the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) is keenly interested. A wicked suggestion was made recently in certain quarters that there should be restriction of wheat production in this country. I agree entirely with the opinion that has been expressed by the press, and particularly from the pulpit, that it would be wicked to consider reducing our wheat acreage while millions of people were starving in other parts of the world. I am in agreement with the suggestion that we should give any excess production of wheat to those starving people, but it must be remembered that if that were done, ultimately our primary producers would have to be paid by the people of Australia, and the wealthy sections of the community should bear an equitable part of the burden. Most of the critics were entirely silent on that point. But it is in regard not only to secondary production, but also, in particular, to primary production, that we should go ever onward and forward, and, if necessary, when we have reached the stage at which we produce more than we can reasonably consume or are entitled to, we should be prepared to tax ourselves in order to give our unfortunate brothers in other parts of the world the benefit of some of the things we enjoy.

Mr Beazley:

– We did it six years ago.

Mr POLLARD:

– My friend points out that we did it six years ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not continue in that strain.

Mr POLLARD:

– Then I shall proceed on a more palatable line. During the course of his speech the Minister pointed out that one of the reasons why industries that applied for increased tariff protection found great difficulty in beating overseas competition was that hourly wage rates in Australia are much higher than hourly wage rates in the United Kingdom and other countries. The Minister cited the hourly wage rate in Australia as 7s. 6.9Sd. compared with the British hourly wage rate of 3s. 10.63d.; but he did not point out that, apparently due to the high efficiency of the particular Australian industry concerned, or for some other reason that I have not yet been able to ascertain, the difference in the selling price of the goods produced in the United Kingdom and similar goods produced in Australia did not vary to a degree closely proportionate to that by which the hourly wage rates in the two countries differ. The selling price of the Australian-produced commodity to which he referred is 57.51d. a yard. The landed cost in Australia of the British commodity is 52d. a yard. The difference between the two selling prices is much less than the difference between the hourly wage rates in the two countries and is, in fact, remarkably narrow. Those figures, unless I have misinterpreted them, would indicate clearly that, despite the high wage rates on which the Minister laid so much stress, the Australian industry can sell its product at only a fraction above the landed cost of the United Kingdom product, although the

United Kingdom wage rate is about half the Australian wage rate. That is a fact that the Australian Country party might well take into consideration.

In order to give a further illustration of the great capacity of Australian industry to meet the demands of the Australian people, and even to supply overseas markets, as well as of the marvellous development that has taken place, I can do no better than point out that as early as 1937, when I became a member of this Parliament, I advocated that a motor car manufacturing industry should be established in Australia. I mentioned Bacchus Marsh, a town in my electorate, as a possible site for such an industry. I said that the various car parts should be manufactured in other parts of the State and assembled at one point. At that time the Parliament had presented to it a report that stated that it was impossible to manufacture cars in Australia. A few years later, when war came, this country manufactured high-grade aircraft engines. A modern aircraft engine is, in comparison to a motor car engine, much as a motor car engine is in comparison to a crude agricultural implement. To-day, complete motor cars are being manufactured in this country. There is no limit to the products of secondary industry that Australia can produce.

The Opposition will support the motion, hut it trusts that something will be done to protect the Australian people in respect of the quality of goods and also to ensure that Australian industry keeps itself up to a standard of production that will justify the protection that is accorded to it, and for which the people generally have to pay in the long run.

Mr PETERS:
Burke

– I listened with some amazement to the remarks of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt). My amazement was due to the fact that I have vivid recollections of the record of the Government of which he is a member in connexion with the protection of Australian secondary industry. I also remember clearly the remarks that the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) made in his 1951 budget speech. On that occasion the right honorable gentleman said that there were uneconomic and inefficient industries in this country which, during the war, had grown out of all proportion to the nation’s requirements. He said that we must encourage imports. He averred that the Government would use all the financial resources at its disposal, and all its control over credit and banking, in order to encourage the importation of manufactured goods, because it was necessary that we divert men and resources from secondary industry into the primary and basic industries. More startling than his remarks was the effect of the implementation of that policy. The Government implemented its policy from October, 1951. During the following months I and other members of the Opposition pointed out to the Government that the overseas funds of Australia were being dissipated as a result of the enormous increase of imports. We said then that £200,000,000 had vanished from our overseas funds by November, and that at that rate it would not be long before the funds were completely dissipated.

In March, 1952, I moved,- on behalf of the Opposition, a motion for the formal adjournment of the House in order to discuss unemployment in the textile trades. During the resultant debate I and other members of the Opposition directed the attention of the Government and the House to the parlous position of our overseas funds as a result of the encouragement of imports. The VicePresident of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison), who replied on behalf of the Government, said that our overseas funds were buoyant and that everything in the garden was lovely. The Parliament went into recess. Three days later, or only a few days after the official pronouncement had been made by the Government that everything was as it should be, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a broadcast to the nation in which he said that the country was in difficulties and that hardships must be experienced by the people if we were to save ourselves from international insolvency, because, he added, during the period of the previous six months the value of the vast quantities of imports had exceeded the value of our exports in the same period. That, of course, was a position that was deliberately brought into being by the Government. That is why I am amazed that the Minister for Labour and National Service should have said that his Government was most concerned about secondary industry in this country. His Government sought to 3mash secondary industry, allegedly in order to put people into primary industry and other basic industries. But it did not put one person on to a farm. It did, however, put 100,000 Australians out of work. It did, however, dry up the profits of secondary industry which provide taxation and which provide funds for investment in developmental works and for defence. It was the Labour party that pointed out to the people that the path that was being trod was detrimental to the interests of the vast masses of the people. I agree with the Minister that primary production cannot absorb vast numbers of people rapidly. It never could. On all the farms throughout Australia approximately 300,000 people are employed. Every year 90,000 young people in Australia reach the age when they must be absorbed into industry.

Government members interjecting,

Mr PETERS:

– That is correct. My facts are taken from the publication, National Development, which is issued by the Government. An article in that publication also points out that it would cost £15,000,000 a year to put 2,000 people on to farms in Australia and that those 2,000 who would then be farmers would not give employment to another 2,000 people. Without expanding secondary industry, it is not possible to absorb natural-born Australians into industry and bring in big numbers of immigrants for the purpose of making this country secure in war and developing it in peace. The Labour party favors the expansion of secondary industry, but the Government has deliberately restricted it.

This debate is of particular importance because, as in days gone by when the Bruce-Page coalition Government controlled the destinies of this country, the Australian Country party tail wags the present coalition Government. The Australian Country party is and always has been a free trade party. In the course of his speech the Minister for Labour and National Service did not mention the period before the depression when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, enunciated that it was most desirable that Australia should import more from overseas in order to lower our costs. Mr. Bruce said that such a . course would reduce prices and the people would be better off because they would be able to buy more. He did not realize that the people would not be able to buy more because the importation of those commodities would put people out of work. That is what eventuated and the depression became more acute because of that policy. It was the tariff embargo that the Scullin Government placed on the importation of textiles and other goods that enabled this country to come out of the depression more rapidly than it would otherwise have done.

If a. nation is to be great it must recognize the interdependence between primary production and manufacturing industries. The home market provided by secondary industry is the most stable market for primary producers. That fact was proven in the depression and it will be proven again when prices slump overseas. It would be better for this country to bring to Australia 500,000 Englishmen who manufacture textiles in Lancashire and feed them upon our primary products and let them produce cloth for our people here than it would be to send our primary products overseas to feed those 500,000 textile workers in Lancashire in order to enable them to export the results of their industry to this country. It has been suggested that because Japan takes £80,000,000 worth of Australian wool each year, we should accept the manufactured goods of Japan in return, irrespective of what they may be. That would not be good business from our point of view. Why does Japan accept £80,000,000 worth of wool? Is it because Japan has developed a love for the Australian people and wants to promote our primary production ? No ! It is because wool is an essential commodity which Japan requires in order to maintain its position as the greatest exporter of textiles in the world. The United States of America has slipped from the first place as an exporter of textiles.

Mr Gullett:

– I rise to order. Does any item in the. bill before the committee deal with the textiles or the United States of America ?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).At the commencement of this debate I had to decide whether the committee should deal with each tariff schedule separately or whether it should hold a general debate. As the Minister for Labour and National Service made a speech covering these matters generally I have allowed the debate to proceed in general terms. I understand that both sides of the House have accepted that we are discussing the three schedules.

Mr PETERS:

– I would not have traversed the ground that I have covered had I not been set the example by such a. distinguished person as the Minister for Labour and National ‘Service. As I was saying, Japan leads the world in the exportation of textiles. In the manufacture of a great deal of its textiles Japan uses wool and that is why it wants our wool. But we do not want toys from Japan. We do not want manufactured textiles from Japan. We do not want a lot of Japanese machinery. We should select what we do require from Japan.. Japanese exports go to Malaya where Japan has established credits. We want rubber. Malaya exports rubber. If we take advantage of Japanese credits in Malaya we can obtain rubber. Japan sends goods to India and Ceylon. We want tea. We can take the tea in return for the goods that we send to Japan. Japan can buy 1,000 items essential to the economy of this country with the textiles that it manufactures from our wool. We could obtain those items in return for our wool without injuring our economy or throwing Australians out of work. That is a sane and sensible attitude. It is not a matter of hating Japan, because the same remarks apply to countries such as Germany, America, Great Britain and others. In return for our exports we should take only those goods that we require for our development, and we should not take any goods that would impede our development.

The Minister cited certain figures. He showed that the standard of living in Japan is so much lower than that of

Australia that Japan can sell goods here much cheaper than we can sell our own products. He said that consequently, we must have tariff, and he is quite right. I have before me an article from an American publication which points out how essential it is that America should have protection for its textile industry. It shows that the labour cost per hour in the Japanese textile industry is 10.6 cents, in the Indian industry 10.6 cents, in the British industry 39.1 cents but in the United States industry it is 1 dollar 30 cents. The article also indicates that the labour cost in an article is one-third of the total cost. Therefore, in Japan the total hourly cost of manufacturing an article is about 30 cents, and in America nearly four dollars. Moreover, I suggest that Australian costs in the textile industry are much the same as American costs. Therefore, if we are to maintain our present industrial conditions, including long service leave, two weeks’ annual holidays and the 40-hour week - all conditions that have been fought for through the years by the Australian workers - we must protect our industries against competition from Japan, and other low-wage countries.

