15th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon.G. J. Bell) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1338
– Has the Prime Minister any knowledge of the proposed increase of the price of petrol by 6d. a gallon, reported in this morning’s metropolitan newspapers?
– I have not:
page 1338
– In view of the fact that 400 families have left Canberra for Melbourne, in order to follow their husbands and fathers who have been transferred to other appointments in the respective departments, will the Prime Minister undertake to see that expenditure in respect of new departments is incurred in Canberra and not in Melbourne, so that the services of officers may be readily available to honorable members?
– I shall look into the matter raised by the honorable member. I shall also inquire as to whether or not the number ho has mentioned is correct.
page 1338
– I have received from the New Guinea Mining Association, the Chamber of Mines, citizens, Australian Labour party, and. returned soldiers of Wau, a radiogram which reads as follows : -
Combined public bodies goldfields strongly protest continued delay building Salamaua- Wau road. Rising costs seriously affecting future gold-mining industry. If administration reluctant build road, miners request they be permitted undertake construction. Road construction only sound means continuing gold production at full capacity. Road most important as defence measure.
It is now eighteen months since the legislation authorizing the construction of this road was passed by this Parliament.
– Order ! The honorable member is giving information instead of seeking it.
– Is the AttorneyGeneral in a position to explain the delay that has occurred in the construction of the road? What preliminary work remains to he done before construction can be commenced? Is the right honorable gentleman able to say when the survey and other preliminary work will be completed ?
– As the honorable member knows, a number of alternative routes for a road between Wau and Salamaua were considered, and route A, the shortest and most direct, was selected. The country traversed by the road is very difficult in parts, consisting of high mountain ranges and deep gorges running across the proposed line of route. The first and second deviations through the most difficult section having proved unsatisfactory, a third deviation was investigated. The surveyors have completed the examination of the difficult section, and arrangements have been made for the Director of Public Works to inspect the route from an engineering point of view ; this inspection willbe commenced from Wau on the 28th November. It is impossible to convey very clearly to honorable members the exact position, but in order that any doubts that the honorable member may have in regard to delay may be dispelled I shall be very pleased to show to him the reports and the map furnished by the Administrator, which give the position up to date.
page 1339
– Under the wool appraisement scheme several expert men engaged in the wool trade have been unable to retain their employment. I have received telegrams to this effect, including messages from returned soldiers. It is suggested that the delay in securing re-engagement is the fault of the Central Wool Committee. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce inquire from the committee as to why delay in the re-engagement of these expert wool men is taking place?
– I shall be very pleased to make the suggested inquiry.
– In view of the very many complaints being received from all over Australia regarding the appraisement of wool, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce endeavour to establish some system of arbitration designed to give more satisfaction to woolgrowers than the present system?
-I understand that there already exists a right of appeal to a higher authority, but in any case I hope, possibly to-morrow, to make a complete statement in connexion with the appraisement of wool.
– Assuming that the complaints regarding the appraisement of wool under the United Kingdom purchase scheme are well founded, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce say whether this will result in a loss to the revenue of Australia, or does the scheme permit of an ultimate adjustment that will yield an average price of 13.437d. per lb. for the Australian clip as a whole?
– The presumption in the second part of the honorable member’s question is correct. If, as has been alleged, the appraisement so far has been on a conservative basis, an adjustment will be made later to lift the average return to the figure named.
– Last week I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce whether the Government would take steps to make available to wool-growers information concerning qualities, types and yields of wool clips, and the honorable gentleman promised to refer the matter to the Minister. Has he any information to furnish to me? Has the Government arrived at any decision in the matter? Will he state why the wool-growers are not permitted to witness the appraisement of their wool?
– I shall duly remind the Minister for Commerce of the question asked last week, with a view to expediting a reply to it, as well as to the second question asked to-day.
page 1339
Useof Part-time Telephone Exchanges.
– In view of the serious risk of bush fires throughout the whole of the country districts of the Commonwealth, will the Postmaster-General make arrangements to enable part-time telephone exchanges to be available to the public during the night hours, and particularly on Sundays and holidays, so that urgent calls may be made in the event of an emergency ?
– This is a. wide question, uponwhich many representations have been made. From time to time the department has pointed out that service in part-time offices outside recognized hours is purely at the discretion of the unofficial postmasters or postmistresses concerned, and that they require an opening fee for such a service if it be rendered. I shall give consideration to the suggestion of the honorable member. Certain steps are being taken to guard against bush-fire risks; as a matter of fact, communications have recently passed between the Government and the Premiers of the different States in this regard .
page 1339
-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce make an early statement in regard to whether or not arrangements will be made either for the Apple and Pear Board to take over the storage of apples and pears or to pay for their storage in private cool stores?
– I shall duly convey that request to the Minister for Commerce.
page 1340
– Will the Minister for the Army make a close investigation into the conditions under which employees were engaged by the proprietor of the canteen at the Ingleburn camp, which was destroyed by fire last night? Will the honorable gentleman particularly inquire into the number of hours that they were called upon to work, it having been reported to me that those hours were from 6 a.m. to 10.15 p.m. ? Will he further inquire as to whether or not they were allowed a total of only one and a half hours for three meals, that they were forced to sleep on straw in front of the counters, and that they had to act as watchmen, the wages paid to them averaging only about £2 a week?
– I shall haVe those matters referred to an inquiry which at present is proceeding in connexion with an incident that occurred at the canteen.
page 1340
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior make arrangements to supply honorable members with a list of defence works as they are approved, so that honorable members will be enabled to keep in touch with what is taking place in this connexion?
– It should be possible to give effect to the suggestion of the honorable member. I shall make representations in the matter to the Minister for the Interior.
page 1340
– Has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the House in connexion with a report that the Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand delegates to the Empire Air Conference in Canada have decided that 60,000 war pilots shall be trained in Canada in the next three years? Is it u. fact that the delegates have reached a final agreement on the details of the air training scheme? If so, will the agreement be submitted to this Parliament for ratification?
– No agreement ha? yet been reached.
– Can the Prime Minister give me any information as to whether, in connexion with the proposed Empire Air Force, it has been agreed, at Ottawa, that any Australian personnel sent overseas shall be organized into an Australian formation, officered by Australian personnel? I understand that Canada desires that the Canadian Air Force shall be so organized. Will the Minister also inform me whether he has received any protest from the Australian Flying Corps Association of New South Wales concerning the abandonment of the proposal to form an Australian air expeditionary force. If so, has the protest yet been considered?
– I have already stated that negotiations in relation to the Canadian scheme are still proceeding - they have not reached conclusion - but the very important aspect to which the honorable member directs attention has not been lost sight of, either by ourselves or by the other dominions concerned. I cannot say positively as to whether I have received a protest of the kind indicated by the honorable member. I shall ascertain from my department whether such a communication has been received.
– Will the Prime Minister give the House the estimated cost of training an air pilot in Canada, and the cost of training a pilot in Australia? I? it the intention of the Government that pilots trained in Canada should be employed overseas, or will they return for service in Australia?
– I am not able to give any estimate regarding the cost of training pilots in Canada. Details of arrangements to be made in Canada, including the matter referred to by the honorable member, will be made known when they are agreed upon. They are at present being discussed.
page 1340
– Will the PostmasterGeneral have inquiries made into the system adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of broadcasting British Broadcasting Corporation news? Will Instate whether it is a fact that the B class stations provide a longer period for the- transmission of British Broadcasting Corporation news than do the A class stations? The Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcasts news for only ten minutes at a time, and only five minutes is allowed for Australian news.
– This matter comes more directly under the Department of Information. I shall bring the honorable member’s question under the notice of the Minister for Information. The B class stations do not broadcast news for longer periods than do the national stations, but in some instances they select different periods for the transmission of news, so that news may be heard on the A class stations at one time and on the B class stations at another.
page 1341
– Has the attention of the Minister for Supply and Development been drawn to the disastrous position of wheat-growers who are unable to procure wheat bags to enable them to proceed with the harvesting of their crops? No hope is held out to them that supplies of sacks will be available until early next month. Will the Minister treat this as a special and urgent matter and make every effort to relieve the situation, and so save many farmers from the loss of their crops through further delay in procuring sacks?
– I assure the honorable member that this matter has already received the closest consideration by the Supply and Development Department. I have been assured by the Ministers for Agriculture of New South Wales and ‘ Queensl:ind that the supply of cornsacks is sufficient to meet the requirements of the wheat-growers. I presume the honorable member’s question has particular relation to New South Wales. If he has any information which indicates that there is a shortage, I shall be glad to investigate the matter.
page 1341
Second Aerodrome for Sydney
– I ask the Acting Minister for Air whether in view of the present inadequacy of the Essendon and Kingsford Smith aerodromes as air terminals and of their use as training centres, he will take early measures to provide for the filling in or boarding over of the reservoir at Essendon, and for a considerable extension of the Kingsford Smith Aerodrome so that these airports may more nearly approach the standard of air safety of airports overseas?
– I shall have inquiries made to see whether anything can be done in the direction indicated.
– I ask the Acting Minister for Air whether he has seen the statement in the pre3S by the secretary of the Royal Aero Club of New South Wales, Mr. S. C. Bridgland, that-
Far too much flying is allowed on Mascot Aerodrome and that the lives of young nien training to join the Air Force are being unnecessarily endangered.
Will he call for a report on this statement and consider it in relation to the suggestion that a second aerodrome should be established in Sydney?
– I have not seen the statement referred to by the honorable member, but I have already made some inquiries into the accident that occurred during the week-end. It is a fact that the aerodrome at Mascot is inadequate to deal with the existing .traffic. We have endeavoured to limit the use of this aerodrome by the Air Force to the minimum requirements, and we are only using it at present for the training of eighteen cadet pilots at the two flying training schools there. The only practical solution recommended to me at present to meet the situation is that an additional aerodrome shall be provided to cope with the increasing traffic. I am having inquiries made into the matter and will have information available later.
– When the Government decides to build another aerodrome in Sydney, will the Acting Minister for Aviation see that consideration is given to the suggestion I made to the Minister for Aviation that it be built at Bankstown ?
– Inquiries will be made into the practicability of building another aerodrome for Sydney. As a matter of fact, much expenditure is still required on the principal aerodromes at the capital cities, and it would be inadvisable to commence the construction of new aerodromes until those we already have are completed. In the case of Sydney, this applies to the Kingsford Smith aerodrome, but when all necessary work has been done there, consideration will be given to the honorable member’s suggestion.
– -I ask the Acting Treasurer whether his colleague, the Minister for the Interior, has pointed out to him that quite a lot of work remains to be done by the Works Department at Mascot aerodrome, but that no money is available for it; further, that there is a large number of highly-paid officers, but no men, at the Works Department in Sydney? Is the honorable gentleman prepared to make money available to finance works at Mascot and other places which the Works Department already has in hand?
– The answer to the first two questions is, “ No and to the third question, that I am prepared to give the matter consideration.
– Will the Acting Minister for Air state whether the Public Works Committee, after an investigation of the conditions at the Kingsford Smith aerodrome., made a recommendation in relation to the danger that exists there because of too many machines landing at the one time?
– I understand that the Public Works Committee made certain investigations. Plans have already been prepared by the Department of Civil Aviation for the erection of a control building at this aerodrome, and it is hoped that tenders will be called in the very near future for the execution of this work.
page 1342
– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs able to say whether an application has been made by tea merchants in Melbourne for an increase of the price of tea by 3d. per lb.? This, if granted, would mean that tea would have increased by 6d. per lb. since the outbreak of the war. I ask the Minister whether, before sanctioning any such increase, he will have the fullest inquiry made by some competent authority to ascertain the real position of the tea market? Would the honorable gentleman also take into consideration a statement published in yesterday’s Sydney Sun to the effect that a prominent Sydney tea importer considered the present price of tea quite satisfactory.
– So far as I am aware, no approach, request or application has been made to the Prices Commissioner for an increase of the price of tea. Honorable members may rest assured that no such application will be granted unless it is discovered, after the fullest investigation, that conditions warrant it.
page 1342
– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Defence Department to allow contractors for defence works to bring in tradesmen from other areas to do “work in preference to engaging local unemployed tradesmen? Some contractors hold two or three different contracts. I have in mind particularly the fact that carpenters from outside were brought in by a contractor to work on the new camp at Allendale. Surely local unemployed carpenters should have been employed?
– I shall be glad to discuss the matter with my colleagues to see what can be done.
page 1342
– Will the PostmasterGeneral inform me whether instructions have been issued to A class broadcasting stations that no broadcasts shall be permitted by members of either the Commonwealth or State Parliaments ?
– No instructions of that character have been issued.
page 1342
– Will .the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior inform me whether it is a fact that the Kingston pipe works have been closed down, as reported in the press? If so, will the Minister make inquiries to ascertain the reason for such closing down? Will he also inquire whether it is more economical to continue operations at the local pipe works than to bring pipes into the Australian Capital Territory from outside?
– The only information I have on this subject is that which appears this morning in the Canberra Times. I shall have inquiries made in the matter. 2nd AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE.
Training Centres - Bands and Bugles.
– How many men have enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force in Queensland? Is it the intention to .transfer these men to New South Wales for final training? If so, will the Minister for the Army give serious consideration to allowing Queenslaud recruits to do their final training at Redbank, Queensland ?
– The number of men enlisted in Queensland is between 2,000 and 3,000. To the second part of the honorable member’s question the answer is “ Yes “. For reasons of proper training and administration it is regretted that the request contained in the third part of the question cannot bo granted.
– Can the Minister for the Army state if it is the general practice in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force to deny battalions the issue of brass bands and bugles? In that event, will some scheme be evolved under which, possibly partly by government subsidy and partly by public subscription, this difficulty may be overcome? My information comes from the 10th Battalion in Adelaide.
– The question of the supply of bands to the 2nd Australian Imperial Force is at present receiving consideration. Difficulty is being experienced in connexion with the supply of instruments. It is the intention of the department to supply these battalions with complete bands, and certainly with bugles.
– Will the Minister for the Army state whether it is a fact, as reported, that members of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force are not to wear the “ Rising Sun “ badge ? If so, on whose recommendation are they to be deprived of the badge that was recognized throughout the world as the badge of the Australian Expeditionary Force?
– It is not a fact. The members of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force will wear the “ Rising Sun “ badge.
page 1343
– Can the Minister for the Army state whether any men recruited for service in the returned soldiers’ garrison battalions were already in receipt of war pensions because they suffered from tuberculosis? If so, how many such men were recruited ? Does not this demonstrate a lack of co-operation between the Defence Department and the Repatriation Department ?
– It is true that, in the initial stages,, certain former members of the Australian Imperial Force who enlisted in the garrison battalions were subsequently found to be suffering from tuberculosis. The fullest co-operation exists between the Department of the Army and the Repatriation Department, so that present anomalies may be corrected and future anomalies avoided.
page 1343
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the House when an opportunity will be given to discuss the recent alterations of the duty on woollen piece goods?
– I shall take steps to ensure that an opportunity will bc given for such a discussion at the earliest possible moment.
page 1343
Delays
– Will the AttorneyGeneral take immediate steps to remedy the long and continued delays imposed upon trade unions in the hearing of new cases and the delivery of final judgments by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court? A case in point of particular interest to me is that of the Stove-makers Union of Sydney which has been waiting fourteen weeks for the delivery of the judgment alone.
– I was not aware that the position is as the honorable member has stated, -but as I hold very strongly that it is vital to the industrial peace of the community that industrial disputes should be settled speedily and economically, I shall ascertain what the position is with a view to relieving the congestion in the court.
page 1344
– Has the Acting Minister for Air any official confirmation of a cable received in Sydney to-day that the Lockheed Corporation of America will this week-end complete the construction of 250 bombers ordered by Great Britain, and will then concentrate upon the production of 100 bombers for Australia?
– I have no official confirmation of that cable. I would be very surprised to learn that the Lockheed Corporation proposes only now to commence construction of the Australian order. The latest advice received was that the bombers would very shortly be coming to this country.
page 1344
– Are the majority of the members of the Capital Issues Advisory Committee persons who are themselves intimately associated with large investments and industrial concerns? Is it the duty of this committee to inquire into the intimate details of proposed investments? What guarantee have the persons who appeal to the committee that the information they have to impart will not be used to their disadvantage? Are the proceedings before the committee entirely leak-proof?
– If the honorable gentleman will be good enough to let me have a copy of his question later on, I shall answer it to-morrow.
page 1344
Training of Artisans
– Recently a statement was made in the press that there was a substantial shortage of skilled artisans to assist in the construction of aeroplanes and that special funds were provided for the purchase of suitable plant overseas to beused in instructing young men in Australia in tool-making and other similar work, and that the work was to be carried out in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Minister undertook to examine protests which I made during the week-end and promised tosee if it were possible to give the young men of Queensland similar opportunities to undertake this training as were given to those of other States. Is the Minister yet in a position to complete his inquiries, and has he any information to convey to the House in regard to the matter?
– The training scheme to which the honorable member refers is divided into two parts, one concerned with tool-makers, and the other concerned with the training of tradesmen for the Air Force and in connexion with the Government’s aircraft construction programme. The expert officers of the departments concerned have advised that the only centres suitable for the tool-making training course are Sydney, Adelaide, Newcastle and Melbourne. The order of equipment to which he refers is for equipment to be available for this tool-making training course at these centres. However, tradesmen from other States who desire to be recruited for the tool-making training course will be employed for training at the centres I have mentioned. So far as the other aspects of the training scheme I have mentioned are concerned, the same facilities are not required, and we are examining a number of centres in the various States which may be suitable. It may be found practicable to select technical training centres in Brisbane and other places for the training up to tradesman standard of Air Force recruits and trainees required for aircraft construction. If it is not found practicable to do that the same provision will apply as covers tool-making trainees, and applicants will be eligible as recruits to be trained at the centres in other States most convenient to them.
– What will they be paid while they are being trained?
– It is proposed that toolmakers will be paid approximately £300 a year, and that other workmen will receive the basic rates.
page 1344
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce state what are the salary and travelling allowances of members of the Australian Wheat Board? Also, what is the salary and disability allowance of Mr. John Thompson, lately manager of Westralian Farmers?
– I shall consult the Minister for Commerce, and see whether it is expedient that the information be made available.
page 1345
– Has finality yet been reached in negotiations between the Defence Department and the Railway Commissioners regarding the issue of railway warrants to men going into camp, to men on garrison duty going on leave and returning to duty, and to men going on leave from the 2nd Australian Imperial Force camps?
– No finality has yet been reached, but I hope to be able to make a statement on the matter this week.
page 1345
– In view of the rising costs of necessary commodities, will the Prime Minister state whether the Government is prepared to meet the situation by increasing the rates of those on fixed incomes, particularly old-age and invalid pensioners?
– The honorable member’s question involves a matter of policy, and it is not customary to give information in regard to such matters in answer to questions.
Later:
– In view of the skyrocketing of the cost of living to-day, due to the war and to the inability of the Government to control profiteering–
– Order ! The honorable member is making an assertion, not asking a question.
– In view of the fact that the invalid and old-age pension of £1 has a value to-day of only approximately 14s. compared with its value twelve months ago, does the Treasurer propose to increase the rate with a view to meeting the ever-increasing cost of living?
– I have already failed to answer a similar question asked earlier to-day.
page 1345
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior state whether any change has taken place in the practice - I shall not say policy - of transferring federal departments to Canberra in the most expeditious way that can be arranged?
– There has been no alteration of policy. From time to time, departments have been moved from Melbourne to Canberra as circumstances permit, and this practice will be continued.
page 1345
-Some months ago,
I asked the Minister for Defence to expedite the construction of the new building at the Anglesea Barracks in Hobart. Will the Minister see that this work is proceeded with?
– I was under the impression that the work had been commenced. It is certainly intended to erect a new building, and I shall have inquiries made regarding it.
page 1345
– What action does the Government now propose to take in regard to its price-fixing regulations, seeing that the two test prosecutions ‘ in regard to timber prices heard recently in the Sydney courts have failed?
– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked me a similar question on Friday last, and the same reply will serve both questions. The honorable member for East Sydney asked me whether, in view of an adverse decision of the court in a prosecution concerning the charging of higher prices than the prevailing prices by certain timber merchants in Sydney, it would be necessary to “ alter the price-fixing machinery “. The prosecution was instituted under the Defence (National Security - General) Regulations, and not under the National Security (Prices) Regulations which were gazetted on the 28th September, 1939. Under these regulations, maximum prices are fixed by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner for “ declared commodities “. The regulations .provide that the Commissioner may fix a basic price in lieu of the prevailing price. When such action is taken, the maximum price is the basic price so fixed. It will not be necessary to alter the pricefixing machinery in any way to enable basic prices to be fixed. In cases where increases of prices have been allowed on account of higher costs, the prices so fixed become the maximum prices, and the observance of these maximum prices will not in any way be affected ‘by the prevailing price. Where a higher maximum price than the price prevailing on the 31st August, 1939, has not been fixed, the position can be met by the fixation of a basic price as already indicated.
page 1346
– Does the Commonwealth Government anticipate making further sales of flour to Great Britain in addition to the 50,000 tons, which, I understand, were recently sold to thatcountry ?
Sir FREDERICK STEWART.Negotiations are proceeding at. the moment with Great Britain in respect of the sale of our wheat and wheat products.
page 1346
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs tell me, if the inquiry has been completed, whether the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner is satisfied that the increase of 10 per cent, on interstate shipping rates is justified ?
