View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
24 May 1939

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FINANCIAL GROUPS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- ITALIAN FELT HATS
QUESTION
- NATIONAL INSURANCE
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION
QUESTION
- BOOTS FOR MILITIA
QUESTION
- AGE LIMIT FOR MIGRANTS
QUESTION
- INTERSTATE TELEGRAM RATES
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE IN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- LIQUID FUELS
QUESTION
- COUNTRY TELEPHONES
QUESTION
- DESTITUTE CHILDREN
QUESTION
- SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT BUSINESS : PRECEDENCE
SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Australian Broadcasting Commission: Proposed Journal
- Postal Department: Telegraph Branch
- National Insurance
- Defence Expenditure
- Wheat Industry
- Canberra: Trade Classes
- Iron Ore Export Embargo: Claims for Compensation
- Semi-governmental Borrowings
- Performingrights

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 664

QUESTION

FINANCIAL GROUPS

Investigation of Affairs by Taxation Department.

Mr McCALL:

– I ask the Minister for

Social Services if approved societies formed under the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act have forwarded returns of the expenditure incurred in their formation as approved societies? If so, what is the aggregate amount?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Complete information is not yet to hand. It is coming to hand daily, and so soon as it is complete I shall apprise the honorable gentleman of the total amount.

page 665

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen in to-day’s leading article of the Canberra Times the statement that “if, by conscription, is meant compulsory military service beyond the confines of Australia, it is already well known that this could not be achieved without an amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution ? “ As I have heard the contrary view expressed, will the right honorable gentleman make to the House a statement as to the exact position, in order to allay the existing public disquiet?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I have already said that compulsory military service overseas in time of war is not part of the policy of this Government, and that the Government stands against it. In these circumstances, I should like tobe absolved from expounding to the House what might prove to be my own view as to the effect of the Commonwealth Constitution on that problem, because the question does not arise.

Mr Ward:

– The right honorable member knows what the effect is.

Mr MENZIES:

– The honorable member has been good enough to say that I do, but I confess freely that I do not.

Mr WARD:

– In view of the Prime Minister’s statement that he is unaware as to whether there is, or is not any provision in the Commonwealth Constitution which provides a safeguard against the sending of conscript soldiers overseas, will he seek the opinion of more qualified legal gentlemen in the community as to what the exact position is? If it be found that the Constitution contains no safeguard for the people in this direction, will he give to them an early opportunity to sanction an amendment of the Constitution so that this safeguard may be provided?

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall conduct an earnest search for persons of the type referred to by the honorable member.

– The honorable gentleman is no doubt aware that any profits from the department cannot be used by the department, because they automatically go into Consolidated Revenue. I shall, however, give consideration to the point he has raised in his question.

page 668

QUESTION

DESTITUTE CHILDREN

Mr WARD:

– Has the attention of the Prime Ministerbeen drawn to an article in a Sydney weekly newspaper from which the following is an extract: -

It was shown that the children were taken from a bag shack at Gol Gol on the Murray River, near Mildura. They were living with their widowed mother in extreme poverty. The children subsequently appeared before the court yesterday and were committed to an institution in Sydney.

Will the Prime Minister have the circumstances of that case investigated with a view to meting out to that family, and to other families similarly situated, the same warm and generous consideration lately given to the widow and family of the late Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order ! The latter part of that question is not in order.

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I have not seen the report referred to.

Mr Ward:

– And will not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Ward:

– What about the question of assistance to this family?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! Honorable members are gravely disorderly when they repeat a question or an interjection after having been called to order by the Chair.

page 668

QUESTION

SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I have received from the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The acceptance of a tender to erect additions to the General Post Office, Sydney, at a cost of £410,776, such tender not being the lowest tender received.”

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr THORBY:

– I move this motion for the purpose of discussing -

The acceptance of a tender to erect additions to the General Post Office, Sydney, for a sum of £410,776, such tender not being the lowest tender received.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion supported ?

– Yes. The officers of my department were convinced that there was no reason why the lowest tenderer should not be given the contract. On the 18th April of this year, while I was Minister for Works, I approved of the acceptance of the tender of John Grant and Sons Limited for the construction of a building faced with sandstone, the contract price being £409,325. That was the original, unaltered tender. I would not allow any tender to be altered, any more than any other Minister should. The Department of Works had recommended the other tender, because it was for a building faced with terra cotta. After I went out of office I found that the matter had been revived. As late as last week an announcement was made by the present Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll) to the effect that the Government had accepted the tender of the firm of H. G.Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited, the price being £410,776. That prompted me to ask a question in this House of the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. I was asked to put the question on the notice-paper, and here it is -

Has the contract to erect additions to the general post office, Sydney, yet been signed?
If so, who was the successful tenderer?
What is the contract price?
Was the lowest tender accepted?
What materials arc specified for the front elevation facing Pitt-street?

The following reply was supplied to me last Tuesday -

No.
Although the contract is not yet signed, H.G. Whittle and Sons ‘Proprietary Limited have been notified of the acceptance of their tender.
£ 41 0,776.
The specification called for alternative tenders for terra cotta facing and sandstone facing. The lowest tender for terra cotta facing was accepted.
Facing with granite on the lower floors and terra cotta for the upper storeys.

Sir Charles Marr:

– Is H. G.Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited a Sydney firm?

Mr THORBY:

– I believe so, but I am not concerned about that. My point is that the duly constituted authority of the Commonwealth to deal with the matter was the Minister for Works, no matter who he was. He approved of the acceptance of the lowest tender on the18th April. His successor in office first indorsed that decision, but later reversed it and accepted another tender for a building faced with terra cotta. I submit that the Government should amply justify that alteration of a previous decision. Particularly should it justify substituting terra cotta for stone on a large building in an area where practically all the buildings are stone faced. I had no wish to be unfair to the members of the Government on this matter. Immediately I ascertained what was being* done, I waited upon the Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll). He called into his office the new Postmaster-General (Mr. Harrison) and we discussed the subject. I told the Ministers in their office that I was not satisfied with what had been done, and that if they persisted in the course that they had set for themselves I should take the matter further.

They have persisted, and, therefore, I am inviting the attention of honorable members to all the circumstances of the case. Not only the Minister directly concerned, but also the Government itself, should be required to justify this alteration. It is true that I was told in reply to my question that the contract had not yet been signed, but it is also true that an announcement has been made that approval has been given to the acceptance of a certain tender. I wish to make it clear that I acted in a strictly orthodox manner. I obtained advice from the appropriate officers and subsequently signed an approval for the acceptance of a tender. It was not my place to go further. My signed authority will be found upon the departmental files. I make it clear that the lowest tender for a stone-faced building was accepted. That was the end of my responsibility. It was not my place publicly to announce the acceptance of the tender, for the reason that the Treasury, at that stage, had not. made available all the funds required for the contract. I instructed my officers to approach the Treasury for the purpose of securing the funds needed. In the meantime a change of government took place and the alteration that I have indicated has been made. I take definite exception to the Government acting in this way without fully explaining the reasons which prompted it to do so.

Mr McCall:

– What reasons were given to the honorable member when he interviewed theMinisters?

Mr THORBY:

Mr HARRISON:

-I was Assistant Minister in charge of External Territories. The sub-committee which was appointed to go into the question of plans had no overriding power to question tenders or anything else. The committee examined the plans without asking me to be present.

In view of the statement of the honorable member for Calare, I am of the opinion that the facts should be recorded in Hansard. They are set out in a statement supplied by my department from which I now propose to read -

The preliminary plans of the new building to be erected on Hoffnung’s site were received in this department from the Department of the Interior on the 29th November, 1937.

After consideration of the plans by a conference held in Sydney on the 11th January, 1938, the Department of the Interior was advised by this department on the 20th January, 1938, that, subject to certain modifications which were specified in detail, the plans were acceptable.

Mr Thorby:

– They were sketch plans.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order ! I ask honorable members to cease interjecting. The Postmaster-General has only a few minutes left in which to speak, and interjections, besides being disorderly, interfere with the time at his disposal.

Mr HARRISON:

– The statement continues -

On the 1st November, 1938, the working drawings and copies of the description of the plans were supplied to this department by the Department of the Interior. The description of the plans included the following paragraph : -

Frontelevation

The lower portion of the front elevation to be faced with polished granite on brick backing up to window sills of second floor, excepting side bays, which will be bo faced up to first floor only.

The remainder up to top of parapet to be faced with architectural terra cotta or, alternatively, with Sydney sandstone.

On the 11th January, 1939, the Prime Minister approved of tenders being invited forthwith. and- on the 14th March, 1939, Cabinet approved of the work being proceeded with.

On the 20th March, 1939, the Department of the Interior addressed the following communication to this department-

It contained a complete list of tenderers and the amounts of their tenders.

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– No. Among the tenders were those of H. G. Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited and John Grant and Sons Proprietary Limited. For a building faced with granite and terra cotta, their tenders were £410,776 and £411,521 respectively. Each of them submitted an alternative tender for a building faced with standstone. In this case the position was reversed, the price quoted by John Grant andSons Proprietary Limited being the lower, namely, £409,325, and that of H. G. Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited, £409,436. Then follow some details which have no bearing on the question before the House.

I desire, however, to direct attention to the following paragraph: -

The material for . the face of the building has been carefully considered by the Chief Architect of this department, and his opinion, with which I concur, is that the best result will be achieved by adopting the first proposal given above, namely, lower floors in granite, and upper floors in terra cotta. The design, being of a simple nature, would allow for the grading of the terra cotta from the red granite below to say, a cream at the top.

Although the existing building is in stone, there is no possibility of duplicating it in any way, and there seems, therefore, no special reason why with the new design construction in stone need be perpetuated.

It is recommended that the lowest tender, that of H. G. Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited, £410,776, for the building with a granite and terra cotta face, be accepted. [Leave to continue given.]

On the 20th March, 1939, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department received from the Department of the Interior a letter containing the recommendation of its chief officer, that the finish should be in terra cotta, and that the tender of H. G. Whittle and Sons Proprietary Limited should be accepted.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Who signed that letter?

Mr HARRISON:

– I have with me only extracts from the letters, and, as there is no signature, I cannot say definitely who signed it, but I think it was either the Minister or the DirectorGeneral of Works. That letter disregarded the recommendation of the departmental officers. Surely their recommendation should bear weight! When all is said and done they are the experts and the Minister is only a layman. I remind the House that in this instance the Postmaster-General’s Department is acting as.client of the Department of Works. I received that letter as PostmasterGeneral following a change of government. I wrote to Senator Foll, the new Minister for the Interior, as follows: -

May I refer you to the letter of the 18th April, written to my predecessor by Mr. Thorby. This proposal comes as a surprise to the department-

In view of the statement of the honorable member for Calare, I ask honorable members to note that fact. The DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs says that he was not consulted in any way by my predecessor as to the treatment of the. building that he had to administer.

Mr Beasley:

– I support that procedure.

Mr HARRISON:

– The letter continues - . which had concluded that the recommendation of the Director-General of your department and the Chief Architect to use a terra cotta facing would be adopted.

This department has given a good deal of consideration to the material to be used, and is in full accord with the views expressed by your Director-General in his memorandum of the 20th March, 1939, a copy of which- is attached.

There is so little difference in the cost of terra cotta as against sandstone as to make this aspect of the question unimportant; but, from the point of view of appearance and subsequent upkeep, there seems no doubt whatever that terra cotta is preferable. Many large and important buildings erected in Sydney and Melbourne during the last few years have received this terra cotta treatment, and it would certainly appear to be more in conformity with modern practice to adopt that material on the new Sydney building. Sandstone dirties and deteriorates from exposure to the weather to a somewhat serious extent, giving rise to heavy costs if the building is to be maintained in a .presentable state. On the other hand, terra cotta is not likely to show any appreciable deterioration from such causes, and when it does accumulate grime and dirt, it can be restored almost to its original condition at very small cost.

To that letter I received a reply in which the Minister supported the previous contention of the department that sandstone should be used. I then wrote another letter, in which I expressed surprise at the contents of the letter of the 2nd of May. My letter was as follows: -

I am sorry I find myself in disagreement with ‘you on this matter; but, in common with your own expert officers, including the architect responsible for the design, I hold the view quite strongly that .this new building of modern type would lend itself particularly well to the treatment contemplated by your architect when the main design was conceived. The street is itself comparatively narrow and, both from the aesthetic and utilitarian standpoints, there seems little doubt that the treatment of the extensive facade of the new post office with a vitrified material will have distinct advantages over the more sombre characteristics of a stone facing. I regard the night reflection from the building in terra cotta material as a great asset in such circumstances and I am satisfied that not only will the face of the building be less inclined to accumulate dirt than would a stone frontage, but when the occasion arises it will be much less costly to restore it to its original state than would be the process of attempting to clean stone-work when it became dirty and blackened. There are several instances, including the existing Sydney General Post Office, where pressure has been brought upon the department to clean the external stone-work of its building, and where it has been found imperative to do this work the cost has been unusually high. On the score of the initial cost there is practically nothing to choose between one type of facing and another of the two kinds under consideration. In the circumstances, may I ask you to be good enough to arrange that when the contract is being placed it will include the stipulation that terra cotta is to be used for the facing.

– There is nothing involved in the matter.

Mr.FORDE (Capricornia) [3.44].- We have listened with intense interest to the admirable and convincing case put forward by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby). We have also followed closely the explanations givenby two Ministers, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of honorable members generally when I say that they are not satisfied with the explanations that have been given.

Mr Beasley:

– We are not.

Mr FORDE:

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I can smile at that; but I can assure the honorable gentleman that, before this session closes, I shall smile at one or two other things also, and I shall ask him to laugh with me. The position which has been touched on to-day is one that strikes at the very roots of parliamentary responsible government. If we are to accept the position that Ministers of the Crown are running this country, and not the heads of departments, then the method should be that a Minister of State hears the reasons advanced by the heads of his department for and against any particular proposal, and arrives at his own decision. From the statements made this afternoon it appears as though the ex-Minister for Works was at fault in daring to disagree with the recommendation of the head of his department. From the viewpoint of the Postal Department it does not matter two hoots, or a row of cigarette butts, whether the front of this building be constructed of terra cotta, sandstone or granite. The important consideration was the efficient working of the General Post Office in Sydney. This afternoon honorable members listened to a remarkable statement from the Postmaster-General. From it we gather that after tenders had been received and after the responsible Minister had signified the acceptance of a particular offer for the erection of the proposed new building, one tenderer was given the right to amend his terms in some particulars. I have always understood one of the principles of responsible government in British countries to be that a government honours the undertakings of its predecessor.

Mr Harrison:

– The honorable member is wrong. He misunderstands the position.

Several honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! Although honorable members may have differences of opinion amongst themselves, this debate must be conducted in an orderly way. There are too many interjections. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who received the call, is the only one who has the right to be heard.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Postmaster-General told us that the Commonwealth would get the benefit of any reduction of the price of terra cotta for the facing of the building. That statement should be investigated by a committee of inquiry. I question the propriety of allowing any tenderer to amend his offer after the closing time for tenders and thereby secure an advantage over his competitors. We are entitled to ask the Postmaster-General if this privilege is to be accorded to all tenderers or is to be reserved to H. G. Whittle & Sons Proprietary Limited.

– It is evidently impossible, within the terms of the motion, to discuss the matter from the point of view of the residents of country constituencies. Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, limits me to saying that I do not think that this building should have any front at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not proceed on those lines.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

Mr.SCULLIN. - I do not desire to misrepresent the Postmaster-General, but he said that amongst the many advantages of employing terra cotta for this building was the fact that it was cheaper.

Mr Lane:

-For maintenance purposes.

Mr SCULLIN:

– He said that the maintenance cost would he less than in respect of sandstone, and he also said that the terra cotta itself would be cheaper to construct because of the cheapening of the process by which it is made. I ask the Minister if that is not the position.

Mr Harrison:

– It is.

Mr SCULLIN:

– If that is true, we shall get the work done by this firm at a price lower than that submitted in tie original tender. This may he quite legitimate and above-board, but I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), who has just entered the chamber, that, in the interests of both the Government and the public, this matter should be investigated by the committee suggested by the Acting Leader of the Oppositon (Mr. Forde), or by any other committee. An alteration of the price after the opening of the tenders - and that is what it means - on a contract amounting to £500,000, is most serious. We ought to know when this cheapening of the process came about, what is the nature of it, and what opportunity other contractors have had to tender under ‘the cheaper conditions. I shall not repeat the challenges and statements that have been made; but, for the good name of the Parliament, the Government and public departments, I submit that the matter ought tobe investigated.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I have been deeply interested in the remarks of the former Minister for Works (Mr. Thorby) and the former PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Archie Cameron). It appears to me that this storm in a tea-cup is the result of two Ministers having lost office. The dispute is over a difference of £1,450 in the prices tendered for the new building, and over the surfacing material to be used. Nobody has taken exception to the contract price of £400,000 odd for the building itself. Even the Public Works Committee advocates have not said that the original tender was excessive. The only difference of opinion arose when the two Country party ex-Ministers and a former Assistant’ Minister, who is the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Harrison), consulted as to which would be the better tender to accept. I understand that the two Country party ex-Ministers, who are the more readily available to one another, talked the matter over, and decided on a certain course of action. The former Assistant Minister was not present, nor was he aware that that meeting had been called for that purpose.

Mr Thorby:

– Why put up that kind of trash?

Mr LANE:

-I am not putting forward so much trash as the ex-Minister did this afternoon. If I had gone out of ministerial office I should have accepted the situation like a man. The two exMinisters are well-known “ cobbers “ in a certain party, and they ignored the former Assistant Minister.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I take a point of order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the honorable member for Barton is dealing with the matter before the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It appears to the Chair that the honorable member’s remarks fall within the ambit of the motion.

Mr LANE:

Debate interrupted under Standing Order No. 257b.

page 688

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS : PRECEDENCE

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– I move -

That government business shall take precedence . over general business at the next sitting.

I indicated earlier that it is desired to complete the immediate business in hand onthe 9th June, and, as honorable members will see by reference to the noticepaper, the urgent and important matters that have to be concludedby that date are such as to make it necessary for the House to give all its time to them. There may he two or three other matters to be dealt with before the House rises, though none of them should take long. In the circumstances, I ask honorable members to co-operate with the Government in getting this important business attended to by agreeing to forgo the opportunity to discuss private business.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The effect of the motion, if agreed to, willbe to debar private members from bringing forward any business to-morrow. I have no desire to hamper the work of the Government, and I agree that matter is sometimes brought forward on private members’ day which could well be held over. I point out, however, that private members’ day affords us the only opportunity we have to propose remedies for anomalies of which we are aware. At no time can I introduce a private bill for the purpose of removing anomalies, which I am convinced exist, in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, as that is a financial measure. So, last month, I referred to some of them, and pointed out that the provision in the act requiring a claimant for a pension to prove that his disability was due to war service often operated very harshly. Though the act is a fair one on the whole, and though I believe that the officials administering it do their best to see that justice is done, it is a fact that the act is too rigid, and is, in many respects, out of date. For those reasons, I asked last month that the Minister, though new to his post, should look into the points that I had raised. I did not reprove him in any way, and I hope that he will not take anything I said as personal. I felt that the matters to which I referred were of such importance that only by the appointment of a Select Parliamentary Committee could we ensure that the proper thing would be done in respect of them. Accordingly I placed a notice of the business on paper for the appointment of such a committee.

Many honorable members agree that this subject should be discussed. If the motion now before the House be agreed to, the only opportunity for such a discussion will be lost, simply because the Government has made up its mind that the House shall rise on the 9 th June, or thereabouts. As I have pointed out, I shall not be able to bring forward a private members’ bill to deal with the matter andI cannot bring forward an amendment because there is no Repatriation Bill before the House, and, as a matter of fact, I should prefer to deal with the matter in that way. Seeing that I raised the matter a month ago, and a fortnight ago gave notice of the motion standing in my name, I think it is unfair that it should now be pushed aside in this way. The Prime Minister will probably say that returned soldiers’ organizations are not anxious to have it discussed at this time. I have not canvassed the proposal with returned soldiers’ organizations, but I know several are favorable-

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member may not discuss the merits of a motion that he wishes to move to-morrow.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall oppose the motion by my vote. It is not right that a matter of such importance, which concerns so many deserving people, should be thrust aside in this way.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Opposition will oppose the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that government business shall take precedence over general business at the next sitting. Private members have very limited opportunities to initiate discussions on important matters affecting their electorates and the country. Private members’ day affords one of those opportunities, and I know that several honorable members were looking forward to to-morrow so that they might take part in the debate on the three motions standing in the names of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly), the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), and the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), respectively. The honorable member for Balaclava has advanced convincing reasons why the House should be afforded an opportunity to-morrow to discuss anomalies in the Repatriation Act. This concerns all of us, and many honorable members on this side of the House had intended to speak on the subject. The motion of which the. honorable member for Lilley has given notice, urging the reconstitution of the Public Accounts Committee, is also of importance, involving as it does the idea of a searching investigation into public expenditure. I hope that the Prime Minister, so early in his career as Leader of the House, will not adhere rigidly to the decision that he has evidently taken in haste to close down on private members’ business to-morrow. What does he propose to do when the ordinary grievance motion, “ That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair “ is moved ? No doubt he has arranged for some one to jump up and make a speech, and then move the adjournment of the debate. The Government should not restrict the rights of private members in this way. There has been much criticism, some of it justified, regarding an inner group dictatorship of the Cabinet, and of the little opportunity that private members have ‘to express the opinions of the minority. I ask honorable members on the Government side whether it is reasonable that this opportunity should be taken away from private members. It is not the fault of private members that the Parliament is not to sit for a longer period. Why should we be deprived of this opportunity for discussion merely in order to facilitate the early closing of Parliament for the convenience of a government which has discovered, from a ripple seen on the surface to-day, that there are rocks ahead which spell danger for it? For that reason, no doubt, it is anxious to make for shelter. I appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw his motion.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

– I support the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) and the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) in their opposition, to this motion. The matter mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava is important. The Repatriation Act has ‘been in operation for more than twenty years, and it should be reviewed. Honorable members will have no opportunity to discuss private members’ business during this period of the session if the motion be carried. No other opportunity will present , itself before the adjournment of the House on the 9 th June. Then, when the House reassembles, the budget will be presented and debated, and, no doubt, legislation will be introduced arising out of the bud get. I trust that the House will decide to retain, private members’ day ‘to-morrow.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I have a suggestion to make which, I think, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) might consider. It is the practice when the Government wants to get on with its own business, to allow one speech to be made on private members’ day, and then to proceed with government business. I suggest that the honorable member foa* Balaclava (Mr. White) be permitted to make his speech. He appears to be the only honorable member who has an urgent matter to bring before the House.

Mr Forde:

– Surely the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) was in earnest when he gave notice of Iris motion.

Mr NAIRN:

– The purpose of the Opposition is merely to harass the Government, as was shown by the talk of rocks ahead. I ask the Government to adopt my suggestion.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I oppose the motion. Honorable members of every party should think very seriously before surrendering their individual righ ts in this House. All of us here represent approximately the same number of constituents, - and those constituents hold varying political opinions. It so happens, however, that the party which, for the time being, is a minority party in this House, forms the Government. If we abolish private members’ day, we disfranchise, to a large extent, the people in every electorate not represented by a Government supporter. The present Government does not even represent a majority of members, and if this motion be agreed to, the result will be that, those who differ . from this minority Government will be deprived of any opportunity to express their opinions. The important matter mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) cannot be brought forward for discussion unless a minority party agrees that an amending bill shall be introduced: If a discussion on the subject were allowed to-morrow, it is possible that the honorable member for Balaclava, or other honorable members who took part in the debate, might be able to suggest means for the removal of anomalies in the Repatriation Act. If we vote for the gag merely to convenience the Government, we shall effectively prevent any honorable member who is not of the Government party from expressing his opinions on matters that should concern the Government. It would be reprehensible for a government which does not represent a majority of honorable members of the House to deny to private members the privilege of addressing themselves, to-morrow, to various matters on the notice-paper. The motion of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) concerning the reconstitution of the Public Accounts Committee is important. It has been referred to on a number of occasions at question time, but no proper opportunity to debate it has been afforded us. Even though the honorable member may be willing to forgo his right to discuss the subject, the rights of other honorable members should be considered. The debate earlier this afternoon has clearly shown the need for attention to the administrative procedure of the Government in regard to works. I have little doubt that a discussion of the motion of the honorable member for Lilley would show similar need in regard to finance.

The Prime Minister has said that he desires this period of the session to end on the 9th June. Has that date anything magical about it? Could not the 16th June be fixed instead? Although the business-paper is lengthy, every honorable member knows that the Government has not the slightest intention to ask us to deal with one- third of the items on it. The Prime Minister has told us that only seven measures are to be considered. He has, it is true, referred to some mysterious matters which may later arise. Personally I am not prepared to sacrifice the rights of private members unless the right honorable gentleman tells us precisely what these other mysterious items are. . We should not give way to considerations of expediency in this matter.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I hope that the Government will agree to postpone further consideration of this motion. 1 am interested in the issues involved in the notice of motion of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). I hope that when the new Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Harrison) is able to give some attention to the many repatriation problems which honorable members have submitted for consideration he will give a number of favorable decisions.

If tile Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is not willing to postpone further consideration of the motion, I hope that at least he will give us an assurance that the matters involved in motions which private members have on the businesspaper will receive special attention from Ministers during the coming recess. Some of the matters are of considerable importance. I do not know that I would put in that category the motion of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) relating to the initiative referendum and recall, for I have read about that principle ever since my boyhood days, but I must confess that I should like to hear the honorable member for Bourke discuss it. I gather that there is some likelihood that the Government will give favorable consideration to the proposal to reconstitute the Public Accounts Committee. The matter involved in the motion of the honorable member for Balaclava relating to anomalies in the Repatriation Act is, however, of vital importance to many people in every electorate in the Commonwealth. Eoi1 this reason, I again appeal to the Prime Minister either to postpone further consideration of the motion now before us or to give an undertaking that the matters which various private members wish to discuss to-morrow will be carefully considered by Ministers during the recess. I appreciate the difficulties of some of the young and new Ministers in dealing with the numerous routine matters that must inevitably occupy their attention, but, undoubtedly, steps should be taken, to ensure that the other matters to which I have referred shall also be considered.

Mr. blackburn (Bourke) [5.18].- I have a motion on the notice-paper relating to the initiative, the referendum and the recall which I had hoped to move to-morrow, but I regard the motion in the name of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) concerning repatriation anomalies as of even greater importance. If the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that he will make an opportunity for that motion to be moved, debated and voted upon to-morrow I shall agree to consideration of my motion being deferred until a later date. The defects in the Repatriation Act are of such concern to all honorable members, and also to many of our constituents, that the Government should place no obstacle in the way of our discussing them to-morrow as we had expected to do. I understand from the remarks of the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) that favorable consideration is likely to be given to the proposal of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) to reconstitute the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore hope that to-morrow the honorable member for Balaclava will be afforded an opportunity to submit his motion and that we shall be allowed time to discuss it and vote upon it.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– Private members’ day is regarded as of major importance by honorable gentlemen of all parties for the reason that it gives them an opportunity to inform members of the Government of the subjects upon which they are most deeply concerned. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) pointed out that during the coming recess the Government will be giving consideration to the budget for 1939-40. As private members are not permitted to introduce bills involving the expenditure of public funds it is highly desirable that full opportunity be afforded them, before the budget is prepared, to submit for the consideration of the Cabinet matters which in their opinion should occupy the attention of the Government and concerning which the expenditure of public moneys may be necessary. For that reason in particular I urge the Prime Minister to allow private members’ business to be discussed to-morrow. Unless this right be conceded, the budget will be signed, sealed and delivered before these matters can possibly be placed before Ministers. It may be suggested that they can be dealt with on the motion for the adjournment of the House, but that, in my opinion, is not an appropriate occasion to discuss them.

Mr Menzies:

– I well remember the honorable member for West Sydney making a valuable and effective speech on one occasion on the motion for the adjournment of the House.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That may be so, but the right honorable gentleman will appreciate that, although all I said on that occasion has been amply justified, and my attitude vindicated, my speech did not call for any legislative action. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to the view expressed by the honorable member for Lang.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker

– I also appeal to the Government to permit private members’ business to be discussed in the usual way to-morrow. The opportunity afforded honorable members on private members’ day to acquaint members of the Government of their convictions on certain matters should be preserved to them. But not only do honorable members wish to inform members of the Cabinet of their’ opinions; Cabinet Ministers should be equally desirous of hearing what honorable members have to say. Private members’ day is a parliamentary institution that should be treated with great respect. I am not deeply interested in any of the private members’ business listed for consideration to-morrow, except that involved in the motion of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), but that is so important as to require consideration by ail honorable members regardless of their party affiliations. It would be regrettable if, through an error of judgment, the Government forced a decision on the motion now before us, which might afterwards put it in a false light and lend colour to an accusation that it effectively prevented the House of Representatives from considering the vitally important subject of the amendment of the Repatriation Act.

Therefore, I say with nothing but the kindliest of feelings that the Government will be well advised to defer the motion until after to-morrow.

Mr. clark (Darling) [5.25]. - I join with, other honorable members in protesting against the Government’s proposal to encroach upon the rights of private members to-morrow. As has been pointed out by other honorable members, to-morrow is the last day set aside for the discussion of private members’ business before the budget session, and, if this motion is carried, will be the last opportunity for honorable members to bring forward matters of vital concern to the electors. The Ministry represents a minority party. The majority of the members of this House have no say in the policy adopted by the Government, and therefore their rights in the Parliament itself should not be filched from them in the manner contemplated. The right of the Parliament to govern should be maintained. On the notice-paper are private motions of great interest to honorable members. Not only those motions, but also other matters, can be discussed on private members’ day. The Government should not so early in its life establish the precedent of taking away the rights of private members; on the contrary it should demonstrate its willingness to adhere to the established practice of the House by giving precedence to the business of private members on every third Thursday.

Mr. brennan (Batman) [5.28].- If all of the speeches which I have delivered in opposition to motions of this kind over the last 25 years were printed together I would stand convicted of wearisome reiteration, because I am conscious of the fact that in these circumstances one speech must appear very much like another. Actually I think that the reasons in support of my opposition are cumulative in character; they are stronger to-day because the abuse is graver to-day than ever it has been in the past. It is a little trying to one’s patience in these days to hear the various champions of democracy declaring what must be done to preserve democracies from the evil influences, which, according to them are corrupting the totalitarian states. I have pointed out before, and I ask leave to point out again, that it is the practice of succeeding governments in this Commonwealth, to invade the democratic principle, arid, as far as possible, subvert the influence of

Parliament. The authority of the Executive remains unchallenged and unchallengeable. Its work goes on whether Parliament sits or does not sit. In fact, Parliament is an embarrassment to the Executive,’ and I am rather inclined to think that it is especially embarrassing to the present Government. But that is no reason why Parliament should not sit. The reason for this motion is declared to be that it is desired that Parliament should rise on the 9th June. Why, we have scarcely met! We have scarcely got over the spirit of restlessness and excitement attached to the installation of this new Government before we have what I might describe as a temporary dissolution in sight on the 9th June.

Mr Gander:

– We hardly know the new Ministers.

Mr BRENNAN:

– As the honorable member says, we have hardly become accustomed to the new portfolios and the new Ministers, and obviously, from what we have heard to-day, the present Ministers have not become reconciled to the past Ministers. I wished to discuss the constitutional method by which the Government entered upon its ministerial responsibilities. That is one of the things which, no doubt, I shall be prevented from discussing, inasmuch as we are to separate at such an early date. By the consent of the House. the Standing Orders have economized time by limiting the length of individual addresses, and I point out further that never in my 25 years’ experience of parliamentary life have the Standing Orders been so rigorously interpreted from the Chair as in recent times. That being so, I think it is to be greatly regretted that the rights of individual members should be curtailed at this early date- in our sittings. Each individual member is responsible to his constituents. That is the democratic theory. The Executive is really the instrument of Parliament, but the practice is to make the Parliament the instrument of the Executive. That is an inversion of the proper order. I say that no executive can safely evade by the device of flight from Parliament its responsibilities to the people. The people will note the fact that they are cheated out of their rights insofar aa their representatives are prevented from being here in the popular assembly to which they are elected. The Parliament is not merely the instrument for voting money to enable the Executive to proceed with its work; it is a deliberative assembly. The Parliament, as its very name indicates, is a body in which men talk and are presumed to reason to the best of their ability. Of course, if they fail to take advantage of their’ opportunity to do so, that is the fault of the people who send them here, and the responsibility then goes back to them. To add another to the long list of protests, I protest against the rights of individual members being filched and the rights of their constituents being invaded. In a democracy the parliament is the place where ordinary men express the views of ordinary people; it is not a place where governments obtain the passage of funds to enable a totalitarian state to operate outside the legislative walls.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– I feel obliged to add my protest to those already voiced by honorable members against this proposal of the Government. I had hoped that with the advent of this rejuvenated Government, with such a preponderance of youth in it, we would have a more liberal appreciation of the rights of private members, and that added opportunities would be afforded us to express our views in this House. We find, however, that the Ministry is already resorting to the evil system of government by the Executive, which so infringes upon the rights of private members. As the result of the tendency in recent years to hand over the government of the country to the Executive, the people generally are being driven to believe that they are not being governed in a really democratic way. I am glad to know that at least some members on the ministerial side of the House now endorse the opinions expressed by honorable members on this side as to the rights of private members. It is rather refreshing to find that in some respects their views have changed with their changed position. I trust that they will have the courage to record their votes against this proposed invasion of the rights of private members.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- I add my protest to those of other honorable members against the Government’s proposal for the postponement of private members’ day. I do so because I believe that some of the matters which honorable members desired to bring forward to-morrow are at least equally as important as many of those which the Government is now bringing before the House. I have no desire to dwell upon this matter at any length ; I merely rose to say that I am in complete agreement with other honorable members as to the urgency of the subject-matter of a motion which stands in the name of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White).

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- I rise to record my agreement with those honorable members who have voiced their objection to the filching of private members’ day. More especially do I register my protest against this proposal when there stands on the notice-paper a motion of such importance as that appearing in the name of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White).

Mr Gander:

– Will the honorable member vote against the Government?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes. I believe that the Government ought to recognize that if the business of Parliament is of such a character that it requires the sittings to be extended beyond the 9th, the 19th, or even the 29th June, we should be prepared to sit on and do the job for which we were appointed, until we are satisfied that full consideration has been given to all the matters brought before us. I am prepared - and I have no doubt that a majority of honorable members are of the same mind - to sit on for as long as is necessary to complete the business of the Parliament, rather than that a day that is recognized as private members’ day should be filched from us. We could easily sit for an additional day at the end of these sittings.

Mr Menzies:

– We have had a fairly good private members’ day to-day.

Mr ANTHONY:

– We have had a very good day - a day in the interests of the Australian people, who value some of the principles of democracy. It has not been a day for the ventilation of spleen or spite on the part of individual members, but time has been profitably devoted to the discussion of a vital principle. There is also a principle involved in the motion in the name of the honorable member for Balaclava set down for discussion to-morrow. If that motion were not on the business-paper, I should not be so emphatic in my views; but the fact that it is there, and that this proposal todefer it is now placed before us, is an indication that the Government wishes to stifle discussion on the anomalies that exist in matters connected with the repatriation of Australian soldiers. In my opinion, the Government is making a mistake in giving the impression that it seeks to sidetrack the discussion of that subject. I do not think that, many members of this House, or, indeed, that the Government itself is convinced, that there is need to ask private members to forgo the day set apart for their business. If the business to he transacted be so important as the Government thinks that it is, and as we all believe it to be, the sittings might well be extended far beyond the date that has been indicated as the last day of these sittings, namely, the 9th June. I urge the Government not to interfere with private members’ business to-morrow.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– in reply - All of the principles that have been enunciatedby honorable members have been in the mind of the Government, but it believes - and its belief has been strengthened by the fact that we have not yet been able to get back into committee on the Supply and Development, Bill - that if the present sittings are to end on a date which will provide a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the longer session that is to follow, Government business must be given precedence. It seems clear that there must be a Supply Bill at some time during these sittings, in order to make financial provision beyond the end of the present year. That being so, honorable members will have ample opportunity, as, indeed, they will have on other occasions, to bring forward business that they regard as important.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 27

Majority . ….. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 695

SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1939

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 23rd May, (vide page 658).

Clause 5 - (1.) Subject to the directions of the GovernorGeneral and to the next succeeding subsection, the matters to be administered by the department shall be matters relating to -

the provision or supply of munitions;

the manufacture or assembly of aircraft or parts thereof by the Commonwealth or any authority of the Commonwealth ;

arrangements for the establishment or extension of industries for purposes of defence;

the acquisition, maintenance and dis posal of stocks of goods in connexion with defence;

arrangements for ascertaining costs and for the control and limitation of profits in relation to the produc tion of munitions; and

the arrangement or co-ordination of -

surveys of Australian indus trial capacity and the preparation of plans to ensure the effective operation of Australian industry in time of war; and

ii ) the investigation and develop ment of Australian sources of supply of goods, which in the opinion of the Governor-General are necessary for the economic security of the Common wealth in time of war. (2.) The Governor-General may from time to time determine the extent to which or the conditions upon which any of the matters specified in this section may be administered by the Department.

Uponwhich Mr. White had moved, by way of amendment -

That the word “profits”, sub-clause (1.), paragraph (e), be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ net profit to six per centum”.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- At first glance this clause appears to he impressive, but an examination of it reveals that it is, in fact, valueless. In the opinion of the Opposition, it is only so much window-dressing with the object of making the electors believe that something impressive is being done. It sets out what the Minister may do, but does not make mandatory any of the things mentioned. The Opposition believes that there should be a definite mandatory provision in the bill to compel the Minister to control and limit profits ; it is definitely opposed to profiteering in the making of munitions.

Mr Gregory:

– Why in respect only of munitions ?

Mr FORDE:

– The Opposition is definitely opposed to profiteering of any kind. It stands primarily for Government monopoly of the manufacture of munitions, whereas the bill, as drawn, contemplates that the bulk of the work will be done by private enterprise. I admit that the constitutional limitations imposed upon this Parliament make difficult what the Opposition would like to see, namely, a national monopoly of the manufacture of munitions, with provision for switching over to the manufacture of other equipment or undertaking outside jobs when the demand for munitions was slack. The Opposition realizes that, whatever it may do, the Government, with the support of the whole of the members of the Country party, intends to allow the manufacture of munitions by private enterprise. As we are unable to lay down a uniform rate of profits for every transaction, the Opposition believes that in the circumstances the Parliament should delegate to the Government the power to limit profits. It is the opinion that there should be a tightening of this clause. In its present form it is too loosely drawn. For that reason, I give notice of an amendment to insert after sub-clause 2 the following proviso -

Provided that no such determination shall exclude provision for the ascertainment of costs and for the control and limitation of profits in relation to the production of munitions.

During the years 1015, 1916 and 1917, the existing woollen mills of Australia made a total net profit of £1,197,000 on a total capital of £1,144,000, that is slightly over 100 per cent, profit on the original capital.

A good deal of that profit was derived from contracts entered into by the government for the supply of raw materials and equipment for the Defence Department. Such profits should not be countenanced. The experience in Great Britain has been similar. Speaking in the House of Commons in August, 1919, Mr. Lloyd George stated that -

The profiteering of the armament firms was checked in three ways - first, by a system of costings and investigation; secondly, by the establishment of competing national factories; and thirdly, by the excess profits duty. The huge sum of £440,000,000 had been saved by these means. The 18-pounder, when the Ministry of Munitions was started, cost 22s. 6d. a shell. A system of costing and investigation was introduced and national factories were set up which checked the prices, and a shell for which the War Office at the time the ministry was formed paid 22s. Gd. was reduced to 12s. Gd. When you have 85,000,000 shells, that saved £35,000,000. There was a reduction in the price of all other shells, and there was a reduction in the Lewis gun. When we tooK them in hand they cost £105, and we reduced them to £35 each. There was a saving of £14,000,000, and through the costing system and the checking of the national factories we set up before the end of the war, there was a saving of £440,000,000.

The capital cost of the six T.N.T. factories was £1,473,000, but by April, 1917, they had already produced T.N.T., which, as against contract prices hod given a surplus of £2,404,318. They had, therefore, completely wiped out their total cost of provision and had left a balance over of 38 per cent.

In his book, The Bloody Traffic, Fenner Brockway writes -

Before the governments stepped in and checked and limited their profiteering, the armament firms were able to pocket the surplus which they made on their exorbitant, charges.

Even after the introduction of the lowerprices, large” profits were maintained. The armament firms were compelled to contribute to the State the following sums subsequent to. the introduction of the munitions levy, because their profits totalled more than the 20 per cent, allowed: -

Similar profiteering took place in all the belligerent countries during the World War. The armament firms have discovered the secret of how to turn blood into gold.

Quite a number of similar statements oan be found in books of this kind written by men who have made a life study of this subject. *

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse.)The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr. francis (Moreton) [6.6].- I regard clause 5 as the most important in the bill. If the Government hopes to win the confidence of the community in setting up this new Department of Supply and Development, it should give the cleanest possible explanation of each of the proposals embodied in this measure. Each provision of clause 5, at any rate, should be thoroughly explained. In respect of sub-clause 1, paragraph e, which provides that matters to be administered by the department shall include matters relating to “ arrangements for ascertaining costs and for the control and limitation of profits in relation to the production of munitions.” I am anxious that every possible effortbe made to prevent profiteering in connexion with contracts for supplies to this new department. The amendment moved by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) proposes that such profits shall not exceed 6 per cent. Because I believe that the Government’s powers in this respect should not be restricted in the slightest degree, I cannot support the amendment. Furthermore, the Government has given repeated assurances that it will do everything possible tolimit profits. It is proposed to appoint advisory panelsto assist in all of the matters covered by clause 5. First, a panel of business men was to be set up in connexion with the mobilization of industry in Australia. At a time like the present everything possible should be done to ensure that not only our available man-power, but also our materials and resources, shall be at the disposal of the Government in case of emergency so that every section of the community will be enabled to put all its weight in the defence of this country. Over the next three years, it is proposed to expend a total of £78,000,000 in this direction. While guarding against wasteful expenditure, the Government should bear in mind the necessity for fostering the greatest possible efficiency in the department. I have a very highregard for all of the officers of the Defence Department many of whom willbe transferred to this new department, and in a major undertaking of this character we should give them every possible assistance. On the 6th September last, the then Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) stated that an advisory panel bad been appointed to inquire into the principles of supply for the Department of Defence. That panel endorsed the principles on which the Principal Supply Officers’ Committee recommended the organization of industry for the production of ammunition components. The Government also decided to invite the gentlemen comprising the advisory panel to make their services available in the following directions: -

1 ) A study of the measures necessary for industrial mobilization of secondary industry beyond those contemplated by the Principal Supply Officers Committee, which relate to service requirements only.
Consultation on all business matters associated with the defence programme. This is of importance in view of the large expenditure now involved.

The Minister thereupon appointed a very useful committee of gentlemen possessing special experience as business executives. I am sure that these gentlemen will do good work. Regarding the statements which have been made concerning the dangers of profiteering. I am of opinion that in Australia we have a large number of public-spirited men engaged in industry. This leads me to believe that profiteering in connexion with the work of this new department is unlikely. However, I wish to make one or two points regarding the personnel of the committee to which I have just referred. As I have already said, I have the profoundest respect for these men, but I point out that four out of the five, namely, Mr. Essington Lewis, Sir Colin Fraser, Sir Alexander Stewart, and Mr. Eady, come from Victoria, whilst, the fifth member of the committee, the Hon. F. P: Kneeshaw, M.L.C., whom I know personally and admire, comes from New South Wales but spends a very great part of his time in Victoria. When I was assisting recently in the Griffith by-election I heard the view expressed time and again that only Victorians seemed to receive any consideration in appointments made by this Government. That allegation does not apply in this particular instance, because, I understand, this committee was appointed in 1937 by a former Minister. However, hearing in mind the prevalence of that view in the community, I urge the Government not to confine the majority of its appointments to persons from any one State. The opinion is widely held in Queensland, at, any rate, that the Ministry is too prone to favour Victorians in making appointments.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8p.m.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I regard clause 5 as the most important in the bill. It provides that the matters to be administered by the department shall be matters relating to -

the provision of supply of munitions;
the manufacture or assembly of aircraft or parts thereof by the Commonwealth or any authority of the Commonwealth;
arrangements for the establishment or extension of industries for purposes of defence; (d)the acquisition, maintenance and dis posal of stocks of goods in connexion with defence;
arrangements for ascertaining costs and for the control and limitation of profits in relation to the production of munitions; and
the arrangement or co-ordination of -
1. surveys of Australian indus trial capacity and the preparation of plans to ensure the effective operation of Australian industry in time of war; and
2. the investigation and develop ment of Australian sources of supply of goods, which in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral are necessary for the economic security of the Commonwealth in time of war.

It enacts further that the GovernorGeneral may, from time to time, determine the extent to which or the conditions upon which any of these matters may be administered by the department. This is the crux of the bill. I would direct special attention to paragraph e which deals with the arrangements to be made for the ascertaining of costs and for the control and limitation of profits in relation to the production of munitions.

I understand that the Minister intends to submit an amendment in language more explicit to prevent undue profits from being made out of the manufacture of munitions or other war-time supplies, than which there is no more heinous crime.

Mr White:

– What is the amendment?

Mr FRANCIS:

– The honorable member for Balaclava knows that as well as I do. The honorable gentleman has himself moved an amendment to limit profit from activities associated with the new Department of Supply and Development to 6 per cent. I believe that paragraph e should be as broad as possible, in order that the Government may effectively curb any tendency to undue profits ; hut to fix the limit at 6 per cent. as has been proposed by the honorable member for Balaclava, will not, I suggest, give the Government sufficient scope. For that reason I am opposed to it. In some industries a profit of 6 per cent. might be too much; in others it might be too low. I should not like to see any arbitrary limit imposed. I am sure that the Government will see that profits from private defence industries are kept as low as possible. I believe that the great majority of manufacturers and suppliers of raw materials for the Department of Supply and Development are honest and patriotic citizens. Therefore the fixing of an arbitrary limit on profits will be unnecessary. I know, however, that in every community there are people who are not actuated by the same high motives, and for that reason I think that the widest possible power should be given to the Government so that the strictest supervision may be exercised, in order to prevent the making of undue profits by any one.

The expenditure of £78,000,000 on defence calls for the highest possible efficiency. I commend the Government for its decision to appoint an advisory panel on industrial organization to tender advice in connexion with the very big job which the new department is to undertake; but, as I remarked earlier, I think a mistake has been made in selecting four gentlemen from Victoria. This may cause some dissatisfaction in other States. The panel includes the following. - Mr. Essington Lewis, Mr. M. Eady, Sir Colin Fraser and Sir Alexander Stewart, all of Victoria. The fifth member is Mr. H. P. Kneeshaw, M.L.C., who, although a citizen of New South Wales, is interested in big industrial undertakings in Victoria and for that reason might also be regarded as being a representative of Victoria.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse.)The honorable member’s time has expired.

Several honorable members rising,

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

– Mr. Chairman-

Mr Francis:

– I should like to continue my speech and take the second portion of my time.

Mr CASEY:

– If the honorable member wishes to continue, I shall resume my seat.

Mr Ward:

– I rise to a point of order. Why did you call on the Minister, Mr. Chairman? Several honorable members on this side rose to speak.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If honorable members on the Opposition side desire to address the committee they will have the right to the call.

Mr Casey:

– On the point of order I may explain that I rose to speak, thinking that the honorable member for Moreton had finished his speech; but I gave way to him in the belief that he was granted an extension of his time.

Opposition Members. - No !

Mr Price:

– I move -

That the honorable member for Moreton have leave to continue his speech.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion is not in order. The practice is that in the committee stage of a bill honorable members may speak twice for a period of fifteen minutes. At the end of an honorable member’s first period of fifteen minutes, if no other honorable member rises, the speaker may proceed andtake his second term. In this case other honorable members have risen and the honorable member for Moreton may not continue. The honorable member for Wakefield.

Mr McHUGH:
Wakefield

.- The committee is dealing with what is probably the most important piece of legislation that will come before Parliament this session. Clause 5 seeks to confer extensive powers in the exercise of which the Government should be most vigilant, and set a high ethical standard for the nation. Profits on the manufacture of munitions should he restricted to the irreducible minimum. In fact, no profit should be made at all. We all have unhappy memories of 1914-18, and we should do all that is possible to prevent another war. If, however, we are to be forced into a conflict with other nations, the people of the Commonwealth should be protected from exploitation in any form. No one should he permitted to make profits out of the suffering and, possibly, the bloodshed of our people.

Only one large company would he engaged extensively in the manufacture of munitions in Australia. I think that the committee should support the amendment foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of. the Opposition (Mr. Forde), the effect of which would be to make it mandatory on the Minister to order a thorough examination of every contract let to private enterprise for the manufacture of munitions and equipment. At least the Minister should insist that such an examination be carried out by responsible officers of his department. In almost every country, difficulties have arisen in connexion with this matter. In time of war or of preparation for war, lists of the shareholders of various manufacturing enterprises engaged in the production of war supplies should be kept under the strictest surveillance. I would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that every effort should be made to ensure that Cabinet Ministers and supporters of the Government are not financially interested in that big company which, above all others, would be in a position to amass huge profits in time of war. That should be the first duty of the right honorable gentleman. The ramifications of armaments rings, and their control of the international press, have been exposed by many commissions and committees of inquiry set up in various countries. It has been disclosed that these armaments industries are international in character, and that in order to amass huge profits out of the manufacture of war material, they have used the press for the creation of war scares and indulged in the bribery of government officials. Australia is a young democracy and in its efforts in this time of emergency and preparation for a possible conflict it should set an example to the rest of the world.

The findings of a royal commission which inquired into the armaments industry in England some time ago are illuminating. Honorable members will be interested to learn the names of some of the shareholders in industrial organizations operating in England which have branches in this country. According to the latest returns, 1,512 shares in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited are held by Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the British Exchequer. In fairness to him, I must say that he has since withdrawn from the company because he considered that it was impossible to hold a responsible public position and at the same time have shares in a company which produces poison gas for the slaughter of human ‘beings. In the list of shareholders there are other names of gentleman who are not so well known, but one name which will prove of interest to honorable members is that of the Honorable Neville Chamberlain, M.P., Prime Minister of England, who holds 11,700 shares. I have not seen in any publication the announcement that he has withdrawn from this company. I reiterate that our Prime Minister should be very careful to see that his Ministers and supporters, and, what is probably more important, the members of his advisory council, are not similarly involved. These last-named gentlemen should be absolutely above all suspicion. The human race is heading towards the greatest slaughter in our history and, I believe, in any previous history. Therefore, we, as a young democracy in the South ‘Seas, should be most vigilant. Members of Parliament generally should exercise the greatest care in taking up shares in any company. Our duty is to see that the scales of justice are evenly balanced, rather than to make profits out of the sorrows of the people.

The Minister could, with great advantage to Australia, have inquiries made by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research into all the ramifications of supply. Australia grows all kinds of vegetation from which may be produced power alcohol. I understand that in Europe alone there are 600 distilleries distilling power alcohol from vegetation, and that the supplies of this fuel are being enormously augmented. If that can be done in Europe we, too, should be able to do it. We have in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research men of great learning and a high degree of mentality. Science is undoubtedly a powerful weapon, and I advise the Government to use it to the fullest degree. Any proposal to vote money for the conduct of investigations by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research will have my hearty support. I emphasize that those who are selected to advise the Government should possess the highest qualifications, and that, above all, their integrity should be beyond question.

The matter of transport demands the greatest consideration. Australia is one of the biggest countries in the world, the distance from Perth, in Western Australia, to Cairns, in Queensland, being 4,012 miles. The over-lapping and duplication of control in respect of our transport systems is probably without parallel elsewhere in the world. A little while ago, I met an Indian army officer who asked me, “ How is it that you have so much duplication of control in your Australian railways?” I replied, “Like some other things, we just grew up; we did not plan this country at the outset, but we are beginning to plan it now.” The co-ordination of our transport activities would help the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Supply and Development to as great a degree as would any other factor. Any army officer, any transport official, realizes the importance of communications. We have invested in our railways £350,000,000, and many millions of pounds have been expended on our roads. There are also our coastal shipping and aviation. There should be co-ordination of all of those activities, and in a time of crisis the Commonwealth should have the power to control them as one unit, and not as the six different systems that they are to-day.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member has exhausted the first portion of his time.

Motion (by Mr. Gander) proposed -

That the honorable member for Wakefield have leave to continue his speech.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already given a ruling in regard to the continuance of a speech upon the expiry of the first period of fifteen minutes.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– With due deference to your ruling, sir, I point out that the contrary provision is made by the Standing Orders. Standing Order No: 257b, adopted by the House on the 23rd April, 1931, provides, as was generally supposed, that each member shall be allowed to speak for two periods; each of which shall not exceed fifteen minutes; but whether or not he exhausts the two periods in the one speech depends upon his own decision in the matter. The standing order states -

The maximum period for which a member may speak on any subject indicated in this standing order, and the maximum period for any debate, shall not, unless otherwise ordered, exceed the period specified opposite to that subject in the following schedule: -

The schedule reads -

In committee:

Debates not otherwise provided for -

Each member - two periods each not exceed ing fifteen minutes.

There is nothing to indicate that an honorable member may be prevented from proceeding immediately with the second period of fifteen minutes by another honorable member rising to speak. I take it, therefore, that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) had the right to continue his speech when he desired to do so. The standing order goes on to provide that, with the consent of a majority of the House or of the committee, to be determined without debate, a member may be allowed to continue his speech for periods each not exceeding fifteen minutes. Your ruling, Mr. Chairman, put the honorable member for Moreton out of court in both respects, and it would appear to have been not in accordance with the standing order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The standing order read by the honorable member provides that each member shall have two opportunities to speak. In committee it has been the recognized practice that he shall not exhaust both of them should any other honorable member desire to speak.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Recognized by whom ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It has been the practice in committee to allow an honorable member to take his second period if no other honorable member wishes to speak at the time. I do not think that that is a wrong interpretation of the standing order. On the other point raised, it has been generally recognized that if an honorable member be given leave to continue his speech, and does so, he thereby forfeits the second opportunity that he otherwise would have.

Two ways exist for the financing of the proposals contained in this bill. One is recourse to the loan market with its consequent increase of the interest burden, and the other is the use of the Commonwealth Bank for the issue of credit on behalf of the nation. If this country be worth, as some economists tell us, £7,000,000,000, 1 am satisfied that credits could and should be issued against its great assets. If we continue what we have been doing in recent years and borrow from £20,000,000 to £40,000,000 a year, we shall impose such a burden on posterity that there will be no prospect of our ever being able to liquidate our public debt. There have been advances in all branches of life but banking; the banking system is still in the dark ages, whereas it, above all other aspects of commercial life, should be up-to-date in its outlook. All modern governments sooner or later will be forced to face the question of the issue of credit.

Before concluding I impress upon the Government the necessity for it to follow the lead given by the Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, who is determined that as much work in connexion with this measure as is possible shall be done in South Australian government factories. In the Islington Government Workshops in South Australia we have the machinery and staff to undertake this work, and in the undertaking of the work there will be no excess profits. If there is one thing that is abhorrent to me it is high profits from the suffering of the people.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Moreton.

Mr. francis (Moreton) [8.50]. - I am grateful for the Chair’s reconsideration. I indicated a few moments ago that it was an unfortunate practice for the Government to appoint .four Victorians and another who, by trade association, is almost a Victorian, to be the personnel of five on the industrial panel. I have the profoundest regard for all of the gentlemen on it. They are outstanding members of industry, and they are doing, and will continue to do, an extraordinarily good job of work. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that in this great Commonwealth the Government’s outlook seems to be confined to the vicinity of St. Kilda-road, Melbourne. The Government also proposes to appoint a panel of accountants to advise * it and to devise a costing system to check the profits of private industries engaged in carrying out work for it in connexion with the Department of Supply and Development. I understand that five accountants are to be appointed to the panel, and I hope on this occasion that the Government will look beyond St. Kilda-road in choosing them. There are in Queensland and other States men who could be of invaluable assistance to the Department of Supply and Development, and who are anxious and willing to serve. I should like an assurance from the Minister that’ their claims will be considered.

Mr Casey:

– I shall-speak on that.

Mr FRANCIS:

-I appreciate that it is necessary to get the best men, but I am certain that the best men are not confined to Victoria. The Government is being subjected to attack in Queensland by series of associations of people because of the predominance of Victorians on the industrial panel. They suggest that the State of Queensland is ‘ being neglected, and that contracts that should go to Queensland are, because of the constitution of the advisory panel, being given to the other States. Accordingly, I urge the Minister not to heap fuel on this fire by appointing only Victorians to the panel of accountants. The fact that all of the Ministers associated with defence - the Minister for Defence (Mr. Street), the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. : Casey), the Minister for Civil

Aviation (Mr. Fairbairn), and the Assistant Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Holt) - come from Melbourne has been used by certain people in Queensland as a further basis for their contention that Queensland and other States are being unjustly treated. I do not agree with that point of view, and have repeatedly denied their contention. I have the profoundest regard for all of these Ministers and know them to be good Australians, doing their best for every section of the community; but, if the Government appoints all of the accountants on the panel from one State, it will bc very difficult for myself and other Queensland members to defend this continuance of its attitude. A letter which I shall now read is typical of a number of letters that I have received. I do not agree with its contents, but I do not think that the Government should make it possible for the belief that it contains to exist. The letter reads - . . I meet about 40 men every week, mostly different men of all shades of opinion. The opinion gaining ground is that Queensland is to be sacrificed to tempt an invader to land far from the heart of the Commonwealth. . . .

I appeal to the Minister to do as I have suggested, so that such a belief should be dispelled.

Mr casey:
Minister for Supply and Development · Corio · UAP

[8.54]. - Recently the Government decided to set up an advisory panel of accountants to advise the Government on schemes of costing and profit control for the production of munitions by private industry. The Government has given great thought and attention to this problem of profit control, and it is anxious to get the best advice possible from sources, outside the Government and the Public . Service in order still further to lessen the opportunity for other than the most reasonable profits to be made from the supply of munitions and the other manifold requirements of the Defence Department. After consultation with . the various accountancy institutes and bodies and after informing its mind from many quarters on this subject, the Government has decided to invite the following gentlemen to serve on the Advisory Accountancy Panel: - 7

W. Griffith, Esq., F.L’C.’a’. : “ ‘ “
D. Hadley, Esq., F.C.A. (Aust.), F.A.I.C.A.
V. Nixon, Esq., C.M.G., F.C.A. (Aust.), F.I.C.A.
J. Nolan, Esq., F.A.I.C.A., A.M.I.E. (Aust.).
A. Schumer, Esq., F.A.I.C.A., A.I.C.A.

Mr. Griffith is the general president of the Commonwealth Institute of Accountants in Sydney.

Mr Fadden:

– And a costing expert.

Mr CASEY:

– Yes. Mr. Hadley is the senior partner of Offner, Hadley and Company, chartered accountants, Sydney, and is a past president of the Australasian Institute of Cost Accountants.

Mr. Nixon is a senior partner of Edwin V. Nixon and Partners, chartered accountants, Melbourne. Mr. Nixon has been a member of two royal commissions.

Mr Beasley:

– That is no testimonial.

Mr CASEY:

– The Contracts Board purchases all the raw materials for the government munitions factories, and also all the finished, goods required for defence purposes other than those produced by the munitions factories. The third method of manufacturing munitions, which will come into operation shortly, is by industrial annexes. The complete list of these is as follows: -

– The annexes will remain the property of the Commonwealth Government and will be at its disposal, except in one instance. These annexes can be used only for purposes approved by the Commonwealth. Those purposes will, ofcourse,be the provision of munitions in time of emergency.

I come now to the provision and cost of materials. This has been the subject of close study by the experts of the Supply Department, the Defence Department and the parent companies. The cost is to be based on a very strict calculation of direct labour cost in turning out munitions, direct material costs, and direct overhead costs based on an exact method of determination. Honorable members generally, particularly those acquainted with industrial practices, are aware that it is in relation to overhead costs that the largest opportunity occurs too make excess profits. In connexion with these annexes it has been agreed between the parent companiesand the Commonwealth Government that the following items shall not be taken into account as overhead in determining the costs and profits : -

Profit as between various departments or sections of departments.

Interest on capital.

Selling expenses.

Advertising expenses.

Bad debts.

Income tax.

Debenture interest.

Financial or other reserves.

– It is 4 per cent, on output, not on capital, because the capital belongs to the Government.

Mr Fadden:

– It is 4 per cent, on turnover.

Mr CASEY:

– A good deal of defence work will be done at the railway annexes and by railway departments generally, for the Commonwealth in the future. The basis of cost for such work has also been agreed upon between the State governments and the Commonwealth Government.

I have mentioned that an advisory accountancy panel is- to be appointed. The Government has been informed by its expert advisers that an effective check on profits is already practicable in respect of all goods acquired for the Defence Department. First, the Government factories themselves afford a means of checking prices; secondly, the Contracts Board applies a check; and, thirdly, work done in the future in the annexes will be subject to checking. The expert officers of the Government believe that by these various means an effective supervision of all costs will be possible. But as the expenditure on defence requirements during the next few years will undoubtedly increase substantially, the Government . has” invited five eminent accountants, three of whom are specially skilled in costing, to collaborate with it in recommending methods, after due inquiry, by which further safeguards and checks may be provided in respect of all profits.

Mr Beasley:

– Are these advisers the gentlemen who advised the Government in respect of the provision of shells by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ?

Mr CASEY:

– The accountancy advisory panel is not yet actually in existence.

Mr Beasley:

– If the advisors to whom the Minister has referred are the gentlemen’ who advised in regard to the shells, their advice was not worth much, for the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited took 25 per cent, profit out of that contract.

Mr CASEY:

– I do not quite understand the honorable member’s point.

Government enters into contracts with the owners of the laud whereby they agree that the buildings shall not become their property.

Mr Fadden:

– Does not the honorable member think that the Government would take that precaution?

Mr RIORDAN:

– It is significant that no mention of that point was made by the Minister. He said that the Government Would erect buildings on private land, and when Opposition members contended that that was equivalent to making a gift of such buildings to the owners of that land, he did not say anything about entering into agreements with the owners to protect the Government’s equity.

The Minister also referred to overhead expenses, and he gave a long list of items. He had already informed us that the Government would own the buildings and the machinery, consequently there would be practically no overhead expenses.

Audible conversation continuing,

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.If any honorable member is named, he himself will be to blame. The Chair cannot tolerate any longer the continuous conversation that is taking place.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I wish now to refer to the various ores and minerals mentioned by the Minister, particularly copper, which are obtained in Australia. In answer to an interjection, .the Minister said that most of the copper came from Mr Lyell, in Tasmania, and a small portion of it from Queensland. That is in keeping with its treatment of Queensland, and its regard for the monopolists in the country. Honorable members know that Mr Lyell is owned by monopolists. In the back country of Australia, far removed from the comforts of the cities, men are battling against great odds in the winning of minerals, but the Government buys very little copper from them. Yet this Government is supposed to be assisting those who are endeavouring to develop this country, instead of which it has arranged with the Governments of Western Australia and Queensland for a geophysical survey of Australia. The expenditure to be incurred in connexion with that survey will be a waste of money unless the Commonwealth is prepared to assist those who have taken advantage of the surveys already made.

According to the Minister, many, honorable members seem to be of the opinion that manufacturers conspire to defraud the Government. Apparently, he misunderstands the position. When the Opposition speaks of monopolists, it refers, not to men in business in a small way, but to large concerns, particularly the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and its subsidiary companies. That organization has developed into one of the biggest monopolies in the Commonwealth. So extensive are its ramifications that the Government itself appears to be suspicious of it, for it has constituted an accountancy panel in an endeavour to keep a check on excessive profits.

Ever since 1 have been a member of this chamber I have heard Ministers say that Australia should tune in to Great Britain, but the opportunity to do so in this instance is. being neglected. A few years ago the British” Government decided that the armaments ring in Great Britain was a definite menace to international peace, and steps were taken to assume control of the manufacture of arms and munitions. An examination showed that it is a. world-wide monopoly which it is beyond the powers of the British Government to nationalize. The representatives of this- ring are now endeavouring to entrench themselves in this country. We have in Australia Imperial Chemical Industries, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and other organizations which are closely associated with the production of arms on a large scale. If the Government is sincere in this matter, it will endeavour to exercise some control over those engaged in the manufacture of munitions. It should seize the opportunity to do what Great Britain desired to do a few years ago, namely, nationalize the armaments industry and it should do so while the country is still in its infancy. We have munitions works at Lithgow and at Maribyrnong, and, strange to say, there is actually a government acetate of lime factory in Brisbane; but there are only two employees, both of whom are watchmen. The Government should take immediate steps to establish its own munitions factories instead of assisting private enterprise and thereby giving the armaments ring a foothold in this young country.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- ‘ The committee is indebted to the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Casey) for the painstaking explanation he has given of the methods followed by his department in obtaining prices under the contract system for different classes of goods used extensively for defence purposes. . These goods ‘are . valued at £2,000,000, and in addition a further £1,000,000 worth is being produced in government factories. The Government proposes to set up an accountancy panel in an endeavour to formulate a sound costing system and to limit profits. The right honorable gentleman’s explanation has dismissed from my mind some of the fears I previously held, but there is one point which I do not think he dealt with satisfactorily, and that is in reference to copper. He said that copper is somewhat analogous to wool, in that ‘both benefit by the exchange .rate, and that the Australian copper producers charge to Australian purchasers the price which copper is worth in London. But the wool-grower obtains the price prevailing in London, less the cost of sending it there, and at present that cost is over 10 per cent, of it3 value.. In other words, a consignment of wool in London worth £100 in Australian currency provides a net return to the Australian grower of less than £90, the difference between the two prices being absorbed in freight. Apparently the Australian copper producers can charge in Australia a price equivalent to the price actually obtained in London, and consequently benefit to the extent of the cost of freighting copper to the big markets of the world. I do not think that we can complain of that, because, as .the righthonorable gentleman mentioned, many Australian products are sold at homeconsumption prices. His references, to wool, however, show that there is no analogy between wool and copper. The wool producers have to accept the export parity of the London price; they do not receive the London price itself. I agree with what the right honorable gentleman said in respect of exchange. Exports from this country, whether of butter, wool, wheat, copper or lamb, must bring in this country a price which corrects the difference between our currency and that in other parts of the world. If copper is bringing £48 a ton sterling, in London - I do not know what the present price is - it would be worth £60 a ton Australian, and there is no reasonable argument that can be brought forwardto show that any unfair advantage is being taken by adding exchange. It simply means that we express in terms of Australian money the price obtainable overseas in another currency.

Mr Ward:

– Why not determine a price in Australia which has some relation to Australian coats?

Mr PATERSON:

– In most instances the prices of exportable products are determined, unfortunately, not by what they cost to produce in Australia, but by what they will bring in other parts of the world, and in many instances the net price in Australia is actually less than the cost of production under Australian living standards. I know that that is so in respect of many primary products.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Why should the copper producers get the Australian price plus freight to London?

Mr PATERSON:

– That is a matter which I should like the Minister to explain. We should know whether the price enjoyed bythe Australian copper producers is the import parity price or the net London price. The export parity price is that ruling in the big markets of the world, less the cost to freight the copper there. The import parity price is that ruling in the big producing centres of the world, plus the cost of freight to this country. The London price is that ruling there without any additions or deductions.

Mr Mulcahy:

– The Minister should clear up that point.

Mr PATERSON:

– Yes. Will the Minister state whether in respect of copper, the price in Australia is the London price plus the cost that would be incurred if the metal were brought from London to Australia? In other words, is it the import parity price or the actual price prevailing in London expressed in terms of our currency?

I propose now to deal with the amendment moved by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). If it be adopted, paragraph e of sub-clause 1 will read -

Arrangements for ascertaining costs and for the control and limitation of net profit to 6 per centum in relation to the production of munitions.

The words “ in relation to the production of munitions “ suggest that this proposal means 6 per cent. profit on output, or turnover; not 6 per cent. on capital. But 6 per cent. on turnover might be a very large profit indeed, on capital. As the Minister remarked earlier, the value of turnover might be several times the amount of capital employed. Supposing the value of turnover was five times the value of the capital employed, 6 per cent. on turnover would be equivalent to a return of 30 per cent. on capital. Conversely, if the turnover were low in relation to the amount of capital employed, say half, 6 per cent. on turnover would represent only 3 per cent. on capital. Most of this checking of prices will be in relation to goods produced in annexes. Atleast, I take it that that will be the case, because the contract system will deal very largely with goods bought on a large scale from manufacturers in the ordinary way, and the price of goods produced in the Government’s own factories will be regarded as above suspicion of undue profiteering. Consequently, this profit-limiting proposal will, I presume, be applied mainly to annexes. We have been told to-night that the Government will provide the capital in connexion with the annexes. It will construct the buildings and install the machinery. It is right that the Government should do so, because these plants are being erected primarily to meet its requirements in a time of emergency, and, consequently, they will be idle for considerable periods. Therefore, the only capital which will be employed by a company in these annexes will be that required for the purchase of raw materials and for managerial expenses and wages. In such circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult to fix profits on a basis of 6 per cent. on capital, because the capital invested in- these annexes will be government capital. It is most likely, therefore, that we shall have to deal with- profits on a basis of turnover, in which case the 6 per cent, suggested by the honorable member for Balaclava might prove to be excessive. The 4 per cent, suggested by the Minister seems to be more reasonable. The proposal outlined by the Minister to limit profits will be more satisfactory than a method by which a hard and fast figure, whether it be 6 per cent., or otherwise, is fixed. For these reasons I cannot support the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Balaclava. [Quorum formed.]

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

– Following the explanations given by the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Casey), I propose to make one or two observations in connexion with this important clause. In the first place, I congratulate the Government on being able to enlist the professional .advice and aid of the men who will comprise the Accountancy Advisory Panel. Some of these men, whose names were announced by the Minister, are known to me personally, and their professional ability and reputation are beyond doubt. However, I am at a loss to understand why the Government should enlist the services of outside accountants in an honorary capacity when it has so many efficient officers to draw upon its own Public Service. No government, particularly a national government, should expect the services of professional men in an honorary capacity. I have had sufficient experience of the Commonwealth Public Service to know that it contains officers of outstanding experience, ability and integrity. I have drawn men from that Service to manage my accountancy businesses, and my experience has been that the training which they received in the Service has proved of great value, not only to myself, but also to clients. For this reason I am surprised that the Government did not rely on officers in its own Service to do this work, particularly as the Minister emphasized, practically throughout his whole speech, the experience which had been gained by the

Contracts Board in connexion with the handling of contracts for defence supplies. Like the members of that board, many other members of ‘the Commonwealth Public Service have . gained unique experience in this field, a class of experience which overshadows that of the members of the Accountancy Advisory Panel, excellent though the latter might be. The Minister stated that by virtue of rules and regulations every safeguard has been provided to prevent undue profit-making. If that be the case, I cannot understand what advice the Government will require of this panel. The Minister said that the advice of that’ body would be sought, but he failed to tell honorable members, who represent the people of Australia, exactly by what means and what safeguards the .Government intends to provide against profiteering in connexion with our defence expenditure. No formula has been set out. The Government has an obligation to tell this committee just exactly what it intends to ask the advisory panel to do in order to prevent undue _ profit-making and what its own views are. Surely it is not going to ask honorable members to entrust to this panel, working in an honorary capacity, the formulation of the basis and method of profit-finding, and of profit limitation in this connexion. Every honorable member will agree that that is the responsibility of this Parliament, and that such a matter should be debated fully here. The Government should inform us what it considers to be a fair and reasonable profit-earning capacity in connexion with these activities. The Minister has given every reason as to why he and the Government should be in a position to advise this Parliament as to the limitation that should be imposed on profits. .The right honorable gentleman has expressed the view that the desire of certain honorable members for safeguards against profiteering, indicate lack of confidence in the integrity of the manufacturers of Australia. That is far from being a fact. The aim of those honorable members is to see that every possible safeguard is observed in connexion with expenditure from the public purse, with a view to sustaining the integrity of .the manufacturers to whom the right honorable gentleman has referred. We have a definite responsibility in this matter, and it is useless to accuse any one of doubting the integrity of the manufacturers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) himself in Sydney, on a quite recent occasion, in his first broadcast address to the people of Australia, stated that one of the definite objectives of the Government in connexion “with defence would be to .see that no avenue was left open to the profiteers. It is futile for any one to ignore the fact that profiteering is practised in ‘the manufacture of munitions. We ‘are well aware of the profits that have been made throughout history from wars and rumours of wars, and it is our responsibility to ensure that nothing is left undone to safeguard the public purse. During the last war, the government of the day found it necessary to impose a wartime profits tax. The Minister has stated that the contract system provides the necessary safeguards. He has pointed out that experience and close observation prove that 60 per cent, of the expenditure incurred by the department in connexion with defence contracts represents a wage cost, material represents 20 per cent., and overhead expenses, including depreciation and profit, the remaining 20 per cent. I submit, therefore, that these contracts provide a basis for a formula which would lay down what is a fair and reasonable profit. The Government could ascertain what proportion of the 20 per cent, might reasonably be allowed for depreciation, and thus determine the percentage of profit. A firm in Adelaide, he stated, was encouraged by the Government to install certain plant to provide material which otherwise would have to be imported, on a given basis of cost plus a reasonable percentage of profit. The Minister did not mention what the profit is, but we have been told that the cost to the Government worked out at less than the price of the imported article. This experience should guide the Government in its determination of what is a fair and reasonable profit. Because of the knowledge gained by the Contracts Board, it should be possible to exercise full and proper control in respect of raw materials. The contract system imposes a definite check on costs, and could furnish safeguards against profiteering. It has been stated that too great an expenditure would be incurred in ascertaining what would be a proper cost. What has been the cost of the investigation necessary to obtain the experience so far gained by the Contracts Board? The Contracts Board will continue to function under the Advisory Board, but it will still be guided by the experience it has gained. What instruction does the Government propose to give to the five honorary accountants as to what is to be regarded as a fair and reasonable basis of profit? We have been told that no proper basis can be laid down. My rejoinder to that is that a formula can bo found and that the basis was ascertained in the two cases that I have cited ; if it was not, what can the Advisory Panel do?

Then there are the annexes, in respect of which the Government has laid down a formula which will give a return over cost on a prescribed basis - the ordinary technical basis for the ascertainment of cost - plus 4 per cent., which, in the circumstances, is 4 per cent, on turnover. For some years, certain State governments have limited the profits of utility companies, ‘ such as electricity and gas companies, in order to prevent them from profiteering unduly at the expense of those who are obliged to use their product. Definite conditions are imposed, which for very many years have benefited alike the consumers’, the companies and the governments concerned. The formula applied makes allowance for a definite cost of production, plus a specified rate of depreciation on the ascertained value of the assets, and a return varying from 6 to 7 per cent, on the capital invested in the undertaking. The Government should indicate what formula it intends to place before the advisory panel for the limitation of profits and the consequent prevention of profiteering. I suggest that, having fixed the cost of production, including depreciation, the allowable profit should not exceed 6 per cent, on the ascertained value of the assets actually employed. That value could easily be ascertained. The cost of production should be that fixed by the advisory panel and/or the Contracts Board. I understand that the honorable mem- bev for Balaclava (Mr. White) is willing to withdraw his amendment in favour of one along those lines to be moved by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall). I cannot see why the Government should not accept such an amendment, if it is sincere in regard to the. practical application of this clause, in order to limit the amount of profit to be allowed, should Australia unfortunately he subjected to the disastrous costs and repercussions of war. It is hoped that the Minister will accept such an amendment as a constructive suggestion so that the people may .have confidence that the mandate given to the Government is being properly carried out.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I am disappointed that the Government has not brought forward an amendment which would provide a workable formula to prevent profiteering. The amendment submitted by me last night was designed for that purpose, but I am willing,, to support any other amendment that will produce the desired result. I am very disappointed over the speech of the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Casey). He gave a full explanation as to how contracts are made with the Defence Department. We know well that little profiteering occurs where the competition is keen, but the Minister said that sometimes goods are purchased without tenders being called, and I suggested that in such cases three quotations should be obtained. It is regrettable that the Government has not drawn up an amendment to check profiteering by monopolies. I have made no attacks upon individuals, nor have I stated that profiteering is rampant, but I pointed to what happens in connexion with the prices of Australian copper, and, to some extent, of Australian zinc. Yet the Minister, after getting into deep water in explaining copper prices, omitted to say that they include the cost of sending the copper to England. Australian manufacturers pay the prices fixed by the London Metal Exchange, and to those is added the exchange. As 1 showed last night, the London price of £43 becomes £53 15s. in Australian currency. I pointed out that the steel company, although a monopoly, charges a rate for steel based on the Australian cost.

The Minister said that some honorable members suspect the manufacturers of conspiracy to defraud the Government. Actually I know that manufacturers will, be grateful if the price of their raw materials can be cheapened. He used a poor argument in abusing those whoput forward a case with the object of checking excess profits. If he attacks those who dare to criticize, he must alsocondemn his leader, for, as the honorablemember for Darling Downs (Mr. Eadden) pointed out, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has declared against profiteering, and the Melbourne Argus of the 2Sth April last published a cartoon showing, the Prime Minister in uniform as a sentry at the door of the Defence Department saying, “ Exploiters keep out. This means you “. That was over theexplanatory paragraph - “ Dealing with defence measures, Mr. Menzies made it clear there must be no profiteering “. All that I desire is definite proof that the Government intends to checkprofiteering. I agree with the honorable member for Darling Downs that the panel of expert accountants should- be paid for their services,, but it is absurd to suggest that profiteering is not practised when it is known that’ the Taxation Department collected- £7,000,000 in respect of excess profitsmade during the last war. Some of this tax is still being collected. It is for theGovernment to discover whether it isbeing exploited. The Tariff Board, in a report on copper issued in 1930,. stated -

Copper products form hh important basic raw material for many Australian industries, and. it is essential that they shall be made available at the lowest possible prices. The hoard considers that any increase in the prices, of copper products would be prejudicial to theinterests of the industries using them, and,, as a matter of fact, is of opinion that theexisting prices should be reduced if at all possible.

I could submit other proof of the fact that the prices of metals are too high. I think that the Minister might haveattempted to bring forward some refutation of the criticism that the metal monopolies are charging too much fortheir products. It may be that they arenot. A report by the Tariff Board in. 1934 on copper and copper products contains the following paragraph : -

A general review of prices charged over a period of years leaves no room- for doubting that the policy of the associated interests has been to maintain prices for manufactured copper products at about the same level as the landed duty paid costs of importations . . The selling prices were higher than were necessary to enable reasonable profits to be earned by the manufacturing companies even while they were paying a premium for copper requirements.

I have quoted the definite opinion of the Tariff Board, which takes evidence in all States. The Melbourne Herald of the 23rd November, 1937, published the following paragraph in its financial columns : -

Big Increase in Profits of Metal Company.

A substantial increase in profit is shown in the accounts of Metal Manufacturers Limited., for this year ended the 31st July. After providing £28,042 for taxation, the profit was £92,818, compared with £79,042 last year.

Why boggle at the proposed safeguard? The Minister, in his long explanation, said that the profits of manufactures in connexion with the annexes could be checked and kept down to 4 per cent. These annexes, I admit, will be excellent auxiliaries, because they will result in efficient production at a minimum of profit; but if a profit can be checked in the annexes it should also be possible to check it on raw materials. We know that during the last war an unreasonable rate of profit was secured by some manufacturers. Yet when honorable members submit amendments for the purpose of preventing excess profits, which this bill vaguely suggests are to be controlled, they are abused by the Minister. I point out to the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) that the 6 per cent, mentioned in my amendment is intended to be the maximum profit allowed. Often it will be much less on account of the competition. I moved that the word “ profit “ should be omitted, with a view to inserting the words “net profit up to 6 per centum”, and the honorable member for Darling Downs suggested that the amendment would be improved by adding “ on the value of the actual assets employed in the earning of such profits “.

That is clearer, and an improvement on what I proposed rather hastily last night. I defer to the honorable gentleman’s professional knowledge, although I had in mind to leave the basis of computation fairly wide so that the Government, by regulation, could make the necessary stipulation. But we get no assurance that there will be any such regulation. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, and that there will be no need for a division. If it does go to a division, my vote shall be for a definite scheme to check such profiteering as went on in the Great War. This is an opportunity for the monopolists to show practical patriotism. The boys who join the militia show their patriotism in their way, and many other persons will show their personal patriotism in many other ways of service. Here is a way in which the captains of industry and the heads of companies who have reaped big dividends previously can give something back to the people, who will be taxed so many millions of pounds for defence in the next three years. My purpose is to make the burden of taxes as light as possible.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the honorable member wish to persist with his amendment?

Mr WHITE:

– No; I ask leave to withdraw it in favour of one to be proposed by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall).

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– I am opposed to the provision which enables the Governor-General to decide what shall be done in “ the provision or supply of munitions “. I hold the view strongly that the powers to be exercised should be specifically provided in the act. Broadly speaking, I support the arguments advanced so capably yesterday by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway). In Australia we should not depart from the principle that the Government should not only control the manufacture of munitions, but should also keep such enterprises entirely to itself. Whatever arms or munitions are needed can be efficiently manufactured in the government factories that are already in existence, if we enlarge them as those at Maribyrnong have been enlarged and establish other government factories in suitable localities. Although the munitions factories are in my electorate, and more than 4,000, some of whom are my constituents, are employed in them. I disagree entirely with the concentration of munitions production in one area. On many occasions I have urged that the Government should give consideration to spreading the manufacture of munitions and armaments throughout Australia. To show the need for this, one need only cite the possibility of attacks being launched on Australia at places far from the centres of manufacture and our lack of efficient transport to take munitions to the point of attack. I do not pose as an expert on defence, and I realize that the Government .has to give at least favorable consideration to the reports of those who are experts, but it is obvious that the concentration of our munitions factories in a few square miles is a menace to our safety, because in the event of a successful raid on that area, we should be left without the means to carry on the production of munitions. That shows that there ‘is something radically wrong with the Government’s defence programme. Paragraph b refers to “the manufacture or assembly of aircraft or parts thereof by the Commonwealth or any authority of the Commonwealth.” It is my view that aeroplanes for the purpose of defence should he manufactured in Government factories. I respect the opinion of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) who advanced the view that if the Government were to erect sufficient factories to provide for the defence of Australia, it would be difficult to absorb the men employed in them in other branches of industry if,, by some fortunate turn of world political events, we were placed in the position of not having to proceed further with the production of munitions. In that case, if we had a government with the initiative possessed by the Government of New Zealand, the credit of the Commonwealth, based on the productive capacity of the country, would be used to undertake public -works that would absorb the unemployed. We have no evidence that the Government has any plans in that direction. Every time I have endeavoured to elicit from the Government what it proposes to do to relieve unemployment, I have elicited nothing. At least one member of the Ministry believes that there are no resources of man-power to undertake urgent public works. I hope that he is alone in that belief, but whether he is or is not, the Government has made no effort to provide for the happy contingency of Europe settling down to an era of peace in which we shall know that we are secure, without having to expend £63,000,000 on defence. The Government unfortunately does not seem to have made any preparations for that, nor does it appear to have them in contemplation. According to figures supplied in answer to a question recently, no fewer than 2,020 men have been added to the staff at Maribyrnong during the last twelve months. They have been collected from many districts, wherever they could be picked up. There are 29,000 others registered for employment at the munitions factories, and, though some ‘ may already be in other work, this huge registration shows that a great many are still looking for jobs. They apply to members of Parliament to use their influence in finding jobs for them. A great many of those who are out of work approach members of Parliament asking that they be found jobs on defence undertakings.

Mr Holt:

– Many of those registered are in employment elsewhere.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Some are, but a great many are not. I do not encourage those who are already in work. I feel it my duty to tell them that I can not help any one merely to move from one job to another while so many are unemployed. I believe that there cannot be fewer than 20,000 men in the metropolitan area of Melbourne looking for this kind of work, and the Government is making no plans for the re-absorption of those already employed on defence work should . the time come when their services will be no longer required.

The manufacture of aeroplanes and parts could be quite well done in Commonwealth factories, and in State railway workshops throughout the Commonwealth. The railway workshops in the various States could do the job in addition to their ordinary work, and the plant used could afterwards be employed on work in connexion with the unification of gauges and the alteration of railway stock. No doubt, some of the machinery used on defence work is of a special character, and not useful for other purposes, but a good deal of it, such as lathes, presses, &c, could be used for ordinary railway workshops purposes, and for producing bridging material. There is no need to call in private enterprise. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports advanced unanswerable arguments against that proposal. We have heard a good deal about the steps to he taken to eliminate excessive profit-making on arms contracts, but no country has yet succeeded in doing so. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) and the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) have framed amendments designed to achieve that end, but they are merely deluding themselves into the belief that it is possible in that way to restrict profits. No one can devise a way to prevent the armaments sharks from making excessive profits out of war hysteria once they are allowed to enter the scheme at all. No matter what legislation is passed, they will evade it. I disapprove of the Government’s proposal to appoint a panel of accountants practising privately to supervise profitmaking. I agree with the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) that there must, be highly qualified accountants in the Public Service capable of undertaking this work. I do not know any of the gentlemen suggested for the panel. I understand that they possess the highest professional qualifications, but the Government, in appointing outside men, is suggesting that the Public Service is not equal to the job.

My opinion on the subject of arms manufacture is summed up by the followingextract from the report of a royal commission on the private manufacture of arms, and trading in arms, presented in 1936 to the British. Government: -

The commercial interest of the private arms industry lies in war. It opposes disarmament, stimulates the arms race, supplies violators of the Covenant. All these activities are entirely legal, and impossible to stop as long as the present system is continued. It is therefore, necessary to reform the system, which can only be done by removing from the industry the motive of private profit. The arms industry should, therefore, be nationalized if possible by international agreement with other countries. Some will agree at once. All’ purely importing countries are already nationalized, since the Government is the only legal purchaser of munitions of war. Russia has only national production of arms. Denmark, Franco, Poland and Spain proposed general nationalization in 1933. An important group of States are therefore already prepared to adopt this measure. It is not one, however, which should wait for universal acceptance, for once it is realized that private arms industry is incompatible with the Covenant it becomes the duty of His Majesty’s Government to abolish it whether other League States do so or not.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr McCALL:
Martin

.- As the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) has withdrawn his amendment, I move -

That the word “profits”, paragraph (e), be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ net profit to six per centum on the value of the actual assets employed in the earning of such profit”.

I ask leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Progress reported.

page 722

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1939, No. 37.

Excise Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1939, No. 39.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 722

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Proposed Journal

Mr Jennings:

s asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In connexion with the proposed journal of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, what is the estimated yearly cost, revenue, and profit?

Mr Harrison:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Postal Department: Telegraph Branch

Mr Price:

e asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What was the surplus in the telegraph branch for the year 1937-38?
‘What is the estimated surplus for the period 1st July, 1938, to 30th April, 1939?

Mr Harrison:
UAP

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

The surplus, after providing for interest, was £73,020.
I regret that it is impracticable to furnish the estimate at present.

Griffith By-election.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that several Ministers, including himself, visited Brisbane by aeroplane for the purpose of assisting the United Australia party candidate in the recent Griffith by-election, will he inform the House whether the extra cost of travelling by aeroplane will be paid out of public revenue or paid personally by the individual Ministers?
In the event of the extra cost being paid out of public revenue, is such expenditure just and warranted?
If so, why are not similar facilities afforded to all other honorable members for a similar purpose?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

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

Any extra cost of travelling incurred by Ministers for the purpose of assisting in connexion with election campaigns is not, and will not be, paid from public funds. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

National Insurance

Mr Forde:

e asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

What is the total amount that has been spent on the royal commission appointed to advise regarding the payment to be mode for the treatment of persons insured under the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act, up to the time it ceased to function?
What is the total amount spent up to the present on the National Insurance Commission, and how many persons are employed by the commission?
What is the estimated cost of compensating approved societies for expenses incurred in employing staff, an’d erecting or leasing office accommodation?

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

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

£0,435 to date…….. 2. (a) Government administration costs, £70,527; payments to approved societies, £02.499 ; total to the 30th April, 1939, £139,020. (6) The number of officers employed at present is 70, the majority, of whom are now engaged in examining the accounts of the 155 approved societies. That work will’ be completed within about three weeks, and most of the. officers will then be transferred to other departments. ‘
Approved societies have been asked to furnish their claims not later than the 31st May, 1939. Until these _ claims are received it will not be possible to estimate the cost of payments to societies.

Defence Expenditure

Mr Forde:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the expenditure, per capita of population, on defence for the years 1930-37 and 1937-38, .and what is the .estimated cost per capita for the year 1938-39?
What is the estimated cost per capita for the same periods in regard to Great Britain, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand ?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– The ‘information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible.

Wheat Industry

Mr Gregory:

y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

In connexion with’ tlie proposed legislation for’ the stabilization of the wheat industry, will he invite the representatives of the various wheat-growing organizations qf the wheatgrowing States to a conference, and ‘give to them an opportunity to place* their case and their proposals, before him prior to his formulating legislation on this subject? ‘

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer : -

Officers appointed by the Commonwealth and the State governments’ are now meeting in Canberra to discuss the problems of’ the wheat industry. This meeting will be followed by a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, who will, have before them -the report of the officers’ committee. If .the various wheat-growing organizations have any representations to make, they should submit them to the Premiers of their respective States and to the Minister ‘ for Commerce, Senator McLeay. ‘ .

The Minister for Commerce will be glad to meet wheat-growers’ representatives’ for personal discussion’ at’ mutually convenient times.

Canberra: Trade Classes

Mr Gregory:

y asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

What trades are taught at the night trade classes conducted at Canberra under the auspices of the Department of the Interior?
What are the numbers of pupils attending each night trade class?
Is admission to such classes restricted to lads apprenticed to the particular trades or engaged in their daily occupation in the par:ticular trades?
What opportunity is afforded lads engaged in other trades not covered by the night trade classes to learn the skilled trades taught at the night classes, and thus escape from dead-end occupations?
Do the day vocational classes afford sufficient opportunity for boys compelled to earn their living by day at unskilled occupations to become skilled workmen or artisans?
If there is any prohibition or restriction against the class of lad referred to in paragraph 4 attending the night classes, is this because of action by the trade unions or because of an agreement with the New South Wales Government?
If so, is such prohibition in accordance with public policy?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

Fitting and machining and motor mechanics, carpentry and joinery, plastering, painting, electrical fitting and mechanics, signwriting, bricklaying, plumbing, drainage, autogenous welding.
–

Yes, with the exception of the classes in signwriting, drainage and autogenous welding, which arc not declared apprenticeship trades.
Classes are provided at the Vocational Training School for boys at the super-primary stage to learn carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing and motor mechanics, as well as arithmetic, English and civics.
No. Because a term of apprenticeship to a trade is essential, the school instruction is supplementary only, and attendance at the classes has never been regarded as sufficient training for an apprenticeship trade.
The trade unions regard practical training in an apprenticeship trade under an employer in association with other workmen as an indispensable component in the education of tradesmen. The restrictions which are applicable to certain of the night classes apply under the scheme of technical education in operation in New South Wales, but have not been imposed in ‘Canberra as a result of an agreement with the New South Wales Government.
Yes, in accordance with the basic principle of apprenticeship.

Iron Ore Export Embargo: Claims for Compensation

Mr Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What are the names and addresses of all individuals and companies who have made application to the Commonwealth Government for compensation following the embargo on the export of iron ore?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– The names and addresses of individuals and companies who have made application to the Commonwealth Government for compensation following upon the prohibition of the exportation of iron ore from Australia are : -

Mr. A. G. Lyon, care of Alan F. and A. Gatley Lyon, P.O. Box 234, Newcastle.

Cossack Lightering and Traders Limited, care of Messrs. Jackson, Leake, Stawell and Company, Atlas Building, Esplanade, Perth.

Mr. B. G. Nicholl, 551 Flinders lane, Melbourne.

Tasmanian Iron Ore Limited, P. and C. Buildings, 221-225 Elizabethstreet, Sydney.

All the above claims have been disallowed.

In addition, Mr. John Curtin, M.P., has made certain representations concerning the question of compensation of workmen whose services were terminated at Yampi Sound. This matter is at present under consideration.

On the 17th May, the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) asked the following questions, upon notice -

Will he furnish (a) a list of claims for compensation made upon the Government arising out of the embargo against the export of iron ore from Yampi Sound, and (6) the decisions upon such claims?

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

The only claim for compensation so far received arising out of the embargo against the export of iron ore from Yampi Sound was that of the Cossack Lightering and Traders Limited, Perth, for £10,000.

Three other claims for compensation arising out of the embargo have been received from parties operating in States other than Western Australia.

As the Government considered that there were no proper grounds for granting the claims they have been disallowed.

Semi-governmental Borrowings

Mr Gregory:

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What has been the amount of semigovernmental borrowing during this financial year?
Will he give details of the amounts of semi-governmental and municipal borrowing by each State during the years 1935-36, 1936- 37, and 1937-38, and for the present financial year ?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– Information regarding such borrowing for the current financial year is not available. The sums borrowed by semi-governmental, local governmental and municipal bodies in each State for the years 1935-36 to 1937-38 inclusive, are as follows: -

Performingrights

Mr Forde:

e asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What is the charge per licence made by the Australian Performing Sight Association in Australia to (a) national broadcasting stations, and (b) commercial broadcasting stations?
What is the total amount paid per annum for this purpose?
What is the charge to broadcasting stations made by the Performing Right Association in (a) New Zealand, (b) South Africa, (c) Canada, (d) England, (e) France, (f)Germany, and (g) Italy?
Who are the members of the Australian Performing Right Association, and how many of the members are (a) authors, and (b) publicists?

Mr Harrison:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Rathmines Seaplane Base.

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice -

What are the lengths of foreshore to be resumed at Rathmines for the proposed seaplane base?
What acreage of land back from the foreshore is it proposed to resume?
What number of workers’ cottages will require to be removed to allow workshops and accommodation to be erected for cadets, trainees, staff officers, &c?
What basis will be adopted in regard to compensation to be paid to property-owners whose properties will be resumed?
If provision is made for them to take up blocks of land back from the foreshore, will he make provision for a 200-ft. reservation from the foreshore with a right-of-way for these people to have access to the water for bathing, boating, &c?
Did the department at any time recommend Toronto, Lake Macquarie, for a seaplane base right at the railway head, in preference to Rathmines, which is 4 or 5 miles from the railway ?
Was the non-selection of the Toronto site due to the property in this area being owned by well-to-do people who might cause an outcry, and was this the reason for selecting the working-class locality of Rathmines?

Mr Street:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1, 2 and 3. Contour survey of the site is now in progress, and until the survey is completed, this information cannot be supplied.

The properties will be resumed under the provisions of the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act.
As the base will be a defence establishment with hangars, workshops and other buildings abutting on the foreshore, it will be necessary to refuse public access to this area. The main boating and baths area will, however, not be effected, and the length of foreshore included in the base will be limited to the minimum necessary to meet air force requirements.
No.
No. Rathmines was selected on account of its superior advantages for the operation of large flying boats.

Manufacture of Munitions : Cost of Shells.

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - On the 23rd May, the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked the following question, without notice -

In view of his statement to an honorable member last week that the contract price of certain shells was £1 10s., less 7s. returned by the company, can the Minister for Defence inform the House if the shells referred to are similar to those supplied to the British Government at 12s.6d. each?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that no information is available in the Defence Department as to the price paid by the British Government for the type of shell supplied to the Australian Government at 23s. 2d.

Militia Forces: Leave and Pay - Uniforms.

Mr Street:
UAP

t. - On the 19th May, the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) asked the following question, without notice: -

In view of the fact that the Government of New South Wales has granted leave to militia trainees employed in State Government departments and semi-governmental bodies, such as municipal councils, and has agreed to make up the difference between their military and civil pay, will the Government follow the example set by the State Government of New South Wales?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that since the 14th September, 1936, it has been the policy of the Commonwealth Government to grant leave with full pay to its servants for the purpose of carrying out military training.

On the 19th May, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked the following question, without notice: -

Is the Minister for Defence aware that at a militia camp held at Townsville, at which more than 200 men attended, 40 per cent. of the trainees were without uniforms, and when the camp disbanded 160 of the uniforms used there were sent to a camp at Cairns? Is such a condition of affairs likely to continue, and how long will the trainees be waiting before they receive uniforms and the necessary equipment?

I am now able to inform the honable member that approximately 800 militia attended the recent . camp at Townsville, the majority of these having been issued with shorts and shirts, the authorized uniform for north Queensland units. In addition, working dress suits were issued to all personnel, including those more recently enlisted, for whom other uniforms were not available. At the conclusion of the camp at Townsville, some the working dress uniforms were withdrawn from those already in possession of other uniform. These working dress suits were then washed and forwarded to Cairns for use in similar circumstances. The re-issue of working dress after washing is part of the normal procedure. The temporary shortage of uniform is being overcome rapidly, and all essential items should be available by the 30th June, 1939. Ample equipment is available, and there is no reason why delay should occur in its issue.

Liquidfuels.

Mr Casey:
UAP

y.- On the 23rd May, the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) asked me whether it was a fact that Mr. L. J. Rogers, Commonwealth Fuel Adviser, had informed Phoenix Oil Extractors Proprietary Limited that before he would make an investigation of the company’s process for the extraction of oil from coal he desired to know the catalyst employed. I have made inquiries into this matter, and I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that all that Mr. Rogers required was as full particulars as possible concerning the company’s process in order to enable him to report to the Government on it. This information he is now endeavouring to obtain.

Ma tern al Welfare.

Mr Jennings:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

What arrangements have been finalized between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales in regard to a policy relative to maternal mortality?
What are the arrangements in New South Wales?

Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP

– In connexion with the Jubilee Fund for Maternal Endowment and Child Welfare, an amount of £31,781 was contributed in New South Wales, made up as follows : -

Commonwealth Government - £14,000 from Jubilee Fund.

State Government - £10,000.

Public- £7,781.

In addition, Sir Walter Carpenter donated a house property at Wollstonecraft, Sydney. This will be converted into a post-natal convalescent home. The State Government provided, in addition, £2,500 for alterations, furnishing and equipment of the home, and the Commonwealth Government is subsidizing this £1 for £1. The State Government has passed an act creating a trust fund. An advisory committee has been: appointed that is responsible to the executive head of the State Health Department. The State considers that the Royal Hospital for Women, Paddington, and the Women’s Hospital meet all requirements of a model maternity centre. Provision is made for research under the. Professor of Midwifery at the University of Sydney. The act provides that the income from the moneys contributed under this scheme shall be expended for purposes of research relating to maternal and infant welfare. A consultant service of senior obstetricians has been provided and a mobile blood transfusion unit has boon formed. The Hospitals Commission has advised that everything is in readiness to proceed with the alterations and additions to the home at Wollstonecraft in order to convert it into a post-natal convalescent home and to equip it. The Commonwealth’s contribution will he made available as required.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 May 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19390524_reps_15_159/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives24 May 1939

QUESTION

FINANCIAL GROUPS

Mr POLLARD:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr SCHOLFIELD:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:Minister without portfolio administering External Territories · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:Minister for Supply and Development · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

ITALIAN FELT HATS

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHN LAWSON:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Mr McCALL:

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:UAP

Mr Ward:

Mr MENZIES:

Mr WARD:

Mr MENZIES:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr SCULLY:GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr COLLINS:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:

Mr McCALL:

Mr MENZIES:UAP

Senator BADMAN:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; CP from 1940

Mr HARRISON:

Mr ROSEVEAR:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:

Mr GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HARRISON:

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr Nairn:

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr HARRISON:

QUESTION

BOOTS FOR MILITIA

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr STREET:Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

AGE LIMIT FOR MIGRANTS

Mr MAHONEY:DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

INTERSTATE TELEGRAM RATES

Sir CHARLES MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:UAP

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE IN AUSTRALIA

Mr POLLARD:

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

LIQUID FUELS

Mr FADDEN:

Mr CASEY:UAP

QUESTION

COUNTRY TELEPHONES

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HARRISON:UAP

QUESTION

DESTITUTE CHILDREN

House of Representatives
24 May 1939

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr SCHOLFIELD:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio administering External Territories · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr SCULLY:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:
Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Senator BADMAN:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; CP from 1940

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr THORBY:
Calare

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro - Assistant Minister · Eden · UAP

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HARRISON:
PostmasterGeneral · Wentworth · UAP

Mr HARRISON:
UAP