Japan is not the only industrially resurgent nation in the world. Germany and other European nations are also challenging our industries. If we protect our own industries and thus give employment to our own people we shall develop a nation which in time of peace will be great and in time of war will be secure. The Minister (Mr. Holt) paid tribute to the Scullin tariff laws. The right honorable gentleman could also have pointed to the history of tariff protection in America. Abraham Lincoln, in a homely illustration, said that if America bought a wagon made in America, it had the wagon and also the money, but if it bought a wagon made elsewhere it had the wagon but lost the money. All through the past hundred years America has continually raised its protective barriers and imposed embargoes against goods from Europe and elsewhere. European nations wanted to buy American primary products, and wanted to sell their manufactured articles in return. They wanted America to be a great granary and cattle ranch for Europe, but the Americans thought otherwise. They believed that their destiny was to develop their nation to the full. They did that, and because of the protective tariffs of the 1890’s America was able to show us during World War II. that it was the greatest industrial force that the world had ever known. Australia can learn from the example of America, and build its industries to serve all its needs.

Of course, the encouragement of industries does not confer an unlimited right of exploitation on the owners of the industries, and a government can control its own industrialists much easier than it can control overseas merchants. In the case of Australian industries, the Government, if it so desires, can control the quantity, quality and the price . of their commodities, and can ensure that the people are not exploited. However, if our industries should be destroyed, and if we should be at the mercy of overseas manufacturers, we would have to pay the prices that they might determine and take goods of the quality they wished to send us. That is not desirable in the interests of the people of Australia, and, therefore, we should have our own manufacturers, and should control them. Of course, tariffs do not solve all problems. I have a small list before me showing the names of a number of manufacturers in Australia. These concerns manufacture electrical goods, and consequently this matter has particular reference to the schedule before honorable members. The list shows that these manufacturers cannot obtain sufficient steel for their needs, and that they will have to dismiss men if supplies are not increased. They require the type of steel that is manufactured in Australia, but they cannot get it, and so hundreds of men are in danger of losing their employment. Not one of those firms has more than a couple of weeks’ supply of sheet steel. Nevertheless, the steel that they require is manufactured here, but is exported to countries where manufacturing costs are cheaper, and then the manufactured articles are sent back to Australia and sold here.

Mr Gullett:

– That is completely false, and utter nonsense.

Mr PETERS:

– I have the names of the firms before me.

Mr Gullett:

– Well, the honorable member should read them.

Mr PETERS:

– Here are the names: Replex Proprietary Limited, Transformer Manufactures, Red Line Equipments, M. Brodribb, Kempthorne Proprietary Limited, Ironcore Transformers, P. and D. Transformers, F. W. Davey and Company, Busch Electric Company, Pacific Electric Company, Bayley and Grimster. Soltra, McColl Electric Work, Trimar Transformers. Those concerns are not able to get enough steel to keep their men in full employment.

Mr Keon:

– Where is the steel going?

Mr PETERS:

– It is being sent overseas, probably to subsidiary interests of the steel manufacturers in this country. It is being manufactured overseas, then the manufactured articles are being brought back and sold in Australia. The concerns that I mentioned cannot compete with overseas firms, because they cannot get their basic steel requirements. This Government has allowed that unfortunate position to arise, and should rectify it. However, it certainly will be rectified after the 29th May next.

I think that I have made clear my attitude, which is also that of the Australian Labour party, towards manufacturing industries. Such industries were established and protected under Labour governments and that policy will be continued by future Labour governments. That will be done, not because the members of the Australian Labour party are anti-christian, or because they do not love the people of other countries of the world, but because they believe that the first responsibility of the Australian Government is to the Australian people. They believe that the Government should induce people from other countries to come to Australia and help to make this country the self-reliant and prosperous nation that it should be.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– I think it is fair to say, in dealing with customs and tariffs generally, that we on this side of the chamber are a free-trade party. We believe that where goods are efficiently produced trade, which is the basis of commerce, should be encouraged, and that if we can bring goods into this country in exchange for goods which we produce efficiently, such goods should be admitted. Honorable members opposite refer frequently to the need to restore value to the £1. However, they are somewhat inconsistent because they also maintain that the Australian worker must be protected. I could cite numerous instances in my own electorate of business undertakings, with parent bodies in the Old Country, which work an effective 33-hour week with wages at about £12 a week, whereas the parent bodies work a 45-hour week, with wages at approximately £6 sterling a week. Yet, the supporters of the Australian Labour party maintain that the Australian worker must be protected, no matter what else happens. If the Australian worker were to be protected in all instances, the goods which he produced would be twice as expensive as similar goods which could be imported. It would not be possible to get value back into the £1 by that means. The principle, therefore, should be to select the commodities which can be produced more efficiently overseas and to protect those commodities which can be produced efficiently here.

We have an export income of between £600,000,000 and £1,000,000,000 a year, but of course we also import many commodities, approximately 70 per cent. of which give rise to further employment. Raw materials of all kinds come to Australia. It is necessary for us to select the goods which should be allowed in. The honorable member for Burke (Mr. Peters) said that this Government, by means of its 1951 budget, encouraged imports. Of course it did so. Its object was to try to keep up a flow of goods and thus stop the inflationary trend. I believe that if the late Mr. J. B. Chifley had been Prime Minister at that time he would have done exactly the same thing. Incidentally, I sympathize with the Australian Labour party because it lacks his guidance at the present time. When the flow of imports became so great that we were in danger of losing our overseas funds we had to prohibit the importation of certain goods. We did the proper thing by discouraging imports at that stage. By means of the measure before the committee the Government is attempting to restore the balance.

It cannot be denied that workers in industry in Australia enjoy sheltered conditions. They are entitled to tea breaks and long-service leave. Their wages are very high. .

Mr Curtin:

– They did not get those high wages from the Liberal party.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– I remind the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Curtin) that wages have increased from approximately £6 a week to approximately £12 a week while this Government has been in office. At the present time, a delicate process is going on by means of which we are trying to encourage those imports which are efficiently produced overseas and which might help to reduce the cost of commodities in this country, while at the same time we are giving temporary protection to industries which are going through what might be described as the teething or experimental stage. It is at that time that an industry needs protection. Our friends, the Swiss, contend that an industry which needs continuous protection carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. I do not think that any honorable member would advocate continuous protection for an industry.

Mr Bryson:

– How then does the honorable member suggest that our own people are to be employed ?

Mr JEFF BATE:

– At the present time it is not possible to obtain sufficient labour. I therefore say that we are employing our people, and, indeed, that there is over-employment. Of course, that has been brought about by wise administration on the financial side. The position is very different from the sorry state of affairs which obtained in 1949 while the honorable gentlemen opposite were in office. At that time there were 500,000 people out of work. The Government could not get the coalminers to work and was obliged to use troops on the coal-fields.

The honorable member for Burke stated that it was necessary to build up a high tariff wall in order to keep Australians in employment. I point out that- most Australians are in employment at the present time and that if we build up a high tariff wall the effect of competition will be lost and our industrial efficiency will decline. I think it is true to say that although the Government believes that, as a general rule, there should not be restrictions of any sort, it agrees that some important restrictions or tariffs on imports are necessary in order to allow local industries to become established.

Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat

.- The speech made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) might have been culled from earlier speeches made by Labour Ministers. It contained a certain amount of common sense. However, what merit there was in it has been completely destroyed by the bricks which the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) threw round the chamber. He made it perfectly obvious that the policy of this Government is to encourage the inflow of cheap imports into the country. He said that he did not believe in continuous protection for Australian industries. I am sure that his electors, in a few weeks’ time, will be interested to hear him express such views. He professed to speak for the party of which he is a member, and he made it clear that his is a free-trade party. However, I do not think that we need spend a great deal of time in discussing the arguments that he presented. I invite honorable members to consider the Minister’s speech carefully, not so much because of his actual statements, but because he implied that the Government should be given credit for its achievements on behalf of Australian industries. In actual fact, nothing that the Minister claims the Government has done to assist Australian industries has been done. Actions count more than words.

I am most interested in the subject of paper, to which reference is made in the proposed amendments. A large papermill is situated in my electorate and there are similar mills in other electorates. The management of the papermill in my district was naturally most interested to know the full facts of the situation affecting the paper industry.

Obviously, the most important data that the management could obtain on the subject was the Tariff Board’s report on paper products on which the tariff proposals under consideration were based. But although the report was tabled on the last day of the previous sitting period of this Parliament, no copy of the report was available to honorable members until after lunch to-day. Although I had w ritten twice for a copy, I was unable to get one previously. If the Minister sincerely wishes to help Australian industries, he should ensure that reports of this nature are available to them. I have not had time to do more than glance through the 72 pages of the report. Furthermore, despite its length, the report is not complete in any. way. It is a summarized version of more than 800 pages of evidence that was heard by the board; but how can anybody consider and discuss the matter properly without this information? The Minister should issue the reports in adequate time.

As I have said previously in this chamber, there is also too much delay in dealing with the reports. About the middle of 1953, the Government decided to appoint three additional members to the Tariff Board. Some time ago the press reported that one highly respected man had been appointed as an additional member of the board, and I am informed that the other two additional members have since been appointed. I do not criticize the members of the hoard. They have done magnificent work for Australia and its economy and their reports and findings are very valuable as a basis of discussion. However, honorable members should note that the subject of paper products was referred to the Tariff Board by the Minister on the 22nd August, 1952. That is almost two years ago. For five months the board was unable to begin its inquiry. Then it sat in Melbourne on the 12th November, 1952. It took evidence in Melbourne and Sydney and when it concluded its hearing on the 10th February, 1953, the transcript of the evidence covered 833 pages. Nobody could quibble over the amount of work that the board did in that time, but its conclusions were not produced until the 22nd December, 1953, when the board produced its report. To-day honorable members are in a position to think about discussing it. I ask the Minister whether he considers that reasonable. If he wants to assist Australian industries, he should insist that the Tariff Board work and function more quickly.

Actually the tariff proposals are based upon reports, findings and records produced in 1952, nearly two years ago. It is out of date already. Honorable members should have up-to-date information if they are to do anything to assist Australian industry. Situations can change in a few months. Most of this report is a record of the failure of the Government. It reveals how much better the economic situation was a few years ago and how much it had deteriorated in the past few years.

All honorable members are familiar with the shortages that occurred during the second world war. Materials that were in short supply included paper. A great deal of paper was needed for war purposes and, in fact, at times it was described as a, paper war. The paper industry in Australia rose to the occasion when supplies from other sources were reduced. Its help was most valuable in war-time. The Tariff Board does not consider the paper industry from the point of view of defence but honorable members should not overlook it. During the war and after its conclusion, there was a shortage of paper. The Australian industry expanded in an endeavour to meet that shortage and all the records contained in the Tariff Board’s report show that the industry achieved a great deal in that direction. Production was materially increased and ultimately it would have met all Australia’s needs. If an industry is endeavouring to meet a shortage and is planning large-scale production for the purpose, those who are charged with its management should have reasonably stable conditions. Did the Government assist the paper industry by maintaining such conditions? The truth is that the paper industry was tossed about as though it were only a piece of paper itself. In effect the history of the trials of . the industry is given on page 10 of the Tariff Board’s report where it stated -

In 1952, European manufacturers commenced to overtake their arrears of orders and a cancellation of over-ordered tonnages in their own countries became common. Coincident with this trend, the United Kingdom imposed restrictions on the importation of paper and board and a greater volume became available for other markets. European mills rapidly completed and shipped banked-up orders to Australia; this sudden inflow of imports’ led to stock-piling among Australian users, and demand cased. What became known as the 1952 recession was followed by falling overseas prices at a time when Australian costs were still rising.

That is a record of the Government’s inability to meet the demands associated with this industry. Australian prices rose. Stocks were imported from overseas. The honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) claimed that the Government was encouraging Australian industries. What has it done for them? Actions, not words, should support the Government’s claim, but they do not do so. The board’s report continued -

The re-introduction of import licensing in Australia in March, 1952, eased the position somewhat for local manufacturers, but the decline in demand as a result of large accumulated stocks of imported paper, together with the fall in overseas prices, was the major factor leading to their requests for assistance.

Yet, it is only now, two years later, that we are discussing the board’s report. Unfortunate as it may seem, and, indeed, inexplicable as it seems to me as one who has not had time to read the report, practically no protection is being given to this Australian industry other than that with which they have been endeavouring to make do for a considerable time past. No increased protection has been afforded to the industry except in respect of one or two lines. Those facts speak for themselves. The Government’s import policy has not assisted Australian industries at all. Indeed, the Government has shown quite clearly that it believes that Australia is a trading nation. That fact cannot be disguised, not even in an able speech of the kind that was delivered by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt). The Government stands for an importing policy; it regards Australia as a trading nation. Even the Commonwealth Arbitration Court recognized that fact. The court in its judgment on the basic wage declared that it regarded Australia as a trading nation and, accordingly, it determined wages on that basis. It is useless for any Government supporter to say that he regards

Australia as being a manufacturing nation when, in fact, all Government supporters not only believe but also hope that it will always be a trading nation. The honorable member for Macarthur left no doubt in the minds of the committee that the Government believes it to bc most important that Australia should be a trading nation and not an independent nation working along the lines which, .as the honorable member for Burke (Mr. Peters) pointed out. the United States of America pursued.

Australia must fulfil its own destiny. It must make its own way. It can do so in respect of primary or secondary industry only by determining its own policy and not by submitting to dictation from outside. That fact must be borne in mind, particularly in the face of activities by certain interests that are anxious to import cheap paper products from Japan ostensibly on the ground that as Japan purchases large quantities of goods from Australia, for which it is hoped that country will be able to pay, we must open our doors to imports from Japan. As a result of such a policy Australian industries will find themselves in a fix. The Australian people believe that industrial conditions in this country must be fully protected. I assure the committee that the Australian Labour party will follow that course as long as it is able to do so. As I have not had an opportunity to study closely the report of the Tariff Board on this industry I shall say nothing more on the subject. I repeat that not only employees in the great paper mill at Ballarat but also the mill management are disappointed at the failure of the Government to take effective action to protect the industry, and I assure them that my colleagues and I will take appropriate action in this matter at the first opportunity that is afforded to us to do so.

Mr OPPERMAN:
Corio

.- I have listened with great interest, and not a little surprise, to honorable members opposite recalling conditions in the recent past as a result of which they thought they would be swept into office. That possibility is now obviously diminishing. I refer to the period when the Government found it necessary to introduce import controls. Honorable members opposite conveniently forget that similar conditions had not confronted any other government except in the ‘thirties when, practically ‘overnight, the national income fell by over 30 per cent, and widespread unemployment resulted. If honorable members opposite are fair they will acknowledge the fact that despite minor irritations, this Government has steered the nation to the economic stability which this country enjoys to-day to the envy of the world. It took succeeding governments ten years to undo the evil that was caused by a Labour administration in the early ‘thirties when the national income d this country dropped to the degree that E have indicated. However, when this Government was confronted with similar conditions in recent years it introduced controls which within a short period had the effect of balancing our overseas payments. It i3 completely erroneous for honorable members opposite to claim that the Government by the action which it took on that occasion opened the floodgates to imports. I remind the committee that at that time the Korean war was in progress. That fact seems to have been forgotten, but as a result of that conflict, in the peculiar circumstances that existed in respect of purchasing power overseas, the income of this country was increased tremendously. We were obliged to increase imports in order to enable Australia to meet the tremendous shortage of goods which arose mainly as a result of the failure of the previous Government to bring about full production in this country. At that time, we were unable to get into top gear and pick up the lag in production. That is past history. However, honorable members opposite merely pick out a particular phase of the situation which confronted this Government at that time and refuse to present the complete pattern. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That may be a trite saying : nevertheless, it is true. Performances, not theories, really count.

To-day, it is admitted throughout the country and, indeed, tacitly by honorable members opposite, that this Government’s policy has been vindicated. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), at the time to which I refer, harped on the theme that the Government was deliberately creating unemployment and that within twelve or eighteen months the country economically would le plunged into a morass from which it would not be able to extricate itself. But what is the position to-day? I instance industries in the electorate that I represent’ which, as a result of the Government’s policy, have achieved outstanding performances. When there was a falling off of orders for the products of those industries, the Government provided proof of its interest and concern in secondary industry by increasing its own orders for such products. In that way it sustained those industries during their temporary setback. To-day, there is no necessity for the Government to render assistance in that way. In spite of the claim by honorable members opposite that the Government does not desire to encourage secondary industries in this country those industries are growing so vapidly that their expansion is an inspiration. For instance, the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited is putting through more vehicles than ever before. That company is employing more staff, and could employ still more skilled and unskilled workers if they were available. The same observation applies to the International Harvester works. In addition, we’ have just witnessed a magnificent spectacle in the completion by the Shell Company of Australia Limited of a refinery at a cost of over £9,000,000, including the provision of a pipeline from Altona. That refinery is already in operation and is employing large numbers of men. Our woollen manufactures are competing with imported woollen goods. All those facts provide a conclusive answer to statements by Opposition members that this Government seeks to destroy the secondary industries.

It is not always easy to maintain a favorable balance of payments. Our income is derived from the sale of our export commodities, and our indebtedness is incurred through the purchases cf goods that we require. The margin between the two is often a fine one. Indeed, a favorable balance can be maintained only by the exercise of wise judgment and leadership. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of our export, trade. The honorable member for

Burke has asserted that Australian workmen must have a 40-hour week, two weeks’ annual leave, long-service leave, and amenities of various kinds, and that Australian industries must he given the protection of high tariffs. I remind the honorable gentleman that if our manufacturing costs rise to high levels, we shall not be able to sell our goods overseas, and, consequently, we shall not have favorable balances to enable us to purchase the goods that we require from other countries.

I also emphasize that production must be increased. Honorable gentlemen on this side of the chamber agree that every possible amenity should be given to Australian workers, but we deplore the advice t hat is tendered to workers by members of the Labour party. Honorable gentlemen opposite should tell workers in industry that they must maintain production if (hey are to continue to enjoy the various amenities to which reference has been made. The Opposition asserts that a crime has been committed against Australian secondary industries. If that be so, the persons responsible are those who preach the gospel of “ go slow “, and advise the workers “ not to work themselves out of a good job “. The overriding consideration is a matter, not of hours but of production. The honorable member for Burke considers that Australia should follow the American pattern in respect of tariff policy, and he quoted a reference of Abraham Lincoln to the production of wagons. I inform him that Lincoln did not advise American workmen to restrict the output of those vehicles. America became the greatest industrial nation simply because Americans worked hard. In the process, they obtained a 40-hour week and other advantages. Not for one moment do I place any blame on the Australian workman. He is recognized by students of these matters as adaptable and versatile. He possesses considerable aptitude. Unfortunately, he is badly advised by members of the Labour party, who urge him not to increase production lest he “ work himself out of a good job “. Opposition members should tell Australian workmen that if they increase output and reduce costs, their jobs will be secure.

We on this side of the chamber are fully aware of our responsibilities to the secondary industries, and we deeply regret the extremist theories which, if given effect, would spoil them. The tariff policy of the Labour party, on the evidence of the speeches of Opposition members this evening, would increase the prices of our goods for export, and would bring the whole economic structure tumbling about their ears. The performances of the Government in respect of secondary industries provide sufficient answer to the criticisms that have been voiced by honorable members opposite this evening.

Earlier, I stated that the secondary industries in the electorate of Corio had been expanding while this Government had been in office. Employment is also increasing. Corio provides an effective answer to statements by Opposition members to the effect that the Government is not attempting to protect secondary industries.

Mr WARD:

– The honorable member will receive his reply on the 29th May.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney is disorderly and his offence is aggravated because he is interjecting from a seat other than his own.

Mr OPPERMAN:

– The honorable member for East Sydney has afforded me the opportunity that I hoped would come my way. The 29th May is my birthday, and I am sure that I shall receive many happy returns on that day.

I merely rose to point out that the Government is watching the situation closely, and is taking all action necessary to support Australian industries and safeguard the jobs of Australian workmen. I am certain that, on the basis of the evidence in recent years of how we can ride a crisis and emerge triumphantly from it, the public of Australia will return the Menzies Government to office on the 29th May next.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) initiated this debate in a sedate and informative manner, but as the debate has progressed, it has become evident that the speech was intended to cover up the Government’s betrayal of Australian secondary industries. I find it significant that only two occupants of the -back benches on the Government side of the chamber have been prepared to speak on these tariff proposals. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Opperman) expounded a policy which was completely different from that enunciated by the Minister, and the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) expounded a policy which was completely different from that stated by the honorable member for Corio. The honorable member for Macarthur, who may be termed a responsible but flighty supporter of the Government, said that the Liberal party was a free-trade party. That is to say, the Liberal party stands for the destruction of Australian secondary industries. His assertion should be placarded throughout the length and breadth of the land, so that the controllers of industries and their employees may know that the Minister, in his speech to-night, has covered up for the Liberal party, which stands for the destruction of our secondary industries. Of course, we all know that the Australian Country party is a free-trade party and has forced its policy on the Government. Members of the Australian Country party do not care if every secondary industry goes to the wall.

On every aspect of policy, the Government is suspect; but it is particularly suspect for its treatment of the Japanese nation. The Government stands condemned to-day, if I may make passing reference to this matter, as the appeaser of the Japanese nation. That statement applies to trade and to defence, and, indeed, to every aspect of foreign policy in relation to Japan. The Government is seeking to destroy Australian secondary industries and import goods manufactured by cheap labour. The structure of our economy will be weakened, and conditions that have been built up over the years by trade unionists and others will be destroyed.

The honorable member for Corio has told us that Australian workmen, if they are to have a 40-hour week, higher wages and the various amenities known in industry in this enlightened age, must expect to make some sacrifices in order that Australia may gain export markets for its manufacture. I invite him to tell the people of Corio whether he is in favour of a 44-hour working week in industry, of sweating men who work in the great industries, of cheap labour, and of a reduction of the basic wage. Does he stand for wage-pegging while industry prospers? Is he prepared, in an endeavour to reduce manufacturing costs, to scrap conditions and privileges which have been given to industry over the years through tariff protection? The Minister was revealed in his true colours this evening. If I may use an American expression, he is a first-class “ front “ man. On this occasion, however, he has been revealed by those who sit behind him as the representative of a political party which is prepared to destroy secondary industries and their great capacity to provide employment. This is not the only occasion on which the Government has attacked secondary industries. The Minister for Labour and National Service said to-night that, according to the latest figures, the value of secondary production in Australia was £1,023,000,000 annually, and that over 977,000 men and women were employee! in the industries. Yet honorable members on the Government side of the chamber seek to break down conditions that have fostered the expansion of those industries. The Minister for the Navy (Mr. McMahon) in 1952 made a remarkable statement that indicated the true policy of this Government in relation to secondary industries. In the course of a debate in this chamber, the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) asked the Minister -

Is not the textile industry a basic industry?

The Minister made this astonishing reply-

It was once, but it is not a basic industry at the present time.

Honorable members may verify that question by reference to page 100 of Hansard for the 20th February, 1952. The Minister’s statement was a striking indication of the Government’s attitude to a great national industry. It does not consider the textile industry to be a basic industry worthy of adequate tariff protection.

Australia is now in danger of being flooded with Japanese goods. Where does the Government stand on that issue? It has betrayed us to Japan already in relation to defence. It has concluded with that country a peace treaty that betrays Australia.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).Order !

Mr DALY:

– The Government’s patronage of Japan will be condemned on every platform in the country.

Mr Gullett:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), who, heaven knows, knows little enough about the subject, has said that the Government concluded a peace treaty which betrayed Australia to Japan. That statement is most offensive to me personally.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The statement is considered to be offensive. I ask the honorable member for Grayndler to withdraw it.

Mr DALY:

– I withdraw it if it is offensive to the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), but I suggest that the honorable member follow me through New South Wales during the general election campaign and hear me repeat it from every platform from which I speak.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member is not in order in discussing peace treaties.

Mr DALY:

– I return to my point in connexion with Japanese trade. I believe that this Government intends to foster trade with Japan at the expense of Australian secondary industries. According to the Sydney Sun of the 27th March, a Japanese visitor to Australia referred to the confidence of Japanese industries in their ability to undersell Western competitors in South-East Asia. The following report of an interview with this Japanese bank official was published in the newspaper : -

Japanese big business was confident it could undersell Western competitors in South-East Asia, a Japanese bank official who arrived in Sydney by Qantas Constellation said to-day.

He is Saburo Kawazoe, of the Foreign Department of the Kobe Bank.

He said the Japanese Government would favour big business and be against trade unions to reduce manufacturing costs. “After the war unions, set up by the Occupation Government, became very strong and wages soared,” said Mr. Kawazoe. “ But now the Japanese Government will favour the capitalists and help them get prices down.

The unions are getting weaker.

Japan is now rehabilitated - everything is all right now.”

Having in mind the treatment suffered by Australians at the hands of Japanese in other fields, is there any cause for wonder in the fact that industrialists throughout Australia to-day are apprehensive of the Government’s policy and fearful of the destruction of their industries by Japanese competition? It may be said that our industries will be protected by the Tariff Board. I have the greatest admiration for the Tariff Board and I respect its attitude to Australian industries, but long delays occur in its processes. I can cite industries in the Grayndler electorate - and there are many hundreds of them - which are suffering to-day from the competition of cheap goods imported from Japan and other countries. It is idle to say that the Tariff Board will protect these industries, because months must elapse before its inquiries can be completed and even then a negative reply may be given to representations made for the protection of local industries.

This Government is constantly permitting the export of scrap metal to Japan. It is helping to rebuild and rearm that nation, and, in so doing, it is strengthening a potential enemy of Australia. The Government’s attitude to the protection of Australian industries, and its acquiescence in the importation of huge quantities of Japanese goods, represent a further stage in its programme for the eventual betrayal of Australia to the Japanese people, probably in our time. We cannot overlook the threat to Australia from Japan. I have here a copy of an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 13th September, 1951, before the post-war rehabilitation of the Japanese nation had progressed very far. The article appeared under the headlines, “London Sees Jap. Samples - Khaki Shirts: Sixpence.” That is not a bad price for a shirt in any country in any age. The article stated -

Examples of wholesale prices quoted by the Daily Mail include khaki shirts at sixpence each, 20-inch by 40-inch towels at1s. 5d. each, and thick woollen baby blankets at 3s. each.

What a threat to the Australian textile industry the importation of such goods would represent ! The honorable member for Corio will not even be given a hearing by the electors if he continues to support a Government that favours the importation of such cheap goods. Instead, he will sing that famous song, “ Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye”. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald specified a number of articles, each of which could be sold much cheaper than any comparable article produced in Australia. Australia has a great footwear industry, but the price of rubber footwear imported from Eastern countries is so low that it is not possible for Australian manufacturers to compete against it. The imported articles cost 50 or 60 per cent, less than Australian footwear in the same category. But the Government says that it cannot interfere because complications are involved and trade negotiations must be undertaken before anything can be done to protect the Australian industry. It stands idly by while our footwear industry goes to the wall.

Mr Holt:

– Is the honorable member opposed to all imports? How are we to be paid for our export sales?

Mr DALY:

– The Minister apparently gives only lip service to the policy of tariff protection. When he spoke he gave credit to the Scullin Government, which built up Australian secondary industries many year3 ago by means of tariff protection. I have in my files records of the rubber footwear industry and other Australian industries for which this Government has failed to provide adequate protection against the competition of goods from cheap-labour nations such as Japan.

The Government should have a common policy on this issue with all those people who believe in the expansion of Australian industries. Members of the Opposition always have supported and always will support Australian industries. We expect Australians to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, a 40-hour week, paid annual holidays and good amenities in industry. Therefore, we have a responsibility to ensure that the industries which employ those people shall be protected from the competition’ of goods produced in cheap-labour countries. This Government has failed to discharge that responsibility. There is uncertainty in industry to-day because of the attitude of the present Administration towards the importation, of cheap goods. This Government ran amok at one stage and the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) almost wrecked the Australian textile industry. Only the great powers of recovery of that industry enabled it to extricate itself from the morass into which the Government allowed it to sink when it clamped down on certain sections of the industry. Undoubtedly the Government is a. hitandmiss government. I am pleased to notice that the Minister for Supply has entered the chamber. He has not long to smile at us from the Government side of the chamber. In the near future, no doubt, we shall see the honorable gentleman sitting with a gloomy countenance on the Opposition side. The people will exact full retribution from the Government on the 29th May for its incompetent administration and its failure to safeguard Australian industries and employment.

I have stated my views on this important subject in a frank and critical, but constructive way. The Government has a responsibility to protect Australian industries. The Minister for Labour and National Service earlier in this debate cited figures which showed the great employing potential of secondary industries, the vast expansion that has occurred in this field since 1938-39, and the value of such industries to the economy of the nation. It would be idle to suggest that the great war effort of Australia was not made possible in a great measure by the development of our secondary industries. These industries maintain thousands of men and women in employment, and I consider that one article made in Australia by Australian workmen, the fruits of whose efforts are enjoyed by the whole community, is worth any number of imported articles. I maintain that the Minister for Labour and National Service has tried to camouflage the Government’s intentions, and I warn the electors of the statement that the honorable mem her for Macarthur made in this chamber to-night. The honorable member is regarded as a responsible supporterof the Government, although that is open to grave doubt. At any rate, the Sydney Morning Herald considers him to be a reasonably responsible person. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, the official organ of the Liberal party, apparently regards him as a responsible man whose charges are worthy of an investigation by a royal commission set up by a Labour administration. To-night, speaking apparently as a responsible supporter of the Government, he said, “ We are a free-trade party “. That gave the lie direct to the Minister’s statement that the Government, including presumably the Australian Country party, believes in protection for Australian industries. Who can believe anything that the Australian Country party say3 about secondary industries? That party, of which you, Mr. Chairman, are a member, has always been a long-hours and low-wages party. It believes only in primary production and would like to see every available man providing cheap labour on the farms of wealthy land-holders. However, the fact remains that, despite the opposition of the Australian Country party, secondary industries have become an established part of our economy and mean much to this nation. It is interesting to see, as another honorable member from this side of the chamber said to-night, the tail wagging the dog. The Liberal party i3 now right behind the Australian Country party because it has announced that it is a free-trade party. Again I express my regret that the Government has not seen fit to make a combined announcement on this important matter, and once more I warn industrialists and employees in Australian secondary industries that when they cast their votes on the 29th May they should remember that if they vote for this Government they will be voting for the destruction of Australian secondary industries.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) seems to be uncertain about the Government’s policy. He need feel no uncertainty about that matter, because the Government’s policy is now, as it has always been, to provide adequate protection for Australian secondary industries. The honorable member made the astounding statement that Australian manufacturers at present cannot compete with overseas manufacturers. How then does he account for the fact that our secondary industries to-day are giving more employment than ever before in our history? How does he account for the fact that secondary industries are turning out more goods now than ever before? How does he account for the fact that our secondary industries have never been so prosperous as they are to-day? The honorable member is simply flying in the face of facts which everybody knows. We all know that our secondary industries are highly productive, highly prosperous, are providing a great measure of employment, and have better prospects than they have ever had. The honorable member for Grayndler claimed that the Scullin Government developed our secondary industries. He did not remind us that during the term of office of the Scullin Labour Government one-third of Australia’s working population was walking the streets looking for employment. He did not remind us that industry after industry became bankrupt when the Scullin Labour Government was in power. At no other time has unemployment in Australia reached the level that it reached under the Scullin Government. The workers in industry know when they have a good government. They know when times are prosperous and they know that to-day they have a government that is protecting Australian industries and protecting private enterprise. The policy of the Liberal party is to encourage private enterprise by giving it the protection that it needs against unfair competition from overseas. What is Labour’s policy in relation to secondary industries? Labour’s policy is to destroy them by nationalization. What did the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) say in this chamber recently? He told us that the Labour party proposed to nationalize General Motors-Holden’s Limited, the greatest secondary industry in South Australia.

Mr Edmonds:

– He did not say that at all-

Mr WILSON:

– He did. The Hansard record is proof of what he said. Me detailed the industries that were to be nationalized and he included the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited and General Motors-Holden’s Limited. The whole policy of Labour is to destroy secondary industries by destroying private enterprise which conducts secondary industries. Its policy is to destroy the industries that .provide jobs for 75 per cent, of Australia’s working population. These people who want to destroy our secondary industries now come along and attack us. They pretend that we do not intend to give adequate protection to secondary industries. The truth is that we believe that secondary industries should be protected, but we believe that an independent tribunal should decide the degree of protection that is necessary for any particular industry. For that purpose we established the Tariff Board and recently, additional members were appointed to that board. Any Australian industry which considers that it is not receiving adequate protection can apply to the board for an increase of tariff. The board will hear the evidence of the industry and also that of the consumers who of course are vitally interested in the matter. Finally, the board will determine how much protection is necessary. We have placed tariff protection outside the realm of party politics. We have placed it in the hands of experienced independent men. There is no fairer or better way to meet the situation. Justice is done to the Australian consumer, to the manufacturer, and to the employees in industries. The difference between the Labour party and the Liberal party is that, whereas honorable members opposite would destroy secondary industries by nationalizing them, the Liberal party will protect and assist private industry. The purpose of the proposals now before us is to give effect to recommendations of the Tariff Board. That procedure is in accordance with the general policy of the Liberal party. In conclusion I. again remind the committee that, under the Menzies-Fadden Government, Australian industry has been brought to its greatest level of prosperity and that we can look forward to even greater prosperity, greater employment, and greater production in the future.

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

.- If any confirmation were needed of the truth of the accusation made by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) that the Government is not united on these proposals it has been provided by the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson). The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) to-night paid a high compliment to the Scullin Government but now the honorable member for Sturt, a back-bencher, has condemned that government which was instrumental in putting a large army of unemployed back to work by means of tariff protection for Australian industries. If an example is required of the need for tariff protection, it is the blue asbestos industry at Wittenoom Gorge, in my electorate. The largest users of asbestos in Australia, James Hardie and Company Limited and Wunderlich Limited, will not use Australian asbestos, because they have interests in firms that send asbestos to Australia from overseas. If the Tariff Board could make those firms take 4,000 tons of Australian-produced asbestos each year, or only 15 per cent, of the total quantity of asbestos that they use, the Australian asbestos industry could be established on an economic basis. If 4,000 tons of Australian asbestos were used in this country each year,- an equal quantity could be exported at a price comparable with the price of asbestos produced overseas. If 8,000 tons of asbestos could be produced in Australia, 4,000 tons for use internally and 4,000 tons for export, the industry could stand on its own feet. It would need no further protection, and the price of articles manufactured from asbestos in this country would not rise. But, until a tariff has been placed on imported asbestos, our own asbestos industry will never be established on a sound basis, and this valuable raw material will be wasted. I understand that the matter has been referred by Australian Blue Asbestos Limited to the Tariff Board for consideration. I hope the board will make a quick examination and give an early decision. If this Parliament implements a favorable recommendation by the board, it will bring Australian manufacturers to a realization of their duty to develop the resources of this country.

I want to refer to a statement that was made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) on the 25th July, 1939, when he was Assistant Minister for Supply. He is reported to have addressed a meeting on youth employment in the following terms: -

It is utterly idle to condemn emloyers for using cheap child labour when we know that they have to compete with overseas products.

Here is an opportunity for the Minister to give necessary protection to the Australian blue asbestos industry. The company at Wittenoom Gorge has done a great job in that isolated part of my electorate. It has established a fair-sized town of 800 people, with reasonable amenities. There is a hospital, a school and an hotel in the town. A new post office will be opened in the middle of this month. We cannot afford to discourage a company that has had the initiative to go out into the open spaces and develop an industry that is of value to our building trade. The only reason that the company cannot make the progress it hoped to make is that Australian companies prefer to use imported asbestos because, it is alleged, they have interests in overseas asbestos companies. We say to the Government that those companies should use fair and reasonable quantities of Australian asbestos. The company at Wittenoom Gorge has been battling for years to establish an asbestos industry there. Now it is in a position to expand its production and supply the asbestos required by our building trade. All that the company asks for is some reasonable protection of the industry, and we urge the Government to give it. If it is not given, the industry will be faced with many difficulties. We cannot afford to see it go down. We are appealing to people to develop our open spaces, and we want to establish centres of population at places where there is wealth to be unearthed. This company has been courageous enough to go to the Wittenoom Gorge area and do that. We say that it should be given the assistance it requires. All the company is asking for is protection from imported asbestos being used in the production of materials for our building industry and other industries. The company is entitled to ask for that. It has established something for itself and. in addition, has provided an incentive for other companies to develop the deposits of base metals that exist in abundance in this area. I am sorry that the Minister in charge of the measure is not in the chamber, and I ask the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) to discuss with hi* colleague what I have said. I hope that when the report of the Tariff Board on this matter has been received, the Government will make its decision expeditiously, so that we can give to this industry the protection it richly deserves.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

).-! congratulate the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Johnson) because he, unlike most of the honorable member? opposite who have spoken, ha3 directed his remarks to the measure and dealt with an industry that he understands. If the case that he put to us was correct, it. certainly deserves some further consideration. This is a very limited proposal. It relates to a small number of items on which the tariff, under certain circumstances, may be eased. These alterations of the tariff have been examined by the Tariff Board from many points of view. The trade unionists employed in the industries concerned were entitled to give evidence before the board. The manufacturers gave their evidence. The proposals .are supported by the Australian Labour party. That being so, it seems to me that to-night we have heard a great deal of humbug and hypocrisy on the general subject of protection.

Mr. Calwell inter j eating,

Mr GULLETT:

– The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has only just come into the chamber and has not heard what has gone on. If he had done so, even he would have blushed for shame at some of the nonsense that honorable members opposite spoke this evening. Their remarks were irrelevant, inaccurate and quite without principle. It is easily understood that honorable members opposite, having scratched and searched around for a good election issue, and having found very little on which to base their propositions to the people, have seized on this innocuous and quite unimportant matter on which to hang their hats in the present situation. They have made the pretence that this Government is opposed to the development of secondary industry in this country. As one honorable member opposite has said, actions speak louder than words. The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) has already pointed out that never before in this country have so many people been employed in secondary industries. Never before have they been employed on such a good wage level as has existed under the present Government. Never before has their productive effort been so good and their range of production so wide as at present. No government has a better record in respect of secondary industries than has the present one. The Opposition has attempted to show that the Menzies Government is half-hearted in its support of the secondary industries. That is untrue. Nothing could be more ridiculous. 1 have heard it said that unemployment is threatening because of this Government’s policy. Does the honorable member for Melbourne support thatpreposterous claim? He knows perfectly well that there is a shortage of almost finery form of labour in this country at the present time, and I appreciate his difficulty. The most contemptible thing of all, I thought, was the endeavour by honorable members opposite to prove that this Government proposes to swamp the country with the products of Japanese industries; the more so because I prophesy that within a few days we will hear people who are attacking the Japanese tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal, assailing this Government because it has not protested to the United States of America on account of half a dozen Japanese who were injured by the hydrogen bomb recently exploded. If they want to deny it, let them do so now. Of course, nothing will ever induce me to defend the Japanese, because they are quite detestable to me. Honorable members opposite will go before the people within a short time and assail the Government for permitting the Japanese to live by trade with this country. They will shed crocodile tears and say that the unfortunate Japanese have been victims of certain experiments which have been carried out. I am quite clear in my mind of my convictions in this matter. I first want to know where honorable members opposite stand. The fact is that the world lives by trade. If we, no less than any other country, wish to export, we must be prepared to import. As was pointed out in the House not very long ago, we are surrounded by people who must trade, starve or fight. We say to the Japanese, “ You cannot come to this country “. That is fair enough, and we all support it. But they must live somewhere. If we wish to export our goods to them, we must realize that they live by trade. As we sell our wool to them we must, to a degree, expect to import their manufactured articles.

There is another point of view. I have heard it said by honorable members opposite, with a great degree of truth, that the Australian workers must be protected ; that our 40-hour week, our public holidays and other privileges that we enjoy in Australia must not be threatened by the importation of goods which can undersell the products turned out by the Australian workers. But there is also this to be said, that the Australian workman finally is always a consumer, and he must be protected to some degree by those who would exploit him. We know perfectly well that many things which are turned out here are offered for sale at outrageous prices due, as Opposition members know, to our very high cost structure. One of the ways, and possibly the only way in which that can be checked, except by prices control, in which we do not believe, is by some form of competition. Let this be said - and I make no apology for it - that we are prepared to face a certain measure of competition, in-order to keep our own industries up to the mark and to keep our prices structure within reasonable bounds. I have heard nothing from honorable members opposite which bears the least relevance to the proposals before the committee.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I was very interested in the remarks of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). He. accused honorable members on this side of the chamber of not dealing with the proposals before the committee. He then referred to the hydrogen bomb recently exploded, and made a conjecture about statements that might be made by honorable members on this side of the chamber within a few days. The honorable member for Henty castigated - Opposition members for not confining their remarks to the matter under consideration, but he himself did not do so. When the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) addressed the committee for about half an hour this evening he scarcely referred to the proposals before us. Why should there be any objection to members of the Opposition also dealing with associated matters? I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the fact that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) introduced the tariff proposals in connexion with cotton goods and textiles when the Parliament met in February. When I asked him in November last what the Government proposed to do in connexion with the textile industry, he stated that the Tariff Board was dealing with the matter and that he hoped to introduce relevant tariff proposals during the next session of the Parliament.

I am particularly interested in this matter because the factory of Australian Cotton Textile Industries Limited, which is the largest manufacturer of sheets and pillowcases in this country, is situated in my electorate. As the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has mentioned, the company has since reduced the prices of its sheets. I was aware that it had done so before the Minister made that announcement to-day. This is very encouraging, because it has been our experience in the past that when tariff protection for an industry has been increased, the local prices of their products have not always been reduced.

The tariff proposals now before us relate also to electrical goods and parts of motor vehicles. I am interested in this aspect of the. matter because a big factory of General Motors-Holden’s Ltd. and a number of small industries which manufacture motor parts mentioned in the schedule are also located in my electorate.

The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Johnson) mentioned the asbestos industry. Another industry that I have mentioned in this chamber on previous occasions is that conducted by Rubery Owens

Limited in Finsbury, which makes big pressings. I have been in communication with the manager of that company in recent weeks, and he has told me that if the company were given the necessary protection by the Government it could produce twice as many motor car wheels as it produces at present. My recollection is that the company presses about one half of the motor car wheels that are used in Australia. The manager has assured me that tariff protection would enable the company to produce wheels at a price that would be more satisfactory than the present price. I add my plea to that of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie for protection for such industries.

I was gratified to hear the general statements made by the Minister for Labour and National Service in connexion with secondary industries vis-a-vis our primary industries. He mentioned the number of people who were engaged in the production of wheat, and the number who were entering secondary industry, and stated that primary industry could not absorb a large enough number of workers to maintain the level of employment necessary in this country. After the Minister had made that statement the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) made a statement which, in the circumstances, I found amusing. He said in a very definite manner that more people were employed in industry in Australia, than ever before. The Minister has told us of the huge increase of population that has resulted from immigration. He has said that our population has risen by 1,000,000 in a short period, and is now about 9,000,000. In spite of the obvious inference to be drawn from that great increase of population, the honorable member for Henty naively informed us that more people are now employed in secondary industry than ever before. If that were not the case then, in view of the great increase of our population in recent years, we should have a large number of unemployed. I give the Minister credit for being right on the mark in his speech, and I appreciate his realization of the necessity to expand our secondary industry and give every encouragement to it. I was astonished, however, at the slighting remarks made by one of his colleagues, the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson), about the late Mr. Scullin and his actions as Prime Minister. I first delved into protection seriously at the time when Mr. Scullin was implementing his protectionist policy in 1929 and 1930. I remember a book that was issued by the Labour party at that time which showed how much could be done for Australia by adequate protection of our secondary industry. I have been happy to see the growth, since then, of our secondary industry, largely as a result of the implementation of the policy inaugurated by Mr. Scullin. The honorable member for Sturt spoke about the number of unemployed during the Scullin regime, but he should not blame Mr. Scullin for the unemployment rate at that time. He should blame the people who were in control of Australia’s finances and were responsible for the position that then existed, which dragged Mr. Scullin down into the dust, along with his party, because of the restrictions of social services and other government commitments that he had to make. The honorable member spoke most unkindly of one of the best men that we have had in this Parliament. His statement stands out in marked contrast to that of the Minister, who had previously referred to the protectionist policy of the Scullin Government and the good that has flowed from it, and had, as it were, given that policy his blessing.

The honorable member for Henty said that the most contemptible of the statements made by Labour supporters was that the Government proposed to swamp Australia with cheap Japanese goods. His colleagues greeted his castig’ation of a member of the Opposition on that score with “ Hear, hears ! “ A few minutes later, however, the honorable member said that if we exported wool and other goods to Japan we had to take goods in return. In the same breath he said also that we had to permit the competition of manufactures from other countries in order to force Australian manufacturers to produce goods at reasonable prices. The utterances of the honorable member will produce in the minds of many Australians a reaction that he and his party will not welcome,, because ,one of the factors that will have the greatest effect on voters at the coming general election is the fear of many workers that the Government will not give them the protection against cheaply produced imports to which they are entitled. Although I commend the Minister for his speech I cannot forget that there are honorable members on his side of the chamber who do not support his views. I remind honorable members opposite that if they protest, as the honorable member for Sturt has protested, that they are the protectors of Australia’s secondary industries, and wish the people to believe them, they must ensure that their actions will be such as to remove the present fear of many people that if the Government is returned to office on the 29th May it will follow a policy that will be detrimental to the interests of the workers in secondary industry.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has spoken about the Conference of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Sydney, which the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler, attended. The list of goods that Mr. Butler says Britain wants Australia to buy from it includes commodities that are manufactured in this country. If we import such goods from England our local industries will be adversely affected. Some people wonder why the pendulum is swinging against the Government, and why the electors are turning more to the Labour party. Even the Sydney Morning Herald made a statement recently to the effect that the Government would have to pull up its socks if it wished to survive the general election. I believe that the reason for the swing away from the Government is popular doubt about whether the Government will protect Australian secondary industry from the ruinous competition of cheaply produced imported goods. I admit that the present schedules provide a degree of protection, which I appreciate, but even though the Government has taken a small step in the right direction it could, in other ways, damage Australian industry.

I think that the Opposition has been justified in referring to the past actions of this Government. The Government has always acted twelve months too late. It has always failed to see the danger until after the evil results have. occurred. The honorable member for Burke (Mr.

Peters) mentioned that in one week the country was told that everything in the garden was lovely, yet in the following week the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) imposed restrictions on imports in order to keep the country solvent. I believe that some members of the Government are able to see the necessity for taking certain action at certain times. My sympathy is with them because they are unable to persuade the Government to take that action. As another honorable member has said, the tail has been wagging the dog. The Australian Country party has been preventing the Government from doing what it should have done. I have dealt with generalities because the Minister for Labour and National Service did likewise. I hope that the views that were expressed by him will be accepted by his party. The future welfare of this country is of more concern to me and is of more concern to most people than is the future of any political party. I believe that the future of the people of this country can only be protected by a government of the brand that initiated a policy of protection and so supported Australian industries and I believe that the people will ensure that such a government is elected at the coming general election.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Holt and Mr. Kent Hughes do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 79

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1954

Bill presented by Mr. Holt, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 79

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) BILL 1954

Bill presented by Mr. Holt, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 79

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1954

Bill presented by Mr. Holt, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 79

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1954

Bill presented by Mr. Holt, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 79

ADJOURNMENT

Department of WORKS - Land Settlement of Ex-Servicemen - Medical Charlatans.

Motion (by Mr. Holt) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- A month or so ago some very vague reports appeared in the daily press about happenings in the Department of Works. I shall quote briefly from one of those reports, because it indicated that the Minister for Works (Mr. Kent Hughes) had stated that he expected a report the following week on allegations that builders had been defrauding his department. The newspaper report indicated that the Minister was commenting on a Truth report last Sunday that exhaustive investigation was being carried out within the Department and that he had denied that officers of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch were handling the inquiries. Nobody would deny that the Minister should have reasonable time to have this allegation investigated, and I have waited patiently to hear what he had to say on the subject. In fact, I was of the opinion that this matter had only recently been reported to his department, and that investigations had just commenced. Recently, however, it was brought to my notice that the matter had been reported to the department some fifteen or sixteen months ago, and therefore it is certainly time that the Minister was able to tell honorable members the result of his departmental investigation. Despite the fact that he said that the Commonwealth Investigation Service had made no inquiries, my information is that not only did that service initiate an investigation, but that it also raided business premises and seized papers and documents which I understand confirm the allegations that have been made. Large sums of money are involved. In fact, I have been informed that as far as the investigations have proceeded, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Australian Government, through the Department of Works, could have been defrauded of sums of money amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

This matter is connected with the old system of cost-plus construction, and the company against whom the allegations have been made is known as Cody and Willis Proprietary Limited. That company was not mentioned in the newspaper reports, which were phrased in vague language. In fact no names at all were mentioned in them, but I understand that Cody and Willis Proprietary Limited, builders, of Burton-street, Glebe, is the company concerned. The gentleman who furnished me with my information does not mind backing up his statements with a sworn declaration, and he has already given information to the Commonwealth Investigation Branch. His sole purpose in approaching me was to tell me that for fifteen months he had been trying to get the department and other Commonwealth authorities to investigate this matter thoroughly, and, if they should find his allegations to be true, to take some action. It appears that the Government and the Minister have some particular motive in delaying action. Probably the general election to be held on the 29th May has something to do with their inactivity, because I recall that during the last sitting of the Parliament, night after night members of the Government rose and spoke about happenings in New South Wales, and advocated royal commissions into this and that.

Thisappears to me to be a case where the Government might consider appointing a royal commission to investigate the charges made by my informant, who, I repeat, is prepared to back up his allegations with a statutory declaration. This gentleman has said that he was employed between September, 1951, and December, 1952, as a clerk by the company that I have mentioned. His work was connected with the keeping of records of wages and materials. He was concerned with the rise and fall of costs, because the job that the company was concerned with the rise and fall of costs, because the job that the firm was doing was a cost-plus undertaking. He has not said that his activities were restricted to one job, but refers particularly to a contract which this company had to erect 500 Mo Konga prefabricated Swedish houses on behalf of the Department of Works. I shall now detail some of the allegations that he has made, and whichI believe the Minister and the department have had ample time to investigate and report upon to this Parliament. He said that cement was bought from a firm trading under the name of Cement Distributors in Sydney, and after it had been delivered on the job he was given the task of preparing false invoices. He was given blank invoice statements on the letterheads of John Cody and Son, of Goulburn, which is probably a subsidiary of the company that I have previously mentioned, and then he had to enter up the quantities of cement received from Cement Distributors at a higher price than had been paid. Those invoices were then forwarded to the Department of Works, which promptly made payment.

He said that the same practice was followed with regard to paint. Paint was obtained from Taubmans Pty. Limited, but again the invoices were arranged to make it appear that the company carrying out the work was paying a much higher price than it actually had paid, and the good old government and taxpayer were obliged to pay up again under the system of cost-plus. This gentleman also informed me that there were approximately 60 sub-contractors engaged on the work, but that their employees were not constantly employed. On some works they were employed one and two days a week, but their time-sheets were prepared to claim full-time rates. Moreover, although doing only one or two days work a week some of the claims were for payment of overtime for work on Saturdays which they did not perform. It was also said that the time of employees of Cody and Willis Proprietary Limited who were engaged on private contracts, apart altogether from the government work, was being charged to this job as well. This practice was followed to boost the wages bill upon which a claim on the Department of Works was made. The employees did not profit, but it meant increased payments to the contractor.

