House of Representatives
11 September 1942

16th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 16th Parliament
  3. 1942

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. M. Nairn) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 250

DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF KENT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have received the following communication from His Excellency the Governor-General : -

I am commanded to forward the undermentioned reply from His Majesty The King to the resolution which I transmitted from the House of Representatives - “ I and my family deeply appreciate the message of sympathy from members of the Houseof Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on the death of my brother, the Duke of Kent, who, I know, was so much looking forward to the time when it would be possible for him to take up his duties as Governor-General. The kind sentiments expressed by the members of the House of Representatives afford me much consolation in my sorrow.

Georger.I.

page 251

QUESTION

GAMBLING

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– In accordance with his austerity campaign, and his attack on gambling, will the Prime Minister take steps to have enforced the provisions of the Posts and Telegraphs Act, so as to prohibit the transmission through the post of lottery tickets and other gambling matter? Will the right honorable gentleman also consider the use that is being made of the telephone service in connexion with starting-price betting operations ?

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Consideration will be given to both matters.

page 251

QUESTION

HORSE RACING

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to furnish information in relation to the matters discussed by him with racing interests yesterday?

Mr.CURTIN.- No. The deputation submitted to me certain proposals which, would effect a reduction of horse racing and all that pertains to that sport as it has been conducted. I desire to give to those proposals most carefulconsideration. I have not had an opportunity to do so since they were submitted to me in writing yesterday.

page 251

CANTEENS ADMINISTRATION

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the serious nature of the allegations made in the report of the committee which inquired into the administration of canteens, will the Minister for the Army arrange for copies of the report to be stencilled and made available to honorable members.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Action is now being taken to have some additional copies stencilled and made available, but the number must be limited because of the work involved.

page 251

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 251

QUESTION

RETIREMENTS IN POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr BECK:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– In view of the acuteness of the man-power position, and the Government’s appeal to persons reaching the retiring age not to retire, and to others who have retired to return to work if that be possible, will the Minister reprosenting the Postmaster-General insist that section 86 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, which deals with the age of retirement, shall be strictly adhered to?

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, who, I regret, is absent through illness, I shall take up the matter with the Postmaster-General.

page 251

QUESTION

STOCK EXCHANGES

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Treasurer inform the House whether the Stock Exchanges of Melbourne and Sydney are making periodical revisions of maximum and minimum prices, in accordance with the regulations, and whether there is any evidence of a black market in stocks and shares in those two cities?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not received any reports of the operation of a black market. Periodical revisions have been made of maximum and minimum prices. I shall ask the stock exchanges concerned not to make any further changes in respect of the limits.

page 251

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

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

– Will the Minister for Commerce state whether the announced prices for wheat under his new wheat scheme - namely, 4s. a bushel for the first 3,000 bushels and 2s. a bushel for surplus quantities - relate to bagged or bulk wheat? As cornsacks now cost 15s. a dozen, will the Government pay an extra amount to those farmers who supply wheat in bags, commensurate with the extra cost incurred above the cost of wheat delivered in bulk quantities?

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The prices are for bagged wheat. The matter raised in the second portion of the question will be investigated, and a reply will be furnished later.

page 251

QUESTION

MR. J. A. MENDES

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether Mr. J. A. Mendes,

Mayfair Hotel, Darlinghurst, has been granted exemption from military service ? Has the honorable gentleman had brought to his notice the fact that this gentleman boasts that it has cost him more than £100 to keep out of the Army, and that he has experienced no difficulty in keeping the male staff of the hotel out of the Army? If the honorable gentlemanis unaware of the circumstances, will he immediately call for the production of the file relating to this man Mendes and table it in Parliament as early as possible in order that honorable members may investigate the suggestion that a racket is being worked in connexion with exemption from military duty?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of the case mentioned. All such cases are dealt with by the man-power authorities and the Department of Labour and National Service, and do not come before me personally. Those authorities decide whether or not a man shall be called up for military service. I shall ask for a report in regard to this matter, and shall advise the honorable gentleman of the result.

page 252

QUESTION

WET CANTEENS

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Army under whose authority wet canteens were instituted in militia camps, in flagrant defiance of the express provisions of the Defence Act?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Wet canteens have been operating in militia camps in Australia for the greater part of the year.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– By whose authority?

Mr Rankin:

– By the authority of the Defence Act.

Mr FORDE:

– Upon the return of the Australian Imperial Force from overseas, many members of it were placed in militia camps, and worked alongside members of the Australian Military Forces. It was consequently considered advisable that all should be placed on the one footing in regard to canteens. This decision was made by the Commonwealth Government many months ago.

Later:

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) implied that wet canteens were opened in Australian Military Force camps in contravention of the law. After making inquiries, I find that National Security (Militia Forces) Regulations, Statutory Rule No. 15 of 1942, permit, the supply of liquor in military camps, notwithstanding the provisions of section 123a of the Defence Act. This provision applies not only to Australian Imperial Force camps, but also to Australian Military Force camps. The statutory rule was laid on the table of the House on the 29th- April last, and any motion for its disallowance had to be taken within fifteen sitting days. As 22 sitting days have since elapsed, a motion for the disallowance of the regulations cannot now be entertained. The experience of the commanding officers of the Australian forces is that wet canteens in the camps, under strict supervision, minimize the drunkenness that would otherwise occur when troops go on periodical leave to the nearest towns.

page 252

QUESTION

SIR EARLE PAGE

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is the Prime Minister attempting to evade a debate in connexion with a matter that I have raised on a couple of occasions, namely, the position of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) ? In what way is that right honorable gentleman’s position in relation to the Government linked to the international affairs debate to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I am not attempting to evade a debate on the matter. The resources provided by the Standing Orders ought to be adequate to enable the honorable gentleman, if he so desires, to initiate a debate in respect of this or any other subject. For example, he could refer to it quite readily on the motion for the adjournment of the House, or on the financial statement submitted by the Treasurer, if he felt so disposed. With respect to the paper on international affairs, for the printing of which a motion has been made by the Minister for External Affairs, the honorable member for Barker must be aware that in the course of the debate upon that subject reference has already been made to the matter which he desires to discuss ; in fact such a reference was made by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) himself. If it be relevant for the right honorable member for Cowper to refer to it, I cannot see that it would be out of order for any other honorable member to do so.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– When will the debate be resumed?

Mr CURTIN:

– So soon as the House has disposed of some of the matters that are listed above it on the notice-paper.

page 253

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– The Prime Minister has been reported in the press as having stated that, by a decision of Cabinet, margarine will be supplied to troops where the storage or transport of butter is not satisfactory. Will the right honorable gentleman prevent any abuse of the arrangement, to the future detriment of the dairying industry, by supplying to the chairman of the Butter Export Control Board information as to the general locations to which this decision will apply, or, failing that, undertake to have the decision properly policed, thereby assuring protection against abuse of the arrangement, in the interest of both the soldiers and the dairying industry?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The decision of Cabinet in this matter did not disregard the interests of the dairying industry, but took them well into account. We hold a strong conviction that, in order to preserve the dairying industry of Australia, it is necessary to win the war. In order to win the war, our soldiers have to be fed properly, and as economically as possible, having regard to the problem of supply to the battle stations. The advice tendered to the Cabinet is that butter, in the form in which we can provide it and store it at some of the stations where troops are engaged, will not keep. Our medical advisers have suggested the course which Cabinet has adopted. Having regard to all the factors which must be taken into account, the Cabinet has made a decision which it believes to be the proper one.

page 253

RATIONALIZATION OF BANKING

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I draw the attention of the Minister for War Organization of Industry to a statement which appeared over his name in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, of 9th September, in which he said -

The response of the banks to the Federal Government’s request for a reduction in the number of branches has not been satisfactory. The Government is determined to reduce drastically the present number of branches. Many suburbs and country towns have six or seven banks when the work could be done adequately by half the number.

In view of the fact that the policy of his department has been that small businesses must go out of production within one month of being so instructed, this term being extended in exceptional circumstances only, and that plant is taken out of small factories and placed in large ones, sometimes at 24 hours’ notice, why is the Government so solicitous for the welfare of the banks, and why does it not act towards them in the same way as it has acted towards other businesses

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– No action by my department has resulted in the closing of small businesses.

Mr Harrison:

– That is plain nonsense.

Mr DEDMAN:

– It is perfectly true. It is a fact that, because of the shortage of various supplies, some small businesses have had to close down.

Mr Harrison:

– The Minister has even refused some of them permission to carry on with the stocks which they had on hand.

Mr DEDMAN:

– I challenge any one to show that any small business has been closed down by Government regulation. So far as the banks are concerned, I am determined that branches of banks in centres where more branches than are essential are open, shall be closed down. I have had many conferences with the banks on this subject, and I intend to ensure that the policy which I have enunciated shall be applied.

page 253

QUESTION

DEFENCE OF NEW GUINEA

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Having regard to the serious and anxious situation of our forces in New Guinea, is the Prime Minister able to give any information regarding the position there? If he is not able to give the information immediately, will he do so before the House adjourns to-day?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– Fighting in Ntw Guinea is continuing, and steps have been prepared by the command to stabilize the position. I shall not be able to make any announcement until a clearer picture is available to the command. The information available indicates that the plans of the command are being proceeded with.

Mr Francis:

– Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that he is himself, in conjunction with the command, giving the matter his consideration?

Mr CURTIN:

– All I can say is that I have been in close and frequent touch during the last 4S hours with the Commander-in-Chief, and that he has been in communication with the commanders in New Guinea. Very senior officers have recently visited this area. There is the closest contact .between the officers commanding in the area, both Allied and Australian, and Military Head-quarters in Australia. Engagements are proceeding, and we have to await the result.

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen the following report of a broadcast by the Allied Commander-in-Chief in the Far East, General Sir Archibald Wavell :-

This is in no way said to cover the undoubted mistakes that were made both in preparation, planning, and handling of the forces that were available. It was a race against time, whether we could get in our reinforcements of land and air troops, especially of air troops, in time to halt the Japanese advance southwards. We lost that race by some four or five weeks. The Japanese had proved quicker than we had expected, and our reinforcements were later than we had hoped.

I now wish to refer to the speech made in the House this week by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in making more than a very brief quotation.

Mr BREEN:

– The right honorable mem, ber for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) stated -

I think, however, I can say publicly, without taking any risks, that it is a mistake to assume that Singapore was lost through lack of men.

In view of those conflicting statements regarding the loss of Singapore, will the Prime Minister reconsider the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne that a representative of the Government should be sent to New Guinea?

Mr CURTIN:

– My attention has not been directed to the remarks of Sir Archibald Wavell, but I know what the right honorable member for Cowper said, and I agree with his view that the total forces which were available were not insufficient to defend Singapore, provided all the other equipment was to hand. However, the other equipment was not available, because we did not have the requisite air strength or the command of the sea. Our naval vessels were not masters of the situation, because the air defence for them was not adequate. That, I regard as the crux of the collapse in the Malayan campaign. Regarding the suggestion that a representative of the Commonwealth Government should be sent to New Guinea, I repeat what I said yesterday, namely, that I have absolute confidence that the commanders defending New Guinea are highly competent, and the Government cannot in any way re-arrange the forces at their disposal by having a representative in New Guinea. The strength for New Guinea is derived from this Commonwealth. It has to be despatched to New Guinea by ships and aircraft, and it has to be supplied from this base. The task of the Government is to see that there are not too much “knocking” and absenteeism, and too many excuses for delays; that all men and women in the Commonwealth, whatever they are doing, shall, while this campaign is being waged, work to the .utmost of their capacity, regardless of the difficulties under which the work has to be done, and that no one 3ha.ll stay away from an essential job for any reason whatsoever.

Mr Calwell:

– My question implied that a Government representative on the spot would get more information than the Prime Minister could obtain from the reports from military advisers.

Mr CURTIN:

– Is it suggested that the reports which I get from military advisers are neither full nor accurate ‘(

Mr Calwell:

– Is it suggested that there is no need for a representative of the British Government in the Middle East?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is developing into a debate.

Mr CURTIN:

– I offer no criticism of what other Governments think proper regarding their responsibilities ; but as to what is the proper responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, I believe that enlisted men in New Guinea, adequately equipped, are far more effective in fighting the enemy than would be the visit of a Minister.

page 255

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister yet received the report of the committee which was set up to inquire into the Repatriation Act If so, can he say when the report is likely to be tabled for perusal by honorable members?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I received the report the night before last. I have asked the Repatriation Department to consider it, and to give me its advice thereon. When this is forthcoming, I shall consider the report, together with the comments of the department, and make a submission to Cabinet. This stage will probably occupy the whole of next week.

page 255

QUESTION

RATIONALIZATION OF WOOL INDUSTRY

Mr BADMAN:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the denial by the Minister for Commerce that he said, as reported in the Brisbane Courier Mail and the Adelaide Advertiser, that his department was not responsible for the scheme for the rationalization of the pastoral industry as the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Minister for War Organization of Industry, will he inform the House what he did tell the press when questioned on the subject?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– I shall take the whole matter into consideration.

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for War Organization of Industry inform the House of the names of the representatives of the Central Wool Committee, the Australian Wool-growers Council and the federal council of the Graziers Association who, he told Parliament on Wednesday, were consulted by Dr. Clunies Ross and Mr. D. A. Gill during their investigations of the pastoral industry? Will he also state when and where such discussions took place?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I shall make inquiries, and supply an answer to the honorable member as soon as possible.

page 255

QUESTION

SUR-TAX ON INCOMES

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact, as reported in yesterday’s Daily ‘Telegraph, that senior federal Ministers are considering a proposal to impose a sur-tax on incomes, the proceeds to be held by the Treasury as blocked credits to be repaid after the war? If so, will the Prime Minister say when an official statement will he made on the subject, so that honorable members may have the details before them when considering the budget proposals as a whole ? If there be no truth in the report, will the Prime Minister institute inquiries in the Department of the Treasury to ascertain, if possible, the basis for such a detailed report of alleged proposals?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The night before last I was asked whether or not such a plan was in contemplation. I said “ No “, but despite that the newspaper in question has published this statement. Yesterday afternoon, I was interrogated at the press conference, and I said that the whole of the Government’s financial proposals were now before the House in the form of the budget presented by the Treasurer. I shall ask the Treasurer to institute inquiries as to the source of the information published in the Daily Telegraph. It may be that the writer had something to go upon in the way of a plan which was under preparation by the previous Government.

Dr Evatt:

– Or else he just imagined it.

Mr Holt:

– The same newspaper published a very detailed anticipation of the budget.

Mr Chifley:

– A very good guess, perhaps.

Mr Fadden:

– No, it was too accurate.

page 255

QUESTION

WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES

Mr SHEEHAN:

– Will the Prime Minister give favorable consideration to a scheme for popularizing the purchase of war savings certificates by announcing that the certificates may be used at their face value after the war as a deposit on homes under the Commonwealth housing scheme?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– We shall give consideration to any suggestion that will popularize war savings certificates, and there is no reason why the savings of the people during the war, which they place at the disposal of the Government, should not be subsequently available for the purpose of acquiring homes, or for generally improving the standard of living of the people. Loans to the Government out of the wages fund at the present time, having regard to the inability of the people to spend the money usefully because of a shortage of goods, should reasonably be regarded as deferred pay, and the workers and soldiers and others should have available to them after the war the benefit of the savings which they are now making at the request of the Government.

page 256

QUESTION

SALE OF CARROTS

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

– Can the Minister for War Organization of Industry state how the prosecution of the war is being assisted as the result of a recent decision that carrots are to be sold by the pound in South Australia, instead of by the bunch?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I shall have inquiries made into this weighty matter, and a reply will be given later.

page 256

QUESTION

ALLIED WORKS COUNCIL

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement that responsibility in connexion with allied works rests entirely “with the Department of the Interior, will the Minister for Labour and National Service state whether the call-up for allied works is made from lists that are supplied ‘by the department that he administers ?

