22nd Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 135
– Does the Minister for Shipping and Transport recollect that on 21st March, in reply to a question about whether the Western Australian Government had made representations to the Commonwealth Government for the construction of a broad-gauge railway from Perth to Kalgoorlie, he said-
– I rise to a point of order. Ministers in both chambers have decided that, while the Government is under censure,asit is in terms of the amendment moved by Senator McKenna to the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, we should follow the usual parliamentary procedure of dealing, apart from formal matters, only with the amendment until it is disposed of. That would mean that question time would be eliminated until the amendment was disposed of.
– The Leader of the Government in the Senate intimated to me, whenI entered the chamber, that he proposed to adopt this attitude. I think that, when a censure motion is before the Senate., that is quite a proper attitude to adopt and the Government should concern itself only with formal matters.I point out,however, that on Thursday last we ‘had the usual question time, the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply having been moved by me on the preceding day.
– But it was not elaborated upon or developed.
– The motion was pat in issue instantly and was before the Government and the Senate. I point out that theGovernment had an opportunity to consider its position between then and the following morning.I repeat that I think the attitude now adopted is a proper one, but I direct attention to the fact that it was not adopted at that time.
– I wish to speak to the point oforder. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate now wishes to take the point that questions ought to be disregarded when there is a censuremotion before another place-
– It is before the Senate, too.
– When there has been a censure motion before another place, the procedure has always been for the Senate to adjourn until the matter has been disposed of in that place. I suggest that, if the Ministerwishes the Senate to follow the usual procedure, heshould follow the course that has been followed in the past andmove that the Senate do now adjourn.
– The Leader of the Government in the Senate having decided that time shall not be allotted for the asking of questions, the Senate will proceed with the next business.
page 135
page 135
Debate resumed from 21st March (vide page 134), on motion by Senator Hannan -
That the following Address-in-Reply tothe Speech of His Excellencythe Governor-General be agreed to: -
May it Please Your Excellency -
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency forthe Speech which you have beenpleased to address to Parliament.
Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -
That the following paragraphs be added to the Address-in-Reply, viz: -
The Government is censured for the statement of housing policy announced by the Prime Minister on 7th March last and for the acute social ills caused by its continued failure to establish, in conjunction -with the States, a national housing plan.
This failure has been largely caused by the provision of inadequate finance for home building for-
State governments;
war service homes;
co-operative building societies;
Australians seeking to build their own homes.
The national plan should -have regard to -
immediate reduction of migrant intake;
employment of the maximum work force in the home-building industry;
availability of materials.
It should providefor -
priority to home-building over less essential private investment;
provision of sufficient finance to promote home-ownership at low rates of interest.”.
And upon the following amendment by Senator Cole to Senator McKenna’s proposed amendment -
That paragraph 4 of the amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ (a) immediate reduction of,, migrant intake;.”., and inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “ (a) the establishment of a Commonwealth-State Housing Authority to coordinate its activities with the various State housing bodies; “.
Senator HANNAFORD (South Australia) [3.5). - When speaking last Thursday night on the motion before the Senate, I dealt with the important matter of civil defence, and I told the Senate something of the experience of members of this Parliament, of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, who attended the school for civil defence at Mount Macedon. I finished on the topic of responsibility for civil defence.
We are all aware that at the present time, in view of the provisions of the Constitution, the main burden of civil defence falls upon the States, but I think we must recognize, too, that ultimately this must be a Commonwealth responsibility. In fact, I said that I believed that civil defence could be termed the fourth arm of our defence services. Whilst I recognize that, for the present at least, the States must continue to function in developing the civil defence services of the Commonwealth - and they are doing this to a limited extent, I understand - I realize that the main burden will fall ultimately upon the Commonwealth, which will have to furnish money in sufficient volume to provide an adequate civil defence service throughout the country. A great deal more money than has been provided by the Commonwealth Parliament or the Commonwealth Government in the past will be needed, because the problem is very grave. At the present time, unfortunately, we are adopting a cheese-paring attitude in regard to this matter. It is time that we began to adopt a more realistic attitude to this national problem. We know that the world is extremely disturbed. I mention in passing the problem that has been in existence in regard to the Suez Canal. We do not know when international tension will be eased. For that reason, it behoves us in this Commonwealth Parliament to look at this matter in all seriousness and to realize that it is our responsibility to do something in regard to civil defence.
I want to touch upon one or two matters that are, I believe, of importance in respect of the manner in which we can protect ourselves against many of the weapons that are being developed now. We know that our military strategy is, to a large extent, in a state of flux. I do not suggest that I am an authority on these questions, but, at least, I do a certain amount of reading. 1 am convinced that we must re-orientate our ideas on how we can best defend this country in the event of invasion or attack from a hostile quarter. We are confronted with the fact that conventional warfare, as we knew it in the past, could easily be replaced by a type of warfare in regard to which we could only take the considered opinions of experts and, perhaps, form an idea on whether or not the new weapons would be used in the future. We know that there has been marked development with guided missiles. We know that there are guided weapon research establishments at Woomera and at Salisbury, in South Australia. They are financed by the Australian Government and the United Kingdom Government and many experiments are being conducted in that field. We know that an atomic warhead can be attached to the guided missiles. Senator Gorton spoke about the possibilities of an attack by aeroplanes directed by radio from a long distance at sea, and pointed out that heavy damage could be inflicted in this way upon our coastal cities and possibly upon others farther inland. We must recognize that this threat exists.
One nation, which I shall not name, is very well equipped with submarines. We do not know whether they are driven by atomic power or equipped with atomic missiles. The chances are that they are so equipped and powered, and that they could get within reach of our big coastal cities and cause tremendous destruction. Should we have the misfortune to be attacked, we would suffer grievous loss of life and damage to property. We must do something to protect ourselves and to counter the shocking effects of such raids. I suggest that civil defence is essential in the national interest, even if only to combat conventional weapons.
Recently, I read an interesting book written by two Japanese ex-naval officers. They gave the story of Japanese sea strategy during World War II. They pointed out that, fortunately for us, there was conflict in the Japanese high command as to the strategy that should be adopted in the Pacific. They stated that if the Japanese task force, which was heavily defeated at Midway Island, had been diverted to another destination, Sydney could have been bombed heavily. The same task force bombed Darwin and raided Tricomalee in Ceylon. Had it taken another course, which was open to it, and attacked the New Caledonian area instead of Midway, Sydney could have felt the effects of Japanese bombs. We escaped that tragedy narrowly. Is it not obvious, therefore, that we must do something in the way of civil defence? We know that we have only a thin margin of safety even against conventional weapons.
– 1 am not discussing that at the moment. I am advocating that the Government do something about it. I am not trying to brush aside the suggestion that we have not done a great deal in the matter. 1 freely acknowledge that we have done very little, but that does not mean that we should not get on with the job now. At this school for civil defence, at Mount Macedon, in Victoria, some facts were given to us that were blood chilling in their effect upon us. I have made a fairly careful study of the papers that were delivered to us. The lectures on the effect of the nuclear bomb were undoubtedly very illuminating to us as laymen. This is the bomb which has been evolved since 1945, when it was first used on Hiroshima, and later on Nagasaki.
With your permission, Mr. President, 1 should like to say something about the effects of the nuclear bomb on cities and their inhabitants. I should say that when we heard about them, we were extremely disturbed. We knew what had taken place in those cities of Japan, but this school for civil defence brought home very strongly to us just what we could expect should this country be attacked with nuclear bombs. I shall endeavour to impart to honorable senators some of the details relating to the dimensions of the explosions that could take place and the tremendous effects they would have on the cities so attacked, and upon the inhabitants of those cities.
In the first place, it was made perfectly clear to us that the ordinary atom bomb, about which we have heard so much, and which was used against Nagasaki, is a mere baby compared with the hydrogen bomb which has now been developed, and which is being stockpiled, so far as we know, not only in America, but also in Russia. The hydrogen bomb almost beggars description. Honorable senators can have no conception of the terrific power that is unleashed when such a bomb is exploded. From time to time, we have heard of the experiments in the Pacific. We have also seen our own country used as an experimental base for explosions at Maralinga. Some conception of the power of those explosions can only be grasped by th. fact that when a nominal bomb - that is, the Hiroshima bomb - is exploded, it has the same effect as the explosion of 20,000 tons of trinitrotoluene, or T.N.T., as we know it, while the hydrogen bomb, which is called the megaton bomb, is 500 times more powerful. In other words, its explosion is equal to that of 10,000,000 tons of T.N.T. As 1 said earlier, it beggars description. One just cannot comprehend the terrific force that is unleashed when such a bomb is exploded.
The scientists have different methods of exploding these bombs. There are various types of burst. For instance, there can be the air burst which would take place, perhaps, 1,000 or 2,000 feet above the ground and which would have calamitous effects upon a city underneath. The burst would simply collapse everything underneath it. and it would have a tremendous radius. I shall touch on the radius point in a minute. First, we have to deal with the blast that follows the immediate explosion.
There is no accurate way of describing the pressure that is released when such a bomb is exploded. The pressure wave is followed by a suction wave which is almost equally devastating in its effects. The period of pressure of the nominal bomb, that is, the ordinary atomic bomb, runs from 0.7 of a second to one second, whereas the hydrogen bomb pressure actually lasts for as long as from five to seven seconds. Of course, houses could not withstand a pressure of that magnitude; nothing could with- . stand such a terrific force. I do not know . whether this force can be expressed in terms of miles per hour, as the velocity of wind is expressed, but during the last war the pressure of an ordinary bomb blast against buildings was said to be equivalent to a wind velocity of 400 miles an hour. Therefore, the blast from a hydrogen bomb against a building would probably be equivalent to the pressure exerted by wind travelling at thousands of miles an hour. From what I have said, honorable senators may be able to appreciate the devastating effects of hydrogen bombs exploded either on the ground or in the air. Ground-level bursts have a devastating effect over a wide radius. Only those inhabitants of an affected area who took refuge in underground shelters would have a chance of survival. The farther the underground shelters are away from the bomb burst, the greater is the chance of the inhabitants’ survival.
I have dealt in a general way with the effects of blast. But perhaps the effect of the associated heat radiation on city buildings and their inhabitants is equally severe. As far as I know, the heat generated by the explosion of a hydrogen bomb has never been measured in terms of degrees of centigrade. The heat causes the spontaneous combustion of. any combustible; material within a large radius. Therefore, in addition to the blast, considerable damage is caused by heat radiation at a rate equal to the speed of light - that is, 186,000 miles a second. It is obvious that persons who are in the ground zero area, have very little chance of surviving the explosion of an atomic or a hydrogen bomb..
The third factor, because of its mysterious nature, is to be feared more, perhaps, than the other two factors. We are familiar with the effects of blast and heat from the atomic bombs that were dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I understand that, in each instance, there was an air burst. In addition to damage by blast and heat radiation, there is a deadly radioactive fall-out after an atomic explosion. Gamma rays emitted by the explosion of an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb constitute a grave threat to all living things over a wide area. For that reason, this factor is perhaps more to be feared than the other two. At least, it is possible to take precaution against heat and blast by providing deep, underground shelters. I do not want to go into the scientific details of the radiation of the gamma ray for the simple reason that I could not do so. I am prepared to accept the word of the scientists who tell us something of the effect of the gamma ray and inform us that it is part and parcel of the atomic explosion. The effect is such that it destroys all those people within a very wide radius of the original explosion. It destroys the red corpuscles of the blood and brings about a condition called radiation sickness. It can have incalculable harm on the community, not only in the area in close proximity to the explosion, but also in- those areas distantly removed, from the centre of the explosion.
Then there is what is called a ground’ explosion. That ground explosion, in addition to the ill-effects I have already mentioned, can bring about devastating effects on the surrounding countryside by way of radio-active fall-out. We have read of what happened to some unfortunate . Japanese seamen in the Pacific. How much more devastating could the effect have been had that radio-active fall-out taken place on the countryside adjacent to any large city? All these factors have to be taken into consideration. We have adapted ourselves to countering, in a minor degree, the effects of conventional bombing, but we have had practically no experience of what takes place if a nuclear bomb is exploded, above a city. We know something of the effects of nuclear bombs and we have to take what steps we can to protect ourselves in the event of such an explosion.
I mentioned earlier that I would give some details of the range of these particular explosions. I have with me a manual which gives the details of the range of the destructive effect, not only of the atomic explosion, or the ordinary one megaton bomb, but also of the hydrogen bomb. In the case of the ordinary or nominal bomb the total destruction extends over an area half a mile in diameter, but in the case of a hydrogen bomb the diameter of the ground zero - the minimum area adjacent to the bomb - extends over two and three-quarter miles. One can realize it would need to be a very large city that would not be encompassed by such and explosion. The centre portion of it at least would be devastated. With a nominal bomb, irreparable damage is caused within a radius of three-quarters of a mile.
– What is the weight of the bomb?
– 1 have no details as to the weight of the bomb but the type of bomb used in Japan was a comparatively small bomb, I understand. I am referring now to the hydrogen bomb. As I was saying, in the case of the nominal bomb irreparable damage is caused within a radius of three-quarters of a mile, but in the case of the hydrogen bomb irreparable damage takes place within a radius of five and a half miles. Mild to severe damage is caused by a nominal bomb for a farther distance of two miles.
– Which bomb is that?
– That is the ordinary atomic bomb or the one megaton bomb as they call it. The ten megaton bomb is the hydrogen bomb. The diameter of the area in which moderate to severe damage would result from a nominal bomb would be 2 miles, but that of a hydrogen bomb would be 9 miles. Light damage from the first type would .be spread over a diameter of 3 miles and from a hydrogen bomb, of 12 miles. If a hydrogen bomb were dropped on a city the size of Melbourne total destruction would take place at the centre of .the explosion, irreparable damage in the adjacent area, moderate to severe damage further out and light damage up to 6 miles away. That calculation does not take into account the effects of radiation, which would be felt for many hours after the explosion.
We are dealing with something of which we cannot grasp the full significance. We are indebted to those scientists and others who have done, their utmost to gain information to enable us to counter the dangers that are inherent in such a weapon. For that reason we were called to Mount Macedon to learn something of the effects of this most terrible weapon. That convention was arranged to educate ‘members of this Parliament in regard to the terror that could be inflicted on our people at a moment’s notice. For years the people of Australia have been going along in a complacent manner, secure in the thought of our isolation - which, in fact, does not exist - and thinking that such things could not happen here. They could happen here overnight, and if they did the places attacked would be left in a shocking condition.
Those who attended at Mount Macedon were given the information 1 have just detailed as to the destructive effects of the hydrogen bomb and the measures that have been evolved, as a result of experience in other countries, to counter them. Any of us who had experience of the civil defence organizations during World War 11. will realize thai we are dealing with a danger that differs very little in principle from what was experienced by England and Germany during that period. However, the destructive effect of atomic warfare would be much greater. Other countries are not taking this matter lightly. A friend of mine who recently returned from the United States of America told me that the authorities there regard it with the utmost seriousness. In the City of New York the people were recently subjected to a civil defence alert without any warning, and the response showed that some semblance of organization had been developed in that city to counter the effects of an atomic explosion.
The principle of civil defence is much the same as it was during World War II. We then had the valuable assistance of the warden services, without which no civil defence organization can function properly. The wardens cover a very wide field. They are trained in very many activities. They’ are trained to counter fire and to attend to the sick and wounded and others who are affected by explosion. Orthodox shelters are invaluable in countering the effects of an atomic or any other kind of explosion. The ordinary Anderson shelter, which was so successful in England during the last war, is well suited to protecting the public, not only against , heat and blast, but also against the insidious gamma ray.
The civil defence authorities have arranged for areas in the more remote localities to provide mutual aid and reception. In other words, if such a calamity were to befall a city, adjacent areas could, immediately come to its aid. Moving injured people, attending to their needs, feeding and sheltering them is an enormous task, but in this way the civil defence organization would help to mitigate the effects of a raid. In addition, certain men. are trained to counter the destructive effects of fire. I said earlier that we had no conception of the heat blast from an atomic explosion, and that ordinary combustible materials simply burst into flames. Spontaneous combustion occurs, and they burn. What is not destroyed by blast is destroyed by fire. In the areas adjacent to the centre of an atomic explosion there is very great destruction, and fire breaks out throughout the length and breadth of the affected area. Consequently, it is necessary to have men who trained in fire control. We already have very limited fire control and specialists in that field, but just let us imagine what would happen when half of a city that had suffered an atomic blast was burning. It would be necessary to have a tremendous body of people who were willing and able to control the fires. It would be necessary also to have first-aid posts associated with the warden services. These things are obvious to everybody, and that is why I say that the value of warden ser. vices and civil defence training cannot be overestimated.
Another important aspect of civil defence, which is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to a greater degree than of any other authority, is the stock-piling of food and materials. It is necessary, for one thing, to provide the simple necessity of water. It is necessary also to provide a certain quantity of fuel for transport, and food. Fortunately, we are extremely well placed in this country, because adjacent to our cities we have large areas that are rich in foodproducing qualities, and we do not feel that the food problem would present the same difficulties that would be experienced in other countries.- However, these things must be provided, and to provide them it is necessary to have money. The ultimate responsibility in this direction rests with the Commonwealth Government. Although probably at the present time it is a State responsibility, there must be some uniformity in civil defence, and the Commonwealth must make the money available to the States to enable them to perform this work. They simply cannot accept the financial burden associated with the doing of all these things which would be essential in the event of a national calamity such as would be experienced with an atomic attack. 1 think that the school at Mount Macedon was well worth while. It gave to members of the Parliament an opportunity to see and to grasp for themselves the implications of atomic warfare and the effect it would have on a nation such as ours, with its large cities close to the coastline and vulnerable to attack. If we do not make adequate preparation for defence against an atomic attack, we are taking a grave risk and could easily cease to survive as a nation.
I feel that I have said sufficient to impress upon honorable senators my sincere belief that this question cannot be ignored any longer, lt is a vital national question, and 1 hope the Government will see fit to look at it from two angles. First, I hope it will examine the question about whether the States are in a position to carry, the burden. Are they in a position to finance civil defence? I should say that they are not. If they are to carry the burden, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to provide the necessary funds. Failing that, the Commonwealth must accept the whole responsibility, but that would involve an alteration of the Constitution. As far as 1 can see, it would be necessary to pass legislation to set up a civil defence organization, having the Commonwealth Government as its central authority. This is not a small thing, and in my opinion it cannot be tackled on any other than a national basis. For that reason, I suggest that the Commonwealth must accept the responsibility. I do not wish to occupy any more time on this subject, but, having attended the school at Mount Macedon, I wanted to .ventilate it. I feel sure that as time goes by the Commonwealth will be forced to do something about the matter, and that it will be to our national peril if the Commonwealth does not.
