House of Representatives
26 September 1944

17^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- SECRET MEETING OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS
QUESTION
- UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY
QUESTION
- SPORTING AMMUNITION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- INTERSTATE TRAVEL BY SCHOOLBOYS
QUESTION
- ALUMINIUM
QUESTION
- OATS SUBSIDY
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION
QUESTION
- SYDNEY ICE SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- SIR WILLIAM WEBB
QUESTION
- DEFENCE AND CIVIL MANUFACTURES
QUESTION
- FODDER,
QUESTION
- GOSFORD CABBAGE CROP
QUESTION
- PRODUCER-GAS
QUESTION
- PRISONERS OF WAR
QUESTION
- BORE CASING AND PUMPING PLANT
QUESTION
- SHARE PRICES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIANS IN UNITED KINGDOM SERVICES
QUESTION
- SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC STAR
FOOD PRODUCTION
- Exports to Britain
QUESTION
- COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- TRANSPORT OF MEMBERS OF. PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1944
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES 1944-45
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1944-45
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited
- Constitution Alteration Referendum : Details of Voting
- Fruit and Vegetables: Royal Commission’s Report
- Royal Australian Navy: Discharges
- Boards and Commissions

Mr.Speaker (Hon. J. S.Rosevear) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1380

QUESTION

SECRET MEETING OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister yet reached a conclusion in regard to the request that I made during the budget debate, for a private joint meeting of both Houses of the Parliament?

Mr CURTIN:
Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As the result of communications that have come to me, the more important of which I have imparted to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party, I have come to the conclusion that certain matters should reach a more advanced stage than they have reached if adequate consideration is to be given to them. I therefore have in mind the holdingof a private joint meeting of both Houses of the Parliament about eight weeks hence.

page 1380

QUESTION

UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Information been drawn to the report in yesterday’s

Melbourne Argus of a convention of the Young Nationalists organization, at which it was stated: “The United Australia organization had damped them, threatened them, and told them that they would starve “ ; further, that the public believed that the United Australia party was dead, -and that it was necessary to provide an effective substitute? Was the newspaper report submitted to censorship?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I read with interest and satisfaction the statement with which the first part of the question deals. In reply to the second part, I inform the honorable gentleman that only those matters which affect the safety of the nation have to be submitted to censorship. I do not believe that either the United Australia party or the Young Nationalists organization can .affect the safety of this nation, or its future, either helpfully or harmfully; because, as was said by the speaker at the convention to which the honorable member has referred, the United Australia party is dead.

page 1381

QUESTION

SPORTING AMMUNITION

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– In view of the improvement of the military situation, will the Minister for Munitions ascertain whether or not it is possible to increase the allowance of what is known as sporting ammunition?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not think that sporting ammunition is subject to the control of the Munitions Department. Ammunition of this kind has been scarcebecause of a shortage of brass strips from which to make the heads of cartridge cases. More of this material is now available so that sporting ammunition should shortly be more plentiful. Those seeking to buy sporting ammunition should communicate with their suppliers, and they will be fully informed regarding the position.

page 1381

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Use of Militia

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Now that land operations by the South-West Pacific forces have advanced north of the equator-, will the Prime Minister state whether the Government proposes to review further the legislation governing the use of the Australian Militia, or is it proposed to prohibit Australian Army units, other than the Australian Imperial Force, from taking part in operations north of the equator?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– It is not proposed to make any alteration to what is known as the militia law. I have already informed the House that I have made complete arrangements regarding the forces that are to be at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief in all his operations. Apart from the Australian Imperial Force there are, of course, the airmen and the naval forces. Without revealing what, perhaps, the enemy may know, I can say that there are still far too many Japanese south of the equator for it to be practicable for all the Australian forces that are recruited to be at present despatched north of the equator.

page 1381

QUESTION

INTERSTATE TRAVEL BY SCHOOLBOYS

Mr WARD:
Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether or not objection has been raised to the allotment of prisoner-of-war labour to individual employers on the mainland? Should there be a surplus of this labour, will the honorable gentleman make a proportion of it available for purposes of agriculture and, dairying in Tasmania, where it has proved successful and is still in considerable demand?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Prisoners of war are employed on a limited scale, and are distributed throughout the States. If any persons wish to discontinue the employment of this class of labour, it can be transferred elsewhere, in which event the wishes of Tasmania can be considered.

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service read the statement in the Australian Worker of the 13th .September, over the name of the secretary of the Australian Workers Union, that that organization is thoroughly opposed to the employment of prisoners of war in the circumstances of their present engagement? I also direct the attention of the Minister to the following extract from the Sydney Sun of the 24th September : -

By a big majority Dubbo district war agricultural committee’s- conference carried a resolution against prisoners of war being allowed to work for individual employers.

– Will the Prime Minister facilitate the return to Australia, under favorable conditions, of all Australians who were pursuing their studies in the higher branches of education in Great Britain at the outbreak of war, and are now in the Imperial services? They joined those services because it meant expeditious enlistment, and . in military parlance they ceased to be Australians.

Some of them are now rebelling against their lack of travel facilities to return to Australia and have been in communication with me on the subject.

Mr Curtin:

– As from one rebel to another ?

Dr GAHA:

– Perhaps. I am glad that the fact that I am a rebel is widely recognized.

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I shall bring the matter to the attention of the British Government. I do not propose to attempt forcibly to extract from the British forces men. who enlisted in them. I am quite sure that the British Government would be as considerate as I would be eager, should the circumstances warrant action of the kind requested.

page 1386

QUESTION

SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC STAR

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– As service in the Malayan and New Guinea areas apparently does not confer eligibility to receive the 1939-43 Star, will the Prime Minister represent the need to have those areas included’, or to have issued a South- West Pacific Star which would fittingly recognize the services of those men?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– This matter was considered while I was in London, and since my return certain communications have passed between the British Government and myself. I hope that the Minister for the Army, on my behalf, will be able to make a full statement in respect of this and other related matters before the end of the week.

page 1386

FOOD PRODUCTION

Exports to Britain

Mr. CURTIN (Fremantle - Prime

Minister and Minister for Defence). - by leave - It is regrettable that there should be misunderstanding regarding the general subject of Australia’s position in relation to food supply to the United Kingdom. The Government has never considered that it should explain the position in detail because that would have involved the publication of statistics of food production and allocations in a way which would be regarded as unwise in war-time. However, it is now necessary, in justice to the Australian Government, and in order to avoid misunderstanding with the British Government, that I should make a formal statement on the matter, and give such statistical information as can safely be disclosed publicly.

In pre-war days, the United Kingdom was dependent on imports for a large proportion of its food requirements. To cite a few examples: Britain imported during certain pre-war years 87 per cent. of its wheaten flour ; 41 per cent. of meat ; 92 per cent. of fats, comprising butter, lard and margarine ; 39 per cent. of eggs ; 77 per cent. of fruit; and 73 per cent. of sugar. Australia’s contribution to Britain’s imports of important foods in pre-war years varied according to seasons. Of the total imports, our contributions were: Wheat and flour, from 8 per cent. to 20 per cent.; meat, from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent.; dairy produce, from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent.; and fresh fruit and vegetables, from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. The British market took most of Australia’s export surplus of the important foods. In 1938-39 the United Kingdom tookthe following proportions of our exports: - Butter, 95 per cent.; meat, 90 per cent.; canned fruits, 85 per cent.; dried vine fruits, 71 per cent.; sugar, 88 per cent.; and eggs, 99 per cent. These figures reveal that whilst the United Kingdom took in peace-time most of Australia’s food exports, Australia did not supply the larger part of its food imports. In peace-time, the United Kingdom is the market for every food-exporting country in the world, and the Dominions have had a preferred position in the United Kingdom since the conclusion of the Ottawa Agreement in 1932. Honorable members will see, however, that Australia supplies a relatively modest proportion of Britain’s total food imports.

The war has adversely affected Great Britain’s food supplies in several ways. First, it cut off food supplies which went to Great Britain in very large quantities from a number of European countries; then, shipping deficiencies greatly reduced the tonnage available to carry food, and the battle of the Atlantic sent to the bottom ofthe sea very large quantities of food. The third great interference with the food supplies of the civilians of Great Britain has been the necessity to feed millions of fighting men in all theatres of war. This responsibility to feed the fighting men has been undertaken and discharged by all members of the United Nations according to their varied capacities.

Itis well to remember that Great Britain itself was forced, at the very outset,by the exigencies of war, to discontinue importation of fresh fruit and canned fruit and, later, on, of eggs, and as far as wheat and flour were concerned, to concentrate upon their transportation chiefly from the nearer sources of supply in North and South America. There were also serious problems of storage in Australia and transportation to the United Kingdom of dairy produce and meat, but by close co-operation between Great Britain and the Commonwealth, disaster to the Australian producers was consistently averted, sometimes very narrowly.

The whole complexion of the food problem was changed when Japan came into the war. Australia’s food problems ceased to concern surpluses, and related entirely to the constant threat of deficiences. The causes of this change are known to those who care to think. They are: The call to the colours of ablebodied men from all over Australia when Japan threatened to invade this country; the privilege and obligation to feed fighting men of the United States of America, who came quickly here, first to assist in our defence and then to push the enemy back and defeat him ; the aggravation of the difficulties of production caused by adverse seasonal conditions and, in Victoria, by the disastrous bush fires of 1943. I doubt whether any one in Australia would say that any discredit is attached to the Australian Government in respect of any of these matters. I make no apology for what was done. By the combination of all efforts of ourselves and our gallant Allies, Australia was saved from invasion.

I now give to the House particulars of the production and allocation of two of the principal foods which enter into the export trade from Australia to Great Britain in peace-time, and which Great Britain needs urgently in war-time. I refer first to meat. In the year 1938-39, Australia produced 963,000 tons of all classes of meat. Of that total, our own people consumed 722,000 tons, we sent 223,000 tons to the United Kingdom, and exported 18,000 tons elsewhere. This year we expect, in spite of the drought, to produce 1,000,000 tons of meat.We hope, through rationing, to reduce Australian civilian consumption to 540,000 tons. We have undertaken, in respect of the balance, to make and observe the following allocations: -

The original allocation to the United Kingdom for 1944 was 200,000 tons. It would have remained at that figure had it not been possible, in full and complete agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States of America, to reallocate supplies so that the United States would send increased supplies to the United Kingdom, and Australia would divert some of its supplies to the American forces in the South Pacific and South- West Pacific Areas. I repeat that this was done with the full agreement of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. We gave satisfaction to both, and we earned and retain the goodwill of both. I invite the critics to examine these figures and then say what they think about them.

The production position is less favorable in regard to dairy products. The production of milk in the year 1938-39 was 1,189,000,000 gallons, of which 925,000,000 gallons was used to produce butter, 65,000,000 gallons to produce cheese, 36,000,000 gallons to produce condensed and dried milk, and 163,000,000 gallons for consumption in liquid form. In the year 1943-44 the total production of milk was 1,052,000,000 gallons, of which 716,000,000 gallons was used to produce butter, 78,000,000 to produce cheese, 63,000,000 gallons for condensed and powdered milk, and 195,000,000 gallons for consumption in liquid form.

The causes of the decline in total milk production have been debated frequently in this House, and I do not wish to discuss them in this statement beyond what I have briefly said earlier. Suffice it to say that the Government has recognized the need for organizing the return of as many men to the dairying industry as is consistent with military necessity. The paramount need of the dairying industry for labour has caused the Government recently to take special steps for the release of men, now in the forces, who have been nominated by dairy-farmers for work on their farms.

In addition to the decline in total milk production, the following changes have occurred : Australian civilians are now consuming more liquid milk than they did before the war. It has been necessary, for the feeding of the fighting services, greatly to increase the production of cheese and condensed and powdered milk. The consequence of decreased total production, increased Australian civilian consumption of liquid milk, increased production of cheese and processed milks for the services, has been a very big decline of butter production. I now cite the figures for butter production and allocations -

Too much time would be required to include equally detailed references to the other important food items, but I can assure honorable members that, in respect of canned fruits, dried fruits, flour, eggs, sugar, and the like, we are in constant close touch with the British Government which understands the difficulties associated with increased production and the obligations imposed on Australia to feed the fighting services in this theatre of war.

I fully and freely acknowledge that Australian civilians, in spite of the rationing of butter and meat and other minor food shortages, have much more liberal supplies of food than have the civilians of Britain. The Australian Government deliberately rationed butter and meat to ensure supplies to the civilians of Britain, and will continue such rationing. We shall do everything in our power to increase production so that we may be able to live up to our constantly expanding obligations to the fighting services, and to maintain supplies for Britain on as large a scale as possible.

On the problem of transport of food to Britain, I had discussions with the British Minister of War Transport, Lord Leathers, when I was in London. Lord Leathers told me and confirmed in writing that, on the best possible estimate of the shipping position during 1945 and possibly the first part of 1946, he could not ask Australia to make a special effort to increase the quantity of meat, butter and other dairy produce, since the amount of refrigerated tonnage available to move cargo was limited, and would not allow of any significant increase of shipments to Britain over the level of the early part of 1944. In considering the 1945 food allocations, I have arranged that Australia shall maintain during 1945 the same level of food supplies to Britain as in 1944.

I subsequently received advice from the British Minister of Food, Mr. J. J. Llewellin, stressing the long-term importance of food from the point of view of Britain, and the anxiety with which the United Kingdom will look for increased production as soon as practicable. I have undertaken that we will do all we can to meet this need. Following on the above correspondence, negotiations were commenced for the conclusion of longterm contracts for the purchase by Britain of Australia’s surplus production of meat and dairy produce, and I hope that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) will be in a position to make a statement on that matter this week.

I lay on the table the following paper : -

Food supplies for the United Kingdom - Ministerial statement. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fadden) adjourned.

page 1388

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask a question of the Attorney-General, but by way of preface let me say that all honorable members, and the public generally, appreciate the action of the coalminers during the last three weeks in obeying the request of the Government not to allow provocative tactics by the owners to force them into strikes, but to have their grievances ventilated before the proper tribunals. Can the AttorneyGeneral say whether it is a fact that the management of the Olstan colliery refuses to obey the direction of the local tribunal given a fortnight ago to reinstate an employee, although his comrades have gone on working? Is it a fact that the reason for this refusal is that Mr. Gregory Forster has stated that the decisions of the local tribunal will be the subject of an appeal to the High Court? Is the appeal to be heard in the sweet by and by? Has any move been made to have the matter cited before the court, or is this merely a bluff for the purpose of provoking the men to hold up the mine?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– I am not aware of the facts of this case, but the Minister for Supply and Shipping has handed to me a report on it which I shall look through, and then endeavour to answer the honorable gentleman.

page 1389

QUESTION

TRANSPORT OF MEMBERS OF. PARLIAMENT

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– As many members of this Parliament had to sit up all last night, packed like sardines, in second-class railway carriages, will the Minister for Transport endeavour to display on our behalf the same enterprise and efficiency as was displayed by the schoolboys from Geelong Grammar?

Mr.WARD. - I am not aware of the exact conditions under which the honorable gentleman travelled or the significance of his reference to the Geelong Grammar schoolboys.

Mr McEwen:

– All the Government supporters have cars.

Mr WARD:
ALP

– The provision of cars is not under my control ; it is controlled by the Minister for the Interior. Every endeavour is being made to provide proper travel facilities not only for members of Parliament, but also for the general public. Those efforts will continue. Uncomfortable as the honorable member finds the present travel facilities, I advise him not to break the law, lest I should have to prosecute him as well.

page 1389

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Lancaster Bombers - Man-power.

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Defence state when it is expected that the first Australian-built Lancaster bombers and engines will be handed over to the Royal Australian Air Force? Is it a fact that man-power and machine tools urgently required for the production of immediately needed tools of war are hung up on this long-distance aircraft construction programme? Have any complaints been received by the Government from the highest military command regarding any delay in production of urgent requirements for the campaign in the SouthWest Pacific Area?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I have had no complaints from the highest military commanders in regard to any failure on the part of the Government to provide what they need. I do not wish that statement to have any misleading effects. The inability of this country to supply something makes it necessary that some other country shall supply it. Therefore, there has to be a pooling of capacities. There are occasions when Commanders-in-Chief in other theatres would not be able to carry plans to fruition, but for cooperation forthcoming from this part of the world. We have never been able to do everything ourselves and neither have any of our Allies. If there is in the question an implication that there is misuse of man-power in the Lancaster bomber programme whichis delaying military operations in this part of the world, the answer is that the implication is utterly unfounded.

Mr Abbott:

– There was no implication ; it was a request for information.

Mr CURTIN:

– The Lancaster programme has been adopted by the Government for reasons which in due course I hope to be able to recite fully in this chamber. At this juncture, I merely say that those reasons are so overwhelmingly strong that the Government, knowing that there will be some delay before the first Lancaster bomber manufactured in Australia will go into the sky, none the less, because of its association with its Allies, is determined that it is the right and proper thing to do.

Mr Forde:

– The Advisory War Council approved the programme.

Mr CURTIN:

– I am not saying that. The Government takes full responsibility for the programme.

page 1390

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1944

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to approve and give effect to an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania with respect to the production, for the purposes of defence, of ingot aluminium, and for other purposes.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I know that it is unusual to debate the motion for leave, but I am intrigued by the unusual wording of the motion. Will the Minister be explicit in his second-reading speech as to what is to happen to the industry after the war?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1390

QUESTION

ESTIMATES 1944-45

Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc.

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from the 7th September (vide page 564).

Part I. - Departments and Services - Other than Business Undertakings and Territories of the Commonwealth.

Proposed vote, £1,940,000.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country Party

– The heading, “Departments and Services, other than Business Undertakings and Territories of the Commonwealth “ obviously includes the Allied Works Council, and I desire to obtain some information about this very important and costly organization. In my budget speech, I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) to prepare a schedule-

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to order. The Department of the Interior is specified in Division No. 9. The items are listed, and the estimated cost of the proposed works is £63,900. Whilst those works may be discussed, I submit that the right honorable gentleman would not be in order in referring to the general administration of the Department of the Interior, because the time for doing so has passed.

Mr FADDEN:

I turn now to work that is being done at Albert Park, Victoria, to provide accommodation for service personnel who have hitherto been accommodated in public schools and other educational establishments in Victoria. It has been reported to me that certain of these buildings have been constructed by day labour and others by contract, and that those erected by contract cost £30,000 each less than those erected by day labour. I do not know whether this is true, but the information was given to me by a. Melbourne citizen who would not have told me something1 that he did not himself believe to be correct. The Parliament is entitled to information on this subject, but every time honorable members seek details of works in which the Government has been engaged they are told that, on security grounds, such details cannot be made available.

Mr Curtin:

– My remarks applied to the total programme to which the Leader of the Australian Country party referred. A considerable number of undertakings can be discussed. I do not, however, intend to describe the size of the graving dock at Sydney.

Mr HOLT:

– I do not ask for such information.

Mr Curtin:

– The size, of the dock was increased after the estimates were prepared, and that is one reason why the cost of the undertaking has grown.

Mr HOLT:

– Some increase would undoubtedly be justified on that ground but other factors also need attention. It may be that if the information which we desire was given to . us the Allied Works Council would appear in a much better light than it does at present. I have said on other occasions that I regard the graving dock as being a great asse! to this country, but I still contend that we are entitled to information a3 to why the original estimate has been so greatly’ exceeded. If, whenever we ask for information, we are to be told that it cannot be disclosed for security reasons, our consideration of these estimates becomes farcical, as, in fact, does any attempt to survey critically the expenditure of the Government. The blanket of security is being thrown over too many of our public works, and I contend that we have the strongest reasons for protesting against the refusal of Ministers to give us the information that we seek from time to time.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- I bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the difficulties under which private members of Parliament are being obliged to do their work, particularly in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Recently, the Federal Members’ Rooms in Sydney have been re-arranged so as to provide offices for jill honorable members representing city constituencies.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Not all of us.

Mr ANTHONY:

– At any rate, very little has been done to assist country members to discharge their duties properly. At present, private members of this Parliament are being inundated by correspondence covering a great variety of subjects which formerly fell within the province of members of State parliaments. Because the Commonwealth has taken over so many of these functions, the private members of this Parliament are being asked to take action in regard to them. Owing to the lack of clerical assistance and adequate office accommodation, it is becoming almost impossible for us to do our work efficiently. There is a disposition on the part of this Government to regard somewhat contemptuously the functions of private members of the Parliament, but, after all, private members are an essential part of this great instrument of democracy, and are entitled to proper facilities to do their important work.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The members of the Ministry will be private members again some day.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Owing to the Government’s stinginess - and I use that word deliberately - we are not able to do our work properly. If private members of the Parliament are to be obliged to spend their time sealing envelopes, licking stamps and doing other minor clerical work of that kind, obviously they cannot devote proper attention to the big national problems that should be occupying their thought. I complain bitterly about the treatment that we are receiving from this Government, for we cannot properly represent our constituents. I understand that the work being done at the Federal Members’ Rooms, Sydney, has been almost completed. With some reluctance I wrote to the Prime Minister personally on this subject some time ago. I consider the matter is of very great importance. Private members need more clerical assistance than they are receiving. Many honorable members, of whom I am one, cannot properly discharge their parliamentary duties with the assistance that they now get. Because of the positions which they hold in the Ministry and on other bodies, the majority of honorable members on the Government side have clerical assistance provided for them. The cost of providing facilities comparable with those enjoyed by members of the American Congress and the Canadian Parliament would be a mere bagatelle. Although private members do not perform executive functions, they have many duties to discharge on behalf of thousands of electors. When an expenditure of millions of pounds is contemplated, the Government should not overlook relief which would enable honorable members to delegate minor duties to others, and thus remove themselves from the category of stamp-lickers and envelope-sealers.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has promised to consider my request that he shall table a report, and furnish information concerning the cost of the Allied Works Council. The Government saw fit to issue a report of 105 pages, containing statistical information, graphs, photographs, &c, in relation to the activities of the council up to the 30th June, 1943. Financially, this information was identical with that dealt with by the report of. the Auditor-General for the year ended the 30th June, 1943. The expenditure for that year, according to the report, was £58,000,000, the greater part of it being charged to the votes of the departments shown in divisions 53 to 110 of the Treasurer’s statement. The report must arrest the attention of every honorable member who regards seriously his trusteeship for the nation. It contained the following paragraph : -

Expenditure Over Financial Authority - An aspect of considerable prominence in the activities controlled by the Allied Works Council has been the occasions on which the completed costs of works have exceeded estimates with, in many instances, expenditure in excess of financial authority. This applies to estimates prepared by departments authorizing the projects and to estimates prepared by the council. This exceeding of financial authority has been an unsatisfactory feature particularly on works carried out on behalf of the council by State government and semigovernment authorities. As all other considerations were subordinated to urgency it would appear that many works were put in hand on estimates and plans of a rudimentary nature with consequent lack of control over the ultimate extent of the project and the final cost. It has been noticed that these aspects have received attention by the council and the Board of Business Administration in recent months. If it may be assumed that the factor of urgency is not now so dominant, it is reasonable to expect considerable improvement in financial control with consequent effect upon costs.

We must be armed with all the facts and figures in order that we may determine what measure of control is being exercised in regard to the activities of: this important body, what the estimates are for the future, and generally, its financial position.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) will not be deaf to the request- for a stronger spotlight on the operations of the Allied Works Council, and thus reassure not only the taxpayers who are disturbed by rumours, but also the officers who are responsible for the conduct of this activity. I have received statements in the form of sworn declarations from men who are associated with the work of this body in Central Australia, and my policy has been to refer them to the War Expenditure Committee. One of my correspondents has placed most valuable and disconcerting evidence before that committee, the report of which, I understand, is in the hands of the Government. I am not alone in my curiosity as to why the report was not tabled before the Estimates were considered. I regret that the Prime Minister regards as party propaganda statements that are made from time to time about the anxiety of the taxpayers concerning the cost of the Allied Works Council. Recently, one of my employees, noticing four or five plumbers working on a job next door to my place, said, to my amazement: “It looks like an Allied Works Council jab ! “ Very great works have been performed hurriedly by the council, and considerations of economy have had to be subordinated completely to those of haste. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are fair enough to discriminate between such cases, and others that come under their notice. Last Anzac Day, eighteen carpenters were sent from a depot to a job, which they reached at some time after 9 a.m. The foreman did not arrive until 11.30 a.m. He then said : “ Well, boys, it is time for lunch. You had better go back to your depot “ - a distance of S miles. They returned to the job in the afternoon, only to find that the foreman was there, but the materials which they needed were not. These eighteen carpenters were paid at double rates for that day, and they merely erected a shelter for themselves against the burning heat of the interior. I believe that this statement was confirmed on oath before the War Expenditure Committee. I could cite similar examples. The Prime Minister should not shelter behind security more than is absolutely necessary, but should direct the spotlight on the work that has been done, even though he may not be able to furnish information in connexion with future operations.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) has rightly directed the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) to many disabilities from which private members suffer. I support his representations. For some time there has been far too great a disposition to regard the private member as of minor importance in this democratic institution. As a counter to that, it would be advisable to take the steps suggested by the honorable member and others, with a view to sustaining our prestige. Press attacks on parliamentarians which have been acquiesced in by somnolent governments have unfairly reflected on members. Our status and privileges compare unf avorably with those of the members of other dominion parliaments. As an upholder of democracy, I appeal to the Prime Minister and other Ministers to ensure that private members shall have reasonable consideration in all these matters. Ministers and ex-Ministers enjoy extraordinary concessions of all sorts. Were I to give details, some of them might astonish the general public. Adequate clerical assistance, as well as ample office accommodation, not only in the capital cities, but also wherever else they may be required, should be provided. Transport for members could be very greatly improved. I have air transport, particularly, in mind. While I was abroad last year, I noticed that members of the Congress of the United States of America and the Parliament of Canada who lived in distant parts were privileged to journey by air to and from their electorates. I realize that such a facility might not be possible in a general way under existing conditions in Australia; nevertheless, certain air routes could be used, and private members should receive preference over the many scores of departmental officials who now have priority and travel in comfort, whereas a member of Parliament has to take his chance with the general public. This appeal is not actuated by the desire that members should have facilities far superior to those of the ordinary citizen. The point that I make is, that they definitely need help, in order to discharge their duties properly, and to raise their prestige, which has been attacked by certain interests with the object of lowering them in the esteem of the public.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- The proposed appropriation for the Department of Civil Aviation is £1,208,000. I plead for the expenditure of a portion of it on safety measures in connexion with flying during war-time, as well as in making certain that the best use will be made of our air services when the war is over. I notice that £6,000 has been placed on the Estimates for the purpose of making grants to municipal councils wishing to establish or improve country aerodromes. I suggest that the amount might well be greatly increased. In the part of Australia with which I am familiar, the councils are only too willing to assist the Commonwealth to improve landing grounds. Some time ago, aeroplanes to the value of £250,000 were lost near Grafton because the aerodrome was not lighted. The planes, which had flown from the United States of America, had followed the radio beam 2NR, and found themselves over the Clarence River between Maclean and Grafton, having mistaken the direction to Brisbane. Local people tried to light up the landing ground with the headlights of their cars, but the planes were not able to “pick up the aerodrome until they had almost passed over it, with the result that when they touched down they ran on into a belt of trees and swamp and some were destroyed. I am told that pilots can see the great U-shaped bend in the Clarence River, near Grafton, for a distance of 100 miles, and if the aerodrome near this bend were lighted it would make a perfectly safe landing area. Other accidents have occurred within 10 miles of this place when the planes, having lost their bearings, ran out of petrol. A permanent seaplane landing base should be established at Maclean. Within the last month, an American plane flying from New Guinea with the film comedian Bob Hope and other film stars on board, crashed at Laurieton, and it was providential that all were not killed. Lake Wallis is a sheet of water 8 miles in diameter alongside Laurieton, and it would be a suitable place for sea-planes to come down on if it were marked with buoys. All along the east coast from Melbourne tu Cairns there are spots which, for the cost of a few hundred pounds, could be turned into suitable landing places, and flying would be made a great deal safer, not only for servicemen during the war, but also for civil aviation when the war is over. It would cost only £3,000 to make the landing ground at Grafton safe for both day and night flying; yet, when the accident occurred to the American planes two years ago, the authorities installed u,p to 50 members of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force with radio equipment at the mouth of the Clarence River to warn off pilots crossing the Pacific. They have been there now for a considerable time, and the cost to the country is probably between £50,000 and £60,000, whereas the expenditure of £3,000 would have made the area safe for landing. “While the war was at its height the attention of the Department of Civil Aviation has not been directed to such matters, but now that the war is within sight of ending, the department should get down to the job and do everything possible to make flying safe, and therefore attractive.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

– I draw the attention of the Government to the large amount of money paid out every year in rent for Commonwealth office, accommodation in the various State capitals. In Sydney alone, it amounts to more than £180,000. I urge the Government, as a part of its post-war planning, to arrange for the acquisition of a suitable site in each of the capital cities upon which to erect a building to house all Commonwealth departments. At the present time, departments are scattered all over the cities in such a way that it is extremely difficult for people to find the one they want.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) and the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) regarding the need for clerical assistance for private members. Probably the volume of work to which private members had to attend was- not so great before the war, but I know. that since the war it has become very heavy. It is not just a matter of typing and despatching letters. A member must keep some kind of filing system, and arrange to follow up representations made to government departments on behalf of constituents. A great deal of work is involved. For city members some help is provided. I was in Sydney the other day and noticed that the members seemed to be fairly comfortable, though I do not know what clerical staff is provided. I believe that a member should reside in his electorate and, if he does so, he cannot dash off to the city to dictate his letters and then return home. I have found it necessary ever since I have been a member of Parliament to employ a private secretary at my own expense. The provision of clerical assistance would relieve members of Parliament of some of the drudgery attending their work, and would enable them to pay more attention to their constituents.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- I have on a previous occasion referred to the need for providing clerical assistance for members of Parliament. I now urge that better conditions should be provided for members of the clerical staff, particularly the women, who work in the Federal Members’ Rooms in the capital cities. It is due to the indulgence and patience of these officers that we are able to get through our work at all. They work harder and for a greater number of hours than should be demanded of them. One member of the Sydney staff, who has now become private secretary to the Government party Whip, was previously attending to the correspondence of ten members of Parliament as a regular job, and sometimes there were as many as twenty members to be looked after. She used to work from 8 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock at night. The status of these officers should be raised to that of secretary-typist. This would be a proper recognition of the work they do, and the cost would not be very great. Some of the work, such as filing, &c., is really outside the scope of their present employment, but the fact that they do it enables members of Parliament to attend to other and more important duties.

I am glad that the general subject of the work of members of Parliament has come up for discussion. Only last week honorable members had to work right through the night in order to dispose of the Estimates. When the erection of a permanent House of Parliament is under consideration after the war, arrangements should be made for dividing the work of Parliament among various committees, some of which could be sitting simultaneously with Parliament itself. This is the practice in Great Britain, and it enables the work of Parliament to be dealt with much more expeditiously. Those honorable members who are interested in a particular section of the Estimates could attend a meeting of the committee which, with the Minister concerned, is charged with the consideration of that section. In this way it should be possible to avoid all-night sittings.

I hope that the Postmaster-General will shortly be able to arrange for the broadcasting ‘of the debates of Parliament. At the present time, it is left to the press to acquaint the public with what goes on in Parliament, and some sections of the press are not interested, or are not sympathetic to the Government. Sometimes the press reports convey a wrong impression. There is a tendency to disparage parliamentarians and parliamentary institutions, perhaps with a view of bringing about a totalitarian form of government. The public cannot conveniently come to Canberra, especially in these days of restricted travel, so the only thing to do is to take Parliament to the people, and that can be done by broadcasting the debates, as is now done in New Zealand. The broadcasting of debates will make the public politically minded, and induce them to take a greater interest in public affairs, and future referendums may have better results.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– As the war progresses many of the flying schools on which hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended in the provision of runways and other facilities will be gradually closed. I understand that in one district of Victoria two such schools have already been closed or are about to be closed. I suggest that the Department of Civil Aviation should immediately take control of all aerodromes when they become no longer necessary for the training of air crews for war purposes, so that, when the war ends, they shall be available for use in the development of civil air services. Otherwise, it is probable that the aerodromes will rapidly deteriorate owing to lack of care. The municipal authorities cannot afford to pay for their maintenance.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- I bring to the notice of the Ministry the deplorable conditions under which the staff of the Social Services Department in Sydney is housed, and under which members of the public are forced to conduct business with that department. The staff, which consists of 300 persons, of whom 250 are women, is accommodated in a badly ventilated old building which was formerly used as a drug store, and is inadequate for its present purpose. Next year additional social services, including hospital benefits, unemployment and sickness benefits, and pharmaceutical benefits will be operated by the department. Old people who await their turn for interviews have to sit on stools in a dirty corridor. In the child endowment office, people have to wait sitting on stools with their backs to the counter, and then, if they are hard of hearing, they have to kneel on the stools in order to hear what the clerk behind the counter is saying. That such conditions should exist in a big city like Sydney is a reflection on the Commonwealth Government, and the Government should immediately rectify the position. There is an ideal site in Prince Alfred Park, within 200 or 300 yards of the Central Railway Station, for a new building to house the Social Services Department and the Repatriation Department. The site is passed by almost every tram that comes into Sydney, and the trains are, as I said, only a couple of hundred yards distant. The 80 or 90 years old Exhibition Building in Prince Alfred Park ought to be demolished and a building for the Social Services Department and the Repatriation Department, which, after the war, will have greatly increased responsibilities, erected on the site it occupies. There would thereby he no encroachment on park land.

Mr Chifley:

– It is a long way out of town.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– It is not. It is very near to the Central Railway Station, and the tramlines are only a few paces distant. The present premises of the Repatriation Department are only about 50 yards away. A seven or eight story building should be one of the first aims of the Social Services Department, in order that all its sections may be housed in the one building.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I support what the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) has said about the necessity to make proper provision for the conduct of the social services of the

Commonwealth. Even those of us who are not nearly so optimistic as is the honorable member about the development of the Social Services Department cannot fail to appreciate that, in the very nature of things, better provision will be needed for the carrying out of the work of that department. As a former Minister for Social Services, I know the difficulty which comes from having inappropriate accommodation. Perhaps an even more important aspect of the matter is the need to provide for the convenience and comfort of the aged people who find it necessary to go to the department.

I should like some light to be thrown on an item in the Works Estimates of the Repatriation Department. The provision asked for is £300,000, but there is a footnote indicating a further estimated liability of £199,000. There is no indication of the purpose to which that money is to be applied, and I think this committee is entitled to know. I see no amount of a corresponding size for the War Service Homes Commission, the only appropriation for which is in respect of a formal adjustment of accounts. The time has arrived when the Government should seriously consider the appropriation of sufficient money to enable the War Service Homes Commission to resume building operations, because for many men the end of the war is not a matter of a year or two years hence; their active participation in it has already ended, and their repatriation and rehabilitation has begun. This is the time when they should be able to take their wives and families away from the conditions under which they have been subsisting while the men have been members of the forces. I wish it were possible for the Government to divert to that purpose some of the millions of pounds which are being appropriated.

I have looked in vain for some trace of the source from which the money is coming which is now being used for the housing of, not ex-servicemen, but war workers. I am sure I speak for other honorable members who have viewed with some concern the building in Lithgow, Orange and other country centres of slum-like dwellings for workers in the munitions industry. If, as I suspect, the expenditure in that direction is wrapped up with the other part of the Estimates dealing with war departments, I would be out of order in discussing it at this stage. But as it is seemingly possible to find considerable sums of money to provide houses for workers in munitions factories and otherwise - and to-day I have received an invitation to attend the inspection of a building project in my own electorate, the money for which has been provided by the Commonwealth Government - it should be possible to make some definite provision for the .building of war service homes, and I commend that suggestion seriously to the Government.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- In the Estimates there is provision for the erection by the Department of the Interior of certain power alcohol distilleries. I question the advisability of proceeding with the construction of distilleries designed to convert wheat into power alcohol under the conditions under which it is intended to use that wheat, and to pay the farmers for it. In view of the seasonal prospects in Australia, the mounting wheat market to which we are able to look forward, the easier position in respect of liquid fuels to-day, and the likelihood that that position will become even easier when the European war is finished, I question whether the Government is doing the right thing in proceeding with its intention, which, no doubt, was a very good intention when it was conceived, to> convert many millions of bushels of wheat into power alcohol. The growers of wheat are vitally concerned in this matter in that they are to be paid for their wheat only 3s. Hid. a bushel at a time when there is a big overseas market for wheat at a figure approaching twice that amount. I understand that the wheat which will be converted into power alcohol will be bought at 3s. 11¼d. a bushel, whereas the price fixed by the Australian Wheat Board for wheat for export is no less than 6s. 6jd. a bushel. I consider myself bound to question the advisability of passing the sums which are proposed to be used for the provision of the distilleries. The wheat-growers feel that, having passed through years of extraordinarily low prices, they are entitled to enjoy the benefit of the higher market prevailing.

– That is not so; I am pointing out that circumstances have changed. More particularly am I desirous of emphasizing the fact that an extraordinary injustice will be done to the wheat-growers of Australia, who are facing the most disastrous season in our history, if millions of bushels of wheat, which they grew in bountiful seasons, are sold to power alcohol distilleries at 3s.11¼d. abushel, when there is a ready market for it overseas at the price fixed by the Australian Wheat Board, namely, 6s. 6¼d. a bushel. This Government, which preens itself on being a friend of wheat-growers, seizes wheat from farmers, and sells it at an extraordinary variety of prices. As the result of the decision of this Government, Australian wheat is sold to the Government of New Zealand for less than 5s. a bushel. The wheat-growers are entitled to be paid the price that the wheat is worth.

When overseas buyers were purchasing wheat here at 7s. 6d. a bushel, wheat from the same silos was being poured into power alcohol distilleries and the growers received for it only 3s.11¼d. a bushel. If these works be completed, more wheat will be poured into additional power alcohol distilleries, involving the growers in heavier losses. Before that happens, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture should assure the chamber that enough wheat is available, on present crop estimates, to fulfil our home consumption requirements, stock feed requirements, obligations to feed Allied troops in this theatre, our contracts with the United Kingdom Government and additional contracts which, I have every reason to believe, the United Kingdom Government is anxious to conclude at the present time. According to my information, the United Kingdom Government is prepared to pay Australia more than 6s. a bushel f.o.b. for all the wheat that may be available for sale between now and the 1945-46 harvest. If the Government does not conclude that contract with the United Kingdom Government, but pours vast quantities of wheat into power alcohol distilleries at3s.11¼d. a bushel, the growers will suffer a loss, between now and the conclusion of the 1945-46 harvest, of at least £10,000,000. Wheatgrowers cannot afford to have such a tremendous sum stolen from them. They have endured very heavy losses during the last ten or fifteen years. At one period, the erection of power alcohol distilleries appeared to be a stabilizing factor. I do not object to the general principle of building these distilleries in Australia for the purpose of processing vast unsaleable surpluses of wheat into liquid fuel for local consumption. But before these Estimates are agreed to, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture should indicate whether, in view of the present disastrous season, Australia can afford to provide wheat for power alcohol distilleries, particularly at 3s. ll£d. a bushel, when the grain could be sold readily at the price fixed for export sales by the Australian Wheat Board, namely, 6s. 6¼d. a bushel.

Mr BREEN:
Calare

– I congratulate the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) on providing this money for works to be undertaken by his department, not only in connexion with the immediate war effort, but also as a basis for post-war developments that will assist primary industries in the difficult times ahead. The fact that our primary industries will face difficulties in the future, as they have in the past, is borne out by the policy of the United States of America to discourage the repatriation of ex-servicemen on the land. The reason is that the increased productivity in primary industry has made it problematical whether there will be a world market for the produce of the farms, even at the present rate of production. With an extension of mechanized farming methods, the problem will be accentuated.

The particular phase of development to which the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) referred, requires elaboration. Power alcohol distilleries in Australia, apart from providing material for the war effort, have also yielded useful stock feed. The contention that farmers have not received for their wheat the price that should be paid, must not be allowed to detract from the value of the power alcohol distilleries. In the past, the wheat industry encountered many difficulties. World surpluses came without warning. If, in the post-war period, we are to wait until some project can be evolved to absorb our wheat surpluses, by the time it is brought into being the need to find such means of disposal will have passed. Therefore, a short-term approach to the matter is wrong. More money should be expended upon power alcohol projects. At present, the distillery at Cowra is sending stock feed in solution to waste land, and this is creating a nuisance. Dr. Harman, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, informed me that by the expenditure of an additional £10,000, the difficulty could be overcome and substantially more cheap stock feed could be produced as a byproduct of the distillery.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– I should like the Government to’ supply to honorable members some information about the progress of the distillery at Warracknabeal, in Victoria. As honorable members know, two committees were appointed to survey possible sites for this distillery, but neither of them recommended Warracknabeal. Although building and operating costs would be higher there than at other sites, the Government decided to erect the plant at Warracknabeal.

Mr Calwell:

– Who appointed those two committees?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– One was a Commonwealth committee and the other was a State committee. I have not been able to glean any information about the progress at Warracknabeal, and I should welcome from the Government a statement explaining why this project is being proceeded with, how much money has already been expended on it, how much more will be expended on it, and the probable date when it will commence production. 1 agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) that the time is fast approaching when Australia will be able to sell its wheat at a satisfactory world price. With that in prospect, the question arises as to whether Australia should make wheat available to power alcohol distilleries at a substantially lower price. The European war, it appears, will end in a matter of weeks or months, and there is conjecture in the United States of America about the extent to which relief from petrol rationing will be given to private users. When Germany is defeated, the petrol situation all over the world, including Australia, will be eased. As we may assume that imported petrol will cost much less than spirit produced by power alcohol distilleries’, it is only proper for the Government to give to the committee information about these various projects, particularly that at Warracknabeal.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I am deeply interested in the matter raised by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen). Not long ago, a debate took place in this chamber upon that subject, and I listened with a good deal of interest, but without much satisfaction, to a statement by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully). Power alcohol is a burning question.

Mr Calwell:

– It is a burning question all right.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) is one of the handiest fellows in this chamber. He may be able to give me some information about a matter which I should like to clear up quickly. Last week the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said that the farmers would be paid the average of the wheat realizations on disposal. Will the proceeds from the wheat sold to power alcohol distilleries be included in determining the average ? This is a most important question. I ask the Minister to tell us specifically whether all the wheat sold under different methods in Australia and subject to subventions of one kind or another, as well as all the wheat sold overseas, will be brought into consideration in arriving at the average price. When the honorable gentleman addressed the House last week on the adjournment motion, he did not make himself clear in certain respects, and it was necessary for him to clarify his statement the next day. I feel justified, therefore, in asking him to give a considered answer to my specific question, so that the farmers may know where they stand.

Mr Lazzarini:

– What has this to do with the Works Estimates?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I point out to the Minister for Home Security that provision is being made for the construction o’£ power alcohol distilleries. In fact, the item “ Buildings, works, sites, fittings and furniture “ appears under several headings without any kind of explanation. It is a kind of “ abracadabra “ or “ open sesame “. I ask for some information about the item “ Buildings, works, sites, fittings and furniture, £1,100” under “Parliament”. I am aware that certain work has been going on in this building near the Librarian’s quarters. I also saw three or four men chipping defective plaster from the external walls of this building. An item “Buildings, works, sites, fittings and furniture, £90,000 “ appears under the sub-heading “ Under the control of the Department of the Interior”. To this there is a footnote : “ Estimated further liability, £70,000”. Under this item, therefore, we are being asked to approve of an expenditure o£ £160,000. What shall we have to show for the money? Will it be a legation at Timbuctoo? Under the Department of External Affairs there is an item “ Australian Minister in the United States of America - Equipment and extension of legation, £22,000 “. Another item reads: “ Australian High Commissioner in India - Equipment for office and residence, £4,600 “. The total of the proposed vote under the Department of External Affairs is £30,700. So far as I know this expenditure has not been approved by the Public Works Committee, or any other authority to which this Parliament can look for advice on such a subject. We are also to approve of an expenditure of £10,700 under the Department of the Treasury, and that wonderful line, “Buildings, works, sites, fittings and furniture “ reappears. It also appears in relation to a proposed vote of £3,600 for the Attorney-General’s Department. The proposed expenditure by the Department of the Interior is £63,900, and it covers expenditure of a trifle of £100 under the River Murray Waters Act, and £57,700 under the heading “ Commonwealth offices and other buildings - Architectural and other engineering services “. No detailed information is given about any of these items. The Government is almost bludgeoning this business through the committee. We are asked to approve of an expenditure by the War Service Homes Commission of £200,000. I do not know whether this is intended to meet the cost of next year’s building programme by the commission, but obviously it cannot possibly do so. Such an amount will do very little more than cover essential preliminary investigations and some routine work. A reasonable survey is necessary in connexion with any housing programme intended to meet the needs of ex-servicemen. A large sum will be required even for the purchase of sites.

I have mentioned these special items in order to show the wide scope of the expenditure we are being asked to approve. Earlier this afternoon the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) mentioned the Government’s housing programme for service personnel, and suggested that there was a tendency to differentiate between cities and country districts in this matter. As my electorate is 25 per cent, city and 75 per cent, country, I am deeply interested in this subject. I sincerely hope that no such differentiation will occur. The people who live in the country are entitled to facilities and conveniences equal to those enjoyed by people who live in the cities. In due course, I suppose, a statement will be made on this subject by the Minister administering war service homes, but it seems that little reliance can be placed on anything that is said by junior Ministers, which means all” the Ministers excepting the Prime Minister, for that right honorable gentleman told us last Thursday that only he would make statements on government policy.

The proposed vote for the Department of Civil Aviation, which totals £1,208,000, is also interesting to me. It includes the item “Aeradio communication and navigation facilities; power generation and distribution plant; direct current and audiofrequency control lines ; automatic switching equipment; aerodrome and air route lighting equipment, £265,000 “ and also the item “ Aircraft engines, vehicles and equipment, £129,000 “. This is a subject on which the Government must come to earth. The post-war aviation policy of the Commonwealth will be of immense importance to the nation. I ask why detailed information is not being given to us on this subject? Division No. 13 - perhaps a significant figure - covers a trifle of £2,000 in the total of £1,208,000, but detailed information is just as lacking concerning the smaller amount as it is concerning the total. At the moment, I am being, if not bombarded, at least brought well within firing range by a great many correspondents who are showing an interest in post-war civil aviation. I am receiving maps, periodicals and other information on this subject, which indicate, to me how important it is, and I am reading the com’munications as actively as I read the Scriptures. Division No. 14, under Department of Civil Aviation, mentions in two places “Buildings, works and sites, including shore bases and marine facilities, fittings and furniture “, but no detail is given to us. I could refer at some length to the proposed vote for the Department of Trade and Customs,but will not do so, and concerning the proposed vote for the Department of Health, I shall refer to only one matter. The milk supply of Alice Springs is of great importance. I am glad that the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) is doing something to provide milk for school children at Alice Springs, though he has not gone as far as he should go, for his action has only alleviated the situation. There are 470 school children in the town, which is without a fresh milk supply. The people are asking for a depot, and the provision of a proper milk supply, in order to safeguard the health of the children.

The proposed vote for the Department of Repatriation consists of provision for the old formula - “ Buildings, works, sites, fittings and furniture”. It amounts to £300,000, but there is again a footnote - “estimated further liability, £199,000”. The same formula is used in connexion with the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, the amount of the appropriation being £600. How it is proposed to allot the expenditure, I do not know. Other appropriations are, £2,200 for the Department of Social Services and £6,600 for the Department of Supply and Shipping.

Speaking generally, the Estimates are poorly presented. Too much is told about little items and nothing at all about some of the big items. Several very important items touch matters of policy. It is a great pity that the committee does not devote much more time to a detailed study of the Estimates. That relates to some of the items that were passed last week, while many honorable members were asleep. A most invidious distinction that I noticed during the allnight sitting was the supply of pillows and blankets to Government members, whilst members of the Opposition were denied that comfort.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I have previously drawn attention to the treatment of ex-service personnel of this war, particularly by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. I now bring forward the case of an exserviceman who has been badly treated by the Department of Trade and Customs.

Mr Chifley:

– What connexion has his casewith the Works Estimates?

Mr ABBOTT:

– If the honorable gentleman will listen to my story, he will find that it is watertight. I hate the suppression of criticism. For obvious reasons, I shall not mention the name of this man. He resides at Manilla, New South Wales, and his war disability is 1.00 per cent. He is the father of six children, all of them under the age of sixteen years. So badly injured was he that he could not, undergo training for a trade.

The Department of the Interior is engaging in a good deal of construction in New South Wales, including the Sydney graving dock, to which references were made by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), as well as works at various camps. Supplies of galvanized iron for civil purposes are acutely short throughout Australia. Under the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, certain buildings have to be erected for the storage of primary products and this work is being hindered by the acute shortage of galvanized iron. I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to note that considerable quantities of galvanized iron and fencing material are accumulating in New South Wales because transport difficulties prevent other States from obtaining them. Therefore, additional releases might be made to that State, and its quota could be reduced when the transport position enabled other States to obtain larger quantities. This would do a great deal to improve the position of primary production in New South Wales, and would make use of material which is now lying idle in the sheds of manufacturers.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- Earlier, some remarks were directed to the Chair in regard to the use of wheat for the production of power alcohol. The Government has undertaken that the wheat-growers will not suffer loss by reason of the fact that wheat is supplied to power alcohol factories at a concession rate. I emphasize that point. I have seen these factories, and have gained the impression that they are a magnificent tribute to Australian engineering and enterprise. I commend the Government for having proceeded with the project. I am reminded that it was begun not haphazardly but after a most comprehensive survey by a committee appointed by a former government. I believe that one of the members of this committee formerly represented the constituency of Wimmera, and he, too, had a thorough knowledge of the wheat industry.

Mr McEwen:

– How was the site selected ?

Mr WILSON:

– No better site could have been selected than the one in Victoria. It is in the very heart of the wheat-growing province of Victoria. Supplies of wheat are always available, except this year, of course, when there has been a record drought. The power alcohol factories not only produce spirit, but also various byproducts, the sale of which will have the effect of reducing the cost of the spirit itself. When this spirit is mixed with ordinary petrol in the proportion of 20 to 80, a fuel is produced of very high octane rating. It is superior to anything in general use to-day, and the price will not be increased. In addition, 5,000 tons of bran will be produced annually from each of the factories. An entirely new process has been evolved for making power alcohol, the spirit being distilled from Hour semolina, . which represents an advanced stage of flour gristing, so that the bran can be saved and sold.

Mr McEwen:

– Does the honorable member think that 3s.11¼d. a bushel is a fair price for the wheat used in the distilleries?

Mr WILSON:

– I have been assured that the difference between that price and the ordinary market price for wheat will be made up to the farmers by the Government. Does the honorable member want the distilleries to close down? I realize that the enterprise has been opposed from the beginning by vested interests. The flour-millers and wheatinerchants have always been opposed to the distilleries and, therefore, certain of their spokesmen in this House have also taken up the cudgels against the enterprise. I do not say that the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) is one of them, but there are others in this House who have consistently opposed the proposal to erect power alcohol distilleries. I hope that the Government will not be deterred from proceeding with this all-Australian project. The distilleries have been designed and built entirely by Australians. I have inspected them, and I know that they are producing a spirit which will contribute materially to the defence of Australia, assist agriculture, and also provide fuel for motor transport on the farms.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

– Our war service homes are built by contract. When, after the war, building costs are substantially reduced, we shall recommend ex-servicemen to buy their own homes.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Part II. - Business Undertakings.

Proposed vote, £3,650,000.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- Under the heading of “Business Undertakings “ comes “ Postmaster-General’s Department, £3,500,000 “, and under that item I desire to refer to censorship. A half-completed debate on this subject still stands upon the notice-paper. When, on . that occasion, my speech was cut off in its prime because of the effluxion of time, I was about to read a copy of a letter which I addressed two months ago to the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) dealing with censorship. To-day I received a reply from the Minister.

Mr Ryan:

– The honorable member was fortunate.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am thankful for small mercies. This letter is of great importance, because it affects the liberties of the people and is relevant to one of the findings of Sir William Webb regarding the extent of the censorship of internal mails.

Mr Calwell:

– No, by the Minister for the Army.

Mr SPENDER:

– I have closely examined this matter. From his observations, the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) has not done so. I have received from the Postmaster-General a reply to my letter, and I contend that in view of the facts, I am entitled to debate this matter on the vote for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order in debating censorship under this vote.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I address myself to Division 23-24, “ PostmasterGeneral’s Department, £3,500,000”, and move -

That the amount of the vote - PostmasterGeneral’s Department, £3,500,000 - be reduced by £1- as a direction to the Government - to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the circumstances connected with the sale ot broadcasting stations 5KA and 5AU to the Adelaide Central Methodist Mission and the Workers’ Weekly Herald, and negotiations for the sale of broadcasting station 2HD to the Church of England Diocese of Newcastle:

I do not propose to repeat my former speech on this matter. Although it raised most serious questions, it has been replied to only by the Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin) and a junior Minister. Last Thursday the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), by way of personal explanation, referred to an agreement between the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, the Central Methodist Mission and the Workers’ Weekly Herald for the sharing of broadcasting time. The right honorable gentleman tendered, and it is recorded in Hansard, an agreement dated the 17th May, 1943, between the Archbishop, the head of the Central Methodist Mission, and Mr. Richards, M.P., on behalf of the Workers’ Weekly Herald. Here is a curious thing: That agreement was dated the 17th May, 1943, whereas the agreement to which I had referred - the agreement of sale - was dated the 5th February, 1943. The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy) had asked the Prime Minister the following question: -

Is it a fact that the Government reallocated a South Australian broadcasting licence where the Labour party has a fifth share and free broadcasting time?

The Prime Minister replied -

Yes, except that the agreement between shareholders of the licensee company made no provision for free broadcasting time to the Australian Labour party, although this agreement quoted conditions of free broadcasting time for churches, including others than the church which held four-fifths of the shares in the company.

I did challenge that, favorably to the Prime Minister really, by saying that he had clearly been misinformed, because the agreement of sale of this station dated the 5th February expressly provided, in clause 20, that there should be free broadcasting time for the Australia Labour party. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister obtained leave to make a personal explanation. I remind honorable members of what he said in the course of his explanation. I shall read the relevant portions of it -

The only agreement of which the Government had knowledge was an agreement which had been entered into by the Central Methodist Mission with His Grace, the Archbishop of Adelaide, and the Honorable Robert Stanley Richards, M.P.

I asked -

What was the date of that agreement?

The Prime Minister replied -

The 17th May, 1943.

Later on the Prime Minister said -

That is the only agreement of which the Postmaster-General had knowledge and it formed the basis of my answer to the honorable member for Wilmot.

Later again he said -

I found that it was in conformity with the text of the only agreement of which the Postmaster-General’s Department had knowledge.

Following a question which I asked the right honorable gentleman across the table, he said -

The agreement from which the right honorable gentleman read yesterday would appear to be one with which the Department of the Postmaster-General had nothing to do.

It is quite true that the agreement from which I had read was the vital agreement of sale, but the Prime Minister said that that was the agreement with which the Postmaster-General’s Department had had nothing to do. Then later on, so that there could be no ambiguity, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) opened the door for the Prime Minister by asking -

Does not the Prime Minister admit that the information which he gave was erroneous although he did not know that at the time?

The Prime Minister again mentioned the agreement of the 17th May and, referring to the Postmaster-General, he said -

It is the only agreement of which he had cognizance.

That was the fourth time, that the Prime Minister had stated that this was the only agreement of which the department had knowledge. At that stage I made an interjection, disorderly though it may have been-

Mr Barnard:

– The right honorable gentleman is becoming somewhat disorderly.

Mr MENZIES:

– That may be so, but I shall read my interjection so that the honorable member for Bass may appreciate the full beauty of it. I said -

We do not wont to have any unnecessary confusion. I take it that the right honorable gentleman agrees that had he had before him the agreement from which I. read yesterday, his answer would have been different.

The Prime Minister replied -

That document related to a transaction which was outside the terms of the agreement of which the Postmaster-General had knowledge.

That was the fifth reference to the agreement and the department’s lack of knowledge of it. In reminding honorable members of the famous occasion when Alice mentioned that when a thing was said three times it must be true, I consider I am thoroughly entitled to say that as the Prime Minister had said five times that the Postmaster-General’s Department had no knowledge of this agreement it must be true.

What are the facts? I regret to say that I must find the Prime Minister guilty of having made a most disingenuous reply. As a matter of fact he said to the House -

Neither wittingly nor unwittingly have I misled either the honorable member for Wilmot or the House.

I have read the answer that was given to the question of the honorable member for Wilmot and I ask again: What are the facts? I mention, first, that the agreement of February, from which I quoted last Wednesday, expressly provided, in clause 20, that the Workers’ Weekly Herald, on behalf of the Australian Labour party, was to be entitled to broadcast over the air through 5KA and 5AU free of charge for certain periods of time. Oddly enough, the agreement of February containing that provision, is actually referred to in the agreement tabled by the Prime Minister because the agreement of the 17th May, 1943, contains this recital -

In contemplation of the renewal by the Postmaster-General of the broadcasting licences for 5KA and 5AU and in further contemplation of the completion-

I ask honorable members to mark that word; it had already been executed - of the completion of a certain agreement whereby Adelaide Central Methodist Mission and the Workers’ Weekly Herald became the legal owners of the shares (except one) in the companies to which the said licences were hitherto issued-

– Whatever is in Hansard will be in Hansard. No doubt, there will be in Ilansard some things for which the honorable gentleman will be apologizing before he is ten years older; I hesitate to say, “ ten years wiser “, because, obviously, he never will be. Both the Minister for Munitions in this House, and Mr. Richards, of South Australia, in the press, have claimed that the consideration passing to the Australian Labour party, which is £8,500, plus £8,500 working capital, divided by five - which equals £2,400- plus free time, was an ordinary payment for the transfer of an option held by Mr. Richards. I do not think that the Minister for Munitions will deny that that is a fair statement.

Mr Makin:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr MENZIES:

– All that I want to know is, whether or not that is a fair statement of the honorable gentleman’s argument that it was an ordinary payment for the transfer of an option, held by Mr. Richards. Here is a curious thing: This option - and after all, an option is a binding legal document - has never been produced either to the

Broadcasting Committee or to this Parliament, and its terms are, therefore, undisclosed. Mr. Alderman gave evidence to the Broadcasting Committee, and that evidence is inconsistent with the claim made by Mr. Richards. What did Mr. Richards say?

Mr Calwell:

– What he said is in accordance with the sworn evidence of Mr. Alderman.

Mr MENZIES:

– I quote the words, which are identical in the Adelaide Advertiser and the Melbourne Herald, and, so far as I know, have not been contradicted. This is Mr. Richards’s story -

I was informed, when I asked for an option, that none would be given to a political party, but that I could take a personal option.

I ask honorable members to notice that, but not to judge it yet. He then said -

The Central Methodist Mission was prepared to agree to the conditions I had laid down-

I, Richards, the holder of the option - for the transfer of my option.

Mr. Alderman, the god in the machine in this case, said various things to the Broadcasting Committee.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Upon oath?

Mr MENZIES:

– Oh, yes.

Mr Barnard:

– Not upon oath. [Extension of time granted.]

Mr MENZIES:

– I want to quote to this committee some passages from the evidence that Mr. Alderman gave to the Broadcasting Committee. He said -

As legal adviser to a client, I had the sale of two broadcasting stations. One of them was SKA Adelaide. I insisted that I would not sell that station to any purchaser unless the Labour party had an interest in it.

Honorable members will recall that Mr. Richards said, in effect : “ I could have a personal option, but no political party could have an option “. I resume the statement by Mr. Alderman -

For that stand, I was subjected to some criticism, but my client allowed me to do what I thought was right. Eventually, an agreement was reached whereby the Methodist Church in South Australia obtained a fourfifths interest in the station, and the Labour party a one-fifth interest.

Later, turning to 2HD, he said -

The Labour party in Newcastle was not keen about being tied up with the Church of England. The party wanted the station to itself, and the church wanted it to itself. I told the Church of England authorities that if they refused to work with the Labour partyI would offer the station to the Labour party alone. I spoke to the Labour party in similar terms. The negotiations with the Church of England did not break down because of any refusal to work with the Labour party, but because the church authorities would not offer more than a certain sum.

Anybody -who listened to the correspondence read by the Minister for Information, in which the Bishop of Newcastle expressed his opinion of this proposed transaction, will be staggered to learn that the Church of England went out of these negotiations, not because of the terms that were suggested, but because of the price.

Mr Calwell:

– That is absolutely true.

Mr MENZIES:

– The witness later said this -

The Labour party approached me. I motored from Adelaide to Melbourne after 5KA was put off the air, and on the morning on which I arrived at Menzies Hotel-

I am sorry if there should be any confusion; it is not my hotel -

I received an urgent telegram from Mr. Richards, the Leader of the Labour Opposition in South Australia, in the following terms: -

Would like first opportunity of buying 5KA.

I promised Mr. Richards that, so far as I was concerned, SKA would not be sold without giving the Labour party an opportunity to purchase it.

Mr Calwell:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr MENZIES:

– The price m Adelaide was £2,400. In Newcastle it was £3,500. I suppose the honorable member is suggesting that for a transaction in Queensland the price would have gone up to £5,000. In the case of 2HD no option had been given to any cue, and yet an exactly similar demand was made on the proposed purchaser, the diocese of Newcastle, except that this time it was £17,500, which divided by five meant £3,500 for a one-fifth share. Having said that about the Newcastle negotiations, I turn now to the two questions about that negotiation which cry aloud for answer. The first is this: What was this proposed payment of £3,500 for the benefit of the Australian Labour party designed ito achieve? References to free time do not answer the question. I repeat my question, and I should be happy to hear the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) answer it.

– The second question is this, if I may interrupt my phonographic friend. Knowing the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) I even wrote it, down. Why did Mr. Alderman make the statements outlined in the following extract, from the letter of the Bishop of Newcastle -

You told us that if we were prepared to agree to these provisions you thought our chances of securing the licence would be more than good, but that if we did not agree there would be little prospect, in your opinion, of our securing it, seeing that the PostmasterGeneral would be guided in his decision by the advice of the Parliamentary Committee on which there is a majority of Labour politicians.

Mr MENZIES:

Mr HOLT:

– The questions are’ related to the facts, and the honorable member is entitled to his own interpretation. The facts that were presented on the last occasion have been added to by revelations made in the departmental files, which the Government, to its credit, freely made available for our inspection. I shall not attempt to cover the ground covered so brilliantly by the Leader of the Opposition; but as the right honorable gentleman spent most of his time in discussing the Adelaide arrangements, it may be useful if I add something to the information before the committee relating to the Newcastle negotiations. It was pointed out when we debated this matter first that there had been little criticism in Adelaide of what had taken place there. That is one statement which we can properly question. On the latest information we have, there was a good deal of criticism in Adelaide of what happened there. It is one thing to have an isolated occurrence in which an Adelaide lawyer, dealing with the assets of a client, negotiates with certain parties in Adelaide, but when you find that precisely the same arrangements have been sought to be made by the same representative in another State it is more than a coincidence. I consider that, in order that honorable members may have the fullest information, they should look as far as they can into the minds of the parties involved in these transactions, and I think that I should place on record some of the correspondence contained in the files relating to the Newcastle negotiations. The first is a letter from the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr. Batty, to the PostmasterGeneral, dated the 14th February, 1944 -

The whole story of our negotiations for acquisition of the 2HD licence has been frankly a puzzling one. The application for that particular licence was made by us on the 13th November, 1942. We were subsequently approached by a Mr. H. C. Alderman, who was acting for the company which formerly controlled station 2HD with a view to negotiating for the purchase of the company’s assets.

My registrar and myself interviewed Mr. Alderman in Sydney and he gave us to understand that he could virtually guarantee that the licence would be allotted to us if we would agree to certain conditions.

I ask the committee to note the phrase “ virtually guarantee “.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable gentleman’s own leader quoted him as saying that he “ thought “.

Mr HOLT:

– I am adding to the correspondence already reported in Hansard. Whatever Mr. Alderman may have said or whatever his version may be of what he. said, this is what the Bishop thought he meant. The letter went on -

That we should agree to purchase not more than four-fifths of the shares in the company and the remaining one-fifth to be granted (apparently free of cost) to the Australian Labour party, who would also have the right to appoint one director to the board of five.
That we should grant to the Australian Labour party free of cost one hour’s broadcasting time each week at ordinary times and one hour a day at election times.
That we should offer to the Roman Catholic Church and the free churches, also free of cost, facilities for broadcasting. Mr. Alderman told us that if we did not agree to these conditions our prospects of getting the licence would be killed. “ Killed “ mark you !-

But that if we did agree they would be “ more than good “. The proposals seem to us to have all the appearance of a corruptive transaction and we were not able to consider it. We subsequently had the assets of the 2HD company valued and on the basis of that valuation made an offer for their purchase which Mr. Alderman’s principals were unable to accept.

Mr Calwell:

– Precisely. He wanted a free licence and then wanted to bargain for the assets.

Mr HOLT:

– But without the sinister conditions, as he interpreted them, put up to him by Mr. Alderman. He said -

The proposals seemed to us to have all the appearances of a corruptive transaction and we were not able to consider it.

He concluded -

We subsequently had the assets of the 2HD company valued and on the basis of that valuation made an offer for their purchase, which Mr. Alderman’s principals were unable to accept.

When the Postmaster-General expressed regret at the use of the phrase “ a corruptive transaction “, the bishop wrote -

I was sorry to gather that you found cause for regret in my comments on the proposals originally made to us in connexion with the purchase of the 2HD assets. As you will see if you read my letter, there was absolutely no suggestion that you were personally concerned with those proposals. The fact, however, remains that we were given to understand that, if we would make to the Labour party concessions valued at some thousands of pounds, the allocation of the licence to us would be virtually guaranteed. That this proposal had all the appearance of “ a corrupt transaction “ is not my opinion only, hut also that of all those with whom I have had occasion to discuss the matter.

The next link in the chain of correspondence is a letter from a firm of solicitors, W. C. Taylor and Scott, of Sydney. Dated the 9 th August, it was addressed to the Postmasterp-General. I understand that the Mr. W. 0. Taylor referred to is vice-president of the Australian Labour party. He is also a member of the Commonwealth Bank Board. As the correspondence indicates, he was acting as solicitor on behalf of the Australian Labour party. He wrote -

We act for Air Sales Proprietary Limited, which formerly conducted a commercial broadcasting station at Newcastle known as station 2HD. We understand that the licence was revoked some time ago for certain reasons, but we now wish to apply on behalf of the company for a new licence to be granted. The whole of the issued capital of the company, amounting to 5,107 £1 shares, with the exception of one share, has now been acquired and is held by Messrs. John Stewart, William Clarke Taylor, Charles Benton Scott, and William Edward Dickson, as trustees for the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labour party. The remaining one share is held by a deceased shareholder.

Mr. Taylor then stated that he proposed to purchase that share from the administrator of the estate, and sought an early reply to the application. Honorable members are aware that the mere purchase of the physical assets in the form of broadcasting equipment does not of itself confer any right to the licence. The vital thing was the securing of the licence, and that lay in the dispensation of the Postmaster-General. This had been clearly pointed out by the Acting

Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs in a letter to the Minister on the 30th March -

I need hardly say, however, that the acquisition of broadcasting equipment, irrespective of the source from which it was obtained, would not confer any better right to a licence on the purchaser than any other applicant.

Mr Breen:

– A licence would not be very useful if the holder had no equipment.

Mr HOLT:

– Exactly. Mr. Taylor wrote pointing out that the Australian Labour party had the equipment. The final document which I place on record is a letter from the Bishop of Newcastle to the Postmaster-General, dated the 25th August. It referred to a letter from Messrs. W. C. Taylor and Scott, solicitors, of Sydney, acting on behalf <of the Australian Labour party. The solicitors’ letter stated that their clients had recently purchased the assets of the company which formerly owned station 2HD, and that the Postmaster-General was prepared to grant a broadcasting licence to them on condition that the churches were afforded free broadcasting time. Bishop Batty replied -

I have no reason to suppose that my council will wish to alter its decision not to accept concessions from a political party in order to facilitate the acquisition of a broadcasting licence by that party. We were equally unwilling, as you may remember, to make much greater concessions to the Labour party, which Mr. Alderman suggested, in order to facilitate our own acquisition of the licence.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– It is a truism that those who impute motives are usually the people with motives. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has raised, this evening, the matter which we debated last week concerning the sale of stations 5KA Adelaide and 2ATJ Port Augusta, and the proposed sale of 2HD Newcastle. I suggest that his reason for doing so is to escape the consequences of the slanderous and scandalous charges which he then levelled against decent and honorable men, whose reputations are as high in the community as those of any honorable members, and higher than those of some honorable gentleman opposite.

The Leader of the Opposition said last week -

It is quite clear that these transactions must be investigated. On the face of them, they are quite capable and reasonably capable of being regarded as utterly corrupt.

The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) then asked, “ Is that an imputation against the’ Methodist Church?” The Leader of the Opposition replied -

That is an imputation against everybody concerned with the corruption.

That is an unequivocal and despicable charge to level against men like the Reverend Samuel Forsyth and the Reverend George White, who engaged in these transactions on behalf of the Methodist Church of South Australia, and the Honorable R. S. Richards, a former Premier of South Australia and the present Leader of the State Opposition, who acted for the Labour party of South Australia. Those persons signed the agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) tabled last week. Other distinguished persons involved were the Anglican Bishop of Adelaide and the Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, each of whom agreed to accept from the Central Methodist Mission certain free time on Sunday evenings. Everybody engaged in those transactions is, according to the plain language of the Leader of the Opposition, “ utterly corrupt”. The right honorable gentleman discussed the subject again this evening because he desired to extricate himself from the difficulties which he had himself caused. It is for that reason only that he has asked for a royal commission. In reply to his request the Prime Minister has said, “ You lay charges against me, and I will not sit in this House until I have been vindicated “. The Leader of the Opposition has now squibbed the issue again. His junior in the case, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), the office boy who was also left to deal with “ the Brisbane line “ case, is now expected to make good the damage caused by his leader. That honorable member has repeated, parrot-like, the request for a royal commission. I say to honorable members as I said last week, that these transactions have been investigated twice by the Broadcasting Committee, on which at least four members of the Opposition have always sat. That committee did not report against the transactions, and, so far as the evidence shows, it did not on any occasion see anything in them that even suggested corruption or dishonesty.

Mr James:

– Who were on the committee ?

Mr CALWELL:

– I was the chairman of the committee which investigated the subject on the first occasion on the 28th June, 1943. There were present at the meeting, myself as chairman, Senator Amour, Senator Cooper, Senator Herbert Hays, Mr. Barnard and Dr. Price. Senator Cooper is a member of the Country party, Senator Herbert Hays is a member of the United Australia party, and Dr. Price, who was, at that time, the member for Boothby, and a member of the Opposition. Mr. H. D. Alderman had been dealing with the case in South Australia and the committee intimated that it desired the whole matter investigated. Mr. Alderman wrote to the committee, but we informed him that we would like him to appear before us personally so that he could be cross-examined. In his letter he stated in regard to the sale of station 5KLA -

The sale of tha shares in the company which owns the station has proceeded to the point where there is an agreement in writing which awaits only the Minister’s approval in order to enable the transaction to be completed.

The owners of the shares (who are Jehovah’s Witnesses) left the matter almost entirely to me. I have always held the opinion that the Labour party should have a voice on the air in each State. My clients allowed mc to give play to that view. Out of deference to. and to an extent, in agreement with, the views of the Gibson report, I felt that religious influences should be substantial or predominate. [ therefore, rejected offers by newspapers and others, until I was able to bring about a set-up “ which agreed with the tenor of the Gibson report, modified by my own personal views. The agreement does represent my views. The fact that the Church of England and the Catholic Church are to have specified times represents, I understand, the Minister’s interpretation or exegesis of the Gibson report.

Unaided by the Gibson report, I would have thought that commercial interests, with a religious influence, would be most likely to make a success of a station, but I do not place my opinion above that of the much better informed opinion of the Gibson committee.

The Leader of the Opposition could have quoted that from the evidence before the Broadcasting Committee, for I supplied it to him, but he quoted only the passages which suited him. In my opinion, he distorted the facts and suppressed the truth. The right honorable gentleman did not quote the following passage from Mr. Alderman’s evidence -

Dr. Price, who was a member of the committee at the time, told me that I could advise Bishop Batty, Church of England, Newcastle, that in his opinion it was an excellent proposal, and that Dr. Price recommended him to accept it on behalf of the Church of England. The present position in regard to 2HD is that I am now negotiating with the Australian Labour party for its sale.

He offered station 2HD Newcastle to the Labour party after the Bishop of Newcastle had refused to pay the price asked. His Lordship now says that he could not accept the conditions of sale laid down iby those who owned the station and had the right to sell it. The fact is that the bishop had a mistaken idea about the whole subject. He believed that he had the right to a licence without charge, but no free licences are now available. The position is different now from what it was when the licence for 2CH was granted to the Council of Churches in Sydney and that for station 2SM was granted to the Catholic Church. The New South Wales Council of Churches was an alert and progressive body, which realized the value of a broadcasting licence, and so was the Catholic Church. The Church of England in New South Wales did not realize the value of a licence until all the available licences had been secured by newspapers. When the licence for 2HD was suspended the Bishop of Newcastle believed that the Postmaster-General could have allocated it to him without charge and that he could have then negotiated for the purchase of the assets. That idea might have been all right if the High Court had upheld the validity of the National Security regulations in regard to subversive organizations, under which Jehovah’s Witnesses were suppressed, but the High Court, at the instance of Mr. Alderman, declared those regulations invalid and the Government was thereupon obliged to restore to Jehovah’s Witnesses the property that had been confiscated. It was morally obliged to return the wireless broadcasting licence to the company owned by that body, and to whoever bought the shares in the company. The Bishop did not want to buy the shares. He wanted a new licence, his purpose being to negotiate for the shares if he obtained it. If such a policy, which involves repudiation, is to be brought into effect, either this Government or any other government could revoke all the existing licences and re-issue them to whomever it liked. Regulation 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations provides. -

A licence shall be granted for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Minister determines.

Regulation 17 provides -

The Minister may, by notice in writing, suspend for such period as is specified in the notice, or revoke, any licence on the ground that -

the licensee has failed to comply with any provision of the act or these regulations, or of any condition of the licence; or

he considers it advisable in the public interest to do so.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– How can the honorable gentleman say that anybody has the right to sell a licence?

Mr CALWELL:

– I did not mention the selling of a licence, but referred only to the sale of the shares in the company which owned the licence. No licensee has a prescriptive right to any frequency. A licence can be cancelled at any time; and in any event it is not current f or longer than a year.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– There is no property in a licence.

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable gentleman may put it as he likes. There is such a thing as the equitable treatment of those who hold licences. This Government decided to allow Jehovah’s Witnesses to sell their equity to any one who would purchase it from them. Not at any time did it intend to force them to make a sale to somebody whom either the Government or Opposition members do or do not like.

The second great weakness in the case put up in connexion with the negotiations between Mr. Richards and Mr. Alderman about the option which Mr. Richards held, is that the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten the date on which Mr. Richards took his option. It was the 9th January, 1941, at which time the Labour party was not in power. The grant of a licence was within the gift of a government in which the present Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister and Senator McLeay was the PostmasterGeneral. So that, in the fantastic story conjured up to-day by the Leader of the Opposition, his own Government becomes particeps criminis.

Mr Harrison:

– The Leader of the Opposition has quoted from the files. That is more than the Minister is prepared to do.

Mr CALWELL:

– I not only quoted from the file last week, but also made it available to the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt). I suppressed nothing. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted, not only that I made the files available tohim, but also that it contains every relevant document. We have neither suppressed nor distorted anything; therefore, we have nothing to hide. We do not agree that a royal commission should inquire into baseless charges, or embark on a muck-raking escapade to help honorable gentlemen opposite to rehabilitate their fallen political fortunes.

Mr Harrison:

– The Minister did not know what was on the file. Even the Prime Minister said that the February agreement was not on the file.

Mr CALWELL:

– Facts are strange things to the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison). He makes wild statements, and his hyperbolical language is not matched by that of any other honorable member. When the Prime Minister said that if the Opposition would lay charges he would adopt a certain course, the honorable member for Wentworth and his leader were immediately deflated, and they have not since opened their mouths on that aspect of the matter.

I could tell an interesting story of all the broadcasting licences that have been issued to date. I related last week the circumstances in connexion with the issue of a licence to station 3XY. I then made the charge, which has not been refuted, that that station was promised to the returned soldiers of Victoria, and that a United Australia party government stole the licence from them and gave it to its friends. That is true. There was very considerable protest from the leaders of the returned soldiers at the time. If honorable gentlemen opposite will closely study the newspaper file of the period, they will find that what I have said is perfectly true. Last week, I made some references to a licence that had been issued to the Graziers Association. I am now in a position to tell the committee the interesting story that is associated with that episode. If ever it were proposed to nationalize broadcasting stations or anything else, honorable gentlemen opposite would be the first to object, because their friends “got in on the ground floor” when wireless licences were being issued, and still hold the majority of the stations. The story in relation to the granting of a licence to the Graziers Association of New South Wales is an interesting one. On the 23rd January, 1933, while Sir Archdale Parkhill was Postmaster-General, the Postal Department informed Mr. R. G. Lamb, c/o Noble Douglass and Company, 18 Martin-place, Sydney, that it was prepared to authorize a power of 2,000 aerial watts for a broadcasting station to be erected at Meadow Flat, near Bathurst. On the 14th February, 1933, a company to be known as 2LE Radio Corporation Limited was to be formed, with a capital of 20,000 shares at £1 each. On the 9th January, 1934, the department was informed that the South British National Trust Limited was financing the 2LE project. On the 9th August, 1934, the Sydney Morning Herald indicated that a royal commission was to be appointed by the New South Wales Government to inquire concerning the activities of investment companies owned by the McArthur group that were operating in New South Wales, and the South British National Trust Limited was mentioned as one of the companies. When I made my charge last week, the Leader of the Opposition, in his elegant phraseology, shouted “ Liar “. The facts, of course, refute him. On the 8th November, 1934. the Postmaster-General’s Department informed the 2LE Radio Corporation of the withdrawal of its letter of approval for the grant of a licence. The Public Trustee, who had been appointed to look after the interests of the unfortunate people who had been fleeced by the McArthur group of scoundrels and to administer the affairs of the British National Trust Limited and the other companies concerned, desired that the offer of the department to grant a licence to 2LE should stand, in order to conserve some return for a large number of shareholders who had suffered financially. The Graziers Association then came into the picture. It had been pressing since September, 1932, for a licence for a station near Bathurst. It had been suggested in October, 1932, that the association might get in touch with this group of scoundrels, the 2LE Radio Corporation, for the purpose of coming to a joint arrangement whereby it would have a share in the proposed station. These negotiations took place in 1934, but consequent upon the royal commission and the withdrawal of the approval to grant a licence to the 2LE Radio Corporation, the department informed the Graziers Association on the 8th February, 1935,” that it would grant a licence to the association for the Orange district, on the understanding that a share in the station would be granted to the Public Trustee. On the 16th April, 1935, a licence was granted under the title 2GZ, to the Country Broadcasting Service Limited, for a station at Orange. The Public Trustee of “New South Wales was granted 1,500 £1 deferred shares. The capital of this company was 50,000 £1 shares, divided into 48,500 £1 ordinary and 1,500 £1 deferred shares. So far as can be ascertained, no other broadcasting licence issued was implicated in the 2LE case. The licence should have been issued to the Public Trustee, and should not have been given to the Graziers Association on the condition that it gave 1,500 of its 50,000 shares to the representative of the people who had been fleeced when they had put their money in the company which originally had been given the licence. If ever there has been a scandal in connexion with the issue of a broadcasting licence, it was associated with the issue of the licence to 2GZ. That licence was issued on the 8th November, 1934, by Senator the Honorable A. J. McLachlan as Postmaster-General in the anti-Labour government of that day.

The story of 2HD and SKA has now been told several times. The Leader of the Opposition has been motivated by the greatest desire to cover up the charges which he made last Thursday. He has tried to extricate himself from the outrageous attacks which he made on the leaders of several religious organizations. He has again demonstrated his unfitness for political leadership in this country. He has blundered egregiously by his gratuitous insults to decent, honorable people, and thus has prevented the rebuilding of his party. To-day, he has made fresh charges in the hope that his first insults will be forgotten. Neither his first nor his last insults will be forgotten. His charges are without foundation, his accusations are baseless. There is not the slightest justification for a royal commission or any other form of inquiry. Opportunities for the fullest inquiry have been available to the BroadcastingCommittee. Opportunities will be offered in the future to the members of that committee, if they so desire, to investigate the position further. The Opposition has four representatives on the committee. This latest activity of a so-called “fighting Opposition” demonstrates its unfitness ever again to be trusted with the government of this country. Its members do not deserve even the title of “ a fight ing Opposition”. The only title to which they can lay claim is that of “ a mud-slinging Opposition “.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

.- Unlike the Minister (Mr. Calwell), who has just completed his speech, I shall not appeal for judgment in this matter to a committee which is strictly bound by the caucus majority. All that the motion asks - and I make no apology for supporting it - is that all the facts shall be submitted to the arbitrament of a royal commission. In recentdays, honorable members opposite have applauded the judgment of certain royal commissions, and have castigated very severely any suggestion from this side which might be interpreted as impugning their integrity or their findings. If that be their view, I cannot understand why they should be so fearful of placing before a royal commission all the facts that have been so clearly placed before this chamber this evening. The Minister shed “ crocodile tears “ about the effect on the reputations of certain church leaders. In refusing to allow these matters to be investigated and finally settled by a judicial tribunal, he is allowing those church leaders to remain under what he regards as a stigma. Is he afraid to trust the reputations of these church leaders to a royal commission? He has in his usual way endeavoured to burke the question, and to answer logic with clamour. ‘ I do not wish to leave this matter to the judgment of the committee, or to remit it to the. Broadcasting Committee. I challenge the Minister to state that the Broadcasting Committee was made aware of the fact that the .South Australian Branch of the Australian Labour party was to get a one-fifth share in the station without paying anything for it. Evidently the Minister does not propose to reply. I speak as a Methodist when I say that I wish I could feel as comfortable over this matter as some of my co-religionists purport to feel. I am not questioning the association of the Labour party with the Methodist ‘Church. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Labour party was born in the Methodist Church, and if it had maintained that association it would have saved itself from a lot of criticism. However, I do question the action of the Methodist Church in making free gifts of this kind to the Labour party. If the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) were in the chamber, I should ask him whether gift duty has been paid on this money. i know the Reverend Samuel Forsyth better than do some of those who have spoken for him to-night, and I do not question his integrity.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member’s leader did.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– But I do question the business capacity of the church leaders. It is notorious that doctors and parsons are as manna from heaven to the go-getters. The Minister for Information said that Mr. Alderman was acting as trustee for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and was bound to see that he made the best sale of their assets. Mr. Alderman knew that the physical assets of the stations were valueless without a licence. Incidentally, I was amazed to hear repeated to-night the statement made by the Minister for Information last week that when the High Court declared to be invalid the regulations under which Jehovah’s Witnesses were deprived of their licence, there was a moral obligation upon the Government to restore their property, including the licence. If that were really so, I want to know why the Government did such an immoral thing as to refrain from restoring the licence.

Mr Calwell:

– The Government did restore the licence, and permitted it’ to be sold.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.There was no provision whatever for the sale of the licence. It is evident that the Minister for Information does not even know his brief. Mr. Alderman had business acumen enough to know that if he could have offered to the Central Methodist Mission in Adelaide, or to the Diocesan Council in Newcastle, not only the physical assets of the stations concerned, but also the licences, he could have demanded a great deal more than £8,400 for the Adelaide stations and £17,500 for the Newcastle station. This is a matter which, obviously, should be investigated by a royal commission. In his own interests, the Prime Minister should agree to the request for such an inquiry. To-night, the right honorable gentleman treated us to a sorry spectacle. In reply to a question some time ago, he gave an answer which was palpably erroneous. He was given an opportunity to escape by saying that he had been misinformed, but he repeated the statement. To-day, the ground was cut from under his feet by the unrefuted statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). Therefore, in the interests of the Prime Minister himself, this Parliament, and the church leaders concerned, it is imperative that this matter be referred to a royal commission for investigation.

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for the Navy and Minister for Munitions · Hindmarsh · ALP

– I am astounded that a gentleman who occupies an honoured position in the church life of the community should be prepared to identify himself with some of the statements that have issued from the Opposition side of the committee, statements which impugn the honour and good name of some of those who stand highest in the Methodist Church. He does himself very little credit by associating himself with such an attack. To-night, he gained a little more courage than he was .able to summon up when this matter, was under discussion last week. Then, when the call came to this side of the chamber, he jumped up in his place as if he were determined to say something, but when the call went to the Opposition side,’ he sat tight in his seat. His methods are not overlooked by those who value consistency and straight dealing. Politics have become a wretched thing when such charges can be made against men and institutions of the highest standing. I know the persons concerned even more intimately than does the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). I have lived in the same community with them for more than 40 years, and have been associated with them in church activity and in the ordinary life of the community. The Reverend George “White, the Reverend Samuel Forsyth, and the Honorable R. S. Richards are men of outstanding character, whose honour stands as high as that of any other men in Australia. They would be the last to identify themselves with anything that was in the slightest degree questionable or irregular. Therefore, it ill-becomes any one who ought to be acquainted in some degree with the fine work of the Central Methodist Mission to attempt to besmirch the names of such men.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– We desire to clear their names.

Mr MAKIN:

– The honorable member for Parramatta does not desire to clear their names. He only wishes to score a political advantage, and in doing so is prepared to impugn the honour of fine men and to besmirch sacred institutions. It is almost twelve months since this deal was completed and the licence granted, yet not one word was said on the subject by members of the Opposition until last week. The matter was reviewed by the Broadcasting Committee, on which members of the Opposition sit. If they believed that there was anything irregular in the transaction, and remained silent so long, they failed in their duty. Is it likely that if there was anything sinister or irregular in the transaction every detail regarding it would be recorded on the file for any one to inspect? As a matter of fact, everything connected with the matter can be justified by an inspection of the file itself There is no charge that anything is missing from the file. The Opposition is even prepared to admit that the agreement whichhas been criticized is on the file. Everything relating to the deal is there. Mr. Richards hit the nail on the head when he said that this outburst of the Opposition was the result of the increasing popularity of station 5KA, and that the party representing the interests of its competitors had been instructed to try to destroy the good name of a formidable rival.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said that he agreed that the voice of Labour should be heard over the air. If his words are worth anything there should be no objection to the voice of the Labour party being thus heard in South Australia. Until this arrangement, the party led by the Premier of South Australia, which is of similar political colour to the Opposition in this Parliament, monopolized broadcasting facilities in South Australia, and the Labour party’s voice was unheard. Week after week the Premier of South Australia used station 5AD to enunciate the policy and beliefs of his party, and there was no way in which we could express our view with equal effect. Moreover, the Government party had a virtual monopoly of the press; it has always been felt that the same prominence was rarely, if ever, given in the newspapers to the words of Mr. Richards as was given to those of Mr. Playford. It was vital that the Labour party, which represents a substantial part of public opinion in South Australia, should have means to make its views known. This actuated Mr. Richards to secure an option over the assets of the 5KA and 5AU wireless stations. The arrangement now operating in South Australia, by which the Labour party is able to give expression to its opinions, has the endorsement of all religious thought and the community generally in South Australia, and it is an appropriate arrangement that the various religious communities should share a common interest in this broadcasting enterprise. The extravagant and reckless charges of the Leader of the Opposition supported by the honorable member for Parramatta will be repudiated by the people of that State, particularly by the members of the very denomination for which the honorable member for Parramatta professes sympathy and regard. The parties to the agreement are men of integrity, and the deal was honest in every way. The broadcasting committee on which the Opposition is represented and which had the opportunity to review the whole matter neither raised objection to the deal nor questioned the methods adopted in its completion. Therefore, I am justified in saying that this matter had been raised for sordid political purposes. It is a miserable manoeuvre designed to restore the Opposition to political favour, but I am sure that after the facts of this transaction have been placed before the people, there will be indignation that public men should have lent their support to such ungenerous and reckless expressions as have been used by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

Australia Limited at a very remunerative figure. Having thus withdrawn his support from the Council of Churches, he immediately became consciencestricken, and decided to give a farming property to that body. The honorable member, who made insulting ‘remarks to me, probably would like a royal commission to be appointed to inquire into the granting of the licence in respect of station 2CH, in order to afford to him the opportunity to state exactly to what degree he provided financial support to the Council of Churches, and how much, he personally derived from that transaction.

Before concluding, I repeat that I would welcome an inquiry by a royal commission, not with limited terms of reference, but with power to investigate the sources of all party funds. I have heard that all sorts of commercial interests in this country support political parties.Why do they do so? For favours to be done after the party is returned to office ! I have long been interested to know the source of party funds and what strings are attached to them. Therefore, if honorable members opposite want a royal commission, let the terms of reference be as wide as possible.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The Minister for Information (Mr. “Calwell) declared that Mr. Alderman, K.C., of Adelaide, gave evidence before the Parliamentary Broadcasting Committee, and therefore, that cleared up the case. I differ from the view expressed by the Minister, and I believe that Mr. Alderman would be one of the first to admit that his statement on this matter would not necessarily clear up the case from the standpoint of either the Government or the Opposition. According to the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy), Mr. Alderman was not called before the committee to give evidence on this transaction, but he referred to it when he was discussing another proposal that was being investigated by the committee in Tasmania.

Mr Calwell:

– Mr. Alderman spoke about the deal for 25 minutes, and covered every detail. The honorable member for Wilmot could have questioned him, but he remained silent.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

This matter must be cleared up. The only individuals who come out of the affair with credit are the high Government officials, such as the SolicitorGeneral, Sir George Knowles, who has said, “ I may add that it appears to me not to be in the public interest that broadcasting licences should be the subject of bargaining”. I should like to know whether the Broadcasting Committee took that opinion into consideration. In my view, the committee is worthless so far as matters such as this are concerned, and the sooner transactions of this kind are removed from its jurisdiction, the better. Let the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) assume full responsibility, and not fob it off on a committee which is not competent to handle matters such as this. I assure honorable members opposite that although by virtue of its majority the Government may succeed in burking an inquiry such as that suggested by the Opposition, the matter will not end there. The honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) expressed the opinion that the Opposition’s attitude on this occasion would react to the advantage of the Government at the next Commonwealth elections. I challenge that, and I believe that time will prove the honorable member to be quite wrong. If the Government is not prepared to expose this matter to the light of day, honorable members on this side of the chamber are at liberty to draw their own inferences. The points that have been raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) require an answer. One does not have to be a King’s Counsel, a barrister, or a solicitor, to know that if an option is to have any value, there must be some consideration in respect of it; but was consideration given for the alleged option in this case? Beyond the statements of Mr. Alderman and Mr. Richards, we do not know that an option was given. “Was it merely a verbal option - a request by Mr. Richards to have first opportunity to purchase? If, in fact no real option existed, then the whole transaction assumes a new light. The Government has power to grant enormous concessions of all kinds, and in the interests of the people generally that power should be exercised with the greatest impartiality. In this instance the challenge is that impartiality has not been shown, and that the Labour party has endeavoured to benefit itself by virtue of its occupation of the treasury bench. A strong case has been made out by the Opposition, and has not been answered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) or by any other Minister. I support the motion.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– Any impartial person who listened to the debate which took place when this matter first came before honorable members last week, could have come to no other conclusion than that the Government had a case to answer, and should grant the Opposition’s request for a royal commission; but had that person listened also to the debate which has occurred to-night, he would have marvelled that the Government still resisted the demand for a royal commission. If ever a case has been made for the appointment of a royal commission it has been made on this occasion. It was amazing indeed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) should have .replied in such a dramatic manner to the charges that have been made against his Administration. The right honorable gentleman recounted his virtuous record, and then challenged the committee to make personal charges against him. The Opposition does not seek to make personal charges against the Prime Minister, except that the right honorable gentleman has been misled. Presumably the Prime Minister was acting upon advice, and apparently that advice was misleading. However, instead of making a specific answer to the charges, the right honorable gentleman dramatically assumed that his personal honesty had been impugned. That was a very clever move to draw attention from the charges made by honorable .members on this side of the chamber and substantiated by documentary evidence. Any other government would have acceded to a request for a royal commission, but the Prime Minister has persisted in his refusal. His attitude can only make the Opposition suspicious as to what the Government has to hide. I venture to suggest that in recent years royal commissions have been appointed to inquire into charges which have had much less foundation than those made by the Opposition to-day. I say that the Government is not game to appoint a royal commission to inquire into these matters. The Prime Minister evidently believed that an attitude of mock righteous indignation would appeal to the country; consequently he threw his prestige and honour into the ring, leaving the handling of the cast: for the Government to the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin), and the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward), who filled a similar role on the last occasion. If words mean anything, the disclosures which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) made to-night indicate that there is something corrupt in regard to both transactions. If substantiation were needed, it has been provided by no less a person than the Bishop of Newcastle, who, in correspondence with the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) and the department, said that the proposal appeared to the Diocesan Council to be corrupt. When the reverend gentleman was asked whether he had referred to the Minister, he disclaimed any such intention, but did not withdraw the charge of corruption.

Mr Spender:

– Why is it necessary to allege corruption? That word has grave implications, and involves a number of things. I believe that this matter should be investigated. If corruption is alleged, against whom is the allegation made?

Mr HARRISON:

– The Bishop of Newcastle, after the terms had been placed before him by Mr. Alderman, said that they had led the Diocesan Council to believe that the transaction was corrupt.

I should like the charges to be either substantiated or disproved. They have been made and theGovernment has a case to answer.

On the occasion of the last debate, the Minister for Information, who held the brief for the Government, said-

Mr. Alderman said in his evidence before the Broadcasting Committeethat he could have obtained more than £8,500 for the Adelaide station which he had sold to the Methodist Mission. He was asked by commercial and newspaper interests to sell to them and could have obtained £.15,000 or £16,000.

With that naivete that is characteristic of him, the honorable gentleman added -

Mr. Alderman adopts a certain attitude towards life, and considers that the Labour party is entitled to a share of theair.

I believe that Mr. Alderman is a prominent member of the Labour party in South. Australia.

Mr Makin:

– To the best of my belief, he is not a member of the Labour party.

Mr HARRISON:

– He has transacted a lot of business on behalf of the Government, and has an office at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, in which he does a lot of government work.

Mr Makin:

– Many other legal men of his standing do the same.

Mr HARRISON:

– They have not an office at Victoria Barracks. He is specially privileged. He said that he could have obtained much more than £8,500 from commercial interests for the Adelaide station, but omitted to say that those interests would refuse to be associated with the terms that he laid down for the acquisition of the station. I put it to him that, had he effected a sale to newspaper and commercial interests,he would not have obtained a solatium for the Labour party. Because they refused to be a party to such a transaction, he could not obtain £15,000 or £16,000 for a station that he subsequently sold for £8,500.

The Minister for Information attempted to justify the circumstances in which the Prime Minister left the chamber to-night. The right honorable gentleman would have done a great service to this country and to his party, and might have dispelled quite a lot of the suspicion which exists if, instead of adopting that dramatic attitude, he had attempted to answer the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition. No answer has been given to the case that has been presented, and it appears that the Government has no intention of answering it. The Minister for Information replied to our request for a royal commission, by stating that therewas nothing to prevent the Broadcasting Committee from investigating the matter further. Such a statement carries no conviction to a committee which has heard extracts from a letter in which Mr. Alderman, the commercial agent for the owners of station 2HD, advised the Bishop of Newcastle that he could not obtain the licence if he did not agree to the terms propounded, because the majority of the members of the Broadcasting Committee were Labour representatives, and the PostmasterGeneral would take notice of their recommendations. When analysed, the sideissues into which the Minister has wound his difficult way in an endeavour to divert the committee, merely prove quite clearly that there are no grounds for his assumption that the matter could be cleared up by an investigation by other than a royal commission. Obviously, on the statement of Mr. Alderman, the Broadcasting Committee is “ loaded “, because it contains a majority of Labour members who, obeying caucus dictation, vote as a body and make recommendations that will benefit the party. Mr. Alderman said that, if the matter were referred to them, he knew what they would do; consequently, he tried to extort a gift under what might be termed duress. There is no doubt of that in my mind.

The next speaker on the Government side was the Minister for Munitions, who said that this was an honest business deal. In the debate last week, the honorable gentleman tried to prove that Mr. Richards held an option on station SKA. That has been completely exploded by the Leader of the Opposition. Not one Minister or Government member has been prepared to take up the challenge of the honorable member for Warringah. The Minister for Munitions can establish the correctness of his statement by giving the information for which the honorable member for Warringah has asked. If he does not do that, I must charge him with having made a statement which he knew was not correct.

This transaction has outraged in every possible way all the known business conventions. I do not know of any business arrangement which follows the lines of these negotiations. In an honest business deal, this tortuous procedure would not be followed.

The Minister for Transport was a good “ sidewinder “ to the Minister for Information. I do not pay much attention to that honorable gentleman. His attack upon the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) was in the worst possible taste. All I want to say to the Minister is that any attack which he might level against the honorable member for Parramatta would only enhance the prestige and reputation of that honorable member.

If any doubts as to the need for a royal commission existed after the debate last week, they have been resolved by the case that has been placed before the committee to-night. The House was told five times that the Postmaster-General’s Department had no knowledge of the February agreement, yet the files contain copies of it and correspondence relating to it, in addition to advice from Sir George Knowles to the Government against bargaining in the granting of wireless broadcasting licences. The tactics employed in connexion with the Adelaide station were repeated when efforts were made to sell the Newcastle station, and these were of such a character that the gravest strictures were passed on them by the Diocesan Council. Questions asked in this Parliament were not answered truthfully, and a veil of mystery was drawn over the transactions. In my opinion, the public demand for a royal commission will be strengthened unless the Government is prepared to “ come clean “ and answer the charges that have been made.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- I do not propose to traverse at length ground that has been comprehensively covered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and subsequent speakers from this side of the chamber. It appears to me that this incident, which first arose from a request for an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the granting of a broadcasting licence and the transfer of certain assets, has been lifted to a far more important plane. The absence of a decision will establish a precedent within this Parliament in relation to the reception given to such charges by ,a government. Under the British parliamentary system the practice from time immemorial has been to keep the government of the day beyond suspicion, and, if any circumstances ever arise in which the Government falls under suspicion the matter should be cleared up immediately. The accepted manner of investigating such a matter is to appoint a royal commission. I had thought that the two members of this Parliament, who, perhaps above all, were sticklers for the proprieties of the British parliamentary system of government were the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) himself and the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot readily recall a single instance of failure on the part of a Prime Minister in the past to conform to the traditional practice. I am sure that nobody can point to any action by the Leader of the Opposition as having been contrary to the practice, which we have inherited, and which we have the responsibility of safeguarding and passing on inviolate to those who come after us. The Leader of the Opposition, after twenty years of membership of Australian Parliaments, now says, “ Here are circumstances backed by indisputable facts A, B, and C, which make it appear, prima facie, that an improper course has been followed in the administration of this Government “. He asks that the Government should clear itself of any doubt or charge by the appointment of a royal commission to investigate fully the circumstances. My experience in this Parliament extends over only ten years, but never have I previously known the Leader of the Opposition to make a strong prima facie case for an investigation and the head of the Government to refrain from any reply to the charges. In this instance the Prime Minister has broken a precedent which has stood throughout our Parliamentary history. I know of no greater disservice that could be done to the people of Australia, or that is more seriously detrimental to the form of government that we all embrace, than for the Prime

Minister to refuse blankly to face up to a charge made by a former Prime Minister and the present Leader of the Opposition, backed up by a category of indisputable facts.

When these circumstances were first related in this House, the Prime Minister, having heard only the first few sentences uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, walked out of the chamber and did not return. He left three of his Ministers to reply to the charges, and two of them are not notorious for keeping any debate on a particularly high and unbiased plane. Charges of this nature cannot be replied to appropriately by counter charges. If any counter charges can and should be made, let them be stated. The Leader of the Opposition and those seated behind him have said that such counter charges could be included in the terms of reference to the royal commission, but it should not bc claimed that charges can be answered by counter accusations. It will be a sorry day for the Government, which almost invariably refers to itself as the Labour Government, if it thinks that it can clear itself of serious charges merely by referring to matters debuted at an election held twenty odd years ago, and asking, “What did you do in 1924?” Charges of this nature cannot be met by making counter allegations; they cannot be answered by hurling dirt, and there has been more than a fair share of that.

I do not imagine that the Prime Minister possesses sufficient authority to control his own Ministers. We have been forced to realize over a long experience that he is quite unable to control them. Therefore, I do not saddle him with responsibility for what his Ministers’ say, but to allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition of improper administration, nobody but the Prime Minister himself can reply. Driven from one side of the ring to the other, after the third week of this debate, the right honorable gentleman was eventually forced to rise to his feet, but not one word was uttered by him in rebuttal of the charges. No attempt was made to give a further explanation ; there was merely a dramatic gesture. No matter how dramatic the gesture might be, it provided no answer to concrete charges. It will be a bad day for this Parliament when a government may ignore serious charges because it has a sufficient number of supporters who are pledged and obliged to vote blindly for it, irrespective of their convictions. To what degree some members of the Labour party are obliged to do so has been exemplified in the most powerful way by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell). I have the most lively recollection that, when the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Bill was before us, that Minister, who was then a private member, declared that in no circumstances would he bc found voting for the measure but eventually he did so.

Mr Holt:

– -Did not the Minister on that occasion second a motion in opposition to his own Government?

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes. That is an illustration of the complete regimentation of members behind the Government, and upon that fact the Prime Minister relies. On a previous occasion, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) was Postmaster-General, an honorable member asked why a variation had taken place in the contract for additions to the Sydney General Post Office, and requested the appointment of a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, replied : “ Very well. If there is the slightest scintilla of a suggestion that something improper has been done, let a royal commission be appointed.” Overnight, a commission was appointed. When the leader of my party was Prime Minister, and an honorable member on this side declared that certain dealings between the Government and some trade union leaders ought to be investigated, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, immediately said : “ Let us have a royal commission.”

What are the circumstances in this case? Stripped of all the murk and muck thrown by the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) and the Minister for Information, surely the fact is that a broadcasting licence can be issued by the Postmaster-General, which means, no doubt, by the Cabinet. That licence, beyond question, has a money value, and can be of use only to somebody who possesses tie necessary equipment to erect and operate a station. Because of the circumstances of war, it was not possible to replace the equipment or to purchase new equipment, so a gentleman was called in who has appeared in so many guises that it is almost’ impossible to follow him. He is King’s ‘ Counsel, adviser to the Government, arbitrator for the Government on certain matters, counsel for the Commonwealth in legal proceedings, counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a good friend of the Australian Labour party. He related to the Broadcasting Committee that he was authorized to sell the equipment, which, at that time, was the only equipment procurable in Australia with which the licence could be made effective. He has said : “ I asked the agent for Jehovah’s Witnesses to authorize realization of the assets of the station. I could have sold the station for £15,000 to a newspaper company, but I am a friend of the Labour party, and thought that it was entitled to a broadcasting station.” And he - the person authorized to realize on the assets of this corporate body which had virtually been put into liquidation - decided, as the friend of the Labour party, not to accept an offer of £15,000 from an Adelaide newspaper, but to offer the asset to the Central Methodist Mission for £S,400 subject to certain conditions of benefit to the Labour party. This has been represented to us as a straightout business transaction. Even if we go no further than the facts I have just related, it was a very curious sort of business transaction, and there would be ground for probing it, for seeking to learn why the asset had been disposed of in such a way. I pass by the points raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) regarding the nature of the alleged option, the consideration in respect to it, and the document in which it was embodied, and simply recall that the Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin) told us that Mr. Richards held the option in his personal right, while Mr. Richards himself told the Broadcasting Committee that he held it on behalf of the Labour party. Putting aside those inexplicable and conflicting stories, I come ‘back to the fact, that it was proposed to issue the licence for the Newcastle station on. what appeared to have become the crystallized and stable terms for such transactions. They were something like this : “ You want a licence that has become available. All right, you pay so much for the apparatus without which you could not use a licence and then, if you have the right connexions, you get an assurance that, if you undertake to make over a certain proportion of your shares to the Labour party, or to some other body which acts as the agent of the Labour party, and if you agree to allot so much, time on the station to the Labour party, the licence will automatically issue “. It may be possible to explain away what appears to us on this side of the House, and to a large section of the public, to be incapable of explanation, but no real attempt has been made in this Parliament to explain it. Certainly no attempt was made by the Minister for Information, who has constituted himself principal spokesman for the Government. He first asked what the anti-Labour parties did in 1924, and apparently he felt that, by making charges against his opponents, he could divert attention from the charges which had been made against the Government. No more complete reply could bc made to his own charges than that offered by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Leader of the Opposition has not taken his stand merely uponhis own refutation of the charges; he has said that if the Government wishes those charges to be investigated by a royal commission, let it :be clone by all means. Now, the stark fact still stands out that certain licences were available which could be issued, at the will of the Government in office, and the consideration in one case involved, not only .the giving of free broadcasting time to the Labour party, but also the. making over of shares of value to the Labour party.

Earlier this evening, the Prime Minister made it clear that he felt that, without some addition to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, they could only be construed as involving himself in a transaction touching money or some consideration of value, and that ho was not prepared to lie under such a charge. As I understand the facts of the case, the only consideration of value which it was suggested had passed in respect of the Adelaide station was shares to the value of £2,400, these having been allotted to the Workers’ Weekly Herald. Surely there is no room there for even the most active imagination to deduce that the Prime Minister himself had personally profited.

Mr.Menzies. - The Prime Minister acquitted himself of a charge never made against him.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not wish to embark upon a discussion of the Prime Minister’s association with the matter. There cannot be the slightest justification for assuming that the Prime Minister, or any Minister, or any person has profited by the acquisition of money’ or shares. The chargeis that the Labour party has profited, and it is impossible to separate the fact that the Labour party has profited from the fact that a Labour Government is in office, lt was a Labour administration which approved the issue of a licence in the only circumstances in which the Labour party could profit. In an attempt

Vo avoid replying to the charges some honorable members have dwelt on the activities of a church organization. The church organization could not have acquired thelicence had it not bought the only apparatus available on condition that, having paid the full price for the apparatus, it should allot a. share in the asset thu.- acquired to the Labour party without receiving any consideration in return. Important as it is that this should be investigated, it is far more important that the Government should not establish the precedent that the Leader of the Opposition may make out so clearcut a case in support of his charge of improper conduct, without its drawing an effective reply from any member of the Government, or even a promise that the charge will be judicially examined.

Wednesday, 27 September

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the. Opposition · Kooyong

– I desire tq reply to whatwas said this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin). In the first place, no one in the course of this debate has accused the Prime Minister of personal corruption in any form, and he knows it.

Mr.Conelan. - The right honorable gentleman is running away.

Mr MENZIES:

– I am not running away. I stated rny case with the utmost clarity, and it contained no suggestion that the Prime Minister himself had secured any personal advantage from this transaction. The one statement to which an answer personally by the Prime Minister was demanded was that, in the course of an answer to a question, and in the course of a personal explanation, he had put before this committee information which investigation proved to be inaccurate. As I said the other day when I raised the matter, I had no doubt - and I have no doubt now - that the Prime Minister was misinformed, both when he gave his answer, and when he made the explanation. I would have expected him to seize the opportunity to say, “Well, having regard to what you tell me is in the files, I realize that I have been misinformed, and, therefore, the House has been misinformed by me “. Instead of that, however, we were treated to what I can only describe as a histrionic exhibition by the right honorable gentleman when he declared, “ Charge me with something ! “ There are two questions to which the people of Australia will require an answer: What was the proposed payment to or for the benefit of the Labour party designed to achieve? What were the grounds upon which Mr. Alderman said, “If you accept these conditions your chance of getting the licence is more than good ; if you reject them, your chance is not worth discussing”? I add to that the very pertinent question which was raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), namely, “ Where is this option?” I ask: was there an option; if so, was it paid for ; what was its value, and what value was obtained for the transfer? These questions are not to be brushed aside by the dramatic suggestion that the Prime Minister of this country, who has had nothing but the sketchiest association with this matter, is being charged with personal dishonesty. He is not. With the honorable member for Indi- (Mr. McEwen), I ask: Was the Australian Labour , party given something which came to. it unsought? We desire to know on what authority Mr. Alderman said, “ You give this to the Australian Labour party, and the result will be excellent “. These are questions of the first magnitude, and I can hardly imagine that any government will decline to have them investigated.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

. - Mr. Chairman-

Mr Spender:

Mr CURTIN:

– Of course that is a nonsensical statement. If it were true, the whole administration would fall into chaos. I have never heard of accusations having been made against previous governments because licences were transferred. My knowledge of this matter consists of simple facts. The Leader of the Labour party in South Australia, Mr. Richards, a man whose personal integrity has never been called into question by anybody, gained an option, as he says, over property which Jehovah’s Witnesses had offered for sale.

Mr Harrison:

– That could be proved by production of the option.

Mr CURTIN:

– He said that. It is also admitted that Mr. Alderman say? that he could have sold the property for a higher price to a newspaper. Mr. Richards himself, in a published statement, says that he endeavoured to dispose of his option in many places. My only knowledge of this matter is that Mr. Richards not only had an option but also could dispose of that option as he thought fit. It was a matter between him and the person or company that purchased the option. The PostmasterGeneral advised me that he construed the transaction between the man who held the option, which had been given to him, as the Postmaster-General believed, by the vendor company, as entirely unrelated to hi.s duty as Postmaster-General in deciding whether the licence should be transferred. At the consultation between the Treasurer, the PostmasterGeneral and myself, the matters discussed were, first, whether the company had capital in excess of what would be reasonable - that is a matter which the Treasurer has to deal with in regard to all companies formed for any purpose - and, secondly - the only other point left for me to advise the Postmaster-General on - whether the Central Methodist Mission should be given a licence. Having regard to the debates in Parliament and the act, which we had a look at, I could see no earthly reason why the licence should not be transferred to the Central Methodist Mission. If any impropriety is involved in this matter, which has already run the gauntlet of the Broadcasting Committee, a statutory committee of this Parliament, there can be no reason whatever why the Ministry should resist the re-opening of the inquiry which may now be regarded as not having completely covered the field. The Government has nothing to hide. Mislakes may have been made. It does appear that I misled the House the other day. I misled it because the department was clearly of the view that it would have no cognizance of a matter which did not concern it, even though that matter was on the file. It was said that the other agreement, the contract of sale, did not concern the department. All that the department was concerned with was whether or not the licence should be transferred to the Central Methodist Mission. That may have been just a misunderstanding as to what the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy) had sought. My position in the matter is that the answer I gave to the honorable gentleman was in complete conformity with the answer that had been given in the Senate by the PostmasterGeneral to a question upon notice. I accept the assurance of the Leader of the Opposition and other honorable members of the Opposition that my personal participation in this matter is not questioned and that that applies to the Treasurer and the Postmaster-General. I submit that if further inquiry is called for the statutory committee that this Parliament has already set up is free to make any investigation it may think fit.

Question put -

That the amount proposed to .be reduced (Mr. Menzies’s amendment) be so reduced.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Riordan.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

. -I bring to the notice of the committee a complaint I have to make against the Postmaster-General’s Department with respect to a letter which I received from the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) dealing with delay in delivery of internal correspondence in this country, and the reasons given by the Postmaster-General for that delay. In July of this year, I sent to him two envelopes, one of which was addressed from a place in Victoria to a place in New South Wales, and the other was a reply between the same addresses. I asked the PostmasterGeneral the reason for the delay, and also why one letter was opened by the censor, although it was an internal communication. I waited for two months, and in the meantime made several requests for a reply. Ultimately, after the report of the Royal Commission on Censorship had been presented to Parliament, I received the following reply, which was dated the 22nd September: -

With further reference to your representa- tions on behalf of the S. S. White Co. of Australia Pty. Ltd., the matter of the treatment of the two letters referred to (one addressed to G. Macgregor. Esq.. Sydney, and the other to Mr. E. X. White. Melb.) has formed the subject of investigation by the Department of the Army.Ina memorandum dated 2nd September, that Department advised that the cover addressed to Mr. Macgregor was opened by the Censor in error. The letter appears to have been mis-sorted in the first instance and to have reached Censorship amongst mail for overseas addresses. Tt was then opened and censored in the normal way before the Censorship official noticed that it was an internal communication which had got out of course.

In the case of the letter addressed to Mr. White. I am sorry that I am not able to explain the cause of the delay. The Department of the Army pointed out that the cover bore no evidence of censorship and that in- quiries indicated that in all probability it had not been sighted by the Censorship Authorities. Inquiries within this Department show that, on the evidence available, the letter should have reached Melbourne on 21st July in time for delivery on that date,but it is possible that it did not arrive until the 22nd (Saturday) in which case it would have been too late for delivery that day. Accepting the statement that delivery was not effected until 24th July, the delay seems to have taken place between Sydney and Melbourne, and if this was so, I would ask you kindly to express my regret to the senders.

The envelopes are returned herewith as requested.

I shall deal first with the letter which showed no signs of having been opened by the censor. The reply I have received in respect of that letter is rather extraordinary. I have always thought that when a letter is opened by the censor, the proper procedure is to mark it : “ Opened by Censor “ ; and if it is not so marked, one might rightly assume that it has not been opened. But the PostmasterGeneral’s reply does not make possible so easy an assumption, because, in respect of the letter in question, the Department of the Army pointed out that the cover bore no evidence that the letter had been censored, and that inquiries indicated that “in all probability it had not been sighted by censorship “. That is a most extraordinary statement from the Minister who controls internal correspondence, and who, if Mr. Justice Webb’s conclusion is correct there is no general observation of inland mails, and only communications from persons suspected of espionage, or sabotage, are submitted to inquiries is correct, must know that this internal correspondence has been unduly delayed. As an explanation of that delay, he says that in all probability it has not been sighted by censorship. My first observation is that, in respect of a letter which has been delayed, and which bears no external mark of having been opened by censorship, he was not able to say immediately that the letter had not been opened by censorship. My second observation is that it is obvious from his reply that the mere fact, that the letter does not appear to have been opened by censorship is no guarantee that it has not been opened by censorship.

With respect to the other letter which was opened by censorship, the reply given to me was of the kind which I expected to receive. Whenever an internal letter in this country is opened by the censor, the official explanation invariably offered is that by some strange circumstance it got into the overseas mail. I am very apt to believe everything told to me by responsible officials; but this reply does not “go over” with me, because, on more than one. occasion, when it has been brought to my notice that internal mail has been scrutinized, the reply has been that in some strange way it got mis-sorted with the overseas mail. I have two comments to make: First, it is about time that the Postmaster-General exercised better control over internal mail in order to make certain that it does not get mis-sorted ; and, secondly, the reply given in this case is extraordinary because it is obvious when you look at the printing on each envelope, particularly the one opened by the censor, that it is internal mail. It is difficult to understand how internal mail of that description comes to be opened by censorship, and no one knows anything about it until I bring the fact to the notice of the department; then the explanation, two months delayed, is that it must have been mis-sorted. That explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. Parliament has an obligation tokeep internal mail inviolate. It should not be interfered with except for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Webb ; but it is by no means clear that those are the only reasons which persuade the censorship to open mails. At this stage I shall not be in order in discussing Mr. Justice Webb’s report, but I draw the attention of the committee to the reply sent to me after a lapse of two months, which is so unsatisfactory that it throws doubts upon the efficiency of the Postmaster-General’s Department, and raises doubt with respect to the degree to which internal mail is censored for reasons which have no relation to security.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– For the second time this evening the committee has been regaled by a King’s Counsel, who has sought to impute motives in respect to the administration of a very extensive department. Perhaps, as the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) suggests, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) would like the Government to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this matter also. What is the truth about internal censorship in this country? The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott; had an opportunity, as a member of the Censorship Committee, to investigate the position for himself, but he gave away a. secret document to a certain newspaper, and thereby proved himself unfitted to continue as a member of that committee. Owing to his action the committee was disbanded. Over 1,000,000,000 letters circulating in Australia each year are not subject to censorship at all. The only letters censored are those coming into or going out of Australia, and letters coming from, or going to, operational areas. The great bulk of letters circulating in Australia are not subject to censorship at all. Technically, they could be censored. It is extraordinary that an honorable member could have such effrontery as to condemn the Postmaster-General’s Department for a mistake in respect of internal censorship, when he himself is the very person who authorized the censorship of internal mails in this country.

Mr.Spender. - That is false; there was no censorship of internal mail during the whole of the period I was Minister for the Army.

Mr CALWELL:

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– I emphasize the need for an alteration of policy governing the erection of telegraph and telephone lines in country districts. The Estimates provide a substantial amount for new works in this connexion, but the PostmasterGeneral’s Department usually adopts the view that a certain amount of revenue must be in prospect before such works can be undertaken. If our country districts are to progress, a. more liberal policy must be adopted in regard to capital expenditure involvedin the erection of trunk lines in the sparsely populated areas. For example, in the south western part of Queensland, from Dalby to Charleville, there is no connexion with central Queensland, with a through trunk line to meet the Rockhampton and Cracow districts. All trunk line calls must go from Dalby through Kingaroy to Maryborough, or right around through Toowoomba to Brisbane and then north. When districts have appealed for the erection of a. connecting line, the Departmenthas raised the matter of finance. I realize the difficulty of providing this money in war-time, but the country requires these services, and the Government will need to subsidize the erection of the main connecting lines to link up outlying districts in the various States.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Part III - Territories of the Commonwealth.

Proposedvote, £687,000.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Although I desire to refer in many ways to the Northern Territory, I am afraid that the committee is not in a mood to give serious attention to my remarks. If this House meets later in the year and can devote some time to private members’ business, I shall initiate debates on certain matters of importance regarding the administration of the Northern Territory.

The Northern Territory presents one of the most important post-war problems with which this Government will have to deal. There is a challenge to us to settle and develop that vast area. Recently, the Northern Territory Development League was formed and has communicated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and myself on various matters. I propose to put to honorable members several points in their order of importance. In. the post-war settlement of the Northern Territory, the first requirement will be the conservation of water. Without water, there cannot be closer settlement of any kind. Without water, there cannot be a development of the pastoral industry or of the stock routes which arc so necessary. Although many portions have been under cattle for a long while, the territory is still very poorly supplied with stock routes.

Mr.Chifley. - The Commonwealth and State Governments are giving attention to stock routes in that area. A decision was reached within the last couple of months. I do not say that it is adequate, but nevertheless, something is being done.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That is not borne out by my correspondence with the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings). Specific requests have been made for certain stock routes. One of these requests is for the opening of a new stock route between the Kimberleys in Western Australia, and Alice Springs. But the Government, instead of giving encouragement, has poured cold water on the proposition. I have seen quite a few people who are interested in the proposal, and have received correspondence from others in the Kalgoorlie electorate; they take a very different view from what the Government is now taking. If the Northern Territory is to be further settled and the beef industry is to be developed, stock routes will have to be surveyed and. water will have to be provided along them, so that cattle may get to the railhead or to any now meatworks that may be established in the interior.

The next requirement, in the Northern Territory is transport. Although a good deal has been done under war conditions, lateral transport, must be provided from certain places on the main north road to other places east and west of it. The mining industry is also of great importance, and the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Mr. Beasley), who has taken a definite interest in it lately, has initiated certain moves that may in due course produce a long range policy. The development of the Northern Territory will depend upon, the conditions that the Government is prepared to grant. I am not one of those who believes that the Northern Territory will be a good proposition, from the point of view of the Treasury, for a long time. If people were prepared to live a good deal of their lives there, rear their families and settle the country, the Commonwealth Government should not expect very much revenue from them. At present some conditions in the Northern Territory are not what one would like, but in other respects they are much better than one would expect. The work that has been done by quite a few people has borne fruit, and buildings and appointments in certain parts are very creditable to those concerned. In my opinion, the first approach to the proper settlement of the difficulties of the Northern Territory is the granting of some form of local selfgovernment there.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

– The honorable member will not be in order in developing that theme.

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

– The committee is dealing with works, and local selfgovernment would require a building in which to meet. Therefore, I consider that I am entitled to develop my theme. Already a proposal for local selfgovernment has been submitted to the Prime Minister. If some form of selfgovernment were granted, many causes of complaint would be corrected. Many of these things are done after reference to the Department of the Interior at Canberra, and I am. afraid that sometimes the advice of the people on the spot has not been fully considered, with the result that expense has been incurred which would not have been incurred if local people had had some control, or, at any rate, the right to give advice.

A proposal has been put to either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer in regard to a committee which the Government is believed to have formed to make recommendations for the future develop ment of the Territory. Unless that committee is working on the spot and has the co-operation of certain people in the Northern Territory who have distinguished themselves in developmental research, I am afraid that the results will not be the 1.00 per cent, that might be expected if the Government co-operated with the local people. I warn the Treasurer, as the representative of the Government at the table to-night, that before very long I hope to occupy some time on a private members’ clay to debate matters of general interest in connexion with the Territory. I noticed in yesterday’s press that the Government had decided to rebuild Darwin. That is something for which everybody who has to use the town as the front door to Australia will be thankful. Darwin badly needs rebuilding in accordance with a proper townplanning scheme. Like Topsy, it has just “ growee! “.

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

– I subscribe to what has been said as to the national importance of the development of the Northern Territory and the Kimberley district of “Western Australia. Last week, in discussing the budget, I referred briefly to the difficulties being experienced by cattle-raisers in the Kimberleys. I should be most interested to see the letters which the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has received from residents of the Kalgoorlie electorate with regard to the development of stock routes towards Alice Springs. Recently, I made a station-to-station visit in the Kimberleys, and discussed with the men directly concerned the problems confronting the people there. Their chief desire was for the re-opening of the Wyndham meatworks and the establishment of inland abattoirs to deal with the stock close to where it was reared. I appreciate that more than one outlet may be necessary, and for that reason I subscribe to the policy of improving and watering the various stock routes which would give outlets to the people raising beef under extreme difficulties there to-day. There is a prospect of settling in the Kimberley area a very substantial population. I have had the opportunity of viewing practically the whole of the Commonwealth. I know the Queensland country fairly well, and I know almost the whole of Western Australia. I have never seen land superior in quality to the land of the Kimberley district. It has a conformation which enables water conservation schemes for irrigation purposes to be conveniently carried out. Some time ago, a proposition, was submitted to the Western Australian Government to establish a Jewish settlement in the Kimberley district. I am most anxious to see the district settled, because no nation can justify holding an area with such possibilities unless it is prepared to make provision for its development. Not only is the Kimberley district rich in arable and pasture land, but it is also rich in mineral wealth. It may not be generally known that the first discovery of gold in Western Australia was made at Hall’s Creek in the Kimberleys. It is a great shame that the people of Australia do not know their own country and its potentialities as well as they should. I said last night that, although the Government provides facilities for parliamentary delegations to visit other countries, the members of our own Parliament have never had the opportunity to see their own country. It would be of some value to Australia if a delegation were sent into the Kimberleys to view the possibilities there and encourage its development.Governments have a responsibility in that regard. Day after day in this Parliament the need for increasing thepopulation of Australia in order to settle all the available land is emphasized. The possibilities already exist in the Kimberleys. Why not take advantage of them and encourage the people already there? They have been struggling for years, and government after government has turned a deaf ear to their requests for better transport facilities and living conditions. Everything that has been done there to date has been done by the pioneers. Even mail services have been neglected, and there has been a failure to provide medical attention. No consideration whatever has been given by this National Parliament to the provision of facilities which would encourage people to remain there. I a.m prepared to give my whole-hearted support to any honorable member who has a plan to give the present settlers consideration, and provide the necessary facilities for developing the district. The problem of raising cattle in these localities, and transporting the beasts to killing centres is a most difficult one. To-day, cattle-raisers in the Wyndham district are at the mercy of the greatest of all meat combines, Vesteys Limited, which has a monopoly of the meat market, and shows no inclination to run to extravagance in the improvement of the conditions of the workers. These men live in accommodation which is barely up to the standard of native camps. There is no legislation compelling a higher standard to be maintained. The Government of Western Australia is powerless in that regard because of the anti-Labour Legislative Council. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will give serious consideration to the future of this area, because of its vital import ance to Australia as a whole.The unpopulated coastline extending over a thousand miles is a menace to the security of this country. The opportunities are there for the establishment of industries, and the Government’s duty is to see that industries shall be established, so that additional population may be settled in that district.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

Thatthere be granted to His Majesty for the service of the year 1944-45 for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, a sum not exceeding £6,277,000.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means founded on Resolution of Supply reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Lazzarini do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 1452

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1944-45

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed throughall stages without amendment or debate.

page 1452

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Canned Fruits Export Control Act - Eighteenth Annual Report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, for year 1043-44, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Common wealthpurposes - Pitt-water, New South Wales.

Health purposes - Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

National Security Act - National Security (Supplementary) Regulations - Order by State Premier - Queensland (dated 14th September, 1944).

Wine Overseas Marketing Act - Sixteenth Annual Report of the Australian Wine Board, for year 1943-44, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

House adjourned at 1.48 a.m. (Wednesday).

page 1453

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Darling Downs Co-operative Bacon Association Limited

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

Did the Darling DownsCo-operative Bacon Association Limited, Willowburn, Queensland, requisition two canning plant units from the United States of America early in February, 1943?
Did the two machines arrive in Australia early in 1944?
Was one machine diverted to a South Australian company by the Commonwealth Canning and Tinplate Board without the knowledge or consent of the Queensland association?
Is any member of the Tinplate Board connected in any way, in a managerial capacity, or otherwise, with the South Australian company referred to in paragraph 3 above, or with its associate or parent companies?

Mr Beasley:
ALP

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

Yes.
Yes.
No. The allocation of can-making plant is carried out by an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives of the Departments of Munitions, Commerce and Agriculture, Supply and Shipping, and the Division of Import Procurement, not by the Commonwealth Canning and Tinplate Board. The machines in question were closing machines for round cans, and, at the timethese two machines arrived in Australia, there was an urgent need for a closing machine of this type at the works of William Angliss and Sons Proprietary Limited, South Australia, for the packaging of certain meat products for the United States Army. Acting on the advice of the Controller-General of Foodstuffs, the committee allocated one machine to this firm.
Yes. Mr.E. J. Bowater is a member of the Commonwealth Canning and Tinplate Board and is also connected with William Angliss and Sons Proprietary Limited. However, as stated in paragraph 3 above, the Commonwealth Canning and Tinplate Board was not concerned in the allocation of this machine, and Mr. Bowater was not consulted in any way.

Constitution Alteration Referendum : Details of Voting

Mr Abbott:

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

Will he supply the House with the following information concerning the results of the postwar reconstruction and democratic rights referendum: - The number of votes cast for and against the proposed law (i) in Australia, (ii) in each State, and (iii) in each electoral division in each State?

Mr Lazzarini:
ALP

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

Fruit and Vegetables: Royal Commission’s Report

Mr Fadden:

n asked “the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Has he read the conclusions of the Queensland Royal Commission on Fruit and Vegetables on page IS of its report that the control of the marketing of potatoes imposed by the Commonwealth on growers in 1942 resulted in a serious loss to some of them through no fault of theirs, and! gave to a group of agents an excessive profit paid for mostly by growers ?
Has he read the further comment that “ by accident or design the Commonwealth avoided legal liability for these losses “.
Has he also read the Commission’s further statement “ that the subsidy system introduced by the Commonwealth in 1943 as part of the scheme for lowering the basic wage, yields to the grower a return satisfactory to him, and to the agents and merchants an excessive profit which was paid for by the taxpayer “ ?
If so, what comment has he to make on the Royal Commission’s statements, particularly the comment referred to in paragraph 2 ?
Will the Government take immediate action to recoup the growers for the losses incurred?

Mr Scully:
ALP

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

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
In regard to question 1, there is no trace, in the typescript of evidence, of anything to indicate the basis of the Commission’s conclusion. In regard to question 2, the Commonwealth has not avoided liability for any just claims by Queensland potato-growers. During the sitting of the Royal Commission the Deputy Potato Controller of Queensland publicly invited any grower with a claim against the Potato Committee to submit it. No claims were submitted. Following on the publication of the Commission’s report the Potato Controller telegraphed the Secretary to the Commission advising him that the AustralianPotato Committee had always been and was still anxious to treat all growers with the utmost fairness and asked for any information or names of growers in the possession of the Commission and on which the finding wasbased. The Commission replied that the information was all contained in the copy of the evidence. This has been carefully perused and does not disclose any instance in which theCommonwealth avoided payment. The contract with vegetable growers clearly provided for inspection by the State Department of Agriculture and, in the cases where growers voiced dissatisfaction to the Committee, only two were contract growers and their complaint was that the Department of Agriculture had ordered their potatoes to be picked over. In regard to question 3, the matter of merchants* profit margins is one for my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs, who administers the Prices Control.
See above answers.

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Is it a fact that in 1943 it was decided to discontinue the offer to Queensland growers, of contracts for the growing of vegetables at. fixed prices?
Was the offer continued in other States?
Has he read the observation of the Queensland Royal Commission on Fruit and Vegetables in its report that “ the reasons advanced for the cessation of the contract system in Queensland did not appear to it to be satisfactory”, and that “there appeared to be no reason for a differentiation against Queensland growers in this regard and that the Commonwealth Government should be pressed to offer contracts in Queensland as in other States.
If so, will he take immediate action to restore to Queensland growers the offers of contracts similar to what is done in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr Scully:
ALP

– The honorable member is referred to the general statement on vegetable production in Queensland made during the debate on the Estimates in the House of Representatives, on the 22nd September, by the right honorable the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde).

Royal Australian Navy: Discharges

Mr Francis:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

s asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

How many members of the Royal Australian Navy have been discharged from that force after completing six months’ service or more?

Mr Makin:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is 2,736. This does not include deaths.

Land Settlement of ex-Servicemen.

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Does the Government intend to introduce into Parliament wholly or in part the Soldier Settlement Bill printed as an appendix to the second report of the Rural Reconstruction Commission?

Mr Curtin:
ALP

– The bill referred to in the question was presented to the Commonwealth Government by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, and later submitted in evidence to the Rural Reconstruction Commission. The commission considered the suggestions embodied in thebill in submitting its report to the Government. The Government’s proposals for land settlement of ex-servicemen were considered at a meeting of the Premiers on the 26th August last, and will be further discussed at the forthcoming conference of Premiers specially convened for the 3rd October next, following which legislation will be prepared to give effect to the proposals jointly agreed upon by the Commonwealth and State Governments.

Boards and Commissions

Mr Guy:

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he have the statement on the appointment of boards and commissions, copies of which have now been supplied to honorable members, brought up to date?

Mr Curtin:
ALP

– The statement which has been made available to honorable members was prepared as the result of questions asked in January and March, 1943, respectively, by the then honorable members for Perth and Parkes. In an interim reply it was indicated that such of the information which couldbe obtained without undue cost and use of man-power would be furnished. However, the nature of the particulars asked for, being other than those ordinarily recorded in detail by departments, necessitated a considerable amount of research by staffs already heavily burdened by war-time duties.

Much of the information sought by the honorable member, which is more up to date than the statement furnished in reply to the then honorable members for Perth and Parkes, is contained in the Federal Guide, a handbook on the organization and functions of Commonwealth Government departments and special war-time authorities, published in January, 1944. Copies of this publication have been supplied to honorable members.

Broadcasting : Australian Broadcasting Commission’s News Service - Stations 5KA and 5AU.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 20th September the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) addressed the following question to me as Minister representing the Postmaster-General, - without notice -

Can the Minister representing the. PostmasterGeneral say whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission is taking a parttime syndicated news service from Canberra for which it is paying £10 a week? If this is so, is it not contrary to the recommendation of the Broadcasting Committee that the Australian Broadcasting Commission news service should be wholly independent? Will he take steps to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is directed to follow the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee in this respect?

The Postmaster-General has furnished the following answer : -

The Australian Broadcasting Commission made an arrangement with the Australian United Press to take effect from the 25th August, 1944, for an auxiliary news service to be provided at Canberra until the Commission’s 1.30 news had been broadcast. In addition, routine news on Saturdays and Sundays at Canberra was to be covered by the Australian United Press with an understanding that a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s news stall would be contacted in the event of important news. The arrangement could be terminated by one month’s notice after an initial period of three months. The cost of the service is £10 a week. In the opinion of the Commission, the arrangement it has made with the Australian United Press does not conflict with the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. The question of news serviceson national stations is receiving attention to ensure that the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting shall be complied with.

Mr Holt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he lay on the table of the House the correspondence passing between the Postmaster-General’s Department and the interested parties involved in the negotiations for the issue of broadcasting licences to the Centra) Methodist Mission at Adelaide and to the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle?

Mr.Curtin. -I do not consider that it is appropriate to table the official file of correspondence concerning the negotiations for the issue of the commercial broadcasting licences referred to. The Postmaster-General will, however, be pleased to make the file available to the honorable member for his perusal.

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - .

Did the Postmaster-General agree to the transfer of broadcasting stations 5KA and/or 5AU in 1943 without having informed his mind of the terms of the agreement upon which he was asked to approve the transfer of the old, or, alternatively, the issue of new licences ?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– I am advised by the Postmaster-General that he was fully informed on those matters which he considered essential before approving the issue of the licences to 5KA Adelaide and 5AU Port Augusta.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1944, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1944/19440926_reps_17_179/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives26 September 1944

QUESTION

SECRET MEETING OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS

Mr MENZIES:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY

Mr CHAMBERS:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

SPORTING AMMUNITION

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MAKIN:Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:ALP

QUESTION

INTERSTATE TRAVEL BY SCHOOLBOYS

Mr WARD:Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr BOWDEN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

OATS SUBSIDY

Mr SMITH:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr GUY:WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

SYDNEY ICE SUPPLIES

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

SIR WILLIAM WEBB

Mr ADERMANN:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Dr EVATT:Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DEFENCE AND CIVIL MANUFACTURES

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

FODDER,

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

GOSFORD CABBAGE CROP

Mr WILLIAMS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

PRODUCER-GAS

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:ALP

QUESTION

PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr BARNARD:

Mr HOLLOWAY:Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr BREEN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:

QUESTION

BORE CASING AND PUMPING PLANT

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

Mr MAKIN:ALP

QUESTION

SHARE PRICES

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS IN UNITED KINGDOM SERVICES

Dr GAHA:DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr Curtin:

Dr GAHA:

Mr CURTIN:ALP

QUESTION

SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC STAR

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:ALP

House of Representatives
26 September 1944

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:
Minister for Defence · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr WARD:
Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

Mr SMITH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr WILLIAMS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr MAKIN:
ALP

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Dr GAHA:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr WARD:
ALP

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country Party

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister and Minister for Defence · Fremantle · ALP

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

Mr BREEN:
Calare

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP