Senate
6 December 1946

18th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.

page 1174

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Parcels for Great Britain

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 4th December Senator Amour asked the following question: -

In accordance with regulations issued by the Postmaster-General’s Department in regard to the sending of parcels to Great Britain, it is necessary for the sender to state the contents of each parcel upon the wrapper. The result has been widespread pilfering. Will the PostmasterGeneral consider accepting a statutory declaration as to the contents of these parcels instead of insisting that the contents be listed on the parcels themselves?

I am now able to inform the honorable senator that, in accordance with the practice observed throughout the International Parcels Post service, parcels forwarded by post from Australia to any overseas country must be accompanied by a Customs Declaration Form showing the nature, value and weight or quantity of the various contents, the name and address of the sender and any other particulars which may facilitate the assessment of customs duty payable in the country of destination. Parcels entrusted to the Australian Post Office for transmission, including those addressed to destinations abroad, receive the same care and supervision as mail matter of other classes, and although isolated cases of pillaging have occurred during theconveyance of parcels by sea; the honorable senator may rest assured that instances of this kind are not by any means widespread. Generally speaking, the fact that the contents of a parcel are shown on a form attached to the article does not increase the risk of the parcel being pillaged. Preparation of the form involves very little effort on the part of senders, but the completion of a statutory declaration in each instance would entail considerable time and trouble. In any case, and in view of international practice, it is thought that any alteration of the existing procedure would be unacceptable to the overseas administrations concerned. Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, the honorable senator will appreciate that the way is not open to proceed along the lines that he has suggested.

page 1174

QUESTION

OFFICE ACCOMMODATION IN CAPITAL CITIES

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In order to meet the convenience of the general public, will the Government do all in its power in the New Year to have al . Commonwealth Government departments housed in one central position in each capital city?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Steps have already been taken by the Government to house departments as closely together as possible. Negotiations are taking place with a view to housing the Departments of Supply and Shipping and Munitions in one building, thereby enabling the persons who have business with those departments to do so with the least inconvenience.

page 1174

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Standardization of Gauges

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice -

Will the Minister inform the Senate whether any agreement or understanding has been reached with the Government of Western Australia in respect of the standardization of railway gauges?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Miniater for Transport has supplied the following answer: -

A preliminary understanding was arrived at between the Commonwealth and the Government of Western Australia that the survey of the standard gauge railway line between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle could be proceeded with as part of the standardization project in anticipation of agreement being reached at a later stage as to the terms upon which the standardization of the railways of Western Australia could he proceeded with. In the meantime, the Commonwealth has advanced the funds necessary for the survey and approximately £25,000 has been spent to date. This survey will be a great advantage when agreement is ultimately reached regarding the terms under which the work of standardization is to be conducted. It is proposed to resume discussion with the Western Australian Government as soon as practicable in the New Year.

page 1174

PATENT OFFICE

Naturalized Employees - Mr. S. N. Williams

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General -

  1. How many employees in the Commonwealth Patent Office have been naturalized since the 30th September, 1939?
  2. What are their names and qualifications?
  3. Are they being continued in this employment to the exclusion of qualified exservicemen who are natural-born subjects?
Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

  1. I am informed by the Commissioner of Patents that, of the 145 employees in the Patent Office, including officers and temporary employees, seven have been naturalized since the 30th September, 1930. Of these, two are ex-servicemen entitled to preference under the Re-establishment and Employment Act. The seven officers referred to are examiners of patents and are employed in a temporary capacity. The positions were widely advertised and were open to graduates in science or engineering or persons holding equivalent qualifications, preferably, with some practical experience in science or engineering.
  2. The names and qualifications of the seven temporary examiners of patents are as follows: - T. B. Asman Degree in Electrical Engineering, Polytechnic (Technical University), Warsaw, Poland; K. Schreiner, Degree in Civil Engineering, Technical High School and University, Vienna, Austria, Diploma in Architecture, Vienna, Austria: K. W. Stern, Diploma of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, Technical College, Witweida, Germany; L. J. Parker, Doctor of Science, Royal Hungarian University, Budapest, Hungary, Diploma of Education, University of Leipzig, Germany: P. B. Gounchenkow, Diploma of Mechanical Engineering, Omsk Technical College, Russia; H. F. Kaulla, Doctor of Philisophy, Technical University, Munich, Germany; 0. Beran, Doctor of Philosophy, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, Diploma of Electrical Engineering, Technical Academy, Vienna, Austria, Diploma of Education, University of Vienna, Austria.
  3. The Commissioner of Patents has reported that these temporary examiners of patents are carrying out their duties satisfactorily and that all ex-servicemen with the qualifications required for the performance of the duties of examiner of patents who have applied for and have been prepared to accept appointment have been appointed.
Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Was a Mr. S. N. Williams recently dismissed from temporary employment in the Patents Office?
  2. If so, what was the reason for his dismissal ?
  3. Did Mr. Williams subsequently appeal?
  4. If so, to whom and what was the result?
Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– The information asked for by the honorable senator is being obtained.

page 1175

HANSARD APPOINTMENTS

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– I have to announce that consequent upon the retirement of Mr. G. H. Romans; Mr. A. P. Adams has been appointed Principal Parliamentary Reporter and Mr. H. M. Johnson Second Reporter.

page 1175

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 5th December (vide page 10S7), on motion by Senator “ ASHLEY -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

: - I had only formally moved this motion last night when I was given leave to continue my remarks later. The bill is intended to give relief to cereal growers who were affected by drought for the second consecutive season in 1945-46. With a considerable proportion of last year’s cereal crop a failure, it was evident that relief was necessary for growers and the question was discussed at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in January of this year. The result of the discussion was agreement to provide relief, and to share the financial responsibility between Commonwealth and States. An officers’ committee was set up to supply a report covering the extent of relief necessary, and the appropriate measures to assist the farmers concerned. Estimates were received from the States, which made it evident that there was a considerable amount of drought failure in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In New South Wales the districts affected were in the south-west, and these had been part of the area worst affected the previous year. In Victoria crop failure was widespread, and affected about half of the growers and half of the area under cereal crops. Failure extended into districts which are normally safe producing areas, and affected all classes of farmers. In South Australia the failure was in the outer cerealgrow.ing districts, and covered a large area. The total area affected is estimated at 2,500,000 acres, and in all about 8,000 cereal farmers were affected. Although, all classes pf farmers suffered failure, those most affected were small growers, and they have not the resources to finance themselves through two successive years of crop failure. The ‘position was aggravated by the fact that this failure followed the disastrous season which preceded it. The areas concerned had not recovered, and, in fact, for them it was continuation of the same drought. Relief had been granted the previous year to enable the farmers to carry on, but continued drought prevented this from being effective. So, not only did the relief previously granted fail in its purpose, hut also the growers concerned were actually worse off because of another season of failure. After consideration of the reports, it was found that the total a mount needed for an adequate scale of relief was more than £1,000,000, and the Commonwealth and State governments decided to provide this sum. The Commonwealth provides half, and each State adds £1 for £1 to the amount allocated to it by the Commonwealth. The contribution by the Commonwealth is £80,000 for New South “Wales, £235,000 for Victoria and £200,000 for South Australia. Other States are not affected, and it is likely that the New South “Wales amount will be some thousands of pounds less than the estimate.

It is desirable in joint measures of this kind that a common policy should apply, and the States have agreed with the Commonwealth on uniform conditions and rates of payment. The bill is intended to apply to cereal growers in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, who have had two successive years of drought, resulting in crop failure during the 1944-45 and 1945-46 seasons. Relief is based on the loss of cereal crops through drought, and it is intended to enable the recipient to carry on his normal farming. It should be noted that it is not compensation for loss, hut assistance to growers so that they can continue farming. There is no means test, because it was considered that this was not warranted, and that the great majority of the men concerned were small growers who could not finance their operations without aid. Belief is paid in cash, and there, is provision to prevent it being claimed by creditors. The object is not to pay farmers past debts, but to put them in a position where they can produce and meet their own commitments.

The scale of relief adopted follows that of the preceding season, modified only to the degree that the previous experience proved desirable. The maximum payments are 12s. 6d. an acre for wheat or wheaten hay, 10s. for barley, and 7s. for oats or oaten hay. Payments apply to crops actually sown. For hay crops relief is paid where the crop could not be harvested, and for grain, the full payment applies to total loss. In cases of partial loss payments are made where the crop is six bushels an acre or less, and payments .are graduated on a sliding scale based on the actual yield from the crop. It should be noted that assistance is given as a grant, without burdening the growers with future repayments. This and the other conditions of relief have proved satisfactory in the previous season.

Drought relief is a function of the States, and normally is not a matter for Commonwealth intervention. From. time to time, however, cases occur where relief is beyond the financial capacity of the States affected, and the drought failure extends beyond the boundaries of one State. In these special cases, Commonwealth assistance is necessary, and the present case is one unfortunate example of widespread disaster. Given assistance, these farmers can’ continue operations, and provide the crops we need in the year to come. They are operating in sound agricultural districts, where profitable production is normally possible, and the assistance now given will help them to carry on during the future with reasonable prospects of success. Farmers are always dependent on the seasons. There is the continual swing in crops, and these swings must he taken as a normal part of farming life. They must meet the variations in prosperity which result, and take the bad with the good. In the season before last, and the season before that, Australia experienced something more than the normal seasonal swing. Drought caused an agricultural disaster on a national scale, and in the districts now concerned drought and its resultant crop failure continued into 1945-46. It is not possible for farmers to continue in such, circumstances without assistance, and the occasion becomes one when governments should give help. The loss to the growers must be severe, even with that, help. I know that honorable senators will agree that the expenditure is fully justified, and will endorse the Government’s action in providing our’ farmers with assistance at a time when that assistance is necessary.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I support the bill and commend the Government’s decision to assist farmers who have suffered severely from conditions over which they have had no control. Apparently a very thorough investigation of conditions in the drought-stricken areas has been made by the Government’s technical experts. As the Senate has a very heavy programme of legislation to deal with, I shall not discuss the bill further

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– This is an extraordinary bill. It will empower the responsible Minister to do as he likes. The Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) certainly read out a lot of conditions which will apply to the distribution of the drought relief fund, but those conditions are not stated in the bill. It merely provides for the allocation of £520,000 by the Commonwealth to the States of New South “Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, subject to equal contributions being made by the State governments. What assurance have we that the conditions stated by the Minister in his secondreading speech will be observed? Why are they not stated in the bill? The Minister will have carte blanche in the handling of the money. This is a peculiar way to treat the Parliament. The Minister will be allowed to disburse the sum of £520,000 according to his own whim.

Senator Clothier:

– The money will

Lie put to good use.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not deny that. The object of the hill is commendable, but the Parliament should bave been consulted about the conditions of distribution of the money. This represents a departure from accepted legislative practice, and therefore, although I approve of the purpose of the measure, I object to the way in which it has been presented to the Senate.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– Recently an appeal was made to the people of Australia to grant to the Commonwealth Parliament, power in respect of the orderly marketing of primary products. Had the Parliament secured that power, Senator Leckie’s criticism of the Minister might have had some justification. As one who opposed the granting of the powers sought at the referendum, he must know that, when the money has been handed over to the States, the Commonwealth will have no control over it. His abuse of the Minister was intended to cover up his mischievous work in denying to the Commonwealth Parliament the powers that it should have.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

in reply - Senator Leckie cannot have studied the bill.

Senator Leckie:

– How could I have studied it? I received it only two minute? ago.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Surely the honorable senator does not suggest that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture should be conversant with drought conditions in every part of the Commonwealth. The bill provides that the Commonwealth Government shall allocate a certain sum of money to the States, that the States shall contribute to a fund on a £1 for £1 basis, and that the money shall then be distributed by the States. There is a further provision that the distribution must have the approval of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. One of the conditions which should appeal to Senator Leckie is that the grant will assist settlers, who have had two consecutive years of failure, provided that other conditions are similar to those of the previous season. Three States have passed complementary legislation and have provided funds on a £1 for £1 basis.

Senator Leckie:

– That is not in the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The honorable senator’s criticism is not justified. Clause 5 reads -

Any amount granted and paid to a State under this act shall be paid to that State upon condition -

that it is applied by that State, in a manner approved by the Minister, forthe purpose of the alleviation of hardship suffered, in consequence of drought, by persons concerned in the production of cereal crops; and

that an equal amount will be made available by the State and that the amount so made available will be applied by the State for the same purpose, and in the same manner as the amount payable to that State under this act.

Senator Leckie knows that in making sums of money available certain conditions must be laid down. In committee I shall give any explanation of any matter concerning which there is a doubt.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Payment for financial assistance to certain States).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– I have listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) concerning my criticism of the bill. First, he commented on the fact that the electors had not granted certain powers to this Parliament, and then he became quite heated because I said that certain regulations to which I referred should be incorporated in the bill itself. He accused me of not having studied the bill. That was unfair, because the bill was placed in my hands less than five minutes ago. That was the first I saw of it. I listened to a long explanation of the measure by the Minister, but I searched the bill in vain for the regulations mentioned by him. Many measures which come before the Senate authorize the making of regulations, but in this instance it seems obvious that the regulations have already been passed, because the Minister read a long list of conditions covered by regulations. I object to that kind of legislation. I do not object to the bill, or to the regulations referred to by the Minister so far as I understood them from his reading; but for the Minister to accuse me of not hav ing studied the bill, thereby suggesting that I had neglected my duty to the electors, is not playing the game. If the Minister wants to play the game he should present bills in time for honorable senators to study them before they come before us for discussion. This unholy rush to finish the business of the session-

Senator Ashley:

– I am not in a hurry. I am prepared to sit to-night and tomorrow, if necessary.

Senator LECKIE:

– We are expected to deal to-day with a bill which took four days to pass through the House of Representatives.

Senator Ashley:

– I shall give to the Senate all the time necessary for a thorough discussion of the measure. I am prepared to sit all night, if necessary.

Senator LECKIE:

– The Government expects this measure, and other legislation also, to be passed to-day. The programme before us includes legislation dealing with wheat, some of which is most far-reaching. I asked a simple question regarding regulations, but instead of answering it, the Minister for Supply and Shipping became angry.I submit that the regulations should be embodied in the bill, so that any person reading the measure will know clearly what is intended.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

Senator Leckie should know that it is not possible to embody in legislation provisions directing the States as to what they shall do.

Senator Leckie:

– The Minister read out a number of regulations to that effect.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I referred to certain understandings arrived at with the State Premiers who asked for drought relief.

Senator Leckie:

– The arrangement ought to be set out in the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The honorable senator should know that it is not possible to do that. I have tried to furnish full information concerning the measure, but if Senator Leckie is too dull to understand what I said, I cannot help that.

Senator Leckie:

– Now the Minister is becoming offensive.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and every other honorable senator understands it, but obviously Senator Leckie does not want to understand it. I repeat that, if necessary, I am prepared to sit to-night and to-morrow to deal with the legislation before this chamber. I shall provide honorable senators with all the time they require to debate in detail every matter that comes before us.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) is becoming progressively offensive. If he wishes to expedite consideration of these measures, the best he can do is to be courteous to honorable senators. He has lost his sense of proportion altogether. He now tells me that L am stupid, but that every other honorable senator has understood his remarks. The Minister is being purposely offensive ; and he knows that what he says is not true. He knows that I, probably, understand more about this subject than he, or any other honorable senator; yet he tries to create the impression that I am neglecting my duty. If the Minister prefers to be offensive, I also can be offensive.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– I did not intend to be offensive to the honorable senator. What I said was simply in retaliation. I informed him that I would endeavour to give all information asked for at the committee stage. I believe that Senator Leckie will agree that I have always endeavoured to he courteous to all honorable senators. However, any honorable senator who thinks that I shall not retaliate when I am abused is making a mistake.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Preamble and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1179

BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that the following members had been appointed mem bers of the Broadcasting Committee: - Mr. Burke, Mr. Falkinder, Mr. Hadley, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Spender, and Mr. Watkins.

page 1179

WHEAT INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill provides the money needed to complete a scheme which was started before the recent war, with the intention of solving one specific problem - that of the wheat industry. It provides £843,000 for the elimination pf marginal wheat areas. The problem of marginal wheat areas developed between World War I. and World War JJ. In the ‘20’s, the industry extended into districts which were not suitable for wheat-growing. Thousands of growers went on to holdings which proved too small to give them a living, and they attempted to grow wheat in areas that were not suitable for wheat-growing. In a boom period they could manage to make a living, because high prices offset the small and uncertain, yields, whilst an occasional good yield was very profitable. Once the slump came, however, their position was hopeless, because they could not stand up to the combined effect of low yields and low prices. The marginal areas thus became a depressed part of the industry, carrying about 10 per cent, of the wheatgrowers, and being incapable of yielding them a living when prices were reasonable, or low. The problem became acute during the depression, and the series of low prices placed the growers on these areas in a hopeless position.

Consequently, Governments were obliged to render constant assistance to farmers in the areas; and it became evident that there was no solution except to reconstruct the marginal areas on the basis of sound economic farming. The problem was the same in the four main wheat-growing States. In New South Wales, Victoria South Australia and Western Australia there were large marginal areas, in which were thousands of wheat-growers who had no prospect of profitable farming. All governments recognized the problem, and in 193S with the introduction of the Wheat Industry Assistance Act it was agreed that these areas should be taken out of wheat. The Wheat Industry Assistance Act provided £2,000,000 from flour tax to be spread over four years, and paid to the States. The States were to draw up plans for reconstruction, and use the money allocated by the Commonwealth to carry them into effect. The plans were drawn up by the States and approved by the Commonwealth, and the £2,000,000 has been allocated. Now another £843,000 is needed to finish that work.

The reconstruction scheme provides for more than 3,300,000 acres to be withdrawn from wheat production. Over 6,000 settlers are affected, and when the work is finished half of this number will have been removed from the marginal areas. The other half will remain, but they will be provided with bigger holdings, and will have a different farming programme. The main change will be to sheep. Wheat where it is grown at all will be a secondary interest, and will not be the main, source of income. Reconstruction is intended to promote sound farming. In some cases wheat will not be grown at all, but in others wheat-growing will still be part of the farmer’s activity. Conditions vary con- siderably. In definite areas no wheat should be grown, whilst in others the cause of failure has been concentration on wheat, whereas wheat should be only part of a mixed farming programme carried out on a bigger farm.

The programme of reconstruction has proceeded during the war years. Originally a period of five years was thought to be long enough to complete it. But the war caused many delays, and made it impossible to get wire and other materials for reconstruction. As the result, progress has been slower than planned; but it has been considerable. Now the end of the job is in sight. As soon as the States submitted their plans it was realized that the money allocated would not be sufficient to complete the work. The estimates of cost settled at just under £3,000,000, but the £2,000,000 provided has been enough to keep the work going to date. Now, another £S43,000 is needed, and it is necessary to provide it so that one big wheat problem can- be solved.

To date £2,107,000 has been provided for the States. This is made up of the original £2,000,000 and £107,000 provided from revenue in 1942 to meet the full States’ programme in that year. Now another £820,000 is needed in New South Wales, and £23,000 in Victoria. The allocations so far have been -

In previous years allocations were made according to State programmes. Those States able to push on quickly received allocations to let them do so, and the idea was to get the work done as soon as possible without any regard to State boundaries. As the result Western Australia and South Australia have been allocated enough to complete their programmes; Victoria needs only a few thousands of pounds to cover its requirements ; and New South Wales needs over £800,000. It will be noticed that New South Wales has by far the biggest problem, but it did not receive . a proportionate share of the amount allocated from the original £2,000,000.

This bill amends the act of 1938 so as to supply from flour tax proceeds the extra funds needed to eliminate marginal wheat areas. These areas are not suitable for wheat, they are a menace to a sound wheat industry, and all the governments concerned agree that they should be eliminated as soon as possible. The work is already well on the way to completion, and the sooner it can be completed the better it will be for the industry. I ask honorable senators to approve the measure, because it will remove one problem of the wheat industry, and allow sound farming in the agricultural areas.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I support this bill. I have a special interest in it because I was the Minister responsible for recommending to the Menzies Ministry that the first £2,000,000 should be made available in order to solve the problem of marginal wheat areas. I quite appreciate the fact that New South Wales will receive most of the money. I think the States found it necessary to do this work, and, from the reports that I have read from time to time, I believe that the scheme has proved very satisfactory. I think that this should be a lesson to the Commonwealth Parliament. We should as far as possible, in order to protect the interests of the taxpayers, try to avoid these costly mistakes. I will not say whose fault it was that men were allowed to go out into No Man’s Land to sow wheat and that returned soldiers were placed on areas far too small.

Senator Courtice:

– I appreciate the support of the Leader of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1181

STATES GRANTS BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

.- I moveThat the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment during the current financial year of special grants aggregating £3,670,000 to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its thirteenth report, which was tabled recently. The principle adopted by the commission over the years is that special grants should be designed to meet the financial needs of the States to the extent required to enable them to carry on with reasonable effi ciency. In interpreting this principle of financial needs the commission has each year taken into account the financial position of the claimant States relative to that of the non-claimant States. For the last five years reviewed by the commission, the non-claimant States have enjoyed budget surpluses. After taking account of the fact that these surpluses were primarily due to Commonwealth war finance, the commission has in each of its last five reports decided that the financial needs of the claimant States would be adequately met by the adoption of a balanced budget standard as the measuring-rod for the first approximation to the grants. After calculating the amount required to give the claimant States a balanced budget, the commission makes adjustments to the amount so calculated in order to take into account such factors as the relative severity of taxation in the claimant States and the relative liberality of their services as compared with those in the non-claimant States. In this way, some relativity is preserved between the standards of revenue and expenditure in the claimant States and the standards in the nonclaimant States.

Because the results of the States’ budgets on which the commission bases its calculations are not available for some time after the close of the financial year, the grants calculated by the commission for 1946-47 are based in the first instance on the budget results of the States in 1944r45. Where necessary, the commission has then recommended additions to the grants so assessed in order to bring the grants into line with the prospective financial needs of the States in 1946-47. Full details of the commission’s methods and calculations are given in the thirteenth report. The special grants recommended for payment this year are in each case higher than those paid last year. Details are as follows : -

For the information of honorable senators, I shall now refer briefly to the present position of the finances of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The finances of these States deteriorated in 1945-16, but substantial deficits were avoided by the Commonwealth making additional financial assistance amounting to £2,133,000 available under section 6 of the States Grants (Income Tax Reimbursement ) Act 1942. The principal factor responsible for the decline in the finances of South Australia and Western Australia in 1945-46 was the decline of the net revenues of the business undertakings, particularly the railways, whilst in Tasmania expenditure on social services substantially exceeded the previous year’s provision.

In 1946-47, under the revised basis of taxation reimbursements, South Australia will receive an additional £1,000,000, Western Australia an additional £740,000 and Tasmania a further £296,000, a total increase of £2,036,000 in respect of these three States. On the other hand, under the revised legislation, which became effective this year, the States will no longer be able to seek additional financial assistance under uniform tax legislation - an avenue through which South Australia., Western Australia and Tasmania received in 1945-46 additional financial assistance amounting to £2,133,000. The total amount which will be received by these States in 1946-47 under the uniform tax legislation will therefore be £97,000 less than in 1945-46. After considering this and other items in the States’ preliminary budget forecasts for 1946-47 as well as seasonal prospects and other economic factors affecting the finances of the States, the Grants Commission is satisfied that special grants aggregating £3,670,000 are required to meet the budget needs of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania in 1946-47.

In each year since the establishment of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in 1933 the commission’s recommendations have been implemented by this Parliament. After careful examination, ths Government proposes that the commission’s recommendations should be adopted. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– It is interesting to note that in the thirteen years of the existence of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, its recommendations have always been approved by Cabinet. That, I believe, .shows the right spirit. It is only just that the smaller States should receive this assistance from the Commonwealth in order that the development of this country may be uniform. I look forward to the time when Commonwealth governments will take a closer interest in the development of the less populous States, if for. no other reason than defence. It is amazing to think that Western Australia, the population of which is only 500,000, has an area of one-third of the Commonwealth. We must never forget how close this greatly under-populated part of the Commonwealth came to invasion during the war. We cannot fail to appreciate the need for greater development of Western Australia. Its population must be built up as quickly as possible if, as I have said, for no other reason than defence. The representatives of the more developed States have shown a generous spirit toward? Commonwealth grants to the applicant States. In the twelve years that I have been a member of this chamber, not one honorable senator has opposed this method of helping .the States to help themselves. The development that has taken place in South Australia in recent years is a clear indication that, as time goes on, the now applicant States will be able to finance themselves. I commend the Government for carrying on the good work of its predecessors in approving of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the members of which have done a very useful job.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– In view of the importance of the work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the interest that I have taken in that work in recent years, I cannot let this occasion pass without at least a brief comment. During the year covered by the report the commission laboured under difficulties. Professor R. C. Mills resigned his position as chairman of the commission on the 7th November, 1945, and took over an important post in charge of the Commonwealth educational facilities. He was replaced by Mr. Fitzgerald on the following day. For practically the whole year the commission’s male staff consisted of the secretary and one research officer, lt was not found possible to bring the staff up to its approved strength until August of this year. In the meantime, the commission was faced with three new applications under section 6 of the States Grants (Income Tax Reimbursement) Act. That delayed the report of the commission and imposed additional work upon its members. One is not surprised, therefore, to find that there are a few matters with which the commission has not dealt quite adequately. For instance, this year again it has made no adjustment in favour of the applicant States on account of economy in their administration. That adjustment has been ignored for the past few years owing to sundry difficulties. Nor has the commission yet found time to investigate about one-third of the field of expenditure of the States. That is a task that we hoped would be embarked upon. In its twelfth report, placed before this chamber last year, the commission indicated that it would review the social services standard by which it judged the expenditure in that field by the applicant States. I have looked forward with great interest to the commission’s findings on that point; but, unfortunately, it was not possible for the commission to make that investigation. The commission has recognized that the standard arrived at by taking the average of the social services standard of New South “Wales, Queensland and Victoria, is not adequate and has granted to the States arbitrary amounts. On the social services adjustment, a lump sum of £20,000 was granted to South Australia, £50,000 to “Western Australia and £30,000 to Tasmania. It is unfortunate that the commission has not had time to include in its report this year the very valuable economic survey of Australian conditions. The commission does indicate however that it will seek an early opportunity to present that report. I am delighted that the commission has again suspended the standard of effort formerly required of the claimant States, and also deductions for past loan losses. I hope that the commission will not reimpose these deductions at any future date. Uniform taxation of course is giving a new aspect to the work of the commission, and it has meant, under the revised basis of reimbursement, substantial advantages to the claimant States and has relieved them, to a very appreciable degree, of dependence on the special grants that we are now considering.

Senator McLeay referred to the need for the Commonwealth to ensure the development of the less populous States. I join with him in the tribute that he has paid to the standard States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, for their generous outlook towards the applicant States. I remind him, however, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), during the recent election campaign, intimated that an investigation would be made into the position of the smaller States, and that steps would be taken to bring the level of their industry and development up to that of the standard States. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would support the Government in that approach to the matter.

A further positive step taken following a recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, was the appointment of a committee of officers to investigate the whole field of Commonwealth and State financial relations. The report of this committee should be available to the next conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, and should further the policy formulated by the Prime Minister in the course of his policy speech.

I note with pleasure the very resilient approach that the commission has made to the subject of Commonwealth and State relations in the course of this report. The report indicates plainly that the commission considers that principles and methods should be changed with changing conditions, and it has demonstrated the genuineness of what it says in that regard by making a record grant to each of the applicant States. As the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) has pointed out, more than £2,000,000 was distributed during the year by way of additional income tax reimbursement under the old temporary uniform tax scheme. In addition, there are now these record grants and on top of that again, there are the greatly augmented grants that commence this year, based on the reimbursement of income tax. In the case of Tasmania, these three factors mean an extra payment of £590,000 in the course of a year. The amounts payable to “Western Australia and South Australia are, of course, much greater..

I have much pleasure in paying

A tribute to the work of the commission during a very difficult year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1184

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator A shi jet) read a first time.

SECOND Reading.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMini,ter for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– I move-

That the hill be now read a second time.

The Ministers of State Act was amended in June, 1941, to increase the number of Ministers of State from eleven to nineteen and the annual remuneration from £18,600 to £21,250. However, it limited the operation of the increases to the period of operation of the National Security Act. As honorable senators are aware, the National Security Act will expire on the 31st December next. The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to continue the present numerical strength of Cabinet beyond that date. The principal reason given by the Prime Minister of the day in 1941 for increasing the number of Ministers was the desirability of eliminating the post of Assistant Minister - there were five Assistant Ministers in 1939, prior to the war - and to impose on every Minister the duties of a Minister of State with responsibilities for a department of State. Such a reason applies in peace as well as in war. Reviewing the position in the light of postwar conditions, it is considered that the continuous growth of Commonwealth activities, with their administrative responsibilities, and the many additional calls, as compared with pre-war years, upon the time of Ministers, provide full justification for a continuance of the present number of Ministers.

Australia’s association with international affairs will require, from time to time, the presence of Commonwealth Ministers at international conferences. Experience since the cessation of hostilities has .stressed the desirability of having representation at ministerial level at important conferences, if the Australian point of view is to be adequately expressed. Relief for Ministers who are absent overseas, and at periods when short breaks are desirable and necessary, Ill US come from within the ranks of Cabinet. Hence, in all these circumstances, the Government considers that the maintenance of the present number of Ministers is fully warranted.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– 1 appreciate the dilemma of the Government in having to decide whether to amend the Ministers of State Act or sack some Ministers. It would not be easy for any Prime Minister to dispense with the services of members of his Cabinet. In considering the numerical strength of the Cabinet, we must keep in mind the large area of this continent and the numerous problems involved in its development. 1 suggest that the Government should consider a more even distribution of ministerial duties. For instance, the recently appointed young and energetic Minister for Munitions (Senator Armstrong) probably will have scarcely sufficient work to keep him occupied, whereas the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) has too much work to do. I also sympathize with the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) on account of the arduous and complex nature of his duties. The Leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Menzies) suggested in his policy speech at the recent elections that the work of Ministers should be redistributed, and I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to his suggestion that there should be a Minister for Development.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Salaries of Ministers).

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I agree in the Government’s intention to retain all nineteen members of the Cabinet. Although the work of some Ministers is not so strenuous as during the recent war, this bill proposes to increase their salary total from £18,600 to £21,250. This seems to be ridiculous. Obviously, the work of Ministers administering defence departments must have been considerably reduced since the war ended. Therefore, I can see no justification for increasing salaries.Will the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) explain why the Government has decided to increase salaries although the work of Ministers has decreased?

Senator ASHLEY:
New SouthWalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– The bill involves no increase of salaries. It merely provides for the continuance of the salaries which were payable under war-time regulations.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- We ought to be clear on this matter. The amount of £18,600 was provided in the original act, but since that time the size of the Cabinet has been increased, necessitating a consequent increase of the salary bill. The increase was provided for in regulations, and this bill will merely continue the application of the regulations.

Senator Ashley:

– That is so.

Senator LECKIE:

– It might be wise to increase the salaries paid to certain Ministers, provided that they are fully occupied with their Cabinet duties. There are nineteen Ministers, and an amount of £21,250 has to be divided amongst them. That amount will not provide them with very highsalaries. I understand that there are other items also. Assuming that every Minister is fully occupied, a total of £21,250 divided among nineteen

Ministers does not seem a great sum and, in my opinion, some consideration could well be given to increasing the amount. I believe that a man should be paid what he is worth, and that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers in any government should be paid salaries commensurate with the responsibilities of their office. The misunderstanding has arisen because £18,600 is mentioned in the principal act, whereas £21,250 was paid under War Precautions Regulations.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I appreciate the generous outlook of Senator Leckie, but as the wages of workers in industry are governed by wage-pegging regulations the Government would not be justified in increasing the salaries of Ministers at this stage. I hope that at some future date, after the wage-pegging regulations have been lifted or amended, this matter will again be brought forward.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1185

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a. second time.

The Census and Statistics Act in its present form requires certain named questions to be included in the census questionnaire, and allows other questions to be included if they are prescribed by regulations made under the act. The object of the amendments proposed in the present bill is to remove two items from the list of named questions, which was originally compiled over 40 years ago. Tie questions proposed tobe omitted from the named list are one relating to sickness or infirmity and one relating to education. The “ sickness and infirmity “ question was limited in the 1933 census to ascertaining which persons were deaf, dumb or blind. It was regarded as of little value, and much better data could probably be obtained from other sources. Moreover, good records of sickness generally are now becoming available from the operation of the sickness and unemployment benefits scheme. The “ education “ question asked in 1933 related chiefly to the kind of school, or university, which young people were attending. Such information can now be obtained for all practical purposes from the records of the education departments and other educational institutions. There was also a subsidiary question relating to ability to read and write a foreign language, but the answers given were of limited value. While the proposed amendments will not in themselves prevent similar questions from being asked in future censuses, as they may still be prescribed by regulation, it is not intended to include them in the 1947 census questionnaire. There is obviously a limit to the total number of questions which can be asked, if the replies are to be accurate and if the information resulting from the census is to be tabulated and published with reasonable expedition. For this reason, it is proposed in 1947 to replace the questions under reference with others of greater general statistical value.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1186

QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS. AGREEMENT BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cameron) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited - widely and popularly known as “ Qantas “ - was a pioneer civil air service operating company, with head-quarters at Longreach, which was established soon after the war of 1914-18, and operated, as its name implies, between Queensland and the Northern Territory. At first, it connected the terminals of those Queensland railways which run inland west from the coast, but as time went on the service was extended and its head office was moved to Brisbane. Its operations at that time were purely internal. But when the time came for the development of an air route between Australia and the United Kingdom, Australia undertook to operate the section connecting Sydney, Port Darwin, and Singapore, whilst Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited logically undertook what was in reality an extension of the service that it was already operating. Its head office was moved to Sydney. With the introduction of boat seaplanes in the operation of the United Kingdom service, it became necessary for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited to increase its capital, and this was supplied by Imperial Airways Limited, the United Kingdom operating company responsible for that portion of the route from Singapore to the United Kingdom. This resulted in the formation of what is now Qantas Empire Airways Limited with 50 per cent. of the shares held by the English company - Imperial Airways Limited. That company subsequently became the British Overseas Airways Corporation Limited owned by the United Kingdom Government and, consequently, that Government became the owner of 50 per cent. of the shares of Qantas Empire Airways Limited.

The Commonwealth Government has contributed to the development of Qantas Empire Airways Limited from its formation through a payment of an annual subsidy, which it will be necessary to continue until the growth of traffic and the development of aircraft make it no longer necessary. It is expected that that time is not far distant, and it is towards that end that the Commonwealth recently agreed to the provision of funds for the placing of an order in the United States of America by Qantas Empire Airways Limited for the purchase of four Constellation aircraft for delivery early in 1947. It is proposed that in that year the Australian service shall extend to London, and shall operate in parallel with the British Overseas Airways Corporations service along the same ‘route. In these circumstances, it is logical that the Government owning 50 per cent, of the shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited shall be the Commonwealth Government rather than the United Kingdom Government, and, with this object in view, an agreement was reached between the two Governments early this year, under which it was arranged that the Commonwealth should purchase the United Kingdom Government’s interest in the form of the British Overseas Airways Corporation’s shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited. The paid-up capital of the latter company is £523,000, consisting of fully paid £1 shares, and arrangements are now in hand for the purchase of the United Kingdom Government’s share holding, totalling 261,500 shares, based on the company’s financial position at the end of its financial year at the 31st March last. The bill is designed to authorize this purchase. The chairman of directors, the managing director and principal officials are Australians, and the head office of the company is ‘in Sydney. British Overseas Airways Corporation Limited exercises its rights through the medium of three members on the board of directors, and with the purchase of that corporation’s shares by the Commonwealth those directors will be replaced by three nominees of the Commonwealth Government.

The Government has established the Australian National Airlines Commission for the operation of interstate services. It has joined with the United Kingdom and New Zealand Governments in the formation of British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited for the operation of a trans-Pacific service - in this it has, with the other governments, made a direct monetary contribution. lt has similarly joined with the United Kingdom and New Zealand Governments in subsidizing the Tasman Empire Airways Limited in the operation of the air service between Australia and New Zealand. The Australian interest in Tasman Empire Airways Limited is to be found in a Qantas Empire Airways Limited holding of 23 per cent, of the shares of that company. By becoming half shareholders in Qantas Empire Airways Limited the Commonwealth Government automatically becomes also a shareholder in Tasman Empire Airways Limited, which it already subsidizes.

The Government lias considered Qantas Empire Airways Limited as the appropriate organization for the operation of external air services out of Darwin, and it is logica] to make the purchase now proposed in order that it shall be a wholly Australian company. This aspect has, in fact, no little importance in the completion of agreements with other nations for international services. The Commonwealth believes that international air traffic will develop considerably in the immediate future, that such development will be of great benefit to Australian trade and industry, and that, by reducing our geographical isolation, it will benefit the Commonwealth as a whole. I believe that additional international services will be called for over the coming years to establish communications, especially with our northern neighbours, and Qantas Empire Airways Limited seems to be the logical agency for this development.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Previously, the Government enacted legislation to nationalize our internal airways, but that legislation was held to be ultra vires the Constitution. This measure does not seem to square with the Government’s policy of nationalization. “When the High Court held the nationalization proposals to be invalid, the Government set up in competition with the existing companies. “Why is the Government, not prepared to come out now in open competition insofar as external air services are concerned? The existing companies are quite capable of running their business successfully. I should like to know the reason for this proposal, under which the Government will acquire 50 per cent, of the shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee;

The bill.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I should like to know who are the directors of Qantas, what shares will Qantas hold under this arrangement, and, approximately, what will be the cost to the Government under this proposal?

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- It is provided that the price payable by the Government under the proposal is to be based on the financial position of the company as at the end of the financial year ended the 31st March last. That is a very vague basis. In any case, I presume that the financial position of the company as at that date is now known. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say what price the Government will pay for the shares it is to acquire. Proposals of this kind are basically matters of finance. Is the expenditure proposed worth while? Under the measure, of course, the Government is given a free hand to pay what it likes in the acquisition of shares in Qantas Airways Limited.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- I should like to know how many directors Qantas will have, and how many directors the Government will have. Will the chairman he chosen from the directors? Who will appoint him? Under this proposal, the Government will hold exactly half the shares of the company. Thus it will not be in exactly the same position as it is in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited in which the Government holds one share more than half the total shares, and the seventh director, the chairman, is appointed by the other six directors.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– In reply to- the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) the Qantas directors at present are Sir Fergus McMaster, Mr. Hudson Fysh and Mr. F. E. Loxton. In reply to Senator Leckie, the value of the company’s shares is considered to be approximately 30s. a share. There will be six directors, three from Qantas and three from the Government. The directors will appoint the chairman.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– Will the chairman have a deliberative or casting vote, or both?

Senator CAMERON:

– That matter will be decided after the formation of the new board.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The voting power of the chairman should be laid down in the measure itself. Does the Minister suggest that the board should have discretion, to determine so vital a matter ?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I am quite aware, as has been suggested by the honorable senator, that this is a very important matter; but in cases of this kind it is the policy of all governments to allow discretionary powers to some degree in respect of methods of control. If, in the light of experience, the Government has reason to believe that the board is not using its discretionary power in a proper way, it will be in duty bound to remedy the position by amending this legislation.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– We must look ahead. Provision must be made in advance to cope with foreseen contingencies. Three of the directors will be from Qantas, and three from the Commonwealth; and they will have to elect the chairman. No provision, apparently, is made to meet the possibility of a dead-lock. It is absolutely necessary that some one should hold the balance of power on the new hoard. It is easy to foresee that the interests of the two parties represented on the board might temporarily come into conflict.

Senator Courtice:

– The directors of the company have been very co-operative up to date;

Senator LECKIE:

– They may have been very co-operative with the directors representing the British Government, but may not be so co-operative with this Government’s representatives. Provision should be made under the measure for the appointment of the chairman, and in respect ofhis voting power.It is easy to see that, with three directors on each side, months could pass in turmoil without even agreement as to who should be chairman. Some one will have to decide as between opposing forces. Now is the time to make the decision.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I agree with Senator Leckie that there might be trouble - that applies to any board - but one must rely on the good sense and discretion of the members of any board appointed by the Government. Should the position that the honorable senator has in mind arise, with the board unable to function simply because its members have not been able to agree as to who should be chairman, it would be the duty of the Government to intervene either by replacing members of the board or by bringing down legislation. That has been done, can be done, and will be done if necessary.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– A company or a business man entering this company, as the Government proposes to enter it and spend thousands of pounds, would obtain reliable information as to its directors. It is ridiculous that the Government should propose to enter this company practically blindfolded.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

– Is it mandatory that the chairman shall be selected from the six directors, or is it possible for the company to follow the example of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and appoint an outside man as chairman in order to ensure against a deadlock?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I am advised that the Commonwealth Parliament has no power to legislate as to who shall be the directors or chairman. I suggest to Senator James McLachlan that, if there should be no agreement, it would be possible for the Government to take action to end any deadlock. I think I am justified in assuming that the gentlemen concerned have got on very well with each other. Under the present constitution of Qantas, the chairman must be appointed from the directors. Provision is made for the directors to elect an umpire.

Senator Ashley:

– That is the point.

Bill agreed to without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1189

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this measure is to obtain parliamentary approval for further advances to the States of capital funds totalling £10,000,000 in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1945. At the 30th June last an amount of £6,795,000 had been advanced to the States of the appropriation of £15,000,000 granted twelve months ago, leaving a balance of £8,205,000 available towards the current year’s expenditure. The Loan Council approved in August last of a works programme which included £12,565,000 for rental housing under the housing agreement. The provision of £10,000,000 in the bill will cover expenditure to the end of the current financial year and enable the building programme to continue in the early months of 1947-48.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1189

DEFENCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 5th December (vide page 1086), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition [12.26] .; - It is a physical impossibility to give adequate consideration to this most important bill, which is placed before us on the last day of this sessional period. To show how impossible is the task of doing justice to ourselves in debating it, it is only necessary to direct attention to the fact that the second-reading speech of the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator McKenna · South Australia

consisted of sixteen pages of typescript and occupied 45 minutes in delivery. In passing, I compliment the Minister on the clear way in which he read it. I intend to make only one or two comments on the bill. The first is that we were told by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) before the general elections that the regulations made under the National Security Act would be repealed on the 31st December next and that provisions for the continuance of the control of prices and other controls would be brought before this Parliament as a bill. I suppose that the Government, having satisfied the people that practically all the controls were to be abolished, finds it necessary to continue the operation of many regulations. I concede that this legislation provides that the regulations shall be valid for only one year, but the Minister knows the discussion and controversy that have taken place over the abuse of the regulation-making power by all governments, particularly the Commonwealth Government. Although we admit that it was necessary in war-time to make numbers of regulations, we think that the time is appropriate for the Government to consider how far the laws of the land should be made by the Executive instead of by the Parliament. That matter has been discussed by prominent men. We have heard in this chamber many quotations from The New Despotism. If we are not more careful of the manner in which the laws of this country are made, this Parliament will he ridiculed. Most of the laws are made by the Executive. Even the Cabinet has to consult outside bodies on important matters. The Prime Minister and the Premiers foregather periodically at what are popularly termed “ Premiers Conferences “, which make decisions on proposals, the merits or demerits of which this Parliament has not had the opportunity of considering. We are told quite frankly that as a conference -of Commonwealth and State Ministers has agreed to certain proposals, the legislation embodying them must be accepted by the Senate. We are now in the second year of peace, and more attention should be .paid to this very important matter. Before the war the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this Parliament did excellent work, and I hope that after the end of June next, when the party numbers in this chamber will be so uneven, an effort will be made to revive that committee, so that a close cheek may be kept upon what is being done by bureaucrats and, in some cases by Ministers.

Senator Nash:

– The Regulations and Ordinances Committee still functions.

Senator McLEAY:

– Then it is functioning very ineffectively. I cannot recall any reports of that committee having been laid on the table of this chamber for many years. In the old days, reports were presented from time to time, and I remember that on one occasion the government of the day was defeated on certain suggestions made by the committee.

The retention of certain economic con’trols is necessary, and will continue to be necessary for some time to come. This applies particularly to the control of rents, and housing and land values. The transition period from war to peace has many difficulties. Essential goods are still in short supply, and it is necessary to control both their distribution and their price. However, I suggest to the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) and to other Ministers, that in some directions controls are weakened by delays in having individual cases dealt with by departmental officials. I refer particularly to the transfers of property, the administration of which is too rigid. The Government is trying to depress prices too far. Recently, I had brought to my notice a case in which one Commonwealth authority accepted for death duty purposes the value of a property fixed by a licensed valuer, but when that property was offered for sale at the same price, the delegate of the Treasurer refused to allow the transaction. That case is typical of many that occur every day. This rigid administration of land sales is doing more harm than good, because all over the Commonwealth land is being sold at black-market prices. The same applies to motor cars. The Government’s tendency to depress prices too far fosters black marketing. Sales of land or property which would benefit both parties are prevented, and in the final analysis the Government is the loser. Unnecessary controls should be abandoned, and necessary ones modified. If sales of land and property were conducted legally instead of on the black market, the revenue of the Department of Taxation would be increased considerably, and economic conditions would be brought nearer to normal.

Time prevents me from saying any more on this very comprehensive measure. I conclude by appealing again for the cessation of the abuse of the regulationmaking power of the Government. We should get back to the old system whereby all. important proposals were brought in through the front door by legislation, instead of through the back door by regulation. This is essential in the interests of good government, and in order that the people may be fully informed of the laws of the land. With the thousand and one regulations that exist to-day, it is physically impossible, even for lawyers, to know just what our laws provide.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– This measure, embodying numerous very important matters, has been introduced in this chamber in what may be described as the dying hours of the sessional period. The object of the bill is to validate for a further twelve months certain regulations that were introduced for war purposes. Normally, with the end of the war already more than a year behind us, these regulations would have been lifted, but the Government believes that in view of economic conditions, the retention of some of them for a further period is necessary. Government by regulation does not increase the prestige of any party institution, and is looked upon with disfavour by the people. During the war, hasty decisions had to be made and drastic regulations conferring wide powers upon the Commonwealth were necessary; but the war ended more than a year ago and it isnow time that government by regulation was curtailed in every possible manner. Whilst I agree that it is necessary tocarry on certain war-time powers for a further period, I believe that the operation of this measure should be limited to three months instead of twelve months.. At the end of this period, Parliament could again examine the matter and decide which regulations could be relaxed or abolished.

The continuance of controls over rents,, land sales, property values, &c, is desirable but officers charged with the supervision of these regulations are not viewing realistically the individual cases that come before them. They are too hidebound, and are inclined to implement the letter, rather than the spirit, of the regulations. There should be a certain degree of elasticity in administration. Many changes have taken place in the values of land and properties since prices were pegged in February, 1942. The price of building materials has increased considerably. The lack of realism on the part of those who administer these controls imposes hardship on many people who are unable to obtain land or houses. No one will deny that black marketing in real estate property is rife. For instance, a prospective purchaser may offer to pay £1,000 for a home, but the delegate of the Treasurer may fix the value of the premises at £700. The transaction will be effected, nominally, at the official price, but it is almost certain that the vendor will receive considerably more than that figure. The money changes hands illegally, and the property is sold. That means that the great majority of citizens of this country who abide by the laws are at a disadvantage. They have no hope of purchasing a property at the official price.

Sitting suspended from 1.1/.5 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator COOPER:

– Some of the Government’s controls, particularly those relating to property sales, create hardships. Only this week I received a letter from a Queensland man who bought some city allotments in 1924 or 1925 at a price of £400 each. A few months ago, a prospective buyer offered him a price of £420 each, but when he applied to the sub-Treasury for permission to complete t-he ‘transaction the allotments were valued at £320. The owner had paid rates and taxes .on the properties -for over twenty years. These, plus a reasonable allowance for interest .on the .original investment, amount to about £1,000. He -asked only for an additional £20 a block for having held the land if or over (twenty years. Treasury officials do not take a sufficiently realistic view of the difference between -property .values in 1942 and present values. Many people are .willing to sell .building sites at a reasonable .profit, but when the .transactions are forbidden b.y the Treasury, they decide .to hold -on to the properties until .controls are removed. The result is that many good building sites are being withheld .from use at ,a time when people .are anxious to build. T ask the Government to ensure that .a more realistic view of values shall be taken by Treasury officials in future, instead of using the rule of thumb methods which they have employed ,up to date, they should adopt a fair .system of valuation. This would benefit -the whole community. It would put an end to :the black-marketing practices that have developed and give law-abiding .citizens a better chance -to buy and .sell property on fairer terms than they have at present. Such a policy would .also be of benefit to the Treasury.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- There is no need for me to emphasize the farcical nature of the Government’s method of handling this measure. The bill .is so complex that the Minister’s explanation of its provisions lasted for nearly 45 minutes, and I imagine that it took Ministers and the staffs of various departments about three or four month? to prepare. In spite of its importance and complexity, honorable senators were called upon to examine it in detail between 11.30 p.m. yesterday, when it was presented to the Senate, and about 11.30 a.m. to-day. In such circumstances, it would be futile for us to endeavour to analyse the measure and discuss it in detail. The bill will be operative for twelve months, but during that period the Government may amend any of its provisions in any way; I do not know why the Government took the trouble to introduce it. What is the foundation for the Government’s apparent assumption that the bill -will -have -legal -force, although the original national security regulations would not ‘be legally (effective? -I presume that the Government promised its SUpporters that some of the .provisions of the regulations would -he given .the force of legislation. The foundation of this legislation ds unsound. Ministers talk about the “ transition (period “ between wa-j- and normal -peace conditions as though it were fraught with .great dangers. In fact, the period should be one of natural development. The National Security -Regulations necessitated the establishment of many new departments and instrumentalities. These organizations became over-manned. during the war, and -now *heir .employees «w anxious to retain their war-time authority in order to hold their jobs. I do not know whether this bill is intended for their benefit or not, -but that motive maT underlie .the .Government’s .action.

In explaining the measure to the Senate, the Minister for Health (Sena tor McKenna) said that the .principle regulation .groups affected by tie measure were those covering price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and controls of land values, capital issues and interest nates. I refer particularly to the inclusion of wage controls. This week the Prime Minister ‘(Mr. -Chifley!) promised to review wage controls by the 14th December. To-day is the 6th “December. The Prime Minister’s decision was forced u,Don him by outside pressure. T.he Government’s original intention was .to allow these controls to continue in force during the ensuing twelve months. That was made obvious by the Minister’s statements. .However., pressure politics has prevented .this, and the Government has been forced to change its mind. Why, then, did it include wage controls in the bill? What .sort .of legislation is this? I believe that the proper price for an article should be its replacement value. Many controls imposed on property sales and other transactions -defeat the Govern.ment’s announced intention of providing homes -for everybody. A house which was valued at £1,200 in 1942, .must not be sold above that price now. An identical house built to-day would cost about £2,000. What is the sense in a control of that sort? Surely Ministers must realize that prices would have found a fair level by means of natural processes. Every legislator must know that, whereever extraneous controls of this sort have been imposed, a cancerous growth known as black marketing has developed. In no country is this evil more pronounced than in Australia. It transcends any evil that might have resulted from the absence of controls. It creates amongst the people a feeling of contempt for the law. Everywhere I go, I hear of ingenious .schemes to evade ‘price controls. The result is that trafficking in houses, land, motor vehicles and other goods is rampant. (Unscrupulous and dishonest persons are profiting from the Government’s controls, whereas respectable and decent people are being penalized for their honesty.

The Government must have great doubts about the -stability of this bill. It must know that the legislation will not be attacked as a whole but in detail. Many >of the regulations to which it gives continued effect will be subjected to attacks. Admittedly, many useless regulations have been eliminated, but many of those which will be continued for the next year should have been jettisoned with the hundreds -of other ‘useless ones that have been thrown into the waste-paper basket. [ believe that practically all these regulations could be dispensed with. The only possible exceptions are those relating to price-fixing, but even about those I am -doubtful because they are being manipulated and evaded. Attempts to circumvent the regulations cause the departments policing them to expand and increase their staffs. Every one knows how hard it is to get rid of workers in a department for which there is no longer any need. ‘ Most people prefer administrative jobs to other classes of work, and do not like giving them up. Many persons have entered government depart.ments -from outside sources, and have -filled administrative positions which they do not wish to relinquish. -If the Government believes, as obviously it does, that some of the regulations should be continued, it could have abolished the rest of them ; but a regulation of doubtful value under the National Security Act is not likely to be any more effective by being embodied in an act of parliament. “In his second-reading speech, the Minister did not show that this legislation will be any more valid or effective than the National Security Regulations were. Large numbers of regulations are no longer in force ; others are to be continued for twelve months; still others are to be abolished in the near future; but at any time during the next twelve months any regulation may be abolished or added to without the Parliament being consulted. The Government is trying to convince the people that all the grounds for complaint regarding legislation by regulation will disappear because, in future, it will act under the authority of an act passed by this Parliament. That is only so much “ eye-wash “. If the Government were to do the right thing, it would introduce separate bills dealing with various matters, such as housing, and allow each of them to be discussed on its merits. This bill makes no such distinction; it puts supreme power in the hands of the Minister. It authorizes him to do jus what he likes. Because I object to “ eyewash “, I enter my personal protest against the methods adopted by the Government.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

.-r- I regret that ,the Government has seen fit to introduce this legislation at this stage of the parliamentary session, but “ t’was ever thus”. However, .that does not prevent honorable -senators from voicing their protest against -the .procedure -that is being followed. When Opposition senators seek information regarding the bill, largely because they have not had an opportunity to study it, they are accused of being unable :to understand it. The procedure adopted only too frequently is that, after a bill has been received from the House of Representatives, the Standing and Sessional Orders are suspended to enable the bill to pass through all stages without delay, and consequently -there is no opportunity to grasp all that it means. Even the title of the bill is a misnomer. Although its full title is “ A bill for an act to make provision for the security and defence of -the Commonwealth during .a time of transition from war conditions to conditions of peace and for other purposes” it merely empowers the government of the day to make regulations when and how it thinks fit. Its main object is to do away with certain controls imposed under National Security Regulations. It may be that controls should be continued in respect of certain articles, but if others are retained the time will come when even they will have to be lifted; and whether that time be 1946 or 1956 will not make a great deal of difference, because immediately the controls are lifted there will be a rush for the goods which have become freed. After that, normal conditions will again exist. At the present time there must be thousands of officers employed policing these regulations and I realize that if the controls are removed they will have to find other jobs. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why the Government is continuing some of these controls; it does not wish those policing them to be thrown out of work. Restrictions in respect of houses, land and building sites are agitating the minds of the people generally. The Government has failed to take into account certain factors in connexion with building sites. When a man decides to purchase a building site, he looks , around for a block of land in a suitable position and then commences negotiations for its purchase. He believes that his decision to build a home will affect him, not for a week or a month ahead, but, in most cases, for practically a lifetime. If he is employed in a capital city, he has to take into consideration such matters as his daily travelling expenses to and from work and, larter, travelling expenses for his children when they go to school, costs incurred by his wife when travelling to and from shopping centres, and so on. If all these things are taken into account, some of the “ excess profits “, of which we have heard so much, may be found not to be excessive profits at all. Restrictions can easily lead to black marketing. A lifting of the restrictions would go a long way towards meeting the shortage of homes. However, the Government has decided on its policy and, if effect be given to it, we shall practically hand to it a blank cheque and authority to do what it likes in the way of controls. In that event, regulations could be issued and the representatives of the people in the Parliament would have no control. The

Government would do well to lift these controls as soon as possible, and have more regard to the needs of the community generally than to keeping a number of officials in their jobs.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– All honorable senators agree that there was a time when the strictest controls had to be exercised over land and housing, and various commodities, so that things which were in short supply could be made available to the general public on an equitable basis, enabling all sections of the community to share in the limited supplies available. It is somewhat astonishing to find that many materials are more difficult to obtain to-day than at any time during the war. Matters which are exercising the minds of the people a great deal include the sale of land and buildings and second-hand motor vehicles. Yesterday, when I referred to this matter, it was said that I was advocating an increased cost of building homes. In my opinion, the Government should never have allowed the cost of houses to rise by from 50 per cent, to 75 per cent. Buildings of inferior quality cost more than better homes did some years ago. The Government should encourage the people to respect the law. Citizens who believe that they are suffering injustices quickly lose their respect for’ the law. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. It is well known that to-day very fews sales of land and houses are transacted at prices approved by the Treasurer, or his delegate. I fail to understand why the Government does not make a more practical approach to this problem. As Senator Leckie has pointed out, homes built before the war at a cost of £1,000 are now worth from £1,500 to £1,700, owing to the rise in building costs. At the same time, there is now very little competition in the building of homes. In these circumstances we have the anomaly that whereas persons who did not see war service now rent homes on the basis of their pre-war valuation, ex-service personnel and others are being charged rentals on the bask of current building costs which are 75 per cent, higher. This injustice is being suffered by thousands of our people. Whilst the great majority are law-abiding, the unrealistic character of existing controls is a grave temptation to them to break the law. After all, most people are intent upon purchasing land on which to build a permanent home for their families, but in most cases they can purchase land only at black market prices. Thus the present controls operate unjustly against those members of the community who want to live within the law and uphold it. For these reasons, I cannot understand why the Government refuses to ease these controls. Greater flexibility in respect of valuations and prices must be allowed, because regard must be paid to the substantial increase of costs of building materials, and the shortage of man-power, with consequent inferiority of workmanship. In addition, the quality of materials has deteriorated. Black marketing is rampant to-day only because essential goods are in short supply. Persons who own homes are prepared to sell them at prices which bear some relation to current values, having regard to increased building costs, in the belief that with the proceeds they will be able to build new homes for themselves without incurring financial loss Similar observations apply to trafficking in used cars. I repeat that the Government cannot be blind to the volume of black marketing which is going on at present. One way to eliminate black marketing is to devise practical controls which will work under present-day conditions, and will win the confidence of the people as a whole. Only in that way shall we maintain respect for the law, and the Parliament which makes the law. No one suggests that existing controls should bs completely swept aside. If that were done, the result would be chaos. We know of the experience of th<* United States of America in that respect. However, with the easing of controls prices will find their own level, and although considerable inconvenience may be caused during the transition period, the sooner we remove all these controls step by step and allow business to flow naturally under a system of open competition the better it will be for our people as a whole.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

in reply - Senator Leckie said that the revision of these controls had, no doubt, been under consideration for a considerable time. That is true. In my view, the officers responsible have made a very complete review of the regulations, and have enabled the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to prepare extensive information which has been placed before honorable senators.

Senator Leckie:

– When was that information placed before us?

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator will agree that a most comprehensive approach was made to the subject in my second-reading speech. In addition, a complete explanation of the existing regulations which are to- be retained has been presented, and a very imposing list of those which are to be abrogated has been placed before honorable senators. I agree with the honorable senator that the bill came before the Senate only yesterday, and that honorable senators will not have a great deal of time to consider them in detail. But it has been well known for a considerable period that the Government contemplated making this revision. There is on the statute-book already a measure which repeals the National Security Act as from the 31st December next. And I think that I may properly suggest that honorable senators have had information that legislation of the kind now before us was to be introduced. Thus there have been opportunities to consider these various controls. I regret that the Senate is not likely to have more time to consider this important measure. In view of the complexity of this legislation, I appreciate the very broad approach made by honorable senators opposite to it. Their comments upon the land control regulations will help to focus attention on their views when those regulations are under consideration later. Yesterday, the AttorneyGeneral intimated that those regulations would be revised. The Government is also aware of the difficulties raised by Senator Herbert Hays and other honorable senators. I assure them that the views which they have expressed will receive serious consideration in the near future.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) commented upon the fact that the people had been told that when the

National Security Act had been repealed Parliament would have an opportunity to deal by legislation with the continuance for a temporary period of some of these controls-. This measure is in fulfilment of that promise ; because whatever regulations will continue in force after the 31st December next will do so primarily by virtue of the Commonwealth’s defence power, which has not yet expired; and, secondly, by this legislation which enables the controls to be considered. It is competent for honorable senators to move for the deletion or modification of any of the controls listed in the first schedule. Thus such controls as are retained after the 1st January next will be so retained by virtue of the legislation we are now considering. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is desirable to remove from the Executive the power to legislate by regulation. It has never been the ambition of the Government to perpetuate that arrangement. In my second.-reading speech I acknowledged that the National Security Act passed by the Menzies Government was necessary and inevitable. It was recognized that in an emergency the Executive had to be able to act speedily and effectively.

Senator Courtice:

– And the Opposition at that time supported that legislation.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes, we are agreed on that. In my second-reading speech I read extracts from judgments given by the High Court in the Miller case and. the Dawson case in which the court intimated plainly that what I might term the war period is not yet concluded.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, and suggested it was a law-making body. If I interpret his statement correctly, that is not the position. The Premiers of the States merely confer with Commonwealth Ministers in order to reach agreement on certain matters which the Premiers later submit to their respective cabinets and ultimately to their .parliaments. Honorable senators will remember that, in 1944 when the powers referendum was taken, although the Premiers were in agreement with the content of the Commonwealth’s proposals, their cabinets and parliaments were not unanimous. It is found impracticable- to preserve outside: the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers the unanimity that prevails at the conference. That body is- not a legislative body. Any decision it may reach must, so far as if affects the- Commonwealth, be referred to the Cabinet and be considered by the Government and this Parliament. Under this legislation the Parliament will1 take up again the full power of disallowance possessed by it under the Acts Interpretation Act. It has exercised that power on occasions to disallow regulations made under the National Security Act. Clause 14 extends the powers of disallowance to orders, rules and by-laws.

Senator Leckie referred to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the Senate. That is functioning. It consists of honorable senators from both sides of the chamber. I am sure that it meets regularly and keeps up to date with its work. The Government has shown its broad mind by retaining Mr. Spicer, a former Opposition senator, as the committee’s legal adviser. I believe it has been meeting regularly, functioning efficiently and doing all the work envisaged for it, and which Senator McLeay agrees that it should be doing. Senator Cooper suggested that the operation of this legislation should be limited to three months, and that there should be quarterly reviews of the regulations. That would not be practicable, because many of the regulations apply to seasonal periods, particularly in relation to primary products. I assure the honorable senator that the Government will, month by month, review each of the regulations. It is as anxious as anybody is to relieve this country of the controls that are necessary for a limited period.

Senator Leckie:

– Have controls been removed from share transactions?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. After the passage of this legislation share transactions will be uncontrolled as from the 31st December. The stock and share market will be free of control of prices. Senator Leckie also referred to the wagepegging regulations. Those regulations hare for a considerable periodbeen under the consideration of the Government. The electors were told by the Prime Minister (Mr.Chifley) during the recent campaign that modifications of the wage-pegging regulations were contemplated. It is necessary that the Government should confer with the bodies that will have to carry out the modified regulations before promulgating them. That is one reason why we have not incorporated in this measure the new wage controls that are in the Government’s mind. I think it was Senator James McLachlan who, in referring to the preamble, pointed out that the National Security Act was designed to secure the country against aggression and provide for defence; but, as the judges of the High Court pointed out in two recent judgments, one inrelation to share control and the other in relation to land control, “security’” extends to economicsecurity as well as to physical defence security. I do not propose to detain the Senate. I appreciate the broad approach of honorable senators to this very important problem of the war-time regulations. It was in recognition of its importance that the Government went to so much trouble to put before both Houses of the Parliament itsviews in such a complete fashion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause6 (Operation of certain Regulations).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- This is one of the clauses one may legitimately call attention to as appearing to bear out my criticism of this legislation. Sub-clause (2) provides -

The Governor-General may, before the pre scribed time, make regulations -

  1. repealing any regulations in forceby virtue of thelast preceding sub section ; and
  2. amending any of those regulations but so that any such amendment shall be in respect of a matter dealt with by those regulations.

Legislation by regulation has been re sorted to by all administrations, both

Commonwealthand State, but no government has resorted to regulations to such a degree as has the Commonwealth Government in the last few years. Subclause 2 of clause 6 piles regulations on regulations. It seems Gilbertian that the Governor-General maymake regulations to repeal or amend regulations. I do not know why that procedure shouldbe followed. It would be simpler to provide that the Governor-General may delete any part of the schedules of this bill. I suppose the provision is all right - I do not know from a legal point of view - but it strikes me as going the long way round. It reminds me of the lines -

The little fleas that do us tease have smaller fleas to bite ‘em,

And smaller fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

Will the Minister explain the need for sub-clause 2?

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– Sub-clause 2 of clause6 is designed toachievethe purpose that the honorable senator himself desires to achieve, namely, the abolition or relaxation of controls as soon as possible. I call attention to the fact that the sub-clause emphasizes, in paragraph a, the repealing of regulations. It is very frankly the desire of theGovernment to use the power sought in sub-clause 2 to repeal the various regulations as early as possible. The reason for the inclusion of power to amend the regulations is that, from time to time, the Government may find it possible to modify regulations by repealing someof them, and the repeal of those regulations might entail consequential amendment of other regulations. It is purely a machinery clause designed to enable regulations to be repealed or relaxed as quickly as possible. I point out that the power to amend regulations is severely limited in paragraph b. Regulations may not be amended in any way thought fit, but only so that any such amendment shall be in respect of the matter dealt with by the regulations so amended. That is a restriction of the general power of amending regulations. I assure the honorable senator that the power sought for the Governor-General is in the interests of, first, repeal and, secondly, relaxation of regulations.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The Minister’s explanation may satisfy him, but it does not get away from the fact that the proposed procedure is ridiculous. I direct attention to subclause 3 of clause 6, which states -

Regulations made under the last preceding sub-section may include provision for -

conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter arising under the regulations; (b) defining the jurisdiction of any federal court, other than the High Court, with respect to any matter arising under the regulations;

Exactly what is meant by “ conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court “ is beyond me. The Minister surely does not imagine that that bill ensures that the High Court shall say that any power exercised under this proposed act or the regulations is constitutional. The phrase is ambiguous. I assume that the A ttorney-General will be able to say which court shall try an alleged offence. From the wording of this clause, it would appear to be the Government’s belief that, inserting a provision of this nature in its legislation, it could compel the High Court to declare the regulations to be constitutional. I am sure that the Minister has no doubt whatever as to the Government’s authority to compel the High Court to pronounce as constitutional something that is actuallyultra vires the Constitution.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– The question that Senator Leckie has raised is purely legal. Obviously, no provision contained in this measure can abrogate the High Court’s power, on the application of a party, to decide the validity of any particular regulation. The regulations under the National Security Act provide that proceedings may be taken in certain matters in certain courts - perhaps in the Supreme Court, before a stipendiary magistrate, or even in a special court set up for a. special purpose. Various courts are armed with federal jurisdiction under the regulations. The provision to which Senator Leckie has drawn atten tion confirms the High Court’s decision, if any confirmation be necessary, and it gives power to vary the existing regulations to provide that applications, instead of being made to an intermediate or subsidiary court, may be made direct to the? High Court.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 17 agreed to.

Clause18 (Delegation of powers under regulations).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I should like some clarification of this clause. It provides -

A Minister may, in relation to any matters or class of matters, or in relation to any particular State or part of Australia by writing under his hand, delegate all or any of his powers and functions under any regulation in force by virtue of this act (except this power of delegation) so that the delegated powers or functions may be exercised by the delegate with respect to the matters or class of matters, or the State or part of Australia, specified in the instrument of delegation.

That means apparently that a delegate of the Minister may interpret the regulations in accordance with his own views. How is it proposed to maintain uniformity in the administration of the regulations throughout the Commonwealth? I was interested yesterday to hear Senator Tangney speak of the substantial disparity in the prices of clothing, household drapery, and other goods, between Perth, and the cities of the eastern States. Apparently, although the same prices regulations apply throughout the Commonwealth, there is such elasticity in their application that the prices of ‘ similar goods may vary considerably. The honorable senator instanced certain commodities which, although manufactured in the eastern States, could be purchased more cheaply in Perth than in Melbourne or Sydney. The delegation of powers in accordance with the provisions of this clause may result in the same lack of uniformity, and I should like to know what steps will be taken to ensure that so far as possible the administration of the regulations shall he uniform throughout Australia.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– This clause does no more than continue section 17 of the

National Security Act. I realize that Senator Leckie is not contesting the delegation of authority. Obviously it would be impracticable for a Minister to attend to all of the administrative acts required in the departments under his control, but he retains responsibility for the acts of his delegates, and consequently, he delegates his power, with instructions as to how it is to be exercised. In most cases there would be a director-general at headquarters, and sub-officers in the various States. The Minister would hold his main administrative officer responsible for the acts of the delegates, and would lay down broadly the instructions upon which they should proceed. If the Minister failed to give instructions, and there was a variation in the administration of the regulation throughout the States, he would have to accept full responsibility for that position.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

First schedule.

SenatorMcKENNA (Tasmania - Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services) [3.25]. - I move -

That, in the third column, before the figures “80” the figures “65” be inserted.

Senator Leckie:

– What is the effect of the amendment?

Senator McKENNA:

– The relevant part of the schedule reads -

First schedule.

Regulations 80, which we are deleting, would have resurrected the National Registration Act,thereby obliging every person to register. This regulation suspends that, andby inserting the figure “ 65 “, we merely retain the position that we have known in the last few years. The National Registration Act is suspended for the time being, pending the introduction of legislation either to continue or to discontinue it.

Amendment agreed to.

First schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second schedule.

Amendments (by Senator McKekna) agreed to -

That, after the item “ Control of Tin plate Order”, the following item be inserted: -

Second schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third schedule agreed to.

Fourth schedule.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- During his second-reading speech, I asked the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) a question relating to the control of share transactions. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have received to-day a number of telegrams seeking precise information about the Government’s proposals. I should like to be able to give to the senders of those telegrams authoritative information. I understood from the Minister that all restrictions on transactions in shares would be removed as from the 1st January next.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I probably gave some wrong information in my reference to the regulation. When I spoke previously, I may have referred to regulation 7 and regulation 7a of the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations. I should now like to correct that, and refer to regulation 7 and regulation 10a. Regulation 7 forbids, without the consent in writing of the Treasurer, certain transactions regarding the selling of shares, stock and debentures. The honorable senator will find in the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations elaborate provisions dealing with transactions in shares, all of which will be repealed as from the 1st January next. Regulation 10a obliges a member of a stock exchange, where he suspects or has reason to believe that a person has been guilty of a contravention, of this Part, to inform the Treasurer. That will expire as from the 1st January next.

Fourth schedule agreed to.

Preamble and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Rill read a third time.

page 1200

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL (No. 2) 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the main act passed last session. This is necessary in view of the Wheat Tax Bill, and the Wheat Export Charge Bill (No. 2). It also validates the acquisition order under which the 1939-40 wheat crop and the following crops were acquired. The amendments provide for the 1946-47 crop now being acquired, and so make the distinction between the acquired crops under the Stabilization Plan and the later ones which will not be acquired.

The opportunity is taken to deal with some doubts which have arisen concerning the order acquiring wheat crops in war-time. Under this order, which was made in November, 1939, all of the wartime wheat crops have been acquired. All parties - Government and growers - have accepted it as valid, and have acted in accordance with it, and it was never thought necessary to issue fresh orders to deal with the later crops. Now, the point has been raised that, possibly, several orders should have been issued to cover the crops in each season. Therefore, it is thought best to settle the position by validating the order. Awkward complications would ensue if it were found to be invalid, and they would probably harass both Government and growers without any benefit to either party. As everybody has acted on the assumption that the order was valid, there is no injustice in establishing that position beyond doubt. In fact, it is the sensible thing to do, and while the order may be quite sound in law, this is a suitable opportunity to make its validity clear beyond questioning. There is nothing contentious in this measure. Apart from the point which I have mentioned, it is a machinery bill, and I commend it to honorable senators.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I was astounded when the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) said that the bill was purely a machinery measure. It’ appears- to- me to have been brought d’own- for a specific purpose. It seems that the- Government is afraid. that State legislation will override’ the Commonwealth Wheat Industry Stabilization Act, or that a judgment of the High Court may render the original scheme ineffective. This bill is designed to convert the export charge on wheat into a general tax. It is- a subterfuge. The Government is trying1 to run- the- steam roller over the laws and authority of the States, which will be placed in a- .most invidious position. It is afraid that the States might reject the original scheme’. The’ wheat-growers will resent this legislation. If they do not, they will deserve a’ll that is coming’ to them-, because the bill will rob them of 50 per cent, of the price of exported wheat between 5s. 2d. ;i bushel and the overseas market price of 1% 3d. a bushel.

Senator Clothier:

– The overseas price will not always remain at that figure.

Senator GIBSON:

– The honorable senator does not know anything about the matter. The Commonwealth grants licences to grow wheat, and: the States grant licences for the farms-. Every man who holds a temporary licence to grow wheat and contributes to the stabilization pool will be robbed of 6s. 6d. for every bushel that he produces and will never be compensated for the loss. The fund should be operated on the same lines as insurance funds, which allow a surrender value for policies which are discontinued. Growers should have some equity in the stabilization fund, but the Government refuses to recognize this right. Temporary licences ure granted to men who do not own land, but grow wheat on a share basis. The land which they are now using may not he available to them in future. In that event, they will be forced to stop growing wheat and will lose all contributions that they have made to the stabilization fund between 1945 and the present time. Mon who did not grow wheat in that period but who commence production later, will get the benefit of those contributions. This bill provides for nothing other than the confiscation of money which rightly belongs to the growers. I hope that the Government will review its decision and agree to grant some equity in the stabilization fund to° men who hold temporary- licences. The wheat-growers are being forced to subsidize consumers: Bread- is- subsidized by the growers at the rate of 5s.. a bushel,, and stock-raisers and poultry-farmers also- benefit- from- concessional prices at the expense of- the farmers. The system is wrong- and the Government, should change it. The object of this bill seems to be to, “ jam “ the claim that hasbeen submitted to the High Court by converting contributions to the stabilizationfund into a tax. It is impossible to obtain a permanent licence to grow wheat : only temporary licences are issued. That is- a. ridiculous state of affairs. Scores of farmers whose sons served in the armed forces during the war will want to establish their sons as wheat fanners, but’ because their land is not registered for th*1 production of wheat, they will, not be able to do so. There is. a world shortage of wheat. Almost at our door, millions of people are dying of starvation, yet the Government’s scheme restricts production. I hope that the Government will review the position and’ permit the growing of wheat on lands which at present may not be ti-‘ed for that purpose. Unfortunately, there is not a wheat-grower, or even anybody who knows anything about wheat-growing, on the Government side of the Senate: Wheat can be grown in many districts if men are permitted to grow it, but as things are many farmers are diverting their energies to other primary products. I fear that that practice will continue until there is a serious shortage of wheat in this country. Indeed, a shortage already exists, because there is not sufficient wheat in New South Wales to meet the requirements of that State, and there is no wheat at all in Queensland. Australia’s export of wheat this year will be small indeed. The introduction of a measure of this kind at the eleventh hour of the sessional period is scandalous. This scheme has been introduced because the Government has good reason to fear that the State Parliaments will not pass legislature complementary to that passed by the Seventeenth Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I, too, regret that this measure has been brought before the Senate at this stage of the s»»m». I have never ‘been able to congratulate the Government on any of its “wheat schemes, but on this occasion I do compliment it on its astuteness. The Government has seen the writing on the wall and has taken steps to avoid the consequences.

Senator Gibson:

– It is determined to make peasants and slaves of wheatgrowers.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– Legislation passed by this Parliament earlier in the year necessitated the enactment of complementary legislation by State parliaments before it could become effective, and the Government had good reason to believe that some State parliaments would not pass such legislation. As honorable senators know, a case is now before the High Court relating to legislation passed by this Parliament in connexion with the wheat industry. Ministers may think that the measures designed to control the wheat industry which have been introduced this week will enable the Government to escape the pitfalls, but I am not sure that their confidence is well founded. The Constitution provides that the Commonwealth Government may acquire practically anything, but there is a proviso that it shall do so only on just terms. I do not think that even the greatest admirer of the Government would say that the terms in this instance are just. The Government is making good progress towards the nationalization of the wheat industry of Australia, if it has not, in fact, already succeeded. It would have been better to say that a man who wishes to grow wheat may do so, and that the Government will assist him by paying him the basic wage and providing a block of land on which to grow it.. By imposing restrictions, requiring farms to be licensed, and controlling wheat prices, the Government has the farmer where it wants him. This bill does not grant any relief from the provisions of other restrictive and unfair legislation. Moreover, it disregards entirely the promise of the late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, that no restrictions would be imposed in respect of the 1945-46 wheat harvest. That promise has been flouted by the present Government. Furthermore, this bill does not assist the farmer who has a temporary licence or is farming on shares. It may be that a farmer is growing wheat on land which the Government has purchased for ex-servicemen, and that bis share of various wheat pools is £400, £600 or even £1,000. When his property is taken over and he is deprived of his wheat-growing land, the money belonging to him in those pools will be lost, to him forever. .Similarly, the bill makes no provision for the family of a deceased farmer benefiting from the money to his credit in the pool. The real farmers of Australia - the men who have made the. industry what it is - will not be any better satisfied with this measure than with the legislation previously passed by the Parliament. As 1 have said, the only thing about the bill on which the Government can be complimented is that it has found a way out of a great difficulty. The Government is clever, even if it is not honest. All my life I have heard that “ for ways that are dark and tricks that are vain the heathen chinee is peculiar “. but the present Government has gone ono better.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– I should not have risen had not. Senator James McLachlan said that tho late John Curtin, when Prime Minister, promised that the 1945-46 wheat crop would not be included in the Government’s wheat stabilization scheme. I give to that statement an emphatic denial.

Senator James McLachlan:

– It is true. Some honorable senators in this chamber heard” the promise when it was made.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That malicious statement was repeated on many platforms by non-Labour candidates during the recent election campaign. I do not know where it originated, or who was responsible for it, but I deny its accuracy. Mr. Curtin died before the Government’s wheat stabilization scheme was considered. He took no part in the discussion which led to its introduction.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I had intended to express my views regarding the Government’s treatment of the wheat industry when another bill came before us, but as some latitude has been allowed on the second reading of the first bill to be considered, I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the policy of the Government in imposing a retrospective tax on wheat delivered as far back as 1945. Such an action on the part of a government was previously unheard of. As honorable senators know, litigation is pending in the High Court in connexion with the 1945-46 wheat crop, but in spite of the constitutional requirement that a just price must be paid by the Commonwealth for any property acquired by it, the present Government is attempting to circumvent the Constitution. The tax proposed to he levied under, this legislation will be levied upon the wheatgrowers themselves, because it will be levied on all the wheat grown by them. If it is to he made retrospective to wheat delivered in 1945, I am sure that the wheat-growers will offer very great objection to it.

Senator Gibson:

– If the Government can apply this policy to wheat, it can apply it also to anything else.

Senator McLEAY:

– As Senator Gibson points out, this is only a beginning. The Government has been able to profit from a High Court judgment in connexion with uniform taxation. It is taking advantage of that judgment, in order to evade the requirements of the Constitution, and hopes that, by this means, it will defeat those who are appealing to the court for a just price for their 1945-46 wheat crop. I listened to the debate in another place, and have taken the opportunity of reading the speeches that were made in it by the various members. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) was anxious to force the bill through. Our numerical strength is not sufficient to defeat it; consequently, I cannot see that any good purpose would he servedBy occupying further time in debate. I merely suggest to the Government that this is one of the most iniquitous measures ever levelled against a worthy section of the community, and that this will not be the last that we shall hear about it.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

in reply - I was quite serious when I said that there is nothing contentious in this measure. I was assuming, of course, that the Government, the Parliament and the wheat-growers of Aus tralia had come to an agreement on a wheat stabilization plan. The purpose of this bill is to guard against any difficulties that may arise in connexion with the acquisition of the wheat crop. I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the wheat stabilization plan; they were debated exhaustively by this Parliament on a previous occasion. The plan was accepted, and given legislative effect.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1203

FRIDAY ADJOURNMENT AT 3.45 P.M

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) . - In conformity with the sessional order that, unless otherwise ordered, the motion for adjournment shall be put, on Fridays, at 3.45 p.m., I formally put the question -

Thatit the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1203

WHEAT TAX BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE (Queensland-

Minister for Trade and Customs) [4.3].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is one of a series of three bills made necessary by the need to alter certain features of the wheat stabilization legislation of last session. The effect is to make the legislation more effective in carrying the Government’s announced policy into effect. There are altogether three bills. This one alters the charge previously imposed and replaces it by a tax on wheat acquired by the Commonwealth, the second of the series covers wheat which may be exported although not acquired and covers also the charge on wheat products exported, whilst the third bill makes consequential amendments to the Wheat Stabilization Act.

The legislation of last session was passed in order to carry out the Commonwealth’s portion of a plan for wheat stabilization, and State legislation is complementary to the Commonwealth acts. The State legislation has not been passed yet and so we are under the necessity of acquiring another wheat crop. That is the 1946-47 crop now being harvested. At the same time certain doubts have arisen as to the effectiveness of the previous acts in carrying the wheat policy fully into practice. It is best therefore to make a distinction between the two wheat crops covered by the guarantee which are acquired and the later crops covered by the plan which will not be acquired. Those later crops are not affected and this series of bills will deal with wheat acquired by the Commonwealth.

This bill provides a tax on wheat of the 1945-46 and 1946-47 crops acquired by the Commonwealth. Previously, the tax covered wheat exported ; now it covers all wheat acquired. The rate of tax is varied, but the formula is designed to bring in the same amount as before. This is done by reducing the tax rate in proportion to the extra quantity of wheat taxed. The tax is imposed on the grower of the wheat. This is in accordance with the policy expressed by the Government, and understood by the growers. It is desirable that the point should be made specific. Some doubts have arisen upon it, and it should be covered beyond doubt, because it concerns the source of the fund to he used for the benefit of growers in later years. The amount involved in contributions to the stabilization fund from the 1945-46 crop is £6,000,000 and a liability for this amount would be added to the Commonwealth’s liability under the guarantee if the growers escaped the contribution from the crop proceeds. One cardinal principle of the plan all along has been that the grower should contribute in high price years to the stabilization fund, and it is essentia] that this principle” be carried into effect.

The basis of contribution has been declared previously. It is that in high price years the growers should pay into the fund up to half of the surplus exp’ort price above 5s. 2d. a bushel f.o.r. for bagged wheat. The other half - or more - goes into the wheat pool for distribution to growers, and at all times they are assured of the guaranteed minimum price of 5s. 2d. Under the Wheat Export Charge Act, the surplus from export wheat only was covered. The same effect is reached in a different way under the present bill. The two acquired crops are taken out of the Charge Act provisions, and instead this bill provides for a tax. The tax will be imposed on the whole of the wheat acquired, and not on wheat exported only; but the amount collected will be the same, because now, instead of a charge of half the surplus on export wheat, the tax on the crop will be calculated to give that total amount. Whilst the tax is spread over a’ wider area, it is spread more thinly.

It will be noted that the formula for this is rather involved. That is regretted, but in dealing with wheat suitable formulas are rarely simple. The formula, however, maintains the principle of the stabilization plan that the grower shall not contribute more than 50 per cent, of the export surplus, and where it is practicable th is proportion can be reduced. The reduction can be made in two ways, either by decreasing the proportion of the surplus below 50 per cent., or by fixing a price less than the actual export price and then taking half of that for the stabilization fund. It will be remembered that the Government announced that 9s. .6d. a bushel f.o.b. would be the tax limit for the 1945-46 crop, and under the revised formula of this act that will still be the figure taken. The result will be that the figure of 2s. 2d. a bushel from the export quantity will now be spread over the total wheat in the pool. The tax will then be calculated and the lower tax spread over all the wheat in the pool, bringing the same amount into the fund.

In overcoming some difficulties which might otherwise interfere with the stabilization plan we are in fact adhering more closely to the pooling principle. That principle involves the whole of a crop going into one great unit, which is sold to the best advantage, and growers’ separate interests are merged into a common interest, and a proportionate share of the crop. It allows risks and profits to be shared evenly. A .single grower loses the chance of doing better than the average which he would have under open marketing. But this is more than balanced by the benefits of the pool, for he avoids the risk of unfavorable selling, and the concentration of sales in one agency enables him to benefit from the higher average return for the crop. It is co-operation instead of competition, and all growers benefit. That benefit is especially pronounced in war-time or transition. For individual growers the open market could not now give results as favorable as those from a pool. The difficulties of transport by land and sea, and the abnormal market conditions for exports, make sales through a pool the only practicable method at the present time, and growers’ organizations are keenly aware of this fact.

The method of applying a tax over the whole crop is therefore logical; and as a tax applied solely to wheat exported would cause difficulty it is desirable to tax all the wheat in the pool. The difficulties to which I have just referred arise from the fact that wheat is exported from the various States in different proportions, and those proportions vary from State to State. Last season, for example, New South Wales was the one State with a good crop and a big export surplus. This season, with a small crop, New South Wales will not provide any part of Australia’s export surplus. This fact in turn would cause difficulty when applying a tax on export wheat to an acquired crop, because growers have a constitutional right to a just price, and the export charge basis might make it impossible to reconcile the pool basis with this.

The opportunity has also been taken to provide for a provisional rate of tax, so that growers may know after the lapse of a reasonable period, what they must pay in tax. With this knowledge they will be enabled to exercise any constitutional right without having the impediment of a tax of an unknown amount, to be fixed at an indefinite time. The Wheat Board, after a reasonable period has gone by, must estimate what the tax will be. The Minister considers the recommendation, and then declares a provisional rate of tax, and this applies until the final determination of the actual rate applying to the pool can be made. Adjustments can then be made by way of refund or further payment. This provision is intended to prevent delay in arriving at the tax amount. It is quite consistent with the practice adopted in pools, under which amounts payable to growers are paid as advances while the wheat is being sold. The practice is for the Commonwealth to guarantee the board’s overdraft, and payments are made in advance of sales. Whilst the wheat is marketed as quickly as practicable the sale of a crop normally takes more than twelve months, and the method adopted means that growers obtain payments before the proceeds of sales come in. The board operates on an overdraft, and it is not until near the end of transactions that the pool is in credit. The intention is to make payments promptly to growers, and the same intention concerning the fixing of the tax applicable should be expressed in this legislation. The policy of the Government in regard to wheat stabilization is not altered, and that policy has received the approval of Parliament. The bill is intended to express that policy in the most effective way.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- Evidently, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) had this measure “ up his sleeve “. In spite of his long explanation he has left the matter exactly where it was before; because it is clear that the tax is designed to override any legislation that the States may pass. I am concerned about the interests of the wheatgrowers. Will the tax be levied on any wheat sold within the Commonwealth with the exception of wheat used for flour and biscuits which are exported? Will wheat sold to the miller for flour for bread which is sold in Australia, or wheat sold to the poultry farmer, or as stock feed be subject to the tax? I understood that this measure, which is portion of the Government wheat stabilization scheme, was to benefit the grower. That is what we have always been told ; but the effect of this measure is to see that the growers supply wheat at a lower price than they can obtain for it elsewhere, in order to make them subsidize the bread industry, the poultry farmer and stock breeders, whereas all wheat exported is to be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent, of the amount by which the overseas price exceeds 5s. 2d. a bushel f.o.r. The consumer of bread is all right, the consumer of poultry feed is all right and the consumer of eggs is all right, but the poor old wheat-farmer, whom this bill is supposed to help, goes by the board. The Government found that owing to the hostility of the wheat-growers to the Wheat Stabilization Plan that was enacted in the last Parliament some of the State parliaments would not pass the complementary legislation necessary for the implementation of that plan. In order to obviate any risk of the plan collapsing because of that, the Government decided to bring down this legislation. It has provided -

That any declaration of the Board in pursuance of the provision passed to give effect to the last preceding paragraph may he in respect of a date or period prior to the making of the declaration.

We have had retrospective legislation before and protested against it, but to allow a board to pass retrospective legislation in order to impose charges on wheat is unparalleled. I could readily understand the Government or the Minister taking that responsibility, but not a board. Surely that carries the powers of government too far. This legislation has been brought down only because of the need to circumvent the probability that the State parliaments will yield to the presure of the wheat-growers and refuse to pass their part of the legislation necessary to carry out the Wheat Stabilization Plan. The Government’s attitude is “ We are not going to allow any wheatgrowers to get past us. We will impose a tax in order to put the issue beyond legal doubt “. What worries me is not so much the effect of this legislation on the wheat industry as the fact that if the Government can do this in respect of wheat, it can do it in respect of anything. It can take possession of any article it likes and by imposing a tax on the article, evade the provisions of the Constitution that fair and just compensation must be paid.

Senator Courtice:

– It would have to get Parliament to agree.

Senator LECKIE:

– The Minister smiles as he says that. Fancy appealing to this Parliament as at present constituted in a matter of this kind.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– It is what the people made.

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes, but knowing what they know now, does the honorable senator think that they would befoolish enough to believe they could get justice from this Parliament. The Government yields to pressure only when it is a matter of easing or removing wagepegging or something of that sort, but it scorns the interests of the wheat industry. I have heard talk about nationalizing the wheat industry. This Government is not nationalizing but abolishing the wheat industry. It yields to the pressure of unionists, but it is adamant when the interests of wheat-growers are being adversely affected. Justice and fair play do not count in this Parliament, the only thing that counts is the intention of the Government to ensure that the people who sent it here shall get more than a fair share of the pudding. We say that every one should share equally. It is iniquitous that the wheat-grower should be singled out for this unfair treatment under which he not only has to accept all the sacrifices entailed in selling wheat for milling into flour at 5s. 2d. a bushel, so that the price of bread shall’ be kept down, and at 4s. a bushel for use as poultry feed, so that eggs may be sold at ls. 7£d. a dozen, but also has to shoulder the burden of a tax of 2s. or 4s. or 6s., whatever it may be, a bushel of his wheat sold abroad. I object to legislation of this kind being placed before us in the dying hours of the sessional period. In all seeming innocence, the Minister assured us “ There is nothing in these three bills. Let them be taken together. They are just chicken feed “. Chicken feed ! This is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever placed before us. It has a vital bearing on one of the leading primary industries of Australia. I protest as strongly as I can against it.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– If Senator Leckie keeps going on likethat he will convince himself that he has some regard for the wheat-growers. If they are in, a perilous position to-day or need some help, it is because of the attitude of governments composed of men like

Senator Leckie and Senator Gibson. No previous government has done more to stabilize the wheat-growing industry than has this Government. Senator Gibson deplores the fact that provision is made for the prevention of the growing of wheat in certain areas. He said that production was being restricted. Would Senator Gibson suggest that the Government should expend thousands of pounds in endeavouring to establish the fruitgrowing industry where there is no irrigation? Of course not. Obviously, the right procedure is to provide the irrigation first. Unfortunately, irrigation is unsuitable for wheat-growing, and this industry must depend upon rainfall. No government has done more than this Administration to assist the wheat-farmers. Since it has been in office, large sums of money have been made available from Consolidated Revenue to the wheatgrowing industry, but now Senator Leckie claims that something is wrong with the industry. He says that the wheat-growers have not approved of the wheat stabilization plan; but I take as my guide in this matter the fact that at the last elections the Labour Government received overwhelming support throughout the Commonwealth, including the wheatgrowing areas. If there was any doubt in the minds of wheat-growers at that time, it was due to the action of honorable senators opposite in deliberately telling half-truths. So far as I am aware, wheat-growers have not asked any of the State parliaments to reject the Commonwealth scheme. It is obvious that they approve of this scheme, and are anxious to see it implemented. The Government of South Australia has already endorsed the scheme.

Senator James McLachlan:

– No, it has amended it.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It has endorsed it in principle. Honorable senators opposite who have spoken in this debate have merely sought to have their party political propaganda printed in Hansard sr> that it may be distributed throughout the land, and I cannot permit their statements to pass unchallenged. The parties to which honorable senators opposite belong have been the enemies of the wheatgrowers rather than their friends. When anti-Labour governments were in office, they had many opportunities to do something really worthwhile for the wheatgrowers, but they failed to take any action whatever. All that the wheatgrowers ever got from honorable senators opposite was words. It remained for a Labour Government to do something more than express sympathy. This Administration has given to the wheat industry a guarantee of security in the future, and has enabled it to develop as it should do. We shall not urge wheatgrowers, just because the price of wheat to-day is high, to carry their plantings into marginal lands, the cultivation of which would spell absolute ruin in a few years. Our aim is to give the wheatgrowers an opportunity to make good.

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · ALP

[4.30 J. - mi reply - Whilst I should be pleased to continue this discussion, I am afraid that no valid arguments against this measure have been adduced by honorable senators opposite. Apparently the Opposition would’ not favour any wheat stabilization plan.” I believe that this measure provides for the operation of the wheat pool in a fair manner, and that it will be acceptable to the industry generally, and to all honorable senators who believe in organized marketing as a safeguard for the future of our primary industries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) explain just how the tax is to be collected on any flour that we may export; or is it the intention of the Government that flour shall not be exported?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · ALP

– I understand that the Wheat Board sells the flour at the export price, and, of course, the benefit then goes to the pool.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– -Will the Government do its best to extend the wheat markets available to Australian producers overseas? Does he agree that if we had an international bank such as that proposed in the Bretton Woods Agreement, the export of wheat from this country would be facilitated ?

Senator Courtice:

– I agree that there are possibilities along the lines suggested by the honorable senator.

Bill agreed to, and reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1208

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL (No. 2) 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is complementary to that which the Senate has just passed relating to the tax on the 1945-46 and 1946-47 wheat crops. It covers the charge on wheat or wheat products which may be exported,’ and amends the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1946. A charge is imposed on wheat of the two seasons,w hich, although not acquired, may be exported, and on wheat products from the crops concerned which are exported, but not by the Wheat Board. Where wheat or wheat products are exported by the board, the stabilization fund proceeds are ensured. That is the chief method of collecting the growers’ contribution to wheat stabilization. This bill closes certain gaps, and ensures, that all wheat or wheat products exported shall contribute to. the fund. Wheat exports, apart from those made by the board, are not likely to be important, but they should be provided for. It is also necessary to cover wheat products, which are being exported under conditions which may easily lead to the exporter, not the grower, getting the advantage of high export prices . Wheat can be obtained for manufacture at the local home consumption price, and should be used in Australia, If the product is to be exported, the board charges the export wheat price. While export prices are high, there is danger of leakage and attempts at, evasion. In order to protect wheat-growers and the stabilization fund, it is necessary that wheat products shall bear a charge on export. This bill will apply a charge to exported wheat products, and so ensure that, in whatever form wheat goes out of the country, the appropriate payment shall be made to the stabilization fund for the benefit of wheat-growers. The form of this legislation prevents it from being incorporated with the Wheat Tax Bill, and. so it must be made complementary to it. The rate of charge is 50 per cent. of the export price above 5s. 2d. for ports for bagged wheat. This is in accordance with the wheat stabilization plan, and provision is made for a lower rate to be declared so as to have the same effect, as the comparable provision in the Wheat Tax Bill. The effect of this bill and the Wheat Tax Bill is to separate the 1945-46 and 1946-47 crops from later crops covered by the wheat stabilization plan, and to apply the stabilization plan to them in accordance with the necessities of crops which have been acquired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1208

DEFENCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1946

Message received from, the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1208

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by SenatorAshley) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1208

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the terminationof the sitting this day to the date on which the Senate next meets.

page 1209

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Recreation Leave

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has a decision been reached as to the manner in which it is intended to recompense those senior officers of the Commonwealth Public Service who, throughout the war years, could not take their recreation leave and worked heavy overtime without overtime pay?
  2. If not, will the question of adding the recreation leave to their furlough on retirement be taken into consideration?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister ha3 supplied the following answer : -

The accumulated leave is protected with a view to being taken as opportunity offers as it is desirable that officers should have recreational leave. It is also proposed under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill to continue payments to dependants should an officer die while accumulated recreation leave stands to his credit.

page 1209

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 28th November, Senator Amour asked a question concerning permits to purchase motor vehicles from Hastings, Deering Proprietary Limited.

As a result of my inquiries, I am now :i bie to advise the honorable senator that information as to the number of persons who have left deposits with Hastings, Deering Proprietary Limited, and the amount of interest paid thereon, can only be supplied by the company concerned. Hastings, Deering Proprietary Limited is only able to dispose of such vehicles as are allotted to it to satisfy permits which have been granted by the Director of Emergency Road Transport to applicants who have lodged applications with, the company concerned.

page 1209

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Staff Recruitment

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth. Bank, when making additions to its staff, will only admit boys leaving school?
  2. Are there any provisions in the rehabilitation plans to admit to the Commonwealth Bank service on their, discharge young returned members of the forces who enlisted, from school ; if not, will the Treasurer now make provision for such ex-servicemen to have the opportunity of entering the Commonwealth Bank service?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No.
  2. Young returned members of the forces who enlisted from school are eligible to sit for the Commonwealth Bank entrance examination under a plan which allows entries from returned servicemen who were under the age of nineteen years at date of their enlistment. The Commonwealth Bank has already offered permanent positions to 177 ex-servicemen who were- successful at n.n entrance examination held last July.

page 1209

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen the statement of the Queensland Premier, Mr. Hanlon, that there was no reason why 1,000,000 more settlers could not be placed north of Brisbane within the next twenty years?
  2. If so, has the Government arrived at any reliable estimate of the number of immigrants who could bc settled in Queensland under its immigration policy?
  3. Will the Prime Minister inform the Senate what plans, if any, the Commonwealth Government has in mind for the development of Queensland to enable it to carry large numbers of immigrants?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The Prime Minister has not seen the statement referred to.
  2. As a result of a decision of the Premiers Conference which was held in August last each State set up a committee to make a survey of the absorptive capacity of that State for migrants during 1947. These surveys have been completed and will be considered by conferences of Commonwealth and State officers on the 10th December and Commonwealth and State Ministers on the loth January, 1947. It is proposed to carry out similar surveys at regular intervals so as to harmonize the flow of migrants in accordance with the absorptive capacity of the States.
  3. Development plans foi- Queensland are, in the first instance, the concern of the Government of Queensland but, as honorable senators are aware, the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of Queeusland and Western Australia have constituted a Northern Australia Development Committee which has taken up the whole question of developing, our tropical north including those large areas of Northern Queensland which appear capable, of carrying- a larger population. The plans under consideration include hydro-electric development and. water conservation.

page 1210

WATER CONSERVATION

Western Australian Scheme

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 28th

November, Senator Fraser referred to a request by the Government of Western Australia for Commonwealth assistance in carrying out a large-scale water supply scheme for country towns and agricultural areas and asked -

  1. Whether an examination of the proposal had been made by the special committee appointed by the Prime Minister;
  2. If so, what conclusions had been arrived at;
  3. If the report had not been completed, what stage had the examination of the project reached.

The special committee has held meetings and has considered the preliminary reports submitted by the departments concerned in the various aspects of the scheme. The investigation of a project of this character is a task of considerable magnitude and must take some time. It is expected, however, that the committee’s report will be available early in 1947.

page 1210

QUESTION

JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS

Australian Witnesses

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that two former prisoners of war of the Japanese were sent to Tokyo to give evidence at the trials of Japanese war criminals?
  2. If so, what are the names of these prisoners of war? 3.Is it a fact that they were not called upon to give evidence and are now back in Australia ; if so, why?
Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– The Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answers : - 1 and 2. Yes. In connexion with the trials of major Japanese war criminals in Tokyo arrangements were made to send fifteen witnesses to give evidence for the Australian prosecution. Ofthese, two, namely, Lieutenant Dean and Lieutenant Weynton, proceeded to Japan by the Kanimbla on the 14th October, 1946.

  1. However, owing to the delay in the pre- sentation by other countries of the prosecution’s case, the Australian case, which was originally scheduled for late October or early November, was delayed. Notification of this delay was received too late in Australia to cancel or postpone the projected departure of Australian witnesses. When Lieutenant Dean and Lieutenant Weynton arrived in Tokyo their evidence was taken by affidavits, in order that they would not be held in Japan over an indefinite period of time waiting to give oral evidence. Accordingly, they returned to Australia by air on the 22nd November; the other thirteen witnesses are remaining to give oral evidence.

page 1210

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Abuse of Mail Services

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I take this opportunity to extend to all honorable senators my best wishes for the coming Christmas and New Year season. I appreciate the assistance that has been given to the Government by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and his colleagues in the handling of legislation passed by the Senate. I express my appreciation to officers of the Senate and to other parliamentary staffs for the manner in which they have carried out their duties. They have worked efficiently and have been of great assistance to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. I hope that honorable senators will enjoy themselves during the recess and that, when we reassemble early next year, honorable senators will be in a much better humour than they have been recently.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

. -I reciprocate the good wishes of the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley). I thank all officers associated with the Senate for their assistance during these sittings, and I trust that, when we return in 1947, we shall usher in a prosperous and peaceful year.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– An article was published in Smith’s Weekly on the 30th November, 1946, suggesting that action be taken to prevent certain gambling companies, which, I understand, are conducted by Mr. George Fitzpatrick, from using the mails in contravention of section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act, which prohibits the use of the mails for any lottery or scheme of chance or the foretelling of future events. I shall be glad if the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator

Ashley) will cause investigations to be made to see whether this section of the act is being contravened as alleged.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

in reply - Before the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) left the chamber a few minutes ago, ho intimated to me that Senator Cooper intended to refer to the forwarding of certain matter through the post, and he assured me that inquiries would be made to ascertain, the facts. He also said that there were certain privileges in regard to mail matter, but that whatever supervision was possible would he exercised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1211

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Science and Industry Research Act- Twentieth Annual Report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for year 1945-46.

Ordered to be printed.

Bankruptcy Act- Eighteenth Annual Report by Attorney-General, for year ended 31st July, 1946.

Customs Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1946, No. 166. National Security Act - National Security (Food Control) Regulations- Order -

No. 33.

Papua-New Guinea Provisional Administration Act - Ordinance - No. 8 of 1046 - Auctioneers.

Senate adjourned at 4.45 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19461206_senate_18_189/>.