I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is any truth in these statements, and if the Commonwealth Investigation Service has made raids on the offices of this company and secured documents and papers, what those papers disclosed. I. understand that on one occasion one of the supervisors drew the attention of the Department of Works to the fact that the time records being forwarded to the department were inaccurate and were not in accordance with the actual time worked. The company was asked for an explanation, but, for some reason or other, the matter was not pressed. Evidently, the explanation was accepted and no further action was taken in the matter. The same gentleman who wants this matter cleared up completely, and who stated that he made a complaint fifteen months ago, also said that on several occasions he had been required to take cases of whisky, beer, wine and so on to certain officers of the Department of Works. I raise the matter in the House this evening because the Minister, the department and the Government have had ample time to ascertain whether there is any basis for the allegations that have been made by this man. I recollect that in one of the newspaper reports the Minister is reported to have said that the investigation officers were not examining any fraud in the department, but that the check was only an ordinary internal audit of the departmental activities. He also said that what the investigation service was investigating was the burning down of a country store. This gentleman to whom I have referred also happened to tell me something about the burning of a store. He said that it was claimed by Cody and Willis Proprietary Limited that when the store was burnt down there were 52,000 feet of flooring boards in the store.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honor:i hie member’s time has expired.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not care very much what the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) thinks of certain newspaper statements, but I do care a great deal when he makes charges against .the- efficiency or honesty of people in the Department of Works, and so, I believe, does every honorable member on this side of the House. The same comment would apply to charges against officers of any other department. The Commonwealth Investigation Service has been making inquiries into what appear to be certain irregularities. I point out that the Commonwealth Investigation’ Service is not under the control of the Minister for the Interior or the Minister for Works. The result of those inquiries is the subject of certain legal actions, one of which, I understand, is being taken by a firm, the name of which I do not propose to mention. It is not necessary to bring the names of the firms into this matter, because legal action is being taken and the court will decide what is right and what is wrong. For me or anybody else in this House to make accusations against firms on the unproven statements of somebody else would be entirely wrong. However, that is the way in which the “ honorable member for East Sydney always seems to work, whether the accusations are being made against an individual or a firm. Of course, everything that is said in this House is under privilege, and in my opinion that is not a fair way in which to make an attack.

The investigation by the Commonwealth Investigation Service has been going on for some time. However, as I have already said, that service does not come under the jurisdiction of my department and I do not know the exact situation at the present time, except that certain legal actions by both sides are pending. I cannot make any further statement in regard to that aspect of the matters raised by the honorable member.

Concerning the investigations made into certain irregularities in the Department of Works arising out of payments made by the department, I point out that these irregularities were picked up in the course of the ordinary administration of the internal audit of the department. The officers concerned made a very thorough investigation of the irregularities which have been brought to notice or were said to exist, and, as a result, final payments to certain contractors have been withheld until the matter is settled. The money that is being withheld is sufficient to meet any discrepancies that may have occurred. Therefore, the

Department of Works has not paid out anything that it cannot recover, because in the final clean-up of the accounts these matters will be settled. As all honorable members are aware, final payments in connexion with contracts are not made until the internal audit officers have given their signature to indicate that everything is in order. The two matters to which the honorable member referred are therefore entirely different. One was concerned with an investigation by the Commonwealth Investigation Service, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Attorney-General, and in respect of which I understand legal action is being taken ; and the other was concerned with the internal audit of the Department of Works, as a result of which the Australian Government is well covered against over-charging or overclaiming by the firm or firms of contractors concerned.

This is the first that I have ever heard of wine and beer being delivered to the houses of officers of the Depart- ment of Works: If the honorable member for East Sydney has a sworn declaration that this has been done I shall be pleased to look into the matter. However, nobody has ever made that charge before against officers of the department. If the honorable member would give me the source of his evidence, and if the matter is worth investigating, I shall go into it further.

Mr Ward:

– Do not qualify your undertaking.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I said that I shall do so if it is worth while. As this is the first time that the charge has been made, and as it has been made by the honorable member for East Sydney, I have considerable doubt whether it is worth while inquiring into. If he will give me a sworn declaration to that effect, since he says he has one-

Mr Ward:

– I did not say that. I said my informant is prepared to back up his statement with a statutory declaration.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– If the honorable member will give me a statutory declaration I shall be delighted to go into the matter. If there is anything wrong I shall be happy, in company with the honorable member if necessary, to see that it is put right. In conclusion, I say that this Government has taken every possible action, at the earliest possible stage, to eliminate entirely the cost-plus contract system which was a baby that the Australian Labour party left on my doorstep.

Mr FREETH:
Forrest

.- I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) to the serious state of war service land settlement in the electorate which I represent. I refer particularly to the plight of tobacco-growers who have been settled on land-settlement farms. Honorable members probably know that it was decided to place approximately 60 war service land settlers on tobacco farms in the south-west of Western Australia. They underwent a course of training foi’ one year at a tobacco training centre set up by the Commonwealth. I understand that the school finished in 1951. Since then, 57 tobacco-growers who went on to those farms have been in very bad circumstances. Approximately only three of them have met their commitments to the department in full. Those commitments include working expenses, interest on capital, repayment of advances for machinery, and other loans. The fault is not that of the settlers. Outstanding commitments vary between £1,000 and £2,000. There is grave doubt, whether the land was ever suitable for tobacco-growing in the first place and whether the department in Perth carried out its obligations to the settlers. In the first instance, they were promised 30 acres of cleared land suitable for tobaccogrowing in addition to 50 acres of cleared land suitable for grazing and other agricultural pursuits. Those promises were not carried out in one instance. The settlers were promised that the whole property would be fenced in each case, but that was not done.

Mr Pollard:

– Who promised that?

Mr FREETH:

– That was promised by the Western Australian Government acting for the Australian Government. I believe that the Australian Government has acted in good faith up to date so far as possible, but as the principal responsible for the acts of its agents, it has not ensured that the agent State has carried out its obligations to the settlers correctly. At present, the “Western Australian Government is adopting all sorts of makeshift methods in an endeavour to keep some of its settlers on the land. It is endeavouring to placate them so that they will not walk off the properties or attack the Governments of the State and Commonwealth. In most cases, only 10 to 20 acres of tobacco land has been cleared. They have tried land that is too dry to grow tobacco and land that is too wet. In some cases where land was originally surveyed for tobacco-growing, the operators of the bulldozers decided that it was too difficult to clear and turned their attention to other land.

I am not concerned about the activities of the department itself so long as the settlers get a fair deal. At present there are indications that the Western Australian Government is trying to ease off their properties those settlers who are in arrears to an amount of £3,000. I was present at Northcliffe at the hearing of an appeal against the decision of a Minister that a certain settler was not n suitable farmer. It may be true that the man was not a suitable farmer, hut the hearing of the appeal was loaded against the settler from the start, although the two arbitrators were fairminded men and tried to give a fair decision. An array of departmental officials produced evidence and adverse reports that had been made against the settler by other departmental officials who were not present to substantiate those reports. They could have been entirely fabricated, or they could have been biased. The officials who made them could not be crossexamined. All those officials present were arrayed against one settler who did not have a clue about ordinary legal procedure. He had no idea of the form the hearing was to take and was not fitted to present his case. The result was a foregone conclusion from the start.

The fault lies at the door of the Governments of the Commonwealth and the State jointly because they have not yet agreed upon an appeal board to be set up in cases where a State Minister decides that a settler is not suitable for war service land settlement. The matter is left to arbitration proceedings under an old State act. The Government has never before conducted, these appeals. It is bound to hope that the department will be successful in them. It is not unduly concerned whether the settler gets the protection that is due to him.

I ask the Minister to investigate the setting up of a properly constituted appeal board presided over by a person with an adequate knowledge of proper legal procedure and able to ensure the tendering of fair and properly admissible evidence. I ask the Minister to investigate also the arrears of these settlers who are merely guinea pigs in a tobacco-growing experiment because nobody, least of all the socalled experts who examined the land, know whether land is suitable for tobaccogrowing or not. I ask the Minister to consider the hardships that these men have undergone in the last three or four years. Men with families of five or six children have been living on £8 a week living allowance which is charged against them, although they have no possible hope of meeting their commitments at the end of the year. I ask the Minister also to write off those arrears instead of holding them over the heads of the men. In that way they will be given some hope for the future. Up to the present the Western Australian Government has not given them fair treatment because it has tried to conceal from the Australian Government some of the blunders that have been made in trying to settle the men on the land. I ask the Minister to make a full investigation of the matter with a view to facing up to the responsibilities of this Government in war service land settlement.

Mir. CREMEAN (Hoddle) [11.26].- The matter to which I wish to refer has attracted the attention of honorable members in this Parliament on previous occasions. A repetition of the facts will at least bring the matter up to date and I hope that it will cause the Government to take action along the lines that I shall propose. At present there are laws governing the registration of doctors and others which are intended to prevent persons from imposing upon the people as doctors. Those laws in all the States are quite inadequate. In some cases they are almost non-existent. I direct the attention of honorable members to the extent to which charlatans are allowed to operate throughout Australia and the hopeless nature of the State laws that are intended to deal with charlatans and quacks. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of asking the States to bring in legislation simultaneously to deal with charlatans who impose upon gullible and, more or less, people who have lost hope, by ‘ advertisement, solicitation and circulars. Such an approach could be made at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers or at a Premiers’ conference with representatives of the States.

The charlatans to whom I have referred try to delude suffering people into the belief that they can cure them of malignant diseases. For some time, the minds of the medical profession throughout the Commonwealth and others who are interested in problems of this character have been agitated by the fact that these quacks, charlatans and humbugs can get away with practically everything short of murder. In quite a number of cases, the imposition of such quackery upon gullible members of the community is nothing less than murder. I refer specifically to the case of one man, John Braund, who is probably the worst . example of charlatanism. This matter has been debated in the various State parliaments of Australia and on one occasion reference was made to it in this House by the former honorable member for Balaclava, Sir Thomas White. Braund is a humbug who lives at Walla W aiia. He is 87 years of age and for years has been imposing upon distressed persons suffering from cancer in various forms. By advertisement and solicitation, he has created a belief that he can cure cancer. His personal history is particularly odorous. As I have said, he lives at Walla Walla and claims to be able to cure cancer. Formerly, he operated as a real estate agent in South Australia under the name of Ambrose Reed Tuckett. He was declared bankrupt in respect of a total indebtedness of £22,000. He absconded when on bail in the sum of £1,000. Later, at Dulwich Hill, he advertised himself as a manipulative surgeon under the name of Hildabraund, and inveigled afflicted people into the belief that he could cure cancer. Some newspapers, to their discredit, advertised this man as a heaven-sent healer and his fame spread to. such effect that the New South Wales

Government in 1948 appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate his claim to be able to cure cancer. He also claimed to be able to cure “ blue babies I do not propose to read all the evidence that was submitted to the committee of inquiry. The unanimous conclusions of that committee speak for themselves. They are as follows: -

  1. The lack of co-operation by Mr. Braund and his actions which thwarted the examination of patients by the Committee are incompatible with his alleged desire to have his claim to cure cancer thoroughly investigated. This attitude can be readily understood in the light of the information submitted by the Chairman at the final meeting of the Committee.
  2. Mr. Braund’s alleged specific cure for cancer is the injection of alum into thu subcutaneous tissues of patients, thereby causing necrosis of the tissues, with consequent separation of a slough which is claimed to be the actual cancer.
  3. From the examination of patients claimed to have been cured of cancer by Mr. Braund, the Committee were unanimously of the opinion that in no case had such claim been substantiated. Later knowledge regarding the use by Mr. Braund of injections of alum vindicates the Committee’s finding, since such injections of alum can, in no way, affect the course of cancer. (‘4) The exploitation of Mr. Braund’s alleged cure amounts’ to an outstanding public mischief with international ramifications.

Those ramifications arose from the fact that the newspapers advertised this man’s alleged ability to cure cancer so effectively that persons came from Canada, the United States of America and other countries to see him in the belief that he could cure their complaints. They came here filled with hope, but they were disappointed and, eventually, succumbed to their, diseases. The report of the committee of inquiry to which I have referred continued -

It has lulled sufferers into a false sense of security, thereby preventing them from obtaining proper treatment at a curable stage of the disease or, ali least, affording them an opportunity to prolong their lives.

I have received communications from the Departments of Health in the various States on this subject. The relevant part of the communication that I received from the Department of Health in Canberra reads -

Because of the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the Commonwealth is not empowered to make laws relating to such matters as the registration of medical practitioners, except in relation to its own territories.

Mr Bowden:

– All this happened five years ago.

Mr CREMEAN:
HODDLE, VICTORIA

– I trust that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) doesnot object to my bringing up this matter in this House, because, to-day, this charlatan is circulating advertisements in Tallangatta in Victoria, in which he claims that he can cure poliomyelitis. He has published similar advertisements in Brisbane. The activities of this individual emphasize the desirability of the State parliaments passing a uniform law to deal with such activities. It would be to the credit of the Australian Government if it took the initiative at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers or at a conference of Ministers of Health in order to secure the passage of such legislation. Other individuals also are operating in this sphere in Victoria, Queensland and other States. They pose as neuropaths and delude people into believing that they can cure them. In every instance, investigation of alleged cures by men of this type have been shown to be sheer humbug. As I have said Braund to-day is circulating advertisements in Victoria by which he claims to be able to cure poliomyelitis. Honorable members must be dumbfounded to learn that a man of that type can legally set up in practice and publish his claims. I make no apology for raising this matter in this chamber. I trust that the Government will initiate a move on the part of the States to pass a uniform law to prevent men like Braund from operating in the way that Ihave indicated.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

– I join with the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth) in his request to the Government to ensure that justice shall be done to the ex-service settlers to whom he referred. However, I differ from the honorable member when he places the blame in this matter on the Western Australian Government, which acts as an agent for the Australian Government in respect of war service land settlement. When things go wrong in this matter it is useless to blame entirely an agent State. The possibilities are that the particular group of tobacco-growers to whom the honorable member referred had already been settled on their farms when the anti-Labour government was in office in Western Australia. In those circumstances that Government, which preceded the present Labour Government in that State, may bear a share of responsibility in this matter. However, I should exclude it from such responsibility just as I should exclude the present Labour Government in Western Australia. After all, the full responsibility rests with the Australian Government, which determines matters such as the suitability of sites for the settlement of ex-servicemen, the suitability of soil textures, the cost of clearing the land and the allocation of land for certain purposes. That responsibility rests upon the Australian Government. Even the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) will admit that.

Mr Hamilton:

– No.

Mr POLLARD:

– I repeat that as Western Australia is an agent State, the responsibility for any trouble that may arise in this matter is that of the Australian Government. Although it is possible that an agent State may make mistakes, it is useless for anyhonorable member to seek to place the blame for shortcomings under the scheme upon a State administration, whether it be a Liberal or a Labour administration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 85

PAPERS

The followingapers were pre sented : -

Atomic Energy Act - Australian Atomic Energy Commission - First Annual Report and Financial Accounts, together with the Auditor-General’s Report for the period ended 30th June, 1953, and a Supplementary Statement by the Minister.

Australian National University Act - Statutes -

No. 13 - Faculties and Faculty Boards.

No. 14 - Staff Superannuation.

No. 15 - Convocation Amendment No. 2.

Census and Statistics Act - Regulations -

Statutory Rules 1954. No. 14.

Commonwealth Bank Act -

Appointment Certificate - A. G. M. White. Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 9.

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 19.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 17.

Customs Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 21.

Customs Act and Commerce(Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, Nos. 10, 16.

Dairying Industry Act - Regulations - Statu tory Rules 1954, No. 15.

Defence Act - Royal Military College - Annual Report for 1952.

Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property ) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and Designs (11).

Distillation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 23.

Excise Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 22.

Explosives Act - Regulations - Order - Berthing of a Vessel.

Income Tax and Social. Services Contribution Assessment Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 11.

Lands Acquisition Act -

Land, &c, acquired for -

Australian Stevedoring Industry Board purposes - Gladstone, Queensland.

Defence purposes -

Blacksmith, New South Wales.

Broken Hill, New South Wales.

Cairns (Edge Hill), Queensland.

Denman, New South Wales.

Fishermen’s Bend, Victoria.

Glenbrook, New South Wales.

Greenbank, Queensland.

Rockbank, Victoria.

Williamtown, New South Wales.

Williamtown (Boat Harbour), New South Wales.

Windsor, New South Wales.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes: -

Broken Hill, New South Wales.

Cairns, Queensland.

Eagle Farm (Brisbane), Queensland.

Eagle Farm (Brisbane Airport), Queensland.

Maryborough, Queensland.

Mascot, New South Wales.

Moree, New South Wales.

Moruya, New South Wales.

Postal purposes -

Cobboco, New South Wales.

Cobdogla, South Australia.

Frankston, Victoria.

Gol Gol, New South Wales.

Huonville, Tasmania.

Keerong, New South Wales.

Macksville, New South Wales.

Meningie East, South Australia.

Miller’s, Creek, New South Wales.

Terka, South Australia.

Tulla, New South Wales.

Valla, New South Wales.

Wakool, New South Wales.

Warrnambool, Victoria (2).

Stirling North to Leigh Creek North Coalfield Railway purposes -

Port Augusta, South Australia.

Return of land disposed of under Section 63

Nationality and Citizenship Act - Regula- tions - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 24.

Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 13.

Norfolk Island Act - Regulations - 1954 -

No. 1 ( Brands and Marks Ordinance ) .

No. 2 (Census Ordinance).

Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinances - 1953 -

No. 22- Mining (No. 3).

No. 23 - Hospitals and Medical Services.

No. 24 - Wards’ Employment.

No. 25 - Workmen’s Compensation.

No. 26 - Licensing (No. 2).

No. 27 - Special Purposes Leases.

Regulations - 1953- No. 14 (Motor Vehicles Ordinance ) . 1954 - No. 1 (Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance).

Papua and New Guinea Act - Ordinances - 1953-

No. 1 - Probate and Administration.

No. 5 - Animals and Birds Protection (No. 2).

No. 12 - Ordinances Revision.

No. 14 - Ordinances Interpretation (No. 2).

No. 22 - Poisons and Dangerous Sub stances.

No. 23 - Aliens.

No. 24 - War Surplus Material.

No. 25 - Customs.

No. 27 - Volcanic and Seismic Disturbances.

No. 29 - Sale of Meat.

No. 32 - Ordinances Interpretation.

No. 33 - Criminal Code Amendment (Papua) Ordinance Amendment.

No. 34 - Health (Papua).

No. 36 - Testator’s Family Maintenance.

No. 37 - Probate and Administration.

No. 38 - Public Holidays.

No. 39 - Workers’ Compensation.

No. 40 - Housing Loans.

No. 41 - Excise (Beer) Tariff.

No. 44- Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity).

No. 48- Criminal Code Amendment (New Guinea).

No. 49 - Criminal Code Amendment (Papua).

No. 50 - Customs Tariff Surcharge.

No. 51 - Customs Tariff (Papua).

No. 52 - Customs Tariff (New Guinea).

No. 58 - Aliens.

No. 59 - Native Labour.

No. 60 - Customs (Cocoa Export) Tariff.

No. 61 - Customs (Rubber Export) Tariff.

No. 62 - Native Apprenticeship.

No. 63 - Customs (Rubber Export) Tariff Ordinance Amendment.

No. 67 - Stamp Duties.

No. 68- Motor Traffic.

No. 73 - Fire Prevention.

No. 74 - Instruments.

No. 75 - Extradition (New Guinea).

No. 78 - Land (New Guinea).

No. 81- Stamp Duties (No. 2).

No. 87 - Instruments (No. 2).

Patents Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 18.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 20.

Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department -

Attorney-General - G. F. Gilfelt, H. S. Quinn.

Civil Aviation - A. D. Y. Allison, K. G. Beetson, J. W. Chamberlain, L. S. Chesterfield, W.E. Court, M. L. Doube, E. Felmingham, B. E. Hack, J. R. Hahn, L. J. Hart, N. G. Hatcher, F. E. Heggie, A. J. A. Pierce, M. J. Russ, S. W. Sambell, E. G. Shelton, J. M. Simpson, I. S. Smith, H. W. Snartt, F. H. Staton, C. D. Walker, R. J. West, M. R. Weston.

Defence - H. A. Critchell.

Health - A. R. Docking, P. A. Wills.

Interior - T. M. Austin, H. J. Belson.

Repatriation - A. J. T. Aram, A. H. Campbell, A. J. K. Dawborn, J. M.

Lawrence, A. Madden.

Shipping and Transport - D. McKay, H. B. Ray son.

Supply - A. S. Bennett, U. M. Burns, E. R. A. Landers, A. R. Warwick.

Trade and Customs - F. H. Youden.

Works- B. J. Byrnes, F. C. W. Salmon.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 12.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations - 1954 -

No. 6 - Australian Journalists’ Association.

No. 7 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

No. 8 - Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 9 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association and others.

No. 10 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association.

No. 11 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinances - 1954-

No. 6 - Careless Use of Fire.

No. 7 - Liquor.

No. 8 - Aborigines Welfare.

Regulations - 1954 - No. 2 (Police Ordinance).

Superannuation Act- Superannuation Board - Twenty-eighth Annual Report, for year 1949-50.

House adjourned at 11.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 April 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1954/19540406_reps_20_hor3/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant