Senate
18 June 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 10 a.m. and read prayers.

page 2315

QUESTION

EMPIRE CONFERENCE

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel read a despatch from London published in to-day’s Daily Telegraph to the effect that any more delay in holding Empire talks may be harmful to public opinion in Australia! Can the Minister inform the Senate whether definite arrangements have yet been made for the Prime Minister to visit the United Kingdom?

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

– I have no information regarding the matter referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall have inquiries made. The honorable senator may rest assured that the fullest consideration will be -given to Australias representation at any Empire discussions.

page 2315

QUESTION

WATCHES

Senator CLOTHIER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs, say what i* the present position regarding the importation of watches ? Are any licences being issued at present ? If not, why not ? Are the committees controlling importations still in existence 1 When will import controls be abolished?

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

– I undertake to provide the honorable senator with a complete answer to his questions later in the day.

page 2315

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

North-South Line - Standardization of Gauges

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is the . Minister able to furnish the Senate with any information as to when the construction of the north-south railway line will be proceeded with
  2. Will the Minister take steps to dispel the fears of many stock and station-owners and business people in South Australia that the north-south railway agreement will not behonoured t
  3. Is it a fact that press publications are causing doubts in the minds of South Aus? tralian -producers that the agreement will not be honoured?
Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Transport has supplied the following answers : -

  1. A .proposal to complete the construction of the north-south railway line through Central Australia was contained in an agreement entered into between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian Governments in 1946- However, it ib regretted that only the Commonwealth and the South Australian Governments have up to the present time passed ratifying legislation. As the agreement provides that it must bc ratified by the parliaments of all signatories before it becomes operative, the work is delayed pending appropriate action by the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
  3. Any press reports that the Commonwealth is responsible for the delay, would be untrue and entirely without foundation.
Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Will the Minister inform the Senate whether any further negotiations have token place, since the Senate last met, ‘between the State Government of Western Australia and the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the standardization of the railways of that State?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The Minister .for Transport hae supplied the following answer: -

Yes. Following a discussion between the Prime Minister, the Hon. H. S. Seward, Western Australian Minister for Railways, and the Commonwealth Minister for Transport, a proposal has been submitted to the Commonwealth by the State Government of Western Australia and is at .present receiving consideration.

page 2316

QUESTION

SHORTAGES OF GOODS IN QUEENSLAND

Senator RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel seen an article appearing in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 16th June, and a letter published in the same issue, drawing attention to the difficulty in securing supplies of baby clothing, towels and other articles in Queensland? “Will the Minister investigate the position in an endeavour to remedy the distressing shortages of these commodities in that State?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am sure that the honorable senator does not expect me to be conversant with what appears in the newspapers of all States. I assure her, however, that Queensland is getting its share of the goods that are available. The frequent criticism of the Government in regard to this matter might lead one’ to believe that Queensland had been singled out for especially harsh treatment. That is not so. Shortages of many commodities exist throughout the Commonwealth, and when supplies are available they are distributed equitably between the States. If Senator Rankin can indicate any commodity in respect of which she would like .a special investigation, I shall have such an investigation made.

page 2316

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 15th June, 1948, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question concerning a conference between the Australian Prime Minister and the New Zealand Minister for Finance. As a result of that conference a joint statement was issued by the Prime Minister and the New Zealand Minister as. follows : -

We have discussed matters relative to the common interests of Australia and New Zealand and also international economic developments affecting our two countries. We have considered the possibility of availability of supplies to Australia and New Zealand improving in the light of the European recovery programme.

The conversations covered difficulties thai might arise as the result of shortage of dollar* for exchange and purchase purposes.

Another matter dealt with was how far New Zealand’s resources could be utilized to supplement shortages in Australia, and vice versa, and the extent to which those resources, could be made available to each country.

page 2316

QUESTION

WOOLLEN GOODS

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– On the 17th June, 1948, Senator Cooper asked the following question: -

Has the Minister read a statement appearing in to-day’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald, by Mr. J. M. Vicars, of John Vicars Proprietary Limited, Woollen Mills, that wool now being bought would be sufficient to carry woollen mills for about four months production? lift a fact that the question as to whether prices of woollen goods will rise when Commonwealth subsidies end, will depend on whether subsidies are paid on wool now being bought? If so, will wool now being bought be subsidized?

I am now able to inform the honorable senator that the Government has decided r,o withdraw the subsidy on raw wool as from the 31st July, 1948. . The current wool-selling season ends early in July and manufacturers will have acquired stocks of raw wool to carry them into the next wool season. Manufacturers will be paid subsidy on normal purchases,- but not on speculative purchases. This will mean that the mills will have from four to six months, stocks of subsidized wool, and that prices of woollen goods should not be increased until the new season’s wool enters into consumption. In some cases it should be twelve months before the withdrawal of the subsidy affects retail prices. It is not considered desirable to pay a subsidy in respect of excess stocks of old wool or of wool belonging to the next wool season.

page 2317

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 17th June (vide page 2167), on motion by Senator Courtice -

That the hill bc now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill is i, machinery measure to validate the collection of customs duties under Customs Tariff Proposals. The Opposition sees no reason to delay the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2317

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 17th June (vide page 2167), on motion by Senator Courtice -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The purpose of this bill is similar to that of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, and the Opposition does not raise any objection to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2317

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1948-49

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (‘by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That thu bill bc now read a first time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I desire to take advantage of the motion for the first reading of this Supply Bill to direct attention to the cotton-growing industry, which, if developed, would ease the demand on the dollar pool and enable many people to engage in a profitable occupation. During the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 2), an honorable senator stated that the oversubscription of recent government loans was evidence of conditions of general prosperity throughout Australia. Whilst I ani gratified that the loans have been over-subscribed, the inference which 1 draw is that a large amount of money is in circulation and cannot he used for profitable purposes such as expanding businesses and increasing production. Therefore, people are investing in Government loans, which are a gilt-edged security and yield interest at the rate of Si per cent, per annum. Comparatively few opportunities are offering for investment in new enterprises. Before a company can be floated, the consent of the Capital Issues Board must be obtained. Consequently, the oversubscription of Government loans is not complete evidence of the prosperous condition of the country. It can he evidence of the lack of avenues to absorb surplus funds.

From time to time, I have referred to the unbalanced distribution of our population, and have directed attention to the alarming drift of population from rural areas to the large cities. Two of the principal reasons for the drift are the unprofitable returns from primary production, and the superior amenities which are offering in large cities compared with those available in country districts. In a country like Australia which relies mainly upon its primary produce, it is accessary to arrest that drift of population from the country to the cities, and I consider that the cotton-growing industry lends itself peculiarly to closer settlement. In the first place, cotton-farmers do not require a very large area of land. In the next place the capital outlay involved is not nearly so large as that required for some other forms of pastoral and agricultural pursuits. Almost from the time it is planted, cotton begins to show a financial return. Another attractive feature of the cultivation of raw cotton is that because the holdings are small the growers are not isolated from one another by great distances. Finally, I repeat that the establishment of the cotton-growing industry on a substantial basis would do much to arrest the drift from the country to the cities.

I point out that the manufacture of cotton piece goods has gone ahead much more rapidly than has the cultivation of raw cotton, and that because of the development of secondary industry growers will have an assured home market for many years to come. At .present we import approximately 90,000 bales of raw cotton every year. That is a very large quantity of cotton and gives some indication of the demand for cotton goods in this country. It has been proved that Australia can grow cotton most efficiently, and there is no reason why we should not continue to do so. In Queensland, where a limited quantity of raw cotton has been grown, 3ix areas have been found specially suitable for its cultivation, and there is no reason why it should not be grown successfully in other States. The peak year of cotton production in Australia was 1934, when 1.7,500 bales were produced from an aggregate area of 60,000 acres. The yield was more than satisfactory in that year. However, in 1939, only 12,500 bales were produced, and in 1947, the production declined to 1,500 bales. It is expected that approximately 2,000 hales will be produced this year. There are many causes for that decline; the recent war seriously retarded the growth of the industry and practically all the cotton produced was grown under “ dry farming” conditions, which means that the crop was watered only by rain. Records of the cultivation of cotton during the past 25 years show that only one good season can be expected in four years, and in the other seasons the crop is usually a failure or near-failure. That is one reason why the cultivation of cotton has not appealed to the majority of farmers. However, the Cotton Marketing Board of Queensland has demonstrated by experiments carried out in areas of 100 acres that cotton can be successfully grown by the use of irrigation, and the annual yield obtained in that way is two or three times larger than that obtained by “ dry farming”. Because of the favorable result of the experiments carried out, growers can almost be assured of success if they irrigate their crops, and the Queensland Government, is prepared to set aside irrigation, areas for the production of cotton.

Substantial overhead expenditure is incurred in treating seed cotton, and it is another factor which has deterred farmers from concentrating on the cultivation of cotton. In the years when the greatest amount of cotton was being produced, approximately £160,000 was expended on the erection of suitable buildings and the installation of the most modern plant and equipment. The finance involved was lent to the cotton board by the Commonwealth Bank, and repayment of the loan was guaranteed by the Queensland Government. The amount owed to the Commonwealth Bank by the Cotton Marketing Board in 1946 was £91,000. The principal and interest is being repaid at the rate of £10,600 per annum, which is equivalent to a charge of from 3d. to 3£d. per lb. when .production of cotton is limited. The annual sum which has to be provided for interest and redemption is out of all proportion to the value of the cotton produced annually. If the Cotton Marketing Board is to defray the charges involved it is necessary that the growers shall produce a minimum quantity of 6,000 bales per annum. That is the reason why I have mentioned the matter during this debate. I consider that the Commonwealth should assist the Cotton Marketing Board during the period of limited production and enable it to reduce its overhead expenses in order to encourage the establishment of the industry on a sound ‘basis. As a beginning the Commonwealth could relieve the Cotton Marketing Board of its indebtedness to the Commonwealth Bank in respect of the treatment plant erected by the board. The industry should be given a number of years in which to establish itself before being called upon to discharge this indebtedness, which has greatly influenced the decrease of cotton production. Arrangements have been made for a guaranteed price for raw cotton of approximately 23d. per lb. That would give the growers a net return of from 7-£d. to 8d. per lb. for seed cotton if they were relieved of the yearly payments of £10,600 to the Commonwealth Bank as interest and redemption on the sum that was advanced for the purchase of plant and machinery. Australia imports from dollar areas between 80,000 and 90,000 bales of cotton each. year. At from £60 to £70 a bale, the total cost each year is approximately £5,500,000. It would, therefore, be of great advantage to re-establish the industry, even if it is necessary for the Australian Government temporarily to take over the debt to which I have referred. A sum of approximately £80,000 would be well expended if it obviated dollar expenditure amounting to £5,500,000 each year.

Another problem facing the cotton industry is shortage of labour. During the war, like many other primary industries it suffered from an acute shortage of labour, because men and women were needed for the services and the manufacture of munitions and war materials. It is difficult for the industry to attract labour, [t is not a prosperous industry and cannot compete in the labour market with more prosperous ones, which can afford to pay higher wages to their employees. The solution of the problem is the introduction of mechanical cotton harvesters and the mechanization of cotton production, which have been very successful in America. The cotton-growers of that country were faced with the same problem as the Australian cotton-growers, although on a larger scale. I am informed that between 1941 and 1946 over 2,000,000 negro workers left the cotton plantations in the southern States of America to take up more remunerative employment elsewhere. The migration of those workers forced the growers to mechanize the cotton industry, and their efforts were successful. I am indebted to Mr. J. D. Young for much up-to-date information with regard to cotton-growing in the United States of America. In his report to the Cotton Marketing Board in Brisbane, Mr. Young refers to a plantation of 5,000 acres, of which 3,000 acres is devoted to cotton and the remainder to alfalfa and grain crops. Fifteen machines working on the 3,000 acres of cotton harvested 100,000 lb. of seed cotton a day. At the current hand-picking rate of 3.50 dollars per 100 lb., it would have cost 3,500 dollars a day and necessitated the employment of from 300 to 400 coloured people to hand-pick that quantity. Mr. Young was informed by the manager of the plantation that, under present conditions, the machines, which cost 7,000 dollars each, were paid for from the profits of one season’s operations. There is no reason why the Australian cottongrowing industry should not solve its labour problem in the same way. Mechanization would not create unemployment, because it is impossible to attract sufficient labour to the industry. Mechanization is essential if the growers are to make a success of their undertakings.

The Cotton Marketing Board has not been idle in connexion with new inventions and improved methods of production. The board has experimented with both irrigation and mechanical harvesters, and has obtained three mechanical harvesters from America - two of the old pattern, which employs mechanized propulsion, and embodies the tractor system with the harvester in one unit. The later type is a harvester which can be attached to any tractor; when it is not being used for harvesting it can be utilized for other purposes. The board has planted cotton over a larger area and is working towards full mechanization of the industry.

Much has been done by the board to induce growers to take up cotton-growing again as a full-time farming pursuit. I ti the cotton-growing areas of America it was found possible to overcome the shortage of labour and it was proved that mechanization was very successful. The cotton spinners and weavers were convinced that it would be more profitable, and a better proposition generally, for them to install fresh plant in the cotton areas, rather than to have the cotton conveyed right across the American continent for manufacture into cotton goods. There has therefore been built up around that rural industry, large manufacturing centres, which will be engaged in the production of cotton goods, and byproducts, and the manufacture of machinery, tractors, and other mechanical devices used in the cotton industry. That will ultimately result in decentralization of population.

I have dealt very briefly with this important industry. After his visit to America, Mr. Young was able to compile a most valuable report, which gives details of cotton and allied industries in America. I think honorable senators will agree that it would be advantageous to Australia to foster and develop the cotton industry in this country. The amount of cotton used in this country should increase; I am informed on reliable authority that 200,000 bales of cotton could well be used in this country at present. In addition to the manufacture of clothing, the by-products, cotton-seed, cotton-cake, stock feed and oil which is produced from the seed, would prove valuable. Every by-product is a most valuable asset to a primary producing country such as Australia. Cotton seed, cotton cake, and cotton meal would be very valuable to dairymen, pig farmers, and other primary producers. Only a small quantity of cotton is produced in this country at present, because of the difficult conditions existing, and heavy overhead costs. We should be able to produce the by-products at prices much below the production costs in other parts of the world. When the industry is well established in Australia there should be a. valuable home market in addition to a large export trade. In saying that I am not being parochial, notwithstanding that the bulk of the cotton produced in Australia has been grown in Queensland. The report to which I have referred states that cotton could be grown successfully in other States of the Commonwealth, and I am therefore speaking from the Commonwealth point of view when 1 say that I believe this industry is destined to become one of the biggest and most important in Australia. Employment will be provided for a large number of various types of workers in both the primary and secondary branches of the industry. Australia has a unique opportunity in this field. Eventually we should be able to meet Australia’s requirements of cotton from within this country. I again stress that if the debt on the plant - a matter of about £90,000 - could be discharged by the Government, the industry would be given a boost which is so essential for its re-establishment on a firm footing. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) to give this matter the consideration it deserves.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– During the discussion elsewhere, on Supply, much was said about international affairs and the Opposition, as usual, indulged in much criticism of the Labour party, not only in Australia, but also in Great Britain. Nobody «an gainsay that the international situation has deteriorated, but one would imagine, from some of the remarks that have been made, that the Labour party is largely responsible for that deterioration. Day in and day out we hear references to communism, and the power- of the Communists, and what should be done with them. We do not hear sufficient about what should be done in the country in which we live, so that communism shall not take root still deeper than at present.

In Europe, communism was strengthened enormously, not by the Attlee Government, but by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt. I am not going to say that they had any other alternative. There may or may not have been alternatives, but the point is that the Labour party was not responsible for it. At Potsdam and Yalta, agreements were made which handed over to Russia one fifth of the arable land of Germany. Russia was also given the Baltic States and many other concessions were made. In the East, the southern half of Sakhalin was taken from the Japanese and. given to Russia,- and many of the Japanese islands were also handed over. The situation in the east and west to-day is due not to the Labour party, but to the concessions made to Russia by anti-Labour governments. In the East, the situation has deteriorated probably more than anywhere else. Those of us who were wise 25 years ago pointed out that ruthless imperialism would produce the reactions which have occurred, r have done my best to show that the contempt of certain white people for Asiatics was such as to cav.se great bitterness among the more intelligent sections of the people. The attitude and manner of speaking of some white people to educated Asiatics was such that if the object was to foster communism it could not have been better adapted to the purpose. Certain forces have gathered the discontent so created, and are using it for their own advantage. When we look at the world to-day, it would appear that the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) is right. The position of the British Empire has deteriorated greatly. Tt is difficult for one occupying a public position to say what one believes in these matters, because sentiment conflicts with naked facts. The fact is that Palestine might have been better off if Great Britain had got out long ago. Great Britain got out of Egypt, not because the Labour party was in power, but because of conditions inherent in world imperialism. No one can say what the future relations of South Africa with the Empire will be. When members of the Opposition discuss these matters they nearly always attack the Labour party here and in Great Britain. Listening to them, one would imagine that the Labour party was responsible for the existence of communism. Unless we deal with the causes of communism, it will win all along the line. No one can say that our tactics have been successful while those of communism have not. The question then is, why have the Communists been successful? The reason is that they are taking advantage of the faults of an economic system that is now in its decline. They are concentrating more on the economic side of democracy, than on the political side. They are translating democracy, not into 800 persons in the House of Lords elected by nobody, but into bread, and clothing and housing. What I have seen in Europe, and what I know of the East has convinced me that the great mass of the people care nothing whether we call a system communism, or fascism, or democracy or imperialism. What they want to know is what it means when translated into food, clothing and shelter. If communism can .give them those things more abundantly than Ave can, we may cry from the housetops about atheism and communism, but the Communists will inevitably win. That is the lesson that history teaches us. All the talk of declaring the Communist party illegal will not get us anywhere. Unless we can establish a better system than that offered by the Communists, they must win. Unless we can arouse the- same kind of enthusiasm for our cause that the Communists arc able to arouse for theirs, they must win. No one who understands economics will believe that if, by some tragedy, the present Opposition were to become the government, communism would disappear. The Communist party might be declared illegal, and the Communists might go under ground, but it would still be necessary to translate democracy into food and clothing and shelter for the masses of the people, or we would lose. What do we offer? Russia gave Czechoslovakia 1,000,000 tons of wheat, and that is wiry it was able to promote the Communist coup d’etat in that country. We know that the people of Britain need food, but we want to charge them 17s. a bushel for wheat. That sort of thing cannot go on. The conflict between capitalists and workers, between importers and exporters, and between primary and secondary industries is such- that we cannot act in unity, whereas the Communists have an iron discipline. They know what they want, and their cause is preached by evangelists who believe what they say, and are prepared to die for their faith if necessary. Unless we can put the same kind of enthusiasm into a movement, call it political or economic or religious, we shall he beaten.

Intelligent men on our side have no enthusiasm. They are afraid of what to-morrow will bring forth. The ghost of Stalin haunts them. Of what are we afraid? Are we afraid that the Communists have something better than we have? I have been opposed to com.munism ever since 1917.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– One is afraid of a black snake.

Senator GRANT:

– That is not a helpful analogy. If Communists are no more than snakes, how have they achieved so much ? They have been able to do it only because conditions were favorable

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I admit that.

Senator GRANT:

– Let ‘ us consider the situation in Europe. Does any one believe that France is economically sound? As for Germany, Russia does not want a centralized Germany, because it already has as much of Germany as it wants. France does not want a strong Germany. France has been given the Saar, and wants the Ruhr also. France is riven fore and aft by conflicts between the right, left, and centre, between clericals and anti-clericals. There is no homogeneity. The Russians, whether they be right or wrong, know what they want, and are united. Unless we can so improve the conditions of the mass of the people that they will be prepared to fight for what they have as enthusiastically as the Communists fight in support of their system, we shall be defeated. As a student of political systems, I am convinced that the only party which can lead our people to victory in this conflict is the Labour party. When we try to put our programme into effect, the Opposition says that the Labour party is run by Communists. The truth is that no political party in the world is more opposed to communism than is the Labour party.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Then why give Communist candidates Labour preferences instead of giving them to the Liberal party or the Australian Country party?

Senator GRANT:

– I do not think that Labour preferences have been given to Communists; but, even if they have, that is merely incidental. What is the programme of the anti-Labour parties for dealing with communism? The present situation is a legacy from conservative rule in the past. The Labour Government in Britain is doing its best, but it ha? probably arrived on the scene 50 years too late. It is trying to rehabilitate Britain economically, but agriculture has already gone by the board, and the best of the country’s population has gone. Industrial methods are obsolete, and machinery isworn out. The United States of America proposes to supply machinery under the Marshall plan, but it does not want to supply too much machinery. If Great Britain borrowed machinery for the purpose of producing goods it would become a competitor with the United States of America in the markets of the world. In Germany, Great Britain appear.to favour the creation of a system of nationalization under thicontrol of the social democrats in order to defeat communism. However, the United States of America favours individual effort backed by American capital in a system under which Germans will be mere producers and managers. All these trends indicate what is happening in the world to-day. The situation is becoming worse. If the people who pretend to be so greatly concerned about the’ advance of communism would study economics and sociology, ask themselves why these things have happened, and then endeavour to find out what can be done to prevent the spread of communism, they would do a great service to themselves and to the country. I am convinced that the Labour party is the sole force opposing communism to-day. Thereis no other barrier impeding its advance in the capitalist field. The Labour party realizes that the old laisser-faire system of individual effort belongs to th& age of Queen Victoria, the period of Oscar Wilde’s play, “The Ideal. Husband “, the gay ‘nineties, when tribute was brought to the United Kingdom from all over the world at the rate of £300,000,000 per annum. That era has ended. I wish that the great industrialists, the pastoralists, and the newspaper magnates of Australia would stop criticizing and misrepresenting the Labour party and learn that if the Labour party fails our whole system of democracy must also fail.

I have been somewhat disappointed by cbe debate on foreign affairs in this chamber. I should like to have learned something about the Western Union in Europe, because this combination of nations may be of tremendous importance to Australia. The plan upon which the union is based is bristling with contradictions. I should like to know, for instance, what bearing the agreement between the mem her countries will have on Empire preference. Holland has its own empire, and its interests are not identical with those of the British Empire. Belgium and France also have colonial possessions and their own distinct interests. It seems to me that this heterogeneous group of nations called Benelux, or the Western Union, cannot operate successfully. I should like to know what it is intended to achieve. Events of this kind appear to be symptomatic of disintegration. I consider that the Senate should be given more frequent opportunities to debate the vital problems of international affairs. I am intensely interested in these subjects. I realize that Australia cannot stand alone. N~o other country could lose more than Australia by adopting a policy of isolation. Australians have inadequate appreciation of the menace that lies to the north of this continent. It is easy for opponents of the Government to criticize the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) but, apart from racial prejudice, with which I am not tainted, that policy has a sound economic basis. We should consider what has happened in South Africa and in the United States of America. In Durban alone, I believe, about one half of the population is Indian. The United States of America is grappling with a colossal problem arising from the presence of about 1.2,000,000 negroes within its borders. Anybody who has visited Suva knows that the Indian population there is giving rise to a serious problem. I believe that the Colonial Sugar Henning Company Limited, of which we have heard the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) and Senator O’sullivan speak on many occasions, was responsible for the introduction of Indians to Fiji. The situation in that region is fraught with grave dangers. I certainly do not favour indiscriminate immigration to Australia, but this subject needs the most intense study. It is of no use dismissing the White Australia policy with a few words and then forgetting about it. I hope that, when the Senate re-assembles after the recess, we shall be given fresh opportunities to discuss these allimportant problems of international relationships.

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

– I shall refer briefly to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) regarding the cotton industry. I assure him that the Government is fully aware of the importance of this industry to Australia and is doing everything possible to establish it on a business-like footing. Cotton production is the subject of negotiations between representatives of the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government and the Cotton .Marketing Board. One reason why cotton production has been retarded is that other primary industries offer greater rewards. Because of this, producers have turned to dairying and other industries. Only few months ago, the cotton board asked this Government to increase the price of cotton to 23d. per lb. The request was granted. However, that did not solve all of the problems of the industry. The Government of Queensland intends to encourage the establishment of irrigation projects so as to ensure continuity of cotton production, and I believe that the industry can be successfully established in that State and probably in other States as well. Cooperation between the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government, and representatives of the industry should lead to beneficial results. I assure honorable senators that I am intensely sympathetic to the needs of the industry and am fully alive to its potential value. This Government will do everything possible to assist it.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– In the past, the idea of granting Supply was to allow the people to exercise the power of the purse over a king who might be tyrannical and might be exercising the authority vested in him in a manner not approved by the people. The King might want money to carry on a war in which the country might be engaged, or, to use a legal phrase, he might want money for “ a frolic of his own “. But the elected representatives of the people had the opportunity to show their approval, or disapproval, of the King’s action, and,, in the latter event, the people would refuse to grant the money. That practice has grown until, to-day, His Majesty, acting tb rough his Ministers, asks the Parliament for Supply. If we were really echoing here in this Parliament the wishes of the people, we should definitely exercise the power of the purse over this Government. There may have been worse governments - time is ageless and the world is wide. I hope no honorable senator will ask me where, or in what age, such a government existed ; but I am not extravagant when I say that probably there have been worse governments than this Government. However, in my short life I have not known of another government which has been so corrupted by power, so contemptuous of the rights of the people it claims to represent, so arrogant in the exercise of its powers or so hungry for still more power. From time to time, tins Government boasts about the largesse which it distributes. It professes great solicitude and concern for the welfare of the worker and the underprivileged. I shall show how contemptuous it is of the under-privileged and the worker.

A fair test of the consideration which ;i government should extend to those whom it governs is its taxation policy. In indirect taxes this paternal and benign Government takes the equivalent of six cigarettes out of every packet of ten cigarettes, and half of every 2- ounce packet of tobacco. As any honorable senator who has a drink will know, a bottle of beer, on the average, contains three glasses. In indirect taxes, the uninvited guest - the Government - stakes onethird of every bottle of beer purchased, that is one glass in every three sold in this country; and he does not even shout back.

Senator Nash:

– Those imposts are applied universally.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– They are peculiarly imposts on the worker who’ cannot afford to indulge in more expensive habits. In proportion to income, these imposts hit the worker far more severely than those who are not so under-privileged. In respect of the female section of the community, Mr. Chifley’s representative takes in indirect taxes the equivalent of one box out of every packet of face powder and onequarter of every tube of lipstick sold in this country. With respect ,to direct taxes, I point out that in 1938-39 persons having an income of less than £1,000 per annum paid only 2 per cent, of the total revenue collected, but in 1942 that group contributed 14 per cent. In 1939-40 persons in that group paid 21.3 per cent, of the total income taxes collected, but in 1945-46 they paid 64.9 per cent. How solicitous this Government is for the under-privileged ! In 1944-45, 55.9 per cent, of al] wage and salary-earners had incomes of from £301 to £800 per annum. They represent the bulk of the people whose tax burden increased under this Government’s administration from 21.3 per cent, to 64.9 per cent, of the total income taxes collected. Yet honorable senators opposite claim that persons in that class are being given so many benefits free. On the basis of the figures for 1945-46, if rill income exceeding £1,000 per annum were confiscated and used to reduce the tax on lower incomes the Government would obtain only £500,000 for that purpose and would be enabled to provide a rebate of only Id. in the £1 to taxpayers whose income was less than £1,000 per annum ; but applying the same principle to all income above £500 per annum the Government would obtain £29,000,000 and would be enabled to provide a rebate at the rate of 9s. 2d. in the £1 to taxpayers with incomes below £501. So much for the Government’s vaunted free medicine scheme and free this and that. The great mass of the people is being mulcted in order to enable the Government to continue its extravagance. 1 shall give an illustration of what I described earlier as the contemptuous disregard of the Government for those whom it fairly shrieks it has the exclusive right to represent. In Queensland, the rehabilitation officers are doing a good job, but apparently, other States are not so fortunate in that respect. The latest available statistics indicate that in New South Wales 4,622 ex-servicemen who have received letters from the Department of Post-war Reconstruction accepting them for training have not begun full-time training.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order, Mr. Deputy President. I submit that the honorable senator is not in order in quoting from an uncorrected proof of a Minister’s speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - The honorable senator is not in order in quoting from that source.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I thought that the figures I was about to quote would hurt Government supporters. However, it is common knowledge that whilst a big proportion of ex-servicemen who have been, promised full rehabilitation arc eager to be trained and to continue to work in the building trades no provision has been made for their absorption in those trades. There are scores of items with which I could deal in detail as examples of the Government’s extravagance, but I do not wish to waste the time of the Senate by going through them all, and shall confine my remarks to one particular example - the Commonwealth Employment Service, which occupies valuable office space in every city of the Commonwealth.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It does a valuable job.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– If it does, the effects of it are not seen in Queensland. I have recently completed a tour of Queensland lasting five or six weeks and the Commonwealth Employment Service does no work at all in the outback country towns there. The Queensland government, which is a Labour party government, has no enthusiasm for the Commonwealth’s employment scheme. The Commonwealth Employment Service is a gross, excrescence. There is no work for it to do. It has 58 officers in New South Wales. 43 in Victoria, fourteen in Queensland, twelve in South Australia, fourteen in Western Australia, and five in Tasmania. The rents alone for the premises it occupies amount to £49,000 annually and the wages bill for the staff was £590,000 last year. That is the maimer in which the Government has achieved full employment. Why should not those Commonwealth employees, for whom there is no real work, be employed in something productive instead of remaining on the public payroll allegedly doing a job for which there is no demand whatsoever? It is sheer waste.

Senator Courtice:

– They will have plenty of work to do when the present Opposition parties attain office.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is an extraordinary fact that every time suggestions are made that there is a lag in production, and less output per man-hour, there is a shriek and a wail from the Government that Opposition members are cruelly and without cause maligning the poor worker. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), particularly in the last year, has appealed time and time again for greater production, because only greater production will permit the Government to continue levying the heavy taxes it has .imposed on the Australian people. Only by more production can goods in short supply be made available at reasonable prices. But there will not be any great improvement in production until there is incentive to both employers and employees. The greatest incentive would be an immediate and drastic cut in taxation. When it is made public that workers are not pulling their weight compared with workers in comparable positions prior to the war, the Government makes excuses. There is no question that production per man-hour has fallen. The rate of loading and unloading of ships in Australian ports has shown a particularly lamentable decrease.

Senator Sheehan:

– What is the honorable senator going to do about it? Has he any suggestions?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The honorable senator reminds me very much of the story of a very fond mother who was at an afternoon tea party where she discussed with a number of other mothers the subject of children. When one mother said, “It is an extraordinary tiling that we are inclined to be blind to the faults of our own children”, another replied with some heat, “If my children had any faults I would be the first to see them “. Thus it is with the Government. It refuses to see that there is room for a substantial increase o”f productive efforts; an increased production of goods would result in a happier and easier life for the community generally.

Turning to external affairs. I was most impressed by a remark attributed to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, which appeared in the press of Monday of this week. The remark was, “If we could get the Empire to speak with one voice we could see everybody off “. That is a matter which must commend itself to all of us. Australia’s foreign relations and general policy with respect to foreign affairs are matters which should transcend, and I think do transcend, all party considerations.

Senator Grant:

– Do not forget the “ if “ in that statement.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That those matters should- transcend all party consideration, is one aspect to which J am convinced the Australian people would give their most .cordial support. They would enthusiastically rally in support of a policy of closer co-operation between the units of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It has been said that because of the tremendous ordeal through which Great Britain passed while fighting in the last war, and for such a long period alone, it is practically beggared and bankrupt. That may be so in terms of material things, but Great Britain is still the moral leader of western civilization, although in terms of material and man-power that country may not be comparable to America and Russia. If, however, the various units of the British Commonwealth combine and speak with one voice they can form a third first-class power in the world. World peace is more likely to be guaranteed by the existence of the British Commonwealth as a third great power than it is likely to be if America and Russia are the only great powers. There is no doubt that if the whole resources of the British Commonwealth were co-ordinated and if that Commonwealth spoke with one voice, it would be the third first-class power of the world. I agree entirely with Senator Grant’s general statement that communism can exist only where there is discontent. If the Government can remove causes of discontent it need have no fear of communism in Australia. In that regard 1 shall read a short extract from a speech delivered by Lord Pakenham, who is a Labour peer of the realm. Lord Pakenham has expressed a thought which I shall leave with honorable senators as an example of the approach we should make to achieve a solution not only of our internal problems but of our external al in em en ta. Lord Pakenham said -

I shall leave this discussion of the relation ship of Christian principles to the world-wide division into parties of the right and the left with two observations. First, I am myself, as I lui ve said, a man of the left, I am far from denying that there arc many betteChristians than myself in all countries on the right, nor do I wish, to come too close to current controversy. But I. cannot, for the life of mc, see how any Christian conception of social justice can be” realised ideally, with out a far wider distribution of opportunities and nf the good things of the world, including property, than we have ever yet witnessed.

Secondly, the socialist parties of Europe will never to my mind, do themselves full justice, until they found themselves securely on the ethics of the New Testament rather than upon the ethical void which yawns at us from thi’ voluminous and in some ways most instruc-live works of Karl Marx. Marx was a remark able mail, but not even his greatest admirer.’ would call him an ethical teacher and without asking those who have found inspiration and guidance in his economic or historical writings to forswear themselves, I pray earnestly that European socialism will found itself, not only in vague aspiration but in deliberately worked-out doctrine, on the proposition that hatred begets hatred and that love in the method is the only way to love in the result. How docs all this bear on the eternal dispute between democracy and other forms of govern ment, whether aristocratic or totalitarian?

Democracy depends on two sets of ideas, the first insists on freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and everything that pertains to the nile of law Here there is no doubt that the whole course of Christian witness comes down unhesitatingly nil the democratic side. Democracy consists, in the second place, on the rule of the majority as expressed at the polls, which in turn depends upon one man, one vote: on giving the poor man an equal say in the government of the country with the rich man; the uneducated with the educated, the weak with the strong.

In matters that affect the attitude of the general Australian towards communism, we are at one with the peoples of Great Britain and the other component parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and if. regardless of what party is in power, we respect these two principles, domestically and internally, we shall do well.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– 1 rise merely to correct a wrong impression created in the mind of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) by my remarks yesterday when I was referring to the allocation to the States of moneys from the petrol tax. The Minister had said that an additional grant had been made which increased the original 3d. a gallon to nearly 4d. a gallon. It was that additional grant with which I was concerned. .1 mentioned that the additional grant could be utilized, among other things, for the purpose of providing havens to protect small craft engaged in the transport of much-needed sea food. The South Australian Government asserts that no provision has been made specifying the purpose for which it may Use any portion of that grant. I suggest that if the additional grant is continued next year on similar lines it be made clear that the States will be expected to utilize the proceeds for the protection of small raft in their harbours.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I should not have participated in this debate but for certain remarks made by Senator O’Sullivan, and even those remarks would not have tempted me to do so, were it not for the fact that this morning the Senate proceedings are being broadcast, because anything that Senator O’Sullivan. might feel inclined to say to the limited audience present in this chamber when we are not on the air would not merit any criticism from this side of the chamber. In an attempt to be sarcastically humorous, the honorable senator began his speech by saying that there might have been worse governments than the one which at present is in office. There might be worse senators than Senator O’Sullivan, but I cannot imagine that to be so. However, I do not propose to dwell on that aspect of his speech. He then had some pathetic remarks to offer about the number of cigarettes taken by the Treasurer out of each cigarette packet. I do not know how ninny cigarettes are contained in a packet, because I have never handled one, and 1 have never taken a cigarette out of a packet. He also had something to say about beer. There again, I have to allow him to be the judge. I do not use either tobacco or beer. I do not need artificial stimulants to enable me to do my job in this chamber. Sena-tor O’Sullivan, being an authority on both, knows all about them. Then the honorable senator had something to say about lipstick. I do not know very much about that either, but I am certain that the honorable senator will never go home with lipstick imprints upon his clothing while women retain their powers of discernment. Perhaps I should be more serious and for a few moments I shall be more grave. Knowing that the members of the House of Representatives sat until the breakfast hour getting the business through that chamber and are waiting for us to complete it in this chamber - honorable senators, of course, have to be their own judges in that regard - it may not be wise for any of us on the Government side to detain the Senate at any great length. There are, however, one or two remarks which I should like to make, not only because Senator O’Sullivan has made some which should be replied to. but also because of the endeavours of Opposition senators in this chamber to make a case for the people, the parties and the money they represent. I recognize that under our democratic form of government we have a government party and an opposition party in this chamber. That is common to not only democracies but also different forms of government in other parts of the world. The continued assumption of Opposition senators that they are here to play some part having for its ultimate result benefits to the common people is so ridiculous that it must occasionally be combated. I remember when there was no legislation in this country regulating hours of labour or conditions of industry. Factory conditions were far worse than deplorable. I worked for years in a factory. There was no segregation of the sexes in sanitary arrangements. The average working week for the average worker was 70 hours in normal circumstances and longer if the boss could stand up to it himself and keep the place open. I Lave been in the firing line all the time in the battle for better industrial conditions and have encountered intense opposition to suggestions for the most simple improvements in the interests of the working class. In those days there was no Labour party as we know it to-day with the organization that now it has, but whenever its progenitors proposed fewer hours of labour and better industrial conditions, or anything else for the benefit of the common people who, let it not be forgotten, are the real producers of the wealth of this country - the wealth is not produced by the men who order them about - they were met with violent misrepresentation and untruthful and slanderous statements by the gentlemen who preceded Senator O’Sullivan in the anti-Labour forces. I n those days, in Queensland - I mention that State because Senator O’Sullivan is a representative of it, as T am - women were employed in clothing factories for six months with no pay at all and thereafter at half a crown a week. “We said that that was villainous and proposed that they should be paid for all the time. It is almost incredible that that was met with bitter opposition. It was men like Senator O’Sullivan who made the fight for even modest reforms of that kind so difficult. Senator O’Sullivan winces under my criticism. There is in this chamber room for a decent Opposition and legitimate opportunity for Opposition senators to criticize any proposal that the Government submits. That is the duty of an Opposition. I have been in opposition when there were only three Labour senators and all the others were on the government benches as representatives of the capitalists. I impress upon Opposition senators that if they have the capacity to do research work and to attempt to be original in criticizing the Government’s proposals, there is a wide field for them to make intelligent contributions to the debates. They have a proper place in this chamber and the proper way to fill it is for them to be truthful every time they .make a statement instead of unfairly misquoting parts of speeches delivered by Labour men here and in other places. If they continue to make wild and unfair statements they will bring the Senate into disrepute and the time will come when the people will say that it is no longer necessary and should be wiped out. As you know, Mr. President, we took the opportunity years ago of wiping out the upper house in the Queensland Parliament. No one has ever regretted that action. In my first speech in this chamber, in Opposition of course, in 1932, I said that I was here for the express purpose of seeing that this place was wiped out. That speech is recorded in Hansard and can be checked. It may be said, “ You have not done much towards wiping it out”. I have not, and I am certain that I should not get any support were I to make the attempt. I have been a champion of lost causes all my life, but I do not want to espouse another one at this stage. I emphasize that there is opportunity for the Opposition to be constructive, but it never is. Opposition senators content themselves by unfairly claiming that they represent the class that we represent. Senator O’Sullivan said this morning that we claim to be the representatives of the workers but are not. Any one with intelligence can read the facts, which are on record, but Senator O’Sullivan and his colleagues never let an opportunity slip by to say that we are not honest in claiming to represent the workers. Never in this or any other country has legislation been passed for the benefit of the working class except at the behest of the Labour party. If Labour governments were not in power, the pressure of the working class on the anti-Labour government was so strong that they were forced to introduce social legislation in order to avert revolution. Let us cast our minds back to the Shaftesbury Reform Bill of 1S59 - the year, in which Queensland became a selfgoverning State. That measure was regarded as revolutionary, and it is pointed to now as an illustration of the argument that occasionally reactionary governments - perhaps I should say conservative governments - sometimes do things that benefit the common people. That is quite true; but the working conditions in Great Britain at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill were such that even a conservative of the quality of Lord Shaftesbury had to make concessions in order to prevent a revolution. In those days, factories operated round the clock. The operatives worked in relays. Women workers took their children to the factories with them. Because of their small stature, boys of five or six years of age were employed as chimney sweeps. They had. to crawl through chimneys which very often were hot and unsafe. In the factories, the beds provided for the children of operatives were never cold. As one team came on shift another went off. Those conditions were endured by the workers for many years, until Lord Shaftesbury was forced to take action. Attempts by so-called “ radicals “ to improve conditions were met with the bitterest opposition. In comparatively recent times, the conditions of the working classes in Manchester, England, were so cruel, and so determined were the workers to have them altered,, that the authorities had machine guns set up in the streets to- preserve order. This fact was not widely published in the newspapers.

I have watched the struggle of the working classes over the years. The tactics employed by the anti-Labour forces have never varied. They have given way only in the face of strong public opinion. The only reason why the methods of the interests represented in this Parliament by the Opposition parties have become a little less- brutal and a little more refined, is that the old’ methods, would not now be tolerated for a day. A reversion to the old repressive treatment of the working classes would prevent any antiLabour government from ever again securing control of the treasury bench. Although the anti-Labour forces have been forced to modify their uncompromising attitude to the working classes, they still are reluctant to admit that the workers, and only the workers, create the wealth of any country and that the Labour movement is the only organization that can represent the working classes adequately. They also refuse to admit that they represent the moneyed classes in the community.

Reference has been made in the course of this debate to the plank of the Labour party which advocates the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We do not deny that the captains of industry who organize and supervise their undertakings are entitled to a share of the wealth that is produced; but we do deny that they are entitled to deprive the worker of his just share of that wealth. There should be no profits accruing to private individuals, and there will be none when the community realizes that the wealth that the workers produce should be distributed amongst the workers themselves, bearing in mind, of course, the Labour party’s definition of the term worker, which is - “ Every unit in the community contributing any useful service to the community “. No one is entitled to more than his fair share. The point that I am trying to make is this: There are only two political classes in this community - the workers and the shirkers, or, in other words, those who do the work and those who “ do “ the worker. We on this side of the chamber stand for those who do the work and produce the wealth of the nation. However competent and eloquent Opposition members may be, there is no escaping the fact that they represent the people who do not produce the wealth of the country. They obtain their funds from organizations which are essentially opposed to the interests of the working man. They would not be here, and if they got here they could not remain without the protection and the money which they receive from those predatory interests whom they alone represent in this, chamber. With those remarks, which do not by any means express the intensity of my feelings on this subject, I shall conclude, because I have had the opportunity to broadcast to listeners a refutation of the impossible,, inexcusable and unworthy attitud’e adopted by Senator O’sullivan in this debate.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Aus: tralia

– I am taking part in this debate only because I shall not be able to speak in this chamber again this year, and I feel that on a measure as important as the Supply Bill, there should be some voice in addition to that of Senator Collings to refute some of the arguments advanced by Senator O’Sullivan. The honorable senator made an attack on Commonwealth employment offices. My knowledge of this, matter is. limited to the Commonwealth employment office in

Perth, which is doing an excellent job at reasonable cost, and which has helped to get rid of a number of the small registry offices that battened on the workers. For example, girls who sought positions as domestic servants were obliged to pay as much as one-half of the wages they were to receive for the first week in order to get employment. Most of that has disappeared because the Commonwealth employment office provides a well-indexed list of employment available, and the names of all workers who are seeking employment. The accommodation provided for the Commonwealth employment office in Perth is far below the standard of many other offices.

I am able to speak most feelingly on the Government’s free medicine scheme. During the last month, I have been ill in hospital, and in addition to hospital expenses and doctor’s fees, I have already paid more than £14 for medicines. Yet there are people who assert that free medicine will not give any relief to the community, and will be a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Some.of my prescriptions, which were for only an ordinary winter ailment, cost 193. 9d’., 16s. 3d. and 12s. 6d. to dispense. Therefore, honorable senators will see how severely the cost of medicine affects people in the lower income groups.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Are the prescriptions included in the formulary?

Senator TANGNEY:

– Most of them are. I have had the prescriptions analysed, and the majority of them are in the formulary. Of a dozen prescriptions which I brought with me to Canberra, only one was not in the formulary, but even so, a substitute was included in it. Some critics of the scheme say that people can get attention at public hospitals. I ask: Can they do so? The staffs of public hospitals are working overtime, and wards are overcrowded. A person must wait for weeks before he can secure admission as an in-patient. Only casualty and serious cases are admitted without delay. As the result of those conditions, many people are receiving medical treatment in their homes or in private hospitals. I know from my experiences during the last month that the free medicine scheme will confer a great benefit on the people, and means must be found to overcome the impasse which has been caused by the British Medical Association. While I was ill, I was a “ sitting shot “ for many members of the British Medical Association who came to discuss the free medicine scheme with me. Finally, I threatened to charge them for consultations as they were charging me for professional visits. By that means. I managed to get rid of some of them. From these discussions, I formed th< opinion that the majority of doctors anin favour of the scheme ; but they seemed to be bound by a stronger loyalty to the British Medical Association. Every doctor with whom I have spoken on this subject has definitely been in favour of the principle of free medicine, and I hope that the forthcoming conference between the Government and the British Medical Association will succeed in overcoming the difficulties which are preventing the scheme from operating fully. We must find a way of softening the attitude of the British Medical Association towards free medicine. Medical practitioners perform a large measure of honorary work, as every public hospital can testify. From my own experience as a member of the Social Security Committee, which conducted a survey of hospitals throughout Australia in 1943-44, I know that many doctors have done a great deal of honorary work for the community. To them pounds shillings and pence is not cb* goal of their profession. They have the gift of healing, which frequently iF more important to them than the fees that they receive from their patients.

Whilst I pay these tributes to Australian doctors generally, I cannot under, stand their present attitude. They contend that several mechanical difficulties present obstacles to the acceptance of the free medicine scheme. They have informed me that the formulary is nol complete, and that they would have to write too many forms, but that they would be willing to accept the repatriation forms. I should like to test whether they really mean what they say. When I confronted my own doctor with my various prescriptions, and showed him the chemist’s bills, he said, “ I admit that the coat Ls considerable, but then, drugs are now very expensive “. Medical science is continually discovering new drugs, many of which are most expensive. Last Wednesday, an honorable senator asked whether insulin is included in the formulary, and I was gratified when the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) said that it is. Many people in Australia are suffering from diabetes, and insulin is required for the treatment of that, and other illnesses. If the free medicine scheme did no more than give to that section of the community relief from the expense of buying insulin, it would still be worth while. The formulary covers 95 per cent, of the drugs which are required for prescriptions, but even an incomplete formulary is better than no free medicine scheme. Tinder the Government’s present proposals, many people will be relieved of chemists’ bills. Therefore, I hope that the conference between the Government and the British Medical Association will produce satisfactory results. As the weeks pass, people expend thousands of pounds in buying medicines which they should be able to obtain free of charge.

When I was in New Zealand last Christmas, I discussed the free medicine scheme with the Pharmaceutical Guild, doctors, nurses and hospital authorities, and I learnt that one result of the introduction of the free medicine scheme in that dominion was a big decline of the sales of patent medicines. Only about one-third or one-quarter of the patent medicines obtainable in Australia were >n sale in New Zealand. The reason is obvious. If people can get a prescription from their doctors made up free of charge, they will not purchase expensive quack medicines. A substantial percentage of the cost of patent medicines is represented by marges for advertising them in newspapers and over the radio. The cost of the ingredients is less than one-half of the total cost. A few years ago, Senator Arnold told the Senate that when he was n. member of the Social Security Committee, he had ascertained that the average cost of the ingredients in a bottle of patent medicine was 8d. or 9d. We all know the extortionate prices that are charged in the retail trade for many of those lines. T am not making an attack on recognized proprietary lines, or upon those manufacturing chemists who have been marketing reliable preparations for years. Indeed, many of those proprietary preparations have been incorporated in the formulary adopted by the Government, and were included in the more restricted formulary that was in use in the services during the war. This is a matter on which I speak with some degree of feeling, because when one’s pocket is touched very lasting impressions are formed. My case is typical of many thousands of others in Australia, except that many of those people have to deprive themselves of necessities in order to pay for medicine which the Government has decided shall be given to them free. We do not consider that the supply of free medicine should be the sole aim of a social security scheme; we realized that, from the very outset. The real job which confronts the Government of the nation to-day is to maintain healthy people in good health. For that purpose, we must provide more social security by making possible continuity of employment and providing decent retiring allowances and proper housing standards.

I am opposed to Senator O’Sullivan’s plea for a reduction of the rate of tax paid by those in the higher income groups. I would not support any proposal to reduce the taxes paid by such people until we can raise the inadequate pension at present paid to aged and invalid people to a rate commensurate with the present high cost of living. In this community many unfortunate people have to live on 37s. 6d. a week. Whilst they are entitled to earn an additional fi a week without reducing the amount of their pension, I doubt whether many of them are able to do so* At all events, I do not know of the existence of any relevant statistics. However, I know that many thousands of pensioners have to pay rent, and clothe and feed themselves out of the sum of 37s. 6d. a week. I visit many people in those circumstances, and I know that immediately before the day on which their pension is payable many . of them are eking out their last fraction of tea and eating only bread and butter. Before we attempt to grant relief to those who can afford to pay high taxes and bear the major part of the financial burden entailed in the operation of a scheme of social security we must increase the present pension rate for aged and invalid persons.

Senator O’Sullivan said that he did not know where he could find a worse government than the present Government. T certainly do not agree with that remark, and in rebuttal of it I shall recall a few of the many achievements of the present Government in the interests of the community. It enacted legislation which provides for the payment of hospital benefits, in which even Senator O’Sullivan would be eligible to participate if he had to receive hospital treatment. I wonder whether the honorable senator would reject that because it came from a Labour government, if it were offered to bini’? Labour also introduced widows’ pensions, child endowment, maternity allowances, and pensions for aged and invalid persons, and increased the permissible income of pensioners. Those are only a few of the achievements of the Government, which represents the mass of the people. When reviewing the record of Labour in office, it should be remembered that when the Curtin Administration took over the government of the country in 1941 Australia was confronted by a terrible emergency. Although that administration did not possess a majority in either House of the Parliament, it accepted office because the political parties which are at present in opposition had funked their job. Labour brought the country safely through the crisis of the Avar, and. has successfully controlled the economy of the country during the difficult period of transition from war to peace. Indeed, to-day, Australia’s economy is much better balanced than is that of any of the other combatant countries. Senator O’Sullivan said that he did not know of any worse Government. I ask him whether he knows of a better one.

The red herring of communism is raised in almost every debate which takes place in this chamber. No one in Western Australia has taken a more active part than I have in the battle against communism. At the same time I recognize that no good purpose would be served by declaring the Communist party an illegal organization, because such action would simply drive the Communists underground. We have had experience of the consequences of such action, and we know that communism flourished while it was an illegal organization. However, I desire to draw the attention of honorable senators to the number of Communist organizations which are masquerading under very innocent titles. The report of the Communist international congress which was held recently lists several organizations as “ successful branches “ of the party. I was interested to -observe that one of the bodies which was claimed by the Communist party to be an affiliate is the Women’s Charter Movement. Honorable senators will recollect that some years ago Ave were inundated with copies of the Women’s Charter, a publication which contained some sound material. However, most of that material had been purloined from other women’s organizations which had been endeavouring for years to improve the conditions of women. The Women’s Charter Movement is associated with the Women’s International Democratic Federation, an organization which was created in Russia and maintains a headquarters in Paris. It has affiliate branches in Malaya and other countries, and its aims are obviously Communistic. It has even been suggested that members of this movement in Malaya and other countries should be invited to visit Australia. I have mentioned, those two organizations as examples of the kind of propaganda that is indulged in by the Communist party. The “ hifalutin “ titles of some of those organizations may hoodwink people into believing that they are genuinely democratic bodies. Quite a lot of sins have already been committed in the name of democracy, and we do not want to add to the number. According ito the Communist report for last year which came into my possession the entire ramifications of the Women’s Charter Movement and the Women’s International Democratic Federation function under the sponsorship of the Communist party. The real risk to democracy lies, not in the avowedly Communist organizations, but in organizations which deny that they are Communist and masquerade under various titles in political parties, trade unions and other groups.

I appeal particularly to the rank and file members of trade unions to realize the tactics that are pursued by the Communist party. If the ordinary unionist displayed only one-tenth of the zeal of the members of the Communist party that organization would perish of inanition in a few days. The average working man in this country enjoys reasonable industrial conditions and is able to live decently and, therefore, does not take the interest in trade union affairs that he would take in times of adversity. The result is that Communists and their adherents outnumber the ordinary members at trade union meetings and, in consequence, exercise an evil influence on industrial “relationships. There can be no reconciliation between Christianity and communism, and I agree with Senator O’sullivan that until we base our way of life on the teachings of Christianity, and every member of the community realizes that he has a job to do which requires him to give of his best to the community, we shall be the prey of Communists and other “ reformers “, The rendering of service according to one’s abilities is the essence of social justice. Until we can bring about a proper state of social justice we shall have to contend with communism, which flourishes in poverty and discontent. Until we build our social structure on the sound basis of Christian justice we shall be beset by the problem of communism.

I remind honorable senators that the Australian Labour party is the only political party which has consistently pointed out the menace of the Communist party, and it is the only political party which requires its members to pledge themselves that they are not affiliated with the Communist or any other political party. Every member of the Parliamentary Labour party signed that pledge many years ago, before the Communist menace in Australia was “generally recognized. I appeal to the Australian workers to do their utmost to suppress communism by taking more interest in the management of their trade unions.

Western Australia recently received another grant of £1,000,000 from the Commonwealth to help to tide it over, its fin ancial difficulties. The development of the north-west portion of the State deserves the attention of this Government. The area, of Western Australia is one-third of the size of the whole of Australia. I cannot go round my electorate in a few minutes, unlike some honorable members in the -other House. It takes months to get from Wyndham in the north to Esperance in the south. In the far-flung northern spaces, communities are scattered and amenities are few. There are some anomalies there, particularly in regard to taxation. The owners of cattle stations in the Kimberleys who send their cattle to Wyndhamare taxed, but the owners of the big stations in the Northern Territory, whoalso send their stock to Wyndham, are not taxed. The cattle from both places goes into the Wyndham meat works or are shipped to the south. Living conditions in the two territories are practically the same, and climatic conditions in both of them are very trying. They are separated only by an imaginary dividing lino, yet, as I have said, the cattle station owners of the north-west of Western Australia are taxed, whilst those in the adjoining Northern Territory are not.

The provision of adequate medical and dental services in the north-west of the State is a difficult problem. There was some alleviation of conditions recently, due to the arrival from England of some doctors who had volunteered to work there, but the areas that they have to cover are very large and a great deal of their travelling has to be done by plane. All these things make living there very difficult and expensive. When people talk of north-west Australia, they think of Broome and its pearlers. It is an anomaly that pearlers operating from Broome are taxed but that those working from Darwin are not. As a result, the pearlers are taking their luggers from Broome to Darwin in order to escape the payment of taxes.

These are very important matters, because although the north-west is sparsely populated it is near to some of the most densely populated areas in the world. During the war we saw how important it was from the strategic point of view. Its already sparse population is diminishing. There is nothing to keep the young people there, and they are, therefore, going to the capital cities. This depopulation must not be allowed to continue. 1 trust” that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) meets the Premier of Western Australia at the next Premiers Conference he will take cognizance of the difficulties of this area and give some consideration to means of lessening them. The north-western areas of Western Australia cannot possibly be developed to the full extent of their potentialities without the co-operation of the Australian Government and the State governments.

I am happy that the Parliamentary Labour party has selected me as a member of the Empire Parliamentary Association delegation that is shortly to go to Great Britain. While I am in that country I shall be able to examine the subject of migration from another angle. Since the commencement of the Australian migration scheme I have met practically every migrant ship that has put into Fremantle. I have personally welcomed many thousands of migrants to Australia, and I have taken a particular interest in child migrants. I receive letters almost daily from people in England asking me to arrange for them to come to Australia. I trust that, as the only representative of the Senate in the delegation, I shall uphold the dignity and prestige of this chamber at the conferences that will be held, and that my visit will be of value not only to myself but also to the Senate and the people of Australia generally.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I sympathize with the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) in that he has had to listen this morning to a member of his own profession descend to the use of unfair tactics while our proceedings were being broadcast. I could see by the expression on the Minister’3 face that he was very uncomfortable. It must have been galling for him to listen to the remarks of Senator O’Sullivan who has now assumed the mantle of the most carping and unfair critic that the Senate has known for many years. It would have been a different matter, as Senator Collings has said, if the honorable senator had complied strictly with the Standing Orders, but in the course of his tirade of abuse, untruths and halftruths, he resorted to the use of language that contravened the Standing Orders, When the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) intervened, he had to desist. An honorable senator who resorts to those tactics, knowing them to be out of order, must have some ulterior motive. Methods of that sort will be viewed with such disfavour by the Australian people that we shall not have to tolerate them much longer. In spite of what the honorable senator may believe, it cannot be disputed that all improvements of the social conditions of the workers of this country have been made either when a Labour government was in power or after great pressure had been brought to bear upon members of the anti-Labour parties.

I appreciate the answer that was given to my question this morning with regard to the North-South Railway Agreement. The anti-Labour government that is now in power in South Australia takes advantage of every possible opportunity to blame this Government for the delay in implementing that agreement. Frequent statements in the press suggesting that it will not be honoured and that other States are doing all they can to hinder it, and even to have it cancelled, are causing grave doubts in the minds of the South Australian people about whether the agreement will in fact be honoured. It is gratifying to learn the real cause of the delay. It is not that we want te “ pass the buck “, but that we wish ti be able to explain to the people that the Australian Government and the South Australian Government are the only two governments that brought in legislation to ratify the agreement. I was also pleased to learn from the Minister that press reports to the effect’ that the Commonwealth was responsible for the delay were untrue. 1 hope, in the interests of political decency, that those governments which, through their Premiers in conference assembled, undertook to ratify the agreement, will do so at the earliest moment.

I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation an anomaly in connexion with the administration of the provision under which loans are made to exservicemen for the purchase of businesses. Under the regulations, the department will advance £500 for the purchase of a delicatessen, but only £250 for the purchase of a mixed business. This discrimination is probably an oversight ; nevertheless it is unfair. A delicatessen is defined as a store where prepared foods, such as cooked meats and salads, are sold. Such a store would carry only a small stock, because not more than one or two days’ supply of cooked meats and salads would he carried. The plant necessary to conduct such a business could be an ice chest and a pair of scales. It is evident, therefore, that the assets, which would become the security for a loan, might be of a low capital value. As a matter of fact, very few delicatessens would be conducted if the definition were strictly adhered to. On the other hand, a mixed business sells all lines that a delicatessen sells and, in most instances, also sells ice cream, confectionery, fruit and vegetables, bread, cake, groceries, meats, tobacco and cigarettes. Thus, a large stock would be carried, the value of which would be high. Some of the necessary plant would be a refrigerator, scales, malted milk mixer and electric meat cutter. The security offered for a loan, in the case of a mixed business, would be valuable, yet the department will lend only £250 on a mixed business, whereas the exserviceman proposing to buy a delicatessen is entitled to an advance of £500. Even £500 is a small amount to cover the repatriation of an ex-serviceman, yet it is halved if he proposes to purchase a mixed business.

My attention was first drawn to this matter by an ex-serviceman friend who wished to buy a mixed business, which included two refrigerators, a cash register, two scales, two malted milk mixers, and a lot of other small plant, besides £300 worth of stock. Despite the value of the asset, this ex-serviceman could obtain a loan of only £250 from the Repatriation Department. The result was that he had to forgo the benefit of an advance from the department, and waa compelled to borrow money privately at a higher rate of interest. I trust thai the Government will amend the regulations in order to remove this anomaly.

Senator KATZ:
Victoria

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) said that the Government had done nothing to promote decentralization. That is not true. In Victoria, a Labour government did more in two years to . promote decentralization than had been done by nonLabour governments during the previous 98 years of responsible government in the State. Under encouragement from the Labour government, more than 50 factories were established in country towns throughout Victoria. Senator Rankin spoke of the. manufacture of gloves in Queensland. In Victoria, the Labour government was responsible for the establishment at Nhill of a factory for the manufacture of plastics and articles of feminine wear. The factory employs 48 persons, but certain people in the town are less interested in that, fact than in the political aspect of the venture. Other factories have been established in central Victoria and Gippsland. In country districts heads of families are concerned with obtaining employment for their children as they grow up. Anti-Labour governments in Victoria never seriously considered the establishment of industries in country centres to provide employment for the children of the primary producers. The achievements of Labour governments have had repercussions not only in the industrial field but also in the educational field. A Labour government in Victoria made history by creating a branch of the University of Melbourne at Mildura. Immediately following its defeat, however, the Liberal government which took office appointed a spokesman to argue the case in favour of abolishing that useful and progressive institution. The facts which I have stated prove that only Labour administrations can bring progress and prosperity to the country. Members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party speak with their tongues in their cheeks when they advocate decentralization of industry. Their actions, when they have held the balance of power in Victoria, have belied their words. They are afraid to establish prosperous industries in country districts lest the increased industrial population should reject them in favour of

Labour party representatives. Even when I was a boy, anti-Labour politicians in Victoria were talking freely about decentralizing industry as a means of curbing the flow of population from the country to the cities.

Senator Sheehan:

– They only talked.

Senator KATZ:

– Yes. A Labour government with a majority in only one branch of the legislature was the first government in that State to put a scheme of decentralization into effect.

Members of the Opposition declare that this Labour Government lacks the courage to deal firmly with industrial disputes. They assert that the workers flout our arbitration system by ignoring the decisions of the industrial tribunals. A study of the history of industrial arbitration in Australia shows that, over the years, the employers have been the chief offenders in this respect. In Victoria, workers’ conditions at one time were determined by wages boards. Each board consisted of equal numbers of employers and employees. In the early days of that system, many men were dismissed from their jobs because they were selected as representatives of the workers on the boards. The immediate effect of any such dismissal was that the worker concerned, being unemployed, became ineligible to serve on a wages board. Furthermore, such tactics gave rise to a psychology of fear, a form of sabotage at which members of the Opposition are adept, and other workers refused to accept appointments for fear of similar victimization. Only after persistent agitation over a period of 25 years did it become possible for workers’ representatives to secure continuity of employment. Penalties were provided for employers who dismissed men because they had been appointed to arbitration tribunals.

Sitting suspended from 12.^ to 2.15 p.m.

Senator KATZ:

– This morning we heard many statements in relation to the workers. It was claimed, on the one hand, that the workers were not performing their work, and on the other hand that they were ignoring the decisions of the court. The story of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is really amazing. To-day, the Opposition complains when its decisions’ are not observed in their entirety. To-day members of the Opposition are the protagonists of the Arbitration Court itself, but when employees of the Commonwealth attempt to utilize the Arbitration Court for the settlement of industrial disputes the Opposition does everything possible to prevent the court from functioning.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Who created the court? Not a Labour government!

Senator KATZ:

– Those who created it have since attempted to destroy it.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Destroy their own child?

Senator KATZ:

– That has been done by political parties in the past. One of the first cases of any importance that came before the Arbitration Court was that known as the Harvester case. The interests which support the Opposition to-day made available funds to the employers of Australia to have the decision given by the late Mr. Justice Higgins declared invalid. The workers then had to start all over again. Eventually, they were told to secure a judgment from the court. Honorable senators of the Opposition are forever condemning unionism. There was a time in Victoria, when the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramway and Omnibus Company Limited, used to make its prospective employees sign a declaration before they were allowed to start in its employ, that they would never belong to a trade union. That is the class to which Senator O’Sullivan belongs. After the workers had proved that they had the strength to make the Arbitration Court act, those interests which the Opposition represents took every step possible to prevent it ever functioning. The workers now realize that members of the United Australia party, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party have done everything in their power to prevent any decision from being arrived at.

In Victoria industrial legislation has secured for clerks, determinations in respect of wages. Strange to relate, without exception, the employers always lodge an appeal to a judge in the Industrial Court of Appeal against the decision of the State wages board. Where do the Opposition parties stand to-day in relation to women? They nominate women as candidates for election to Parliament.

Senator Tangney:

– Hear, hear!

Senator KATZ:

– They have had to do so. But how do they recognize women in industry? The industry in which I have been employed secured equal pay for the sexes but the very class for which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the spokesman here to-day lodged an appeal. It has done so every time we have secured equal pay for the sexes and yet honorable senators opposite have the effrontery to say—

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator says “ we “. Is he one of the women ?

Senator KATZ:

– I am alluding to Senator O’sullivan, who says that he represents the workers of this country; the honorable senator knows perfectly well that he has nothing whatever to do with representing” the workers. What do honorable senators opposite do now in relation to unionism? Do they stand for unions and unionism? Whenever there is a defeat of the efforts of the trade union movement, they form company unions. The honorable senator knows that the aim of those whom he represents is to defeat the objects of bona fide trade unionism. I am satisfied that if we look at those who opposed the referendum in Victoria-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– But they won!

Senator KATZ:

– They won because they said deliberately that they were opposed to Canberra control, and that uo attempt would be made to increase rents. On the Tuesday morning followthe defeat of the referendum the president of the Employers Federation in Victoria, Mr. Higginson, advocated a 15 per cent, increase in rents. Does Senator O’Sullivan support that increase? The honorable senator makes no reply! I point out that there are many things happening in my own State, apart from matters affecting age pensioners, to which Senator Tangney referred. I have been negotiating with the Minister for Social Services in Victoria for an institution containing 600 beds to be made available for age pensioners who are without homes. We on this side are realists who recognize that something must be done, and we are going to do it whether we meet with opposition or otherwise.

One of the reasons why the Supply bill has been opposed by the Opposition is that an amount of £1,233,000 is provided for university training. The Government is trying to provide an opportunity for every boy and girl to enter a university.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Be fair! Name the members of the Opposition who opposed it.

Senator KATZ:

– If it had its way the Opposition would agree to practically no provision for education at all, because it recognizes that the moment the people become educated, there will be no possible hope of their being returned again to this Parliament. Let us consider the provision of £3,549,000 for technical training. Are Opposition senators opposed to that? I know that they would like to oppose it, but they are afraid of what the electors would think when they found out that they had voted against such a proposition. Because of the intelligence of tha electors of the Commonwealth-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– As expressed on the 29th May!

Senator KATZ:

– Before another three months has gone by the Opposition will find out what the people think of it. For instance, in order to defeat the Government’s proposals at the recent referendum, the Premier of Victoria. Mr. Hollway, at a secret session of the State Parliament put through a measure to enable the State Government to resume control of rents and prices. That move was made solely to delude the people. Mr. Hollway said, “We have had enough of Canberra control. We want to control prices “. But three days after the result of the referendum was known, he was anxious to “ pass the buck “ to the Commonwealth. It is clear that the States do not really desire that the Commonwealth shall relinquish these controls.

A glance at the proposed votes in respect of the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel, including the Government’s reconstruction training scheme, soldier land settlement and reestablishment loans for agricultural occupations, bears out the contention that the present Government is the first government in this country which has attempted to do something practical in the interests of those who fought in defence of Australia. The bill not only makes provision for the nation’s present needs, but also indicates that the Government is planning to safeguard the interests of our people in the future.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel’ [2.28]. - in reply - The contributions made to the debate by honorable senators opposite are in line with the tactics invariably employed by anti-Labour parties. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper · New South Wales · ALP

dealt at some length with the needs of the cotton industry, and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) has supplied a full answer to the points he raised. I agree that we must encourage the industry, and I endorse the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the provision of irrigation for that purpose. However, I remind him that during the depression the government of the day which he supported failed to undertake any schemes of that kind although ample materials were available and hundreds of thousands of workers in this country were looking for employment at that time.

Senator O’flaherty:

– And millions of gallons of water were going to waste.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition begrudged the Government any credit. He declared that the nation is now enjoying a high degree of prosperity and said that that fact was reflected in the over-subscription of all government loans. However, although he said there was plenty of money in the community, he added that loans were over-subscribed mainly because no other avenues for investment were offering. The fact is that we are enjoying a high degree of prosperity, and that prosperity has been brought about as the result of this Government’s administration. There is full employment in the community. I do not doubt that the Opposition desires a continuance of those conditions. The Government does not claim all of the credit for our present prosperity, but it is justified in claiming that it has made the greatest, contribution to it. Senator

O’Sullivan urged that we must provide incentives to private enterprise to increase production, and he mentioned as one incentive the reduction of taxes. He referred to the rate of tax imposed on incomes of less than £1,000 per annum. I was amazed at his solicitude for persons in the lower ranges of income. The people know that whenever the Government makes reductions of taxes all classes of taxpayers will benefit. The Government endeavours to mete out even-handed justice to all sections of the community. All classes of taxpayers will benefit proportionately from any further reduction of taxes, which this Government may make. Of course, we are familiar with the old grey mare “ incentive “. Honorable senators opposite deplored the slow rate of loading and unloading ships. I need hardly say that the Government realizes the need to increase production; but, apart from forcing the workers to go their hardest the only way we can increase production is through the mechanization of industry.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The trade unions will not accept mechanization.

Senator ASHLEY:

– No trade union has opposed it.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The waterfront unions have done so.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That is not so. The only steps yet taken to mechanize the handling of cargoes on the wharfs are those taken by the department under my control when it installed fork-lift trucks and other appliances on the wharfs. Apart from those innovations, the employers are still content to handle cargoes by methods which were in vogue 60 and 70 years ago. Up till quite recently, it was the practice to allow merchants to use the wharfs as warehouses. Stacks of goods of every description jambed the wharfs. Indeed, the position became so chaotic that cargo unloaded from a vessel at one wharf had to be stacked on another wharf. Congestion resulting from that practice has been the cause of much of the delay experienced in the unloading of vessels.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Does the Minister approve the decline in the loading and unloading rates?

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’sullivan has been constantly interjecting. 1 had cause on a previous occasion to warn him. It is grossly unfair -and discourteous for an honorable senator to interject persistently when a Minister is replying to a debate. If the honorable senator does not desist, I shall deal with him.

Senator ASHLEY:

– One would think that an honorable senator who makes charges against any organization or body of workers would be only too ready to listen to any one having an answer to those charges. As 1 said yesterday, the Opposition parties in the Parliament will cot persuade the workers to increase production simply by maligning them, [n order to obtain increased rural production it is necessary to provide better Living conditions for employees in rural industries. There could be no greater illustration of the necessity for that than the case I quoted yesterday when I referred to the dislocation of industry that used to occur in Broken Hill in the early part of this century, when the authorities had to send police to Broken Hill by the trainload. In the press report which I quoted during yesterday’s session it was shown that twenty years had gone by without a strike in Broken Hill until one occurred there only recently. No one can deny that the fact that Broken Bill has been strike-free for such a long period is a direct result of the provision of amenities for the workers in that city. One of the troubles in the mining industry at Broken Hill at one time was the large number of men whose health was affected by their employment in the lead mines. Similar conditions to those which then existed at Broken Hill now exist in the coal-mines of Australia. When the coal-mines have been modernized and provided with conditions and amenities similar to those provided at Broken Hill, including provision for the prevention of physical ailments arising from dust being inhaled by workers engaged in the industry, there will be contentment in the industry and we shall obtain the much-desired increase of coal production. I wish to assure the members of the Opposition that the Government is at all times ready to assist in anything that is for the good of the country districts. The Leader of the Opposition apparently believes that all the members on the Government benches are city men, who have never seen the country. Many Government members are countrymen with country interests, and they are just as concerned with the welfare of rural areas as are the members of the Opposition, and perhaps more so. Opposition members pay lip service to the interests of the country people. A study of the history of Australian politics shows that the Australian Country party at election times has preached a policy of decentralization, but, immediately after an election, decentralization has been put into cold storage. The only administration that has given practical application to a policy of decentralization is the present Government. A proof of that is the large number of people now employed in the country districts; that is a direct result of the Government’s decentralization policy. At the moment there are about 41,000 persons engaged in various industries in rural areas. Further evidence of the interest of the Government in those rural areas was provided only this morning by the Cabinet, which decided to give all possible succour to the unfortunate people who have been the victims of serious floods in thenorthern part of New South Wales. Cabinet decided to take practical steps to assist those people, and it appointed’ Senator Amour to proceed to the flood area immediately. It also decided to make finance available to the Govern* ment of New South Wales for flood relief and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has arranged with the Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers) to make available any stores and equipment that would be of help in relieving the distress of flood victims. The Government is not sitting idly by watching Australian people in trouble without doing anything to assist them, but honorable senators must remember that physical assistance in such circumstances is a matter for the State governments. The Australian Government provides the major portion of the necessary finance. Yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the fact that in the early part of this century only 26 per cent, of the population of Australia resided in the city areas compared with 74 per cent, in country centres. I pointed out that during the regime of the Scullin Government, Australia imposed protective tariffs in order to assist in the establishment of new industries. That Government succeeded in its aim and those industries which were established as a result of its tariff policy were located mainly in the city areas. As a consequence commodities were manufactured in Australia in greater quantities, and the requirements of the country, instead of being imported from abroad, were manufactured in Australia by Australians, and used by the Australian people. That policy created employment and, as I -stated yesterday, it is greatly to the -credit of the Scullin Government that it imposed those tariffs and gave to secondary industry the basis of the prosperity which it is enjoying to-day. The establishment of industries in city areas is a factor which tends to draw population from country districts, but an additional factor is the dreadful living conditions of country workers. As I pointed out previously, whether a man worked in a shearing shed, or did incidental work of a labouring nature the wage he received was fi a week and keep.

Senator Cooper:

– Not in the Minister’s time.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes, in my time. I worked for that wage on farms where I had to commence my labours at daylight and stop work only when darkness fell, and when I had for my tea perhaps a small portion of corned beef and pumpkin. After tea we had a couple of hours free time and then we went straight to bed. If the Leader of the Opposition has not experienced those conditions I do not think, he can claim to be a true countryman. Those are the conditions that operated in the country, and as I remarked yesterday there were tens of thousands of people at that time tramping the country looking for work. Everywhere a traveller in the country went in those days he would pass men travelling “saloon” or “on hoof “. Those who travelled “ saloon “ were the lucky ones who had horses to ride.

Senator Cooper:

– What about coming down to the present day, when in spite of all the decentralization the Minister” boasts of there are still not enough people in the country areas?

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is making a speech. He has had a previous opportunity to present his views, and I must point out to him that he has already taken up a great deal of the time of the Senate. It is grossly unfair and discourteous to interject continually. A few interjections may make the proceedings of this chamber more interesting to radio listeners, and I do not object to them, but I shall not permit a constant crossfire of interjections, especially when a Minister is in the course of replying. I ask the honorable senator to refrain from interjecting and to allow the Minister to complete his reply without further interruption.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I appreciate that it is very hard for the Leader of the Opposition to listen to the truth of these matters because when one repeats an untruth often enough one becomes obsessed by the belief that it is really a. truth. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that there was a decline of production in almost every rural industry. The honorable senator stated that there had been a decline in the production of wheat, completely forgetting that last year Australia had had one of the most bountiful wheat harvests in history. That indicates the lengths to which honorable senators opposite will go in attempting to defame this Government. This is hut another example of the misrepresentation indulged in by the honorable senator. I trust that the measure will receive the approval of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this hill is to secure an appropriation of £74,728,000, so that the necessary normal services of government may be carried out during the first four months of the financial year 1948-49. (.’fee provisions may be summarized under the following heads: -

lt has been the custom to base the provision in Supply bills on the amounts appropriated by Parliament in the Estimates of the previous year. A variation of this procedure has, however, been found necessary in the present bill to allow for the continued payment of substantial marginal and other salary increases granted under Arbitration Court awards since the Estimates of the current financial year were approved. “With this exception the bill provides only for the estimated requirements of the Government to carry on essential services on the basis of the Appropriation Act already approved by the Parliament for the present financial year. It is estimated that after excluding special appropriations the total expenditure on Defence and Post-war Charges will be £38,000,000. Provision is made in this amount for expenditure in connexion with the postwar defence plan and repatriation and other charges arising out of World War II.

An amount of £9,000,000 has been included in the bill under the item “ Advance to the Treasurer” in order to continue the payment of special grants to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, pending the receipt of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure. In past years, expenditure on Commonwealth works has also been met from this provision pending approval by the Parliament of the annual Works and Buildings Appropriation Act. With the expanding Commonwealth works programme, which totals £32,000,000 for the current year, it has not been possible to continue this procedure without inflating unduly the provision “Advance to the Treasurer”. It is therefore proposed to submit to the Parliament a separate supply bill covering works and buildings which will provide for expenditure” on works in progress at the 30th June next for the same period of four months. Except as previously indicated, no provision has been made in this bill for any new expenditure and there is no departure from existing policy.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The purpose of this bill is to cover the normal services of the government for the first four months of the financial year 1948-49, provision for which has already been made in the budget. I note that special provision has been made in the item “ Advance to the Treasurer “ for grants to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. I understand that ah additional bill in relation to one of these grants will be introduced. An amount of £38,000,000 has been provided for Defence and Post-war Charges. The other amounts included in the bill have been budgeted for. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2341

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1948-49

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspeded

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

Second Reading

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

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

When introducing the Supply Bill, to cover the necessary normal services of th, Government, which has just been passed by the Senate, I stated that it was the intention of the Government to ask the Parliament to provide, by means of a separate bill, supply to cover expenditure on additions and new works until the budget for 1948-49 has been approved. Precedent for a supply bill of this character was established in 1914 and for the three years 1914-15 to 1916-17 thirteen such bills were passed by the Parliament. There has beena considerable lag in expenditure under the works programme of £32,000,000 for the current year and it is necessary to make provision in this bill for an amount of £9,797,000 to finance for the ensuing four months works in progress at the 30th June next. The requirements of the several departments are summarized in the schedule to the bill and are based on the programme and amounts approved by the Parliament in the new works estimates for 1947-48.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This appropriation of £9,797,000 is to enable work already in progress to be continued until the 1948-49 budget has been agreed to. In passing, I point out that it seems to be taken for granted each year that the budget need not be introduced into the Parliament until some months after the new financial year has begun. Now that war-time exigencies have passed, I suggest that the Government might consider introducing budgets earlier in the financial year.

Senator Ashley:

– I shall be glad to bring the honorable senator’s representations to the notice of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I ask the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) whether the vote of £2,746,300 for his department is to cover work already in progress, or is to enable a start to be made on some of the projects outlined by him in his statement to the Senate this week.

Senator Cameron:

– It relates to the work that I outlined in my statement.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2342

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1948

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:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the payment in 1947-48 of an additional special grant of £1,000,000 to Western Australia. Payment of this additional grant has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in a report dated the 24th May which was tabled recently. Under the States Grants Act (No. 2) 1947, a total amount of £5,042,000 was provided for special grants in the current financial year to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania in accordance with the recommendations in the fourteenth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Subsequently, these three States applied to the Commonwealth for additional special grants in 1947-48. These applications were referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the commission’s recommendation is contained in the report of the 24th May.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission takes the view that the system of paying additional special grants is undesirable in principle. The reasons for this view are referred to in the report of the 24th May and are set out in more detail in the commission’s fourteenth report. One major reason advanced by the commission, however, is that the practice of recommending additional grants late in the financial year would be incompatible with the obligations of the commission and with the proper exercise of the financial responsibilities of State treasuries. This view is shared by the Australian Government. The commission considers, however, that from time to time it may become necessary to depart from this general principle in order to meet emergencies. The applications by the three claimant States for additional special grants in 1947-48 have, therefore, been examined by the commission on this basis. The commission has reported that, as compared with the estimates available when making its recommendations in the fourteenth report, there has been some improvement in the finances of South Australia and Tasmania. Thus, whereas at the time the commission made its -original recommendation, the deficits expected by South Australia and Tasmania were £655,000 and £528,000, respectively, the deficits now expected, on the basis of figures available as at the 30th April, are £600,000 and £300,000 respectively. In view of these facts, the commission has reached the conclusion that it would not be justified in making the departure from principle which would be involved in recommending additional special grants to these two States in 1947-48. The commission considers, however, that the case of Western Australia is very different. Whereas at the time of the commission’s fourteenth report the expected deficit in 1947-48 was £2S5,000, it is now estimated no be £1,397,000- a deterioration of £1,1.12,000. Increased costs of £250,000 lue to the 40-hour week, and increased losses on railway operations of £546,000 have contributed to this position. These are factors beyond the control of the State, although, as the commission has pointed out, the losses on railway operations might have been reduced by increased freights and fares. This possibility, however, was taken into account by the commission when making its former recommendation in the fourteenth report. Social services expenditure has also increased by £505,000. The commission notes, however, that this increase, though substantial, is almost certainly not so great as to outweigh the favorable adjustment in respect of this class of expenditure to which Western Australia would be entitled in due course by virtue of the fact that its expenditure per head is lower than that of the non-claimant States. Hence the Commonwealth Grants Commission has reported that a strong case exists for departing from general principle and making a supplementary payment of £1,000,000 to meet the special circumstances affecting the Western Australian budget in 1947-48.

The special grant already being paid to Western Australia in 1947-48 in accordance with the recommendation in the commission’s fourteenth report amounts to £1,977,000. Of this, £1,556,000 represents the grant assessed on the year of review 1945-46 and £421,000 an advance payment recommended by the commission on the ground that the assessed grant would not suffice to meet the indispensable needs of the State in 1947-48. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has indicated that if its present recommendation is approved the additional grant of £1,000,000 will be added to the advance payment of £421,000 already made this year and the total amount of £1,421,000 will be adjusted by the commission in 1949-50 when the year 1947-48 becomes the year of review. The Government has closely considered the commission’s report and has decided that in view of the special circumstances referred to in the report, the commission’s recommendations should be adopted. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This bill provides for the payment of an additional grant of £1,000,000 to Western Australia during the current financial year, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grant? Commission. As the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) has explained, the Government and the commission are averse to the payment of additional special grants, and he has given the reasons for the departure from that principle. The figures relating to the financial position of Western Australia, as disclosed by the commission, are alarming. The inference to be drawn from them is that the State Government did not show proper foresight when budgeting for the period under review. Perhaps I can illustrate the situation by a reference to cricket. Had Keith Miller bowled wide of the wicket, Australia might not have won the first test match a few days ago. The original estimate of the deficit of Western Australia for the current financial year was £285,000, b..i the finances of the State have so deteriorated that the figure will he £1,797,000. The reasons are set out in paragraph 22 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s report, as follows : -

Increased costs due to the 40-hour week, substantial retrogression in railways operating costs, and increased social services..

But these conditions also affect the other States. Obviously, the introduction of the 40-hour week would increase costs, imperially those of undertakings such as the railways, and provision should have been made for those increases. The increased loss on railway operations is estimated at £546,000. Other States have been obliged to offset higher railways expenditure by increasing fares and freights. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has submitted a strong case in respect of Western Australia’s expenditure on social services. No honorable senator will question the wisdom of increased expenditure on social services, provided they are conducted on a sound basis, and evidently social services in Western Australia are so conducted. We appreciate the special position of the State in relation to the rest of the Commonwealth, and the Opposition does not object to the passage of this bill. However, I desired to show the causes of the increased expenditure in Western Australia during the current financial year.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– Naturally, I support the bill, and I am gratified that, as usual, the Government has adopted the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and will make this special financial assistance available to the Government of Western Australia. Some Western Australians refer to the Commonwealth as the “ bad man of the federation”. They regard the Australian Government as an organization established for the purpose of depriving the States of revenues to which they are justly entitled. That attitude is not supported by the consideration which successive Australian governments, irrespective of their political views, have shown to the less populous States, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Leader- of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) stated that the Government of Western Australia had probably been guilty of faulty budgeting. He suggested that the introduction of the 40-hour week, a substantial retrogression of railways operating costs and increased social services expenditure should have been foreseen. That criticism of the State Government is probably justified y but, unfortunately, it has had an opportunity to explain its position to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Government, acting on the commission’s recommendation, is now making available this large sum of money to Western Australia. Undoubtedly, Western. Australian railways are in a most unsatisfactory state, and the reconditioning of the system will cost approximately £15,000,000. The provision of water supplies in various parts of the State is also urgently required. Speaking in another debate recently, I referred to the financial responsibility imposed on Western Australia’s population of approximately 500,000 persons. Frequently we hear criticism of the uniform income tax, and some people profess to desire the restoration of the dual CommonwealthState system of taxation. However, the less populous States are in a fortunate position under the uniform income tax, because this Government has made a. greater amount of money available to them annually than they had when they imposed their own income tax. Last year, it distributed an additional £5,000,000. Had grants not been made to Western Australia in accordance with the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission the Government of Western Australia would have had no alternative but to revert to the system of separate Commonwealth and State taxation. However, I am quite convinced that the citizens of that State would pay much more in taxes under the old system than they do under the uniform tax agreement.

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

. - m reply - I agree that the Government of Western Australia will require to exercise foresight in order to correct its present financial position. Whilst that Government may be excused for the unsatisfactory financial position in which it finds itself because of the somewhat sudden introduction of the 40-hour week, and the expenditure of money to provide increased social services, it will have to convince the Commonwealth Grants Commission that it is endeavouring to improve its financial position. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) mentioned in the course of his speech, that commission will review the budgetary position of Western Australia in 1949, and will consider theuse made of the grants paid to that State by the Commonwealth during the present financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2345

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Senator COURTICE (Queensland -

Minister for Trade and Customs) [3.19]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938-47 in regard to the election of growers’ representatives to the Australian Apple and Pear Board. Last year the Apple and Pear Organization Act was amended to provide for the reconstitution of the Australian Apple and Pear Board. Provision was then made for the members representing the growers to be elected by a poll of those who grow not less than 5 acres of apples or pears, or apples and pears.

It was intended that candidates nominated for election as growers’ representatives should also possess the qualification of being growers of at least 5 acres of fruit. However, it has been found that the terms of the act would have permitted the nomination and election to the board of a person who might not himself be an actual grower of apples and pears. The amendment now proposed to be made in the principal act will correct that position, and will ensure that persons elected to the board to represent the growers in the various States will be qualified growers as defined in the act. I commend ike bill to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This measure, which is a very short one, is designed to correct a weakness in section 4 of the principal act. The Opposition has always advocated that growers should be represented on boards which control the marketing and disposal of primary produce, and that their representatives should be bona fide fruit-growers. Since the bill is in accordance with the principles advocated by the Opposition, no objection will be offered to its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2345

Q ANT AS EMPIRE AIRWAYS BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Qantas Empire Airways Limited was formed in January, 1934, as the result of a partnership agreement between Imperial Airways Limited and the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited. This latter company, widely and popularly known as “ Qantas “, had been formed as a pioneer civil air service operator soon after the end of the 1914-18 war, with its head-quarters at Longreach, and its operations confined to the linking of the inland terminals of those Queensland railways which run inland from the coast. As operations were extended the head-quarters was moved to Brisbane, and the company became the first Australian overseas operator when it undertook the Darwin-Singapore section of the air link with the United Kingdom.

The introduction of the Empire air scheme in 1934 necessitated considerable expansion, and this was achieved by the formation of the partner company - Qantas Empire Airways Limited. This company was subsequently to take over the operation of all services, the original pioneering company, Qantas, becoming solely a holding company with 50 per cent, of the shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited, the remaining 50 per cent, being held by the United Kingdom company, Imperial Airways Limited. This latter company subsequently became the British Overseas Airways Corporation, owned by the United Kingdom Government, and thus became a 50 per cent, part-owner of Qantas Empire Airways Limited. Inter-governmental arrangements for the post-war operation of the service between Australia and the United Kingdom envisaged parallel partnership operation by operators designated by each government, and it was thus obvious that the Australian operator, Qantas Empire Airways Limited, should be entirely Australianowned. Negotiations were accordingly opened with the United Kingdom for purchase by the Australian Government of the British Overseas Airways Corporation shareholding, and the subsequent purchase was authorized by the Qantas Empire Airways Agreement Act 1946. With the purchase of the British Overseas Airways Corporation shares, Qantas Empire Airways Limited remained as a public company, 50 per cent, of the shares being held by the Commonwealth and 50 per cent, by the pioneer company, Qantas Limited. The only change was the substitution of three Commonwealth directors in place of the three British Overseas Airways Corporation directors.

It had been originally proposed that both operators in the parallel partnership operation of the Sydney-London service should use British Tudor aircraft, but it soon became apparent that this type, or in fact any modern British aircraft, would not be available for a long time, [n the meantime there was a very real danger that other countries would become firmly established on the route unless modern aircraft could be introduced at an early date. Consequently, Qantas

Empire Airways Limited, with the full approval of the Australian Government, placed an order in the United States of America for four Lockheed Constellations, which are recognized as being the best long-distance passenger aircraft available. This order was actually placed before the British Overseas Airways Corporation shares had been purchased by the Australian Government. The total cost of the four Constellations, including spares and other associated expenditure, was approximately £2,000,000, whereas the total share capital of Qantas Empire Airways Limited at the time of the British Overseas Airways Corporation purchase was, and still is, only £523,000. In considering methods for providing the additional capital necessary to meet this commitment, regard was also had to the future of the company as the chosen instrument of Australia in the development of international services, it being apparent that the opening up of further routes and future increases of frequencies on the Sydney-London service would entail additional purchases of costly modern aircraft and the provision of other facilities essential for the establishment and maintenance of a high-class air transport service.

Another important aspect was thai Qantas Empire Airways Limited would be operating in partnership with British Overseas Airways Corporation - which is entirely owned by the United Kingdom Government - under arrangements made between the Australian Government and the United Kingdom Goverment. It was immediately apparent that many advantages would arise from both operator* being completely owned by the respective Governments, including simplification of negotiations on financial matters, which are exceedingly complex in a service of this nature. After a very exhaustive examination of the position, the conclusion was reached that complete government ownership of Qantas Empire Airways Limited was desirable, and an approach was accordingly made to thai company regarding the sale to the Commonwealth of its 50 per cent, shareholding. On the 26th May, 1947, following a period of discussions, the vice-chairman of Qantas Empire Airways Limited wrote to the Acting Minister for Civil

Aviation advising the willingness of his board “ to negotiate and to receive an offer “. The negotiations were held in a spirit of friendly co-operation, and on the 5th June, 1947, an offer was transmitted to the company, on the basis of a cash payment of £455,000, for its holding of 261,500 shares in Qantas Empire Airways Limited, the sale to be effective as at the 30th June, 3947. A condition was that Qantas Empire Airways Limited should declare and pay a dividend at the rate of 7 per cent, for- the year ended the 31st March, 1947, the Australian Government thus purchasing the shares ex the 1946-47 dividend but with full rights to all profits earned between the 1st April and the 30th June, 1947. Another condition was that the purchase would carry full right to the use of the name or design “ Qantas “ in connexion with future air services. On the 14th June, the company advised its acceptance of this offer, subject to ratification by its shareholders. An extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of Qantas Empire Airways Limited, held in Brisbane on the 3rd July, 1947, duly ratified the terms of sale to the Commonwealth, and payment of the full amount of £455,000 was effected during the next week.

The position is that as from the 1st July, 1947, Qantas Empire Airways Limited has been operating as an entirely Commonwealth-owned undertaking. It must be emphasized, however, that apart from necessary changes in the board of directors, the personnel of the company and the wealth of tradition inherited from the original pioneer company, and added to since 1934 by the operations of Qantas Empire Airways Limited itself, remain unchanged. Whilst the original company, the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited, has virtually passed out of existence - I believe that its liquidation is now in process - the name “ Qantas “ coined from its initials, which has become world famous through the years, is still the hall-mark of a mighty airline which can now look forward to the fulfilment of a destiny probably never dreamed of by the original founders in 1920. Of these founders, Mr. W. Hudson Fysh is at the head of the present company as chairman and managing director. I cannot speak too highly of his outstanding qualities, or of the place which he occupies not only in this country but also in the international sphere as an authority on civil air transport. Unfortunately, the original chairman of Qantas Limited, and later of Qantas Empire Airways Limited, Sir Fergus McMaster, was forced to withdraw ‘some time ago because of ill health, but no reference to Qantas would be complete without acknowledging the part which he played in developing, from a very humble beginning, an organization that is known and respected throughout the world.

In addition to Mr. Hudson Fysh, the present board of directors consists of the vice-chairman, Mr. W. C. Taylor, a director of Tasman Empire Airways Limited; Mr. G. P. N. Watt, Acting Secretary to the Treasury, who is also » member of the Australian National Airlines Commission; Mr. D. McVey, who formerly held important posts in the Commonwealth Public Service, including the position of Director-General of Civil Aviation; and Sir Keith Smith, whose contribution to aviation is too well known to require mention here.

I now refer to the actual price paid to Qantas Limited for the 261,500 shares sold to the Commonwealth, namely, £455.000. This represents approximately 34s. lOd. a share, and, as a negotiated price, has no exact basis of calculation. Regard was had, however, to an expert valuation of the shares as at the 31st March, 1946. which was carried out in connexion with the previous purchase from the British Overseas Airways Corporation, to the level- of profits earned since that date, and to the appreciation in value of certain assets above the figure to which they had been written down in the company’s books. Consideration was also given to the improvement in the future prospects of the company since 1946 by the purchase of modern Constellation aircraft, and also to the fact that the Commonwealth’s existing 50 per cent, shareholding implied a guarantee of future profitable operations, and returns to the private shareholders.

In all the circumstances, the price of £455,000 was considered to be very satisfactory from the viewpoint of both parties. It enabled the Commonwealth r,o become the sole owner of a wellestablished air transport undertaking, and it provided sufficient funds to enable the future liquidation of Qantas Limited to return to its shareholders an amount equivalent to the quotation of their shares on Australian Stock Exchanges at the date when negotiations commenced. I am quite satisfied that the transaction represents a good purchase by the Commonwealth, and fair and just compensation ro the Qantas shareholders. The bill before the’ House is designed to ratify the purchase from Qantas Limited, and to appropriate the amount of £455,000, which was temporarily paid from the Treasurer’s Advance.

I referred previously to the purchase by Qantas Empire Airways Limited of four Lockheed Constellation aircraft at an approximate total cost of £2,000,000, and also to the fact that this order was placed before the Commonwealth purchase of the British Overseas Airways Corporation shares. As the company did not have the necessary capital to finance this purchase, it arranged terms with the Lockheed Corporation under which some 900,000 of the purchase price would be covered by promissory notes maturing in series over a period of four years from the date of delivery of the aircraft. Under this arrangement, promissory notes are now in existence to the value of approximately £870,000, and it is considered desirable for many reasons, including a substantial dollar saving on interest payments, that the notes should be paid off as soon as possible.

The remainder of the Constellation purchase has been financed from the company’s existing resources, and by an overdraft with the Commonwealth Bank, which . is now approaching £700,000. Other commitments of the company are of the order of £500,000, leading to the conclusion that the company is undercapitalized to an amount of £2,000,000, present share capital being still only £523,000.

As the sole owner of the company, the Commonwealth is responsible for the provision of adequate capital to enable it to carry out its programme of planned development of international services, and this bill seeks authority for the pro- vision by th Commonwealth of such additional capital amounts as are required from time to time. The bill contains a special appropriation of £2,000,000, which it is intended will be paid to the company before the 30th June, 1948, to enable outstanding commitments to be met at that date; and also a provision which will enable future capital requirements to be provided through the annual vote of the Department of Civil Aviation.

In brief, the bill provides for ratification of the Commonwealth’s purchase of Qantas Empire Airways Limited, and for the availability of funds to allow of its future development as Australia’s international air transport operator. I am firmly convinced that this purchase has been in the best interests of Australia, and that in Qantas Empire Airways Limited we possess an instrument which is serving, and will continue to serve, to maintain our rightful place in international air transport, with consequential benefit to Australian trade and industry, and the reduction of our geographical isolation. This must benefit the Commonwealth as a whole.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The purpose of this bill is to ratify an agreement under which the Commonwealth has undertaken to purchase all the assets of Qantas Empire Airways Limited. The agreement became operative on the 1st July, 1947. The Opposition has already expressed its views on the action of the Government in acquiring air services. We believe that they should be operated by private enterprise. However, it is merely proposed in this bill to appropriate the £2,000,000 that is to be paid to the company to enable it to meet its commitments. I am satisfied that the company possesses assets corresponding to this amount. The bill also appropriates the £455,000 that is to be paid for the 261,500 shares still remaining in the possession of the company, the price being approximately 34s. lOd. a share. Since it commenced operations at Winton in 1920 the company has had a spectacular career, which I have observed with interest. It developed its services rapidly and within 25 years was able to extend its services to the United Kingdom. Ambitious men of vision and integrity have been in charge of its affairs from the beginning, and I am pleased to note that Mr. Hudson Fysh, the manager of the original company, is still in charge of its operations. Unfortunately, other pioneer members of the initial company have not been able to carry on for as long as he has done. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister’s references to Sir Fergus McMaster, one of the founders of the organization, who has devoted his energies since 1920 to the extension of air services to the western regions of Queensland. I hope that this great organization will continue to operate successfully. The Opposition has no desire to impede the passage of the bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– 1 support the bill because it represents another stage in this Government’s policy of nationalizing air services, which is a natural corollary to the proper development of all forms of transportation. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper), in praising the excellent work of the original Qantas company, could not refrain from declaring the Opposition’s faith in private enterprise. Apparently, members of the Opposition would have been happier if the Government had not taken action to gain control of Qantas Empire Airways Limited. I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition, who, as a member of the Australian Country party, allegedly represents the people who live in the far-flung outback areas of Australia, should oppose the nationalization of the means of transport. Consider the history of our railway services. How would people in our country districts have fared if they had been obliged to depend upon private enterprise for the development of rail services? I admit that farsighted men originally planned rail services to supersede bullock teams, but these were incapable of providing fully for the needs of the people. Had their development been left in the hands of private enterprise, I fear that many people whom the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues represent in this Parliament would be cut off from the markets where they now sell their products.

Senator Cooper:

– The original company did very good work.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am not complaining about its efforts. Members of the Opposition, who are so anxious for private enterprise to be given a free hand, forget that, in times of emergency, they expect the State-owned transport instrumentalities to render services that would never be rendered by private companies. The State-owned railway services of Australia provide special concessions for the benefit of primary producers. For instance, wheat is shipped by rail to ports at rates which I. believe to be unprofitable. Special rates are also granted for the cartage of superphosphates to farming areas. All sorts of concessions are made by State enterprise to men on the land. I fail to understand how the Leader of the Opposition, as a representative of the primary producers, can persist in his criticism of nationalized transport services in the light of such facts. I recall the time when a government in Victoria incurred a great deal of expenditure in order to extend railway lines to certain parts of New South Wales, under an agreement with the government of that State, in order to meet the needs of wool and wheat producers. These services were intended to take the place of the slow and outmoded system of water transport, which involved the shipment of primary products by barge down the Darling, Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers to the rail head. Similar services were made available to farmers elsewhere in New South Wales, and in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. In spite of all this, the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters now want to displace rail services by the use of motor transport. Honorable senators opposite are unmindful of the great services that are rendered at concessional rates by State-owned transport undertakings in the interests of the community as a whole. That is largely the explanation of railway deficits. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, when discussing a measure earlier this afternoon, deplored the deficit incurred on the Western Australian railways, and contended that greater care should be taken by the government of that State in framing its budget. In answer to that statement, the Minister explained that the State’s deficit was due largely to the loss incurred on its railways. That is the story in all of the States, because railway finance looms so largely in State governmental finance. We must always remember that the primary function of the railways in each State is to serve the interests of the community as a whole. That should be the guiding principle in the establishment and functioning of airlines and shipping lines. Very few great companies which established shipping lines were able to operate profitably without assistance in the form of a subsidy from their respective governments. The same is true of airlines. Venturesome pioneers inaugurated airlines in every country, but did not have sufficient financial resources to keep abreast of the rapid developments in modern aviation, and governments had to go to their aid. In view of the huge expenditure involved, government control of airlines is essential to ensure the greatest degree of safety and to provide the best possible services. If this proposal does nothing but link up the company with the Australian and British Governments it will assure to passengers complete safety and also place at their disposal the most modern improvements that science can devise. For those reasons I support the bill. I trust that as the result of this amalgamation the new organization will be able to provide an unrivalled air service between Australia and overseas countries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2350

QUESTION

FRIDAY ADJOURNMENT AT

3.45 p.m.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– 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 -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2350

H.M.A.S. SYDNEY REPLACEMENT FUND BILL 1948.

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 Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

When the cruiser, H.M.A.S. Sydney was lost at the end of 1941, an Australiawide effort resulted in the subscription of £426,000 towards its replacement. The moneys received were credited to a head of the trust fund styled H.M.A.S. Sydney Replacement Fund for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act. As the prospect of obtaining a further cruiser in the near future is remote, it has been decided that an aircraft carrier to be purchased from the United Kingdom shall be named H.M.A.S. Sydney. Although the purpose of the public subscriptions was to replace the cruiser, it is believed that the wishes of the subscribers will be met by utilizing the moneys towards the purchase of the aircraft carrier provided that it bears the name of the lost cruiser. Nevertheless, as there is some variation of the purpose of the fund, parliamentary authority is necessary to permit the moneys to be so applied.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Minister has explained the purpose of the bill. 3 take it that the Naval Board has recommended that an aircraft carrier will be a suitable unit for the Royal Australia Navy. However, I should like an assurance on that point. If that be so, I have no doubt that those who so generously subscribed to this fund will readily acquiesce in this proposal.I need only add that the measure recalls to our mind the wonderful spirit and generosity exhibited by the people of Australia at a critical stage of the recent war.

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

. - in reply - I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) that the Naval Board has been consulted in this matter.

Senator Cooper:

– Are the trustees of the fund satisfied with this proposal?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. It is also necessary under the Audit Act to take this action as it is proposed that the fund shall be used for a purpose other than that for which it was originally subscribed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2351

PRIMARY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGES REPEAL BILL 1948

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.

The Primary Produce Export Charges Act and the Primary Produce Export Organization Act were passed in 1935 to provide funds for publicity and research in relation to the egg and apple and pear industries. There were at that time no statutory boards to act for those industries and voluntary organizations in the Egg Producers Council and the Australian Apple and Pear Export Council carried out those functions. In 1938, legislation was passed setting up an Australian Apple and Pear Board with separate provision for its financial requirements and the charge imposed by the Primary Produce Export Charges Act 1935 on apples and pears was repealed. Last year the Australian Egg Board was similarly constituted under special legislation, and it is now desired to repeal the remaining sections of the earlier acts. The Australian Egg Board and the Australian Apple and Pear Board are now the statutory authorities constituted under Commonwealth law to act for their respective industries in matters of publicity overseas and research into problems affecting the export trade. Therefore, provision in made in clause 4 of this bill for the transfer to them of the outstanding balances of funds collected under the acts now being repealed.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– As the Minister has explained, this bill is primarily intended to repeal those provisions of the principal act under which exporters of eggs are required to pay a levy equivalent to 2d. a case of 30 dozen eggs exported. That charge was imposed in order to finance the publicity and research carried out by the Egg Producers Council. Under clause 4 of the bill the accumulated funds held by the Council will be transferred to the Australian Egg Board. The board is financed by a levy equivalent to -Jd. a dozen eggs under the Egg Export Charges Act 1947, and the object of the bill is to cancel the charge imposed by the act under review. When legislation setting up the Australian Apple and Pear Board was enacted in 1938 the board was to be financed by a levy on exports imposed under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act and the relevant provisions of the Primary Produce Export Charges Act 1935 were repealed. Under the amending act of 1947, the Australian Apple and Pear Board is being reconstituted to take over control of the industry when acquisition ceases. A maximum charge of ¾d. a case exported is prescribed under the act. I understand that the balance of the funds held by the Australian Apple and Pear Export Council at the end of 1939 are to be similarly transferred to the Australian Apple and Pear Board.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2351

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (NATIONAL STANDARDS) BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended..

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

Second Beading.

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has the power to legislate in regard to weights and measures. In the report of the Commonwealth Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1930, attention was directed to evidence given to the commission urging that the Commonwealth should exercise its constitutional powers so as to provide for a uniform system of weights and measures for Australia. It was pointed out in ‘evidence that each State had established its own standards of measurement and that considerable difficulties arose from lack of uniformity between the provisions of the States Weights and Measures Acts. At a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in 1939, reference was made to a resolution of the Premiers Conference in 1936 to the effect that if the Australian Government enacted legislation covering the establishment and maintenance of Commonwealth standards of measurement, the States would fully co-operate in regard to the adoption of such standards throughout Australia.

The words “ weights and measures “ are often thought of in their respective historic sense relating to the weights and measures used in commercial transactions ; in fact, however, they apply to the standards of measurement of all physical quantities with which commerce, industry and science are concerned, such as mass, length, time interval, volume, area, pressure, density, electrical current, electrical power, illumination, temperature, quantity of heat, and so on. These standards are necessary for such diverse measurements as those required in many manufacturing operations, for the sale of land, for the blood temperature of a patient, for the supply of electricity, for scientific research, and for the sale of innumerable materials by measurement of weight, length, area or volume. The provision, maintenance, and use of national reference standards of measurement constitutes the recognized foundation for all modern industry and commerce and for scientific and technical activities. Australia must follow the example of other countries in providing facilities to ensure that measurements shall be what they purport to be and in giving legal sanction to its national standards of measurement. The Government has already taken the necessary steps for the provision of the various standards of measurement which are required. A National Standards Laboratory has been established in Sydney under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, and its divisions of electrotechnology, metrology and physics have built up the necessary staff and facilities for the maintenance of the Commonwealth standards of measurement of various physical quantities. The time is now ripe for these standards of measurement to be givenlegal sanction and this is the purpose of the present bill.

One of the functions of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research specified in the act under which the council was constituted is “ the testing andstandardization of scientific apparatusand instruments and the carrying out of” scientific investigations connected with standardization of apparatus, machinery, materials and instruments used in industry”. For ordinary commercial purposes a very high degree of accuracy in the standards of measurement is not necessary, hut that is not the case with respect to standards for scientific and technical work and for many industrial requirements. The need for measuring instruments of a very high order of accuracy for scientific work is obvious. Moreover, frequently it is only by accurate measurements of one kind or another that the processes of manufacture can be controlled so as to maintain efficient and economic production. One of the obviousexamples of this is in the mass production of components, which is of course possible only if manufacture is controlled within very fine limits of accuracy and inwhich such marked progress has been made possible in Australia during thewar largely as a result of the facilities afforded by the Munitions Supply Laboratories and the National Standards

Laboratory for accurate measurements of length and for the design of gauges. Gauges and other measuring instruments are, of course, subject to changes with time and use and must therefore be calibrated periodically. For such purposes a factory requires to have master gauges with which the working gauges used in the shops can be checked. These master gauges must, however, in turn be calibrated periodically against gauges of a still higher degree of accuracy. These are called sub-standards, and the accuracy of these must again be checked from time to time with the primary reference standards maintained at the National Standards Laboratory.

The preceding remarks relate to requirements with regard to measurement of length, but a very similar position exists in relation to other units of measurement. For example, with regard to electrical units there is an urgent need for legally recognized reference standards. When it is realized that there are vast numbers of electrical measuring instruments used in Australia which form the basis for many determinations, both technical and financial, and that there is no authoritative Commonwealth court of appeal as to the accuracy of these instruments, the importance of establishing legalized national electrical reference standards for the Commonwealth is obvious. In relation to optics, thermometry, and other branches of physics which affect a number of industries a similar state of affairs exists, with a corresponding need for national reference standards carrying the force of law. In exercising its power under the Constitution Act, the Commonwealth could take over complete control throughout Australia of the administration of weights and measures, or it could arrange for the administration to be carried out through the existing State instrumentalities. This latter course has been chosen in formulating the present bill. The bill provides for Commonwealth standards of measurement which will be the ultimate reference standards throughout the Commonwealth. Provision has been made for existing State standards of measurement to be calibrated against the Commonwealth standards and thus be given legal validity. This will ensure that all measurements will ultimately be referred back to one set of standards, the Commonwealth standards of measurement maintained in the National Standards Laboratory of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

In drafting the bill consideration has been given to discussions which are at present taking place in the United Kingdom on the subject of weights and measures legislation and which will probably result in the amendment of existing British legislation. At present, British legislation sets out in the various acts concerned, precise definitions of the standards of length, mass, volume, and several others, and the methods to be followed in realizing these standards in practice. Advances in scientific method have made obsolete much of this technical material included in the acts, and it is now felt that in future such technical details should be omitted from the acts and incorporated in regulations. This procedure has, in fact, already been adopted in respect of British legislation covering the electrical standards and many others, decisions as to the precise form of the standards and the methods of realizing them in practice being left to the Board of Trade.

Finally, the State governments have been consulted in regard to the detailed provisions of the bill and are in agreement with its proposals for the establishment of Commonwealth standards of measurement to replace the standards provided under existing State legislation. The bill provides for machinery whereby these State standards may be calibrated against the Commonwealth standards of measurement and thus become recognized working standards having full legal validity. The existing States weights and measures administration will then function as at present in regard to the protection of the public against unjust trading practices involving the use of measures of length or volume and weight. In short, all concerned in the matter covered by the bill, both Commonwealth and State, agree that the time is ripe for action along the lines proposed and believe that such action can do nothing but help the national well-being. I commend the bill.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Opposition has no desire to oppose the passage of this bill, believing it to be necessary to have common weights and measures throughout the Commonwealth. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth is empowered to legislate in respect of weights and measures, and the object of the bill is to establish Commonwealth standards of measures to replace the standards provided under existing State legislation. The States have been consulted on this matter and are prepared to co-operate with the Commonwealth in every possible way. The disadvantage of having differing standards of weights and measure was proved during the war period. We should endeavour to adopt uniform weights and measures, not only on a nation-wide basis, but also, if it be practicable, on an international basis. Owners of motor cars suffer great disadvantages because of. the use by American and British manufacturers of differing gauge bolts. Motorists generally would be glad if uniform bolts were adopted on all makes of motor cars. The National Standards Laboratory, which has been established in Sydney under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has investigated and made recommendations to the Government in respect of standard weights and measures and this bill seeks legal sanction for the adoption of those standards. The Opposition commends the bill and will do everything to facilitate its speedy passage through the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2354

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1948

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 Shipping and Fuel · ALP

.. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the Public Service; Act so as to bring under it all civiliansemployed under the Defence and Air Force Acts in the Departments of Defence the Army and Air; also civiliansemployed in office administrative and clerical positions under the Naval Defence Act, and salaried officers and’ employees, but not wages staffs, under theSupply and Development Act and , the National Security (Munitions) Regulations. All future civilian employment in the Departments of Defence, the Army and Air, and future appointments in. the Departments of the Navy and Supply and Development in the categories towhich I have referred, will be made under the Public Service Act. The bill alsoprovides an opportunity for certain exemployees of the Melbourne Harbour Trust now employed under the Naval Defence Act to secure permanent appointment to the Commonwealth Service.

The transfer of staffs to be effected i* in accordance with recommendation* made by a Committee of Review of Civil Staffing of War-time Activities appointed by the Government in 1945. No increase of the total number in Government employment is involved, and the conditions of employment of staffs transferred will not be adversely affected by the change. About 900 permanent officers and 7,000 temporary employees will be transferred. The ex-employees of the Melbourne Harbour Trust to whom permanent appointment may be offered are a small group of fifteen or so who were among those taken over by the Department of the Navy when the Government purchased the Williamstown dockyard from the Melbourne Harbour Trust in 1942. They had been employed on clerical or associated office duties in connexion with the dockyard and their tenure of office with the trust was to all intents and purposes permanent. The Government desires that these employees shall not suffer any loss of security of tenure because of the sale of the dockyard by their employer. Other exHarbour Trust employees taken over will continue to be temporarily employed while the need for their services continues.

The bill contains consequential amendments to the sections of the Defence Act and the Naval Defence Act dealing with civil employment power under these acts. The legislation is on the same lines as that under which the transfer of war service homes and repatriation staffs was effected last year. The Government adheres to the view then expressed that to the greatest practicable extent responsibility for employment in the Service, co-ordination of conditions of employment, and overall staffing efficiency, shall be vested in some authority - the Public Service Board. The provisions of this bill are in harmony with that objective, and I commend them for the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill is introduced to give effect to the recommendation of the Pinner committee, set up to review civil staffing of war-time activities of Commonwealth departments. It is proposed to bring under the Commonwealth Public Service Act all civilians now employed in the Departments of Defence, the Navy, the Army and Air, and also salaried officers in the Department of Supply and Development. About 900 permanent officers and 7,000 temporary officers will be transferred. Officers of the Repatriation Department and the War Service Homes Department were similarly transferred some time ago. All future civilian employment in the service departments and the Department of Supply and Development will be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act. About fifteen employees of the Department of the Navy, earlier taken over from the Melbourne Harbour Trust, will acquire permanent status in the Public Service. I am glad to learn that conditions of employment of the staffs to be transferred will not be adversely affected, and that accrued rights in respect of longservice and other leave are to be preserved to them.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill, as it is obviously desirable that one authority - the Public Service Board - ihould control appointments to and co ordinate conditions of employment in, the Commonwealth Public Service.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2356

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1946-47

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:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

These Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure total £7,054,139 and relate to the financial year 1946-47. The amounts set out were expended out of a general appropriation from revenue of £10,000,000, made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. It is now necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure for which approval is now sought were included in the Estimates and Budget Papers for 1947-48. These publications show the amount voted for 1947-48. together with the actual expenditure for the previous year which is included for informative purposes. Details are also included in the Treasurer’s Financial Statement for 1946-47 which has been tabled for the information of honorable senators. The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. The chief items, in round figures, are -

Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill relates to moneys which were expended out of a general appropriation of revenue in the financial year 1946-47. The Minister for Supply and Fuel (Senator Ashley) has explained that details of the expenditure were included in the Estimates the Budget Papers for 194-48. My only comment is that the Government appears to have been dilatory in no having sought earlier parliamentary approval of this expenditure. I shall not oppose the passing of the bill, but I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the delay.

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

in reply - The procedure which the Government has adopted on this occasion has been the practice for years. The details of the expenditure were included in the Treasurer’s financial statement for 1946-47.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2356

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL .1946-1947

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 Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The total appropriation passed by the Parliament for works and services under this heading amounted to £21,648,000. The actual expenditure was £13,126,000 or £8,522,000 less than the appropriation. Due, however, to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated, and it is now necessary to obtain parliamenary approval of these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items concerned totals £617,678, which is spread over the various works items of the departments. Any details which may be required will be furnished at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill is a machinery measure to cover certain items of expenditure in excess of the original amounts appropriated. The Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I should like the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) to explain the amount of £91,400 provided for the construction of Beaufort homes. I assume that it is an additional amount required to complete a contract.

Senator Ashley:

– That expenditure was not envisaged at the time the original estimate was prepared.

Senator COOPER:

– Is the expenditure additional to that which was provided originally to cover the cost of constructing Beaufort homes? Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform me of the number of homes which it is proposed to construct ?

Senator Ashley:

– The amount shown is what was originally provided for the building of a certain number of homes, in other words, the original advance for the manufacture of the homes.

Bill agreed to. Bill reported without, amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2356

QUESTION

WATCHES

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– This morning Senator Clothier asked me the following questions without notice : -

  1. What is the present position regarding the importation of watches?
  2. Are any licences being issued at present; if not, why not?
  3. Are the committees controlling importation still in existence?
  4. When will import controls be abolished?

The answers to those questions are - 1 and 2. Licences are granted to (a) importers who established quotas based on their importations during 1938-30; (6) exservicemen who need quotas of watches to assist them in rehabilitating themselves and who had some experience in selling or repairing watches before their enlistment or after their demobilization. 3 and 4. There are no committees controlling importations. There are, however, committees in each State and a central committee which advises mc on the eligibility of each applicant for an ex-serviceman’s quota. The committees act in an advisory capacity only and it is Intended to continue to use them for the purpose for which they were created. They have no voice in the control of watches imported by base year quota holders. I would explain that as the Swiss franc is a hard currency licences are issued for essential commodities only and for limited values. Generally speaking the year 1933-39 is adopted as a standard to measure the level of importations from Switzerland. Varying percentages of the value of watches imported in that year have been permitted importation. These percentages were divided proportionately amongst the merchants (quota holders) who imported the watches in 1938-39. After the termination of the second world war there was a strong demand by exservicemen for quotas to enable them to import watches from Switzerland. There was a great shortage of watches at the time and it appeared that the grant of the quota would not only help in the rehabilitation of the men, but would do much to alleviate the shortage. The Government recognized that if importations of watches were restricted to the values imported in 1938-39 fewer watches would be obtained at the high prices ruling in 1945-40. Consequently, the Government decided to grant quotas of £2,700 each to 23 ex-servicemen who had made application for quotas. The granting of these quotas was followed by a flood of over 200 further applications from ex-servicemen. As the granting of quotas for a similar amount to that granted to the original 23 applicants would have involved a huge expenditure of hard Swiss currency, it was decided to review all applications on hand and all quotas previously issued to ex-servicemen. The review was made by committees representing the Department of Trade and Customs and the watch trade. Eligibility for a special quota was determined in each case, chiefly on the applicant’s claim for assistance towards his rehabilitation. As a result of this review quotas granted were either terminated or renewed on a reduced basis. Applications are still being received and quotas are still being grunted to ex-servicemen, when the circumstances warrant such a course, for such amounts as are considered necessary to assist the applicants to establish themselves in business hut in no case is a quota granted for a greater amount than £1,500 to a whole saler. The amount granted to retailers varies according to the class of business being conducted or proposed to be conducted by the applicant.

page 2357

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 termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2357

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) 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 2357

ADJOURNMENT

The PARLIAMENT: Initiation ov Business.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) inform me whether it is possible to arrange for more measures to be initiated in the Senate? In making that request of the Minister I am expressing the wish, not only of members of the Opposition, but also of a number of Government supporters. The times occupied in sittings by the Senate and the House of Representatives are quite disproportionate, and. I consider that it should be possible to arrange for the two Houses of the Parliament to overcome such an apparent inequality. I appreciate, of course, that the Senate has only half the numerical strength of the House of Representatives, but that should not prevent a more equal distribution of parliamentary functions between the two Houses. As an example of my contention, I point out that a number of the measures which were considered by the Senate this afternoon might very well have been initiated in this chamber instead of in theHouse of Representatives. I agree that they were quite short. The initiation, in the Senate of even minor legislation. would establish a precedent for the introduction of measures of greater importance. I emphasize that in making that suggestion I am not seeking to gain party political capital from the situation.

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

. - in reply - This is not the first occasion on which the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) has been advanced. I recall that when the party which I lead in this chamber was in opposition, its members made similar requests. Ever since I have been a member of the Parliament there has been a rush of legislation at the conclusion of sessional periods. One of the practical difficulties in the way of adopting the honorable senator’s suggestion is that the Constitution requires that any measure which entails the appropriation of public money must be initiated in the House of Representatives. The Leader of the Opposition must be aware of that provision. However, I consider that a little more recognition should be extended to the Senate by the Government, and I am conscious of the need to synchronize the sitting of the two Houses. Although this matter has been considered many times by the present and preceding governments, it has never been found possible to synchronize completely the activities of the two Houses. I remember, as does the

Leader of the Opposition, the time when honorable senators had to remain within the precincts of Parliament House for lengthy periods towards the termination of sessional periods awaiting the passage of measures by the House of Representatives. Often we were brought back for only an hour. Instead of summoning honorable senators to meet and then leaving them to sit about the building without any business to transact, the endeavour has been to make an adjustment between the time they are here and the amount of work that has to be done. I shall place the representations of the Leader of the Opposition before the Prime Minister and shall endeavour to see whether more legislation can be initiated by the Senate in future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2358

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1948 - No. 36 - Australian Broadcasting Commissi on Senior Officer’s Association.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) ActNational Security (Prices) RegulationsDeclarations Nos.169, 170, 171.

Orders - Nos. 3323-3325.

National Security (Rabbit Skins) Regulations - Order - Returns.

Senate ad journed at 4.55 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

BY AUTHORITY: L F. JOHNSTON. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER. CANBERRA.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 June 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19480618_senate_18_197/>.