In conclusion, I refer to the amendment relating to housing that has been moved by Senator McKenna. I do not want to relegate it to an unimportant place in my speech, because I am sure that we all view this matter with the utmost seriousness. Moreover, 1 do not want to ignore some of the “statements made by Senator McKenna which have been widely publicized in the press. I compliment the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) upon his speech. He gave a first-class reply to the main arguments that were advanced by Senator McKenna. As the Commonwealth Government has provided about £500,000,000 for housing, I suggest to the Senate that the Commonwealth has not evaded its responsibility in that respect. I understand that £500,000,000 has been provided over a ten-year term under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, introduced by the previous Government and continued in an altered form by this Government. That has been a magnificent contribution 10 (he housing needs of the Commonwealth, but it represents only 30 per cent, of the total building that has taken place. You can see, sir, that if that represents approximately 30 per cent., the building in that verm has amounted to about £1,500,000,000, which represents a lot of houses. 1 do not think that the housing position is as bad as has been suggested by speakers on the other side of the chamber. I agree with Senator Wood’s statement that a great many more people could be accommodated in existing homes. I know that in my own State many homes accommodate only one or two persons. The Minister made menlion of this point. Many thousands of people could be accommodated in existing homes if there were legislation on the State statute-books to give some protection to the owners of those homes. I know that to be a positive fact. If those homes were used to their reasonable capacity, I do not think (hat the housing problem would continue to assume its present proportions. We know the effect of rent control legislation on housing.
I am firmly of the opinion that the amendment that has been moved by Senator McKenna does not carry quite the significance that he would like us to believe it has. He called for a national housing plan. How could the present plan be described better than as a national housing plan? I think it is a magnificent piece of work. After all is said and done, housing is a national necessity. We know that many other things in our lives are national necessities, but that does not necessarily mean that we must have a national plan to carry them out. The work that has been done in connexion with housing is truly magnificent, and the present Government can take its fair share of credit for this work in recent years. I do not want to stress that point any further.
The Governor-General’s Speech was very interesting indeed. It covered the activities of the Government and what it proposes to do in the future. I think that we can all look forward with confidence to the further implementation of the Government’s plans, with resultant prosperity to this country and its people.
.- [ wish to support the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). Before doing so, though. 1 wish to commend Senator Hannaford for the little talk which he gave us upon the destructive powers of the hydrogen bomb. While he was speaking, I thought what a very good thing it would be for the world if some kind of a bomb were designed which, when it fell, constructed houses instead of destroying them. I sincerely hope that Senator Hannaford and other honorable senators continue ro take a lively interest in civil defence.
I shall now deal with the amendment which was moved last week by the Leader of the Opposition to the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. The amendment was timely in relation to Australia’s housing situation to-day. I think that almost every Australian, realizing the importance of housing as a national instrument, and also as a factor in the economy, supports the amendment to the hilt. It is of little use for any one to talk of civil defence unless at the same time he speaks of Australian housing conditions, because a good housing programme is one of the adjuncts of civil defence. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a speech upon the housing situation on 7th March. T have no doubt that he honestly thought he was telling the truth when he made the statement, but it is my belief that he was sadly misinformed by those gentlemen who are the Government’s economists and advisers at present. Perhaps they would have been up to date in their thinking back in the Middle Ages, but to-day they are several centuries out of date. I forgive the Prime Minister entirely for the statement he made. I feel sure that had he had the opportunity of going round Australia and seeing for himself the housing conditions that exist in the various capital cities, he would have hesitated before making that statement.
One might ask why this amendment was introduced and why we support it. We are supporting it because of the anti-social effect of bad housing in Australia at present. I would say that the housing situation in Queensland is not quite so bad as that which exists in the other States, but I can assure honorable senators that the situation there is bad enough. In the other States, people are living in fowl houses, sheds, tents, halftanks, and in any other places where they can find shelter from the wind and rain. We also have crowded houses. I have knowledge of several families living in one house, all using the same frying pan to cook their breakfast in the morning, the same washing utensils, the same bathroom and the same conveniences. Is that a fit environment in which to bring up . Australian children? Are those the housing conditions and is that the way of life which we desire to create and continue in Australia? If it is not possible for us to change them in any way, surely we will develop into a backward race and become a backward country. All Australian citizens aspire to our having good housing conditions throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth, but they are shocked at the present shortcomings. Senator Hannaford asked, “ Why should we have a housing plan “? Goodness me! How are we to have housing if we do not have a plan?
– He did not say that. He said that we have a plan.
– All right. I could not have heard him correctly. I thought he asked, “ Why have a housing plan “? If there is at present a housing plan that is in any way under the control of the Commonwealth Government, I would be very happy indeed if one honorable senator on the Government side would point it out to me, because I am not aware of its existence. I do know of the part that the Commonwealth plays in respect of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, and I do know that the Commonwealth used political duress to compel the States to sign it. I know that all the States objected to signing it. Legislation was introduced into this chamber only last year to ratify the agreements before they were signed by the State governments. That was the situation that faced us.
As for the plan itself, if it can produce nothing better in the way of housing than what we have in Australia now, it should be scrapped, and another plan evolved. When we think of a national housing plan, we think of the responsibilities of the van- ous governments concerned, and the primary responsibility rests on the Commonwealth Government. This responsibility was assumed by the Liberal party and the Australian Country party in 1949 when they sought office, as is clear from the following passage in the joint statement of policy issued by those parties:
Except in relation to the Territories and War Service Homes, the direct responsibility for housing is with the State governments. But the Commonwealth must accept large obligations of assistance. There is already a CommonwealthStates Housing Agreement. We will seek its amendment so as to permit and aid “ little Capitalists “ to own their own homes.
That was a direct promise and expression of intention by the parties that support this Government. The policy speech continued -
The limitation of output which is so notorious a factor in the present almost impossible cost of a home is partly due to a view in the building trades that past slumps in building activity -will occur again, and that it will therefore pay not to get through the building programme too quickly. This policy produces great hardship for hundreds of thousands of wage earners who cannot afford the present prices. The answer to it is that the demand for building should be as far as possible stabilised. This can be done if Governments, Departments and Housing Commissions plan their slum clearance and reconstruction works for periods when private building falls off. In the desire to guarantee a continuation of steady annual demand in this vital industry, this will be our policy if elected.
The obligation of the Commonwealth in regard to housing was then acknowledged. The first obligation falls upon the shoulders of the Commonwealth Government, because it is the controller of nearly all governmental activities in Australia through the instrumentality of uniform taxation. It is the sole authority for the collection of income tax. That means that it has at its disposal most of the revenues of the Commonwealth. . It also levies indirect taxes, and one might say that it is the sole authority in that field with full powers. The Commonwealth Government is also the sole authority for raising loan funds, because it is virtually the Australian Loan Council. It has control of all the finances of the Commonwealth and, therefore, it has the obligation of providing finance to the States and other authorities for the construction of homes. The situation that exists now in regard to housing is due to no other cause than the shortage of finance.
Apart from the Commonwealth Government, there are organizations which construct homes. Every State has had its petty building scheme operating for many years. The people are fully acquainted with the terms and conditions governing the construction of houses in the States. If the State governments were provided with sufficient funds by the Commonwealth Government, the people would have homes, and we would not have the sorry spectacle we have now of people being homeless while thousands more are being brought into Australia.
It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, in the first place, to provide funds to enable the States to carry out their housing projects. Then it is the responsibility of the States to reticulate that money to those who are seeking homes. Various authorities function in the States in the construction of homes. In some States, there are co-operative building societies. They, also, must have finance. The Government has not made sufficient money available to them. If funds were made available to the State governments by the Commonwealth, the housing shortage would be overcome in a very short period.
We on the Opposition side believe that the national housing plan should have regard to certain factors in the community. One of them is immigration. The Commonwealth Government is bringing thousands of immigrants into Australia forgetful of, or oblivious to, the housing situation. It is asking persons who might be reasonably accommodated in other countries to come to Australia and take their place in the queues and jostle for a house, a room, a fowl-house, a shed or an empty tank in which they can shelter.
The Commonwealth Government claims that the provision of homes for the immigrants is primarily the responsibility of the States. It adopts the same attitude in regard to other phases of immigration. It brings immigrants into Australia, releases them in the States and declares, in effect, “ Now they are your citizens, and you may look after them “.
We must also consider employment in connexion with immigration. Unemployment exists on a large scale throughout Australia. Not long ago, 1 was in the northwest of Queensland, and I was surprised to meet on the road eleven New Australians who were looking for labouring work. Theyasked me where they could get employment for a few days so that they could earn their fares back to the coastal towns of Queensland. I was not able to tell them where they could obtain work. A similar situation exists in other States, also. If immigrants are to be brought to Australia to compete for houses with Australians and New Australians who arrived earlier, they must beprovided with employment. The Commonwealth Government has the funds, and it should be able to do that. . .
Any national housing plan must provide for those in the lower income groups. They must have cheap money to enable them to buy homes. The rate of interest is far too high. For every £1,000 borrowed, at least £50 a year has to be paid in interest. That means that interest must be paid at the rate of about £1 a week for every £1,000 borrowed. Only those who represent the wage-earning masses of Australia can appreciate what a strain that is, and how heavily it drains the weekly income. Persons in those groups have to pay sometimes £2 10s. a week in interest on the money they have borrowed to build a home for themselves. We must have civil defence if we want Australia to be defended, but the Commonwealth Government must play its part in establishing living conditions which will cause the people to be ready at all times to defend Australia. It is not doing that now.
We on the Opposition side do not expect this Government to implement the policy of the Australian Labour party. When the Labour party was first formed 60 years ago, one of its planks was the provision of reasonable accommodation for all citizens. It has adhered to that policy ever since. We know that it is not the policy of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party to provide houses for the people. That is something distasteful to them. They would like that responsibility to be cast upon private individuals in the community so that a profit may be made from it by those individuals. We continued with that policy which I mentioned a while ago. At the present time, it is compulsory in’ all States for parents to send their children to primary school, and rightly so. I look forward fo the time when it will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth to provide a home” for every person who desires to have one. Some people are very fond of talking about standards of living and comparing the present standard of living in Australia with the standards of other countries. My submission is that there can be no living standard at all unless a person has a home. The basis of every living standard is a home. If a person has no home, it is futile to talk about living standards.
Some honorable senators would have us believe, if we take notice of their speeches, that there is no housing shortage at the present time. They say that the backlog of housing will be overcome in five years. We are not concerned with what will be the position in five years; we want housing for the people now. We are concerned for young couples who are about to be married. They are in a hopeless position to-day. Take the case of a man about to be married and who has saved £1,000. Such a case is an excellent illustration of just how hopeless the position is for young people in Australia to-day. After saving £1,000 for the purpose of having a home built, he finds, when he approaches the bank, that it will not advance one penny towards the cost of a home for him. Because of more profitable investments to-day, the banks throughout the Commonwealth will not make loans available on reasonable deposits for the purchase or construction of homes..
– The interest is the same on loans for housing as on loans for anything else.
– But that does not alter the facts as 1 have put them. If the prospective home-owner has been able, by some means or other, to buy a house, he finds that he is required to pay an even higher rate of interest because there is blackmarketing throughout the Commonwealth at present with respect to loans for housing. Under this vicious system, some unfortunate people are paying as high as 10 per cent, and 12 per cent, for money borrowed for home purchase. This suits the Government admirably, because young married people are then forced into the clutches of the hirepurchase companies in order to obtain furniture, with the result that they live in a form of misery for the whole of their lives as they try to liquidate the debts they have incurred on purchase of the home, furnishing and other amenities. And this is the way of life we are building up for the Australian people! Goodness me, I believe that the natives of New Guinea would be happier in their environment than the average newly married couple could be in Australia!
The housing shortage is, in fact, something of this Government’s own creation, lt is because the Government has not a plan that this situation has developed. Honor– able senators on the Government side useas an argument the fact that between 1945 and 1949 the Labour Government constructed 202,000 houses and flats, and then they point proudly to what the present Government has done during the past liveor six years. We are not concerned with the money the Government has spent in the past six or seven years on the construction of homes; we are not concerned one jot about whether it was £5.000,000 or £1,500,000,000. We are pointing to the shortage of housing accommodation. We say that the present housing lag is at least ten times greater than it was in 1949. We say also that the Government has no plan to put into operation for the alleviation of this position. This is March, 1957. J ask honorable senators on the Government side to tell me what the Government intends to do about the matter before April, 1957.
The Government has a plan, but it will not work; it will not move. I know the Government will say that it did make allocations to the States last year and that if those States have overspent those allocations then that is their affair. Such a statement is deliberately wrong and misguided. The Government knew, when it made the allocations to the States for housing last year, that the sums provided were far too low, and that they could have been increased by at least 100 per cent, because the Government was bringing in immigrants and the marriage rate was increasing. The Government cannot hope for any housing situation that will be satisfactory to the average Australian citizen so long as it deliberately creates these conditions.
I leave it to others to deal with war service homes. Some have dealt with it already. Every one knows that the client of the War Service Homes Division must wait for at least two years before he can hope for any relief. 1 heard one honorable senator say that there are 40,000 people living alone in houses and flats. What of it? Surely, if the houses and flats are their own, these people are fully entitled to live alone in the premises if they so desire? Honorable senators on the Government side are suggesting that these people should subdivide those homes and make them available to people who require homes; at the same time they talk about the liberty of the subject and all the .other grand things which they claim are closely allied with private enterprise. These claims are looked upon by the people as sheer hypocrisy.
– We are suggesting that they would not live in big houses if they could let them. They would move to smaller premises.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that if some government or other authority would compel these people to subdivide their homes there would be no housing shortage in Australia?
– No.
– Then why do we hear from honorable members opposite that there are so many people living alone in their homes?
– Because, if they could obtain satisfactory rents they would let their homes and go to smaller ones. They are denied that opportunity because of a so-called fair rents court.
– Now the honorable senator appears to have some kind of divining power which enables him to know what is in the minds of these people. He is only surmising that they would rent their homes. That is only a deduction on his part. The facts show the position to be otherwise. Those people who are living in homes by themselves are people with independent means. If they were not, they would have been compelled to sell their houses or to subdivide them in order to increase their incomes. Tt is only the welltodo people in the fashionable suburbs of the cities of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth who are occupying these houses by themselves. Let me make a tour of Sydney with Senator Kendall, if he wishes, so that 1 may disprove his assertion. Let us go first to the fashionable suburb of Redfern.
In an attempt to excuse its failure in connexion with housing, the Government points out that, on an average, there are 3.12 persons to every single dwelling in the Commonwealth, and seeks to make a comparison with’ the position ;in the Ignited States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other countries. The Government fails to point out that in those countries there are streets and streets of apartment houses. Let me now show just how ridiculous and idiotic that argument is. Drawn into this matter are the empty houses at Camooweal. Oodnadatta, Thursday Island and other places. The fact that, at an average of 3.12 persons to a home, the number of people adequately housed in Australia is much higher per capita than in other countries is cold comfort to those persons who are still waiting for homes. The thousands of people in Australia who are clamouring for homes are not satisfied with that kind of talk. They do not want to be told about these things. As I have said before, the present situation would not have arisen if the Government had been more solicitous of the welfare of the people of this country than it has been. The average citizen in Australia is bearing the burden of inflation. Why should he also have to bear the burden of the bad housing situation? We know that certain groups of people in the community own houses. Others less well to do can purchase their own homes outright. Then there are those in the next income group who can provide a substantial portion of the money necessary to buy homes. But a large majority of persons in this country are unable to pay a deposit on a home. This Government has never helped people in the lower income groups to obtain their own homes. That is not its policy. At the present time, there is unemployment in the building trade, as well as in other trades, which has been brought about by the deliberate action of this Government. In 1956, supporters of the Government directed attention to the state of the economy. Their speeches are recorded and can be read at any time. Certain honorable senators opposite referred to the pressure upon the consumption sector of the economy. They said that the pressure on this sector was far too great, and that it would have to be reduced to enable the Australian economy to proceed happily on its way. But how could the pressure on the consuming sector of the economy be relieved? The best way that that could be done was to bring about unemployment. Therefore, the Government deliberately set about creating unemployment. If unemployment increases, the pressure upon the buying sector of the community is decreased. That is what the Government succeeded in doing. To-day, unemployment is rampant in every Australian capital city. Many labourers are seeking employment. Honorable senators opposite thought that that was a cunning device, but they gave the show away at the time the economic statement was presented last year. The anti-Labour parties worked towards this dishonourable objective. The Government worked this matter out objectively, and decided that unemployment should be caused in the building trade. It was considered that if carpenters, bricklayers, tilers, drainers and other skilled workers were thrown out of work, many workers in allied industries would likewise Ipse their jobs. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) indicated in his economic statement that people could change their jobs if. they so desired, but the fact that people could not change their place of living so readily was not acknowledged. - As I have already mentioned, the burden of inflation falls upon the people who are in the lower income groups. Now, in view of. the housing situation, there is almost mass unemployment in the building trade. We on this side of the chamber know that the Government parties work towards this end. Having brought about that situation, honorable senators opposite then say that many people are living alone in houses. It has been said that 40,000 are living alone in homes. I should like to hear supporters of the Government explain how it is intended to relieve the present situation. This problem cannot be allowed to remain unsolved.
I said earlier that the real cause of the trouble is that insufficient money is given to the State governments for housing purposes. I-‘should like to hear a member of the Government announce that an additional £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would be made available to the State governments for housing within the next few weeks. If there is’ one thing that should be done urgently in Australia at the present time, it is the provision of houses for the people. During the period of the war, when houses were required quickly, particularly in Queensland, an organization known as the Civil Construction Corps was established. Many buildings were constructed in Queensland by that organization. Many of the places that were constructed in Queensland by the Civil Construction Corps looked better than a certain building that was constructed at Mascot at a cost of from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. What was done at the height of the war could be done again very easily. Recently, we were treated to a lecturette by the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan), who tried, unsuccessfully, to link the Australian Labour party with the Communist party.
– It was a diatribe, rather than a lecture.
– That is so. I should say that the rotten housing conditions that exist to-day will lead to communism. If these conditions are allowed to continue, the number of Communists in Australia will increase, as it did during the depression years. There could be no escape from that circumstance. In point of fact, the policy of the Government breeds Communists. I suppose that, while ever it. is in office, the Government will blame the workers for this state of affairs.
I think that Senator O’Sullivan’s speech was the most paltry that I have ever heard in this chamber. I am sure that if the Minister’s speech were brought to the notice of the Prime Minister, he would be relegated to the lowest rung of the Cabinet ladder, as he was last year. Senator O’sullivan referred to the trust that the people placed in the Australian Labour party, and to their trust in him. The Minister should be the last person in this chamber to speak about trust. I shall tell honorable senators something about his administration, something that he has admitted in black and white. I feel sure that if any honorable senator at present sitting on the Government side of the chamber did what I am about to mention, he would hang his head in shame for the rest of his life. I asked him questions, when he was Minister for Trade and Customs, about bogus licences in respect of the importation of goods to Australia. Everybody knows that the holding and using of import licences in Australia to-day has become an industry and is really a blot on the civic life of this country. I shall not read all the questions I asked and all the answers I received, but this is what the then Minister for Trade and Customs had to say -
Court proceedings against seven individuals have been completed. Other -cases have yet to be heard by the courts.
This was after a matter had been initiated relating to the import of goods. The Minister himself did not initiate the proceedings, nor did he authorize them because all that was done during his absence overseas. In his answer to me, he went on -
In regard to the seven individuals the case against one was not completed because of his death, whilst two were discharged. Penalties of two years with hard labour, fifteen months with hard labour, £120 with costs and £60 with costs respectively were imposed on the four persons convicted by the court.
The value of goods imported against forged licences is approximately £13,000.
These forged licences were operating during the period when the Attorney-General was administering the affairs of the Department of Trade and Customs. I know of nothing worse, of no greater incompetence than having to admit these things. He then continued -
However, the charges do not relate only to forged licences as licences were issued as a result of false representations and also as a result of licences not being debited against legitimate quotas. U the honorable senator has this in mind the total value of goods imported in this manner is in the vicinity of £1,500,000. In the bulk of cases such importations have been debited against present or future quota allocations of the importers concerned. ls it any wonder that to-day we have Senator Henty as Minister for Customs and Excise? Was it any wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a change in that department?
– He makes changes all the time.
– It is a very .good method, too. Other Ministers do not question the trust of the Labour party, as the Attorney-General did the other night.
In conclusion, let me say that the Australian citizen is not going to beseech the Commonwealth Government to provide houses for the people. The Labour party is going to fight the Government for houses. It is not a concession on the part of the Government to grant houses to the people; it is something to which they are entitled. The Labour party will go on fighting the Government for more and better houses.
– I rise to support the motion before the Senate. In common with all honorable senators, I take the opportunity of expressing my loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second. The recent visit of Prince Philip to Australia to open the Olympic Games was greatly appreciated and he was welcomed by the people in all the States. We hope that his recent visit is a forerunner of regular visits by members of the royal family. I congratulate, too, Senator Hannan and Senator Wade who, respectively, moved and seconded the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. I think they did themselves great credit with their excellent speeches.
Before I move on to the GovernorGeneral’s Speech, I should like to make some comment on the diatribe of Senator Benn, who has just left the chamber. I do not think it did him any great credit to speak about people living in fowlhouses in this country, because most of the States are Labour-governed States that control housing in their own right. I do not think his very wild statements can be sustained. I think his remarks about the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) and his attack on import licensing did not do him any credit, either. 1 emphatically deny his remarks.
The Governor-General, in his Speech, made a very complete survey of proposed legislation for this sessional period, and the carrying out of the programme laid down by this Government. 1 am sure the carrying out of that programme will further enhance the Government’s very splendid record of achievement during its seven years of office. The plans announced were solid and practical; they are sensible in the extreme; they will keep Australia financially sound and prosperous; and they will greatly add to its economic security.
I now wish to express my hostility to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in regard to the housing position. Senator McKenna’s case has no basis in fact, and, in my opinion, has been very well answered by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). All the items mentioned in
Senator McKenna’s speech have been completely covered and fully answered. I do not concede that there is a housing crisis, but in some respects there is a housing shortage. The Government is quite sensible of the fact, as is clearly set out in the Governor-General’s Speech, which I cite - my Government regards the problem of home-building with sympathetic and active mind and as far as is concerned will do what it can to ensure that the arrears are overtaken as rapidly as possible. The matter will be treated as of outstanding importance, proper attention being paid to material supplies, labour availability and costs of construction.
In the light of that assurance, one would have thought the Opposition would have had something more constructive to offer than to move its amendment. The extract I have quoted contains two points with which I should like to deal, and I address myself to them briefly. They are the shortage of homes and their cost of construction.
I shall deal with the latter point first. It is not sufficient for the States to demand money from the Commonwealth ad lib without giving some qualified undertaking to build value into the houses. A large proportion of the homes built by the States with Commonwealth money will not stand up to constant and practical use. Honorable senators opposite twit this Government about putting value back into the £1. It is up to the State Labour governments in my opinion, to put value back into housing. Only to-day information which does not read very well, was supplied by a Sydney newspaper.I should- like to give the Senate the . gist of it. No doubt most honorable senators have seen it. It is a statement by Mr. Kraegen in regard to the charges made by the State government for timber. I quote -
State government’s charges on timber brought from the north coast had risen 575 per cent, since 1947, Mr. F. F. Kraegen said last night.
– This is New South Wales?
– Yes. Mr. Kraegen enumerated the various charges. He said that freight from Grafton to Sydney in 1949 was 5s. 11d. and is now 36s. 4d., a rise of not less than 500 per cent. Government royalties on sawn timber at Grafton were 2s. 6d. in 1947 and are now 18s.. representing a rise of 620 per cent. The average wholesale price of hardwood in
Sydney was 34s. 6d. in 1947 and has now risen to 137s. 2d., which is a rise of 300 per cent. The basic wage has risen only from £5 12s. in 1947 to £12 13s. in 1956. Mr. Kraegen said that the State’s charges “for freights and royalties on timber were the highest in the world.I want the Senate to take particular notice of that statement. The report continues -
The cost components of this price were -
Freight and royalty, 54s. 4d. (40 per cent.).
Wages, 48s. (35 per cent.).
Those two items, wages and royalty and freight, represent 75 per cent, of the wholesale cost of timber. That does not read too well for honorable senators opposite. I should like to enumerate also other charges, which are listed as follows: -
Repairs, maintenance and depreciation on mill plant, road haulage vehicles and logging tractors: fuel and oil; insurance and registration charges; management, salaries, office expenses, and overhead expenses - 28s. 7d. (21 per cent.).
The next part will rock honorable senators opposite. The report continues -
Millers’ profit margin 6s. 3d. (4 per cent.).
That is, only 4 per cent, of the wholesale cost of timber. The report goes on -
We have observed one instance where a saving of 12s. on 100 super, feet can be made by employing interstate road transport.
This, of course, is not usually employed, for various reasons. It is interesting to note, too, that the price of timber in Melbourne, according to this report is 115s. a hundred super, feet, 123s. in Brisbane, 164s. 6d. in Sydney, 80s. in Perth and 80s. in Hobart. These prices point to the fact that the New South Wales Government is getting the biggest rake-off from the wholesale price of timber in that State. It is interesting, also, to compare rail and sea freights, which show why it is so difficult for the State timber interests to carry on against overseas shipping. The article points out -
Rail freight, Grafton-Sydney (438 miles), 36s. 4d.
Sea freight, Singapore-Sydney (4,327 miles), 33s.
Sea freight, Auckland-Sydney (1,250 miles), 28s.
Honorable senators will notice that the freight by sea from Singapore to Sydney, a distance ten times greater than that from Grafton to Sydney, is 3s. 4d. cheaper than the freight by rail over the shorter distance. From these figures, honorable senators can see why the cost of housing in New South Wales is so high. The reason that investors will not put money into housing is that the first essential of investment - security - is not there and, naturally, they leave it to the Government to supply the money necessary to finance the building of houses.
As regards my second point, in some respects there is a shortage of houses. There will never be enough homes while we are enjoying the benefit of an expanding population. However, although many houses are available in country districts at the moment, the demand appears to be for homes in the cities or towns, in specified areas. In my own State, I could point to twenty unoccupied houses that honorable, senators could occupy for a short period if they cared to come to Tasmania. I admit that most of them are in country districts and, therefore, may not be acceptable to most home-seekers. I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine who is engaged in the pastoral industry. He said that on his property he had three up-to-date cottages unoccupied. They were fitted with all modern amenities and conveniences, but he was unable to find tenants for them or workers who could come to live in them. The reason was that few people want to live in the country. They want not only homes in specified areas, but also homes of a particular standard.
It is not surprising to find that many applications for homes are pouring in as a result of the very generous housing scheme that was announced recently by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). Under it, houses are being sold on very easy terms, and there has been an improvement in the financial position. The man in the country and the man in the city are both making demands for homes which cannot be supplied at short notice.
I wish to refer to a statement published in the press and elsewhere to the effect that many homes are not being occupied to capacity. Surely we are not still living in the days when we were control-ridden. I do not agree with the contention that a man or a woman is not entitled to own a home if he or she can afford to purchase and maintain it.
– The honorable senator has misread the statement of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer). He did not say anything about that.
– I am not referring to his statement. I think Senator Benn said something to that effect. The statement is as true to-day as ever it was that “ an Englishman’s home is his castle “, and any man or single woman who is able to buy or build a home is entitled to occupy it. On the other hand, many homes are occupied by rapacious tenants who take advantage of the Landlord and Tenant Act, particularly in New South Wales, by sub letting at quite exorbitant rates, and allow ing the property to go to rack and ruin. There is no incentive for the private investor to put his money . into building. As I said before, the first essential “of security is not present to encourage the investor to put his money into that sort of property, lt is small wonder that it has become a habit to look to governments to finance the building of houses, and I suppose that we must accept that fact. I contend that the Commonwealth Government cannot fairly be accused of shirking its responsibilities, but what is needed is for more value to be put into the houses now being built.
I now wish to refer to the statement in the Speech referring to social services, lt reads -
My Government has a lively sense of the needs of the social services, and particularly of the difficulties, of pensioners of all types’ who have no other source of income. It will continue to review its legislation.
In my opinion, those suffering the greatest hardship are, undoubtedly, the single pensioners of both sexes and the widows and widowers. 1 trust that in the next budget the Government will give special attention to the problem under this heading, either by way of an increased pension to these people or by the creation of a special fund which can be allotted to the various States to relieve special hardship cases. Everybody .knows that .an increase.. in: the general pension rate would not bring about that relief which is necessary for special cases. An increase in the pension rate of 10s. a week would mean a charge on the Government of £12,000,000, and then it would not bring about the desired result. If the money could be placed in a special fund to be allotted to each State for the purpose of alleviating hardship by the payment of £1 or £2 a week in individual1 cases of need; more effective relief would be given.
– The Commonwealth Government is starving the States as badly as it is. starving the pensioners.
– If an all-round increase of pensions were given the people who are actually in need would not be reached to the extent that they require relief. It has been ascertained that about 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, of pensioners in all States need extra financial assistance. If money from that special fund were made available, it would bring about the desired result.
Universities are a subject of interest, particularly to Tasmania. The GovernorGeneral said in his Speech that the Parliament would be1 asked to give increased financial support to universities over the next two years. Tasmania’s dilemma consists in its inability to provide university training for students in medicine and agriculture. In the past, Tasmania has been able to send a percentage of its students to mainland universities, but recently the University of Melbourne refused to take Tasmanian students because of overcrowding and lack of accommodation for Victorian students.. The Commonwealth Government might well consider the provision of increased financial assistance to the universities of Melbourne and. Sydney on the basis of their acceptance of an agreed number of Tasmanian students in medicine and agriculture pending Tasmania’s being able to establish its own facilities for training in these faculties.
We in Tasmania are particularly interested in the Government’s plan for improving the coastal shipping service. The recently established Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is functioning well and is doing an excellent job. The importance of an improved and adequate shipping ‘ service to Tasmania is fully recognized by everybody, indeed, we Tasmanians have advocated it in this chamber on many occasions over a long period of time. We have stressed the need for a special passenger-vehicle ferry for the Bass Strait service. We are very glad to note that our efforts are bearing fruit, and that an order has been placed in Australia for such a vessel. The Government’s intention to introduce a bill later in the session to provide for a revision of the Navigation Act will no doubt correct many anomalies that have long been overdue for redress. ‘It is gratifying to note that the Govern. ment intends to assist primary producers to increase output and improve their efficiency-.
Its sound primary production policy during its term of office has produced outstanding results which will be of lasting benefit to the financial soundness and economic security of Australia. It is pleasing to note also that negotiations are afoot for a new plan to replace the current five-year dairying industry stabilization plan which will terminate on 3’0th June. I trust the outcome of the present negotiations will be satisfactory and generous, and that the industry will become more efficient and prosperous. The statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) that it is anticipated that the incomes of primary producers will rise this year by from 9 per cent, to 12 per cent, is very gratifying, because, as my colleague Senator Wright pointed out last year, over the previous two years they had suffered a recession ‘of 14 per cent. - 6 per cent, in one year and 8 per cent, in another: So we hope that that backlag will be made up this year to the extent of at least 12 per cent.
The signing of a new trade treaty with Great Britain has given new interest and an increased impetus to our export trade, which is so necessary. The appointment of the Commissioner of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation will have good effect and will prove to have been an important step forward, particularly as increased funds are being made available for trade publicity in Great Britain, New Zealand and other overseas markets. These appointments should result in a better knowledge and understanding of the availability of Australian secondary and primary goods for export. I hope that the results will prove to be of permanent value to our export trade and will lead to an improvement in our balance of payments.
Another important item is mining in the Northern Territory and north Queensland, which was high-lighted in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. The discovery of new deposits of copper, zinc and lead at Mount Isa, and of bauxite in the Cape York peninsula, points to these areas becoming, possibly during the next two decades, the centre of the mineral world. The potentialities of the Northern Territory arealmost breath-taking, and they offer very great opportunities for the installation of atomic power, which would lead to development on a grand scale.
I am pleased to note that, in the Government’s immigration programme, the emphasis will be placed on the immigration of British persons, and that proposals will be developed to extend opportunities for British settlers. Immigration must proceed, on an approved and calculated basis that is appropriate to our needs and which we can afford. I realize that our immigration programme is slightly inflationary but, for reasons which have been stated on very many occasions, it is important that it should continue.
As one of the members of this Parliament who were privileged to attend the civil defence school held recently at Mount Macedon, I fully endorse all that has been said by Senator Hannaford and Senator McCallum in that regard. They dealt with the subject very fully, and I endorse their remarks about setting up schools in the various States so that they might obtain some idea of their responsibility in civil defence. I realize that the cost of the setting-up of schools would be fairly great, but I think it should be financed in part by the Commonwealth Government and that they should be under the supervision of the central school at Mount Macedon so’ that the efforts of the States could be co-ordinated. These steps should be taken at once. I understand that this year only £140,000 has been allocated for civil defence.. That amount could easily be stepped up to £500,000 without any great difficulty. The information we obtained at the school “ put the wind up us “ to a very great degree; we had not realized the difficulties that confronted us in the defence of our coastline. Senator Hannaford pointed out that nuclear warheads could be fired from ships, probably submarines, standing up. to 200 miles off the coast, that they have a range of 400 miles, and that most of the principal cities on the coastline could be under fire within a very short time. We should make preparations against such attacks now and so fulfil the behest, “ Be ye therefore ready! “.
Finally, I am of the opinion that the economy of the Commonwealth is now in a more balanced state, the improvement during the last year having been remark able. Our trade position has improved and our overseas reserves are growing. Production is being maintained and many important projects which should bring even greater prosperity are being undertaken. From my understanding of the position, it should now be possible to relax import restrictions to the extent of from £80,000,000 to £100,000,000, which sum should be sufficient to include the present hardship cases. The adoption of such a policy would boost business and bring buoyancy and prosperity to many concerns which have the premises, personnel and available capital to handle a very much greater turnover. It would remove the friction and frustration which are proving a great brake on progress and development.
– This is a late confession, is it not?
– I think it can be done. I trust that the Government will devise ways and means of using our present sound position and considerable money resources, in conjunction with the trading banks, if necessary, to make more money available for housing and for rural development. The expansion of primary and secondary industries generally would be of advantage to Australia at all times. I should like to mention the fact that the Commonwealth Government is holding £320,000,000 which belongs to the trading banks. Some of that money could probably be used to very great advantage in the development of rural industry. It has been truly said, too, that Australia is in very great need of capital investment. If that is so - and I concede the point - it is very much more necessary that Australia should use. to a very much greater extent, the capital which is already invested, lt is not now being used to the fullest extent, lt can be used fully only if the workers of all kinds, in all industries, work a full 8-hour day and give full value for money received, putting back into the industry just a little more than they take out. I discussed this matter recently with an American visitor, who said that Australia needed investment capital very badly. He said also that we go to very great lengths to attract capital to this country but that as soon as we succeed in getting it we put brakes upon its use in the way of short hours,, penalty rates, low turnover, unreasonable demands for amenities, stoppages, and all that sort of thing. It is just as important to use the invested capital to the best advantage as it is to attract fresh capital to the country. Unless employers and employees, in all industries, have a full and proper regard for the job itself, apart from their interest in what they get out of it, we shall not ‘get maximum results. For this country to progress on sound lines, nothing less than maximum effort should be accepted. If we could get this co-operation, and full understanding and support for our national projects, 1 am sure that there would be no finer country on God’s earth than this Commonwealth of Australia - your country, and mine.
– I join with other senators of the Opposition and, of course, with Government supporters, in expressing loyalty to Her Majesty and in thanking the Governor-General for his Speech in the Senate at the opening of this session. I should like, first, to reply to Senator Wardlaw, who has just spoken. Before I become very critical of him, I should like to congratulate him on his speech. As a matter of fact, his opening remarks, which dealt with housing, although not to the point, did at least raise a basis of argument that has been lacking in the speeches of so many Government supporters.
Senator Wardlaw does not concede that there is a housing crisis. His was an easy statement to make. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) does not concede that there is a housing crisis. As a matter of fact, there is not a housing crisis - for the Prime Minister, for Senator Wardlaw, for me, or, I would imagine, for any honorable senator - but there is a housing crisis for every man and woman who needs a home but cannot get one. It is a personal crisis of the greatest magnitude, and we just have to forget our own circumstances and transport ourselves, if possible, into the minds of married people with children who are without homes. If we could look at this crisis from their point of view, and really live with it, the sooner would this housing problem be overcome. If we approach it in the way of a cold-blooded collator of figures who says, with great jubilation, that the housing deficiency has dropped from 7 per cent, to 6.9 per cent., and thinks that this is a triumph, this problem will never be properly solved. 1 should think that the one thing thai would be even more soul-destroying than being out of employment would be to have the type of housing which, unfortunately, too many Australian citizens have to endure to-day. Every honorable senator and every member of the House of Representatives has had practical experience of these instances, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. 1 can speak only of my own experience as a New South Wales senator, whose main business to-day, next to trying to get telephones, is trying to get homes for the people who apply to him. They do not want big homes. Nine out of ten of the persons who see me about housing matters want emergency accommodation. They are satisfied to go into old Air Force camps and migrant camps or anywhere else that will give them a roof over their heads. They have been participating in housing commission ballots in New South Wales for many, many years. At present, on my table in Sydney, are details of three urgent cases. When a person reads the circumstances, he cannot understand how these conditions are allowed to continue, while economists keep on telling us that there is no crisis and that providing money will not solve the problem. They say, in effect, that we are doing very well.
I appreciate that there is no crisis for Senator Wardlaw, but I ask him to examine this matter from somebody else’s point of view. If wc want to build a strong economy, if we want to make Australians men to bc proud of, the type that faced the enemy in 1914 and in 1939, and whose name and reputation reverberated throughout the world, we must make it easier for yoting men and women to have homes in which to rear their children. I have developed a tremendous admiration for these young persons when I have been told of the commitments which they would gladly accept in order to get into a home of decent dimensions and standard of comfort. They will take on their shoulders a burden for the next 30 or 35 years, while receiving little more than the basic wage. To me it seems miraculous, and that is the spirit that we have to foster.
Why should these persons be forced to continue to live with their parents, their uncles, or their aunts, in many instances with sick children? I could give details of some of the intimate facts that have been told to me, as they have been told to every other member of the Parliament. ‘ The situation is not new to me. Nothing is more destroying to family life than trying to bring up children in those conditions. We know that the housing problem could be solved very, very quickly by unemployment. That used to be a favourite method of solving such problems, because once persons are out of work they are happy to stay with their parents - they have no choice. Once they are given weekly employment with security for the future, they instantly try to branch out, with that gallantry which I say they have, and their first idea is to have a home of their own.
Senator Byrne said that 67 per cent, of the houses in Queensland were owned by the occupants.
– Seventy-four per cent.
– Those people must be helped because that is the greatest single investment the nation can make.
Senator Wardlaw referred to costs in New South Wales. That was an excellent debating point, but it does not prove anything or answer the arguments of the Opposition. If it is true that the New South Wales Government is getting more out of timber leases and the transport of housing material, that is due to other problems that face the State Government. It must continue to increase its charges because of inflation, and we do not have to look beyond the present Commonwealth Government to lay the blame for inflation in Australia. which started in 1950.
– Where did the 40-hour week come from?
– It came from the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
– lt was introduced first in New South Wales.
– Interjections are disorderly and I am silly to listen to them. If the situation is as it was painted by Senator Wardlaw, the lack of housing would be obvious only in New South Wales, but the fact is that it exists in various degrees in every State. The housing problem has been solved temporarily in Western Australia because there was a minor depression there and many persons were out of work. In Victoria and New South Wales, it is serious. Senator Wardlaw makes no contribution to the solution of the housing problem by suggesting that persons who are homeless can go to the country districts to get a house. That is all right for a pensioner. In the report issued by the Department of National Development the following statement appears: -
In those States where the housing position was best, the quality of the housing was the worst.
Therefore, the problem is being handled in those States by allowing the people to build or continue to live in sub-standard houses.
– Senator Armstrong should travel a little before he relies on those comments.
– I have merely taken them from the report of the department under the administration of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). 1 suggest that the Minister should take a trip; then he might do something about housing, and. he might not pass the report of his department without correcting it.
I am pleased that the Minister has returned to the chamber because I want to mention several matters on which he made great play. The Government is fortunate to have Senator Spooner in the Cabinet. He would grace any platform and he can play on any stage. When he spoke last week, the Minister reminded me of some of the greatest actors I have seen. When he spoke of the Government’s regard for the sanctity of contracts, I thought that Robert Morley had returned and that he would win an academy award for his acting ability. The Minister said, in effect, “We would have eliminated this horrible housing arrangement with the States, but we were so imbued with the sanctity of contracts that we allowed the housing agreement to run its full life”. Of course the Minister knows that, under clause 16 of the agreement, either side could cancel the contract within twelve months. When the Minister spoke of the sanctity of contracts. I wondered what happened to the 40 per cent, depreciation agreement that the Chifley Labour Government introduced to help secondary industries.
– No contract was involved.
– It was a contract valid to a certain date and it expired in 1952. It was a simple contract. What happened when these men who value the sanctity of contracts were elected to office? They repudiated the contract when it had eighteen months to run. It never enters their heads to consider the sanctity of promises. They have broken more promises since 1949 than has any other government since federation in Australia.
I remind honorable senators of the events of March, 1952, when this Government broke even national contracts overnight and introduced an import licensing system which was born entirely of its own maladministration, lt had allowed into Australia £1,200,000,000 worth of imports in eight months. Everybody bad been telling the Government for six months that it was heading for trouble. The Government might have been expected to have learned its lesson, but it had to make the same mistake again and has had to maintain its import controls in an endeavour to restore the balance of payments.” It should know that the adverse balance was brought about solely by its own maladministration and inefficiency. When I recall Senator Spooner’s references to the sanctity of contracts, I bow my head to him, not for his ability as a Minister but because I am sure he is such a great actor than he even convinced himself.
The Prime Minister and his follower, Senator Wardlaw, have tried to suggest that they see no housing crisis. The Prime Minister said that there was, perhaps, a little problem in housing but we were doing very well and catching up. Everybody knows that we can eliminate that prospect because, if the rate of building continues as it is now, the housing problem will never be overcome.
The right honorable gentleman suggested that the release of credit would not provide one extra home. That is completely wrong. It is not only a question of releasing credit. The restrictions on credit that have applied in the last eighteen months, are more severe than the Prime Minister or any member of his Cabinet has realized. The private trading banks have withdrawn from housing credits of up to £18,000,000 in the last eighteen months. That means that £18,000,000 less went into home building in the last eighteen months.
At the same time, the Rural Bank -of ‘New South Wales put into operation last October a new low deposit housing scheme. It will provide money on a £50 initial deposit. It has sold 536 Housing Commission homes on that basis at 4± per cent, interest, and many more similar transactions are awaiting approval. The private trading banks have reduced their housing loans by 17i per cent, over the past eighteen months while all classes of bank advances fell by only 6 per cent, in the same period. The banks, with money available to lend, have chosen to reduce housing loans by 174 per cent, while other bank advances have been reduced by only 6 per cent. In any circumstances, lending money for housing, even at the present high rate of interest, is not the most profitable business into which the banks can enter. I say most of them have invested their capital in outside concerns which are simply hire purchase companies. For instance, I suppose the National Bank of Australasia Limited has reduced its loans for housing to the same extent as other banks have done, and its advances have dropped by 18 per cent., but, if a prospective borrower cares to go along to Custom Credit Corporation Limited in which the National Bank of Australasia holds 40 per cent, of the capital, he will be able to borrow money for housing at an interest rate of 10 per cent, flat which, if properly computed, would amount to something like 16 per” cent, or 18 per cent, per annum.
– Are there any takers?
– Yes.
– At 10 per cent, flat?
– As a matter of fact, Senator Maher would be amazed to learn how many takers there are with this company.
– There is one born every minute!
– That is not so. It is only natural that those people who do not understand the crisis, who are living in comfortable houses, who have little knowledge of money but who own a great deal of it, should refuse to believe that a person would pay an interest rate of 10 per cent, flat in order to get into a house of his own.
– Definitely.
– I can do no more than quote the figures, but I do have personal knowledge of many, many people who have paid that rate of interest. I advise Senator Maher to have a talk with the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) who has told us that applicants to the War Service Homes Commission during the eighteen months or two years for which they have to wait for their advances, borrow money at rates ranging from 17 per cent, to 19 per cent.
– But that is only a temporary loan. That is only while they are waiting for the money. That is a different situation altogether from paying .10 per cent, flat.
– I think that the policy of Custom Credit Corporation Limited is to arrange loans for periods ranging from three to five years. I do not think that corporation lends for 45 years at 10 per cent. flat. I think its object is to make the loan for a short period, and possibly renew it later.
– I thought Senator Armstrong’s main object was to obtain houses.
– That is so.
– Then I say, “ Bless anybody who can get one “.
– The Minister for Customs and Excise should talk to Senator Maher, who does not believe that there are a number of poor, unfortunate people who are living under such conditions that they will do almost anything to get out of them. He does not believe that there are people who, as I said before, have a courage that amazes me and who will pledge their future by paying as much as 18 per cent, or 20 per cent, in order to get into their own homes and thereby escape from the terrible conditions to which I have referred. If Senator Maher were living with his family in one of these fowlhouses at Brookvale, he would realize the temptation there would be for him to do anything to get out of it. I am amazed that these unfortunate people do not try to rob a bank directly. At least, if they did so, they would have warm shelter under a dry roof in gaol. The conditions at places such as Brookvale are not sub-standard; they are conditions of pigsty housing, and documents at our disposal furnish proof that similar conditions exist throughout the country. How can Government senators sit here, as wise men, and say that these people are being robbed because they are paying too much interest? The question with these people is not one of what they ought to do, but one of responsibility to their children, some of whom may be racked with bronchitis or choked with asthma all night because of the conditions under which they are living. We cannot appreciate what these people feel in those circumstances. One must live through such an experience in order to be able to appreciate fully just what it means and what it does to a person, that is what we must realize, and the sooner we do so, the sooner we shall solve the present acute housing problem. The question is not one of the percentage of people without homes, but one of so many families without homes - so many men and women who are just as good as you and I, and many of them a lot better. They are people who want an opportunity to get into a house so that they can plan for the future and bring up their children in reasonable conditions. That is the minimum a country like Australia should offer them.
Every honorable senator knows my attitude towards immigration. I do not think there is a keener man in this Parliament than I am in advocating the acceptance of as many immigrants as this country can absorb. I had the pleasure of working with the Labour Minister for Immigration. Mr. Calwell, in the initial stages of the Chifley Government’s immigration programme, and I was Acting Minister for Immigration for a short time. But although I am so keen on immigration, I cannot see how we can justify bringing people into the country when, under normal conditions of development, they are lucky if they get into a home within five years. That is not fair to them. It is my belief that once an immigrant has worked for a year, eighteen months, or perhaps two years, he should have the opportunity to obtain a home. Every Australian who is in work and has some degree of security should have the same opportunity to have a home. A home is a fundamental necessity. Now. we are faced with a situation in which the Government is doubling, if not quadrupling, the intake of immigrants and there are no homes for the newcomers. Senator Hendrickson referred to 40 persons living in the one house and working shifts so that they could use the beds twice. Admittedly, much of what he said might have been exaggeration, but there is still too much overcrowding in houses. This most undesirable situation will not be overcome until we overtake this big lag in housing.
To me, the key to the whole solution is finance, because no one will convince me that the man-power is not available in New South Wales for home-building. The man-power is there, but it has moved into other fields. In normal circumstances, there is in the housing industry a large untrained man-power force. I refer to the builders’ labourers, the men who mix concrete, the brick carriers, and the general labourers who assist the tradesmen. It is the normal thing for these men to move out of an industry once it begins to slacken off, and their movement is reflected in the unemployment figures. I have read reports concerning the number of men who are out of work. Those reports have been quoted many times in the debate, and I do not feel it necessary to repeat them now; but not only members of the Liberal party - those people who are loved by the Minister for National Development - but also prominent men in industry and trade unions have told us, from their personal knowledge, of the numbers of carpenters and bricklayers registered with their unions in New South Wales.
With this terrific volume of man-power available, in New South Wales - I can only speak for that State - can any one suggest that materials are not also available? Can any one seriously suggest that we have not huge stacks of timber lying in the yards of saw-mills and vast numbers of bricks at brickworks? The New South Wales Minister for Housing, Mr. Landa, said that nearly 78 saw-mills have closed down in New South Wales in the last six months. Admittedly, some of that number were what might be termed marginal establishments, but if the housing programme had been proceeded with properly, they would have become permanent and so added to the prosperity of the country. Brickworks are in a similar position. The supply of household appliances such as refrigerators, radios, carpets and other articles that make for a comfortable home is greater than the demand at this very moment. During the very early days of the war, I remember the late John Curtin saying, “We have the man-power, and we have the materials.
The job of government is to bring them together and get the task done.” A similar situation is with us now. We have the manpower and the materials. The only thing lacking is the will of this Government to bring those two factors together. .There can be no doubt that finance is the force that welds these two important factors together in order to give the results we need so urgently.
The problem has been looked at from many angles. To me, finance is the fundamental approach. We can do better. Can any honorable senator on the Government side say that we cannot do better than we are doing in connexion with housing? Let us admit that we can do better, and then work out how much better we can do. 1 venture the opinion that honorable senators would be amazed at how many more houses could be built and made available by the freer use of credit.
– Where is the surplus work force in the building industry?
– Speaking for New South Wales, I can quote the secretary of the carpenters’ union and the secretary of the bricklayers’ union. They have made public statements about the man-power which is available in New South Wales to-day, despite the vast amount of commercial building that is going on in the City of Sydney. The erection of commercial buildings in Sydney is proceeding at a greater pace to-day than at any time in the history of that city, but I do not complain about that, for that type of building requires a certain type of employee while the erection of cottages calls for the employment of another type of building employee. I am not critical of the tremendous expansion of commercial building in Sydney. That should not affect our housing programme. I believe that both types of building should be able to proceed together. I wish to refer, in passing, to the statement that was made last week by the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer) to the effect that about 40,000 people are living alone in big houses. Senator Benn dealt with this matter earlier. What is the use of bringing this sort of argument into a discussion on housing? It doss not affect the position in any way. The fact is that these people are living alone in houses, and there is nothing we can do about it. Senator Benn mentioned that these houses are located mostly in the wealthier suburbs of our capital cities.
– If the owners of big houses were permitted to charge reasonable rents, they would let them instead of continuing to live alone in them.
- Senator Henty made a similar statement, earlier by way of interjection. It is as silly now as it was then. Indeed it is even sillier as he has since had the advantage of ample time in which to think over his suggestion. When we were in office, we endeavoured, by means of the national security regulations, to compel the owners of unoccupied houses to make them available to persons who needed them. Al that time, there were many weekend cottages locked up: they were not even occupied by one person, except at week-ends. Speaking from memory - from ten to fifteen years has elapsed since the period to which I am referring - honorable senators would be astounded to learn how few owners were forced to make available their unoccupied houses to deserving home-seekers. Even with war-time powers, the Labour Government could not do what Mr. Cramer says should be done, and this Government would be equally powerless to act Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why he intruded this aspect of the matter into the debate.
The Minister for the Army also said that he had no doubt that credit would be eased sufficiently to enable the building trade to be fully employed. The Minister used simple words, which can be understood by any one. If any honorable senator opposite wants to know anything about unemployment in the building trade, Mr. Cramer should be able to supply the information sought, because his background is such that he has exact knowledge of such matters. Mr. Cramer also said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was perfectly correct when he said that money supplied to the building industry was not the cure for the housing problem. This is another example of another great actor wishing to have two bob each way. He also said that it would be extremely foolish to make money available to the building trade beyond its capacity in men and materials to absorb that money. As I have mentioned, he had stated only a moment earlier that credit would be eased sufficiently to enable the building trade to be fully employed.
– Men are being put off in Brisbane.
– We all know that, unfortunately, only last week 450 building workers had to be put off. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the matter, there can be no argument about the fact that 450 men were thrown out of work. Who was right - Senator Spooner from his castle in Canberra, or some one in Queensland? All I know is that the Minister for National Development was very annoyed. It is completely accepted that houses were being built in Queensland for the people, but they are no longer being built. As I have said, 450 building workers have been dismissed from their employment because the Commonwealth did not accede to the Queensland Government’s request for £278,000 to enable its housing commission’s programme to be completed. This matter has been very fairly debated by the Opposition, and the Government’s attitude has been very poorly defended by its supporters. I suppose that it is very difficult to make a good case out of bad material. That was the reason why Senator Spooner acted, rather than delivered his speech.
Apart from all the hard words that the Government and the Opposition have said about each other, I believe that all members of this chamber are sufficiently endowed with the worthwhile qualities of human beings not to want to see other members of the community faced with personal crises because of their inability to obtain homes. Pressure should be brought to bear on members of the Cabinet with a view to the relaxation of credit, so as to permit of the backlag of houses to be overtaken. I think Senator Spooner said that, despite the tremendous number of houses built since the war, Australia is still short of 115,000 houses. Although the Minister is apparently listening to me, he is refraining from nodding his agreement.
– The number is 115,350.
– We accept that figure.
– If the Minister would only nod, I need not search my notes further.
– He said that there was ai shortage of 115,350 houses..
– I urge the Government not to allow the immigration programme it is fostering to break down because of a shortage of housing. There has been a rapid growth of our population through immigration and natural increase, and the Government should be prepared to play its part and see that housing justice is done to all. It should afford to the immigrants that it is bringing to this country from all parts of the world an opportunity to obtain their own homes within a reasonable period of time. More importantly, it should ensure that houses shall be provided for young Australian men and. women who are growing up. That is all I ask. The present inflationary situation has been caused in part by the Government’s action in. forcing up interest rates. Surely something can be done to permit money to flow into housing through the normal banking channels, so that young couples will not be compelled to pay usurious rates of interest on housing loans. I trust that the backlag of housing will be overtaken, if not in the immediate future, in the not fax distant future.
– I listened with great interest to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General in opening the second session of this Parliament, in which he referred to many subjects, ranging from external affairs to the problems associated with the progress and development of Australia. His Excellency, during his term of office, has moved freely about Australia and its territories in the exercise of his high duties, and he has mixed very well with the Australian people. The visit of His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, officially to open the Olympic Games gave great joy to our people. There was much rejoicing at his elevation to the high status of Prince of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
His Excellency referred to discoveries of large deposits of copper, lead, sulphur and zinc at Mount Isa in north-western Queensland. It is very difficult to set any limit to the possibilities of this rich mineral wealth. In addition to the Mount Isa developments, about 45 miles away and almost equidistant between Mount Isa and Cloncurry lies a rich uranium field known as Mary Kathleen. According to current reports, the Rio Tinto Company, which is mining uranium there, has made a deal with the United Kingdom involving the sale of uranium oxide of a value of the order of £40,000,000. Also it is investing, in building up a township with all modern facilities, no less a sum than £10,000,000. That seems to suggest that it is very confident about the prospects of its enterprise there.. It is my belief that unbounded mineral wealth not yet tapped lies in the tropic zone west of the mountainous region near Cairns and running through Chillagoe, Irvinebank, Mount Garnet, then farther south to Charters Towers, and then right away toMount Isa, Cloncurry and across the border into the Northern Territory to Tennant Creek, Rum Jungle and Arnhem Land. It is a very remarkable geological belt containing great riches. I am certain of that, because of talks I have had with geologists and from what I have learnt on the spot from men who have lived there, who have prospected these fields and who know something about them. Vast wealth is waiting to be brought to the surface. This area is about 1,000 miles long by 400 miles wide. It could well be the richest mineral belt on the face of the earth.
His Excellency the Governor-General said that the rehabilitation of the railway line linking Mount Isa with Townsville on the eastern coast is being examined, jointly, as a matter of urgency by the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. I know with great satisfaction that, as a result of a conference between the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Gair, and other Queensland Ministers, it has been decided to call in the services of overseas experts to assist in the completion of plans for the development of the railway serving this important mineral and pastoral area.
– It would not hurt to call in the Government’s rail standardization committee.
– I intend to refer to that committee as I proceed. Mount Isa Mines Limited has also made it clear to the Commonwealth and State governments that if suitable transport can be provided the production of the Mount Isa mines will be increased from the present rate of 4,000 tons a day of combined lead, silver, zinc and copper ore to 13,000 tons a day. That is a big increase and one worthy of going after.
– Is 13,000 tons a day correct?
– It is -correct. The directors of Mount Isa Mines Limited believe that considerable expansion beyond that rate can be made if the railway system between Townsville and Mount Isa can be considerably reconditioned and strengthened to carry the extra loading. An important point which should not be lost sight of is that if the railway line can be strengthened as proposed, and this extra production can be put in hand, Australia would benefit by the greatly increased export earnings of these products of Mount Isa Mines Limited. To help in this direction, Mount Isa Mines Limited has already decided to erect a large copper refinery at Townsville which, once it has been completed, will give a big fillip to all kinds of mining operations in the area to which I have referred.
The greatest obstacle to the company’s expansion programme is undoubtedly the parlous condition of the 3-ft. 6-in. railway connecting Mount Isa with the port of Townsville. The permanent way is in poor order, and the expenditure of many millions of pounds is required to strengthen and recondition it to carry the increased production of the company.
The Mary Kathleen field is rapidly opening up and will make a very substantial contribution to the wealth production in that area. It will use substantially the Mount Isa-Cloncurry railway line when it is connected by road with Cloncurry. The rail gauges committee, of which I am a member, did not visit Mount Isa during its tour when it considered the problem of connecting the capital cities of Australia with the world standard gauge of 4 ft. 8i in. We did not have time to get up to Mount Isa last year. We also took into account the fact that ‘ the Commonwealth had sent two very capable officers to inquire into the whole situation at Mount Isa and see whether the prospects warranted the expenditure of large sums of money to strengthen the railroad. However, the rail gauges committee made an important reference to ‘the Mount IsaTownsville railway on page 31 of its report, which ought to be in the hands of every honorable senator.
The committee did not urge the immediate standardization of the line from Mount lsa to Townsville, but it did advocate that in any major works undertaken, eventual standardization should be envisaged. That is, the committee recommended that any new work should be constructed with standard gauge sleepers and 94-lb. rails, even though laid to a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge in the first instance. The committee foresees that sooner or later the TownsvilleMount Isa railway must be extended to Camooweal, and if provision is made at this particular time for the sleepers and rails, the track can easily be widened to 4 ft. 8i in. as and when required, when the railway eventually goes on to Camooweal.
– Why does the committee suggest that it go on to Camooweal?
– Because we feel that sooner or later there will be a Commonwealth railway connecting Camooweal with Newcastle Waters and thence on to Darwin. It will provide for that big area of country which is capable of immense expansion and development, and this new line should be on the same gauge. That is the idea; and the committee feels that way about it. The committee recommended that any extra expense bound up with making provision in the new work for sleepers suitable for the world standard gauge, for 94-lb. rails and other odds and ends that would assist in ultimately making it into a 4-ft. 8i-in. line should be borne by the Commonwealth in order to assist the Queensland Government with such a big project. I should add that the rail gauges committee hopes to make a visit to Mount Isa, Townsville, Collinsville and other points of interest when the parliamentary session terminates. We will have a look at these places and perhaps make a supplementary report for the benefit of members of the Parliament and others interested in this important matter.
His Excellency also mentioned the significant discovery of bauxite deposits in very large quantities near the Weipa Mission .on the west coast of Cape York peninsula. Work is now proceeding on this bauxite field, and I am assured by those with a knowledge of the mining operations there that the field is large and rich and is capable of yielding tremendous wealth to this country.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting, 1 was referring to the development of mineral resources in northern Queensland, .particularly at Mount Isa, where there are tremendous bodies of copper, silver and lead ores; and also to the development of bauxite deposits recently discovered on the western coast of the Cape York peninsula. These discoveries and activities in the rich Mount Isa-Cloncurry mineral belt and on the Cape York peninsula, open the prospects to romantic mineral development. They remind us of the exciting period of gold discoveries in the early development of Australia. This prospect of great mineral development presages increased population in northern Queensland and vast wealth accruing to Australia from that region. Wonderful things are happening in northern Queensland to-day, enough to tingle the blood, fire the ambition and excite the minds of adventurous and industrious people in quest of opportunity and fortune. Queensland, to-day, has the greatest potential of any State for industrial development. It has an abundance of coal, water, timber, rich soils and a wide variety of climate.
In recent years, I have travelled over a good deal of Australia with the Commonwealth Public Works Committee. I do not wish to speak unkindly of other States because I like to feel that I am a good Australian, but in my opinion, vast sums of money are being invested in secondary industries in some States that have not the potential of Queensland. Well, good luck to those States. I do not wish to detract from them one iota. T have talked, in Sydney and in Melbourne, with men who are able to influence the flow of capital for investment. They have all admitted to me that Queensland offers vast scope, but, invariably, they say that they shy off Queensland because of the long sequence of Labour governments in that State pledged to the socialization of industry.
Tt is fair enough to assume, from such remarks, that people who have money to invest will look to States which elect to office governments that encourage private enterprise and the inventment of large sums in secondary industry. The fact that in Queensland Labour has been in office continuously for 25 years is retarding the State’s development at this period when men from overseas - Great Britain, Europe and the United States of America - are prepared to invest huge sums in secondary industries in this country. In an effort to be loyal to my own State I have tried to soft pedal on the political situation in Queensland when speaking to overseas investors. I have said that political changes will inevitably come sooner or later in Queensland and, in any case, all business investment is long-term.
The recent fight between the Queensland Labour Government and the major oil companies is the sort of deterrent to investment to which I refer. Although there may be cause to consider the effect of big capital aggregations in the shape of combines, cartels and monopolies of various kinds in Australia - I do not admit thai there is and I have seen no evidence of it - if I felt that Australians were being exploited by these big capitalistic concerns I would stand with anybody else in Australia against the exploitation of the Australian consumer in any direction. In the oil fight in Queensland, it was obvious thu t the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. A compromise appears to have been arranged, and the consumer is to be able to buy standard grade motor spirit at one farthing a gallon cheaper than the price at which the oil companies claim they should be able to sell it. It is rather absurd.
I suppose it can be said that the Queensland Labour Government has won a victory by being able to sell to the public standard grade motor spirit at a farthing a gallon cheaper than the price at which the oil companies offered it. This achievement might be described as a Pyrrhic victory. About the year 280 B.C., Pyrrhus invaded Italy and defeated the Roman Army in combat. Like Mr. Gair, the Premier of Queensland. Pyrrhus went to the battlefield after the conflict was over and as he saw the bodies of his choicest soldiers strewn about, dead, he said, “ Another such victory and I am ruined “. Hence, any expensive success has, down the centuries since that event, been called a Pyrrhic victory. That is what has happened in Queensland. The Labour
Government there has had a Pyrrhic victory. But behind this victory through which standard grade motor spirit is sold at a farthing a gallon below the price claimed by the oil companies, darker shadows are looming. The people who operate the oil business in Australia have powerful influence in the world of finance, trade and industry. When prospective investors, within or without Australia, are looking for locations to establish new industries, to what extent will they be affected by recent happenings in Queensland? When the experiences of the oil industry in that State are placed before them will they be attracted to invest there or will they look elsewhere? From my observation of life I find that the investor of large sums of money is a very shy bird, and it does not take much to shoo him off. Although the Government of Queensland preens itself on its victory, vast industrial expansion is proceeding at a rapid rate in other States of the Commonwealth. That is particularly so in the States of Victoria and South Australia. I have observed it personally. I wish those States good luck. If their people are able to elect governments that encourage the investment of large sums of money in their States in the development of industries that employ large numbers of people, they deserve our good wishes. I wish them well, but it is with great sadness of heart that I say that Queensland is losing out in the race. I feel it is due to the fact that there is too much rigidity in prices control and too much criticism of private industry. Not enough encouragement is being accorded to people who are prepared to come in to help us to build up our State. I agree that certain industries have been established there, but many of them are ancillary to the primary industries of the State and could not have been established very favorably in any other State.
If the Queensland Labour Government had put into the fixing of an equalized price for petrol throughout Queensland half of the fight that it has put into this recent pricefixing argument, it would have done Queensland a very good turn, Throughout the vast areas of inland Queensland, users of motor spirit are obliged to pay anything from 5d. to ls. a gallon more than is paid in Brisbane. In Canberra to-day I was talking to some gentlemen who come from Thursday Island, and they told me that there, despite the fact that Thursday Island is a port, they paid 6s. Id. a gallon for standard petrol as against 3s. 8d. in Brisbane. The States would be adopting a sound principle if they were to strike an average price for petrol. By doing so, they would enable people who are producing the wealth of Australia in remote areas throughout the country, but particularly in Queensland at places like Winton, Longreach, Charleville, Quilpie and Cloncurry, where distances are vast, a chance to obtain motor spirit at the price that applies in the coastal ports, particularly Brisbane.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that that should be done throughout Australia?
– 1 should like to see that principle extended all over Australia. Many of the people who buy motor spirit in the coastal cities use it only for week-end pleasure jaunts in their cars. It would not hurt those people, and even business houses which use motor trucks and panel vans, to pay a fraction extra for their petrol in order to give the benefit of an equalized price to those people who live in remote areas under difficult conditions, and who have to travel long distances to get to their trading towns and railheads. But we have not been able to persuade the Queensland Government to take up this matter with half the gusto with which it fought the oil companies in order to gain a concession of one farthing a gallon in the price of standard petrol.
During this debate, we have heard a lot about housing. In my view, the greatest bugbear in housing is the high cost factor. It was Robert Burns who said that “ man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn “. No truer statement has ever been made. We see the boys who belong to the Labour party fraternity hail each other with slaps on the back and cries of “ Hello, comrade “, “ Hello, brother “ and “ Hello, fellow-worker “, but all those salutations have a very hollow ring when we realize that bricklayers who could lay between 1,200 and 1,400 bricks a day, as they did formerly, have reduced the rate to about 500 or 600 a day.
– They have slowed it down to 350 a day.
– The position is worse than I ever dreamed it was. To my knowledge and in my experience, 25 or 30 years ago a bricklayer laid between 1,200 and 1,400 bricks a day, but I have been assured by those who speak with authority that in some places the rate is down to 350 a day. By slowing down in that way, they do not hit tuc bo:s. Let that sink in. They hit their fellow-worker by loading the price of houses so that it becomes almost impossible for him to buy one or to pay a rental based on the high cost of erection. There is a lot of talk and criticism of the Government in relation to the building of homes, but the worst feature of our home-building system is the darg - the go-slow system that is imposed by these men who address each other as “ Comrade “ or “ Brother “. What hypocrisy!
– And under poor leadership.
– And under poor leadership, as Senator Wright suggests. I am not putting the blame entirely on the bricklayer, the carpenter, the painter or the tiler who goes slow; I am attaching it also to many building contractors who are not satisfied with a fair and reasonable, profit but who seek an excessive profit. They must bear their share of the responsibility, too. In different ways, a home purchaser undertakes a lifetime task in paying off a house which costs anything from £3,000 to £5,000. Approximately two years ago, I had the privilege of being driven round Mount Isa by Mr. Gross, a former general manager of Mount Isa Mines Limited. He showed me the Mount Isa Mines Limited building programme for mine employees. It was an eye-opener. Lovely homes, better than are being erected to-day in the capital cities, were being built. They were constructed of cement bricks, and had tile roofs and other modern conveniences, and there were many designs to avoid monotony.
If any mine worker purchased a block of land in Mount Isa, which might have cost only £150, he could hand the deeds to the Mount Isa company, which would submit to him and his wife a number of home designs, drawn by its own architects, so that they could choose their own design. After taking the deeds, the company would build, the home for the worker. It knew almost to a fraction of a shilling what each home would cost before it commenced to build it. It allowed a reasonable profit to everybody who supplied material and to the builder who undertook the job. The company said to the builders, “ Here is the job. If you want it, take it; if you do not, leave it You will not get an excessive profit out of it. We have fixed what we think is a fair and just profit” The result is that Mount lsa has one of the finest housing systems in Australia under what 1 describe as the greatest system of benevolent capitalism that this country has ever seen.
– How many bricks do they lay there?
– It is not a red brick, but a big cement brick. I could not give the honorable senator a fair comparison, but the company does build the houses. Everything is efficient under the direction and overseership of one of the greatest undertakings that this country has seen, namely, Mount Isa Mines Limited.
I also saw houses which were built by the Mount Isa company for rental. The rents varied in amount. These houses are built in the far north-west of Queensland and are let at rentals which range from 10s. a week for young married couples to a maximum rental of 25s. a week for houses with as many as five bedrooms. Where else in Australia can one find anything to equal that? A principle is involved which is worthy of thought and consideration by those persons who have the responsibility of allocating funds for housing in the various States. The principle is that there ought to be and that there can be some authority which can fix the maximum price for a worker’s home and that money should be provided on that basis. That would obviate the making of excessive profits by builders and also the adopting of go-slow tactics by those persons employed in building homes. In my view, those are the greatest bugbears in the home-building industry to-day. I heard Senator Armstrong refer to some hire-purchase undertaking which, he alleged, charges a flat rate of 10 per cent, on a hire-purchase basis for the construction of homes. If that is the case, it is dreadfully unjust. I cannot comprehend that any man could, with his eyes open, enter into a contract to pay interest at a flat rate of 10 per cent, on a home costing £4.000. The minimum interest that he could expect to pay would be £8 a week. How many unfortunate fellows could afford to pay, out of their earnings, £8 a week in interest alone? What hope would there be of eventual repayment under the scheme? 1 hope that there are not. many takers for that proposition. Anybody who entered into such an undertaking would, in my opinion, be very foolish. That is a challenge to all of us to do what we can to make funds available at reasonable rates of interest for home-building.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has gone out of his way to censure the Government on this question, but I anl bound to say, after listening to his address and reading the “ Hansard “ report of it to confirm my worst fears, that he submitted a very poor case indeed. It is very easy to give all the reasons why there should be more houses, as he did last week and as Senator Armstrong did to-day. The reasons are obvious enough, but the manner of doing the job is not quite so easy. New South Wales accounts for 60 per cent, of Australia’s housing deficiency. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) said last week that there was an overall national housing shortage of 115,000 dwellings. Sixty per cent, of those are required in New South Wales. That is an enormous proportion in one State alone. Housing, of course, is beyond all doubt a State responsibility, yet, in New South Wales, the Labour government is prepared to spend over £2,000,000 on building a fantastic opera house. -
– 1 thought it was £4,000,000.
– What is a million or two amongst friends, anyhow?
– It is £3,500,000.
– I am assured by Senator Cole that it is proposed to spend £3,500,000 on a luxury opera house of Lucullian magnificence, while the housing deficiency in New South Wales accounts for 60 per cent, of the national total. There is no answer to that. Senator Grant, who is interjecting, ought to hang his head in shame for supporting a Government which is prepared to spend £3,500,000 on an opera house when so many of his own constituents in New South Wales want homes. What nonsense it is to come here and attack this Government that has done so much in the provision of funds for the building of houses, when such things occur in the State which Senator Grant represents in this Senate!’ Those persons who are interested in building operations in New South Wales, backed by some of the Sydney daily newspapers
– Some of the leading builders.
– I have included them in “ those persons who are interested in building operations in New South Wales “. They, backed by some daily newspapers in Sydney, have tried to stampede the Commonwealth Government with banner headlines on what they are pleased to call the housing crisis. There is nothing connected with the shortage of housing to warrant extravagant criticism of that kind. There is, and has been ever since the war ended, a grave shortage of houses. The position to-day is merely a. continuance of what is, without doubt, a very definite - indeed, acute - housing problem. The pressure for homes, for returned soldiers, other young couples about to marry, and the 1,000,000 migrants we have absorbed into this country in the past decade, creates a demand for housing which no Government could meet fully in even five years. It is absurd to think that we can absorb immigrants at the rate of 160,000 a year and cater for the increase in population in our own country with a house for everybody requiring it. The point of absurdity is reached when one tries to argue along those lines/ The building work force has not been available in this country to erect homes at such a rate and it is quite irresponsible for any honorable senator to. argue otherwise.
Senator Spooner, in a splendid fighting speech in the Senate last week, reminded us that the Commonwealth Government, under two housing arrangements, one with State governments, and the other through the War Service Homes Division, has invested, from Commonwealth Government funds alone, the astronomical sum of £500,000,000 in housing in the past decade. This enormous sum, Senator Spooner said, had been found by the taxpayers and, through the Commonwealth -Government, invested in housing. He also made it clear - and this point should be thoroughly understood by honorable senators - that the Commonwealth Government provides only 30 per cent, of the total money that is expended on home-building in Australia.
It is not difficult to prove that, if the Commonwealth Government has found £500,000,000 in the past decade, other agencies such as the trading banks, through their savings bank departments, the Commonwealth Bank, building societies and insurance companies have provided large sums of money to build homes. If the Government is providing only 30 per cent., those other agencies must have found between £900,000,000 and £1,000,000,000 in the past ten years. Therefore, in that period approximately £1,400,000,000 and £1,500,000,000 has been spent on homebuilding in Australia. Let the Opposition laugh that off. There is no answer to those figures. How can the Opposition say that not enough money has been expended on housing when the population is increasing by leaps and bounds, and the huge sum 1 have mentioned has been provided for housing? It is a record of which any government should be proud. It was not approached, even proportionately, by the Labour Government which preceded this Government in office.
The figures given last week by the Minister for National Development showed that the current expenditure on housing is about £230,000,000 a year.
– It is not enough.
– It is a lot of money, especially when it is necessary to match it with the work force and the materials available. That is the current annual expenditure on housing from all sources. Of that amount, the Commonwealth Government is providing from government funds £63,000,000. In addition, 700,000 homes have been built in the post-war years in Australia. That is a major effort. The Leader of the Opposition is a kindly soul and I suggest to him that he would be well advised to withdraw his motion of censure and substitute sincere congratulations to the Commonwealth Government for its housing achievements.
There is an old saying that Rome was not built in a day, and that is singularly appropriate to the present situation. Puck might have put a girdle round about the earth in 40 minutes, but it takes time to build great cities with rapidly multiplying populations. The housing situation cannot be remedied in a day. Until very recently, expenditure on housing from all sources has matched the supply of labour and materials. The Prime Minister (Mr.
Menzies) has been criticized for statements he made in his press interview on 7th March. At that time, he warned against the dangers implicit in the provision of money for housing in excess of the building work force and the supply of materials. A very important principle is involved there, lt affects the stability of the Australian economy. If it is disregarded, it could well stimulate inflation.
The right honorable gentleman said also that the limitation on the housing programme in Australia was the limitation of manpower and building materials. He also stated that new man-power and new materials could not be created by the supply of money. The Opposition has set up a cry for more money. It has suggested that we should get money by hook or by crook, but the Prime Minister has wisely said that the limitation on housing is the limitation of materials and man-power, and that new man-power and new materials cannot be created by the supply of money. That is true. The Prime Minister also said -
To the limit of man-power and the limit of materials, money ought to be available to combine in doing a job for the home-loving people of Australia.
That is the answer to all the criticism that has emanated from the Opposition. I have no hesitation in saying that the Prime Minister’s contention is as sound as a bell - as a wedding bell, if you like. Credit expansion, and even hard cash, will not build more houses, no matter how badly they are wanted, if the work force and the requisite materials cannot be supplied.
– What about Queensland?
– In Queensland, the State Labour Government could have had £3,000,000 for housing this year but, of its own volition, it elected to take less, namely, £2,750,000. The Queensland Government knew at the time that 20 per cent, of its housing money was allocated to building societies. Therefore, it knew all along that its total housing funds would be reduced because of the allocation to the building societies of £250,000. It had less money this year for housing, not because of the big bad wolf - the Commonwealth Government - but because of its own deliberate policy and for its own particular reasons. In view of the fact that 20 per cent, of housing funds were going to the building societies, the Queensland Government must have known, and in point of fact did know, that fewer men would be required by the Housing Commission. If the State Government had acted correctly, it would have released the men gradually from the commission and endeavoured to have them absorbed in the jobs being undertaken by the building societies to the extent of the £250,000 allocated in that direction. That would have been the correct approach, but the Labour Government decided otherwise.
The Labour Government thought that it would be very spectacular and that it would make useful propaganda against the Commonwealth Government to sack 400 men overnight and then raise the cry that the dismissals were due to the Commonwealth Government’s starving the State for housing funds. It is hard luck for the 400 men who have been thrown out of work, but they are merely pawns in the political game as played by the Labour Government in Queensland. They are being thrown out of work in order that the State Government may raise the cry that the Commonwealth is starving Queensland for funds. I can assure honorable senators that after meeting the workers who were thrown out of employment, I know that they know who is their friend and who is their deceiver in this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition is a very keen critic. I can assure honorable senators that he “ knows his onions “ in these matters, and it is rather significant that in his criticism of housing last week, he did not attempt to support the Queensland Government’s arguments in connexion with the sacked men. He did not attempt to sustain the arguments which Senator Brown and others have used in this chamber. He is far too experienced in the political game to build up a case on false premises. All he did, in making passing reference to the Queensland embroglio, was to make a special plea to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to provide the money with which to keep the sacked men going until the end of the financial year. Senator McKenna pleaded with the Minister to provide the sum of £278,000, the amount estimated to be required to keep those men employed until the end of this financial year. That was the extent of his criticism on this particular point. If there had been a case for the Queensland Government on this issue, he would have come in with boots and spurs, and big, sharp hooks on the spurs, too. Make no mistake about that! But he walked right round the issue, merely making that special plea for the men whom the Labour government had sacked from Housing Commission jobs in Queensland.
It is interesting, too, at this particular moment, to say that the building workers who have been threatened with dismissal in Brisbane are employed on the State’s own workers’ dwellings, which are financed by State government funds and are in no way associated with the Housing Commission funds provided by the Commonwealth. Let that one sink in to the heads of those who are trying to build up a case against the Commonwealth Government on this issue. This is a matter between the State Government and its own employees oh workers’ dwellings financed entirely from State government funds and unrelated in any way whatsoever to the funds which are furnished by the Commonwealth Government under the terms of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.
If honorable senators want a little more evidence on how hollow the argument is against the Commonwealth Government, I have a clipping from the “ Courier-Mail “, of 24th March, relating to the sacking of 452 building workers which, it states, will be followed this week by the sacking of several temporary clerks in the State Housing Commission. It says -
The Premier, Mr. Gair, said yesterday that there could be more to come.
I quote Mr. Gair. He said -
There could be more to come.
Mr. Gair first of all dismissed out of hand the plea made by the Leader of the Opposition here that we should advance £278,000 to the State Government, to be deducted from next financial year’s allocation for housing. He did not approve that suggestion at all. Furthermore, Mr. Gair said -
The expected outcome of these sackings will be a tightening up in the Housing department to make sure that money is not being overspent.
There is the key to the whole situation. The Queensland Government overcommitted its funds; it overspent the housing allocation. So it is stated in the clipping to which I have referred that the expected outcome of these sackings will be a tightening up in the housing department to make sure that money is not being overspent. The clipping further states -
The Treasurer, Mr. Walsh, may require monthly checks of spending in future. Cabinet-
That is, the Queensland Cabinet - had no idea that the housing financial position was so bad until the Housing Minister, Mr. McCathie, dropped in in their lap last month. The sackings have caused an almost complete shut-down of work on six of the Housing estates. *
That is the sorry story of the way in which the Queensland Labour Government has handled the funds which have been allocated to it by the Commonwealth Government for housing purposes.
Moving away from Queensland, I now want to make my position clear. I am prepared to say that changing conditions are now beginning to emerge for the first time in connexion with housing since the present Government came to power .in 1949. From various authoritative sources, t have learned that the supply of building materials has improved very substantially, but I have as yet no evidence of any considerable surplus of workers connected with the building industry - if we exclude the 452 men sacked by the Labour Government in Queensland. I say, then, to the Senate that I am satisfied the .material position has improved out of sight, but I have no authoritative evidence to satisfy me that there is any big improvement in the building work forces. I have heard speakers argue here, and I have read in the press of speakers in another place who have argued that union secretaries have said that there are so many men intermittently employed and so many men out of work. They have -made all sorts of assertions, but have said nothing convincing, nothing authoritative. The Prime Minister gave the figures. He said that, according to the records of the Department of Labour and National Service, there were 693 applicants for work in the building industry, compared with 619 vacancies. The totals came very close to cancelling each other. He said that the official records of the department showed that there was really no unemployment in the building industry in Australia. Although some honorable senators may be inclined to chal lenge the official records or the Prime Minister’s statement, I should like to ask them this: If, as has been alleged by the Opposition, there is a big body of unemployment in the building industry, why have the allegedly unemployed building workers nol registered for employment with the department? Why have the allegedly unemployed bricklayers, carpenters, painters and plumbers not registered as unemployed so that the departmental records would reveal the true position and be a worthwhile guide to governmental authorities? It is not sufficient for honorable senators opposite to say that certain union secretaries have stated that there is intermittent employment in the building industry, because the official figures debunk that assertion. Like the man from Missouri, I want to be shown. Before more money is released from various sources in order to increase the tempo of building operations, the Government wants an assurance that an adequate work force is available. Of what use is it to expand credit and provide funds from certain sources if the men are not available to do the work? I asked Senator Armstrong this question, by interjection, when he was addressing the chamber. The honorable senator beat about the- bush, but did not answer the question.
– Mr. Stewart Fraser has supplied the answer.
– He leaves me stone cold. I want to hear the facts, not the views of particular bodies of builders, some of whom want to see a big flow of inflationary money. I make it clear that I shall back any argument that can be properly substantiated, irrespective of whether it is advanced by the Opposition senators or anybody else. I want an assurance that if additional money is provided an ample work force will be available to do the job. We cannot supply more houses unless builders are available to construct them. Let that be understood. J may be an innocent abroad, but nevertheless I should like to know why, if building workers are unemployed, they have not registered for employment. If there is a backlag of building, I believe that it will be overtaken in the new financial year as a result of advances for building purposes that are being made available by the savings bank departments of some of the private trading banks, and the fact that the funds of building societies will be augmented by the arrangement under which 20 per cent, of the money allocated to the States for. housing under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement will go to them.
As the new financial year is not far off, 1 assume that the Commonwealth Government is looking into the whole question of housing. If it can be proved that there is a genuine surplus of building workers, I think that it should provide the necessary additional money for allocation to the States for home-building, on the basis of the amount necessary to provide employment for unemployed building workers. That is the effect, really, of the Prime Minister’s declaration of 7th March, for which he has met trenchant criticism by people who are not conversant with the facts.
I have much pleasure in supporting thi. motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply.
– If there is one thing on which we can agree in this debate, it is that we have just listened to a most remarkable speech by Senator Maher. The honorable senator went right through the “ Courier-Mail “, quoting everything except the parts about “ Dagwood “ and “ Wally and the Major “. But as soon as he got to the gravamen of this debate, that is, the censure motion against the Government that has been moved by the Opposition, as the mouthpiece for the people of Australia, he commenced to do what many people do when their argument is weak - that is, to shout and rave. I intended to deal only with housing, but as Senator Maher made so many unfair statements regarding the recent petrol dispute in Queensland, I feel it incumbent on me to make some observations in that connexion. Senator Maher laughed and sniggered about the rise of one farthing a gallon in the price of petrol. We must come down to a consideration of the actual position after the smoke of battle has cleared away. I notice that the price of super-grade petrol is 4s. Id. a gallon in Victoria and 3s. 10 1/2d. a gallon in Queensland. Therefore, the Queensland motorists are better off than the Victorian motorists. The price of standard-grade petrol is 3s. lOd. a gallon in Victoria, whereas in Queensland, where the Labour Government is led by Mr. Vince Gair, it is 3s. 8d. a gallon.
I come now to imports of petrol. Last year, Queensland imported 100,000,000 gallons of petrol, 60 per cent, being supergrade and 40 per cent, standard-grade. Queenslanders are paying £416,000 a year less than the Victorians for super-grade petrol, and £500,000 a year less for standardgrade petrol. If that is not something of which Queensland can be proud, I should like to know what it is.
– Tell us about the retailers’ profit in those two States.
– As I said at the outset, I intended to deal solely with housing. However, I should like to point out before leaving petrol that the Standard Oil Company Limited, the company that is struggling with its mouth open waiting for a sucker from Queensland, was the second biggest profit-maker in the world last year.
– I asked the honorable senator to give particulars of the retailers’ profits.
– Senator Kendall has asked so many silly things during the last few years-
– Order!
– The profits of the Standard Oil Company Limited were topped only by those of General Motors-Holden’s Limited. Senator Maher engaged in a political attack. The gravamen of the subject before us is the lives and souls of the people who are out of work. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) made a most remarkable speech on this subject. Paragraph 21 at page 7 of the report by the Department of National Development reads -
The production of other materials has risen steadily since 194S. By 30th June, 1956, the shortage of building materials has virtually been eliminated.
We come then to the remarkable statement by the Prime Minister when he says that an increase of the amount of money will not increase the number of houses because there is a shortage of materials. But Senator Spooner points out that timber mills have been closed, brickyards have been closed and in Western Australia disputes have been breaking out because brickmakers have been put off and there has also been an influx into the city, because timber mills have been closing down. lndeed, that has been happening throughout Australia. The gravamen of this dispute is: Who is right in this regard? It is obvious because the Minister for National Development has told the two stories! The department he controls is completely right. I have the Western Australian report which, chapter by chapter, confirms in particular what the Minister’s officers were pointing out generally.
I note with some amusement that Senator Maher has thrown in his support behind the Prime Minister. He says that the Prime Minister is completely right. The thing that worries me is that Senator Maher has fallen for the same story that the economic advisers were telling to Cabinet eighteen months ago. When I was talking to people at that time, they said to me, “ However much that might apply to the general housing position throughout Australia, it certainly does not apply to the position in Western Australia “. I invite honorable senators to cast their minds back to last October, when we debated the unemployment position in Western Australia. Senator Cooke led the debate for this side of the chamber with Senator Toohey and myself supporting him, and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) and Senator Pearson replied on behalf of the Government. We were treated on that occasion in the same cavalier manner as we have been treated on this occasion. Honorable senators opposite attempted to deny facts that were quite undeniable. They put up a facade and said that these things just did not exist.
One of the most amusing things about the speech of the Minister for National Development was his attempt to throw this housing criticism off, in that facetious way he has, by saying that this is a- job for the States and that it was not a job for the Commonwealth. I shall read what the Prime Minister had to say earlier. The photo attached to the pamphlet is a nice one of him; I suggest it must have been taken a few years ago. He said -
The Liberal party when returned to office will regard as its permanent and most vital responsibility the speeding up of the housing programme. We will not allow any other public works other than those of the most extreme urgency to be given priority over home building.
That is different from what the Prime Minister says to-day. Let me take other phrases from his statement at that time -
In other words, the very government which claims to be the champion of the average man and woman-
He was speaking of the Chifley Government - is the Government that is depriving you of a home and, by starving State governments of funds, preventing even your State government from helping you.
It sounds strange to-day. I think that the whole weakness of the Minister for National Development’s speech the other day was his statement that housing is the responsibility not of the Commonwealth but of the State governments. We hear that said almost ad nauseam. But surely when the Commonwealth Government introduced uniform taxation, it did not at that stage say to the States, “We will not give you any money to enable you to carry out your responsibilities “. Every government, in every State, whatever its political colour, has certain responsibilities devolving upon it. The Commonwealth Government has responsibilities devolving upon it, but, in addition, it has the obligation or responsibility to make it possible for the State governments to carry out their responsibility. The Commonwealth has no right to impose on the Government of Queensland Western Australia, Tasmania or New South Wales something which it considers to be a political tag. When the Commonwealth Government says to the Government of Queensland, or another State, that under a housing agreement 20 per cent, of the funds must go through a building society, that is imposing a tag. Those governments were properly elected by the people of the respective States, and this Government has no right to put a political tag on the money it gives to them. It would be just as ridiculous for the Government, at a meeting of the Australian Loan Council, to say that a certain thing could not be done because it was a plank of the platform of the Labour party or the Liberal party. This Government is entitled, in the federal sphere, to carry out its own political ideas which it put fairly and squarely before the people and for which it received a mandate. The same responsibility devolves on every State government in its sphere and the Commonwealth Government has no right to attach a Liberal political tag to the money which has been allocated to a Labour government in Queensland, Western Australia or Tasmania.
– It is a negation of sovereignty.
– lt is a complete negation of sovereignty.
– Does not the honorable senator believe in building societies?
– The Minister for Customs and Excise is falling for the same sort of trap as Senator Maher. I had hopes of that fellow. He now asks me the question: Do not I believe in building societies? My very point is that it does not matter whether the Commonwealth considers that a matter in a State sphere is right or wrong; it is a matter for the State government which is handling the thing. This Government has no right to put on a political tag. lt has been elected to administer in the federal sphere, and I repeat that it is completely entitled to do that for which it has received a mandate. But it has no right to thrust its ideas on to a government which was elected on a completely different political platform.
Another thing that amused me about the Prime Minister’s statement was his harping on the assertion that if more money is made available for housing it will have an inflationary effect. Surely if you force people who are looking for homes to narrow their choice, you make it more expensive for them. You will force them into a worse bargaining position. Is not that inflationary in itself? We in Western Australia certainly found things easier once we started to get on top of the housing problem. The Minister for National Development said the other day that he got very angry when he read that the States directed attention to the need for the standardization of railway gauges, the need for the elimination of unemployment, and the need for a better road system - provided the Commonwealth Government would stand the expense. The people of Australia are looking for somebody to give them a lead. They know it is the responsibility of some one. The money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and the job has to be done. The lead should be given by the Commonwealth Government. If the Minister gets angry every time such a suggestion is made, how are the States going to fare?
One of the matters that has disturbed me, as a Western Australian, is the fact that speakers in this debate have concentrated on housing, so that adequate consideration has not been given to the serious unemployment position in Western Australia. Unemployment in that State is largely linked with the housing shortage. When we debated this matter a few months ago, we were told that this relationship existed only in our imagination. Senator Maher fell for the same sort of thing to-day. He said that there were 600 people out of work - I think that was the figure he used - and that 600 vacancies were being advertised so there was no unemployment. He is like Micawber. We have had some experience of this. If there are 600 vacancies for nurses, it is not much good 600 carpenters applying for the jobs. Again, if you have a man who has worked for many years in the soft goods trade and becomes unemployed at the age of 55 or 56, it is not much use his applying for a vacant job on the coalfields. He would not be capable of doing the work. The reasoning of Senator Maher merely produced a twisting of the figures.
– It is complete sophistry.
– Of course it is! Senator Maher said he was like the man from Missouri, he wanted to be shown. I do not want to get on to an emotional plane, but a couple of weeks ago I saw something in Fremantle that I thought would never be seen in Australia again. I saw 200 men lined up at a soup kitchen, and they have been doing that, day after day, for months. If Senator Maher had been in Western Australia I could have taken him to see for himself.
– But they were not building workers. We are talking about housing now.
– Here is this great hearted man from Missouri! Evidently he thinks that the only people who ought to be helped are the building workers. However, there are others who are hungry, and who must sleep outdoors because they have no homes or adequate means of support. Does the honorable senator realize that many trades are engaged in the building of a house apart from building tradesmen? There are truck drivers, hod carriers, the men who wash down buildings and those engaged in unskilled labouring work. These men do not sleep on beaches or line up at soup kitchens for the fun of it. In Western Australia, the unemployment situation has gone far beyond’ the political arena. The Mayor of Fremantle has circularized employers in the section of the city for which he is responsible pleading with them to retain their employees as long as they can, and lo dismiss them only as a last resort. Reverend gentleman of all denominations are applying themselves six and eight hours a day to the task of alleviating unemployment. They are making appeals to private residents who have any work to do in their homes to employ these unemployed persons, and so save them from the depressing psychological rut into which unemployment can so quickly drag excellent characters. I am by no means a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce, but that organization is coming to the fore and petitioning the federal Government to start work on the standardization of the railway gauge, beginning at the Western Australian end. It is not that they think that that is the proper place to begin but they regard this work -as a means of absorbing many of the unemployed in that State. Appeals are being made also for the reduction of fares so that unemployed persons in Western Australia might be able to return to the eastern States where their social and economic position will not be so acute, and where they can be once more with their wives and families and in their familiar environment.
The Commonwealth Government has had eighteen months to deal with the unemployment problem in -Western Australia. It should have known long before this why its policies are striking harder at Western Australia than any other State. Its import restriction policy has had an almost devastating effect in Western Australia. Most of the large importing firms are in big cities such as Melbourne and Sydney, and they palm off a lot of their goods to Western Australia. Naturally, if they get a 25 per cent, overall cut and can sell the goods in Sydney they will arrange to have goods brought to Sydney instead of unloading them at Fremantle. In the large cities, the organization for selling is far better than in the small cities and towns such as those in Western Australia, and they have, therefore, a great advantage over the smaller States in connexion with import reductions. I was not aware of that fact until business people in Western Australia clearly demonstrated it to me by facts and figures.
What’ a- glorious opportunity existed in Western Australia for the Commonwealth Government to experiment with a remedy by letting out a little more credit. There was no danger of the situation getting out of hand, and business firms would have been relieved, and would have had a chance of picking up. However, because of the policy fixed in the minds of the Government six or eight month ago, nothing of this sort was done. In spite of what Senator Maher says, in Western Australia there is a surplus of material and labour, both skilled and unskilled, to bring about a revival in the building trade.
On 16th February, the Minister for National Development sounded a rather optimistic note in a statement which he broadcast. Dealing with the housing position, he said -
The survey shows that Australia’s great opportunity to overcome the present housing shortage will occur in the next five years. In this period the needs for new housing are expected to be at a relatively low level because of an expected falling off in the marriage rate, reflecting the low birth rates experienced during the period 1930-34.
That may be a logically impeccable statement, but it does not work out in practice. There is no suggestion that the housing lag will be overtaken in the next five years. Western Australia has done more to overcome the housing shortage than has any other State, but it is interesting to notice that, even- in a State with such a small population, the demand for housing is still strong. In the annual report of the Western Australian State Housing Commission for the year ended 30th June, 1956, this paragraph appears -
Nevertheless a steady demand is being maintained with new applications for rental houses being lodged at the rate of 400 each month; at the same time, over 300 applications a month are being received to purchase either by way of State assistance or through the War Service Homes Act.
That shows that another 700 homes a month are needed. According to that report, at the close of last year, only about 1,500 houses were under construction. That was a drop of about 900 houses from the previous period. I want to warn the Government against being lulled into a sense of complacency about housing, because applications are pouring in and the demand is still strong.
When Senator Spooner was speaking, he rather unfairly and stupidly talked about how he suffered because of the terrible agreement that the Labour government concluded with the States, and that had to run for ten years. He said that, because he was an honorable man, he suffered the agreement to run its full term, there being nothing else he could do about it. Surely, as an accountant, and one who should know contract law - because that is a subject he would be forced to study to qualify as an accountant - the Minister would know that in drawing a contract an essential feature is a clause providing for its termination. As Senator Armstrong pointed out to-day, if the Minister had looked into the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement he would find that clause 16 (2) provides that by giving twelve months’ notice the entire housing agreement can be terminated, and that course was open for any State to follow. There was no need to break the contract. Senator Spooner should have known, as an accountant, that he had only to apply that provision in order to terminate the agreement.
A most amusing feature of this debate has been to hear Senator Spooner, one of the great champions of free enterprise, human liberties and the rights of the subject, saying that there are houses in Australia which are under-occupied, and that something should be done to remedy that situation. Shades of 1949! I wonder what would have been the reaction from the Opposition parties if a Labour government had made such a statement. If the Labour Government of 1949 had said to any householder, “ You have only two persons in your large house, and we are going to bring in a family of six children to share it with you “, what a roar would have gone up.
– That is a misconstruction of the Minister’s remarks.
– Senator Henty suggests that I am misconstruing what Senator Spooner said. He said that there were houses under-occupied. What did he mean? My comment is: If a Labour government had made such a statement what would the Liberal party and the Australian Country party have said? I ask Senator Henty whether he would not have put a construction on that remark similar to mine. The Minister does not need to answer. Every one knows what a biting tongue he has. Senator Henty knows what sort of a construction his party put on the housing agreement that was brought into being by the Chifley Labour Government in 1945. They say, “ It is up to the State rental control authorities in each place. If you lift your rental controls, you will get a lot of people out of it.” We have had some experience of thai, in Western Australia. Over there, rental control was abolished, not by the action of the Government, but by the action of the Upper House. We did not obtain any appreciable lift in housing as a result. Rather did it mean that people in small businesses in the city of Perth were ejected from their premises overnight because somebody else offered more money as rent. The result was that chemists and other essential traders were ejected. There was no question of balance. One person could go over the head of another who had been in business for many years and offer a higher rental with the result that the person already in business had to vacate the premises without any chance of selling his goodwill or anything else. Is that the kind of thing that you champions of private enterprise want to bring about? It is the very thing you will achieve if you implement Senator Spooner’s proposal to force the States to adopt some of these measures.
The Minister said -
Another task confronting the housing Ministers is the organization of a united attack on building costs.
He proceeded to refer to new means of building and all the rest of it; but if he had applied himself to the work of his department, he would have known that it was difficult to implement revolutionary ideas. We are making bricks from mud, as was done 2,000 years ago. When we engage in mass building construction by using cement mixers and similar machinery we are making some progress, but it has been proved time and time again that it is difficult to break into new methods of construction. When the Minister speaks about costs at that level, he completely gets away from the main cause of increased costs which is the increase of interest rates - the very thing that this Government brought about. If one goes along to a bank now, the bank manager will ponder whether to advance the money at 5i per cent, or 6 per cent
Let us get right back to the figures which we all seem to have forgotten about. On a house costing £2,750, an increase of the interest rate from 3 per cent, to 3£ per cent., which is modest enough, means an increase of 6s. 6d. a week. An increase of the interest rate from 3 per cent, to 4i per cent, means a weekly increase of 13s. 3d. I repeat that those figures are applicable to a house costing £2,750, and not too many are built for that amount to-day. The Minister did not apply himself to that matter when his department was under attack.
Senator McKenna referred to an inquiry by a Labour party committee in Sydney. He did not quote the findings of the committee, but quoted verbatim statements by witnesses including trade union leaders and organizers who are on the job day after day. If the Government would have regard to the information furnished by those men instead of remaining in its ivory tower, we would be able to inject some sense into it. What did the Minister say after Senator McKenna had furnished him with chapter and verse, had given to him the names and addresses of the union secretaries involved and had given him every chance to interview the people or to send an official to interview them? He said that it was a Labour party committee and as one would expect, it wanted -to discredit the Government. But the witnesses were not trying to discredit the Government. They are being harassed and hammered day after day by people who scream into their offices. The Minister did scant justice to those people who gave facts and figures to show the unemployment situation. I was amazed when I saw the Prime Minister and other Ministers treat this matter in such a cavalier fashion, as though it had nothing to do with them and as though it was a bit of political propaganda.
I was amazed, too, when Senator Spooner devoted about three-quarters of his speech to the States and then blandly announced that they had invited him to the conference of Housing Ministers but that, unfortunately, because he was occupied in Parliament, he did not have time to go. He had all those things to say, and he had an invitation to a round table conference, but he chose to absent himself from it. I know it is very important that one should attend to these other duties, but it generally is when one t in government. I do not know of any thing more important than for the Minister, if he genuinely held the views that he has expressed in this chamber, to have gone to the Housing Ministers and told them, not us, what thoughts were in his mind.
I wonder how much money is being injected into the economy by people who start to save for a home. Many save up to £400 or £500 only to find that inflation has reduced its purchasing power. Then they save up to £700 or £800, but then they discover that the interest rate has been increased and that the banks demand a larger deposit. Finally they do what almost any other person would do in the circumstances and say, “ We have had this. We will buy a little car “. Year after year the Government is dragging in another group of people who have done a bit better than a group did in the previous year but who have not been able to make the grade. I wonder how much money we are drawing off from the savings of thrifty people and injecting into the purchase of consumer goods that could easily wait until a later date. I had thought that the tightening of money would occur before this. I wondered how it had been held off for so long. In other words, we have been living on the fat of the people and, as it were, have been injecting it into the economy instead of allowing it to accumulate to be used for the very desirable purpose for which people started to save.
– The savings bank figures would not support that viewpoint.
– I do not know. There has been a variation in the savings bank figures.
– They are higher to-day than they have ever been before.
– Even so, the Government could apply the money. There is no way of checking it. The Government has been keeping the economy going a little longer, but it has been taking the money away from a very desirable objective.
There were other matters in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech to which I wish to refer and I hope that I shall have an opportunity to do so later, because I do not think that we should move away, as Senator Maher did, from the gravamen of this debate. Before it is concluded, we should be able to ascertain the’ view of the Govern- ment on this matter. Does it agree with the reports that have been furnished by responsible officials, or does it agree with the rather fatuous statement of the Prime Minister that the provision of more money would not bring about more housing? f do not think there could be a more important debate because tied up with it is the question of unemployment. That is something that I should have thought any government, irrespective of its political colour, would have doubled over backwards to cure, and would not have allowed to run for eighteen months, as it has in Western Australia, saying that only so many people are registered here and so many there. There are all sorts of reasons why people do not register. A man who is unemployed can get £4 10s. for a day’s work, and if he is able to get casual work he does not register immediately.
After the promises made by the Prime Minister in 1949 and repeated since, I do not think that anybody who is not bound by party ties could do anything but censure this Government for the cavalier fashion in which it has treated the housing problem throughout Australia. For this treatment, it rightly deserves censure.
– I should like first to associate myself with the message of loyalty contained in the Address-in-Reply and to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion. I should also like to support the remarks of Senator Annabelle Rankin in this debate and to add my suggestion to the Government that some notice be taken of them and that the matter be investigated. I should also like to congratulate Senator Wood on his remarks on tourism. Not very long ago I had over from New Zealand a friend who represents a big travel agency and who toured quite a lot of Queensland with me. When he had finished the tour, he said, “ I cannot understand it. Here you have tourist bureaux, tourist agencies, travel agencies, railways, airways and everybody else in Queensland trying to get tourists, and it is all being killed by the hotels “. Hotels, of course, come under the licensing act of the State of Queensland, and in my opinion they could be vastly improved if some very strict laws as to the accommodation that they should provide were passed.
One other speech that 1 noted was Senator Laught’s plea for the building of our own ship instead of chartering “Kista Dan “ all the time for Antarctic voyages. I thoroughly agree with him. The amount paid out year after year in the charter of a ship could well be spent on building our own ship, and eventually money would be saved, particularly as we now have two or three bases in the Antarctic to be serviced.
Perhaps one might call this a curious debate. There is the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply and at the same time this amendment which is, in effect, a motion of censure. I do not wish to lose the advantage of the AddressinReply debate, which allows one to speak on a great many subjects. So what I propose to do is to speak briefly on one or two subjects, particularly one on which this will be my last chance to speak before the budget session, and later to deal with the amendment, or censure motion. The first subject with which I wish to deal is one on which many honorable senators will remember I have spoken at great length and often in the Senate, it is the subject of fisheries, and again I wish to bring it to the attention of the Government and bring matters up to date.
First, 1 want to point out that in 1952-53, 73,000,000 lb. of fish was caught in Australia; in 1953-54. 71,000.000 lb.; in 1954-55, 62,000,000 lb.; and in 1955-56 only 57,000,000 lb. In other words, in those five years from 1952 to 1956 there was a drop of 22 per cent, in the actual catch made by our fishermen in Australian waters. The figures for canning in the same years were 8,000,000 lb., 7,500,000 lb., 7,000,000 lb. and 6,000,000 lb. In other words, there was a drop of 25 per cent, in the quantity of fish canned in this country in that period. In the same years, imports of fish rose from 35,000,000 lb. to 38,000,000 lb., and up to 52,500,000 lb. In other words, there was an increase of 50 per cent, in the importation of fish from other countries and a drop of 22 per cent, in our own catch. I consider, particularly in view of the trouble that we have had with our import restrictions in the last few years, that this is one of the matters to which the Government should pay far more attention than it has paid in the past. I have made my pleas, as most honorable senators remember, over the years to try to get the fishing industry placed on a proper basis, and the only way that we can ever do that is by providing research vessels.
On the conservation side, fishing may quite easily be divided into four types. First, we have inshore fishing and fishing in salt water rivers, where mostly mullet, bream, and fish like that are being caught. Those fisheries are being grossly overfished at present, and have been for two or three years, because no provision is made, and no vessels are available, as they are in almost every other country, for ensuring that those areas will not be over-fished.
– Is not fishing in salt rivers a State responsibility?
– Yes, that would come under State control. The whole of Australia works very closely with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in regard to research and such matters. The States, where they work at all, work very closely with the Commonwealth, and the ichthyologists get together and discuss these matters.
– In the final analysis it is a State matter.
– In the final analysis, the Commonwealth should give the lead, as I have suggested on several occasions, by asking the States to meet it and formulate a proper policy for conservation. The same would apply in relation to fresh water rivers. The States are doing quite a good job in regard to fresh water rivers, but that is primarily because only 3 per cent, of the fish used in Australia comes from fresh water rivers. We then have the trawler type of fishing for such fish as flathead, whiting and so on. These also are being grossly over-fished. That is well known, but nobody doe3 anything, partly because we have no vessels to deal with the matter, but primarily, I think, because the Government is not willing to spend money for this purpose at this time, nor has it been over the years.
The other type of fishing, of course, is pelagic fishing out in the deep sea. That is the type about which I have spoken mostly. The fish caught are mostly canning fish- mackerel, tuna and the salmon types. That is the type of fishing from which Australia could gain a very large amount of money in exports, if only we went about it in the right way. The first thing that we would have to do, as 1 have said times out of number, is to get research ships in order to let the fishermen know where the tuna are, where they go, where they spawn, and everything else in connexion with them. In addition, we must have, as other countries have, long-term loans for fishermen. Canada, the United States, Great Britain and South Africa provide these loans. During the last few months, South Africa has been spending £250,000 on the building of three research vessels, fitted out for oceanography and for providing all the information that fishermen require to know.
– A factory in South Australia has so much canned fish that it does not know what to do with it, and the factory is shut down because the fish cannot be sold.
– The Japanese can come out and catch fish in the Coral Sea, and then can it in Samoa and sell it to the United States. There must be something wrong with our marketing or with the Department of Trade. The market exists in the United States and other countries. I understand that the academy of science, which is connected with the Australian National University, which deals with fundamental research, is thinking of putting in stations at Cairns and Port Moresby to deal with biological aspects of the Great Barrier Reef and marine growth in general. I cannot help feeling that there should be some liaison there between the fisheries department and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and I hope that something along those lines will come about. So much for fish. I said that I would speak only briefly on these one or two matters that I want to bring forward.
– Has the sea in this region you have mentioned been explored?
– The Coral Sea?
– Between Cairns and Port Moresby.
– No. We have had some very short expeditions. For example, about two years ago the Commonwealth Government chartered two vessels, “ Fair Tuna “ and “ Fair Venture “, which went up there for three months and came back with a report headed “ Inconclusive “. Of course it was inconclusive. You cannot survey waters in three months. You have to go over the seasons and over the years. It takes a long time. Canada, for example, spends 10,000,000 dollars almost every year in research, which is repaid hand over fist in exports.
I ask the Government to give serious consideration, when it is framing the budget, to the provision of either one survey vessel capable of doing all types of work necessary, or three smaller survey vessels. About £250,000 would cover the cost of one large vessel or three smaller ones fitted up for all kinds of work. 1 have spoken to Sir Ian Clunies Ross about this proposal, and he is in complete accord with it. Perhaps I am backing him on this occasion. I hope the Government will do something about it.
I wish to direct my attention now to Seato. Senator Hendrickson was voluble on this subject, and I am at a loss to understand his objections to Seato. I believe he had two objections. First, he objected to the fact that a secret conference was held in Canberra. His second objection was that there were only eight member nations in Seato, including some that did not belong to the South-East Asia area. The whole object of Seato is to publicize any moves by the Communists in the various Asian countries that could seriously affect us or any of the other countries in South-East Asia. That means not only those who are members of the organization now, but also others in the area. That publicity is not secret
The only secret about Seato is the methods by which the member nations consider they would be able to stop any trouble if it started. Quite naturally, those methods have to be kept secret, and I cannot understand Senator Hendrickson’s objection. It is true that about half the number of nations concerned has not joined Seato, but most of those nations are. in the process of settling down, having emerged, in some cases, from colonialism, as it is termed, into freedom, as it is termed. The process of settling down might take decades. Probably many of those nations are seriously considering what has happened in Hungary, and are wondering if it might happen to them. I have great hopes that, in the next two or three years, other nations will join Seato.
The question of petrol has come to the fore to-night, particularly when Senator Willesee was speaking. He was extraordinarily . rude when I interjected, but perhaps it was his right to be rude. He did not produce the figures that I requested. The fact that there is a difference between the price of petrol in Victoria, and in Queensland is not due to the fact that the Queensland Government has been able to do anything about it. The truth is that the retailer gets far less in Queensland, because there is price control there.
– Who fixes the retailers’ margins?
– The Minister in charge of prices.
– No.
– Yes, it is true. Following the supposed war with the petrol companies, legislation is to be introduced in the Queensland Parliament to abolish one-brand petrol stations. I think that is a shockingly retrograde step. These companies have taken over the vast majority of garages in Queensland. They were dirty and provided bad service or no service at all. They did not have what was wanted. That applied to 85 per cent, of the garages in Queensland. Now they have been rebuilt and many facilities, including restaurants, have been installed. The operatives have been trained and taught to be civil. All this is to be wiped but simply because the Premier, Mr. Gair, has had a row about the price of petrol. I doi not understand why this should happen at, all. It is a retrograde step, and I am sure the people of Queensland will be sorry to; see it.
I have prepared some figures in connexion with this matter. Statements are . made, and printed in the press, that there are far too many petrol stations since the one-brand petrol stations were introduced. These are the facts: In 1949, there were 11,071 petrol stations in Australia. In 1956, there were 16,500 petrol stations, or an increase of 49 per cent. In 1949, there were 1,170,000 vehicles, and in 1956 there were 2,350,000 vehicles, an increase of 102’ per cent. Therefore, 49 per cent, more petrol stations are catering for 102 per cent, more motor vehicles. There is nothing wrong with that. The average works out at 106 vehicles for each station in 1949, and 143 vehicles for each petrol station now.
One-brand petrol stations have been successful all over the world, and particularly in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and many European countries. I repeat that it is a most retrograde step on the part of the Queensland Government to do away with them. I shall be interested to see what will happen when the managers of the petrol stations are told that they must sell Formosan petrol, because all the garage-owners in the singlebrand stations have signed a contract with the oil companies that they will not sell any other petrol. What will be their position? I suppose it will go to litigation eventually, and we shall find out in what an awkward position the Queensland Government has placed itself.
– They may be forced to break the contract.
– Either that or the matter will go to the High Court of Australia and the court will decide. Somebody suggested in the “ Courier-Mail “ that there might be a move to sell only one brand of beer in the hotels.
– That is practically the position now.
– The suggestion was that they do away with public houses selling one brand of beer, and force them to sell more than one brand. I do not think there is much possibility of that. The party funds in Queensland would be hit too hard. I was interested to note how Mr. Gair was strutting around and stating what he would, do to those who dictated to him over petrol. I did not see much of that when the shearers’ strike was in progress or when the railwaymen refused to carry wool because it was declared black. When 2,000,000 sheep were waiting to be shorn and Queensland was faced with the possible loss of some £14,000,000, I did not see the State government trying to stop it.
I come now to His Excellency’s Speech. His reference to incessant efforts by international communism to subvert the free institutions of the nations reminded me very forcibly of the recent conference in Queensland. I was intrigued by the continual reference, not by one person but by a string of persons attending the Labour party conference in Queensland, to what they termed democratic socialism, lt appeared to me that everybody who spoke at that conference mentioned the term “ democratic socialism “ several times, and I should be most obliged if an honorable senator opposite, when he speaks, will tell me just what democratic socialism is. The word “ democratic “ comes from the root demos, meaning the people, so that democracy is rule by the people, while socialism relates to rule by a dictator. How can the two be com’bined? How can we have democratic socialism? 1 have never heard such nonsense, but, as 1 say, I shall be very much obliged if some honorable senator opposite will tell me just what his interpretation is. I shall be very interested if honorable senators opposite have any interpretation at all, as a matter of fact.
I remember that during the war, when I was in hospital for some months in England, I read a number of books that I would not read normally because I am not a deep political reader. Amongst them, I read a book called “ Democratic Socialism “, by a man named Dearden. It was a book of over 400 pages and I waded through them all to try to find out what it was all about, and I was just as wise at the end as when I started.
– You always get plenty for your money from the socialists.
– It was one of the Red Book Club’s books, published by Gollanez, if I remember rightly.
Having got those two or three small things off my mind, although the fishing matter is serious. I now come to the amendment. The amendment, of course, is a motion of censure of the Government. In its first part, it seeks to censure the Government for “ failure to establish, in conjunction with the States, a national housing plan “. We have heard quite a bit about housing already to-night, and I should like to mention something which I think all honorable senators know, but about which I should like to remind them. For a good many years, certainly for all the years during which he has been Minister for
National Development, Senator Spooner has attempted to get the States together to discuss the various developments necessary in Australia so that he can form, together with them, a priority list of developmental works. He has been trying for all the years that I can remember to get that done, and on every occasion the States have refused to agree to a priority list. Their cry over the last five years - I do not remember it previously - has been, “ Give us some money and we will look after our own priorities”. Although I do not question their sovereign right to do that, I do question their wisdom. We now hear it suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that Senator Spooner should have formed a committee of housing Ministers from each State, and indeed, he has been chided by several honorable senators opposite for not going to their conference in Melbourne. The occasion, I remind the Senate, was the opening day of this Parliament. It almost looks as if they had invited him because they knew he could not come. He was here. He had to be here to answer in Parliament the things that “were being said by the Opposition. He was the Minister in charge, and it was obvious that at that stage he could not go to Melbourne, yet he is being chided for not going. I wonder what would have happened if he had gone. J think he would have been told that the States chose to make their own arrangements.
I do not propose to go into the Australiawide question because that has been well covered by some of my colleagues, particularly by the Minister for National Development, but I do know something about the Queensland racket. A fortnight ago, at 3 o’clock one afternoon, I received a letter from the secretary of the building workers’ union in Queensland informing me that representatives of the building trades were coming down to see us at 9 o’clock the next morning. I rang him up and said that I could not get anybody a’, such short notice, that it was ridiculous to expect me to do so. I said that he must give us some time because one cannot suddenly get a lot of members together, that one required two or three days’ notice. However, the representatives came down the following morning. I was the only person there, and I saw them. I listened with very great surprise to what they had to say because that was the first I had heard of the matter. They told me that 430 men were to be thrown out of employment because this wretched Commonwealth Government would not give the State any more money. All 1 could do then was say, “ I will .try to get some of our members together and wc will see you to-morrow morning “.
The representatives came back the next day, and we saw them. In the meantime. Mr. Dawson, the union secretary, had mad? some most scurrilous statements to the press. I thought that was a bit odd in view of the fact that we were going to try to help them. However, we listened to them; and finally, at the suggestion of one of my colleagues, three of us went with three of the representatives to see the State Housing Minister, Mr. McCathie, to see what we could do. We were a group of the strangest bedfellows. The Communist secretary of the building workers’ union and Liberal and Country party members of Parliament were going to plead the cause of the building workers. I think that was most unusual, but I can assure honorable senators that we were all quite sincere in our desire to see whether something could de done to prevent these men from being discharged.
The Minister for Housing said to us, “ I will think this matter over and let you know”. We asked him to hold up the sackings until such time as we could get in touch with our own Minister for National Development and find out what it was all about and, if necessary, see whether arrangements could be made for the provision of more money, if that was the cause. He said he would think it over. Next morning, the Queensland Minister rang me and I passed the word on to the others. He told me that he could not do anything about it. The next thing that happened was that some 400 or 500 men went to the various government buildings, but the police would not let them in, so they came down to see us again because we did not bother with the police. We were quite willing to meet them and to see what we could do. We listened to what they had to say, and finally we got in touch with the Minister for National Development. He told us his side of the matter, and there can be no gainsaying the truth of what the Minister has told us here. We then decided that this was a matter that could be dealt with only by Cabinet, and, so far as I am concerned, the matter rests there.
Many figures have been given in connexion with this matter. In fact, I think everybody who has spoken on the housing position has tried to introduce figures showing that the allocation was so much, that expenditure was so much, that a certain percentage was for building societies and for this, that and the other. Let me deal with this matter without any figures at all, because I do not feel that I am up to money figures. I never know much about money. Suppose we omit the figures altogether. Mr. Walsh, the Queensland Treasurer, has produced two pages of figures to prove that he has not any money. That is amazing. He proves conclusively, to his own satisfaction, and probably it would be to mine, if I could understand the figures, that he has no money for housing. Surely, at the same time, he showed that the State Government had made a complete botch of its budgeting. It knew when the money was allocated that it had £X for housing, and that £Y had been allocated for building societies for the twelve months. Therefore, what the Queensland Treasurer had to do, as any schoolboy of twelve would know, was to divide £X by twelve in order to determine the amount that could be spent on housing each month. Instead, the Queensland Government came whining to the Federal Government, after eight and a half months of the year had passed, saying that it had no money left for housing.
– The honorable senator is over-simplifying the position; he has not considered all the factors in the matter.
– I shall introduce one more figure. I notice that the Queensland Government received £164,000 more than it expected to receive. Because there are relatively few building societies in Queensland, it is possible that it will receive another £140,000. Despite those circumstances, at the end of eight and a half months the Queensland Government said, in effect, “ Unless we receive another £278,000 from the Commonwealth, we shall have to sack 452 men “.
– As there was no wet season in Queensland, the rate of building was higher.
– The rate of building should have been slowed down. One of three things has happened. Either the administration of the State Government was so muddled that it ran out of money after eight and a half months, or it was coincidental that the 452 men were sacked at the time when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) was looking around for something on which to hang a motion of censure against the Government.
– I do not think that that is even a fair suggestion.
– The third possibility is that the State Government is trying to discredit the building societies.
– That is improbable, because the co-operatives are on the Labour platform.
– The new platform?
– They have been on the Labour platform for years.
– I have been told by one of Senator Byrne’s friends in the Queensland Government that that Government does not like co-operative building societies. I think that the Queensland Government has muddled its administration, because a similar position has arisen twice previously - once in connexion with the forestry workers, and once in connexion with the railway workers.
– Of course, the Commonwealth Government usually over-budgets. Attention has been directed to this practice by the Public Accounts Committee.
– I should like to make one other observaton while I am dealing with housing. I am not a wowser, but it is obvious to me that the amount of money that is spent annually on liquor in this country is becoming a national problem. I do not know what we can do about it. Last year, Australians spent £165,000.000 on liquor. At an average price of £3,000 per home, that amount would provide 55,000 homes. I am not suggesting that everybody should go on the dry. I am merely pointing out that that figure shows where some of the money goes that should be saved for house-building. The money spent on betting reached the enormous total of £255,000,000 last year. Of course, I know that some of that money went to the Government as revenue. What I am trying to do is to show that this matter goes beyond a hard government restricting credit.
I wish now to cite a few more figures. As 1 said before, the citing of figures is ineffectual unless only significant figures are mentioned. The following table shows the percentage of loan funds expended by the States on housing: -
– What do those figures prove?
– They prove that the States, other than Queensland, expend a greater percentage of their loan funds on housing than Queensland does.
– It could well be that the New South Wales Government, for example, attaches more importance to housing than to road construction.
– That is irrelevant, because we are debating the sacking of 452 building workers by the Queensland Government because of lack of money.
– Can the honorable senator suggest a solution?
– At the moment, I cannot suggest a solution. I agree with Senator Wardlaw’s assertion that the position in relation to material is now very much easier than it has been for some time. Since the shutting down of the Queensland Housing Commission, both labour and material have been very much easier in Queensland than at any time since I entered the Parliament. I am convinced that many people will take advantage of this fact. I am sure that honorable senators opposite will agree with me when I say that, up to three or four months ago, it was very difficult to obtain sufficient labour and material at the one time.
Before concluding my remarks on housing, I should like to give the lie direct to the oft-repeated assertion that young couples cannot save sufficient money to get a house because costs are so high. Really, my heart bleeds for them! In my youth, 1 saved regularly in order to get a house. Having got it, I lost it, and I then had to save to get another house. I should like to place before the Senate further revealing and authentic figures. In 1930, the third mate on a coastal ship received a salary of £300 a year. In those days, it cost him £2,000 to build a nice house.
– Was that a boom year?
– No, it was not a boom year. As I was saying, the price of a nice house was equal to 6i years’ salary. To-day, a third mate on the coast receives a salary of £1,200 a year. A similar house now costs £6,000, which is equivalent to five times his salary. Do not talk to me about young people not being able to save. They do not save because they are throwing their money away. It is no good honorable senators on the other side talking like that, because they know that what I say is absolutely true. All honorable senators in this chamber are old enough to remember the things which I remember.
– Only too well, but the honorable senator’s statements are inaccurate.
– The statements which I made just now are completely accurate; they deal with personal matters. I know precisely what salary I was getting at that time, and I know the salary I received during the Christmas holidays when I went back to sea to see what went on. One of the failings of our younger generation is that they want everything too quickly, they want everything at once, whether it is radiators, washing machines or motor cars. They want them all at once instead of being willing to save up and get them one by one. That is all I wish to say about housing.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his amendment, urges an immediate reduction in the intake of immigrants. This is a most extraordinary decision on the part of the Labour party, the very party which had the imagination to start this wonderful immigration scheme that has been running over the past ten years. It seems strange that the Labour party should suddenly face about and completely reverse its ideas on the subject. 1 know, of course, that immigration makes heavy demands on housing. Of course it does! I know that it causes a certain amount of inflation. Of course it does! That has happened in other countries and it is happening here at the present time. Natural causes, however, produce far more inflationary effects than does an immigrant coming into this country. One often hears it said that the best immigrant is a baby, it probably is in some respects, but, my word, it is an expensive immigrant! You bring a baby into this country and for fifteen years you have to spend money on it. For fifteen years that baby does nothing. Until it leaves school, it does not earn a cracker, firing into the country an adult immigrant and in one, two or three years he is producing more than he is using, and by way of taxes is contributing to the finances .of the country.
From the point of view of blood and country it may be true to say that a baby is the best immigrant, but from the point of view of expense it is certainly untrue. I would say that a large percentage of our immigrants over the past ten years are now citizens of this country and are producing more than they actually consume. They are helping to build their houses and those of other people. They are helping to solve the housing lag and things like that, and are contributing to the economy by the payment of taxes.
– Does not the honorable senator think there should be some relationship between immigration and house-building?
– I do not know. In the long run, I think the immigration policy which the Labour party started, and which this Government has continued, should be maintained. I am very much in favour of its continuing. We have only to look at the United States of America and Canada - particularly the United States - to see what the open-door method of immigration has accomplished. We have by no means an open-door method. We can flatter ourselves that we have a selective immigration policy and I say that we should go on with it. However, I intend to vote for the original motion and against the amendment which is. in effect, a censure motion.
.- With the motion that is before the Senate, expressing our loyalty to the Throne and our appreciation of the manner in which His Excellency the Governor-General delivered his Address to us, I think all honorable senators will agree. I subscribe to that sincerely and wholeheartedly. I think that the Governor-General, in coming to the Senate and delivering a Speech on behalf of his Ministers, displayed a great deal of fortitude, and made his Speech in his usual excellent manner. 1 agree with Senator Hannan’s criticism of, and strictures on, the growth of the shipping monopoly. I regret that that very fine piece of legislation passed in the early years of federation by the Liberal Government of Alfred Deakin has since been mutilated and now gives authority to the shipping organizations to increase freights and fares. One result, as mentioned by Senator Hannan, is that we are losing £21,000,000 in the latest freight squeeze. Money is being taken from the primary producers and placed in the coffers of the wealthy shipping combines, and this is having an adverse effect on our trad« balance. 1 think the Government, in recent months, has been hard put to restore the trade balance. If so much money had not been going to the shipping combines, the possibilities are that the restrictions which have been placed upon the importation of essential goods for the development of our Australian industries would not have been necessary and that we would have been able to get more of these goods. We speak of our expanding economy. We are proud to think that Australia, as a young nation, is expanding in many directions, but unfortunately upon two occasions in recent years, we have had to retard our production and our expansion simply because of our adverse overseas balance. I know from my own experience as a member of this Parliament, and I dare say that every honorable senator has had a similar experience, that firms developing Australian industries have had their output retarded simply because they have been unable to obtain necessary commodities from overseas. Those commodities are not manufactured here. It was necessary for them to be imported in order to enable industries to expand, yet the goods have been unprocurable because of the import restrictions. I am not going to suggest that the imposition inflicted upon the exporters of this country by the shipping combines is responsible totally for that position, but at least it has played a very important part. Criticism has come not only from members of the Labour party, and liberalminded senators like Senator Hannan, but also from all primary-producing industries and organizations throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. The Government would be well advised to pay attention to these criticisms. Although it may feel fairly comfortable for a year or two in holding the reins of office, it should always remember how true are the words spoken by Senator O’sullivan the other evening, that governments begin to die from the day of their election. Sometimes their demise is brought about more rapidly than they expect. J feel that this mounting criticism of the Government which is being heard from people who, in the past, have been its most ardent supporters, is an indication that its tenure of office might not be as long as it expects.
Many matters have been discussed during this debate. I was very impressed with the case stated by Senator Kendall and by the sincerity with which he stated it. However, I could not help thinking that if he would only look back, he would understand that the position about which he has spoken has developed because of the actions of the Government that he is supporting. The honorable senator gave the Senate some expert advice on fisheries. I know that the development of the fishing industry is a subject very near and dear to the honorable senator’s heart, but I ask him to recall that, last year, when his Government introduced a bill, which subsequently became law, for the disposal of the Australian Whaling Commission’s whaling station in Western Australia, senators on this side of the House pointed out that that was a foolish step. That station’ was earning’ considerable profits. Honorable senators on the Government side replied that the money that they would receive from the sale of this whaling station would be applied to the advancement of the fishing industry in Australia. If Senator Kendall were to examine again the position of the fishing industry, he would realize how short-sighted was the policy of the Government in selling that whaling station. After expenses in connexion with the sale were met, I am certain that the net balance was not very great, and that it is already a rapidly diminishing quantity. Had the Government retained that whaling station and utilized the profits for the purpose that -it is now using the principal, the result would have been of far greater advantage to the fishing industry.
Senator Kendall complained about the attitude adopted by Senator Hendrickson and other senators on this side about the recent meeting of Seato. The principal objection on the part of the Labour party to this organization is that it is not wide enough in its scope. The number of powers represented in that organization could be Considerably increased, lt would be quite foreign to the philosophy of the Labour party to be hostile to any group of nations coming together for the purpose of entering into security pacts or doing anything for their mutual good. The philosophy of Labour, as 1 have known it over the years, has always been for the uplifting of humanity in all parts of the world. Labour has always postulated that it should be the task of the great, advanced nations to do all in their power to raise the standard of living of the peoples of their own and other countries, and to guarantee their security. When the International Labour Organization was established after World War I. and the League of Nations was in operation, the Labour movement always endeavoured, at the various conferences held at Geneva, to induce the nations assembled to do something to develop backward countries. Consequently, if the Labour party has any criticism of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, it is that it should be more comprehensive in order to play its proper part in connexion with the development of South-East Asia and of Australia. 1 do not think that Senator Kendall’s criticism was well founded.
In taking the Queensland Government to task over the recent petrol’ dispute, the honorable senator supported his colleague. Senator Maher, in criticising the action of the Queensland Government in ;.s attempt to assure to the people of that State supplies of petrol at a fair and reasonable price. I know, from personal contact with many retailers of petrol in Victoria, that they were very eager that Premier Gair should win the fight against the petrol combines, operating in Australia. They were keen that those monopolies should be brought to heel, and they were glad that at least one government in this country was prepared to put up a fight even though it was appreciated that the odds against its success were very great. The companies held a very strong hand in that they are able to deny to the people of Australia petrol at a. reasonable price, and petrol is a commodity that has become essential to our economic life. One would have thought that Premier Gair would have received greater support from the other State Premiers.
Debate interrupted.
page 182
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I crave the indulgence of the Senate while I raise an important and urgent matter which has caused concern to the Government and public of Western Australia. On 21st March, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), in reply to a question about whether the Western Australian Government had made any representations to the Commonwealth Government for the construction ofa broad-gauge railway from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie, said -
I have received no definite or specific represen tations from the Western Australian Government in connexion with the matter raised by the honorable senator.
I point out that the question was asked by Senator Seward. The Minister continued -
I have explained in answer to previous questions that some years ago there were exchanges of opinions, but I assume that the honorable senator’s question refers to the immediate position.
I do not think the Minister wished to mislead the Senate or the people, but I should like to know whether he was aware that on 5th November, 1956, less than five months ago, the Premier of Western Australia, the Honorable A. R. G. Hawke, made a request to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that a very high priority be given to the construction of a uniform rail gauge from Perth to Kalgoorlie.
– Did the honorable senator say “ a very high priority “?
– Yes. I shall read the pertinent points of the letter from the Premier of Western Australia to the Prime Minister. They are as follows: - . . it is thought the continuation of the uniform rail gauge from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle should be given a very high priority, particularly . . the section of railway line between Kalgoorlie and Port Pirie . . .
It continues later - . . in the event of your Government deciding to take steps to implement the report of the Committee in question- that is, the committee consisting of federal Government and Opposition members -
I trust the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle section will receive careful and favorable consideration and also a very high priority.
– Now read the last paragraph.
– I shall read the whole letter before I finish speaking. I should like to know whether this information has been withheld from the Minister for Shipping and Transport and whether he was not aware that the desire of the Government and Premier of Western Australia was to have early approval of a high priority for the construction of a uniform gauge railway between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle. . I should also like to know whether he willbring the matter before Cabinet and lend it his full support when it is discussed. I should like to know, too, whether, after he has discussed the matter with the inner Cabinet, he will inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth Government will agree to the request of the Honorable A. R. G. Hawke and give a very high priority to the matter of a uniformgauge railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle.
Senator Seward seems to think that there was another paragraph in the letter addressed to the Prime Minister, a copy of which he has forwarded to me to-day and a copy of which, I have no doubt, has been forwarded to the honorable senator also. The letter that was written to the Prime Minister reads -
A report was published in our local newspapers recently-
That is, on 5th November, less than five months ago - to the effect that a Commonwealth Parliamentary Committee had recommended in favour of a uni- form railway gauge in Australia, with priority of attention to be given- to interstate railway lines.
In this regard, it is thought the continuation of the uniform rail gauge from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle should be given a very high priority, particularly as the section of railway line between Kalgoorlie and Port Pirie is owned and operated by the Commonwealth Government.
The laying down of a 4-ft. 8i-in. railway line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle and, in the second place, from Port Pirie to Adelaide, would give a uniform gauge from Fremantle to Adelaide, which would be a very big contribution towards the establishment of a complete uniform gauge railway line from Fremantle to Brisbane.
I would not agree that the suggested work is entitled to a priority above many other urgent and important works, such as the provision of water supplies, electric power, schools and so on.
He put it on that priority. He said he would not place it on a higher priority than those very high priorities. The letter continues -
However, in the event of your Government deciding to take steps to implement the report of the committee in question, I trust the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle section will receive careful and favorable consideration and also a very priority.
If any one were to interpret that to be anything but a request for the highest priority-
– Oh, yes, in keeping with the highest priority. He wanted a very high priority to be given to it.
– After water and electricity.
– No, not after water and electricity. He said he would not put it higher than that, but he would put it at that height. I shall read the letter again. It reads -
I would not agree that the suggested work is entitled to a priority above-
Or not higher than, if the honorable senator does not understand what “ above “ means - many other urgent and important works.
He says, in effect, that it is on the same priority as - not above - other important works. It is on the same level and, therefore, he uses the words “ a very high priority “. What is a higher priority than a very high priority?
– The things that the honorable senator has mentioned.
– It is a ceiling priority. It is all very well for honorable senators to ridicule a matter that has been distorted by a reply from the Minister. The Premier of Western Australia has shown that he considers it to be of the highest priority, and that if any action is taken by the Commonwealth he wants the KalgoorlieFremantle section to be given the very highest priority.
I feel that it is necessary to bring this matter before the Senate. I know the Minister is not required to answer questions, but I think that, if he had been fair and candid and fully dissociated from political bias, he would not, provided he knew of this information, have misled the Senate to the extent to which he did when he said that not for many years had he had any representations. It is in agreement with the Minister that 1 have raised this matter to-night, and he has said that he will make a statement on it. 1 thank him, but, as the Premier of Western Australia has made the intention of his letter clear to me, I now ask the Minister to make the matter clear to Cabinet and to give the Senate an honest and full reply.
– I appreciate the fact that Senator Cooke said during his remarks, that he did not think it would be my intention to mislead the Senate, lt certainly is not, and I hope the day will never arrive when such is the case. I answered the question truthfully and accurately. I said -
I have received no definite or specific representations from the Western Australian Government in connexion with the matter raised by the honorable senator.
That is surely borne out by the letter itself, which Senator Cooke has now read to the Senate. What does the Premier say? After canvassing the merits or advantages of the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle section referred to in the recommendation of the standardization committee, he goes on and says specifically -
I would net agree that the suggested work is entitled to a priority above many other urgent and important works, such as the provision of water supplies, electric power, schools and so on.
Let me pause there. Had I said, in reply to the question, “Yes, I have received representations “, and had it suited the Premier of Western Australia - as in some circumstances it well could - he would have said, “What nonsense is this? My representation was conditional upon the performance of works of urgency, such as water supplies, electric power, and so on “. Having said that, he could say, “I would not agree that such work be given this high priority, but if your Government decides, in spite of what I think, to go on with it, I want the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle section considered as a high priority”.
– That is specious.
– Not at all. Senator Cooke has suggested that this letter indicates clearly that it is the intention and desire of the Western Australian Government that this work be proceeded with immediately and that it is seeking early approval. I suggest that that is just what it does not say, and when I answered the question by saying that I had received no specific representations, I submit that it was the only accurate answer that I could give to the question that was asked. Mr. Hawke wanted a couple of bob each way.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19570326_senate_22_s10/>.