Mr WARD:
Minister for Labour and National Service · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Responsibility for callups for allied works is not vested in the Department of Labour and National Service. That department merely makes available to the Allied Works Council all the information in its possession. The selection of the men, and their call-up, are entirely within the province of theAllied Works Council, which is under the control of the Minister for the Interior.

Mr CALWELL:

– What Minister is responsible ?

Mr WARD:

– The Minister for the Interior.

Mr ANTHONY:

– In view of the contradictory statements concerning the responsibility for call-ups by the Allied Works Council, will the Minister for Labour and National Service say whether it is a fact that no one can be called up by that organization unless his name is selected from a list supplied by the department, and that, therefore, the real responsibility for call-ups rests, not with the Department of the Interior, but with the Department of Labour and National Service ?

Mr WARD:

– In order that the honorable member may understand all the details of the operations of the Allied Works Council, I shall indicate as soon as possible in a statement to the House the exact nature of the arrangement. But so that the honorable member will be under no misapprehension at the moment regarding the arrangement, I repeat that the call-up and the selection of men required by the council is the responsibility of, and is carried out by, that organization. The Allied Works Council is under the direct control, not of the Minister for Labour and National Service, but of the Minister for the Interior.

Mr Anthony:

– But the names on the register are not?

Mr WARD:

– The National Register is under the control of the Department of Labour and National Service, and this information is available to the Allied Works Council, -which is responsible for the call-up and selection of the men. Cases have been brought to the notice of the Allied Works Council of men being taken from essential works, and I have received complaints that information supplied by my department sometimes has been disregarded. Within the next few days, I shall prepare a complete statement for the purpose of indicating exactly how far the arrangement involves the Department of Labour and National Service.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service inform me whether his office was in any way responsible for the selection of the staff of the Allied Works Council in Sydney; whether the personnel was chosen by the Director of Man Power under an agreement reachedwith the Premiers in Canberra; or whether they were selected by the Theodore-Packer coterie, which operates in the Allied Works Council?

Mr WARD:

– The Department of Labour and National Service had nothing whatever to do with the selection of the staff of the Allied Works ‘Council in Sydney. I have no knowledge of the arrangement under which the personnel was chosen, but I shall endeavour to secure the information from the Minister for the Interior.

Later:

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service to Statutory Rule No. 170 of 1942 which, after empowering the Director of the Allied Works Council to call up men, states -

This regulation shall apply to all men of the age of eighteen years and upwards but under 60, except -

men employed in protected industries or protected undertakings within the meaning of the National Security (Man Power) Regulations.

Does not that regulation expressly forbid the Allied Works Council to call up men employed in protected industries? Is it not a fact that last week the Allied Works Council called up men engaged on the graving dock in Sydney, which is a protected and very essential work? Is the Minister aware that the Allied Works Council, when calling up these men. claimed that the jobs to which they would be sent were of a higher priority than the graving dock? Will he inform me who decides the priorities, and who has the power to interpret them?

Mr WARD:
ALP

– The practice has been for the Department of Labour and National Service to indicate to the Allied Works Council the names of men who are engaged in protected industries and who are not available for call-up. I have received complaints that some men have been called up from important works. The matter is now being investigated, and I hope to make an early statement about it.

page 257

QUESTION

WERRIBEE BEEF

Mr CALWELL:

– Is the Minister for Commerce in a position to give to the House any details regarding the satisfactory sale, wholesale and retail, of Werribee beef on the Melbourne market, following the lifting of the ban ?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– I have been informed by telegram that the results of the sale of Werribee beef in the Melbourne markets since the lifting of the ban were highly satisfactory. One truck created a record at the sales, bringing an average price of over £27 a head, despite the fact that the market was 30s. lower than on the previous sale day. The whole consignment averaged well over £23 a head. That, in itself, shows the ready demand for this very choice beef on the Melbourne market. I have been advised that the whole method of disposal has been functioning most satisfactorily, and that the public are asking for this meat.

page 257

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Mr CALWELL:

– Has the Prime Minister been advised that Mr. Crayton Burns has resigned his position as Deputy Censor for the Commonwealth and State Censor for Victoria? What are the reasons for his resignation?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of the circumstances.

page 257

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:

– I have received from the honorable member for Barker . (Mr. Archie Cameron) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The present position and prospects of the wheat industry due to the Curtin Government’s failure to honour the Menzies Government’s promise of certain payments to wheat growers for wheat delivered to the 1941-42 pool, and to the Curtin Government’s failure to provide for adequate compensation for wheat to be harvested in the current year “.

Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON (Barker)

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion supported ?

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

-I dislike having to raise the subject of the wheat industry at this juncture; but the conditions are so extraordinary, and the proposals of the Government are so novel that I am obliged once more to debate this subject. Two matters call for consideration. First, the absolute failure,or refusal, of the Government tohonour a promise that had been given regarding certain payments for wheat now in No. 5 pool. The undertakings which were given by the Menzies Government were guaranteed by this Parliament in an act passed in December, 1940, and related to payment for wheat delivered to the Government, under compulsion, during this year. The second matter is the failure of the Government to provide adequate compensation forthe coming harvest.

The Ministry has no justification for refusing to honour the promise of its predecessor and it has no right to disregard the law of the land. The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully)’ has now announced publicly an entirely new scheme for handling the coming harvest. At the outset I remind honorable members that the present crop was sown in accordance with the conditions which were prescribed in the Wheat Acquisition Act, 1940. It was not until after the crop had been sown, and the harvesting season was approaching, that the Minister made an important variation of the plan. As the result of this alteration, many wheat-growers will be hit very hard. I know that the Minister will state in reply that the action of the Government is directed against the “ tall poppies “, and that the small growers will benefit. But I remind the honorable gentleman that many ofthe people who will be hit, by the present scheme are those in the marginal areas. Generally speaking, the wheat belt of Australia has experienced one of the best seasons in its history. The Government, by its own action, has decided the acreage to be sown this vear. In fact, the Minister for Commerce has recanted on everything that he has ever said regarding the limitation of acreage, and Western Australia has been singled out for the severe reduction of 331/3 per cent. Having regard to the acreage that was to be sown, the Commonwealth Government has no right to vary the terms of payment. An important variation has been made in the previous scheme, in respect of last year’s harvest. An excess of 13,000,000 bushels was produced, almost wholly by New South Wales. Instead of accepting the ownership of that wheat as vesting in the growers, the Government has taken up several conflicting attitudes, according to people who have discussed the matter with the Minister. It appears that the official attitude of the Government is that the 13,000,000 bushels of wheat ceases to be the property of the grower but will be used, on realization by the Government, to help to reimburse the amount of £27,000,000 that the Commonwealth has paid for 140,000,000 bushels of wheat on a basis of 3s. l0d. a bushel. I contend that the Government has no authority, under the Wheat Acquisition Act 1940, to take that course. The intention of the previous Government, and of Parliament, was that the wheat should remain the property of the grower. Steps were to have been taken to ensure that the harvested crop did not exceed 140,000,000 bushels of marketable wheat, by compelling growers to cut hay, where it was necessary to reduce the yield.

Mr Pollard:

– About 2,000 officials would have been required to police that scheme.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No doubt the honorable member could have assisted in. his spare time.

Mr Pollard:

– It was an utterly stupid scheme.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Perhaps we shall hear the views of the honorable member on that; and when it comes to the stupidity of the Government, I say that his long experience in association with the Administration will entitle him to speak. The intention was to reduce the harvest, but the problem did not arise in the year before last, because the marketable surplus, owing to seasonal conditions, was only 65,000,000 bushels.

Even in respect of that wheat, the present Government still owes the growers 3d. a bushel. A clear distinction must be drawn between the handling of wheat pools during the last war and what is being done during the present war. In 1915-19, there was no such thing as a guaranteed price for wheat. The grower bore the risk, but the Government took control of the wheat and, through a board, sold or otherwise disposed of it in any manner that it chose. As soon as proceeds are available they should be paid to the farmers by the Government, but since 1940 that conditionhas not been observed in Australia. There has been a guarantee in respect of all the wheat that has been grown. I say to the Government that it has no right, nor would any other government have any right, to neglect to pay the guaranteed price to the growers after it had undertaken to do so. It is most regrettable that the financial operations of certain pools, in particular, have not been completed and that the Minister should still be holding a considerable sum of money in respect of them. In relation to the 1939-40 pool, for example, I understand that l1/3d. a bushel is due to the farmers, but has not been paid to them.

Mr Scully:

– Arrangements have already been made for such payments.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I am glad to hear the Minister make an official announcement to that effect. In respect of the 1940-41 pool, which contained only about 65,000,000 bushels of wheat, an amount of 3d. a bushel is still due to the growers under the guarantee. In respect of the 1941-42 pool, apart altogether from 13,500,000 bushels in respect of which I do not know where the growers stand, there is a large undetermined sum payable to the growers.

This subject is somewhat delicate in certain respects. There is far too great a tendency on the part of the Minister to meddle with the composition of the Australian Wheat Board. I give him advance information that if certain proposed changes be made in the composition of the board, he will provoke one of the liveliest fights that has been seen in this House. We shall lay it down from this side of the House that a conviction in a court is not a qualification for a person to handle the products of the people. I make this advance statement to the Minister so that if he makes the appointment and alters the composition of the board in the way proposed he will be aware of what is coming to him.

Mr Rankin:

– A trip to a receiving house is not a qualification either!

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That is so.

Mr Pollard:

– To whom does the conviction refer?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

-We shall talk about the appointment if it is made, and the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) can have hissay on the subject.

Mr Pollard:

– I could say something about some one else.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– There is a proper course open for the honorablegentleman if he wishes to secure a conviction.

In respect of the wheat industry generally, the Government is acting unwisely. The actions of the Minister for Commerce in regard to wheat are as full of party politics as an egg is full of meat. In fact the honorable gentleman’s conduct is super-charged with party politics. The purpose of the Government is obviously to secure the support of a majorityof wheat-growers for the political policy of the Government. The Minister nods hi.-: head, so he apparently approves of what I have said.

Mr McLeod:

– So do the wheatgrowers.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I shall submit one or two points for the consideration of the Minister. I shall refer first to the attitude he has adopted in respect of surplus wheat production. The honorable gentleman has said to the small growers : “ If you grow up to 3,000 bushels we will pay you 4s. a bushel for your production; if you grow anything in excess of 3,000 bushels we shall pay you only 2s. a bushel for the excess portion of your crop “.

Mr Scully:

-That is not correct and the honorable gentleman knows it.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I shall be glad to hear the Minister’s version of the proposition. The Government has not adopted this attitude towards the manufacturing industries of this country. Tt does not say to the maker of any particular article : “If you produce a certain number of these articles we shall pay you a stipulated price for them, but if you produce more than a stipulated number of them we shall pay you only half that price for them “. The Government does not say to the men on the basic wage, or to the man engaged in the munitions manufacturing industries: “If you work so many hours to produce certain goods we shall pay you a certain wage; but if you work overtime we shall reduce your pay by half “. We all know that if wage-earners work overtime they receive time and a half or double time. The Government cannot differentiate between citizens in this fashion. To do so is definitely against the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. The Constitution provides that if a bounty is to be paid in respect of certain commodities no distinction may be made between State and State, or between grower and grower. Yet the Government’s wheat scheme definitely distinguishes between grower and grower. The Government is setting out to achieve one purpose only and that is, not to assist the wheat industry, but to win the political support of the small growers. It is attempting to tie the wheat-growers, especially those operating in a small way, to its own political chariot. This is being done with entire disregard of the inevitable result of such an act. Like my colleagues, the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes), and the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Badman), I represent many wheat-growers who occupy what are known as marginal lands. Some of these people are to-day passing through a period of reconstruction, and others are still due to face that process. The Government is finding the money to enlarge certain holdings in marginal country. If the holdings be enlarged, clearly there must be an increase of the acreage under wheat. Yet the Government is saying to people who go on to these larger holdings : “ If you produce more than 3,000 bushels of wheat this year we shall pay you only 2s. a bushel for the surplus over that quantity “. The Minister knows the statistical position as well as I know it. He is well aware that the majority of our wheatgrowers operate on relatively small farms of from 250 to 300 acres. Take the position of a man in a marginal area whose property consists of about 300 acres. If he gets a reasonably good season this year he is sure to produce more than 3,000 bushels of wheat. In many parts of Australia the season promises to be a bumper one. In fact, most people experienced in the wheat industry reckon that this season will he one of the three biggest seasons we have ever known. Under these conditions the country to which I refer is capable of producing from ten to twelve bags an acre. If a man on a property of even 250 acres has an eight-bag crop this year he will grow 6,000 bushels. In respect of half of it he is to get 4s. a bushel, provided that the Government does pay 4s., and not only 3s., and tell him to wait for the rest, and in respect of the other half he is to receive 2s., and take the risk of mice, rust, flood and all the things that threaten wheat once it is stacked. This is a thoroughly bad policy. It is a thoroughly had foundation upon which to build the wheat industry. The Government knows perfectly well that there must be some interference with the industry, because it has had to take special action this year in regard to Western Australia by reducing the acreage by one-third. That is a complete contradiction of what the Minister for Commerce said in this chamber less than two years ago.

Mr Scully:

– That action was taken with the full agreement, sanction and approbation of the Government of Western Australia and the Western Australian wheat-growers.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It is all very well for the Minister to put up that excuse, but he is a responsible being and is accountable for what he argued in *hi% chamber less than two years ago.

Mr Pollard:

– What did the honorable member say?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I do not mind anything of what I ever said being cited. It will bear examination. When I cross to the treasury bench I do not have to go back on what I have said in opposition. Dealing with the question of restriction of acreage, the Minister said that the restrictions being imposed on the growers were intolerable, and should not be accepted. Saying that one of the most objectionable features of the plan was the proposal to restrict theacreage to be sown next season, hewent on -

I wonder whether the farmer will be supplied with a collar and ordered to wear it round his neck. This regulation reminds me of the “ dog collars “ a Hotted to waterside workers under the Transport Workers Act. No Soviet legislation more effectively deprives the subject of his liberty than do these regulations, which are an insult to the wheatgrowers.

No doubt, the Minister is an authority on Soviet legislation.

Mr Scully:

– Those regulations were introduced by the Government of which the member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was a member.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It was done under the act. The Minister was speaking on the motion for the second reading of the Wheat Industry (Wartime Control) Bill 1940. I do not know how he brought in the matter of a regulation. That bill became an act, and is still a law of the Commonwealth. It is a law which this Parliament has not said should be repealed or amended. There is only one fair and reasonable approach to this problem. If the Minister wants to vary the conditions under which this Parliament said that the wheat industry should be carried on, the fair and honorable method is for the Minister to bring down a bill. We shall then see what sort of a reception it will get; it will have to ran the gauntlet of the Senate, where the States are on an equal footing, and are not dominated by the interests of the great State of New South Wales and certain people who speak for it. The present administration of the wheat industry should not be accepted until the Parliament has altered the Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Act. The present proposals are bad. They will not bear investigation. The attitude of the Minister is inconclusive, unsatisfactory and unexplained. The Minister claims now and again to speak on behalf of the growers; in one speech he talked about the 20,000 or 30,000 bushel growers in his electorate, and I do not know how he is going to face them on the 2s. a bushel theory. But in regard to responsibility for past crops, he should say what he intends to do about the income of the growers. They have their troubles and their commitments to meet. It may be argued that in present circumstances money does not matter much, but I assure the Government that a man is in difficulties if he has none. Rates and taxes are due. Costs are on the up-grade. Reference was made to-day to the cost of cornsacks. I shall not go into the matter except to say that the man who has to pay15d. each for cornsacks for a crop for which he gets only 2s. abushel is not going to be too pleased about his prospects. I know that there are other honorable members whose interest in wheatis as great as mine is; therefore, I conclude by telling the Minister that it is time that there was a thorough review of this matter. Further, it is time , that the Government had a good look at some of the gentlemen from whom it appears to accept advice in regard to the conduct of this industry.

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce · Gwydir · ALP

– The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has made allegations that are not in keeping with the facts. His speech dealt with the scheme that was introduced by the previous Government. I am carrying out that scheme in its entirety. I have not attempted to alter in any way that scheme which was bequeathed to me by my predecessor. In regard to the crop that was then being harvested, I undertook, in answer to a question from the Opposition side when I took over the Commerce portfolio, that I should honour the promises made by the previous Government. That assurance has been honoured.

The motion we are considering to-day deals with two separate matters: first, a failure to honour a promise of a previous government of certain payments for wheat now in No. 5 pool ; and, secondly, failure to provide adequate compensation for the coming harvest. The Government does not admit either of these charges. On the allegation of the promise of payments other than those which the Government is now making, I should like to know just when and where such a promise was made to wheat-growers. There is no record of any public statement which can be construed as a promise, and

I am unable to find any indication that any promise of the sort was ever made. The actual basis of the price guaranteed by the Menzies Government is on record. lt was stated when the scheme was introduced that - there will be a guaranteed price of 3s. lOd. a bushel, f.o.b. ports for bagged wheat in respect of an acquired crop of 140,000,000 bushels … It must be realized that any wl,eat grown in excess of the 140,000,000 bushels basis will not participate in the guarantee

The Government had committed itself to payment of £26,800,000 to growers for a marketed crop of 140,000,000 bushels and had specifically excluded any liability in excess of that amount. There is no record anywhere of any later promise which would have the effect of extending this guarantee, or of committing the Government to payment of a higher amount.

Now, what has the Curtin Government committed itself to for the 1941-42 crop? It has adhered to the basis of the £26,S00,000 and, accordingly, has honoured to the full the promise made by the Menzies Government. In doing this it has taken note of the fact that the crop was actually above the normal, and so it has spread the total amount of the guarantee over the whole crop. This means that, while the amount of the liability remains the same, the guarantee averages 3s. 6d. a bushel for bagged wheat. This meets fully the promise made by the previous Government. We have, however, gone beyond this and have promised the growers that they will receive the full return from the pool; so that should No. 5 pool actually return as much as No. 2 pool, growers will then receive 4s. a bushel for bagged wheat on a f.o.b. basis. Actually, this is more than was promised under the stabilization scheme. Honorable members will recollect that that scheme contained a provision whereby the Treasury and the growers were to share equally in any receipts in excess of the guaranteed price. Any share that might later accrue to the Treasury has now been waived, and growers will receive the full market value of their crop. It is possible that when the pool is complete the total realizations will be less than £26,S00,000. In such an event, the Government will meet the deficiency. On the other hand, the receipts may exceed £26,800,000, in which event the extra amount will go to the growers.

I have related what was guaranteed by the Menzies Government and what the present Government proposes to pay. It is clear that our proposals are the more generous. The next inquiry, therefore, might well be as to whether the Menzies Government at any time promised a greater amount to the growers than was mentioned in this House on the 29th November, 1940, by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). There is no record of any such promise having been made, and although the matter has been the subject of considerable comment for some months, no promise of the sort has been brought under notice. I am firmly convinced that the principles of the wheat stabilization plan announced by the right honorable member for Cowper were not extended by any later promise. I am equally convinced that the present Government has adhered to the promise previously made to the wheat-growers, and that the only alteration has been in their favour. The point at issue arises because there was a favorable season, particularly in Victoria and Western Australia, as a result of which the Australian Wheat Board acquired a total of 153,000,000 bushels, compared with the 140,000,000 bushels on which the stabilization plan had been based. An endeavour has been made to have this excess treated separately, and to obtain payment of additional advances on the 19,000,000 bushels. There has also been loose talk, for which there is no justification, of the Government confiscating this additional 13,000,000 bushels. There can be no question of confiscation so long as the growers receive the full return for their crop; and that is what they will get. Some considerable time will elapse before a sufficient proportion of the crop has been sold to indicate the ultimate financial results. It is still quite possible that the growers will receive more than the guaranteed amount. On the other hand, the return may be less than £26,800,000, in which event the loss will be borne by the Government. Whatever happens, the growers are assured of the amount promised by the previous Government ; and, in addition, if the pool shows good results, a payment in excess of the guarantee of £26,800,000. The dispute depends on the interpretation placed on statements that have been made in this House. It is not the fault of the present Government that the matter was not placed beyond all doubt. Members of the present ministerial party, who were then in opposition, asked questions concerning it, but the right honorable member for Cowper refused to make any statement which can now be held to support the contention of the honorable member for Barker. He absolutely refused to commit himself; consequently, the matter was left for my decision when I became Minister for Commerce. in making my decision, I was influenced by the motion that had been passed at a conference held in Melbourne on the 1st and 2nd May, 1941. This conference was attended by representatives of wheatgrowing organizations, those present being the members of the Wheat Growers Advisory Committee, the Australian Wheat Board, and the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board. The resolution that they passed, which was re-affirmed by the wheat-growers’ representatives, was -

That when the marketable crop exceeds the quantity on which the guaranteed price is payable, and the realizations from the sale of that crop do not return to growers the guaranteed price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. ports bagged basis, payment of 3s. lOd. a bushel on the guaranteed quantity be averaged for the whole marketed crop for the year.

I consider that that furnishes evidence of, two things: first, the reasonableness of my decision; and, secondly, that at that time wheat-growers were not aware of any promise such as the honorable member for Barker alleges to have been made. This is borne out by a letter dated the 16th July, 1941, which the right honorable member for Cowper, as Minister for Commerce, addressed to the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr, Wilson), the relevant portion of which reads -

In connexion with the point raised by Mr. Mudge concerning the position when the marketable crop exceeds 140,000,000 bushels - e.g.. it reaches 200,000.000 bushels - I would state that it has been recommended to me by accredited representatives from wheatgrowers’ organizations from all States that the Commonwealth Government liability should be limited to a sum between £20.000,000 and £27,000,000. In this event the guaranteed price to growers would be reduced proportionately as the market crop exceeds .140,000,000 bushels.

This letter clearly indicates that no promise of the nature alleged had, in fact, been made. I therefore submit that the present Government has not violated any promise given by the previous Government, and that there is no foundation for any assertion that the promises made to the wheat-growers have not been met in full.

The second portion of the motion asserts that the Government has failed to provide adequate compensation for wheat from the ensuing harvest. This season, the Commonwealth is assuring to growers a payment of 4s. a bushel at sidings, on a bagged basis, for the first 3,000 bushels delivered to a licensed receiver. If more than 3,000 bushels be delivered, the pool return when the wheat is sold will be paid for the excess. As honorable members are aware, a considerable time is likely to elapse before the coming crop can be realized. Provision for this will be made by an advance payment of 2s. a bushel, bagged basis, at sidings, for wheat in excess of 3,000 bushels. The object of the Government is to safeguard the small grower in a period of emergency, and to ensure that men who are raising families on small farms shall be enabled to carry on. The big wheat-growers are not in a similar position, in that they have greater resources and can more easily change over to mixed farming, or to production other than wheat. However, the payment of 2s. a bushel at sidings even to them will represent a very reasonable allowance in anticipation of sales. The statement that the scheme does not provide adequate compensation - is surprising to any one who. is acquainted with the wheat industry. It is unlikely that any one will contend that adequate compensation is an amount higher than that for which the representatives of the wheat-growers have asked, and that is the 4s. a bushel at sidings for the whole crop put forward by the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. The proposal of the Government goes a long way towards meeting that request. Under it, there will be a payment of 4s. a bushel on 70 per cent, of the crop. Compared with, the present scheme, it will benefit 90 per cent, of the wheat-growers of Australia. The 70 per cent, of the wheatfarmers who normally harvest less than 3.000 bushels will receive a payment of 4s. a bushel in respect of the whole of their crop. A further 20 per cent, of the wheat-growers, who harvest ‘between 3,000 and- 6,000 bushels, also will be .better off than they were under the previous stabilization scheme. Actually, therefore, only those who harvest 6,000 bushels and more will not be better off than they are at present. In South Australia, of which the honorable member for Barker is a representative, according to last year’s figures, only 694 of the total of 13,405 growers will not benefit directly and immediately from this plan. I suggest that these are the big growers, who are able to maintain themselves and to continue their operations on the basis of market realizations. Extension of time granted.’] I am unable to understand the contention that the compensation is inadequate. The enthusiastic support that has been given to the scheme by wheat-growers in all the States proves that they heartily approve of it. The unfavorable comments come from a comparatively small minority of big growers, who see in the scheme such benefits that they wish to have it extended to cover themselves.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- Fortunately, in respect of this matter, I have not to rely for my data on letters to private members or recommendations submitted by meetings at which I was not present. The material at my command is contained in statements made from time to time by other members of the Labour party when in opposition and myself, which have been published in Hansard and set out the position in such a way that there can bc no dispute in regard to it.

In my speech on the Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Bill on the 29th November, 1940, I dealt with the possibility of a harvest above 140,000,000 bushels. I then said, inter alia -

It must be realized that any wheat grown in excess of the 140.000,000 bushels basis will not participate in the guarantee. The same must, of course, apply to surplus hay, but facilities for its disposal will be provided.

There was not the slightest suggestion that the £26,800,000 should cover the hay or the surplus wheat; the intention was that the hay and the surplus wheat should be realized. Subsequently, the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Langtry) and the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen) asked me certain questions. It will be remembered that I refused to say what would be done in regard to any excess; but I supported the statement of the honorable member for Riverina that Mr. Kendall had not been correct in stating at a meeting held at Temora that the £26,800,000 was to he spread over the whole of the crop if it exceeded that amount. On the 3rd July, 1941 (Hansard, page 919), the honorable member for Riverina asked me the following question: -

Whether, in the event of tho forthcoming Australian wheat crop yielding 100,000,000 bushels, the £20,750.000 which tha Commonwealth proposes to disburse will be spread over tho whole of the crop or be restricted to the 1.40.000,000 bushels which the right honorable gentleman said last week, in answer to a question by me, he did not think that the crop would exceed. At a very largely attended meeting of the District Council of tho Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, held at Temora, Mr. Kendall, the president of the association, stated that the amount was to be spread over 160,000,000 bushels, if the crop should reach that figure. Is this gentlemn n in possession of information which was not given to me last week?

My reply was -

My reply to the honorable gentleman to-day is the same as I gave to him last week, namely, that the conditions governing the wheat stabilization scheme do not contemplate the wheat crop exceeding 140,000,000 bushels.

On the 1st July, I had given to the honorable member exactly the same answer. My reason for making it was that the policy of the Government and the object of the scheme were to ensure at that time that the crop should not exceed 140,000,000 bushels. It would have been quite wrong in the public interest had I suggested that the Government would be willing to pay an extra amount for a quantity of wheat additional to that which it intended to obtain. The scheme brought down was designed, first, to set the industry in proper perspective and to secure the future of the Australian wheat-grower and the food requirements of the British worker and citizen; and, secondly, to make certain that action by Australia was in line with the recommendations of the International Wheat Conference and would ensure a permanent and continuous advantage to our wheat-growers. Food is absolutely necessary to maintain life in peace-time. In war-time, it is indispensable not only to life, but also to public morale. We must make certain that the people of Britain, who have themselves been rationed to 2 oz. of butter and $ lb. of meat a week, shall be supplied with the food which we have contracted to sell to them. This matter of food for Britain is bound up with the wheat position, here. In 1937 Sir Herbert French was asked to draw up plans for the feeding of Britain in time of war. He found that the only chance which Britain had of surviving a world war in which the shipping position might become difficult was to ensure that it would not be necessary to import much wheat, and to devote what shipping space was available to the carriage of concentrated foods such as meat, butter, &c. It was realized that the same food value was present in 1 ton of meat or butter as’ in 7 tons of wheat. Therefore, the British authorities ar6 now paying £2 an acre to farmers in Britain to plough up their grass lands and sow them with wheat, thus saving space for the transport of more valuable and more concentrated foods. Britain has also instituted a standard wholemeal loaf, which is the only kind of bread now available there. It has been found that, -with the abolition of white bread, so that there is no separation of the offal from the flour, it is possible to save 50,000 tons of shipping space each month, and this space is available for the carriage of war materials to Libya, or Australia, or Russia. In 1938, I discussed the position with Sir Herbert French, and arranged with the British authorities for the sale of the whole of our Australia surplus food products in the event of war. This was possible because of the organization which had been built up by me in the previous twenty years. The British desired us to concentrate upon the production of livestock products. It was realized that a bullock is simply a factory for turning grass and hay into meat, just as a dairy cow is a factory for turning grass and hay into milk and butter. In this way foodstuffs are concentrated. I made up my mind that we, in Australia, would stand up to our undertaking to supply Britain with all the food possible of the kinds they desired. It would, be a disgraceful thing if Australia were to fail in this obligation. If Russia or Germany or any other country cracks up in this war, it will be because the morale of the people has been sapped by underfeeding. Therefore, I said that we would make provision by means of a national f odder conservation scheme for maintaining our livestock production, so that when we promised so many hundreds of thousands of hundredweights of beef or mutton, for instance, we would be able to supply that quantity. The obligation is upon us to honour that undertaking, just as the British feel that they are obliged to send us guns, machine tools and other munitions of war. Our obligations are reciprocal. Therefore, we are not justified in saying that, because we have made a mistake in estimating the wheat crop, and failed to cut the hay, or because it suits our convenience, we shall make available to Great Britain something less than we have contracted to supply. I understand from his reply to us to-day that the Minister for Commerce has now agreed to add the amount that may be realized for the 13,000,000 bushels of excess wheat to the guaranteed amount of £26,800,000, and make a distribution of the total sum over the entire quantity of wheat produced. If that be so, then there is no argument. Everybody knows that’ I fought consistently for the Tight of our wheatgrowers to maintain full production, the safeguard being that all wheat produced over aud above the agreed-upon quantity should be cut for hay.

Mr Scully:

– Why did not the Government of which the right honorable gentleman was a member issue regulations definitely setting forth its intentions in regard to these matters?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I have already said that I had made up my mind that the amount of wheat harvested was not to exceed 140,000,000 bushels. The regulation was already in existence to ensure that that amount would not be exceeded, because any wheat grown in excess of that quantity was to be cut forhay. [Extension of time granted.] It is due to the Minister and the Government that my position should be made absolutely clear. I have found in the course of discussion with the Minister that he is anxious to carry out my promise. He said that the Government was prepared to honour that promise, and I therefore wish to make clear that the promise was to pay to the farmer what the excess wheat realized. In the course of the discussions on this subject I pointed out that if the world’s wheat crop generally were to be a failure, whereas we had a bumper crop, our growers would be entitled to benefit from the circumstance that prices were high. Legitimate growers should be kept in production, and the safety valve all the time was the arrangement that surplus wheat should be cut for hay. We had agreed to harvest only 140,000,000 bushels, but if the season were a bumper one, and we actually produced 200,000,000 bushels in a year when crops in other producing countries failed. and the whole of that wheat could be sold at 6s. a bushel, we should be mad if we did not turn it all into grain, sell the exportable surplus at world parity prices, and give the growers the benefit. At first, I was of opinion that there should be a separate pool for surplus wheat over and above the agreedupon quota, but it was pointed out to me that it would be almost impossible to segregatethe surplus from the quota of 140,000,000 bushels in the actual marketing arrangements.

I have not yet had time to examine the new scheme for the current year. I had several hours discussion of my own stabilization scheme with’ the International Wheat Conference in Washington, and we succeeded, after a hard fight, in having our export quota increased by 5,000,000 bushels. The scheme which I brought into being provided a quantity ceiling for our production, and contained control measures to enable us to maintain that ceiling without hardship to the farmers. I am not so concerned whether the Government in this new scheme pays on only the first 3,000 bushels of each farmer, or whether the scheme of paying the individual farmer is worked in some other way. The important thing is that the main features of my scheme of having a definite agreed ceiling and working machinery to control production, which was approved by the international conference, are maintained. As a matter of fact, it was stated by various representatives at the conference that if the other wheat-producing countries were to adopt similar schemes as I had inaugurated in Australia, the problem of world over-production would be solved.

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

.- When this motion was submitted, I expected that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) would have a definite case to present in order to justify taking up the time of the House, but he has failed to make out a case against the Government’s proposals. I congratulate the Government upon its scheme, which goes some distance, at any rate, towards providing a solution of the problem. It is, I am convinced, in accord with the wishes of the great majority of wheat farmers as expressedthrough their organizations.

Just after the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) announced his scheme regarding payment on the first 3,000 bushels, I visited all the principal wheatgrowing areas in my electorate. I worked through the organization set up in connexion with the second Liberty War Loan appeal, and I was able to get into touch with the farmers, and also with the roads boards in every district. I learned that the overwhelming majority of the growers were in favour of the Minister’s scheme. The farmers who make their homes and rear their families on their blocks are unanimously in favour of the scheme. I impress upon the House that men who do that are a great asset to the community. Wheat-growing is a hazardous occupation. Many growers, after years of toil and sweat, have been forced off their farms on to the dole because of lack of a constructive policy for the control of the industry. Western Australia is not alone in that respect. Throughout the wheat-growing areas of Australia men have had to abandon farms because governments have not applied a sound .policy to wheat-growing. Men have left their homes and their farms penniless and broken in spirit to seek work in other vocations in order to provide for their families. Adverse seasons, empty dams, overdrafts and other difficulties have defeated many stout hearted men, who would have persevered had there been a reasonably good policy designed to cope with their problems. But no matter what policy be applied, and however attractive it may be, it cannot solve the problems of the wheat-farmer in the absence of a mortgage bank. The Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems recommended the establishment of a mortgage bank, and at least three different governments and three different Prime Ministers promised that they would give effect to the recommendation “ in the near future “. It has, however, been left to a Labour government to fulfil that promise.

Mr Badman:

– It is still only a promise.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Yes, but a promise from a government which honours its promises.

Mr Rankin:

– That remains to be seen.

Mr JOHNSON:

– It has honoured all its promises to date, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will honour this one. I repeat that the scheme, as outlined by the Minister for Commerce, will accord to a large degree with the wishes of the farmers as expressed by their organizations. Amongst other letters commending this scheme, I have with me a letter from the Morawa Road Board forwarding the minutes of a conference of delegates of roads boards in the Victoria district of Western Australia, held at Morawa on the 4th March, 1939, when the honorable member for Barker was a Minister in a previous government. That conference resolved: -

That thu Government be requested to provide a guaranteed minimum price for wheat of 4f. per bushel at sidings, on a quota basis, without limitation of urea.

On the 6th December, 1939, a conference

Df representatives of roads boards was held at the McNess Hall, Perth, to consider, inter alia, matters affecting the wheat industry. The following roads boards were represented : - Beverley Brookton, Cuballing, Dalwallinu, Dumbleyung,

Dundas, Esperance, Gnowangerup, Katanning, Kent, Doorda, KununoppinTrayning, Lake Grace, Mf. Marshall, Marradong, Merredin, Mingenew, Morawa, Mukinbudin, Mullewa, Narrogin, Northam, Nungarin, Perenjori, Pingelly, Quairading, Toodyay, Victoria Plains, Wickepin, Wyalkatchem and Yilgarn. That conference carried a motion similar to that carried at the Morawa conference. The resolution has become so famous in Western Australia that it is known as the “Morawa Resolution”. I have a sheaf of correspondence, which I have not tune to read, commending the Minister for Commerce for having introduced the present scheme.

Unlike the other States, Western Australia has very limited secondary industries to which people now engaged in wheat-growing could turn as an alternative vocation. Consequently, Western Australian wheat-growers have a greater claim for consideration in the matter of acreage restriction than have wheatgrowers in other States where industries are diversified, and provide, other means of employment for men forced out of primary production because of restrictions. I also direct the attention of the Minister to the plight of the wheatgrowers in the marginal areas of Western Australia. Those men were induced to go on the land by both Commonwealth and State governments. .They have built their homes on their farms, and they are in a precarious position. Previously they received 2d. a bushel more than the average price for their wheat because of its high milling quality. They have no bulk-handling facilities and, consequently, they have to provide bags and labour for sewing, &c. A few days ago I asked the Minister to give special consideration to their position, and I believe that ho will do so. I hope that the reconstituted Australian Wheat Board will take into consideration the problems of the marginal farmers and restriction of acreage in Western Australia.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I whole-heartedly support the speech of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), so far as it related, to the need for supplying to Great Britain all the foodstuffs that it requires and asks for. I do not propose to say very much on this; in the nature of things, it is practically impossible for honorable members to know what those demands are and how they can be met, but I do say that in war-time it is essential that we let Great Britain have everything it, requires in the nature of foodstuffs. I support the motion of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) appears to me to adopt a peculiar policy, a policy of what one might call “ in and out “, because for last year, 1941-42, farmers were brought in who were outside; by that I mean that those who grew the extra 13,000,000 bushels came into the scheme. Yet, in 1942-43, some farmers are partly excluded, although they were entitled to come in under the authority of the Australian Wheat Board. If they were to be kept out, it was open to the Australian board to decide that they should be restricted in their planting.

Mr Scully:

– How are they excluded ?

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– They are partly excluded in respect of the price which they will receive for their commodity. If they were to be cut out at all, the proper authority to do that was the Australian Wheat Board. It could have restricted, but did not restrict, their planting. I direct attention to the fact that the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia, Mr. Blesing, has announced that both he and his Government are wholly opposed to this scheme. He said that the State Government was not in favour of any such discrimination between farmers. He added that at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council at Canberra in June he had strongly opposed the proposal on principle, because he did not think it was right to differential”.; between the small and the big farmer. He had argued that farmers should have been given at least twelve months’ notice of the proposal, because some farmers who had produced the extra quantities were as hard up as those who were engaged in mixed farming and grew 3,000 bushels of wheat. Then the Minister for Agriculture went on to give enlightening figures as to what would be the result of this re-organization suggested for the coming year. The immediate return to the farmer, he said, would be 4s. a bushel at country sidings on 3,000 bushels; for 4,000 bushels 3s. 6d. would be the amount received ; for 6,000 bushels it would drop to 3s.; for 7,000 bushels to 2s. 10-id.. and for 9,000 bushels to 2s. 8d. I suggest to the House that it is not reasonable that a man who has been allowed to plant a large area and gets a good crop should without any notice in advance have to drop from 4s. a bushel, which is given to a man in a small way, to 2s. 8d., if he happens to have 9,000 bushels. To what other industry, primary or secondary, has this form of discrimination applied? Has it been applied to wool, apples, pears, cream, eggs, dried fruits, or citrus fruits? For all those things payment is based on quality and is not limited according to the quantity supplied by any particular individual. The same applies to all secondary industries. This is an innovation, a new principle, that has been adopted, and, I think, a particularly bad one. I do not know whether the Minister hopes to extend it to other forms of primary production so that the price for all other commodities shall be determined not on quality and quantity produced generally, but on the quantity produced by an individual. This is a completely new and bad principle, and I for one voice my opposition to it.

I have nothing to add to the remarks that I made when I spoke on the wheat industry on the 3rd June last, but it seems to me that the intervention of the Minister for Commerce in the accepted principles governing the marketing of wheat, dairy products, meat and wool will have a most disturbing effect on the producers themselves at a time when they should be treated with every consideration because of the difficulties under which they are labouring through the shortage of man-power. The less the industry is interfered with and disturbed, the greater will be the results.

Mr LANGTRY:
Riverina

.- I am amazed to hear the objections that honorable members opposite have raised to the scheme propounded by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully). When the previous scheme was announced, I condemned it roundly, and I have no reason to alter my original views upon it. At that time, I asked the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) to explain what the position would be in the event of the harvest exceeding 140,000,000 bushels, but I did not receive a satisfactory reply. About a week later The Temora Independent published the following report: -

Delegates to the annual meeting of the Temora District Council of the Farmers and Settlers’ Association in Temora on Thursday decided to urge upon the Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) the member for Riverina, Mr. J. I. Langtry, at the annual conference of thu Farmers and Settlers’ in Sydney, the need for amending the Wheat Stabilization Scheme to place it on a bushel quota basis as against the acreage basis as at present provided for. This decision followed a detailed explanation of the scheme by the General President of the Farmers and Settlers, Mr. Kendall, who had travelled 110 miles, from his home at Holbrook, to address the meeting. He expressed himself in favour of the bushel quota basis as supported by most farmers. “ You have to fight for what you believe right, and fight for all you arc worth said Mr. Kendall.

Other points stressed during the address were: The scheme provided for an expenditure of £20,750,000 on a crop of 140,000,000 bushels which would return 3s. lOd. per bushel at ports.

At the first opportunity, I repeated my question to the then Minister for Commerce, but the reply was still unsatisfactory. Honorable members opposite should have declared at that juncture their views regarding the correctness of his statement; they should not have waited till fifteen months later, when the crop had been harvested and sold. The position was never clarified. When the present Minister for Commerce assumed control of the department, he promised to give effect to the promises made by the previous government, and he has honoured that undertaking in the spirit and in the letter.

On the 16th July, 1941, the right honorable member for Cowper wrote to the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) as follows: -

When the marketable crop exceeds 140,000.000 bushels for example it reaches 200,000j000 bushels, I would state that it has been recommended to me by accredited representatives oi wheat-growers’ organizations from all States that the Commonwealth Governments liability should be limited to a sum between £26,000,000 and £27,000,000. In this event the guaranteed price to growers would be reduced proportionately as the marketable crop exceeds 140,000,000 bushels. You will appreciate that the Government’s liability must be limited to a known amount.

In May, 1941, the need for the formulation of a definite policy became so evident that a meeting of representatives of the whole wheat-growing industry was called in Melbourne. The growers’ representatives in attendance included Messrs. Maycock, Marshman, Watson, Teasdale, Cullen, Kendall, Stott, Collins, Tilt, Darling, Field and Diver. I have also a letter which was written by the secretary of the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) .to the secretary of the Wheat Stabilization Committee at West Wyalong. This district, which is some distance to the north of Berrigan, Finley and Wagga and south of Parkes and Forbes, lies in the heart of the wheat-belt of New South Wales. The editor of the. Wyalong Advocate, commenting on this letter, stated that contradictory reports made it difficult to judge who was right and who was wrong, but that the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) was definitely right. That will clear up any misunderstanding. The right honorable member for Cowper, after declining to explain the scheme to the House, supplied the information to outside organizations. That was wrong. Parliament should be the first to be informed of such decisions. The position was never satisfactorily clarified as to what would have happened if the crop had been 53,000,000 bushels instead of 153,000,000 bushels.

I compliment the Minister for Commerce for his promptitude in making payments to wheat-growers. Honorable members opposite who have accused the Government of repudiation are obviously misinformed. Every grower who has putwheat into the pool has been paid for it, a.nd there has been no confiscation.

The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) asserted that the priceto be paid for wheat placed in the new Bool is not adequate. Naturally, I should like the price to be 10s. a bushel, but that is patently impracticable. However, the price that the Government has offered is the highest that has been guaranteed to the growers since 1920-21. I remind the

House that it was the Storey Labour Government in New South Wales which, in 1920-21, offered to the growers a guaranteed price. I shall analyse the prices that have been paid for wheat placed in the several pools. Wheat was virtually confiscated for the No. 1 pool. On the outbreak of war, 18,000,000 bushels was seized by the previous Government. If the Government commandeers a commodity, the price should cover at least the cost of production, but the growers whose wheat was seized were paid ls. lid. a bushel. For wheat placed in the No. 2 pool, 2s. lOd. a bushel was paid ; but the pool has not yet been wound up. It is a regular “Kathleen Mavourneen”. It may be for years, or it may be forever. AH the wheat in No. 3 pool was below f.a.q. No. 4 pool growers were paid 3s. 2d;. a bushel. For wheat placed in No. 5 pool, growers have received interim pay- ments totalling 2s. 4d. a bushel. Whether they will receive a final payment, nobody can tell at this stage. I commend the scheme that has been formulated by the Minister for Commerce, which will return to 75 per cent.. of the growers 4s. net at sidings, which is equal to 4s. 6d. a bushel spread over two, three or four years.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) cannot deny that his department has kept its records in a clumsy fashion.

Mr Pollard:

– A clumsy Government was in control.

Mr PROWSE:

– I cannot imagine that the wheat-growers would consent to supply 13,000,000 bushels for no payment, so that in the circumstances, I consider that the administration of the Department was clumsy. Such an important matter should have been made more definite than it was. Until the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) made his explanation, I thought that the Minister might have been wrong, but that has not been borne out’ by the facts. The intention of the right honorable member for Cowper apparently was that if the yield seemed likely to exceed 140,000,000 bushels, the surplus should be cut for hay. It is absurd to suggest that the surplus was -imply thrown into the pool for no consideration. I am gratified that the Go vernment has now agreed to make a payment to the farmers who produced the wheat.

The Commonwealth Government has forced Western Australia wheat-growers to reduce their production by 33-1/3%.

Mr Scully:

– They will be compensated.

Mr PROWSE:

– I am aware of that. The House should realize that years ago, Western Australia imported wheat and flour from the eastern States for domestic use. In 1930-31, the Labour Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) urged wheatgrowers to expand production to the limit of their capacity, and even before that year, Commonwealth and State Governments had encouraged an increase of wheat-growing, with the result that new land was settled. During the depression, the slogan of the Commonwealth Labour Government was “ grow more wheat “. As a result of all this encouragement, considerable capital was invested in the industry. Because a man is a small wheat-grower, it does not imply that he is a poor man. Wheat-growing may be a part of his mixed farming activities. Because a man is a large wheat-grower, it does not necessarily follow that he is well-to-do. That statement certainly applies to a number of growers in Western Australia. It often means that he is poorer than the man who produces a small quantity of wheat. However, the Commonwealth Government has now restricted by one-third the acreage sown with wheat in Western Australia. Just as miners hope to come upon a pot of gold, so farmers look hopefully for a favourable season with good prices. Many of them are heavily indebted to the banks. The season has been excellent, but the restriction of acreage has prevented Western Australian wheat-growers from taking advantage of it. In my opinion, any scheme which discriminates in production is wrong. Manufacturers in the eastern States are never refused adequate tariff protection when they seek it. Although I have no figures to support my opinion, I do not think that the Commonwealth Government will pay out a greater amount for the next harvest than other Governments have paid in respect of previous wheat pools. Too much political emphasis is apparent in this controversy. No differentiation should be shown between farmers on the basis of banking accounts. In my view such differentiation is unconstitutional.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

.- The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has rendered a distinct service to this Government by moving the adjournment of the House to-day in order to discuss the wheat industry. He has afforded the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) and Government supporters an opportunity to enlarge upon the virtues of the new wheat scheme which the Minister has announced on behalf of the Curtin Government. He has also revealed the complete lack of faith which members of the present Opposition had, and still have, in the scheme introduced by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) when he was in office. The honorable member for Barker administered that scheme for a period.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I did not. I was a back bencher at that time.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable gentleman administered the scheme in 1940.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Do not be ridiculous. I was out of office at that time.

Mr POLLARD:

– At any rate, the honorable gentleman was a government supporter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Ballarat must address the Chair.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Barker will hardly deny that for a period he administered the Wheat Industry Assistance Act, and that under that act allocations of money were made to several State governments in order to enable them to assist farmers in marginal areas.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That has nothing to do with this subject.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable gentleman may discuss the matter further after I have poured some mud on him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is very little time available for honorable members to discuss this subject, and I ask, therefore, that interjections be discontinued.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Barker has a habit of casting aspersions on people by innuendo. He has adopted this practice in relation to the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) and even in this debate he has suggested by innuendo that the Government proposes to appoint a convicted person to the Australian Wheat Board. Before making such insinuations the honorable gentleman would be well advised to look into his own conduct. In 1940 the honorable member owned a farm in a marginal area in South Australia. He also was responsible for declining to make an allocation to the Government of Victoria of moneys intended for the assistance of farmers in marginal areas.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– No allocation was made to the Government of Victoria because it did not comply with the law.

Mr POLLARD:

– That is an easy excuse. The money needed for this purpose was raised partly from the people of Victoria, and farmers in marginal areas in that State had a right to participate in the disbursements that were made. Dealing with the honorable gentleman’s own position, I cite his own reported remarks, which appear in Hansard, vol. 163, at page689. The speech was made on the 9th May, 1940. The honorable gentleman said -

I know what I am talking about.

He always claims that he knows what he is talking about. He went on -

I live 5 miles from the Victorian border. I am in the marginal area.

Obviously if the honorable member’s farm was in the South Australian marginal area the farms situated just over the Victorian border nearby were also in a marginal area, yet no allocation was made to Victoria for the assistance of those farmers. Two government supporters at that time, the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) and the then honorable member for Wannon, who was subsequently defeated at the polls, were so ashamed at what was clone that on one occasion they hid themselves in the gallery while a debate took place in the House on the subject. I was present at the time and noticed their actions.

Mr Paterson:

– I have never done such a thing in my life.

Mr POLLARD:

– As a result of the failure of the honorable member for Barker to make an allocation to the Government of Victoria for the assistance of Victorian farmers in marginal areas, the Government of South Australia received a larger allocation than would otherwise have been made, and for this reason the honorable member was able to sell his farm for £1,603, a. price which he would not have received had the Government of Victoria obtained its proper allocation of the money available for the assistance of farmers in marginal areas. Having these facts in mind, I say that persons who hurl innuendoes at other people without stating specific cases would be well advised to examine their own actions. I have never questioned the honesty of the honorable member for Barker, but something was done, undoubtedly, by the honorable gentleman when he was Minister for Commerce, which enabled the Government of South Australia to pay a higher price for farms in marginal areas than it would have been able to pay had Victoria obtained its proper allocation of the funds available for distribution. That fact is indisputable. The honorable member for Barker may make any explanation he likes later of the circumstances of the case, but I challenge truthful contradiction of what I have said. There can be no doubt that the honorable gentleman obtained a substantial benefit as the result of his allocation of the money available for the assistance of farmers in marginal areas.

I am also glad that the honorable member submitted this motion because it gave the former Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) an opportunity to praise the Curtin Government for its administration of that right honorable gentleman’s own scheme - an inheritance of this Government, and a bad one. The scheme would ih ave been infinitely worse than it is but for the constant agitation of Labour members, when they were in opposition, for a sympathetic administration of it. While we were in op position we had need continually to criticize the Government of that day for its lack of sympathy with the farmers and to urge them to act with justice and decency towards wheat-growers who were passing through a time of severe trial. The scheme, as originally introduced by Sir Earle Page, was paltry in the extreme, and it was improved only as the result of constant agitation by the Labour party; yet the honorable member for Barker has had the cheek to-day to criticize the sympathetic administration of the scheme by the present Minister of Commerce. The fact is that this Government has acted generously towards the farmers and has achieved the best possible results from the scheme which it inherited. It is therefore hypocritical for honorable members opposite to indulge in captious criticism of this Government on the score of a lack of sympathy with the farmers. For many years now, with relatively short breaks, the farmers have been passing through difficulties. This was particularly the case while antiLabour governments controlled their destinies. The Labour party has always been in favour of a generous scheme for the assistance of the wheat-growers, for it realizes the value of the wheat industry to this country. For this reason it administered the previous Government’s wheat scheme with sympathy, and it has now introduced a new wheat scheme which many wheat-growers - small and large - regard as first class. To support my contention I shall read a letter which I have received from a wheat-fanner in a big way in the electorate of the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald). [Extension of time granted.] The letter is as follows : - “ Glastonbury “, Maroona. 8th July, 1042.

Mr. Reg. Pollard, M.P.,

Canberra

Dear Keg,

I am writing to you in order to express my approval of the new wheat scheme announced by the Minister in charge of this proposal, and would like you to convey personally to Mr. Scully this appreciation.

When I first learned of our proposed getting 4s. per bushel at the railway station, f thought it was too good to be true. Little did I think that any opposition to it would be launched, let alone from Mr. Dunstan and executive officers of so-called wheat-growers’ associations. I have spoken to many farmers, and I can assure you that neither the Premier nor those associations speak for the farmer, who hails this price of 4s. per bushel for 3,000 bushels as the most generous and fitting gesture ever made by any government to any section of the community.

Take my case -

Needless to say we were forced like hundreds of others to go out of sowing large areas to wheat. Since then we have sown down our lands until to-day by licence we are only allowed 120 acres to wheat. Gone are the days when lands held by a farmer are sown to grain only. To-day we are all mixed farmers. We here have our wool, further north they have wool and lambs. Down south they have cows and flax. With wheat at£600 per annum, what a secure livelihood it will give us? What a good security to go to the banks with! You can see for yourself that the farmer has for years been curtailing his acreage, and the so-called restrictions that Mr. Dunstan spoke of do not exist. Furthermore, take the bogy of famine through restriction. We can still grow three years’ domestic supply of wheat in one year.

Given 4s. per bushel for wheat each year would also remove forever the scandalous injustice suffered by the rural workers. As one who has taken a keen and active interest in the farmer, I am forced to admit that regimentation of the industry, that is, farmer, producer, and worker, is its only salvation.

Lastly I would like to give you my opinion on the bogy of this scheme putting a premium on inefficiency as stated by the Victorian Premier. How could this be substantiated under the present “licence to grow wheat”, shortage of labour, cornsacks and silo storage, problematical supply of superphosphate, restriction on petrol and increased costs of kerosene which in 1928 was 111/2d. per gallon, and to-day is1s. 71/4d.

No, Keg., no fairminded parliamentarian with the primary producers’ plight before him, and his future from fear and want in his hands, could offer any opposition to this bill. By your magnificent and determined handling of the country’s affairs in its darkest hour under the sterling leadership of Mr. Curtin,I wish your Government many years of office. In the many fine acts of legislation that they will pass, none will give more satisfaction and joy to the farmer than this bill of Mr. Scully’s, which I implore you to urge him to put it on the statute-book.

Wishing you every success,

I am,

Your old friend,

Alex Morris.

That gentleman is not a small farmer.

Mr POLLARD:

– He is a man with 1,000 acres, who has grown up to 10,000 bags. For the first time since I have been a member of this House, I was astonished at the lack of enthusiasm with which the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) put his case this morning. Only too well does he know the attitude to this scheme that has been adopted by the wheat-growers of Western Australia. Usually, the honorable member puts his case with conviction, clarity and enthusiasm. This morning, he was utterly spineless. That applies also to the honorable member for Barker, who was weak, unconvincing and ineffective.

It merely remains for me to congratulate the Minister and the Government upon having taken action which at last will give stability to the wheat industry and help theCommonwealth.

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

.- I agree with the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has done this House and the Government a distinct service to-day. He has also done the wheat-farmers a distinct service; because, for the first time, we have been able to obtain from the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) a statement of his intentions in regard to the surplus of 13,000,000 bushels, namely, that the amount of the realization will be paid for it after the disposal of the 140,000,000 bushels. This result would not have been achieved but for the insistence by honorable members who sit on the side of the House and the representatives of the wheat-growers. Two or three months ago, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) made a motion in order to bring to the notice of the Minister the urgent need for attention to the matter. The reply then given by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) was nothing but a quibble. He based his decision in regard to the 13,000,000 bushels on a cleverly worded motion which tricked the wheat-growers when it was placed before them in Melbourne. They did not intend to surrender their rights in respect of that 13,000,000 bushels. Yet the Minister seized the opportunity to assert that the farmers were prepared to give the whole of their wheat for £26,833,000; and in consequence he arranged for the payment of 3s. 6.1d. a bushel on the whole of the crop. Surely the honorable gentleman knew that that was not right ! Surely he could have told this House and, th rough it, the farmers, that they were entitled to realization after the other had been sold, and that the £26,833,000 was to be used in payment for only the 140,000,000 bushels! Instead of doing that, he tried to belittle a scheme that had been put into operation after years of struggle in this House to stabilize the wheat industry The scheme put forward by the Minister to-day, although giving to the farmer a better price generally than he received under . the last scheme, is not a stabilization scheme but is discriminatory, and unjust in its operation. The Minister and Government members generally must know that they cannot discriminate between the growers of a given commodity. Butter that is of first grade is paid for at the one price throughout Australia. A farmer who produces 1,000 lb. of butter does not get 1s. 6d. per lb. for 500 lb. and 9d. per lb. for the remainder, but an equitable price for the lot; and one dairy-farmer does not get a better price than does another who produces butter of equal quality. Nor should one wheat-farmer receive for his wheat a better price than is paid to another farmer who has grown wheat of the same quality. I should like the Minister to say whether the first 3,000 bushels, for which payment will be at the rate of 4s. a bushel, will participate in any increase when realizationhas been made. For example, if all the wheat be sold at 5s. a bushel, will there be an additional payment of 3s. a bushel in respect of that on which only 2s. a bushel had been paid, and only an additional1s. a bushel in respect of that on which 4s. a bushel had been paid; or will the Minister further discriminate by making an additional payment of 2s. a bushel in all cases? The farmer who says that this is an excellent scheme overlooks the fact that the cost of wheat-growing is far higher to-day than it was in 1939-40, when the stabilization scheme was brought forward by a former Government. Since 1933, when the Gepp report was made, costs have risen by approximately 9d. a bushel. The following table sets out the position in respect of costs and returns on the basis of an average yield of twelve bushels to the acre -

The Ministerhas contended that the statements of the honorable member for Barker are not in accordance with fact. Has the honorable gentleman thoroughly investigated the statistical position under the scheme? I challenge him to prove that in New South Wales, in particular, more than 51 per cent. of the farmers will benefit from it, and that in Australia 70 . per cent. will benefit. We are prepared to give the scheme a chance to prove itself. We hope that before next year the Minister and the Government will have realized the gravity of the position, due to the lack of superphosphate, shortage of man-power, and the small acreages sown; that it will reconsider the scheme, and decide to grant the all-round price of 4s. a bushel for which the Wheatgrowers Federation has asked. Surely the farmer, as well as any other section of the community, is entitled to a war loading !

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), has, as usual, discovered a mare’s nest; and his arguments have fallen to the ground. I have received the following letter with respect to a conference that was held in the heart of his electorate: -

I understand that Mr. Archie Cameron is to attack the Scully plan in the House. In the circumstances, the enclosed resolution is interesting. Resolution as follows: -

That conference supports the new wheat proposals, which provide for a payment of 4s. a bushel country sidings for the first 3,000 bushels, and 2s. a bushel country sidings, as first advance on all wheat over 3,000 bushels. Payment on delivery. Surplus realizations above 2s. advance to be paid to growers when the wheat on which an advance has been made has been sold.

The conference concerned was held at Wanbi, in the heart of Mr. Cameron’s district, and was attended by 40 delegates from a radius of approximately CO miles around Wanbi. The conference directed that the resolution should be sent on to you, and I understand that it was telegraphed direct to Mr. Scully.

So much forthe popularity of the present plan.

The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has indicated that he gave some sort of an undertaking, to the effect that the production last year in excess of 140,000,000 bushels covered by the guarantee would be marketed in a separate way, and that growers would be reimbursed according to realizations. Examination will disclose that it would be a physical impossibility to separate the wheat, and that the only possible means is to spread the payments over the whole of the crop. That was recommended by the conference which discussed the matter last year. It was composed of representatives of the wheat-growers, the

Department of Commerce, and the Australian Wheat Board. That is what has been adopted by the present Government.

The allegation has been made by the honorable member for Barker that there is a possibility of some person whose record will not bear examination being appointed to a certain position under the control of the present Government. If the honorable member has positive knowledge of that kind he is in duty bound to report the matter to the Government. I am confident that if such a report be made the Government will take whatever action may be necessary.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 257b.

page 275

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1942

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The principal purpose of this bill is not to raise additional revenue, but to adapt the income tax law to the altered conditionsarising from the war. The main features of the bill are the provision of special allowances in respect of plant, machinery and buildings used for war purposes; the treatment of insurance moneys received in respect of war damage to property; special encouragement to metalliferous mining companies producing base metals and rare minerals for war purposes; and concessional allowances to members of the Defence Forces.

Other machinery and technical amendments to the act have been found necessary in practice, but these are more a matter for consideration in the committee stages of the bill. The major amendments embodied in the bill have received the consideration of the Taxation Advisory Committee. There are other amendments that will be mentioned in the course of my speech, but as they are not of a controversial nature, the Government has had very little hesitation in accepting the impartial recommendations of that expert committee.

The urgent demand for materials for the purpose of war has necessitated the Government giving constant and serious attention to the production of base metals and minerals in the general interests of the Allied cause. The Government has appointed to assist it the Commonwealth Minerals Committee whose functions are concerned primarily with the production and prices of minerals, and the incidence of taxation has a most important bearing upon the returns that the mining community can expect to receive during the war period. The mineral deposit, as we- all know, is the principal asset of a mining company. It is, however, a wasting asset. Honorable members will readily understand, therefore, that increased mining activity shortens the life of the mine, and accelerates the rate of exhaustion of the mineral deposit. A considerable portion of the profits and dividends derived from its war production would have been absorbed in war taxation, so that neither company nor investor will receive a fair return from the enterprise unless Parliament is prepared to concede certain concessions by way of encouragement to the mining industry in order that the maximum production may be obtained.

Mine-owners generally, at the request of the Government, have increased their production, but they are relying on the Government to ensure to them a reasonable return from the industry. It is, therefore, proposed that 20 per cent, of the profits from metalliferous mining operations should be exempt from taxation during the war period. Provision i3 made in the bill for the prescription of the minerals in respect of which the exemption is to apply. I mention in passing that the gold-mining industry is exempt from the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and, therefore, requires no specific exemption. The gold tax on production will, however, still continue to operate. Honorable members will recollect that the Uniform Taxation Committee recommended that the gold tax on production should be suspended, and that ordinary income tax should be imposed on profits and dividends from gold-mining. In view of the serious decline of the industry due to war conditions, the Government has decided to postpone its consideration of this recommendation.

It is intended that the 20 per cent, exemption of the profits should extend to dividends paid wholly and exclusively out of the company’s profits so exempted. Where a metalliferous mining company has already paid dividends out of the profits of the year ended the 30th June, 1942, 20 per cent, of those dividends shall be exempt in the hands of the shareholders. It is recognized by the Government, however, that, in some instances, an exemption of 20 per cent, will not afford a .reasonable profit to the owners of the mining undertakings. The bill, therefore, provides that mineowners, who consider a higher percentage of their profits than 20 per cent, should be exempted because of increased production for war purposes, shall have the right of reference to the War-time (Company) Tax Board of Referees. This board is empowered to increase the percentage in those cases where it deems an increase warranted. The increased exemption, if granted, will be extended also to the dividends paid out of the exempt profits.

As regards the depreciation of plant, machinery and buildings acquired or erected after the 30th June, 193S, for war purposes, the Taxation Advisory Committee has recommended to the Government that special depreciation should be allowed in respect of such assets. The difficulty in this connexion is to measure exactly the true depreciation that takes place during the war period, and to meet this difficulty, the bill provides that :any adjustment to meet the excess depreciation shall have effect at the conclusion of the war on a valuation of the plant, machinery and buildings then to be made by the Wartime (‘Company) Tax Board of Referees.

It may be mentioned at this juncture that the Commissioner of Taxation has ruled that depreciation may be allowed at treble the normal departmental rates in those instances in which, for example, the plant is worked three shifts. This increase of rates will, it is believed, meet the great majority of cases where the normal life of the plant or machinery is considerably shortened because of the demands for war purposes. However, to meet those cases where, at the end of the war, the taxpayer considers that the depreciation allowed does not cover all wear and tear or loss in value, it is proposed, by clause 9, to give to the Board of Referees power to determine the amount of depreciation that should have been allowed during the war years.

Another special allowance proposed is that, if the plant or machinery is sold within two years after the end of the war at a price which is less than its depreciated value for income tax purposes, the amount of such deficiency shall be allowed as a deduction, and spread over the war years. Power is to be given to the Commissioner to amend any wartime assessments affected by these provisions.

Under the existing income tax law, no deduction is allowable in respect of depreciation of buildings, other than farm buildings, used to produce assessable income. Persons who acquire or construct buildings specially for war purposes will, however, be permitted to make application for the allowance of a deduction in respect of any loss on sale, or any diminution of the value of those buildings. Clause 9, therefore, proposes that if a person sells such buildings during the war years for less than cost, he shall be allowed a deduction of the amount of such loss. If the buildings are not sold, but their value at the end of the war is less than cost, he is to be allowed a deduction of the loss of value. In either case the determination of the amount of the loss or deficiency will be entrusted to the Board of Referees, and the ascertained loss spread over the war years. The Commissioner will be given power to open any assessment at any .time for the purpose of allowing these deductions.

This allowance applies also to alterations, additions and extensions made after the 30th June, 1938, to existing buildings for war purposes. Although applications for these allowances in respect of war plant and buildings need not be lodged until after the war, the proposed amendments require each application to be accompanied by a certificate obtained from the appropriate Commonwealth department within six months of the commencement of the act, or of the erection of the plant or building. This certificate must certiffy that . the plant or building was installed ‘ or acquired for use in, or in connexion’ with, the prosecution of the war. It is appreciated that the task assigned to the Board of Referees is a difficult one, and on this account it is proposed that the board may, if it so desires, be assisted by technical and experienced advisers, who, however, shall act in an advisory capacity only.

The Government also referred for the consideration of the Taxation Advisory Committee the representations received from several organizations regarding the effect of section 59 of the Income Tax Assessment Act in cases of insurance recoveries where plant or machinery lost or destroyed is fully covered by insurance. The substantial effect of section 59 is to require the taxpayer to include as income the excess of the insurance moneys over the depreciated value of the plant. The object of this provision is to recoup to the revenue the tax lost through the allowance of any excessive depreciation in prior years. In normal times this provision does not operate inequitably. At present, however, rates of tax are so high that not only will taxpayers be taxed at war-time rates on amounts allowed as deductions in peacetime, but also insufficient insurance moneys will be left to replace the lost plant or machinery.

The Government agrees with the view of the committee that the assessable portion of such insurance moneys should be relieved from tax, and the amount upon which future depreciation should be allowed, reduced by a similar amount. Clause 8, therefore, proposes that such insurance moneys shall not be taxed if the plant is replaced during the year of loss, but that, for depreciation purposes, the insurance moneys excluded from assessable income shall be deducted from the cost of the new plant and depreciation allowed on the reduced amount. If the plant is not replaced during the year, and the taxpayer has other depreciable assets, the depreciated value of those other assets shall be reduced by the insurance moneys excluded from assessable income’ and the depreciation allowance based on the reduced amount.

In this manner, immediate relief will be granted in all cases where the taxpayer is possessed of depreciable assets. In other eases, the assessable portion of the insurance moneys will be included as assessable income. Should, however, the taxpayer replace the plant at any time within two years after the end of the war, he will be entitled to have. the relevant amount excluded by retrospective amendment of. his assessment and the cost of the new plant reduced, for depreciation purposes, by a corresponding sum.

The bill before the House is also designed to allow a special deduction in respect of amounts expended by taxpayers on enemy raids precautions. As the existing law does not permit of the deduction of the greater part of this class of expenditure, it is proposed by clause 12 that such expenditure incurred for the purpose of protecting employees and premises employed Or used for the purpose of producing assessable income shall be an allowable deduction. Where, however, any portion of such expenditure results in the creation of an asset of enduring benefit to the taxpayer, the deduction is to be limited to the difference between the amount of the expenditure and the value of the enduring benefit created thereby. The deduction is also to be reduced by any sum recouped to the taxpayer by any government authority or other person. These proposals accord with the recommendations of the Taxation Advisory Committee. The deduction will not include expenditure on private residences, or any expenditure not associated with the production of assessable income.

In clause 14 of the bill it is proposed to adopt the recommendations of the Taxation Advisory Committee in regard to funds established by medical practitioners and other professional persons for the purpose of supplementing the military pay of those members of the profession who are engaged on war service. This provision is similar to one inserted in the New South Wales income tax law last year. Its effect will be that amounts paid to the fund, by members, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, will be allowable deductions, whilst amounts received from the fund will form a part of the assessable income of the beneficiaries.

The attention of honorable members is also drawn to the provision in clause 12 of the bill permitting the allowance of a deduction an respect of income tax paid outside Australia on ex-Australian dividends which are included in exAustralian income.

Clause 30, which relates to gifts, has been inserted in the bill as a result of representations made to the Government by various bodies. This clause provides that in assessments for the financial year 1942-43, but for that year only, the concessional allowance for gifts to public hospitals, public benevolent institutions, &c, shall take the form of a deduction from assessable income instead of the rebate of tax provided in the Income Tax Assessment Act, which Parliament passed last session. It is considered that this amendment is reasonable, in view of the fact that, when the gifts were made, the donors expected to have the amount of the gift deducted from assessable income.

Another alteration to the law which the Government, acting on the advice of the Taxation Advisory Committee, proposes, is the amendment of the provisions relating to the assessment of overseas film companies. In Australia, overseas film companies distribute their films to the exhibitors through locally incorporated subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company retains usually 30 per cent, to 40 per cent, of the total film rentals. The balance is paid or credited to the overseas parent company. Under the present law, the overseas parent company is assessed by treating 30 per cent, of the gross amount paid or credited to it as being the taxable income derived by it from Australia. The overseas company, however, has a right to have this percentage reduced if it proves to the satisfaction of the ‘Commissioner that its Australian profits represented something less than 30 per cent, of the gross Australian receipts.

The application of these provisions, however, has proved an extremely difficult, complicated and unsatisfactory task, and they have been the subject of consideration by several authorities. In his twenty-second report the Commissioner of Taxation went to some length to describe the difficulty of satisfactory application of the existing provisions, and he furnished figures showing that, although over the five years, 1933 to 1937, these companies derived from Australia a gross income of nearly £4,500,000, the actual tax payable by companies was only £366. Since then, there has been no satisfactory improvement of the position.

In accordance with a recommendation of the Taxation Advisory Committee, it is proposed to reduce the percentage specified, and withdraw the right to have the percentage still further reduced. The percentage adopted by the Government is 10 per cent. This variation, it is hoped, will remove many administrative difficulties, and at the same time do substantial justice both to the taxpayer and to the Commonwealth.

Other amendments proposed concern the assessment of life assurance companies. They really represent machinery amendments which the Government has decided upon as a result of a conference with representatives of the Life Offices Association. The law provides that mutual life assurance companies shall pay tax at the rate of 5s. in the £1 on the whole of their taxable income, and that non-mutual companies shall pay at the rate of 5s. in the £1 on mutual income and 6s. in the £1 on non-mutual income.

The present law provides that the proportion of taxable income subject to the concessional rate of tax shall be ascertained by comparing the amount of profits divided among policy-holders for the year with the company’s total profits for the same year. It has since been pointed out by the Life Offices Association that because of the war and the consequent necessity for providing for abnormal claims, it is essential that companies shall create considerable special reserves. The result is that a substantial part of the profits is not divided among either policyholders or shareholders. Consequently, the application of the existing provisions of the act operates somewhat unfairly, as the amount of profits divided amongst policy-holders represents a relatively small proportion of the total profits of the company for the year concerned. Accordingly, the amount of income taxable at the concessional rate shall be ascertained by comparing the amount of profits divided among policy-holders with the total profits divided among both policy-holders and shareholders.

The Taxation Advisory Committee has recommended to the Government that periodical payments of alimony and maintenance be treated as assessable income in the hands of the recipient, and that a deduction of the amount paid be allowed to the payer. The Government realizes that, under the present system, many hardships are imposed which would be removed if some of the burden of wartime taxation were transferred from the payer to the payee. It is also realized that the adoption of the recommendation would represent, a radical departure from the principle of income taxation that a taxpayer should not be allowed a deduction of expenses of a private or domestic nature. In these circumstances, the Government has decided to refer this question for the consideration of the Special Committee on Taxation.

The bill also provides for a special deduction to be allowed to members of the forces in the lower income ranges. There will be no liability to income tax where the net income of the member of the forces does not exceed £250. The amount of tax payable on £251 willbe 10s. The special deduction is gradually reduced until it vanishes at £355. On incomes of £355 and over, membersof the forces will pay income tax on the same basis as civilian taxpayers.

With the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), I propose that these amendments, some of which are highly technical, shall be referred to the Special Committee on Taxation.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fadden) adjourned.

page 279

WAR-TIME (COMPANY) TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1942

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill provides for certain amendments to the War-time (Company) Tax Assessment Act 1940-1941. Some of the amendments are consequential on amendments which have been made to the Income Tax Assessment Act. Prior to the amendment of section 72 of the Income Tax Assessment Act earlier this year State income tax paid during the year of income was an allowable deduction for income tax purposes. This deduction was automatically allowed for war-time company tax purposes because the taxable income forms the basis for the ascertainment of the taxable profit in respect of which war-time company tax is payable. As a result of the amendment State income tax paid on income derived during the year ended the 30th June, 1941, will not be allowed as a deduction for Commonwealth income tax purposes. Therefore, unless provision be made to the contrary, a company will not be entitled to a deduction in its war-time company tax assessment of State income tax paid during the accounting period. The bill therefore provides for the reinstatement of this deduction for war-time company tax purposes.

The War-time (Company) Tax Assessment Act provides for the exemption of a life assurance company, the profits of which are wholly divisible among the policy-holders. Representations have been made to the effect that the “mutual income “ of a life assurance company, the whole of the profits of which are not divisible among the policy-holders, should be exempt from the tax. The Income Tax Assessment Act now differentiates between the mutual and non-mutual income of life assurance companies. The “ mutual income “ is liable for ordinary income tax at a. rate lower than is imposed on non-mutual income, and is not liable for super-tax or the tax imposed under that act on undistributed profits.

The Government considers that the “mutual income” of all life assurance companies should be exempt from wartime company tax, and provision for this has accordingly been made in the bill. A consequential provision is that capital employed in producing the “ mutual income “ shall not be taken into account in ascertaining the amount of capital employed by a life assurance com- pany. The present law does not specify a time within which a company may claim a greater statutory percentage than that prescribed by the act, or may apply for an increase of the capital employed. It is desirable that a time limit be imposed, otherwise claims and applications may be lodged years after assessments have been made. The bill provides for a time limit, which is consistent with the conditions of the law relating to the lodgment of objections, namely, within 60 days of service by post of the notice of assessment. Where the claim affects a class of business, the time limit for the application has been fixed to terminate at the end of the financial year of assessment to which the claim relates.

Under the War-time (Company) Tax Assessment Act, a company is authorized to deduct from dividends payable to preference shareholders a proportion of the war-time company tax payable by the company. Legal opinion is to the effect that as the act stands at present, the deduction can be made only from dividends which are paid out of the taxable profit on which the tax has been assessed. This means that a company which is desirous of deducting a proportion of the tax from the preference dividend in accordance with the act must delay the declaration and payment of the dividend until the tax has been assessed.

Obviously, it was not intended that the law should cause delay and inconvenience to companies and shareholders. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the law so as to make it clear that a company which has paid or becomes liable to pay war-time company tax may deduct a proportion of the tax from dividends subsequently paid to preference shareholders.

In December, 1941, a provision was inserted in the act limiting the period of its operation to six months after the end of the financial year during which the present war with Germany terminates. It will be obvious to honorable members that this provision is inadequate in view of the entry of- other nations into the war. The bill provides for the deletion of the reference to any specific nation with which this country is at war, and makes clear the meaning of the words “ present war “. As the law stands at present, serious anomalies will arise when the act ceases to operate. The Commissioner of Taxation will then be precluded from completing any assessments, or from giving effect to decisions upon objections. He may also be precluded from collecting any tax outstanding at, that date. The Government proposes, therefore, to amend the law so that the tax will apply to taxable profit derived up to the end of the financial year during which the war terminates. This provision will enable the department to complete all assessments and to collect all tax in respect of each year to which the act applies.

In common with the Income Tax

Assessment Bill, this bill will also be submitted to the Special Committee on Taxation for examination before the second-reading debate is proceeded with.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fadden) adjourned.

page 281

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1942

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- I move-

That, in respect of all assessments for the financial year which commenced on the first day of July. One thousand nine hundred and forty-two and all subsequent years -

in lieu of the taxable income excepted from the super-tax imposed by section six of the Income Tax Art 1942 by paragraph (c) of the proviso to that section, the following taxable income be excepted: - “ the mutual income, as defined in sub-section (1a.) of section one hundred and sixty c of the Income Tax Assessment Act1936- 1942. of a life assurance company.”; and

in lieu of the rate specified in clause (1) of sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of the Seventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1942 in the case of a life assurance company other than a mutual life assurance company, the following rate of tax be substituted : - “ (1) in respect of the mutual income of the company as defined in sub-section (1a.) of section one hundred and sixty c of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1942- Sixty pence.”.

The amendments which will be made to the Income Tax Act passed in June last, relate to the rates of tax to be imposed for the current financial year on the mutual income of partly mutual life assurance companies. The resolutionis complementary to amendments that are being made in the Income Tax Assessment Act to alter the basis of calculating the amount of that mutual income. Under the uniform income tax plan, tax at the rate of 5s. in the £1 is payable on the mutual income of these companies. The ordinary rate of 6s. in the £1 is levied on the non-mutual income. The mutual income is also freed from liability to’ the super tax of1s. in the £1 and from the further tax on undistributed profits of 2s. in the £1.

As I explained in my second-reading speech on the Income Tax Assessment Bill, the mutual income of partly mutual companies is calculated under the present law by comparing the amount of profits divided among policy-holders for the year with the total profits for the same year. That is the basis of ascertaining the mutual income which is free from super tax and undistributed profits tax, and is subject to the concessional rate of 5s. in the £1. Provision is being made in the Income Tax Assessment Bill to alter the basis of ascertaining the amount, of the mutual income of the companies. This alteration is being made because the present basis operates unfairly. Owing to war-time conditions, the companies have found it necessary to create considerable special reserves, so that a very substantial part of the profits is not divided among either policy-holders or shareholders. As a consequence, a comparison of profits distributed to policy-holders with total profits applies inequitably. Accordingly, the Income Tax Assessment Bill provides, by amendment to section 160c 1 a, that the mutual income shall be calculated by comparing the amount of profits divided among policy-holders with the total profits divided among both policy-holders and shareholders.

The purpose of the resolution is to give to the expression “ mutual income “ of partly mutual life assurance companies the same meaning in the rating act as that which is being adopted in the Income Tax Assessment Act. As I have already announced, the rates of tax imposed for the current financial year remain unaltered.

Progress reported.

page 282

BUDGET 1942-43

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from the 10th September (vide page 209), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the first item in the Estimates under division 1. - The Senate; - namely, “ Salaries and allowances, £8,000 “, be agreed to.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The budget cannot be regarded as having been prepared by men who are really facing the realities of Australia’s war needs. The inflation which must flow from the general methods of finance adopted by the Government will inevitably have such an upsetting effect upon the economy of this country as to retard the organization of the nation for war. It is impossible to describe the national war effort as a total effort until every one in the community who is capable of making a contribution to it is contributing. Some are contributing their personal services, others their lives and their limbs, and parents are contributing their sons and daughters,but a substantial section of the community, which has not yet made any contribution of that character, has the capacity, to make a substantial financial contribution. The weight of taxation provided for in this budget and in the other war-time budgets is substantial upon those who earn incomes in what might be described as the middle to higher ranges. We have no quarrel with that. In fact, those taxes were conceived and imposed first by a government drawn from the parties on this side of the chamber, but the notional war effort cannot he fairly described as a total effort while more than 50 per cent. of the incomes of this country are making an almost infinitesimal contribution. I shall not try to repeat all the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden). He has put the case for the Opposition concisely and clearly. I merely say in general terms that unless there is a drawing off of the very great purchasing power of the very numerous section of the population which earns incomes of less than £400 per annum, we shall be subtracting from the war effort instead of adding to it.

We further consider that a total war effort can be secured from the people only by a government which the people believe is concentrating its attention exclusively upon the prosecution of the war and is not dividing its attention between that and the implementing of a party political programme, as the present Government is doing. It is exploiting the war for the purpose of putting into operation long cherished political ideals of the Labour party.

Mr Baker:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr McEWEN:

– I shall proceed to show what is wrong.

Mr Blackburn:

– It is more important to know what are those political planks.

Mr McEWEN:

– One does not have to rummage very deeply to find some important ways in which the Government is putting its political programme into operation. The Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) unblushingly said the other day that tenders for important requirements of our armed services would not be accepted from companies unless every employee was a financial member of the appro priate union. That is one important political plank of the Labour party’s platform which has been forced upon the people in the guise of organization for war. We hear from the Government much talk about freedom. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) said that the budget represented the Labour party’s effort to organize the Australian people to fight for the four freedoms. Surely, one of the most important freedoms is the freedom to choose one’s own political alinement. There is scope for difference in political views, but to say, in the midst of the peril with which we are faced, that a company shall not tender for the supply of important war requirements unless every employee is a financial member of the union, and, ipso facto, a contributor to the funds of the Labour party, is the very abrogation of freedom. This Government is obliged to stand up and say how it relates that to the organization of the country for a total war effort. We find that, when people are drawn into these unions, they are obliged to act according to union dictation.

Mr BAKER:

– What does the honorable member know about that?

Mr McEWEN:

– I have previously raised in this chamber the case of country lads from my electorate who went to work in a government-owned munitions annexe and who, by moral suasion, were induced to become members of the union and then found that their membership made them subject to a direction from the union to go on strike. These men, unsteeped in the pernicious doctrines of job control, declined to strike. The honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Baker) was present, I think, when I asked the Government what its attitude was towards the subsequent action of the union in fining them for disobedience of the strike order. What has the Government to say about a policy which compels men to join a union before they can be permitted to work in the interests of the nation, and then subjects them to the dictation of Ihe union to go on strike and allows them to be fined because they refuse to do so? There is the notorious and recent instance of men in an important rolling mill at Port Kembla who, in recognition of the nation’s war needs, refused to obey a direction from their union to cease work on Good Friday, or some other customary holiday. Those men were fined by the union for having disobeyed. What has the Government to say about that? How does that tally with a total war effort or with the four freedoms to which the Treasurer referred? Those instances could be multiplied many times. I notice that I am not being subjected to an interjection now when I cite cases which justify me in saying that the Government is availing itself of the opportunities of war administration to impose some political planks of the Labour party’s platform upon unwilling sections of the Australian people. I have no quarrel with the Labour party for having its own platform ; we have ours, and there is justifiable scope for difference, but I do quarrel with it for seeking to impose its policies in the guise of organization for war. I was told the other day by a man, on whose word I place great reliance, that men called up in the eastern States for the Civil Construction Corps were compulsorily drafted to Queensland, and that out of their prescribed weekly rates of pay they were willy-nilly subscribing to the Australian Workers Union.

Mr Chifley:

– That is not so.

Mr McEWEN:

– I have always found my informant reliable. It is by no means inconsistent with the- other cases I have mentioned. I would say that it is far less pernicious to take by compulsion subscriptions for a union than it is to say that men shall be forbidden to work in the production of war materials because either they or their fellow employees are not financial members of the union. These are matters upon which the searchlight of public attention should be directed. I feel very strongly upon them, and, from my conversations with many other Australians, I know that they also do. When we are calling upon the young manhood of this country to make such great sacrifices, and when our womenfolk are undergoing torment through the presence of their sons, brothers, and husbands in the battle line, we should do everything in our power to ensure that the people generally shall not fear that the Government of the country is exploiting them to gain a party political advantage. Without doubt we shall be called upon to make greater sacrifices before the war can be won. Our men are dying to-day in New Guinea, and many more will die there and in other theatres of war before victory has been achieved. Our men who are facing the invader should have no doubt whatever in their minds that those of us who are standing safely in the background at home are doing our utmost to organize the resources of the country for a complete war effort without .any desire for political advantage. We know that on many occasions our fighting men have been at a great disadvantage because of the lack of air support. We have implored our kinsmen in the United Kingdom, and also our friends and allies in the United States of America, to provide us with more aircraft and with other necessary fighting equipment. How can we continue to make such requests while our Government, and a section of our people, condone strikes in our own aircraft factories? Honorable members must be well aware that an intermittent strike has been proceeding at an important aircraft factory in Melbourne for the last few weeks. I say to the Government that we cannot expect to receive help from overseas while we allow such things to go on in our own country. Not only in our aircraft factories, but also in our munitions factories strikes have occurred which should never have been countenanced for a minute. The Government should grapple with and overcome this problem. We cannot expect our fighting men, or our citizens in general, to make a maximum war effort with an undivided mind, nor can we expect our kinsmen and allies overseas to help us, while our national economy is dislocated by labour disputes. In these critical days, every person in the community ought, surely, to be doing his utmost to make the fullest contribution to the war effort, not only by means of taxation, but also by service in war factories and in civil callings. This is not pleasant ground to traverse, and I regret that I have felt compelled to refer to such matters.

Mr Frost:

– It is the kind of ground that the honorable gentleman often traverses.

Mr McEWEN:

– It is important that we shall face the facts. The type of interjection which the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) has just made is typical of his contributions to the debates in this House. He is always ready to sneer at somebody else. I do not intend to be turned aside by his sneers. I have bad the experience of reading on one page of a newspaper appeals by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America for assistance, especially in the provision of urgently needed aircraft, and of reading on another page that 2,000 employees engaged in the construction of an aerodrome somewhere in Australia were on strike because of some slight difference of opinion about the value of the food supplied to them and the value of the allowance prescribed under some award to meet the cost of such food. How can we expect our representations to govern ments overseas to be successful while we fail, in our own country, ,to present a solid phalanx to the enemy?

Mr Calwell:

– More strikes occur in England than we have in Australia.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am quite sure that that statement is incorrect.’

Mr Calwell:

– They also lose more working days than we lose.

Mr McEWEN:

– That statement, too, I believe, is incorrect. The people of Great Britain are making enormous sacrifices in order to win the war. We ought to fix our attention upon our own shortcomings and not criticize the people of Great Britain.

Mr Calwell:

– I was not criticizing them.

Mr McEWEN:

– The honorable gentleman’s remark was undoubtedly critical. Surely he cannot be aware that the people of England are able to obtain only ls. worth of meat and only a pat of butter a week! Only this week I have been told by a gentleman who has recently returned from Great Britain - I do not refer to the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) - that the prescribed maximum value of meat allowed for one person in Great Britain purchases equal to one chop a week. Moreover, only 2 oz. of butter or margarine is allowed each week, and very little fish is available. The people get practically no fresh fruit.

We should remember that the people of the Mother Country are working not only for their own defence but also for the defence of this country, and of other parts of the Empire so that, as soon as possible, a successful and final assault may be made upon the enemy. At a time when aeroplanes were more valuable than gold to Great Britain, the people of that country continued to make fighter and bomber aircraft for us in order to fulfil undertakings given to us in days when the war was not nearly so serious as it now is. During the time when France was still solidly with us, and before Italy and Japan joined our enemies, GreatBritain undertook to give, not sell, to the Australian Government a large number of aircraft. I am not at liberty to give the exact number, but it ran into four figures. In the days when the battle for Great Britain was being waged desperately, and when British aircraft factories were working at top speed, Great Britain continued to send aircraft to this country in fulfilment of the agreed programme. If a ship was sunk on its way to Australia with, say, 40 bombers on board, the British Government did not say to us : “ Well, that’s just bad luck, Australia. Your 40 bombers have gone to the bottom of the sea “. The workmen of Great Britain bent to their task with new energy and put 40 more bombers on a boat for us. In spite of assistance of this kind, our own men are striking in aircraft factories. Next week, we are told, 2,000 more men may go on strike. In these circumstances, how can we expect people overseas to believe that we take our peril seriously? When men who are earning £10 to £12 a week go on strike simply because a shop steward is transferred from one part of an establishment to another, it cannot be expected that people in America and Britain will believe that we feel that we are in dire peril. We should be exerting ourselves to the utmost of our ability to obtain a maximum production from our aircraft factories and other establishments that are providing us with war materials. These are matters to which the Government should give its undivided attention without delay.

Unless and until we are able to correct the shortcomings in our industrial arena, and to devote ourselves with single-mindedness of purpose to the war effort, without allowing ourselves to be distracted by anything, we can hardly expect that people overseas will believe that we are really intent upon the defence of our country.

Mr Conelan:

– What did the previous Government do while it was in office?

Mr McEWEN:

– The record of the previous Government speaks for itself. The organization of the country’s resources for war by the previous Government will stand much closer examination than will the organization for which this Government has been responsible. The honorable member for Griffith must have a short memory. Perhaps I ought to refresh his mind on one or two subjects.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Go ahead !

Mr McEWEN:

– The members of the Australian Military Forces now fighting in Papua and New Guinea in the defence of this country would not have been where they are if the votes of honorable members opposite had prevailed in the House in a certain division that was taken in 1939.

Mr Frost:

– That is not correct.

Mr Conelan:

– Of course it is not correct.

Mr McEWEN:

– When the Government of which I was at that time a supporter introduced an amendment of the Defence Act to provide that members of the Australian Military Forces might be sent to Papua and New Guinea, the proposal was . vehemently and viciously resisted by honorable gentlemen who are now sitting opposite. If they had had their way there would have been no members of the Australian Military Forces fighting in New Guinea to-day.

Mr Conelan:

– If that proposal was carried at a time when honorable gentlemen opposite were in a minority, how can they claim credit for what was done?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Griffith should not invite an honorable member to make statements and then reply to them by interjection’. I warn him against such conduct.

Mr McEWEN:

– Obviously the honorable member for Griffith does not enjoy having his memory refreshed. If his memory be as dead on other points as it is on that, I shall refresh it further. In this House, I took part in a division in whichthe and his colleagues voted to prevent any Australian from being sent abroad as a member of an expeditionary force during this war. That even embraced the Empire Air Training Scheme.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member stated that the members of the Labour party viciously opposed a certain proposal. I ask for the withdrawal of the expression “ viciously “. on the ground that the Labour party is devoid of vice.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The remark is not unparliamentary; therefore, it need not be withdrawn.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am referring to the total organization of the Australian people for war. I recall that when a Government of which I was a member proposed to introduce a compulsory national register - the basic and most elementary requirement in respect of the organization of a nation for war - it was opposed by the Labour party. A gentleman who is assisting to administer a department to-day, said that he would refuse to fill in his national register card; and another gentleman who is administering a department indicated very clearly that he would seize every opportunity that presented itself to oppose the taking of a register of Australian man-power. I could continue to refresh the memory of the honorable member for Griffith, but I shall spare him.

Mr Rankin:

– Is it not a fact that the gentleman who to-day is Minister for Labour and National Service said that he would not fill in his card?

Mr McEWEN:

– To the best of my recollection,that is a fact. He is the member of the Executive Council who is responsible for administering the machinery for the registration of the men and women of this country for national service. I have no wish to pursue the subject further; the records of this Parliament speak for themselves.

I conclude by saying that the budget submitted by the Treasurer is not a realistic approach to the war problems of this country. Such an approach would call for executive action by the Government, or legislation by this Parliament, which would oblige every man, woman, or corporate body, to contribute to the maximum, either by personal effort or in money, to the organization of our requirements for war. It obliges the Government to allow no person, no section that is capable of making a contribution to escape doing so. The budget does not represent a realistic approach to the total organization of this country because inherent in its very structure are policies which must inevitably lead to a rising of prices, through the purchase of goods and services to meet personal requirements and desires, in competition with the war requirements ofthe Government.

Mr Calwell:

– How can that happen when wages are pegged?