– The inquiry to which the honorable gentleman refers is still proceeding. When a further decision has been reached by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner in respect of shipping rates, it will be communicated to the House.
page 1346
Appointment of Sir Ernest Fisk as Secretary and as Director of Economic Co-ordination.
– by leave - I wish to inform honorable members that the Government has appointed Sir Ernest Fisk to the position of Secretary of the Economic
Cabinet and Director of Economic Coordination. I announced to honorable members last week that the Government intended to seek for this position a man with the highest possible qualifications and the ripest experience in business administration. The Government counts itself fortunate in having been able to obtain the services of such, a man in Sir Ernest Fisk. The appointment is the result of negotiations not only with Sir Ernest Fisk, but also with Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, of which company he is managing director. The company has generously placed the services of Sir Ernest Fisk at the disposal of the Government for a period of twelve months, and during that time the company will continue to pay his salary while the Commonwealth will be responsible for the payment of travelling expenses. At this stage I would like to express the thanks of the Government to the company for making such an appointment possible. The Government believes that the Economic Cabinet, in bringing about the co-ordination and control of economic and financial aspects of governmental activities so as to make our war effort more effective, and in planning along sound lines for the ultimate transition from war to peace-time conditions, is embarking upon national work of the utmost value. The qualities which Sir Ernest Fisk is able to bring to such a task, demanding vision, initiative and executive ability, make me confident that his association with Ministers who are to serve on the Economic Cabinet will be most fruitful.
page 1346
– Has the Acting Treasurer completed arrangements with the Government of New South Wales regarding the manner in which the £800,000 Commonwealth grant is to be expended? Is the work to be done by the State Labour Bureau under the permissible income regulations, which would exclude thousands of men at present denied work from participation in the work to be done under this grant? Does the Commonwealth Government believe in discrimination as between unemployed men ? Will the Acting Treasurer make representations to the Government of New South
Wales to have the work spread over the whole field of unemployed?
– A statement on that matter will be given to the House to-morrow.
page 1347
Mr.CURTIN.- Is the Prime Minister in a position to say anything to the House regarding the proposed appointment of representatives of this Commonwealth at Tokyo and Washington? Furthermore, is it intended that these appointments shall carry the title of high commissioner, ambassador, or whatever it may be?
– I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but, as soon as I am, I shall make one, and. I hope, to the House.
page 1347
Peace Negotiations
– With reference to the statements made by the Prime Minister from time to time, and recently, regarding the prosecution of the war to victory, are the Prime Minister’s statements on that point intended to exclude the possibility of an early determination of the war arising out of consultation and subsequent agreement?
-I have nothing to add to the statement I made in relation to that matter last week.
page 1347
– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet is continuing to sit as a full Cabinet on occasions, or are deliberations now confined to the deliberations of the Economic Cabinet and the War Cabinet, each sitting separately?
– The full Cabinet will continue to meet from time to time.
page 1347
– I desire some information from the Minister responsible for accepting recruits to the Royal Australian Air Force. First, what are the qualifications necessary for admission to the Air Force? Secondly, is the age limit of 35 years strictly adhered to? If so, why, as I am given to understand, have men of 40 years of age been accepted whose qualifications are not so great as those of men of 30 years of age, who have been rejected? Is any influence brought to bear in the selection of Air Force recruits ? Is the locality from which a man may come a deciding factor ? Why have young men from the coal-fields who have extraordinary qualifications not been considered good enough to be admitted into the Air Force?
– I hope to make to the House before the end of this week a general statement in respect of Air Force recruiting. In that statement I shall endeavour to cover the points raised by the honorable member.
page 1347
– Is the Acting Minister for Supply and Development aware of the present acute shortage of baling wire, which is used for baling pressed hay? Does he know that many farmers and contractors are finding it impossible at the present time to secure supplies of this wire, making the situation more acute by reason of the fact that many men are now in camp? Will he inquire as to whether or not this situation has been caused by war orders placed with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and will he endeavour to correct the position?
-I shall be very pleased to make the suggested inquiry, and shall be glad if the honorable member will assist me by supplying me with particulars of specific cases of shortage.
page 1347
Position of Maryborough
– Will the Acting Minister for Civil Aviation inquire into the inconvenience that is caused to Maryborough, Queensland, on account of the fact that that centre is not a stopping place in the Townsville-Brisbane air service ?
– I shall be pleased to look into the matter.
page 1348
– I ask the Acting Treasurer whether the dependants of interned enemy aliens are paid a pension, or are given some form of sustenance; if so, on what basis? Is account taken of the fact that some of these dependants are in work, or may be able to work?
– Sustenance payments are made to the dependants of internees in necessitous cases. If the honorable member will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall furnish him with a full reply.
– What are the rates?
– They are dependent on the sustenance rates applicable to the particular State.
page 1348
– I understand that Australian wool has been sold to Great Britain at 13½d. per lb. and that the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom may be reviewed* at certain periods. In any revision of the agreement, will it be possible for the Commonwealth Government to obtain an increased rate?
– The negotiations in respect of wool, which no doubt will occur year by year, would not, of course, exclude the possibility referred to by the honorable member. As -to whether there is a prospect of any alteration of the price will depend on the cost factor, particularly as it affects the industry in Australia. This matter is by no means excluded from the number of matters that may be discussed from time to time.
page 1348
Debate resumed from the 15th November, on motions by Mr. Menzies (vide page 1135) and Sir Frederick Stewart (vide page 1156) -
That the paper be printed.
– We have before us to-day a statement by the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) entitled “Financial As sistance to the Wheat Industry “, and one by the Minister (Sir Frederick Stewart) representing the Minister for Commerce, on the sale of Australian commodities to the United Kingdom and other aspects of war-time marketing.
In considering these statements, I am not unmindful of the many difficulties that surround the satisfactory handling of problems of this kind at such a period as the present. 1 should, however, like honorable members to bear in mind that it is most unjust to ask primary producers, who have been producing at a loss for some years, to continue to sell their products, even to Great Britain, at prices below the cost of production. British manufacturers are not prepared to sell machinery or other products to Australia at prices below the cost of production. If a burden has to be carried in order to assist Great Britain, it is not fair to ask the struggling primary producers to carry the burden unaided. Our arms and munitions manufacturers are not asked to produce at a price below the cost of production. The Prime Minister has complained during the last couple of months about the criticism that has been levelled at his Government, especially in regard to defence matters. He will have to stand up to a considerable volume of criticism from outside this Parliament, as well as from honorable members, in regard particularly to the handling of Australia’s wheat and wool production. There have been examples of indecision, procrastination and vacillation. The decisions of one day have frequently been revoked and modified on the following day. It is no wonder that there is lack of confidence in the minds of primary producers and others in the capacity of the Government to handle big problems of major importance.
At the outbreak of the war the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) stated that Labour was not prepared to lose its identity by joining in a national ministry. He pointed out clearly that we would be able to render the greatestservice to the country by retaining our independence and adopting the role of constructive candid critics, than by taking seats in the Cabinet. The result of this decision, he affirmed, would be better government, because it was necessary in the public interest that the shortcomings of the Government, legislatively and administratively, should be disclosed to the public and be open to criticism. I hope that any criticism offered by honorable gentlemen who sit on this side of the House will always be fair and constructive in character, because they are responsible to the people whom they represent. The duty of the Opposition in this House, even in a time of national emergency, is not to acquiesce in everything that the Government does, merely because it is the Government, and because we are passing through u troublous period. Were we to adopt such an attitude we should be acting as traitors to the best interests of Australia.
There is evidence of widespread hostility among primary producers because of the way in which the Government has handled the sale of primary products, particularly wool and wheat. It is evident that the Governments of South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand have made a much better deal for the primary producers of those dominions. To summarize, I should say that, although the big auction woolbroking firms are perfectly satisfied, there is widespread dissatisfaction among graziers at the comparatively low price obtained for their wool ; and, indeed, the feeling is shared by hundreds of small wool merchants and their employees throughout Australia. If what they say is correct, the war has presented to the big auction wool-broking firms the opportunity to engineer, in their own interests, an almost complete monopoly of the wool business to the detriment of other smaller competitors. Further, if what the “small wool merchants are complaining of is correct, the Central Wool Committee has permitted a great racket in the handling of the wool by these huge monopolistic firms. At a later stage I shall have something more to say on this matter.
There is also a great deal of dissatisfaction in the wheat industry because of the price and the meagre assistance provided for the growers by the Commonwealth Government. It is hardly necessary for me to refer to meetings of wheatgrowers that have been held from one end of the country to the. other, for honorable members are well aware of them. 1 shall, however, mention two. I refer first to the mass meeting of wheat-growers held at Perth on the 16th November, 1939.
– Was that the time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) promised the wheat-growers 3s. 10½d.
– It was not. My leader stated last July that he thought that the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Wheat, that 3s. 10£d. a bushel should be paid at ports, was fair. The Labour party stands by that. We believe that that should be the minimum. The meeting to which I have just referred was held on the 16th November and the ~ following report of it appeared in the West Australian the next day: -
A mass meeting of the farmers held at Anzac House yesterday afternoon decided to withhold wheat from sale until the Federal Government agrees to pay 3s. 101d. a bushel at sidings. Between 200 and 300 representatives were present. The motion favoring the hold-up was carried by an overwhelming majority, only five voting against it. The resolution was: - “ This mass meeting representing all the wheat and wool-growers solemnly and sincerely declare their intention of withholding their wheat garnered in this present season until such time as . the Federal Government shoulders its responsibilities and sets the correct lesson in patriotism by paying adequately and reasonably for services rendered by those whose efforts can make the safety of the Empire secure, on the basis of a minimum of 3s. 1Odd. per bushel at sidings.”
That report shows clearly that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists among the wheat-growers of Western Australia. The General Secretary of the Victorian Wool and Wheat Growers’ Association, Mr. F. H. McCredden, made a statement on this subject which appeared in the press on the 16th November It read -
The General Secretary of the Victorian Wheat and Wool Growers’ Association (Mr. F. H. McCredden) stated to-day (16th) that any advance less than 2s. Od. a bushel net would bc inadequate to meet immediate costs . . .
That any government which had compulsorily acquired the wheat could be unsympathetic or so devoid of real understanding of the true position was a matter for amazement, particularly as other sections of industry were being assured of production costs, plus a profit. It was a matter of regret that in a time of national crisis growers were compelled to take extreme measures, in an endeavour to secure the bare cost of production, whilst fully conscious of the fact that many other sections of industry were raking off excessive profits, made possible by war conditions.
Those reports indicate clearly the widespread dissatisfaction among wheatgrowers at the way in which the Government has dealt with the wheat industry.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) visited Western Australia shortly after he assumed office. At that time he was probably not conscious of the great difficulty he would have to face in finding a solution of the problems of the wheat industry. At any rate a speech which he made in July last was reported as follows : -
We are determined that whatever answer we can give to the wheat-growers will not be given in October or November when people are beginning to harvest in some places, but during August so that you may then be presented with a choice of two things - either singing for they are jolly good fellows or taking such steps as you may be disposed to take to throw us out.
If the Prime Minister expected the wheat-growers by now to be singing “ Foi he’s a jolly good fellow” he has been sadly disillusioned.
The Labour party believes that the wheat-growers are entitled to a price for their product which will cover the cost of production. It has always stood for that. We believe in adequate tariff protection for manufacturing industries to enable manufacturers to observe Australian wages and conditions of employment in producing the finished article to sell on the Australian market. We stand for arbitration awards, and the fixation of rates of pay and the determination of conditions of employment which will make for decent living. It is only reasonable, therefore, that we should favour the payment of a price for wheat which will cover the cost of production. I hear some honorable members of the Country party interjecting. I should have thought they would favour such a policy. It is regrettable that at a time when the price of wheat is at a record low level, the price charged for bread to the consuming public should be as high as it was when wheat was at its peak price.
– That is because of the flour tax.
– The Labour party refuses any degree of responsibility for the imposition of the iniquitous flour tax because it strongly opposed what is commonly known as the bread tax. But, if I remember rightly, the present Leader of the Country party was a member of the composite Government which introduced the iniquitous flour tax and so placed an intolerable burden upon the backs of people with large families. While we believe that it is necessary to guarantee the farmers a fair price for their product, we are totally opposed to the placing of a heavy burden like the flour tax upon the poorer section of the people. We do not think that men with families of eight children or more should be singled out to pay a bread tax. Some other method of assisting the wheats growers should have been devised. The necessary money should have been found by the Treasury through the Commonwealth Bank. The farmers should not be compelled to continue to produce wheat at a loss, in order to maintain their families. The wheatgrowing industry provides work for thousands of men throughout Australia, and the wheat-growers are entitled to fair treatment. We recognize that if employment on farms is to be continued, assistance must be given to the industry.. If it is not given, many men will lose their employment in rural industries and will drift to the cities, with the result that the unemployment problem in thosecities will be accentuated.
The Labour party believes in a wellbalanced, all-round system of economy. It has always stood for a fair deal for the primary producers and particularly for the wheat-growers of Australia. Theproposals made last August by this Government for the wheat farmers were totally inadequate and would probably have brought about the defeat of the Government had it not been for the advent of the war. It can be truly said that the outbreak of war saved the life of this United Australia party Government which has a following of only 26 members in a House of 75.
– The Government is not feeling very happy yet.
– No; it still has to walk very carefully through the tulips.
– I would rather say through the wheat.
– It has to watch out for the irate Leader of the Country party on the one hand, and for the justifiably critical members of the Labour party on the other. It does not know where a move might originate which may bring about its downfall. The Labour party does not intend to maintain silence on these questions.
The Prime Minister stated last week that the Government intended to acquire the whole of the wheat crop and to make a first advance of ls. 9d. a bushel, less freight charges. That proposal was completely inadequate. If something better than that cannot be done, probably SO per cent, of the wheat-growers will find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. The Government does not seem to know, for any length of time, where it stands on this question. Its whole attitude seems to suggest a lack of consultation with the representatives of the wheat-growers. It does not appreciate the difficulties of the industry. On Wednesday of last week at 4 p.m., a statement was made in the House on this subject after, so we were told, many months of consideration.
– It was an unsatisfactory statement.
– That is what I am saying. Yet it was the result of months of consideration. At 2 p.m. the next day, a deputation waited on the Prime Minister and asked that the ultimate price should bc 3s. 6d. a bushel at ports, with a first payment of 2s. a bushel immediately on delivery and later payment of ls. a bushel to be made not on the 1st April, but on the 1st February, and that freight charges should !be deducted from the second payment. It also asked for a clear statement of Government policy in connexion with the industry. Subsequently, in the House the Prime Minister said that the Government intended to vary the Government’s decision and make a first payment of ls. 9d. at country sidings, to ‘be followed by a second payment on the 1st February of ls. a bushel, less freight deductions. Originally the freight deductions were to be taken from the first payment and the second payment was not to be made until the 1st April. The Labour party believes that the later proposals of the Government, like its first proposals, are totally inadequate. We believe that a first payment of 2s. 6d. a bushel at country sidings should be made, and that a second payment of ls. a bushel should be made. As the average cost of bringing the wheat to the sea-board is 4$d. a bushel, this would provide for a total payment of 3s. 10£d. a bushel as recommended by the Royal Commission on Wheat.
A totally different arrangement has been made by the Government in respect of wheat from that made in respect of wool. The wool-growers are to receive a payment of approximately 90 per cent, of the appraised value of the wool within fourteen days of appraisement, and the balance of 10 per cent, at the end of each year.
– The honorable member must bear in mind that there is a world market for wool, but there is not a world market for wheat.
– I am aware of differences in the situation. Nevertheless, the amount offered by the Government to the wheat-growers is totally inadequate.
– What does the Country party leader say to that?
– He will be able to make his speech later, and I hope the Country party will not run away from a fight against the Government on this matter. The Government must do something promptly to relieve the difficulties of the wheat-grower but apparently it is indifferent. At any rate, there is evidence to justify the charge that the Government is displaying indifference to the wheat-growers. The present offer of the Government is 2s. 9d. a bushel for bagged and 2s. 7d. for bulk wheat, with a first advance of ls. 9d. and ls. 7d. respectively. Out of the second advance freight charges are to be deducted. These vary considerably but represent, on the average, 4½d. a bushel. It costs some of the unfortunate farmers in the more remote areas 8½d. a bushel to get their wheat to the sea-board. It can be seen, therefore, that the return to the growers will be very small indeed. Taking the average cost of freight, the farmers will get only 2s. 4jd., but out of that they will have to pay on an average 4d. a bushel for bags. Those who have to pay 8id. a bushel freight would get only ls. S-Jd. a bushel, so their ultimate return will therefore be very small indeed. We contend that the Government should advance 2s. 6d. a bushel on the delivery of the wheat to the sidings, and ls. a bushel plus 4£d. a bushel freight charges.
It is obvious to all who have given any consideration to the position that the Government cannot deal with the wheatgrowers with impunity. In view of the world situation of the last few years, it appears that, other than a rise of world prices, the industry can be stabilized only by guaranteeing the growers a fixed and payable price for their product. We contend that the price should be 3s. 6d. a bushel plus 4-£d. for freight, making a total of 3s. 10£d. a bushel f.o.r. ports. The president of the Victorian Wheat and Wool Growers Association, Mr. F. H. Cullen, has made the following statement on the subject: -
Senator McBride told us in expressing his own personal opinion that the difficulty was that Cabinet would not agree to the payment of u guaranteed payable price.
Mr. Cullen went on to say that Senator McBride displayed no sympathy with the industry. He even went so far as to say that the farmers’ problem was one of a major character compared with other problems that confronted the Government. Having regard to the great employment given by the wheat industry and the fact that the royal commission found that the indebtedness of the wheat-growers of Australia amounted to approximately 150 million pounds, and that 80 per cent, of them were on the verge of bankruptcy, the Government should give to this industry more sympathetic consideration. If the interests of business concerns, middlemen and the like, are always to predominate, as I am afraid they will as long as a United Australia party government remains in power, then there does not appear to be very much chance of progressive legislation being given effect to in order to assist the primary producers.
The Labour party has always stood for a compulsory Commonwealth wheat pool to control and handle the farmers’ wheat, and the fixing of a price for their product based on the cost of production. The Prime Minister’s hostility to the establishment of a wheat pool is, I think, well known-
– The honorable member’s own party fought the referendum which would have given us power to establish a wheat pool.
– The honorable gentleman merely quibbles ; he knows that under the national security legislation the Government already has power to do anything it likes. I shall tell the honorable gentleman how his Government has failed to give to the growers ample representation on the Commonwealth Wheat Board. Instead of doing that it has allowed the board to come under the predominating influence of the representatives of huge monopolistic concerns that batten not only on the wheat-growers but also on the woolgrowers.
– Mr. Field has been appointed to the Wheat Board.
– As my enthusiastic friend the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) pointed out a few weeks ago, Mr. Field, is the single shining example of the appointment of a representative of the growers. The acting general secretary of the New South Wales Wheat-growers’ Union, Mr. Hazelton, has said that with the exception of Mr. Field the growers had no representative on the board. Surely he would not misrepresent the position. When it was pointed out to him that Mr. Clark was a representative of - the growers he said that he had never heard of Mr. Clark.
– Perhaps Mr. Clark might not have heard of Mr. Hazelton ?
– I am not here to defend either Mr. Clark or Mr. Hazelton, but every wheat-grower in New South Wales knows who Mr. Hazelton is. I am merely quoting the opinion of the acting general secretary of the New South Wales Wheat-growers Union.
It is well that honorable gentlemen should bear in mind the very substantial contribution to the British Exchequer made by the Australian wheat-growers during the last war, when they supplied wheat to the British Government at about one-half of world’s price. We are not arguing that the British Government should be charged an unreasonably high price on this occasion - far from it - but at the same time we should keep in true perspective the conditions under which the wheat-growers sold their wheat to the British Government during the last war. That was made clear in the House of Commons on 4th
August, 1929, and in reply to a question asked by Sir Newton Moore regarding’ the British Government’s contracts for the purchase of Australia’s wheat. The answer was reported thus -
Sir W. M. Thompson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said that the Government contracts for the purchase of Austral inn wheat from 1910-1917 to 1919-1920 amounted to 5,000,000 tons. The contracts were delivered full, subject to the crude allowance of 58,000 tons for loss and damage. The cost per bushel was 5s. 2d. f.o.b. in Australia. The average price of wheat purchased elsewhere during the same period was 9s. 3d. per bushel f.o.b. in the country of origin.
In round figures 5,000,000 tons of wheat represent 185,000,000 bushels of wheat, and a loss of 4s. a bushel meant a total loss of £37,000,000 to the wheat-growers. Mr. R. D. Holt, M.P., also said in the House of Commons on the 31st July, 1917, that, during the last war, the British Government had been able to secure wheat from the Australian growers at a price equivalent to one-half of the world’s price. Mr. Prothero, president of the British Board of Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons on 8th February, 1917, also said : -
We have made in times past an appeal ,to Australia to send us their wheat at a lower price than they would get in the world’s market because we are their own kith and kin, mid they have done so.
The British Government is not unmindful of the splendid contribution made on that occasion by the . Australian wheatgrowers.
In the course of his statement the Minister referred to the great difficulties associated with the transporting of wheat and other commodities from Australia to Great Britain. It is fitting that he should remember that during the last war a Commonwealth Labour Government established the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers which not only kept down freight charges but also was instrumental in saving primary producers and other exporters millions of pounds in freight rates during the war period and the immediate post war years. In the opinion of Mr. J. T. Brennan, Melbourne manager of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, while the Line was operating, it had not only reduced freight charges but had also saved over £2,000,000 per annum to the Australian, exporters and importers. Time and again
English shipowners cabled the Line asking it to agree to increases of freight charges, but on practically every occasion the request was refused^, and freights were thus kept down to a reasonable level. The Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, not a Labour body, but one representative of all parties in the House, reported on the activities of the Line and referred to the invaluable service it rendered to Australia during the war years and the immediate post war years, and to the influence it had throughout in reducing and restraining freight rates. If Australia had such a line to-day the private shipping companies would not with impunity be able to impose a 50 per cent, increase of freight rates, thus adding greatly to the burden already carried by the primary producers of this country. However, a Nationalist Government, influenced by vested interests, sold the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers for £1,900,000, of which £427,000 is still owing to the Commonwealth
– “What has all this to do with the present position?
– The Minister (Sir Frederick Stewart) referred to the difficulties we should encounter in transporting wheat and other products overseas, and it is well to remember the part played by the Labour Government during the last war in curbing the rapacity of the shipping combine. The party which the honorable gentleman himself now leads was a partner in the composite government which sacrificed the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers at the behest of the shipping combine.
The wheat board appointed by the Government is definitely not representative of the wheat-growers of Australia, Speaking in this House last September the honorable member for Wimmera said that he knew of only one real farmer on the board. The wheat-growers’ organizations throughout Australia have strongly protested to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Commerce (Senator McLeay) against the inadequate representation allowed to growers. Needless to say all of these protests have gone unheeded. A letter has been received from the acting general secretary of the Wheat Growers Union in New South Wales in which the following statements are made : -
Of the nine members constituting the board, Mr. Field is recognised as the sole representative of growers.
The contention of the Minister for Commerce that we have five representatives is more than absurd.
Writing to me on 22nd September he states that we had two, Messrs. Field and Clark. (We do not know Mr. Clark).
If the Minister is sufficiently credulous to believe that Messrs. Tilt, Hamblin and Teasdale have in the meantime been converted to a condition of mind to extend consideration to growers’ interests, he is the only man in Australia so convinced.
Our wheat has been forcibly taken by the Federal Government and handed for disposal to people whose one and only interest in it is profit for themselves.
We are asking the right conceded to all others, namely, to control and dispose of our own property.
– Mr. Field is a grower.
– He is looked upon as a growers’ representative, but he is their sole representative on the board. I believe that the growers have a just grievance. The Government should permit them to select their own representatives. What are the sinister interests that stand between the Government and the growers that prevent the growers from getting reasonable representation on the board ?
– Vested interests.
– That is so. There is also considerable and widespread dissatisfaction among the wool-growers of Australia at the octopus grip exercised over the wool industry by the big woolbroking firms. To-day, in a most unjust way they are attempting to push out of the business hundreds of small struggling wool merchants throughout Australia, who, during the last year, gave employment to 531 persons in classing and reclassing lots of wool; and their efforts have been so successful that this year the small merchants will be able to give employment to only 100 persons. Surely the Government does not stand for that. We shall be told, of course, that the growers are represented on the Central Wool Committee. We know that on the committee there are three representatives of the huge wool-broking firms and also three big pastoralists. The difference between them is the difference between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee, because we know very well that the big pastoralists have invested heavily in large wool-auctioneering and broking firms.
– Their interests are interwoven.
– That is so.
– One of them is in the Government.
– Yes as the honorable member reminds me, one of them is a member of the Government. [Leave to continue given]. The genuine woolgrowers have not been given adequate representation on the Central Wool Committee. If they had more generous representation, many of the present abuses would have been avoided. The ‘Central Wool Committee is allowing itself to be used to bolster up the monopoly of the big wool-broking firms to the great injury of their smaller competitors. There are 37 small wool-broking firms conducting merchanting business in Melbourne and Geelong. Throughout the country districts of Victoria there are 140 small wool buyers, who are now threatened with being put out of business. Some will have to close up altogether unless the Minister for Commerce takes action.
– He is prepared to leave everything to the Central Wool Committee.
– This delegation of power has gone too far. We must return to the system of ministerial responsibility. The Leader of the Country party has always stood for that, and I should like to hear his views on this subject. Does he believe that the delegation of powers by the Minister to a body created by the Government will really be in the interests of the industry, and in accordance with democratic principles? We know that it will not. The 37 comparatively small wool merchants in Victoria between them handled last year 160,000 bales of wool but this year they will be given not more than 40,000 bales to handle. On such a small turnover they will be unable to pay overhead expenses, and many of them will have to go out of business. What is true of Victoria is true also of New South Wales and the other States.
Who are these firms that have such a strangle-hold on the industry, and who have always opposed any suggestion for the introduction of compulsory pooling because it might prevent them from growing fat on the labour of the primary producers? The great firms which seem so effectively to dominate the decisions of the Central Wool Committee are Dalgety and Company, Goldsborough Mort and Company, Younghusband and Company Limited, and the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company Limited and others of their kind. Their shareholders are already benefiting because the value of shares in these enterprises has jumped from 8 per cent, to 17 per cent, compared with pre-war values, simply because, with the connivance of the Government, the volume of their business will be increased by 750,000 bales of wool over and above the number handled during the normal year, 1938-39. Their extra, turnover will be gained at the expense of the smaller companies.
– They have made their bit out of the war already.
– Yes, they are doing very well, and they will receive their commission on every bale they appraise. The commission will be paid to them for merely offering the wool once, whereas, in ordinary circumstances, it has sometimes to be offered several times. These great firms are able to exert a powerful influence on the Central Wool Committee. The three pastoralists on the committee are evidently mere pawns in the game. They do not represent the hardworking graziers oi Australia who have made sacrifices to establish the wool industry.
When representations were made by the smaller traders to the State Wool Committee in Melbourne they were told that the matter was “ irrelevant.” Irrelevant, mark you ! What a reply to give to men who have been forced out of business, and who, as the result, have had to sack 400 of their employees ! They then carried their grievance before the Central Wool Committee and a letter was delivered to the committee by hand on the 13th November, 1939. Yesterday, when they called for an answer, they were amazed to be told, “ We regret that your letter has not been received.” It was convenient, evidently, to give that reply. I demand that the Minister should not allow the matter to rest there. He should give every consideration to the complaints of these traders who have been pushed out of business by their monopolistic competitors. I am not prepared to declare dogmatically what is right and what is wrong with regard to all the ramifications of this industry, but the small woolbrokers have made out a prima facie case which demands Government action. This is an example of what happens when power is delegated by the Government to a body of persons who do not know how to exercise it and who have no direct responsibility to the people. Members of the Opposition pointed out the possibility of such things occurring when the national emergency legislation was being rushed through Parliament.
The Prime Minister made much of the sale of our wool to Great Britain, and said that the price was in conformity with the general principle that Australia was not seeking to make undue profits out of the British Government’s necessity. Nobody wants to make undue profits out of the British Government for the wool which it requires for Avar purposes, but there is a vast difference between what Mr. Menzies considers undue profits, and what the growers consider reasonable profits. I was amazed, upon looking through a file of letters received by the Leader of the Opposition from individual wool-growers and from the growers’ representative associations, at the unanimity of their opposition to the agreed price for wool. All are of the opinion that 13½d. is not a reasonable price. It does not allow for the certain increase of the cost of production, or for the increase of the cost of living. A higher average price would have allowed wool-growers to reduce their overdrafts, and to pay higher wages to their employees. It is evident that the Prime Minister has not taken into account the conditions under which the industry has been struggling for the last few years. I speak on this subject with some knowledge, because there are many woolgrowers in my electorate, and those whom I have seen have roundly condemned the Government’s agreement because of the inadequate price.
There are about 100,000 wool-growers in Australia, and the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that most of them are indebted to the banks for large sums of money. As a matter of fact, in hundreds of cases in Queensland, the banks have taken control of the holding, and are merely allowing the occupiers so much a week for food and clothing. That applies throughout large areas of Western Queensland, particularly in the electorates of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr; Riordan) and the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Hunter). Had a more reasonable price been fixed, the small growers, whose services are of such great economic value to Australia, who have gone out into the backblocks to raise wool in low rainfall areas, would have had an opportunity to reduce their indebtedness, and to improve their holdings.
The Prime Minister said that the prices agreed upon would assure the grower 3d. per lb. more than the average for last year. That is so, but last year’s price was an exceptionally low one. If wc take the average price for the four years 1935-36 to 193S-39, it works out at 13.5d. per lb. as compared with 13.4d. per lb. agreed to by the Government; but it has to be remembered that wool prices over the last four years have been very low. I trust that prices will be reviewed at the end of the first year. I understood from the Prime Minister that it would not be necessary to exclude from consideration the matter of price. That is an ambiguous statement, but it is typical of lawyers to be ambiguous. I should like to know from the Minister for Social Services (Sir Frederick Stewart) - who can be very definite in his statements on every subject except national insurance - just what the Prime Minister meant by that statement, and what the Government .has in mind regarding price revision.
Mr. D. Hamilton, former president of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, who visited Australia recently, stated in the course of a press interview that the British Government should be congratulated on securing the clip so reasonably, the price being much lower than any one expected. He went on to say that, for (hat reason, he was wondering whether there was any other condition attached to it of which they knew nothing, and he stated further that they would not bc surprised if some provision had been made for price increases in certain conditions. Mr. Hamilton concluded by saying that the agreement was most satisfactory from the British stand-point.
Meeting’s of wool-growers held in various parts of Australia have carried resolutions expressing dissatisfaction with the action of the Government. The Genera] Secretary of the Grazier’s Association, Mr. J. W. Allen, has stated that his association asked for a higher price, and was dissatisfied with the price that had been fixed. The Minister for Social Services said in his speech that the positions of the United Kingdom and Australia, as prospective buyer and seller respectively on a large scale in the event of- war, had led to long-range negotiations beforehand. He went on to say that the Minister for Commerce established continuous contact with the representatives of the woolgrowers and wheat-growers. The General Secretary of the Graziers’ Association, however, has said that his council was not consulted by the Government. Whom then, did the Government consult? Can members of the Government rebut the statement of Mr. Allen? Can they rebut the allegations of the graziers who, at a meeting in Gilgandra in October last, carried a resolution disapproving of the price fixed for wool, and condemning the Government for not having consulted them?
The agreement also provides that 50 per cent, of the profits derived from the sale of wool outside the United Kingdom shall be paid to the Australian growers. There is absolutely no justification for Great Britain to retain such a high percentage of the profits from the re-sale of any goods which it does not require for war purposes. The Australian woolgrower is selling his wool to the British Government at a very low rate. He does not desire to make undue profits our cf the British Government’ at such a time as this, but he is surely entitled to receive whatever profits are made out of the re-sale of the goods which are not required for war purposes. So far, we have been unable to discover anything about the sale of wool to British manufacturers. Are they to receive wool at the price the British Government pays for it? Or, if the British Government makes profits out of any sales to the textile manufacturers of Bradford, why shall Australia not derive the full benefit of such profits? It might be asked whether the patriotism of Australian primary producers is to be exploited in the interests of the British manufacturers and traders.
– Order ! The honorable gentleman’s extended time has expired.
– by leave - For convenience and to facilitate the conduct of the Government’s business, the procedure has been to associate with the wheat question all the primary products that are the subject of sale by the Government. It is unfortunate, for the purposes of my deputy, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde), and for the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) that this discussion is proceeding on a motion for the printing of a paper, because the time allowed for a speech on such a motion is much shorter than that which would be allowed if the debate were on a bill. It is only for that reason that I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be allowed to complete his case, which represents an authoritative statement on behalf of the Labour party, and is in a different category from a speech made by a private member. [Leave given to Mr. Forde to continue. J
– I thank honorable members. Wheatbags and woolsacks are produced and manufactured within the British Empire, and, if the Australian producer is asked to make sacrifices, the concerns associated with the manufacture and carriage of wheatbags and woolsacks, especially shipping and financial companies, should also be prepared to make similar sacrifices. But there has been profiteering! The prices of wheatbags and woolsacks have jumped, to the detriment of Australian primary producers.
During the last war, Great Britain made £70,000,000 out of the re-sale of the wool it purchased from Australia. Of this amount, £35,000,000 was retained by Great Britain. The other £35,000,000 was paid to the Australian producers. Wool rose to about 5s. per lb., but Great Britain saved hundreds of millions of pounds because it bought its wool at ls. 3½d. per lb. Nevertheless, it retained £35,000,000 it made out of the profit of the re-sale of the wool. In 1919, the then Prime Minister, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), who is Attorney-General in this Government, referring to the sale of wool, admitted that -
Millions have been lost to this country over wool alone.
On another occasion, he said -
Had I known before what I know now, 1 should never have sold the wool other than for the period of the war.
My point is that if any sacrifice is to bc made, it is not fair to call on any one section of the primary producers to make the sacrifice.
Another matter that is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction relates to appraisement of wool. The Graziers Journal. commenting on the appraisement of our wool clip, recently stated -
A chaotic state appears to be rapidly developing in Australia’s wool industry. Appraisers principally appointed in the south are observing, great secrecy in valuing the clip, and ure forcing graziers to desperately seek protection of their interests. Many growers are penalized as a result of the Imperial purchase scheme and are receiving prices for their type lines which are definitely below last year’s valuation.
The majority of growers are very dissatisfied with the appraisement of their wool clip. Several have produced figures showing that clips under the auction system brought more than they do under the appraisement* During the last war Bawra had a staff of approximately 180 appraisers, for which the total salaries amounted to about £120,000 a year. The Central Wool Committee now has a staff of more than 600, and it is estimated that the salaries will absorb approximately £330,000 per annum. ). am told that all kinds of hocus-pocus methods have been used to have friends put into responsible .positions as appraisers. A lot of dissatisfaction is due to the fact that people have been called from retirement and put into lucrative posts, either by the Minister or by the Central Wool Committee. These accusations are being made outside and I want the Minister to answer them.
– By responsible persons.
– Yes. I think the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) heard some of them being made to-day. During the last war, Mr. Prothero, chairman of the British Board of Agriculture, said that Australia had sacrificed its profits to feed England. It looks as if further sacrifices will have to be made, but, unfortunately, they are to be made by one section only. The Opposition is second to nobody in its desire to co-operate with the Government and to give every possible and reasonable assistance to Great Britain in this struggle. To that extent we are wholeheartedly with the Government, but we retain our independence as an Opposition. We desire to point out to the Government defects in the (machinery that was hurriedly created to handle the products of the various primary industries and we want justice done to our producers. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in the course of his reply, will be able to give some adequate explanation of the points that I have raised. There are many interests that are not being called upon to make sacrifices. Shipping companies, private banking companies, private insurance companies, manufacturers of arms and munitions, and people of that type will not be called upon to make sacrifices commensurate with the sacrifices of the masses of the people. Many branches of primary industry which have been producing at a loss for years are threatened with bankruptcy and, indeed, with annihilation, if the Government does not come forward with a longrange plan to ameliorate the adverse conditions under which they are carrying on. It is because the Opposition is as solicitous for the welfare of the primary producers of Australia as it is for the welfare of the other producing sections of this community that I make this earnest plea to the Government to give justice to the large primary-producing section of Australia.
.- It did not give me any pleasure to listen to the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) speak about the wheat industry. The honorable member reminds me of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In one way he has great sympathy with the wheat-growers, -but in another way, very little. Nothing has so tended to destroy the wheat-farmers’ .prospects as high costs of production and loss of markets, and no one was more instrumental in developing the policy which brought about that state of affairs than the honorable member for Capricornia.
My approach to this matter is different from that of the honorable member for Capricornia, because I realize the difficulties that confront the Government in its wheat dealings this year - enormous production and difficulties of finding a market, for instance. My appeal for better proposals for the assistance of the wheat industry is based on my belief that such improvement is vital to the interests of Australia. Australia is almost wholly dependent for its prosperity on the wool and wheat industries. When drought threatens, the city people think that doom is at hand; but when there is no drought, everything possible by way of imposts is done to enable the manufacturers to prey upon, nay, rob, the men producing the real wealth of the country - the primary producers. All of our primary products - wool, wheat, butter, gold, fruits - that are exported, provide the Government with the funds overseas which are necessary to pay our interest commitments, and to provide the manufacturers with credits in London that enable them to import their machinery and raw materials, all of which come in duty free, and as finished products are sold to the public, including the primary producers, of course, at whatever price the manufacturers and importers feel like charging. Government after government has apparently presumed that the wool and wheat industries have created a huge reservoir of wealth which can be drawn upon for all time, but if they had any common sense, and took heed of the reports of royal commissions and the like, they would know that bankruptcy faces many thousands in the primary industries. It is elementary, surely, that the policy that has been, and is being applied is injurious, not only to those on the land, but also to Australian economy, because Australian economy is absolutely dependent on our export trade. This country wants more population, but if the Government does not make it possible for men to live upon the land, how will we be able to carry on our big cities, except that we take in one another’s washing? We have an immense area of land we want peopled, but that cannot be, unless conditions are made attractive for men to go on the land. And we must have men on the land if we are to pay our overseas debts. Statistics clearly prove that, when imports rise, employment rises accordingly, and that employment falls when imports fall. When imports decrease unemployment will increase; statistics prove that to be a fact. In the four years preceding 1929, exports from Australia averaged £136,000,000 a year; in other words a credit of £136,000,000 a year was established within the country. Over the next four years, exports decreased by a total of £200,000,000 which meant that over that period, the .spending power of the people decreased by an average of £50,000,000 a year. That was the cause of the great depression. The values of exports increased gradually after the depression until, in 1937, something approaching prosperity returned. Yet, year after year, the people are asked by the Government for money for the relief of unemployment and that must continue in long as the Government maintains a policy which, is tending to .destroy the great industries that give the country life. Since 1930, various governments have assisted the wheat industry. In the old days promises were made in this Parliament to the growers, who were asked in all good faith to grow more wheat; even the Labour Government urged the farmers to do so and no State responded more willingly than Western Australia. The consequence to that State has been tragic. When I was a member of the Government in Western Australia, many civil servants and others were induced to go on the land and huge areas of country were cultivated. It was wonderful to see the wealth as the result of that policy; but by some strange freak of fortune, these people, the cream of Australia, men with courage and a little wealth, have had to leave the land by the thousands and seek employment in other occupations. For the last seven or eight years they have had to face droughts and generally unpayable prices for their products.
I realize that in time of war we must co-operate with the Government as much as possible, and I do not wish to do anything to harm it, but I object to the preference it has shown for secondary industries. Take for instance the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Its managing director told the country that his firm did not want assistance from the Government in the shape of a protective duty; that unless it could compete with firms in other parts of the world, it would not commence operations. But for the subsidiary companies it formed for the manufacture of wire netting and other commodities, extraordinary restrictions h.ave been imposed against the importation of competitive articles - restrictions aimed not so much at British manufacturers, because the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has agreements with them, as at foreign firms. When outback people .are being robbed by a British- Australian cartel, the Commonwealth Government should provide opportunities for other countries to supply primary producers with goods. When a high price was being charged in Australia for barbed wire and it was learned that barbed wire could be obtained in New York for £12 a ton, a duty of £9 a ton was imposed so that the Australian manufacturers were given a virtual monopoly and could charge prices far in excess of those prevailing in South Africa, Great Britain, the United States of America and in Germany. In those countries the price at the time was not more than £14 a ton. I have a list of the increases that have been made of the cost of materials and equipment used in shearing sheds. It compares the costs in 1912-13 with those of 1939. There is not one instance of the price increasing by less than 100 per cent, and in some cases the increase has been as much as 350 per cent. The same thing has occurred in respect of agricultural requirements. The fact that the figures have been compiled by Sir Norman Kater and were published in the Pastoral Review of the 12th
June, 1939, is a sufficient guarantee of their accuracy. The published figures were as follows: -
That shows how careless the Commonwealth Government has been of the interests of the great primary industries to which it owes so much compared with its attitude to the glass company, the sugar company, motor body building firms and many others winning colossal profits under government patronage. I plead with the Government to take a more favorable view of the question of assisting the wheat industry in view of its effect on Western Australia. No. other State has been so loyal to the Commonwealth or has made such sacrifices for the sake of Federation. Western Australia had no right to join the Federation when it did. Had it remained aloof from the Commonwealth for 20, 30 or even 40 years, it would have benefited much more. Those who framed the Constitution realized that Western Australia was making sacrifices for the sake of Federation. We were told that it would be a union of strong foundation, set deep in justice. We in Western Australia have failed to see the justice. No other State made such a contribution to Australia’s efforts in the last war as did Western Australia on a population basis. Gold won by the producers of that State wa3 taken over by the Commonwealth and sold at an enormous profit, but the producers did not participate in that profit. Large sums of money were expended in every State with the exception of Western Australia on works connected with the war of 1914-18; yet the enlistments for service in Western Australia were proportionately greater than anywhere else. The great gold-mining industry of that State began to decline in the years before 1900-10; and* it was only resuscitated in 1930 as the result of increased prices. When the value of the gold-mining industry decreased and fewer men were employed, a special effort was made by the State Government to place its faith in the development of the agricultural areas, and with this end in view expended huge sums on railways, water supplies and other aids to permanent settlement. I believe something of the same kind was done in South Australia, but I can speak with knowledge of what was done in my own State. Enormous sums of money were expended on the construction of railways and in the provision of assistance to primary producers. The figures show the result of that effort. In 1904 there were 1,997,000 acres under cultivation, but by 1933 the area had increased to 4,261,000 acres. In 1936, however, as the result of the economic depression and seasons of drought and low prices, the area under cultivation decreased to 2,540,000 acres. There has been a slight improvement recently, but it is found that as the result of low prices and high costs of production, the equity of the farmers has been destroyed in many cases. What were once wonderful little towns are now almost deserted. In one place, where the Bank of New South Wales recently erected a building at a cost of £3,000, there are now scarcely more than half a dozen business people. In another place, where the Government was persuaded to build a splendid little post office, there are very few business people left to-day. It is another case of the old story of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. The Government has its interests centred almost entirely in the cities, shutting the eye to the ruin that is coming upon the agricultural areas.
But what a change there is in the economic policy of Canada in contrast with ourselves ! I remember once reading in this Parliament an extract from a speech made by Mr. Fleming, the Canadian Minister of Finance in 1929, who pointed out that in 1922 Canada began to set its house in order after the war. During the period from then until 1929 the dominion paid all of its capital expenditure out of revenue and reduced its public debt. Mr. Fleming pointed out that Canada was a low tariff country prepared to trade with any other country that would trade with it and that in 1929 it wa3 exporting more manufactured goods than in 1914. It is very strange that Canada can do that and at the same time pay higher wages than are paid in Australia. What then is wrong with Australia, with a better climate, equally efficient workers, richer raw materials that we have, to impose extreme methods of restriction to enable our manufacturers to carry on? I have before me a report from the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, published in July, 1939, of a speech by the Minister of Finance in Canada. Referring to agriculture he said -
It was therefore only self-interest to see that everything possible was done to improve the economic standing of agriculture. Only thus could all industries and all sections achieve the maximum of prosperity and preserve national unity. That was the reason for the guarantee of a basic minimum price of 80 cents for the western wheat crop of last year. The best form which assistance to agriculture could take was that of helping the farmers to help themselves.
The basic minimum price of 80 cents to which he referred represents more than- 5s. in Australian currency. That demonstrates what Canada was prepared to do to assist the wheat industry.
War has come upon us once more, and the old policy of finding millions of money for defence purposes and expending the large majority of those sums in Sydney and Melbourne, will be renewed. There is no scarcity of finance to assist in developing new secondary industries, but in that regard very little care is had for the weaker States. Western Australia is quite prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice required of it in connexion with this war, but it objects to the policy of favouring the Eastern States in all major defence projects. The claim that the Commonwealth is entirely responsible in connexion with the plight of the wheat industry is fallacious and absurd. For many years past I have condemned the
Government of Western Australia for its apathy towards the wheat-farmers who have suffered so much owing to lack of assistance. Under its constitution the Commonwealth does not possess power to control or limit production. That power is possessed by the States, so that it is the duty of the States as well as of the Commonwealth to help the wheat industry. I object strongly to the State Ministers at Loan Council meetings obtaining huge sums of money for the use of the States without insisting that something definite should be done in relation to loan expenditure in order to assist the wheat industry. It is true that some organizations have held meetings and demanded 3s. lOd. a bushel at sidings, but that is preposterous. The majority of the farmers are urging the payment of 3s. 10½d. at the port. We must realize what an enormous quantity of wheat is produced annually in Australia, and the difficulty of selling all of it and obtaining shipping space to transport it overseas. I quite appreciate the view of the Government, that it is necessary to limit the area under wheat. This is within the power of the States and they must come to an agreement with the Commonwealth or agree to hand this power and the control of agriculture to it. As far back as six months ago I told the wheat-growers in my electorate that without something in the nature of a limitation of output it would be impossible for any government to guarantee a profitable price for their wheat. One man who has a few tractors and some machinery, but hires land for the year, produced over 80,000 bushels last year. I believe that the farmers would be quite satisfied with a guaranteed price of 3s. 6d. a bushel at ports this year, owing to the difficulties the Government will be faced with to sell this season’s crop. It would not strain the resources of the Commonwealth if it were to give to the wheat-growers the amount derived from the flour tax, in addition to what it has already promised. There is no real trouble at present in regard to finance. A price of 3s. 6d. a bushel would more than pay expenses and leave some margin that would enable the farmers to carry on, although it would not make the industry a very profitable one.
In conversation this morning, the; Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) informed me that the Government did not know whether Great Britain would be able to purchase a single bushel of the new season’s crop. In the circumstances, I urge the Government to give the matter further consideration. I move -
That all the words after the word “That” (Mr. Menzies’ motion, page 11.35) be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the report be referred back to the right honorable the Prime Minister with the request that provision should be made by the Government for a guaranteed minimum payment of 3s. 6d. per bushel f.o.b. on wheat acquired by the Government in the No. 2 Pool.”
.- The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister (Sir Frederick Stewart) representing the Minister for Commerce^ in submitting the statements now before the House referring to financial assistance to the wheat industry and the sale of other primary products to the British Government, have brought forward what are probably the most important matters that we have had an opportunity to discuss for some considerable time. As I said recently, it is impossible to separate the welfare of our primary industries from the Government’s defence programme. I intend to raise certain points in the interests not merely of the individuals who are engaged in any particular branch of primary industry, but also of the whole of the Commonwealth, realizing as I do that unless those who are engaged in these particular industries are enabled by means of Government finance to carry on satisfactorily, the consequent reaction will place the whole of the nation in a serious position and the Commonwealth’s contribution to the efforts that are being made to win the war will be considerably impaired.
In regard to the wheat position, I believe that every body realizes the difficulties that confront the Government. First, there is the problem of raising sufficient funds to meet the requirements not only of the wheat industry but also of allied primary industries. In addition, there is the huge sum required to enable the Defence Department to carry out its. programme.
In its initial pronouncement regarding the wheat position, the Government stated that it could find ls. 9d. a bushel as a first payment in respect of bagged wheat, and ls. 7d. a bushel in respect of bulk wheat, both less freight, with a further payment of ls. a bushel in April. After further consideration, following representations made to the Government, it was decided that ls. 9d. a bushel cash could be provided for bagged wheat delivered at country sidings, and ls. 7d. a bushel for bulk wheat, without any deductions, the subsequent payment of ls. a bushel to be. made available on the 1st February, that second payment to be subject to a deduction equal to the cost of rail freight from the point of delivery to the sea-board. The whole of the wheat industry fully appreciates the advantage gained by having the ls. 9d. a bushel made available in cash on delivery. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister in Sydney earlier in this year, the position would be met if the full advance could be made in one payment, or, if not, so long as the second payment was not later than the 1st February. On behalf of wheatgrowers generally, I express appreciation of the offer of the Government to bring these payments forward, so as to give the grower the maximum ready cash to enable him to meet urgent and important commitments and to make provision to carry on his operations; but I say in all sincerity that ls. 9d. a bushel on delivery, plus ls. a bushel on the 1st February, less rail freight, for bagged wheat, and 2d. a bushel less for delivery in bulk, is not sufficient to enable the wheat-growers as a body to meet urgent commitments. The fact that we have to face is that there is an abnormal crop coming forward. Excluding all consideration of seed wheat, there will probably be over 160,000,000 bushels for sale delivered to railway sidings throughout the Commonwealth. That wheat can be split up into several sections. One portion of it is allocated to home consumption.. “We can say that that is already sold at approximately 5s. a bushel for human consumption within the Commonwealth, Another parcel of about 10,000,000 bushels can be allocated for sale within the Commonwealth at probably 3s. a bushel for stock food, poultry food, and other purposes. That would leave the Commonwealth with approximately anything up to 120,000,000 bushels - according to the latest estimates in New South Wales the quantity would probably be greater - which would have to be sold outside Australia. In handling that crop up to that point, the growers will first be faced with a heavy cost of production, which already will have been largely met, one portion out of borrowed capital and another portion out of capital controlled by the farmer himself. But the point’ which I emphasize, and which the Government must recognize, is that the growers are called upon to purchase large supplies, employ a good deal of labour, and incur heavy expense in other directions in the harvesting of such a large crop. Although some persons have said that there is no market for export wheat, it is undeniable that the wheat-grower has established a national asset for the whole of the British Empire, as well as its allies. Nobody can forecast what the position will be in six or twelve months’ time. No one can say to-day what the demand for wheat may be, and the storage of a surplus of 100,000,000 odd bushels may prove to be a very definite asset of great value to Great Britain and its allies before the expiry of twelve months. The cost of wheat bags has risen until to-day it is well over 12s. a dozen. In many places bags are unobtainable, and farmers are undoubtedly paying an exorbitant price for them. The point which must not be overlooked is that a large proportion of an abnormally heavy crop will have to be bagged, because there is only a limited space - sufficient for probably not more than 50,000,000 ‘ bushels - in the whole of the silos of the Commonwealth ; therefore, 100,000,000 bushels will have to be put into bags, costing the farmer an average of approximately 4d. a bushel, which will take a very big “bite” out of the ls. 9d. that he is to receive for his bagged wheat.
– Not all of them are paying 4d. a bushel; some of them bought the bags early.
– I admit that some of the farmers obtained their bags for less than 4d. a bushel; but others are paying considerably over 4d. I suggest to the Minister representing the Minister for
Commerce that, if the Government can finance the advance for which it has provided - and I understand that it made its financial arrangements before announcing its intentions^ - it is not justified in deducting the full amount of the wheat freight even from the second payment on the 1st February. The Minister knows that probably not 25 per cent, of the wheat crop will be transported by rail, and incur the cost of freight, by. the 1st February or even in six months’ time. It is well known that, on account of the scarcity of shipping, a large proportion may have to be held over for six months, twelve months or longer. That would mean the storage of a very large quantity in country centre’s.
– Other charges will have been incurred in respect of it.
– I recognize that that would be so in some cases. But the Government has already promised the wheat-growers a definite grant of £2,000,000, which is equal to 3d. a bushel, and equivalent to the full cost of handling and storing the whole of the crop. I am asking the Government to consider the advisability of doing two things in the interests of the wheat industry, regarding it as an industry which is a part of the general make-up of the whole of the Commonwealth, and not merely in the interests of the wheat-growers themselves. I ask that it should deduct only one-half of the cost of the rail freight from the second payment of ls. a bushel on the 1st February. That would bring its contribution by way of a first payment to an average of approximately 2s. 6d. a bushel on delivery and on the 1st February, in cash. Every honorable member who has had any practical experience of the wheat industry, whether he be a wheatgrower or not, realizes that it is essential that those who produce wheat should receive at least 2s. 6d. a bushel by the 1st February to enable them to finance their organization and their industry, and to meet urgent commitments. Not one penny of that money will remain in the hands of the wheat-growers; it is already committed, and it is absolutely necessary that it should go into circulation at the fountain head, namely, in the rural industries, to enable them to meet only a portion of their commitments and to keep the wheels of industry moving. This would mean a total liability of approximately 3s. 3d. a bushel at the sea-board. If the wheat ultimately failed to realize that figure, the whole of the Commonwealth would have to stand whatever small loss there might be. “Whilst emphasizing that these figures run into something in the vicinity of £20,000,000, the Government ignored the fact that the sale for home consumption and for stock purposes is already fixed, and that the price may be regulated by the Australian Wheat Board through the agency of the States. Thi3 will bring back in cash to the Government approximately £10,000,000, irrespective of overseas sales. The Government would be well advised to recognize the importance of my second point, which is that it should make no final decision on this matter until after the February payment has been made. By withholding a final decision on this subject until during February or March, it will know exactly how much wheat is coming in, and be able to judge what the real position is. A proper review can then be made of the whole situation, which will be in the best interests of the wheatgrowers and of the Commonwealth.
Another point of great importance relates to storage. Throughout the Commonwealth there is silo accommodation for only about 48,000,000 bushels of wheat. The provision of additional storage will have a direct bearing upon the cornsack position. This is important, because the bags are an imported article. We pay a considerable amount for them. On account of their present high price, more money than usual will go out of the Commonwealth to pay for sacks. From inquiries that I have made - and my information has been confirmed only to-day - a considerable shortage of bags exists in New South Wales, irrespective of what various Commonwealth and State Ministers may have said. I defy truthful contradiction on that point by any authority under the Commonwealth Government. Some bags are being borrowed from Victoria to make up the leeway in New South Wales, and it is hoped that the deficiency in
Victoria may be met subsequently, but I am satisfied, from the information that has reached me, that the bag supply will be inadequate to meet the needs of the coming harvest.
It is, however, quite possible for the Government to take steps to utilize a material other than galvanized iron to increase the storage capacity at our various railway centres. If this material be used, the pressure on the iron and steel industry will be relieved to some degree, and galvanized iron, which might be required to provide storage for wheat, will be made available for other necessary purposes. Moreover, the demand for bags will also be relieved. I suggest that the Government should seriously consider the advisability of immediately expanding the production of “ Solomit “. This is made of compressed straw, which, under treatment by machinery, can be bound with wire into a fabric stronger than concrete and more lasting than galvanized iron. The raw material can be obtained in the wheat-growing districts, and the cost of manufacture would be relatively small. It would mean a big thing to the wheat industry if storage space could be provided by the use of this material at the numerous railway sidings throughout the wheat-growing districts of the Commonwealth. “ Solomit “ can be manufactured very quickly from straw, which would otherwise be burnt, and, as it would avoid the necessity to use products which are needed for other purposes, its use is highly desirable.
– Does the honorable member say that this material would be preferable to galvanized iron?
– In the circumstances, I do. The machinery to make “ Solomit “ could be installed at selected railway sidings and the initial cost would not be great.
– Would the stores be mouse-proof ?
– They could very easily be made mouse-proof by placing at their base a strip of three-feet wide flat galvanized iron. This would mean that the whole structure would be mouse, rat, and weather-proof. “ Solomit “, which is merely compressed straw, is also fireresistant and. damp-proof. The process originated in Germany. This material is, to-day, being used for buildings of many descriptions. It can be employed for walls, floors, roofs and, in fact, for very many purposes for which galvanized iron and concrete are now used. I have worked out the details of a comprehensive scheme to use this material, and I am prepared to make it available to the Government. lt would make practicable the use of old railway rails, and the like, and railway sheds which now are not satisfactory for storing wheat could be made satisfactory. If my scheme were put into operation, millions of bushels of wheat could be stored at country centres and held until prices improve. This would render unnecessary the immediate use of a great deal of railway rolling-stock that would otherwise have to be employed. Silos made of “ Solomit “ could be constructed in circular, square, or oblong shape, according to the land available. As the use of this material would relieve the pressure on the supply of galvanized iron which is to-day required for defence and other works, and would also relieve the position in regard to bags, my suggestion should be seriously considered.
– Are structures of the kind to which the honorable member refers already in existence, and can they be inspected?
– Yes ; “Solomit” is already being manufactured in Australia. The material is being used in South Australia and elsewhere. The necessary machinery to increase the production of it could be obtained without a great capital outlay, and the existing plants could be maintained in operation for 24 hours continuously if desired in order to increase the output. This material could also be used as containers for dried fruits and many other products. Its use would thus overcome many of the difficulties that are at present confronting producers in respect of storage, containers, and the like.
I wish now to refer briefly to the agreement that has been entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom in connexion with the sale of Australian meat and meat products. The agreement has resulted in the promulgation of numerous regulations which would appear adequately to cover the position. Upon a close examination, however, it is revealed that the control applies almost solely to the meat and its processing after it has been purchased. I hope that the responsible Minister and his officers will give particular attention to the points to which I shall now refer, for it is of vital importance to the graziers of Australia that their interests shall be adequately protected. As things are now, the meat speculators are exercising practically a free hand. The speculators in Queensland, particularly, are in an extraordinarily favorable position. It must be remembered that about SO per cent, of the beef produced in Australia is produced in Queensland. Unless the position of the growers is much more effectively safeguarded than it is by the regulations already in force, the buyers of cattle on the hoof will be able to make their purchases at almost any price they please. It is essential, therefore, that the Government should take immediate action to protect the interests of the producers of beef. Up to date, the interests of the exporters have been protected and the interests of the growers have been neglected. Seeing that the Meat Board has absolute power in respect of this industry and can control operations in every branch of it, prompt action is essential. I hope that the Government will appreciate the seriousness of the position and will at once issue additional regulations under the National Security Act to ensure that the interests of the growers, as well as the interests of purchasers of cattle on the hoof, are protected.
It is not too much to say that practically every wool-grower in Australia was sadly disappointed at the appraisement of Australian wool during the early part of the season. This low appraisement is a serious matter. I am sorry, therefore, that not one Minister is listening to what I have to say. However, I shall see that a report of these remarks is brought under the notice of the Government. It is the definite opinion of every body associated with the wool industry that the appraisements for the first two series at any rate were much lower than they should have been. I ask the Government to take action to check and compare, through its expert advisers, the basis of the appraisement at the beginning of the wool season with that now operating. It will then find that the price levels originally adopted involved serious financial loss to the growers who delivered their wool early in the season. Is it the intention of the Government that these growers shall continue to suffer this injustice which, for them, will mean all the difference between profit and loss?
– If the Government changes the method it will be an injustice to others.
– I am asking not for a change of method, but for an alteration of the basis of the price levels upon which the appraisers operated. The method would remain exactly the same. I contend that the basis upon which the appraisements were made was not correct. Every one who knows the people engaged in the wool industry will realize that they are as ready as any other section of the community to make any needed sacrifices in the interests of the Empire, but there is no sense in calling upon the woolgrowers to make useless sacrifices. The wool-growers have proved their patriotism and their readiness to assist the Empire and the allies in this struggle. If they are unnecessarily penalized it will simply mean that their ability to maintain their operations will be impaired. The wool industry is one of the very few primary industries of Australia which is capable of expansion, for there is a very big market for our wool. “We have no serious competitors, and people in other parts of the world need our wool. They should, therefore, be ready to pay a reasonable price for it. In spite of this fact, however, the Commonwealth Government, in its negotiations, accepted a price Id. or 2d. below the price it should have accepted. It also permitted a provision to be inserted in the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom which should not have been approved. I refer to the provision that the British Government shall retain half of the profits derived from the re-sale of Australian wool to foreign countries. What justification is there for the British- Government retaining a single penny of the profit derived from the re-sale of our wool clip? That provision is entirely inequit able, and will undoubtedly rob the woolgrowers of Australia of a considerable amount of income which should undoubtedly come to them. The money would also have helped this country to meet the financial difficulties which are inevitably before it.
– The additional money would have strengthened our London funds.
– The whole Empire will undoubtedly benefit from the circulation of the additional money, but its circulation should start at the fountainhead, which is the primary producers who marketed the wool. If the money came to the primary producers it would go into circulation in this country and thus would provide additional employment and form the basis for additional taxation or additional revenue for the Government. As it is, the Commonwealth Government has actually made a present to the Government of the United Kingdom of 50 per cent, of the profit on the re-sale of our wool to foreign countries, which are not even allies at present. I regard that as a serious flaw in the agreement. Still another point in connexion with this matter requires attention. We are engaged in an international war, yet what do we find? One of our most important primary products - I refer to woo] - is being appraised to-day not only by British subjects and some subjects of allied nations, but also by quite a considerable group of men who are foreigners in the true sense of the terms. These men are taking an important part in determining the price that shall be paid for our wool. We do not even know whether, in the next few weeks, they may be our enemies.
– Do not spoil a good speech !
– I am not spoiling a good speech. There is no need to engage foreigners in these semi-governmental positions, seeing that very many highlyqualified and quite capable Australians are available and could be engaged to do the work.
I shall now refer briefly to the apple and pear industry. Here again, serious anomalies and defects have become apparent since the Government has announced its decisions. We were told that there would be an advance of 2s. a case on 75 per cent. of the estimated crop in January, long before the crop is harvested, and before any one can estimate how it will result. Following the delivery of the fruit to the store, there would be a further advance of 2s. 3d. a bushel irrespective of the quality or grade of the fruit.
– That is not strictly correct.
– Well, perhaps it is rather a wide statement. I shall state the position with perfect accuracy now that the Minister has interjected. The advance of 2s. a case will be made in January on 75 per cent. of the estimated crop, the crop to be estimated by the agricultural inspectors. The second payment of 2s. -3d. a case, to cover the cost of cases, picking, packing, paper and delivery from the store, is to be paid on delivery of fruit accepted by the Apple and Pear Board. The point is that, up to the present, the Government has not given a very definite assurance that there will be anything other than an apple and pear pool. I have already made representations, supported by others who speak for apple and pear districts, that there should be a definite variety pool for varieties of fruit that are entitled to be grouped separately. Quite a number of varieties can be grouped, but it is essential that the apple and pear pool should contain specially separated pool accounts for varieties that can be kept separate. Failing that, it is essential that the Government should recognize that two growers can deliver two grades of apples, one of such value on the open market as to bring a low price, and the other of higher grade which would bring a high price. The higher-priced article represents many more operations and requires much more care than the heavy croppers. The advance of 2s. a case on 7.5 per cent. of the crop - that is the proportion of the crop that will be delivered - plus the
– That is, inside Australia.
– That is, inside the pool. I suggest that, if it is feasible or practicable, a similar system should be introduced into the apple and pear pool so that growers who, in the past, have developed a specialist trade by producing a higher quality apple in this country, may receive a premium over and above the amount paid to the growers of standard quality fruit. I wish that the Government would see the necessity for making such a provision so as not to destroy the incentive to fruit-growers generally to produce high-quality fruit to meet the demands of those people who are prepared to pay good prices for good articles.
I wish to emphasize the fact that all members of the Country party are concerned over the actions of the Government, so far as its decisions affect the primary producers and their industries; but at the same time their sole ambition is to help the Government in every possible way, not only to do the best for the Commonwealth of Australia generally, but also to do what is necessary to keep important industries afloat. If it so happened that men engaged in the various primary industries were allowed to go under through lack of finance, the reaction would most seriously affect the economic stability of Australia. So far as the organization of the various government pools is concerned, the Commonwealth Government should not close the door to suggestions, but should leave it wide open for reconsideration of the matter from time to time. Knowing that it is impossible to foresee the future, and the difficulties confronting us with regard to shipping, and realizing that we may have to store these products for a long period, we say that these disabilities must be borne by the shoulders of the whole community, and we say that the bulk of the burden should not be allowed to be thrown on the shoulders of those who produce the goods. That is the crux of my complaint. The, tendency is for those actually engaged in the production of these goods to be left to carry the whole of the burden associated with war conditions. It is essential that this Parliament should take every precaution to see that the burden is as evenly distributed as possible. If financial losses are incurred through the outbreak of war, those engaged in the particular branch of the industry concerned should not alone be compelled to carry them. They should be distributed over the whole community by way of levy or taxation through the agency of the Commonwealth Government. If that be done every member of the community will then have to bear his full share of the war burden, and if disabilities are suffered in one branch of industry, those engaged in it will be able to stand up to them and there will be no serious reactions when peace is again declared.
.- I wish to make some remarks on the two papers proposed to be printed, the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in regard to the financial assistance to the wheat industry, and the statement made by the Minister (Sir Frederick Stewart) representing the Minister for Commerce, regarding the sale of wool to the British Government and other special marketing arrangements. When war broke out this Parliament very readily passed what is known as the National
Security Act, the successor to the War Precautions Act of previous years, which vested in the Executive plenary powers to carry on the government of the country. With very little exception on the part of honorable members those powers were conceded to the Government. To vest any government with such far-reaching powers certainly increases its responsibility. I notice that there was a good deal of comment in the” Imperial Parliament recently about how certain of the Ministers were exercising the powers conferred on them under the emergency legislation, with the result that there was a withdrawal from the attitude taken up by certain Ministers. When we give powers to the Government to control, by the exercise of executive authority, virtually all matters in the Commonwealth, the responsibility of Ministers is greatly increased. In this sheet with regard to the disposal of certain Australian products, which has been distributed to honorable members, we have a list of primary products valued at over £100,000,000. When these plenary powers were given to the Government, it, in effect, rang up the Mother Country and said, “ We have certain goods here ; we have about £50,000,000 worth of wool which we should like to make arrangements with you to take over. We have a certain quantity of butter and wheat. We shall fix it all up with you “.
– The honorable member’s ex-leader claimed that he did the ringing up.
– I am considering the facts, and I say with regard to the first item, 910,000,000 lb* of wool, estimated to be valued at £54,000,000, which belonged to the wool-growers, that it was dealt with virtually in the way I have indicated. There was no waiting for correspondence ; there was little or no consultation with those whose property was to be disposed of. There was, perhaps, a slight reference to the Australian Wool-growers Council; but when we consider that 50 per cent, of the wool is grown in Australia by 95 per cent, oi the growers, and that the other 50 per cent, is grown by only 5 per cent, of the growers, it is realized that the greatest number of those engaged in this industry are not wealthy. Ninetyfive per centi of the wool-growers of Australia produced the bulk of this £54,000,000 worth of wool which is to bo disposed of in this way at an average price of approximately 13½d. per lb. for the duration of the war and one year afterwards, subject to a proviso that one half of the profits made by re-sale to allied countries will be returned to the Australian growers. I do not think that the Government has acquitted itself very well in this matter.
To-morrow, I shall have an opportunity to deal with wool appraisement. I content myself now with saying that, so far, the appraisement has been carried out very inefficiently. Once the wool appraisers adopt a basis for the valuation of wool, it is difficult to alter it without going right back to the start again. If they find out that their valuation at the beginning was too low or too high, the matter cannot be rectified at any intermediate stage without manifestly doing a gross injustice to those whose wool was appraised earlier. If wool is assessed at a higher basis from now on, great injustice will be done to very many growers.
– Does the honorable member think that the appraisers have altered their basis?
– I do not know, but there have been many complaints regarding the manner of assessment so far. The assessments have been manifestly wrong because certain assessments have been found to be less than the price realized by the growers during the previous year for well-known clips, in spite of the fact that the value fixed by the appraisers was, professedly, to be 3d. per lb. higher than that which was secured last year.
The Government would have been wise had it made an arrangement with the British Government on a yearly basis. We had the first experience of Government control of wool during the last war, when assessments were made at a figure which was 2d. per lb. better than the present appraisements. Although there was general satisfaction at that time, the British Government made huge profits out of the pool. It is true that a considerable share was returned, but I cannot see why Australia should not have derived a greater benefit. It may be that the Imperial Government should receive something as agent, but it is altogether too much that it should retain half of the profits. During the last war, wool for which the Australian growers received 15£d. per lb. was subsequently sold for as much as 10s. per lb.
– No; 6s. or 7s. per lb.
– I know for a fact that it sold as high as 10s. 6d. per lb., and I think it went higher. Honorable members will realize that this list of primary products which has been cited by the Minister for Commerce as having already been sold to the United Kingdom, to the value of £101,000,000, represents Australia’s stock-in-trade. It consists entirely of primary products. I do not see on the list any shirts or boots or manufactured goods upon which so much stress is often laid. They are all primary products, and that brings me to another point.
During the last war, a price was fixed for wheat, which was not a very wonderful price, but it was infinitely better than the price that has now been fixed. As a matter of fact, at the present time we have no guaranteed price at all. During the last war, wheat was sold to the Imperial Government at less than half of its market value. Its sale represented a patriotic contribution of £140,000,000 to the Imperial Government. The beginning of this war happened to coincide with a glut of wheat on the market, but that is no reason why those engaged in this great Australian industry should be altogether neglected. Let me draw the attention of the Prime Minister to his own statement which he made when he had just assumed office. He said that he was going to administer justice to all sections of the community, and by that he did not mean the rigid justice of a court of law, but what was commonly accepted as justice among men. He would ensure that all men received economic justice, and among them he included primary producers. The primary producer was to have a fair standard of living, and I was glad to see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) made the same point. In regard to the wheat industry, the Prime Minister declared that action would be taken during the winter, and before the harvest. Now, however, the right honorable gentleman reminds us that war has been declared. I maintain that, notwithstanding the fact that war has been declared, the wheat-growers are entitled to justice. The declaration of war has not prevented the functioning of the Arbitration Court in Australia, nor has it affected the operation of the Australian tariff.
– A special act was passed to safeguard the functions of the Arbitration Court.
– That is so. The Labour party was so afraid that the war might adversely affect the interests of men employed in munitions factories, that it was able to have special legislation passed’ to ensure that no regulations issued under the National Security Act should override the awards of the Arbitration Court. Yet the Prime Minister to-day, when his attention is called to the promises he made when he assumed office, says, by way of excuse, that war has been declared. I admit that it has, but I still maintain that justice is due to those who produce the primary wealth of Australia, among whom I include the wheat-growers whose efforts prior to the depression have resulted in the bringing into Australia of new money to the tune of £22,000,000 a year, in addition to feeding the people of this country more cheaply than they could be fed by the wheatgrowers of any other country in the world. Notwithstanding the war, these people are entitled to an Australian standard of living the same as are all other sections of the community. If sacrifices have to be made, let them be made all round, and the wheat-growers will be found as loyally willing to make their share of the sacrifices as any one else. They were told that they would receive a price for their product which would cover the cost of .production and provide a shade of profit. That is all they ask. It might not have been so bad if the industry had been reasonably prosperous up to date, but the fact is that there has been a depression of varying intensity in Australia for the last ten or eleven years. The assets of the wheat-farmers have been so depleted during that period that a great many of them have had. to abandon their homes altogether and go on the labour market. Some have been able to remain on their land, and to go on producing in the hope that prices would improve. They have become insolvent, but they have kept hoping that things would improve. They feel that they are engaged in an occupation of dignity. At one time they were invited by a Prime Minister of Australia to grow more wheat. They have acquired their lands, many of them, from the State governments, and they have devoted all of their capital and the best years of their lives to the industry upon which they are engaged. They feel that they, as well as the working men, the manufacturers and those engaged in the shipping industry, are entitled to a reasonable standard of living, and to assistance when it is necessary. It is for that reason that I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment moved by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). What he asks for is the very minimum that should be offered. It will barely cover costs. For the information of those honorable members who have “ chipped “ me, let me tell them that I will not get one farthing out of it - lest it should hurt any one to think that I would. However, I know the industry thoroughly, having had 35 years’ experience in it, and I am convinced that the figure named will not provide profits for any wheat-farmer. I am thinking only of the welfare of those who are giving their lives to the industry, those who,’ if they are forced off their land, will be thrown onto the labour market, and so become a burden on the State. It will actually be cheaper to ensure that they get a reasonable price for their product than to allow them to be forced off their holdings. No time should be lost in taking action. I agree that an arrangement should be made with the States to restrict production of wheat until such time as the world’s surplus of wheat has been disposed of. It would be in the interests of all wheat-growing countries if such an arrangement could be made to operate from next year. In the meantime, let the Government do the right thing by the growers, and not make an excuse out of the war. I appeal to the Government, as one who wishes it well, not to make a fool of itself over this most important industry.
– I propose to speak of this motion, but, in view of something that has been brought under my notice, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1371
Queensland Director of Department of Information: Comment ON Parliamentary Utterances.
– I raise a question of privilege arising out of a statement about myself contained in the Tweed, Baily, published at Murwillumbah on Saturday last. The newspaper contains a state- ment which is headed “ Cameron’s speech described as balderdash “ The statement reads -
The State Director of the Department of Information (Mr. E. Honman), addressing the first group meeting pf representatives of entertainments and publicity, who have volunteered to co-operate with the department, made a spirited criticism of the, utterance by the Federal Country Party Leader (Mr. Cameron) in the House of Representatives yesterday.
Mi-. Hanman said that Mr. Cameron’s talk about “Australia not being at war with the German people but billy wilh their rulers was all eyewash “ could only be described as balderdash and nonsensical twaddle.
Tt emphasized the importance of the work of the Department of Information whose job it was to correct such utterances.
According tq an uncorrected Hansard proof - I made, no corrections at all - the statement thai I made was this -
Above all, we must realize that we are, unfortunately, at war with Germany and, notwithstanding what has been said by leading men of various political parties during the last few weeks, we are at war, not only with the German Government, but also with the German people. We are at war with the tinned forces of Germany, whether on land or on sca or in the air, and we are at war with the economic power behind those forces. If that is not so, then wc are at peace. To talk about being at war with the German Government find hot with the German people is merely so much eye-wash, so much selfdeception.
The statement attributed to me by an officer of the Department of Information is the exact opposite to what I said, not withstanding that the last statement attributed by the newspaper to that gentleman is -
It emphasized the importance of the work of the Department of Information whose job it was to correct such utterances.
The interesting fact is that my speech was delivered in this House from 8.20 p.m. on Thursday night. The statement of which I complain was made by an officer of the Department of Information. The report of my remarks in the CourierMail, Brisbane, is correct. I was correctly reported in that paper, so I am moved to ask the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) how an officer of his department in Brisbane became apprised on Friday of what I said in this House the night before. Obviously, he was not going on what was reported in the Courier-Mail. I should like to know whether there is any process by which officers of the Department of Information in the various States are supplied with statements of what members said in this House overnight, so that they can be gone into by those gentlemen on the next day. i should like to know whether the statement which was attributed to me was supplied to the departmental officer officially or unofficially. Alternatively, by what means did that officer secure his advice as to the proceedings in this House on Thursday night? That, is one question. My next question is: Does the information, from the Department of Information bear the warranty of truth, or do the officers df that department deal in questions of mere speculation and rumour? Is it a function of the department to circulate news as such, or to distribute criticism or opinions? Is comment on parliamentary debate one of the functions of the department?
– What is the standing of these critics of Parliament and parliamentary proceedings? This possibly needs no pointing out, but honorable members of this House must not reflect on any decision of the House. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if an officer of the Department of Information is entitled to criticize the statements of honorable members in this Parliament, he is also entitled to criticize decisions reached by this Parliament.
– Was he speaking as an officer of the department ?
– Yes.
– How do you identify him as such ?
- His name is there. The Minister will identify him. If this department is to carry on in this way when Parliament is in session, what sort of redress will members have during the parliamentary recess if officers of the Department of Information are prepared to tear to pieces statements that we make when Parliament is sitting? I ask that question particularly because the statement attributed to me in the Tweed Daily is the direct opposite of the statement that I made. I contend that if there is any matter on which I differ from Ministers in all questions affecting the debate in this Parliament the proper place in which to answer these is in this chamber.
– Hear, hear!
– This is the place for that. Under no consideration should any departmental officer be permitted to make statements outside of the type of which I complain. Are officers of the Department of Information to be used to criticize members of Parliament? If so, in whose interests, particularly in view of the fact that in this case the statement attributed to me is utterly untrue? I have with me a statement by the Minister himself. I do not think that the Minister had anything to”do with this or would even tolerate it. I simply raised this matter because it is one of those things to be nipped in the bud. We cannot without challenge allow the establishment of a precedent that may afterwards be used to a greater degree. The Minister, according to a report in the Bulletin last week, intimated in Sydney that the Department of Information would collect and present the truth and nothing but the truth. With that sentiment this House, I should think, entirely agrees, but I raise the question of the whole relationship of the Department of Information to the parliamentary institution. I think that the time has arrived when we are forced into the position of asking the Minister .just, exactly what is the relationship between this department and Parliament, and, incidentally, in view of the fact that our par liamentary privilege has been encroached upon, what exactly are the functions, the useful functions, of this department? I have, up to date, remained silent on the establishment of this department. I have had my doubts as to its value, but the onus is on the Government not only to clear the question of the relationship between the department and Parliament, but also to show the functions that the department is to carry out, and furthermore the very much larger and more important issue of the general usefulness of this department. I understand that there is no necessity for me to move any motion on this occasion, but if there were any necessity to move a motion the motion I would move would be couched in these terms -
That comment on a criticism of the proceedings of Parliament or on speeches in Parliament by any officer of the Department nf Information is a breach of the privilege of Parliament.
It is on that ground that I take my stand. I submit the issue to the House. I have described it as accurately as I can. The statement is here if the Minister wishes to read it I simply say that this Parliament can never tolerate a state of affairs in which any departmental officer may comment in this way upon the proceedings of Parliament or the speeches of any one of us. If there is any necessity for any such comments we are experts ourselves. There is no need for us to go outside, and still more we must not allow the establishment of a precedent which afterwards may be used to the detriment not only of myself but also of other honorable members. Particularly at the present moment anything of this description is not only damaging to myself but also to those members of this Parliament who are associated with me in the party. Therefore on this occasion I have to be doubly careful.
– Far from taking exception to the honorable gentleman’s spirited protest I am grateful to him for having brought this matter before the House.
– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary when a member raises a question of privilege for him to conclude his speech with a motion ?
There is nothing in the Standing Orders which makes it necessary for an honorable member who raises a question of privilege to conclude his speech with a motion except in reference to newspaper comment.
– Assuming that these remarks were made, and I have no doubt that remarks, if not in the exact terms quoted by the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron), at least similar to them, were made, and that the honorable gentleman was referred to - which is denied by this temporary officer in Queensland - I express my deepest regret to the honorable gentleman, and also my apologies. I accept full responsibility for the remarks made at this meeting by the representative of my department. I point out, however, that there is no question as to the instructions issued to all officers of the Department of Information. Those instructions were in complete accordance with the assurance given to this House, both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and by myself, that this department would in all of its activities keep absolutely clear of politics, and especially party politics. Proof that those instructions were issued is contained in a telegram from Mr. Hanman, the officer in question in Brisbane. I draw attention to the fact that Mr. Hanman is only a temporary officer; he was a well-known journalist in Queensland and came to me from a daily newspaper in Brisbane ; he has only been with the department for two or three weeks.
– Were those instructions issued to all officers of the Department of Information?
– I am not making any excuses for this occurrence; those instructions have been issued to every officer of the department and have been impressed upon them, not once, but I venture to say, twenty times. This is freely acknowledged by Mr. Hanman in the telegram which I have received. He stated in the message -
I deliberately refrained from mentioning the name of Mr. Cameron because of my knowledge that the activities of the Department of Information must be kept on a strictly non-party basis, and I deliberately refrained from giving any clue to the source on which J. founded my statement. I merely referred to criticism of Mr. Menzies’ war aims in a passing way as an illustration of a point iu my address.
I produce that message as definite evidence that this officer was instructed that the Department of Information was to be conducted on a non-party basis. I have not only laid that down to officers of the department, but I have also emphasized it at four very large public meetings, representative of many hundreds of organizations, which have been held in the last fortnight in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.
– What was the purpose of these public meetings?
– I do not propose to fall in to-night with the honorable gentleman’s desire and cut across the present debate, but I shall make a full statement relating to the Department of Information in this House on Thursday next, when I shall endeavour to meet all of the points that have been raised to-night.
– Will that statement be debated?
– As I am not the Leader of the Government, I cannot give that assurance, but I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will arrange for a debate to take place.
– We shall contrive ‘a way to have the statement discussed.
– I do not suggest that the House should not discuss it, but I cannot give assurances as to the way in which business will be conducted by the Government. I deny emphatically that anything was communicated from this House to Mr. Hanman. either directly from Canberra or indirectly through the head-quarters of the department in Melbourne. I admit that the Leader of the Country party is entitled to look , upon the matter with some suspicion. I did npt see any report of the honorable gentleman’s speech in the Brisbane newspapers ; I have not seen the Brisbane newspapers. The first report of Mr. Hanman’s statement that I saw was the one which the Leader of the Country party showed to me to-night immediately before the House met after dinner.
– Where did the officer in Brisbane obtain his information?
– I shall make inquiries on that point. I learned in Melbourne at lunch-time, through a telephone message from my private secretary at Canberra, that the Leader of the Country party intended to raise this question. I was about to leave Melbourne by aeroplane at the time, but since my arrival at Canberra I have been receiving and despatching messages in an endeavour to clear up the matter. I cannot answer in detail all of the questions asked by the honorable gentleman, because I have not carried them in my mind, but I insist that it has been made completely clear to officers of the Department of Information that the organization is non-political, and I say to the House quite frankly that if it cannot be kept a strictly non-political organization, I shall be the first to recommend to the Prime Minister that it be closed down. I give the House that assurance.
– What is the good of the department?
– I shall deal with that on Thursday next. The establishment of a new department was a decision not of mine but of the Government, and it was passed over to me for administration. It is a very heavy task; the department has to be built up under pressure from nothing, and I appeal to honorable members to give this new enterprise a reasonable chance and not condemn it until I have advised their minds as to the form the organization will take. I shall do that on Thursday next.
– Is it not remarkable that this indiscretion was committed after the officer had been warned, along with other officers, at least twenty times?
– I think it most remarkable; it is extraordinary that Mr. Hanman, in the same message, should declare that he is keeping the department’s work strictly on a non-party basis and yet state what he did about this speech. I accept responsibility for it because I am the head of the department, and I think that a. Minister should accept responsibility for such occurrences; but I cannot, fc. the life of me, understand it. What has happened is entirely contrary, not only to my own wishes but also to wishes that I have expressed to members of the staff and publicly again and again.
– I am quite sure that the Minister will acquit me of any desire to make difficulties for the new department; I venture to say that within his knowledge I have given him some useful suggestions; but I feel now that the honorable gentleman must not allow this debate to end without impressing upon the head of the Government that the House desires at the first opportunity to have not only the submission of the Minister in respect of the work of the department in all its phases, but also the chance to’ debate the matter, which is a proper obligation on the part of the House.
– I shall bring the honorable gentleman’s submission before the Prime Minister.
– If that assurance cannot be given to us, we shall find some other way in which to force a discussion. There is one aspect of the telegram quoted by the Minister, if I recollect its terms accurately, which to my mind is astonishing. It carries the implication that the officer, although fully cognizant of the general instructions given to him by the Minister, nonetheless felt that it was his duty to defend the Prime Minister.
– I say that he was totally wrong.
– The officer apparently apprehended that he had two things to do; one was to keep clear of politics, but the other was tq come immediately to the aid of the Prime Minister in matters of controversy. I acknowledge that, the Prime Minister is head of the nation and that we are at war, and I quite agree that any misrepresentation of the Prime Minister is a matter which the Ministry of Information might meet by issuing to whoever is responsible for the misrepresentation the requisite correction; but that is not a matter for argument. I could understand the Ministry of Information sending to some one who misrepresented the Prime Minister’s remarks a copy of what the Prime Minister actually said ; that is to say, giving information as to what the head of the Government did say. That would apply particularly in respect of war aims. I cannot understand, however, an officer arguing that the
Prime Minister was right in the view that lie took as against the view that his critic had taken. -That seems to me to be a fundamental distinction. I emphasize again that on Thursday next we wish to have a full statement of what the Department of Information is doing and I suggest that the Minister recommend to the Prime Minister the desirability of assuring the House an opportunity for an immediate and full discussion of that statement when it is submitted.
– I shall convey the honorable gentleman’s request to the Prime Minister.
.- Sir–
– Why not wait until Thursday?
– I am not so much interested in what may happen on Thursday next as I am interested in what has happened this evening, because, after all, events move so quickly, the unexpected so frequently happens, and we are so commonly disappointed as to the expected, that it would be quite an undue exhibition of optimism on my part to make perfectly certain that the Government would be here at all on Thursday next. Therefore, since time marches on, all that the most adventurous of us can do is to take it by the forelock and deal with these matters which are now current and pressing.
I was interested to hear the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) say, in the course of his very impressive and solemn apology, upon which I congratulate him, as being the first occasion on which he has apologized out of many on which ho properly should have apologized, that his department, as it is termed, is a non-political department. It is a very significant thing that the observations which give rise to this discussion are attributed not to a mere subordinate, not to any junior, not to a cadet journalist, but to one unctuously described as the State Director of the Department of Information, f notice that, as the head of this nonpolitical organization, his fine frenzy has been aroused on strictly party political lines. It has been impossible to note the growth of this Department of Information, because it has not made any growth ; it is “ on the bottle “, but is making no progress. Every now and again, I hopefully observe signs and portents which appear to indicate that the war will soon be over; but there is no indication that this special department of watchdogs, which was appointed for the transaction of urgent business, arising out of the war, has yet commenced to function. Apparently the first, if not the only distinguished performance of this Department of Information has been to qualify as a department of misinformation. Such a department is being eminently well catered for by the press at the present time. I have no quarrel with any editor or proprietor in respect of his , efficiency in giving misinformation to the country in the matter of the war or any other matter, but as this function was already being well discharged there was no need for this new department of misinformation. I want to know - I should like to have known before we separated to-night, on account of the uncertainty of the times in which we live, with war here, and war in the world - something more about this department of misinformation. Is it really a department of State? Are these gentlemen who have been appointed to offices in this so-called department either temporary or permanent members of the Public Service?
– The honorable member will be given the information on Thursday.
– I am speaking of to-night.
– The honorable member may ask questions to-night.
– The department, such as it is, may have automatically ceased to exist by Thursday. Are these gentlemen members of the Public Service ? I am inclined to think that, if they claim to be members of the Public Service, the general body of the Public Service will not be at all proud of them. So very early in the career of this newlyformed, nearly still-born, unweaned, unprogressive Department of Information, it has distinguished itself by this amazing faux pas on the part of its Deputy Director in Queensland. No member of the press, many of whom I know and respect highly, acting under instructions from hia proprietor or editor, is ever found guilty, when the printed word has been circulated in Hansard, of having been so utterly stupid as to attribute to an honorable member the exact opposite of what he has said. The genius of those in control of the press lies in the publication of the half-truth, which is plausible when there is no other counteracting publication to reveal the lie. There are other methods of dissimulation and prevarication.
– I hope that the honorable member is speaking of all Australian pressmen, including those close to him.
– I have many close to me who are associated with the press, and for whom I naturally have great love and admiration. Apart from those, I have many friends on the press. I could even declare that I have another association with the press which I do not care to mention further. I do not criticize pressmen as such. I am criticizing this new-born department of misinformation, and am referring to the course followed by newspaper editors and proprietors in regard to-
– Aw!
– The honorable gentleman may caw as loudly as any crow; I am telling the House, to the best of my ability, the truth as I see it. I want to know more about this department. On at least half a dozen occasions I have heard the Minister promise what this new department was to do after it had had time to get upon its legs, feel its feet, take its thumb out of its mouth, and begin to think seriously of the duties which appertain to it, whatever those duties may be. I take very great pride in the Public Service of this country. My experience is that it is an extraordinarily loyal and competent body. I have never known of an occasion upon which, either by carelessness or by the exercise of reckless mendacity, it has let a Minister down. I read with great pride not long ago the public statement of the head of a department who, through inadvertence and by accident, had, as he thought - and I doubted it - let his Minister down, in which he bravely accepted the whole of the responsibility for so radical a departure from the practice and traditions appertaining to the Public Service of this country. 1 have had some experience as a Minister, and some experience in other capacities, and invariably I have found the members of the Public Service to be loyal, painstaking, and accurate. The Minister cannot draw me into making any attack upon journalists though I have often criticized newspapers.
– The honorable gentleman did so.
– I have directed my remarks to the Minister. He must accept responsibility in this matter.
– I do.
– While this war has been going on during all of these tragic weeks, when the only excuse for the existence of this department - if it be a department - was promptitude, expedition and thoroughness, week after week we have had nothing but lame excuses and the promise that, at some future time, when this infant had reached the age of reap on-
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order! I remind the House that it is discussing a question of privilege. This is not an occasion on which the merits of a department, whether its existence be justified or not, may be discussed ; nor may any utterance by the Minister. Only the question of privilege, which was set out very clearly in the statement of the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) may be discussed.
– Perhaps I may finish my last sentence when I see my proof. If I do so, it will be done innocuously and in conformity with your ruling, sir. I congratulate the Leader of the Country party - I do not often congratulate him - upon having introduced this matter, and having fastened it down immediately: because, if it should become the practice - nay, more, if even the slightest incident could be recalled which might be used as a precedent to justify a person who serves a Minister in this House using his official position to make attacks in his own name upon members of this House, especially attacks directed, as this attack obviously is, along party political lines - lines which the Minister says the new department is not to take - if that is to be encouraged, even as a beginning, I hardly know where the matter would end, and I am perfectly certain that it would receive very little encouragement and much cold shouldering from the Public Service. For my part, I summarize the matter by saying that, in the motion of privilege which has been indicated but not moved, the point has been well and deservedly taken. I hope that, if Parliament is still in session and functioning, and if the need for this department has not by that time passed away, the Minister will at least make an impressive statement to justify the arrival and the christening of this newly-born baby.
– I consider that the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) has left the matter at a very unsatisfactory stage. The honorable gentleman made full confession and acknowledgement of the indiscretion of which this public official was guilty, and has personally accepted responsibility for it, yet he has given to this House no indication of what action he proposes to take to remedy what has been done, and at least to make this official understand the seriousness of the indiscretion he has committed by the comments he has made. Not only did the gentleman in question seek to exert such efforts as were possible in defence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), but he also admits having made other comment, which he seeks to excuse merely on the ground that he did not mention the name of any member of this House. He does not seek to repudiate any of the utterances he is credited with having made, but merely says that he did not mention the name of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). A man occupying such a position has no right even to make such comment. The honorable member for Barker has served this Parliament well in having exposed what might easily have become a very serious form of abuse by those who are charged with certain responsibilities in the Department of Information. I should like to know what the Minister intends to do.
– The Minister ought to resign.
– I know that on occasions in parliamentary life the indiscretions of a public official have had very serious results. Ministers have even resigned in consequence of the indiscretions of their officers, but I suppose it is too much to expect the Minister for Information to do that. We should, at least, be assured that there will be no recurrence of this offence. The House is entitled to be protected against individuals with misguided ideas who seek to use a little new-found but brief authority to embarrass members of Parliament by wrongfully expressing unjustifiable opinions. I trust that the matter will not be left where it is. It should not be taken too lightly particularly as the Minister has assured us that the officers of his department were warned not once but twenty times. The honorable gentleman repeated that he had given these numerous warnings. This offence was committed by a senior officer in charge of the Department of Information in Queensland, and, in the public interest, drastic action should be taken to prevent any repetition of it. We do not expect criticism of this kind from such a ‘quarter. Therefore, when the Minister makes his promised statement on Thursday, I hope he will be able to assure us in quite definite terms that unfortunate incidents of this kind will not be repeated.
– This subject should not be dismissed too cursorily. Only two phases of the matter have assumed any importance «o far during this debate. They are the rights of members of this House, and the rights of public officials who work under the aegis of the Government. But another, even if impersonal, aspect of the subject should not be forgotten. The newspapers of Australia will take a very serious view of this incident. The speech of the Minister for Information (Sir Henry Gullett) might be construed into an excuse for the indiscretion of an inexperienced officer. The Minister has said that whether the officer concerned is guilty or not guilty of this fell deed he apologizes for him. He has also given us an assurance that such an incident will not recur. If the Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) is satisfied with the Minister’s attitude, the incident may perhaps close.
– But does not .the honorable member think that the House should be satisfied?
– As the matter has come up under a question of privilege, I do. Although a country daily newspaper which does not circulate in the great capital cities of Australia is concerned in this incident, I do not think the press of Australia will be satisfied to let the matter rest where it is, for, without doubt, a slight has been cast upon the bona fides of the press. The officer involved has attempted to shield himself behind the old and stereotyped plea that such persons always resort to when they are cornered - that h’e was misreported. I have in mind many incidents that occurred during the last war, and I fear that this incident may be used as an excuse by the Department of Information for tightening, up the restrictions upon the publication of news concerning the war in the newspapers of Australia. I should not be at all surprised if one outcome of this incident will be some action by the Department of Information, which, when it gets into its stride, if it ever does, will control the censorship, to impose a stricter supervision over the publication of hews, particularly excerpts from the speeches of public men in Australia. Most honorable members realize that the press of Australia is nearly always right. If a mistake is made iri respect of matters raised within the House, it nearly always turns out to be the fault of members or of public officials. I wish, however, to push this matter right home, for it is of great importance to the press. I cannot recall an episode of this kind being discussed before in this House. Many alleged breaches of privilege have been debated, but none of this particular character, for in this case a definite officer has been pinned down. Upon realizing that he had been pinned down, he despatched a telegram to his Minister saying; in effect, “ I did not mention the name of that particular politician referred to “. Let us see exactly what did happen. If the public official is right, then the newspaper concerned has committed an offence of which the Government should take notice. If the
Minister believes what is in the telegram to which he referred, what does he think of this sentence from the newspaper report -
Mr. Hanman said that Mr. Cameron’s talk about “ Australia not being at war with the German people but only with their rulers was all eyewash “ could only be described as balderdash and nonsensical twaddle.
The preliminary part of the report reads -
The State Director of the Department of Information (Mr. E. Hanman), addressing the first group meeting of representatives of entertainments and publicity who have volunteered to co-operate with the department, made a spirited criticism of the utterance of the Federal Country Party Leader (Mr. Cameron) in the House of Representatives yesterday.
Et appears to me, therefore, that the name of the Leader of the Country party must have been referred to in a sufficiently definite manner to justify the reports that I have read. If that is not so, the newspaper should be required to intimate how it came to associate Mr. Cameron’s name with the subject. The telegram does not seem to me to ring true, and the Minister, even with the best intentions in the world, should not be prepared to dismiss the matter willi an apology. The newspapers, generally speaking, are careful about the statements they make affecting the honour an’d reputation of public men. They must be, otherwise they nin serious risks. This matter, therefore, cannot be dismissed by the mere statement of the official that he did not mention the name of any particular person. This newspaper, presumably, obtains its news in the ordinary course, and it seems to me that the person involved must have made a statement of a character which shows him to be unfitted for the important post he occupies. An indiscreet man should not be entrusted with such duties. In my experience of newspapers, and it is extensive, it is inconceivable that this newspaper should have been influenced by malice and for that reason have linked the name of Mr. Cameron with this report. If it did so, it should be appropriately dealt with by both the postal authorities and the cen:sorship ; but newspapers in general should not be penalized because of the dereliction of ditty of an officer. I know this particular newspaper very well. It is quite a reputable, reliable, and honorable journal which would not be guilty of such a mean offence as to attack and name a man who had not been mentioned by a speaker in such a way as seriously to detract from his reputation. In my opinion, the newspaper is right and the official is wrong. I trust that this incident will not lead to trouble between the newspapers and the Department of Information during the course of the war. The Minister is a journalist of great experience, and therefore knows that it will not meet the case for his department to make a vindictive attack upon newspapers because of this incident. The newspapers generally, if properly treated by the censorship, can be trusted to give the country and the Government a fair deal.
– This is an appeal from the newspaper owner.
– As usual, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) is wrong. If the newspapers are to be pilloried whenever matters of this kind are mentioned in Parliament on a motion of privilege, trouble is certain to occur. Personal allegations by indiscreet individuals should not be used as an excuse for hampering the newspapers in the proper discharge of their responsibilities. It should not be taken for granted that the newspapers must necessarily be wrong and individuals necessarily right. If that attitude be adopted, members of Parliament will find that they will have few friends among the newspapers of Australia. I urge the Minister not to allow the officers of his department too much freedom, and not to allow the censorship to run the rule over the newspapers of Australia more rigorously than is legitimately necessary for the proper safeguard of the public interests during the war. We should trust the newspapers more. When we have an officer who is not fit to be entrusted with the exercise of his responsible duty, do not put the blame on the newspaper, but look first to the person most likely to be guilty, the public officer himself. The statement by this officer, implying that this statement in the newpaper is absolutely incorrect–
– No, the officer’s statement is not to that effect at all. He puts his side of the case; but he does not say that the newspaper is incorrect.
-The officer says that he did not refer to Mr. Cameron by name.
– I do not believe that he did.
– Then the newspaper took the responsibility of attaching Mr. Cameron’s name to this very serious statement ? No newspaper would do such a thing without justification.
– The officer telephoned me to-night - I received the message just as I walked into the House - and gave me the names of three representatives of three public bodies who agreed with him that he did not mention any names; but I admit that he went so close to the statement of the honorable gentleman that it appears to me that he had him in mind.
– From that statement it appears that the newspaper itself took the responsibility of publishing the name of Mr. Cameron in association with this statement. The Minister should follow this matter up and ascertain whether the newspaper actually did so. I suggest that he should see that the officers of his department who control the censorship do not, in a spirit of vindictiveness, use this incident as an opportunity further to tighten up the restrictions that are already imposed on the press of Australia.
.- This statement appeared in a newspaper circulating in my electorate. I drew the attention of the Leader of my party (Mr. Archie Cameron) to it as soon as it appeared, because I regarded it as a reflection, not only upon him, but also upon the party itself, and particularly on those members of the party who were known to have been supporters of the former leader. Therefore, the statement in itself was a political libel of the grossest kind. It put the Leader of the Cameron with this report. If it did so, of the members of the party, in the position of being deemed to have supported a statement which the leader did not make. The Minister has made no suggestion as to how he can correct that rather libellous utterance. It has been stated, according to the telegram sent from Brisbane, that Mr. Cameron’s name was not linked with this unfortunate speech by Mr. Hanman. This paragraph which is headed, “ Brisbane, Friday “, gives a telegraphic record received from the newspaper’s correspondent in Brisbane.From my experience and knowledge of how this industry conducts its business, I have no doubt that it is an exact replica of the statement as it was telegraphed from Brisbane.
– It is just one journalist against another. I am merely giving you the evidence of the officer. The honorable member cannot be certain; nor can I.
– We cannot say anything for certain except that not only has a great deal of damage been done to the Leader of the Country party by the Ministry for Information but also a great deal of potential damage is done to every member of this House if this sort of thing is tolerated. That is the point that all honorable members must realize. I have every sympathy for the Director of the Department of Information, the unfortunate gentleman who made this statement in Brisbane.
– Why?
– Because he was present at the first meeting of representatives of entertainment and publicity who had volunteered to co-operate with the department. I put it to honorable members that this gentleman was placed in the position of inventing something about the Department of Information, because there was nothing else to tell the people about it. I do not blame this man for not knowing anything about the department. No member of this House knows anything about it.
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order! The honorable member may not discuss the activities of the department, which is not the question before the Chair.
– I repeat that the published message is probably an exact replica of the statement telegraphed from Brisbane. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that the Minister said that this officer was appointed as recently as three weeks ago. Does not that apply to every other member of his organization ?
– I was not excusing him. The honorable member is just building this up.
– It does not need building up; it is an edifice in itself. I hope that this matter will be corrected, not only in the electorate in which this journal circulates, but also in every other district where such mis-information has been circulated.
page 1380
Ministerial Statements
Debate resumed from page 1371.
– I have listened with a certain amount of interest to the discussion so far on this allimportant subject. May I say at the outset of my remarks that I am, to put it mildly, very disappointed at the price at which the Australian wheat harvest is to be sold. There is utter consternation right throughout the Commonwealth among the wheat-growers as the result of the pronouncement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). We cannot but fail to be struck by the unanimity of the opposition of wheat-growers throughout the length and breadth of Australia to the declaration. Quite a lot of this opposition could have been obviated, perhaps, had the Government taken the wheat-growers into its confidence when it proposed the establishment of a. Commonwealth pool some time ago. The Government has adopted the same procedure in regard to the establishment of boards to control the pooling of all primary products. In nearly every case the boards set up to administer the pools are composed, not of a majority of representatives of the growers, tout of those diametrically opposed to the best interests of the producers. The wheat industry for many years past has advocated the establishment of a compulsory pool, but this is the first time since the Great War that arrangements have been made for the establishment of such a pool. When the growers themselves desired the establishment of a pool and a. vote was taken, we found especially in New South Wales, that the proposalwas opposed by the big financial interests and tie big wheat firms of international standing whose representatives have now been appointed to the Australian “Wheat Board. At that time these wealthy interests spent tens of thousands of pounds in propaganda to fight the establishment of a pool. They sent paid speakers right throughout the length and breadth of New South “Wales in an organized effort to defeat the proposal. Is it any wonder that there is grave dissatisfaction at the action of the Government in now appointing to the board to control the compulsory wheat pool representatives of that very section which was so anxious to destroy the proposal for the establishment of a pool only a few years ago ?
Speaking with a lifetime experience of the wheat industry, I say that I have never seen such bungling and such unbusiness-like methods as have characterized the operations of the Commonwealth Wheat Board. It makes one wonder if it is its definite intention to discourage any future action on the part of the growers of Australia to secure the establishment of a compulsory pool. I can give to honorable members a few instances of the bungling of the Commonwealth Wheat Board, and of the State Wheat Board of New South Wales under its direction. The State Wheat Board of New South Wales is fortunate in the possession of a very good chairman in the person of Mr. MacDonald, a very competent officer of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. Mr. MacDonald knows the wheat industry, but he is definitely hampered by instructions from the Commonwealth Wheat Board. Honorable members would be surprised to know of the difficulties placed on the wheat-growers in different parts of the State by the board.
There is, as honorable members know, a shortage of wheat bags, a subject which I propose to discuss on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-night. When I asked a question of the Acting Minister for Supply and Development (Sir Frederick Stewart) to-day regarding the shortage of wheat bags, he gave me an answer which, although doubtlessly accurate according to his knowledge, was directly opposite to the actual fact as evidenced by the remarks of the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) during the course of this debate. My electorate is one of the earliest wheat harvesting electorates. There was a shortage of bags and definite instructions were issued by the Commonwealth Wheat Board that growers were not to send wheat to the silos which was contaminated with chaff. During the early portion of the harvest, owing to windy and unfavorable seasonal conditions, it was practically impossible to keep chaff out of the wheat. Chaff has no adverse effect upon the quality of the wheat. Farmers in my electorate carted their wheat up to twenty miles to the silos, only to find that it was rejected by the board. They asked if the board would permit them to stack the wheat in a grain shed adjacent to the railway siding. This request was refused, and they were told that they would have to cart it back to their farms and clean it. As any one who has a knowledge of this industry knows, with perhaps only one grader working for 20 or 30 farmers, it would take six months to clean all of the wheat produced by them.
Here is another incident that shows the utter stupidity of the Wheat Board. The big mills, of which there are many in the country districts, were willing to take the whole of this wheat. They were only too anxious to get it. They were prepared to take delivery of it at the railway sidings, but the Wheat Board refused to allow them to do so. The board insisted that the growers, if they wanted to sell it to the mills, would have to cart the wheat another 25 or 30 miles to the mills themselves, so that delivery could be taken there. That is going on all over the north-west of New South Wales, and perhaps all over Australia.
It is a singular thing that, during this war, the primary producers should be the only section of the community who are unable to obtain a fair deal. In every newspaper we pick up we see that this very benevolent Price Fixing Commission, which has its head-quarters in Canberra, has given permission for liberal price increases in regard to various commodities. We see that tea is going up another 3d. per lb., that petrol may be going up fid. a gallon, and that the price of tyres has been advanced by 1 per cent. Commodity prices are rising every day, so that the price of primary produce would need to be increased by 30 per cent, or more, just to meet the extra cost. Nevertheless, the wheat-growers, the barleygrowers and the wool-growers are denied even elementary justice. There seems to be unlimited money available for war purposes, and I do not say that it is not necessary to find the money, but it is strange that none can be found to recompense the primary producer for his labour, particularly when we remember that the whole economic structure of the community rests upon the primary industries. What chance have we to finance a war or any other national activity if our essential primary industries are allowed to go to the wall? Everywhere throughout Australia where wheat is grown the farmers are meeting together and registering their protest against the treatment they are receiving from the Government. They have been through the mill, and they know what prospect f a.ccs them. They are not holding these meetings and registering these protests just from mere cussedness. In my district there are farmers whose children are ill-fed and ill-clothed in this land of plenty. Their debts are piling up, and there seems to be no hope of relief. And these men are tryers, men who have blazed the trail. They have faced and overcome tremendous obstacles. They and their families have tamed the wilderness, and turned what was practically a desert into farm lands. Last year’s crop was a prolific one, but because of low prices it turned out to be a liability rather than an asset. They are not asking for much. They are not even asking for the cost of production as established by the Gepp Commission, namely, 3s. 6d. a bushel at country sidings. They are to-day asking only for 3s. 4d. a bushel at country sidings, with an initial government advance of 2s. 6d. A few days ago, the Prime Minister said that arrangements had been made with the Commonwealth Bank for the purchase of wheat through the Australian Wheat Board at 2s. 9d. a bushel for bagged wheat, and 2s. 7d. a bushel for bulk wheat, less freight from the railway siding to the point of delivery for shipment overseas. Those of us who have had practical experience know what the railway freights and the other charges will be. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a Sydney merchant stated the other day that a price of 2s. lOd. a bushel at country sidings would give a net return to the growers of ls. 11¾d., but the Government is offering only 2s. 9d. How can the farmers be expected to produce wheat at less than 2s. a bushel ? The cost of bagging alone is 4d. a bushel, so that the return to the growers would be only ls. 7d. a bushel without other charges. In addition, the growers have to pay 2d., 3d., and even as much as 4d. a bushel for carriage from the farm to the railway siding. Therefore, it is absurd to expect them to produce wheat at the price offered. The bedrock price is 3s. 4d. and they should not be asked by the ‘ Government to accept less. At first it was proposed to take freight charges out of the initial payment of ls. 9d. for bagged wheat and ls. 7d. for bulk wheat, so that the advance would be only about ls. Representations were made to the Government and the Prime Minister - a very liberal man - said that freight charges would be taken not out of the first payment, but out of the second payment of ls. a bushel. To-day, the Prime Minister said that the wheat-growers were being treated very liberally as they would be getting the first and second payments almost together. If that is so, the concession in regard to freight charges will not be worth much. I have received sheaves of letters and telegrams from all over my electorate, protesting against the Government’s proposal.
I desire now to say something regarding the compulsory acquisition of the barley crop. There is not a great deal of barley produced in Australia, and only about 6j000,000 bushels are available for export over and above what is required by the local brewers and maltsters. That being so, I cannot see why the Government should have wanted to acquire the barley crop. Nevertheless, it has appointed a Barley Board, probably in order to provide jobs for some of its friends. Again, it took action without consulting Parliament, and without consulting those actively engaged in the industry, or making any provision for the representation of growers on the board. A Commonwealth Barley Board was established with head-quarters in Adelaide, and a subordinate board was set up in New South “Wales under the chairmanship of Mr. MacDonald, a very able officer. The board has told the growers that they cannot sell their harley except to the pool. Even if the barley is of inferior quality, it cannot be sold for stock feed, but all samples must be submitted to the sole receiving agent in New South Wales, namely Tooth and Company. It is a scandal that a monopoly like Tooths should be appointed the only receiving agents in New South Wales for barley and be thereby placed in the position of being able to say to a barleygrower, “ Your barley is not good enough for malting purposes, but send it to us and we shall dispose of it for you at 2s. 3d. a bushel less freight of, say, 7d. a bushel “. When the cost of the bag, about ls., is taken from that return, there is nothing left for the barley-growers. If the growers were allowed to retain that barley which is not suitable for malting, they could dispose of it locally at 100 per cent, more than they will get if their product is handled through Tooth and Company. A letter which I propose to read is typical of many that I have received. It is from the secretary of the Dunedoo branch of the Farmers and Settlers Association, and it reads -
Recently, on behalf of members, I forwarded samples of malting barley to Messrs. Tooheys and Tooths, asking if they were interested in purchasing about 1,000 bags. Fair samples of the grain tried over a government chrondometer showed 57-58 lb. to the bushel, this being 7-8 lb. over f.a.q. The grain is clean, free from any foreign matter, smut or bleaching, and according to farmers who have grown barley in southern district it is a good sample. Advice has been received from Tooheys that they have passed their sample on to Tooths, who have been appointed sole receivers on behalf of the Barley Board for barley and all New South Wales barleys must go through them. Tooths have replied that the sample is totally unfit for malting, and as soon as they receive instructions from the board as to receivals of rejected barley, they will advise rae and the grower can truck to them. Now, sir, you probably know as well as I do that the breweries are the biggest users of barley and the only users to any extent. It is a general talk amongst growers that it is impossible to .get a fair deal from the breweries, as they always have some fault to find for dockage, yet take the grain and use it. lt appears to me to be strange that a grain that ;goes 7-8 lb. above f-a.q. should ‘be of such little use as Tooths state. The fact that they have been the sole appointees for receiving barley in this ‘State is damnable, as you know well that they are the biggest monopoly that is in existence to-day and being in league with Tooheys, they can get good barley at their own price. I am forwarding you a sample under separate cover and would like to get some advice on the matter, viz., who are the Barley Board; would they know barley if they saw it; Where can one get in touch with them; it is compulsory that all barley in this State must go to Tooths; and why has this monopoly in the liquor trade been given the monopoly iu the barley trade? I think you will agree with me that the whole business, if correct, is rotten and it would be appreciated if you could gather some more information and air matters on the floor of the House. I will be pleased to receive any information possible and place it before my members.
I have grown many thousands of bushels of barley and I have sold for malting much barley that was inferior to the sample that I received. Another man came 60 miles from Curlewis to see me at my home in Tamworth and told me that if it were not for the existence of the Barley Board, he would be able to sell his barley to north-coast farmers for pig feed. I told that to Mr. MacDonald, but he said that the man could not do it because the Commonwealth Government had acquired the Australian barley crop. He said that he was fully seised of the fact that it was an injustice to the man to compel him to sell his barley in Sydney, but that was the position. The chairman of the Barley Board had gone to Western Australia and there was nothing that could be done about it. Subsequently, I received a letter from li. M. Henry and Company Limited, of Curlewis, to this effect -
One of our clients, Mr. Doel, has 1,000 bags of trabet barley, which is supposed to be a malting barley. As all such barley has now been acquired by the Commonwealth Government and is now under the care of the Australian Barley Board, for whom Messrs. Tooth and Company of Sydney are the New South Wales representative, we imagine they would be in a position to advise the grower what to do with .the harley. Mr. Doel has applied to Tooth and Company. They say his barley is not suitable for malting. At the same time, they will not indicate what he can do with his product, and it is now standing in his paddocks, where it runs the risk of damage or destruction by rain or fire at any .time.
I ask the Government to take up this matter with a view to the appointment of a committee of experts to assess the quality and the value of barley crops. It is not right that Tooth and Company should have that duty. The present situation calls for loud condemnation.
– What right has a brewery to maintain a hold on barley not fit for malting purposes?
– Absolutely no right at all.
– It is an impossible situation.
– Yes. I have exposed the absolute incompetence of the Wheat Board and the Barley Board.
– What have you to say about the Prime Minister’s statement relevant to the curtailment of wheat production ?
– That is important. Before the Government takes any action in that direction, 1 trust that it will do so only after consultation, not with wheatfarmers of Pitt-street or Sussex-street, but with the representatives of the wheatgrowers throughout Australia. They must be invited to a conference at Canberra. The wheat industry is in a perilous condition and the small wheatgrowers must be protected. In my electorate alone there are dozens of big estates on which, because of mass production and the employment of modern machinery, which the smaller men cannot alford, wheat can be produced profitably even on existing rates. That sort of thing forces out of wheat production the small men, the pioneers who have developed and maintained our country towns and done so much to attract people from the cities, thereby helping to diminish centralization, which is the curse of this country. The way in which to overcome the difficulties which beset the wheat industry at present is to have more small and less big wheat-farmers. The solution of the difficulty is to give a payable price in respect of the first 3,000 or 4,000 bushels produced. [Leave to continue given.] That would ensure stability and keep the small farmers on their holdings.
My electorate has a very equable climate, and just as its wheat crop is an early crop so too is the shearing season early. I have had transmitted to me a complaint in respect of the conservative way in which the No. 1 catalogue of the wool season has been appraised. I have the following letter on the subject : -
I wish to draw your attention to the position of those wool-growers whose clips were appraised in the number one catalogue of the season, and to ask you to use your influence to bring pressure on the powers that be to make a re-adjustment of the appraised prices of the clips included in this catalogue, t think all are satisfied with the British purchase price of 13.437d. per lb., but we complain that we are not getting a fair share of that average price. I write on behalf of several neighbours and myself who have consistently obtained at auction a little more than the average for the Commonwealth, whereas under the appraisement we secured two-pence less than the 13.437d. Certainly our wool contained burr, but no more than in previous years, when our wool realized more than the average for the season. We are told (as a means of pacifying us) that we may receive a dividend at the end of the season, but so will the growers with the freer wools, and as the dividend will be distributed pro rata, .they will again get more than their share. So many protests were lodged after the results of the first appraisements were released that prices for the second catalogue were much more satisfactory, but that does not help those who were unfortunate enough to have had their clips in the number one catalogue.
I have authority to refer to the writer’s brokers, Messrs. Pitt, Son and Badgery, for their opinion of the value of the clip. They are experts in their calling and their judgment should be sound. It is almost admitted by those who made the earlier appraisements that their estimates were on the conservative side. Wool which is being appraised now and which will be appraised later may be valued much more liberally. Nevertheless, the growers whose clips were valued in the No. 1 catalogue will have no redress. Their position is much worse than that of the growers whose clips have been appraised later. ‘The Government should regard this matter in a serious light and approach the Central Wool Committee in an endeavour to secure some redress by a system of arbitration and comparison of opinions of the respective brokers. Wool produced in the northwestern districts of New South Wales this year is of even much better quality than in previous years when it was priced at Id. per lb. above the average. Therefore there is just cause for complaint, for the men whose wool was appraised in No. 1 catalogue are losing practically 3d. per lb. Many of them are down to bedrock financially and payment of a further 3d. per lb. for their wool might mean to them the difference between being able to continue and ruination.
– What reasons were given for refusing the owners the right to witness the appraisals?
– A great measure of secrecy has been preserved in relation to the whole system of appraisement. Men who have applied to Ministers in order to discover the basis of the assessment of their clips have been referred to the Wool Appraising Board, but information has been denied them. I, myself, have been informed by the responsible Minister that no information is available. Why should not a grower be taken into the confidence of the Central Wool Committee regarding the appraisement of his wool? All that is done in that direction is to publish a general assessment value in the newspapers. It is extraordinary that this secrecy should be maintained, particularly in view of the ramifications of the Central Wool Committee. Men in its employ as appraisers are paid fabulous sums. A list of their names and salaries published in a leading weekly journal recently disclosed that, although some of them were receiving only £250, £300 and £400 a year in recent years as wool classers, they are to-day in receipt of as much as £750, £900, £1,000 and £1,200 a year. Why should such colossal salaries be paid for this kind of work?
– Do the growers have to pay them?
– I have asked that question, and I have not yet been supplied with a satisfactory reply. It is doubtful whether we shall ever be given any information freely and openly relating to these matters. The Government, which is the supreme controlling authority in matters affecting the disposal of primary products, should insist on the divulging of such information. The Commonwealth Wheat Board and the Central Wool Committee represent the big business interests.
– Does the honorable member think, that the outcome of the re-sale of primary products in the “last war is causing a great deal of doubt to-day?
– Yes. It is causing an extraordinary amount of doubt. Primary producers view with alarm the fact that in the event of the ultimate return of proceeds from wool sold outside the United Kingdom, the growers will receive only 50 per cent. I, in common with other honorable members, want to know why the growers should not receive the whole of any profits from the re-sale of wool outside the United Kingdom. Without doubt, the British Government will secure a sufficient rake-off from the large wool interests within the United Kingdom. “All of the payments to men employed in connexion with the disposal of primary products have been on a liberal scale; particularly so in connexion with the chairman of the Central Wool Committee, the chairman of the Commonwealth Wheat Board, and, I expect, the chairman of the Barley Board. I am informed by another honorable member who made inquiries in the matter that the chairman of the Commonwealth Wheat Board is paid £3,000 a year, plus £2,000 a year disability allowance because he has had to come to the eastern States from Western Australia. He is paid £5,000 a year without question, yet there is a quibble about paying an extra 2d. or 3d. a bushel in order that wheatgrowers may remain solvent.
– He will only receive salary for one year.
– But wheat-growers are getting less than 2s. a bushel for their wheat for the same period.
– The honorable gentleman might be surprised to know that the chairman of the Wheat Board is paid only £750 a year.
– I am surprised. I have asked for this information, and have been told that no remuneration had been fixed. The figures I quoted were supplied to me by another honorable member.
– The honorable member should make sure of his facts before making such statements.
– I would like to make the correction. I find that it is the manager of the Commonwealth Wheat Pool who is receiving the salary of £5,000 per annum. The other members of the board are receiving what may be termed reasonable salaries of £500’ a year and expenses. Members of another board will be paid. £5 5s.. a sitting and £2 2s. a day living allowance, making a total of £1 7s. a day. That shows the. liberal manner in which these Pitt-street and Collins-street farmers, the. wealthy city interests, are being paid. They are the men who have been “farming the farmers “ for the last 25 years, the class of which every prima;ry producer is aria-aid. This Government has handed the primary producers willy-nilly, lock, stock and barrel, bo these men. Is there amy wonder that there has been a revolt throughout the Commonwealth and that the two honorable members from Western Australia who spoke earlier in the debate have revolted in this Parliament for the first time? The revolt is infectious. I trust that the Government will ensure that some redress is given to the primary producers, who to my knowledge, as a representative of a rural constituency, are receiving harsh treatment under the present system. I hope that justice will be done before long.
.- In any discussion of financial assistance for the wheat industry, we must not lose sight of the reasons for the disabilities of the producers. I advocate fair and just treatment of wheat-farmers. It must be admitted that the wheat industry is suffering very grave disabilities at the present time. It seems that almost everything that could happen has conspired to happen at this time in order to make their position probably worse than it has been for many years. World conditions were definitely adverse for wheat-growers even before the outbreak of war, but the advent of hostilities has accentuated their plight. Foremost among the disabilities not connected directly with the war is that of capital values, which are far too high.
– What does the honorable member suggest should be done?
– When world conditions are less disturbed’ this Government and the State governments must tackle these problems. It is- up to the Commonwealth Government to take some action in regard to world marketing. When world political conditions subside- a little,, a*n international organization coul’d be formed with a view to the adjustment of relations on a firm basis, so that the wheat industry can export its crops under reasonable conditions. Some agreement should be reached between the States and the Commonwealth in relation to the reduction of capital values, whichwere pushed up too high, in some cases by government action, both State and’ Federal.
I direct attention now to the question of marginal areas. Many Australian wheat-growers on- marginal- areas’ are suffering’ severe hardship at the present time. and should not be allowed to remain on those areas. I have very sad recollections of action that was- taken in this House to prevent farmers from being moved away from marginal areas.
Another point that I should like to make has already been mentioned by the honorable- member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse). If the- wheat industry is to be given assistance along the lines, proposed by different sections of this House, there should be some limitation of production. I do- not contend that the money of the taxpayers- should be used to place the industry on a profitable basis if the growers are to be allowed to produce as much as can be produced. I believe that, but for the outbreak of war, the- Government would have made a reasonable proposition in connexion with the stabilization of the industry. I was in very close contact with the Minister for Commerce (Senator McLeay) at the time, and believe that some scheme was beingformulated under which the industry would have been placed on a sound basis. The war upset all of those calculations. There had to be some different treatment of the industry, and the Government wasfaced with- one of. the most difficult problems in the history of the federation. In addition to a huge expenditure on account of the war, it had to take charge of not only the wheat industry, but alsothe wool and fruit industries and many other minor industries,, for which financehad to be provided. Frankly, I do not know how the wheat industry is tocarry on under the proposals of the Government, or where the money would be procured if greater assistance were to be given to it. I suggest that the Government should give very keen consideration.- to the proposals embodied in the amendment of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) which, although not payable to the industry and not a very great advance on the proposals of the Government itself, are quite reasonable. The proposal of the Government is for a payment of 2s. 9d. a bushel in bags and 2s. 7d. a bushel in bulk, at ports.
– Less freight.
– Less freight. Adjustments having been made, the amount will be 2s. 41/2d. a bushel. The proposal of the honorable member for Swan is for a payment of 2s. 6d. a bushel, which represents a difference of only l1/2d. a bushel. I have received letters approving of the Government’s scheme. Before the outbreak of war, wheat-growers wrote to me stating that, in their opinion, 2s. 9d. a bushel was all that could reasonably be expected.
– Does the honorable member consider that that is sufficient ?
– No, I do not think that it is a payable price. Very keen consideration should be given both by the industry and by the Government to what is a reasonable price. Other industries, of which the fruit-growing industry is one, are operating at less than production costs. The Prime Minister has remarked that this is not the only liability of the Commonwealth. I take that to indicate that the final word has not been said in regard to the wheat industry. It cannot be, for the simple reason that finality in regard to payment to the farmer must depend upon the sales that are made to Great Britain. Those are not known, and they cannot be known for some time. I believe that negotiations are proceeding with Great Britain as to the quantity of wheat to be disposed of, and the price to be paid. Obviously, these negotiations will have an effect on the final price to the farmer, who may ultimately receive well over what is a payable amount. The Prime Minister has stated that the whole of the £2,000,000 which he promised, conditionally some time ago and unconditionally later, will be utilized in giving assistance to the industry if the price realized does not exceed 3s. 4d. a bushel. If the price obtained from the British Government is a reasonable one, it may be possible for the industry to receive a payable figure without having to draw on that £2,000,000.
I sincerely suggest that the Government should give consideration to the amendment of the honorable member for Swan, and adopt his proposal if that be possible with the limited funds at its disposal. I should like the industry to receive a really good price above what is merely the cost of production - naturally, every body would - but I realize the enormous expenditure that the Government has to meet. I was not very pleased to hear the remarks of the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Scully) in regard to the payment of an enormous salary to the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. The honorable member was labouring under a misapprehension. His remarks should have been directed at the manager of the pool.
I criticize the Government for its seeming lack of regard for this industry. I know that it is working diligently and earnestly with a view to making some fair recompense to the industry. Probably because it has been so absorbed with many other matters it has not thought fit to make a proper explanation of what has been transpiring; consequently, there is considerable confusion and misunderstanding in the industry concerning what is being done, and unfortunately very many persons in the community have taken advantage of the situation to spread misleading statements, inflaming the minds of the wheatgrowers and causing a good deal of discontent. Initially the fault lay with the Government for not having taken the industry more into its confidence. I do not believe that there is need for close secrecy in regard to the negotiations with the British Government or the proposals of different sections of the industry or of different organizations.
There is very great room for criticism of the personnel of the Wheat Board. There is reason to believe that the preponderance on the board of representatives of shippers, or of what might be termed the biff business men in the industry, will lead to a certain degree of subordination of the activities of others connected with theindustry. I do not believe that the growers will get the consideration that they ought to receive from those who are on the board. Then there are others, such as those who must become receivers for the licensed agents, whose activities may be seriously curtailed. These men were previously engaged in the industry as .buyers and distributors, and their functions should be properly denned so that they will be properly remunerated for the work that they do. I have no criticism to offer in respect of the total amount of remuneration for the shifting of the wheat from the farm to the ship or the mill - that, I think, will be worked out on a3 fair a basis as can be expected at a time like the present - but the Minister should exercise very careful supervision of the different stages of remuneration from the farmer to the ship. There are very many stages through which the wheat will have to pass, and each stage should be remunerated according to the work done. Those who become receivers for the licensed agents, will probably have to fight very hard to obtain proper remuneration. As some of those who will be licensed agents will also be members of the Wheat Board, there is very grave suspicion that the remuneration at their end of the activities will be proportionately greater than at the receivers’ end. The receivers for licensed agents should be entitled to appeal to the department or the Minister if they consider that their interests are being jeopardized. The Government has said that it wants to have as little disturbance of business as possible. This is one avenue in which it can give genuine help.
I join with those who make some complaint in regard to the appraisement of wool, but not with those who criticize the figure which was arrived at after very long bargaining between representatives of the Commonwealth and British Governments. There is room for a great deal more consideration of the way in which the appraisement has been undertaken. One type of wool that has been appraised at 30£d. per lb. this year brought much more than 3d. per lb. less last year, but many other wools are being appraised this year at the same figure as they were sold for last year. Another wool I have in mind has been appraised at 15½d. per lb. Compared with the wool at 30£d. per lb. that shows a considerable dis- parity, as both wools come from a similar breed of sheep, though they are of course, of different count. Such a variation of price can be understood when the wool is sold at auction, for there may be a demand for wool of one type at one time and no demand for it at another time; but under the appraisement scheme there should be no preference in respect of time; values should remain constant throughout the year. I know the wool industry better than I know any other primary industry and I am of the opinion that the appraisements are not being made uniformly. With many appraisers we should expect some little difference in appraisements, but I suggest to the Government that the variations under the present! scheme are too great.
I appeal to the Government to take into its confidence, to a greater degree than it has hitherto done, the people engaged in the different primary-producing industries, the products of which it is handling. I refer particularly to wool, wheat and fruit.
I congratulate the Government and its officers on the action that has been take, in regard to fresh fruit. Quite reasonable assistance has been given to this industry. Unfortunately, outside influences have made themselves felt among the fruit-growers of my district who this year will have only about 10 per cent. of their normal crop of apples.
– That is why the honorable member is not interested in apples
– I am sorry to hear the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) make that remark, for I attended a deputation on this subject recently and did not see the honorable member there.
– I ran out because I saw too many hypocrites there.
– Order ! The honorable member’s remark is distinctly unparliamentary.
– In connexion with the fruit industry, however, as with other industries I have mentioned, the Government should give the growers more information. We have been told that 75 per cent, of the apple and pear crop is to be taken over, but what is to happen to the other 25 per cent. ? A good deal of it will consist of quite useful fruit. Does the Government propose to permit it to be disposed of in competition with the 75 per cent. which it intends to handle, or will the growers be allowed to dispose of it “ under the lap “ ? Some information should be given on this matter. Another aspect of this subject that is agitating the minds of the proprietors of the cool stores is what the Government is going to do in regard to storage. A statement on this point should be made promptly.
The Government deserves sympathy because of the very many difficulties which it has had to face, but I feel that it would be able to meet the situation much more effectively if it took the producers more completely into its confidence.
.- I desire to speak briefly on the important matter of the disposal of our primary products. This subject is one of the most significant that the Parliament could debate as approximately 92 per cent. of our exports to the Mother Country, and to other countries, are primary products from the proceeds of which we expect to pay our interest bill and also to meet the cost of our imports. In these circumstances, the importance of the subject could scarcely be exaggerated. I have in my electorate producers of twelve of the sixteen items with which the Government is dealing, so my interest in primary production can be easily understood.
I shall deal first with wool. It has been estimated that our wool clip this year will reach 900,000,000 lb. and will be worth £54,000,000. I have travelled extensively throughout my vast electorate in the last few weeks, and have discussed the wool situation with large and small growers. I have not met one man who is satisfied with the appraisements. Among the people with whom I have discussed the subject have been growers who sell up to 1,000 bales of wool each year. The political complexion of such people is generally pink; it is certainly not red. But those people, in common with the small growers, are dissatisfied. During the last war, our wool was sold to the British Government for 151/2d. per lb., but in comparing that price with the prices being obtained for the present wool clip we have to remember that since the last war the cost of living in Australia, in consequence of the awards of Arbitration Courts, the determinations of Wages Boards, and other circumstances, has increased by 43 per cent. If that increased cost affects the producers of wool, they would require an increase of 43 per cent. on 151/2d. per lb. in order to get the equivalent of the price received during the last war. In the light of those facts, can the present price of approximately 131/2d. per lb. be justified? The average prices received by woolgrowers in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa for the last ten years were respectively, ll1/2d.,81/2d., and 81/2d. per lb. in Australian currency. That is to say. the average price in Australia for that period was 3d. per lb. more than in the other two dominions. I have not been able to ascertain the exact position in South Africa, although I understand that it is definitely more favorable than in Australia, but I am able to say that the price received for the New Zealand clip is within3/4d. per lb. of the Australian price. Those figures show conclusively that the Australian clip was sold too cheaply. Some days ago I estimated that the price was 2d. per lb. too low, and since making my estimate I find that the Graziers Association has arrived at the same conclusion.
– The Minister said that officials of the Graziers Association agreed with the price.
– An industry in which 100,000 persons are employed will have associated with it a number of individuals who will speak for themselves rather than for the industry. I can only say again that I have not met one wool-grower in South Australia who is satisfied with the appraisements. It may be said that the wool-growers are biased in this matter, and therefore I approach the subject from a different aspect. If the cost of producing wool is 40 per cent., or 50 per cent., higher than during the last war when Australian wool was sold at 151/2d. per lb. how can it be said that 131/2d. per lb. now is a fair price ? The comparison which I have already given between the prices in Australia and New Zealand is, I submit, conclusive evidence that the Australian clip has been sold too cheaply.
Australian wool is vital to Great Britain. In that respect, wool is entirely different from wheat. Great Britain cannot do without our wool, and the demand for it has been intensified since the outbreak of war. I could cite numbers of authorities who have said that the price for which the wool had been sold is too low. It is significant that the captains of industry at Bradford, England, have expressed astonishment that the Australian clip should have been disposed of so cheaply. The price of 131/2d. per lb. in Australian currency means only 103/4d. sterling. Based on gold, it means only 5d. per lb. I can imagine what the average Australian wool-growe r would say if he were told that his wool had been sold for 5d. per lb.
– The Labour party has always said that the gold standard was of little importance.
– I was making a comparison between present prices and the prices realized when Australia was on the gold standard.
The position would be different if only the wool required for the fighting services of Great Britain had been sold at such a low figure. The supply at low prices of the wool needed to protect the British people is entirely different from its sale to the Bradford wool ring, one of the biggest monopolies in the world, at the expense of the Australian producer.
– What price would the wool bring if offered at auction, and producers had to take their chance?
– The price would be higher than it is to-day.
– Who would transport it to its destination ?
– In times of war, higher prices are inevitable. I do not underestimate the difficulties associated with the transport of our produce to the other side of the world; nor do I desire to belittle the importance of the British navy; but the sale of vital products of this country at prices below those at which the producers can afford to sell, is a serious matter. During the last war, the debt structure of the wool industry was insignificant compared with the position to-day. There are 100,000 wool-growers in Australia at the present time, and it is estimated that their present indebtedness amounts to £170,000,000. That debt could be reduced if the Australian wool-growers received anything like world parity for their product. I agree that in this matter preference should be given to the defence forces of the Old Country, but beyond the requirements of the British Government for war purposes the Australian growers are entitled to world parity price for their exportable surplus less a certain percentage for the protection of our productsby the British navy.
Considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst wool-growers regarding the appraisement of wool. It has been definitely stated that the appraisements have been less than the price for which similar wool was sold last year when prices were low. In South Australia we grow a bold wool with a heavier fleece to each sheep than is obtained in other States of the Commonwealth. Bold wool always brings a slightly lower price than the finest wool, such as that grown in the Blue Mountains, the southern tablelands of New South Wales and other partsof the Commonwealth. Farmers complain that this bold wool, which is of relatively low value., is being appraised at less than the price at which it was sold last year.It has been said during this debate that wool is bringing over 30d. per lb. The graziers have asked if the British authorities have definitely instructed the wool appraisers to appraise wool acquired for usein the manufacture of British war materials at a lower value than that which they propose to sell to France because the British Government will retain 50 per cent. of the profit accruing from the sale of wool to France.
– But the finest wools are receiving a relatively lower appraisement.
– That is not what I have been told. I. doubt very much whether the Commonwealth Government has any great control over the appraisers ; because, after all, the Commonwealth is acting only as the agent for the British Government in the purchase of the wool. The appraisers should be compelled to adhere to the basis on which their first appraisements were made. Honorable members have suggested to-night that the appraisers have already shifted their ground. They should not be permitted to do so ; because, if any departure is made from the basis already adopted, a great injustice will be inflicted on those growers whose clips have already been appraised.
Next in importance and value in the list before us are dairy products. Few people in this country realize that in this arrangement for the sale of our primary products the dairying industry is of more importance than the wheat industry. Dairy products, that is butter, cheese and eggs, to the value of £15,000,000 are to be sold to the British Government, whereas only £S,000,000 worth of wheat is to be acquired. Apparently in these arrangements the biggest industry in this country is but an “ also ran “. This shows the tragic position to which the wheat industry has receded.
The problems that confront the wheat-growers have exercised the minds of governments in Australia for quite a considerable time. The wealth of material and information gained by successive governments in respect of the wheat industry is such that no government can claim that it is unaware of the true position. Only recently there was a first-class quarrel over the industry which led to a show-down. [ have always held that, because of its size and its interstate character, assistance to the wheat industry is undoubtedly a federal responsibility. We cannot say that the sugar industry, for instance, is of importance equal to that of the wheat industry.
– We all pay too much for sugar.
– That is probably true, and it cannot be denied that the sugar-growers get a payable price for their product.
– Do not be so sure of that.
– As the Australian people contribute approximately £7,000,000 a year to keep the sugar industry on its feet, it should at least be a profitable proposition.
– But the export surplus is sold at world’s parity.
– If the whole of the sugar crops were sold to Australian consumers the growers would make handsome profits. I admit that difficulty arises in connexion with the disposal of the export surplus on the world’s market.
Sugar is, perhaps, the only primary product not produced in my electorate. In regard to wheat, shipping will be a great difficulty, but the greatest difficulty will be in selling, our surplus produce overseas. Who is to be held responsible when a great primary industry like the wheat industry is rapidly becoming insolvent? If the present price levels continue we shall have, not hundreds of insolvencies amongst the farmers, but thousands. At the present time, over £150,000,000 is owing on 50,000 farms. The industry, as I have said, is becoming insolvent, and we cannot afford to allow it to do so. It is still the most important industry in the country. It is recognized all over the world that where an industry is worth saving, as is the wheat industry in Australia, it is necessary to use the credit of the country in order to save it. The farming community in Australia demands that the nation’s, bank should use the credit structure of the country to support the primary industries in their difficulty. The banks alone cannot undertake the task; the Government must do it through the Commonwealth Bank.
– The honorable member was complaining a moment ago of the tremendous credit expansion that had already taken place in the industry.
– I was speaking of the farmers’ debts.
– There must be credit before you can create debt.
– With the development of machinery, production is increasing more and more in every phase of industry. At the present time, we have seven horse-power working in Australia for every man, woman and child, and it is impossible to finance the tremendous increase of goods production by means of the old, orthodox financial methods. Any government that does not realize the changed position will be swept aside. The credit structure of the nation must be used to serve the nation’s industries. It is possible to save the wheat industry only by the utilization of the nation’s credit through the Commonwealth Bank. There is no other way; Recently, the British Government declared, in regard to its plans for the production of a colossal air armada in
Canada, that as fast as the machines were built and the pilots trained the debt would be written off. We must realize that we cannot continue expenditure at the present rate, and just go on taxing more and more a community that is receiving less and less.
The Labour party has had a definite policy in regard to the wheat industry for a number of years. The details can be altered to meet varying conditions, but in essentials it is the same as it always was. Rightly or wrongly - wrongly, I believe - the policy of tariff protection has been adopted by practically every country in the world. Secondary industries are everywhere being assisted, and we say that those engaged in the primary industries are also entitled to protection to ensure them a fair return. A few years ago the Wheat Commission, which cost £45,000, made an exhaustive inquiry into the wheat industry. I believe that if the commission had interviewed 50 representative men in this country, at a probable cost of £500 or £600, it would have found out all that was necessary. However, it did a good job, and the Labour party believes that its report is worthy of respect. We believe that the minimum priceproposed by the commission should be accepted. The people of Australia know the policy of the Labour party in regard to this industry. It was made clear when the Scullin Government was in power, but the United Australia party and the Country party members killed the scheme put forward by that Government, and threw the farmers to the financial wolves. I know the feeling in my electorate regarding the position of the industry, and I know that the farmers are turning in thousands to the Labour party as their only salvation. When we are confronted with the spectacle of farmers going on strike just at harvest time it is evident that the situation is becoming desperate. Even front-bench members of the Country party are making speeches that might have fallen from members on this side of the House.
The wheat industry must be saved. Something might be done by taking men from the marginal areas and putting them on good country, but that is a long job. In the meantime, farmers must be assured of a payable price for their crop. If that is not given to them, I hope that this Government will be defeated, notwithstanding that we are engaged in war. The primary industries supply the economic life-blood of the country; they provide 92 per cent. of our exports, pay the whole of our interest bill overseas, and pay for our imports as well. No Government is worthy of the confidence my life, I know that the wheat-growers importance of the primary industries. The Prime Minister, notwithstanding his extensive legal knowledge, is quite unable to grasp the difficulties of the wheat-growers. [Leave to continue given.] Having attended more meetings of wheat-growers during recent months than I have attended duringthe whole of my life, I know that the wheat-growers are in earnest, and that if the Government wishes to avoid further difficulties it must at once settle the major problem of disposing of the Australian wheat crop at a price favorable to the growers. Improved transport arrangements, particularly in the matter of freight reductions, would assist materially in more rapid disposal of a large quantity of our primary products, particularly fruit. I trust that the Government will take up the subject of cheaper railway freights with the State authorities in an endeavour to reduce the cost of transporting perishable products. Such a system was introduced in Queensland many years ago, with most beneficial results, and activities in that State are now more decentralized than in any other part of the Commonwealth, due principally to the fact that cheap transport is provided. If Queensland can assist its producers in that way, surely other States can do so. When I visited the northern portion of my electorate recently I found that although I was 1,000 miles from Adelaide I was not one-half way across the continent. It is unfair to ask producers to operate 600 miles from the sea-board and to pay full transport charges both ways, because means other than high railway freights should be provided to produce revenue. This Government and the Government which immediately preceded it provided for a remission of land taxes which up to the present amount to approximately £9,000,000, while at the same time it has increased the sales tax which has to be paid by pensioners, who are probably the poorest section of the community.
– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in discussing taxes on this motion.
– The point I am making is that by reducing the cost of transport the volume of traffic would be greater, and consequently the revenue would increase. It is decidedly unfair to increase the taxes upon the poorer section of the community when 60 per cent. of the land is owned by wealthy persons in the cities.
– Order ! The honorable member is again out of order.
– I realize that this Government has to solve some of the greatest problems which any government has to solve, particularly if the war situation becomes intensified. The problems we have been debating to-day are of vital importance to the Commonwealth, and the Opposition is endeavouring to assist the Government by constructive criticism such as that offered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) and other honorable members on this side of the chamber. The Government has abandoned many portions of its policy. It can solve some of our problems by adopting constructive suggestions of honorable members on this side of the chamber. I earnestly trust that the war will soon terminate; that the madness which now prevails will cease, thus enabling the nations to live peacefully with one another.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Nock) adjourned.
page 1393
Queensland Director of Department of Information: Comments on Parliamentary Utterances.
Motion (by Mr. Street) proposed -
That the House do now adjourn.
– I wish to state that the paragraph which appeared in a newspaper published in my electorate and referred to earlier in the proceedings to-day also appeared in other newspapers.
– The honorable member will not be in order in reviving a debate on that subject.
– I do not intend to do so. I merely wish to state that the paragraph referred to appeared in a number of newspapers published in Queensland and not only in the newspaper mentioned earlier to-day.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1393
The following papers were presented -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1939 -
No. 25 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.
No. 26 - Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia; and Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.
No. 27 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.
Audit Act - Transfers of amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial year 1938-39.
Customs Act - Regulations, &c. - Statutory Rules 1939, Nos. 92, 101.
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Defence purposes - Bullsbrook, Western Australia.
National Security Act -
National Security (Prices) Regulations - Order No. 31.
Regulations Amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1939, Nos. 148, 150, 152.
House adjourned at 11.4 p.m.
page 1393
n asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -
– The questions asked by the honorable the Leader of the Country party relate to matters of law, with respect to which it is not usual to express opinions in reply to questions. Apart, however, from the practice in relation to such questions, it might be misleading to answer any of the questions by a simple negative or affirmative. The question whether copyright exists in any particular case is one to be determined on the facts of that case. It might, however, be stated in general terms that copy- right does not arise by reason only of the existence of a matter of fact.
n asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
What are the rates paid to rank and file members, (i) married, and (ii) single, of the (a) voluntary militia; (b) compulsory trainees: (c) Second Australian Imperial Force; (d) Naval Reserve; (e) Reserve Forces; and (f) Royal Australian Air Force?
– The rates paid to the rank and file members of the defence forces are as follows: -
In addition to the rates of pay shown above, members of all the forces mentioned receive free lodging, fuel and. light, rations, uniform and medical treatment or cash allowances in lieu.
k asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -
– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information : -
e asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon n otice-
– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information : -
y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -
Will he give a direction to the Central Wool Committee to supply, upon application by a wool-grower, information as to the yields placed upon his wool clip by the respective appraisement boards, which information is now being denied the wool-growers?
– This matter is being referred to the Central Wool Committee.
y asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
k asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -
– These questions will be covered in a statement upon the department to be made to Parliament by the Minister during the present week.
n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
– The commission will have the right to exercise to the full the powers conferred upon it by Parliament under the act relating to broadcasting.
e asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
– It is undesirable in the business interests of both the commission and the artist to make such information public.
d. asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information : -
German Publication in Sydney.
y asked the Minister for Defence Co-ordination, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows : -
y asked the Minister for Defence Co-ordination, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -
In view of the fact that the provision of a radio and meteorological building at Geraldton aerodrome, which was originally included in the estimates of the Department of Civil Aviation for this year, has now been eliminated, will he arrange for it to be included in next year’s Estimates?
– This work will be considered, with other aviation works, in connexion with the Estimates for 1940-41.
y asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
r. - On the 16th November the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Green) asked the following questions, upon notice : -
The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
Auditor-General’s Report.
s. - On the 17th November the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) asked the following question, without notice -
Can the Prime Minister say whether the report of the Auditor-General on the accounts for the last financial year is yet available? If not, will he make inquiries as to the possibility of its being available before the discussion of the Estimates this session?
I desire to inform the honorable member that the report is not yet available, but that the printing is at present being proceeded with. Every endeavour is being made to have the report ready for presentation to Parliament during the present sittings.
s. - On the 17 th November, the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McHugh) asked the following questions, upon notice -
The Minister for the Interior has now supplied the following information: -
On the 17th November, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) asked the following questions, upon notice -
The Minister for the Interior has now supplied the following information: -
– In accordance with the promise I made on the 16th November to the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), I present a statement showing the percentages by which enlistments in the 6th Division have exceeded or fallen short of the quotas allotted to each State -
t. - On the 15th November, the honorable member forWannon (Mr. Scholfield) asked the following question, without notice: -
Can the Minister for the Army inform me whether arrangements have yet been made for the payment of travelling expenses to members of the Militia Forces who have volunteered for service in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force, when they are required to travel by train for the purpose of undergoing medical examination ?
I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that as the payment of travelling expenses in addition to fares would have far-reaching consequences and involve considerable expense, the privileges under the existing regulations cannot be extended.
s asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
How many applicants for the Militia Forces have been (a) accepted, and (b) rejected in each State?
The above figures relate to the period since the decision was made to increase the Militia Forces to 70,000. Records are not maintained of applicants rejected for reasons other than medical.
– On the 15th November, the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) asked the following question, without notice : -
Will the Minister for the Army arrange to inform militiamen regarding the dates upon which they will be called up for their period of three months’ training in camp, so that they may be able to arrange their private affairs and provide for temporary employment where necessary?
I am now in a position to inform the honorable memberthat the dates for commencement of the periods of three months’ continuous training will vary in the different commands but all concerned will be notified as early as possible after these dates have been fixed.
Magnetic Island: Telephonic Communication with Townsville.
n. - On the 17th November, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked the - following question, without notice: -
Is the Postmaster-General yet in a position to advise when telephonic communication will be established between Magnetic Island and Townsville?
I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the establishment of telephone communication between Magnetic Island and Townsville is still under consideration. Owing to the very high cost of the submarine cable scheme originally proposed, the question of providing communication . by means ofa radio service is being investigated and it is anticipated that a decision will be reached at an early date.
n asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
What are the names of the persona appointed to the Advisory Committee in connexion with price fixation?
– Owing to delay in receipt of certain information from Premiers in some States, the State Advisory Committees have not yet been formally appointed although they are functioning in most States. The following nominations havebeen received from State Premiers : -
New South Wales -
Mr. Justly Rawlings.
Mr. R. A. Marks.
Mr. M. J. R. Hughes.
Mr. C. H.Fraser.
Mrs. Eleanor Glencross.
Victoria -
Mr. F. J. Riley.
Mr. J. N. Williams.
Mr. T. W. Haynes.
Mr. P. C Oake.
Mr. H. L. Simpson.
Queensland -
Mr. P. J. Ross.
Mr. J. D. Bell.
Mr. J. B.Chandler.
Mr. E. P. Simpson.
Mr. John Reid.
South Australia -
Mr. T.P. McCormack.
Mr. Murray Fowler.
Mr. F. W. Forwood.
Mr. T. M. Nicholls.
Mrs. Sarah Allen.
Mr. J. E. May cock.
Western Australia -
Mr. E. H. Barker.
Mr. E. C. F. Barnett.
Mr. J. L. Paton.
Mr. H. L. Brisbane.
Mr. P. J. Trainer.
Tasmania -
Mr. A. J. White.
Mr. G. W. Beck.
Mr. V.S. Benjamin.
Mr. M. G. Butcher.
Mr. W. H. Nicol,
Mr. E. Dean.
Mrs. D. M. Ogilvie.
On the 16th November, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked whether it would be possible to make available to honorable members all files or information in connexion with inquiries made under the authority of the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner.
The files in question contain confiden tial information obtained tinder special powers for this purpose. It is not desirable that this informationshould be disclosed for any purposes other than those for which if was obtained. This is in conformity with normal practice where information is obtained by government authorities in the exercise of compulsory powers.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 November 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19391121_reps_15_162/>.