Mr McEWEN:

– The honorable member knows that wages have not been pegged. Mention has been made of such a policy, but it is not actually in being. There is an obligation on the Government to take the maximum personal monetary and material contribution from every person and corporate body in this country. That is not proposed in the budget. In the second place, there is an obligation on a government which occupies the treasury bench in war-time, to play fair by the people of this country, and not, by insidious means, to impose upon them the political theories and planks of a party platform. That is being done by the means that I have mentioned. The Government should ponder this matter. It should realize that a division is being caused in the ranks of the Australian people. It should not continue a week longer administrative policy which declares ineligible to contribute to the requirements of our fighting forces certain companies which have employees, machinery and material that are capable of producing such requirements, merely because all of those employees are not trade unionists.

Progress reported.

page 286

ADJOURNMENT

Rationalization of Pig Industry - Launceston Meteorological Station - Mr. J. A. Mendes - Daylight Saving : Effect on Dairying Industry - Mr. Dedman and Victory Suit.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley)proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- According to press statements, the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) proposes to rationalize the pig industry on the basis of the contract that has been made with Great Britain. Every honorable member must know that this industry fluctuates tremendously. During the regime of a previous government eighteen months ago, pigs were almost valueless. There had been a boom in the industry. Pig men had embarked in it. on a large scale. Bacon pigs were worth approximately £2 10s., porkers £1 15s., slips 7s., 8s. or 10s., and sows £1, £1 5s. or £1 10s. During that period, those people lost a great deal ; in fact, they were in such a position that they had to get out of the industry. I admit that to-day there is a boom in pig meats and that prices are beyond reason. The Government must realize, however, that the man who has been in the pig industry for a period of years has lost a good deal, and that no government went to his assistance when he was in trouble. To-day, when he has an opportunity to recoup himself, the Government proposes a price of 7d. per lb., which is not equal to the cost of production. Costs are rising tremendously. In the last two years, the cost of agricultural labour has increased by at least 100 per cent. Feed costs, too, have increased enormously. Those who are in the industry in a big way, not realizing that there was likelihood of government, interference, have bought store pigs at high prices on many occasions. I know of one man who bought at a sale 70 store pigs at from £3 to £3 15s. each. If the Government should fix the price at 7d. per lb., he will sell those pigs at approximately the price that he gave for them, after he has fed them for from two to three months. I agree that the industry should be rationalized; but it is quite wrong that the rationalization should be on the basis of the contract with the British Government. Practically every other industry in Australia is allowed an Australian price. Apart from those who have lost their husbands, sons or brothers, the people of Australia -have not suffered in this war. I say definitely that they should be prepared to make sacrifices in order that Great Britain may be supplied with foodstuffs at the contract price. But the price paid for the foodstuffs consumed in Australia by our Army and our allies, as well as our civilian population, should be such as will return to producers the cost of production, plus a reasonable profit. That is the basis on which the dairying industry works ; and the attempt is being made to apply the same principle to the wheat-growers. The man engaged in the production of munitions, and the clothing manufacturer, are similarly circumstanced. If the Government allows the present proposal to operate, it will be forced by a definite shortage to withdraw the restriction. Prices for pig products will then be such as have not been previously known in Australia. A farmer cannot be compelled to breed, feed, and market pigs. He must be given reasonable compensation for the money he has invested in the industry and the labour he has employed. I hope that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), who is in charge of the House at the moment, will bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Commerce. It is most important. The pig industry is a large one, and could be tremendously expanded. Our export of pig meats can be very greatly increased. In fact, there is a great future before the industry, and I trust that there will be no unwise interference with its development.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Government the need to establish upon a suitable site in Launceston a properly equipped climatological station. Observations were for many years taken by the late Mr. H. H. Scott, curator of the Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston, the instruments being set up at that time in the Royal Park, near the museum. “When Mr. Scott was no longer in a position to continue the work, the station was taken over by Mr. D. V. Allen, formerly principal of the Launceston Technical College, and the instruments were removed to Mr. Allen’s private residence in Balfourstreet, about a mile from the previous location. The situation differed markedly from the previous site, being on an exposed hillside. Since Mr. Allen’s retirement, he has found it inconvenient to continue as a weather observer, a.nd within the last few months the station has again been moved. It is now located in a private garden at the residence of Miss Cooper, in Tamar-street. In a letter to me on this subject, the Royal Society, which has interested itself in the matter, states - lt would seem obvious that changes in the location of the observatory result in a lack of continuity that greatly diminishes the scientific value of the observations, and renders quite impracticable any significant comparative study over a period of 3’ears. Indeed, when, as in the present case, changes of location follow each other at such frequent intervals - and there is, -of course, no guarantee, and, indeed, little likelihood, that the present site promises any degree of permanency - there remains scarcely a semblance of the permanence of location that is not only desirable, but almost necessary for the satisfactory functioning of a weather observatory.

As already noted, the instruments are at present set up in a private back yard. Information brought under the notice of the meeting of the Royal Society Council suggests that the situation has numerous grave disadvantages as a meteorological observation station.

The instruments are exposed in far from typical conditions and the proximity of buildings of considerable size would appear to render the taking of observations that can be interpreted as representing a significant approximation to the meteorological norm of the city quite out of the question. As an indication of the highly unsatisfactory character of the site, it will, perhaps, suffice to mention that the conditions of the locality make impossible, wc are informed, even the keeping of records of diurnal duration of sunshine (in, it may be observed in passing, an important tourist centre).

It is felt that Launceston is worthy of being thu site of a first-class climatological station. Not only is the city a centre of a considerable population, and of sufficient economic importance to warrant it being ranked as n subcapital city; but from both the general and tile scientific point of view, it is eminently desirable that full meteorological records should he kept in this part of the island. As things stand at present, there is really only one first-class station .south of Melbourne. It is believed that the establishment here of a station of a higher type than that at present in existence would prove invaluable, and would provide a much-needed link in the northsouth chain of stations. Furthermore, it would result, in strengthening the meteorological network of the Commonwealth at a point that is considered to be, from a meteorological point of view, a locality of considerable strategic significance.

Over and above its purely scientific value, such a station, equipped for the taking of a comprehensive series of observations, would be of considerable practical value in providing data for the purposes of general weather forecasting, for aerial navigation, for regional analysis of meteorological conditions, for the benefit of shipping, and for a number of industrial needs - in connexion with the last-named function it would, for instance, provide information now often sought in vain by commercial interests to whose successful working detailed and reliable records of hours of sunshine, sudden changes in humidity, and so on are at times indispensable. The present station appears to be equipped only with instruments appropriate to a second-class station and it seems clear that a raising of its status would have widespread and beneficial results.

It is felt by this society that the establishment of a fully equipped climatological station at Launceston is long overdue; and, further, that with the constantly increasing demand for fuller meteorological data arising out of the extension of aerial navigation, increase in specialized industries, and so on, the present is an opportune time for the installation of such a station.

Summing up the matter, therefore, this society feels that the present state of affairs constitutes a decidedly unscientific, and from a practical point of view highly unsatisfactory, arrangement. It desires, accordingly, to draw your attention to the position, and to bring under your notice, in particular, the serious results arising from the lack of a permanent site for the station, from the unsatisfactory conditions under which records are at present taken, and from the limited scope of the station’s activities, as evidenced, for instance, by the fact that at the moment even such a standard observation as hours of sunshine is not made. In short, the scope and the character of the existing weather observatory in Launceston aic altogether inadequate when regarded in the light of the economic needs and the scientific significance of the district, the station not only not having advanced in step with the ever-increasing requirements of the present day, but actually standing, it would appear, a,t a lower level than it did the best part of a generation ago.

I agree that the work of equipping a proper station should be undertaken immediately, provided it can be done at reasonable cost. It is necessary for the purposes of aerial navigation that proper meteorological records should be kept, and it is from this angle that I approach the matter. The ideal site for the station is at Royal Park, close to the museum, where it could be operated by the museum staff. On that site it could be established at a reasonable cost, and I ask that favorable consideration be given to the request of the Royal Society.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · Capricornia · ALP

– This morning, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) asked -me whether Mr. J. A. Mendes, of the Mayfair Hotel, Darlinghurst, .Sydney, had been granted exemption from military duties. As the result of inquiries, I am advised that on Friday last this man was called up by the Army for military service. The Department of Labour and National Service, in accordance with the usual practice, considered this case, and classified him as being available for military service, but allowed a stay of seven days for the .purpose of enabling him to attend to his domestic arrangements. Last Monday, he applied to the Central Police Court, Sydney, for exemption on the grounds of great hardship and, in accordance with the normal departmental procedure, his call-rip hai been deferred until his case is heard by the court. The hearing is expected to take place early next week. I am not aware of any boast by Mr. Mendes in the terms mentioned by the honorable al ember, but I have called for the file, and shall examine it, with a view to making the fullest investigation of the allegation. The honorable member will be further advised on the matter as soon as possible.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I direct the attention of the Government to certain features of daylight saving, the regulation for the introduction of which has been gazetted. I have never been convinced that daylight saving is really suited to Australian conditions. The material advantages to be gained from it are not commensurate with the disabilities caused to certain sections of the population, and in particular to the rural industries. I realize that the Government has considered the matter thoroughly, and has had access to information which has not been at my disposal. The regulation has now been promulgated, and I assume that the Government has excellent reasons for its action.

Daylight saving was first introduced in Great. Britain during the last war; but the difference between the hours of daylight in winter and those in summer is considerably greater in the British Isles than it is in the Commonwealth. Here, we gain comparatively little advantage by putting forward the clock one hour in summer. I shall read an extract from a letter which points out the disadvantages suffered by housewives, particularly those of the working class -

A number of women with young children have linked me to write to you concerning the proposed daylight saving bill. It was very difficult (or them last summer to put their children to sleep in houses still hot in the early evening and so the children, not having enough sleep, became fretful and unwell. A noi her drawback is that an evening dinner lias to tie prepared during the hottest part of the day, for most working families necessarily have a 8 o’clock meal. This summer, when the housewife must do all her own shopping, often with some distance to go and no refrigerator to save daily journeys in most cases, the burden will be more severe still. This means th n i. the health of many women, as well as children, will suffer, which is not in the interests of national efficiency, especially as so few doctors are available for the civilian population. Conditions here are very different from those prevailing in England, where the summers are never so severe, or the nights so hot. X came from England and know how different our summers here are. It is often impossible to get to sleep at a normal hour, and the slight saving in working time is more than counterbalanced by the fatigue and consequent inefficiency resulting from insufficient rest during the cooler hours of the morning.

The letter relates to the disabilities of housewives in the metropolitan area; I desire to direct attention particularly to the disadvantages that will be suffered by rural industries. Last week, the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) and I had a conversation with the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) on the matter, and we brought to his notice the position in which dairymen will be placed this summer. Under the new regulations, they will be obliged to milk their cows an hour earlier than in normal times. The cows will have to be brought to the dairy during the heat of the day, and the milk will be taken from them under hot conditions, and will be kept in those conditions until it is delivered to either the factories or the metropolitan areas. The result, will be that the milk will not keep so well as it does when the cows are milked under cooler conditions. Whilst I realize the impracticability of ordaining one time for the country and another for the cities, I believe that the difficulty could be largely overcome by Government action to alter the hours for the transport of milk. In other words, the schedule of milk trains, which are used in certain districts to convey milk to metropolitan areas, should be put back one hour, in order to avoid the necessity for milking in the heat of the day. If milk is brought by motor truck, the time-table should be fixed, not according to clock time, but according to the sun. Such an alteration would assist substantially to rectify the grievances of the dairymen, and I hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to the matter at an early date.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organization of Industry · Corio · ALP

– I desire to reply to two statements that the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) made yesterday concerning myself. He said -

After six weeks of restricted buying, 1 notice that the Minister himself wore a couple of new suits.

The implication is that I used the period of restricted buying to purchase new suits for myself. That insinuation is utterly without foundation. I have not bought any clothing whatsoever for myself since long before the Restriction of Sales Regulations came into effect.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– Has not the Minister a new “ victory suit “ ?

Mr DEDMAN:

– The “victory suit” is the sole exception. The second statement to which I take exception refers to the “ victory suit “. The honorable member for Adelaide said -

I noticed also to-day at the hotel wherehe stays that he was wearing a “‘victory suit”, but it had a waistcoat.

Again, the inference to be drawn from that statement is that, contrary to the regulations, the “ victory suit “ which I wore had a waistcoat.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– That is not the inference to be drawn from the statement.

Mr DEDMAN:

– It is the inference which the average individual would draw from it.

Mr Barnard:

– There is no doubt that that is what the honorable member for Adelaide intended to convey.

Mr DEDMAN:

– That is so.

Mr Paterson:

– I took it to mean that the waistcoat belonged to another suit.

Mr DEDMAN:

– The proof that the meaning is as I have indicated, is to be found in the fact that press representatives have asked me why I have a “victory suit” with a waistcoat. The implication is perfectly clear, namely, that, contrary to the regulations, I had a “victory suit” made with a. waistcoat. That insinuation is entirely false. What happened is that yesterday I wore a “ victory suit “ with a waistcoat belonging to an old suit. I was practising what I have been preaching to the public, namely, that so far as possible, one should wear out one’s old clothes. The honorable member for Adelaide should be ashamed of his effort to undermine the integrity of a Minister who is only trying to do his job.

Mr.FROST (Franklin- Minister for Repatriation) [4.20]. - I shall refer the remarks by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) with regard to the pig industry to the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully), and a reply will be supplied to him. I shall also see that the observations of the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) regarding a site for a meteorological station in Launceston are brought to the notice ofthe appropriate Minister.

Mr Ryan:

– What about daylight saving; and its effect on the dairying industry ?

Mr.FROST.- I congratulate the honorable member for Flinders on the good case submitted by him in respect of milk deliveries. That matter also will be referred to the Minister for Commerce.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.22 p.m.

page 290

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Moratorium Regulations : Life Assurance Premiums

Mr Blackburn:

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Will he consider amending regulation 24 of the War Service Moratorium Regulations by reducing from C per centum to 5 per centum the rate of interest chargeable by an insurance company upon the unpaid premiums of an insured who is (a) a member of the forces or (b) the female dependant of a member of the forces? 2. (a.) What amount of interest is chargeable by an insurance company on a loan made by it to a policy-holder? (b) as to such a loan, is any distinction made between (i) a member of the forces or a member’s dependant and (ii) an ordinary civilian?
  2. Will he consider extending the protection of the War Service Moratorium Regulations to policies issued since the commencement of the war to members of the forces or to their female dependants?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 3. These matters are at present receiving consideration. I hope to be in a position to announce that a substantial reduction in the rate of interest will be made. 2. (a) If the loan is on the security of a policy the rate of interest is limited by an order under regulation 11 of the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations to 5 per centum. (6) No such distinction is made by the order referred to.

Recruitment of Labour in Tasmania.

Mr Beck:

k asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that an order was issued that labour was to be recruited in Tasmania to be employed in the mainland States?
  2. If so, which of his Ministers was responsible for the order? 3.To the onder still in operation?

Mr.Curtin. - Inquiries are being made and a reply will be furnished to thehonorable member as early as possible. sugar Industry.

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– On the 9th September the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked the following question, without notice: -

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Customs say whether an investigation was recently made of the sugar industry from the man-power point of view? If so, hasa reportbeen submitted to the Minister, and canhe say when it will be made available to honorable members?

The answer to the honorablemember’s question is as follows: -

An investigation was recently made into many aspectsof the sugar industry and areport has been submitted to the Minister for Trade and Customs. Action has already been taken to implement certain of the recommendations. For security reasons it would be unwise to make this report available for general information, hut any member who is specially interested in the subject will be given an opportunity of perusing the report upon his personal application to the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 September 1942, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1942/19420911_reps_16_172/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant