House of Representatives
5 June 1947

18th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3553

MINISTERIAL DUTIES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I inform honorable members that I shall act as Minister for Defence as from the 5th June, during the absence abroad of Mr. Dedman. I have asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) to act as Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan) to act as Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, also from the 5th June, for the period of Mr. Dedman’s absence.

page 3553

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr WILLIAMS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Fruit-juice manufacturers in my electorate complain that their sugar ration has been greatly reduced, and that they will be compelled to discontinue production unless additional supplies can be obtained. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping investigate the matter, and ensure that workers shallnot be deprived of their employment by reason of some disorganization of the sugar industry?

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall be glad to investigate the position, and, if possible, ensure that nobody shall lose his employment because of dislocation in the sugar industry. It has been claimed in regard to some States which are dependent on Queensland for supplies of sugar, that shipping has been a source of trouble. I am now able to inform the. House that there has been no great difficulty in regard to shipping. On the 27 th May, 1947, 60,509 tons of sugar had to be shipped from Queensland, ports prior to the commencement of the new season’s exports in June. Against this quantity, tonnage has been allotted for 57,160 tons, leaving 3,349 tons to be delivered. Tonnage is in sight to lift 9,000 tons of new season’s sugar after the final clearance of the 1946 stocks. Whilst the figures disclosed in the report of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited of the 1st March were, no doubt, correct, they were- misleading insofar as they represented the position to be different from that indicated by the figures I have given. No apprehension is felt in regard to the available shipping being sufficient to take the full deliveries of the sugar industry for the 1947-48 season.

page 3554

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Stevedoring Operations - Movementof Ships

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping to state whether, as the press has reported, the chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, Mr. Morrison, is hampering stevedoring operations in Sydney, by refusing to disclose certain information; that he has issued an instruction that no information shall be given to any one about the state of labour in the port of Sydney from day to day; and that nobody other than himself is to be advised of the number of wharf labourers allocated to jobs or short supplied, or how many ships are working and how many aro idle? Can the Minister state the reasons for this extraordinary action on the part of Mr. Morrison? If there is no valid reason, will he give instructions that those who require statistical information shall be supplied with it?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I do not agree that the position outlined by the honorable member does, in fact, exist. I shall have inquiries made to ascertain whether there is any foundation for ‘the statement.

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– For some time past, statements have appeared in the press and have been made in this House regarding the slow turn-round of ships. On almost every occasion responsibility for that has been placed on. the heads of the employees on the waterfront. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping whether it is a fact that, during the week ended the 31st May, 75,000 manhours were lost on the wharfs in Sydney through wet weather, and that so. far this week 40,000 man-hours have been lost through the same cause? If that be so, would time lost through that cause represent a greater factor in the slow turnround of ships than, do industrial disputes and an absence of will to work on the part of workers on the waterfront?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– It is true that there has been some delay in the turn-round of ships due to wet weather, particularly in the Port of Sydney, during the last two weeks. That fact has not been mentioned by the press, but if half - a day is lost due to sonic other cause it is featured in the newspapers. I discussed this matter with the Minister for Supply and Shipping yesterday, and was informed that during the last fortnight a great deal of time, was lost on the waterfront in Sydney due to wet weather. The Minister also stated that efforts are now being made to provide awnings and coverings to enable loading to continue in wet weather to a greater degree than is now possible. One of the extraordinary features of this matter is that, although a great deal of time has been lost because of wet weather, apparently no steps have been taken in the past by those associated with the. loading of ships to provide coverings to enable loading operations to continue in wet weather. The Minister also’ informed me yesterday afternoon that, following consultations on the matter, orders had been placed for awnings and coverings for this purpose. Similar conditions exist in other ports, resulting is delays in the turn-round of ships. I shall ask the Minister for details of the number of hours lost on the waterfront through wet weather, and shall supply the honorable member with the information as soon as it is received.

page 3554

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Is it true that about September, 1944, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers agreed that municipal and shire rates should be subject to Commonwealth control in- the same manner as rents were controlled, and, if so, how many cases, if any, were reported to the Prices Branch ? What action was taken to. protect victims of black marketing, supertaxing and illegal increasing of rates?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– This matter has caused a great deal of disputation. I do not know the position in all States, but in some .States the rates chargeable by local-governing bodies are subject to approval of the State Minister. For instance, in New South Wales the Minister for Local Government must approve rates before they are levied. It is also true that this subject was discussed by Commonwealth and State Ministers. I do not think that the subject was on the agenda-paper; it arose during the conference. Most State governments are of the opinion that the control of rates is a matter within their jurisdiction. One case that comes to my mind is that of the rates charged by a local-governing body in the electorate of the honorable member for North Sydney. The Commonwealth Government has not attempted to exercise strict control over the rates charged by local governing bodies. Increases of rates varied from one penny to about twopence in the £1. I shall supply to the honorable member a history of the discussions that took place and a summary of such correspondence as may be available on the subject.

page 3555

QUESTION

SURPLUS WAR MATERIALS

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it a fact, as stated in yesterday’s press, that two Commonwealth Investigation Branch officers are investigating frauds alleged to have taken place in connexion with the disposal of surplus war materials in the Northern Territory, and that it is believed that big sums are involved. If so, is the Attorney-General in a position to make a statement to the House on the subject ?

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

– I am not aware of any such investigation being undertaken. Inquiries of the kind referred to are usually conducted by officers of the Investigation Branch at the request of the departments concerned. Only occasionally is there any reference to the Minis- .ter. I shall have inquiries made and shall Supply an answer to the honorable member later.

page 3555

QUESTION

BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have been informed by the representative of a large manufacturing company in Tasmania that it has on hand large quantities of cement which could be shipped to South

Australia to ease the shortage of building materials which is holding up the construction of houses in that State, but that there is no shipping available to. transport it. Will the Minister bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Supply and Shipping with a view to some of the cement being shipped to South Australia ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– It is true that there is available in Tasmania for shipment to the mainland a considerable quantity of cement. The matter was mentioned to me by the honorable member for Wilmot either privately or in the form of a question asked in the House. There is also a scarcity of cement in Victoria, where there is a big demand for it. The Minister for Supply and Shipping has been negotiating with the Premier of Victoria about the provision of a ship to carry cement to that State, and also about certain financial arrangements. I am aware of the difficulties that have arisen regarding the supply of cement to South Australia and Victoria, and I will myself take the matter up once more with the Minister for Supply and Shipping.

page 3555

MR. A. W. RUDKIN

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– Recently, the honorable member for Barker asked me to make available to honorable members certain papers in connexion with the prosecution of Mr. A. W. Rudkin. The papers have been obtained, and the honorable member for Barker has inspected them. They consist, for the most part, of the record of proceedings before the court, but they contain also certain correspondence which honorable members may wish to see, but which is not of sufficient public interest to lay on the table of the House. Therefore, I propose to leave the file with the Clerk of the House, or in the Library, where honorable members may inspect it.

page 3555

QUESTION

COAL

Victorian Supplies - Report of Professor Jones

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Last week, the Prime Minister gave an assurance about the supply of coal to Victoria from New South Wales. In Melbourne, gas rationing was lifted this week, after having been imposed -the week before ; but, .according ,to press ‘reports, it ds to be imposed .again to-morrow, because of the small quantity and the poor quality of the coal coming forward. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that coal produced in New South Wales will be fairly distributed among the States, having regard to their requirements for domestic and industrial purposes? Can ‘he say what are the prospects for continuous supplies of coal during this winter?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I learned in the course of a telephone communication with the Premier of Victoria that the supply of coal to that State had declined by 116,000 tons in the last four months. I took up the matter with the Minister for Supply and Shipping, and he in turn conferred with the Coal Board, which gave the assurance to the Premier of Victoria that 30,000 tons of coal a week would be made available by sea and rail to that State. However, such assurances cannot always be carried out, because, very often, it. is not possible to transport the coal. I understand that that allocation would meet the needs of Victoria. I have had no complaint since the date of that communication to the Premier of Victoria that the assurance is not being carried out. I shall discuss the matter with the Minister for Supply and Shipping to see whether any difficulty has been caused by shortage of shipping. I understand that there is no shortage of coal.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– The Prime Minister will probably recall that as the result of considerable industrial trouble on the coal-fields Mr. Justice Davidson was commissioned to investigate and report upon the coal industry. After that report had been supplied to the Commonwealth Government, Professor David Jones was brought from Wales to investigate coal dust in Australian mines. He recently returned to Wales via New Zealand. Before his departure he said that he had given a copy of his report to the Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. That was a considerable time ago. I want to know whether I and other honorable members will be provided with copies of that report, and, if not, why not?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government brought Professor David .Jones to Australia to investigate particularly the problem of dust in coal-mines, but his investigation spread over a “wider field into matters incidental to dust, for in-: stance, the mechanization of coal-mines, which, as the honorable member knows, creates more dust than do ordinary coalmining methods.

Mr Francis:

– I am an expert, and I know that. I went down the mines a few days ago.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Since the honorable member has such great knowledge of the subject, I am surprised that he has asked ti is question.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I want the report.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Professor Jones has made certain recommendations. One is in relation to the establishment of a chair cf mining engineering at the Sydney University. That proposal is being examined by Professor Mills, Professor of Education, in conjunction with other authorities, and it may he some time before we receive a final answer on that aspect. I have not seen the full report of Professor Jones’s investigations in Australia, but I have seen a summary of it. I shall ascertain what information can be obtained for the honorable member and will let him have it as soon as possible. I cannot tell him anything about the recommendation for the establishment of a chair of mining engineering at the University of Sydney apart from the fact that the suggestion is being investigated.

page 3556

QUESTION

FOOD FOR BRITAIN

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Balaclava, some -days ago, the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral said that a further approach would be made to the British authorities in an endeavour to bring about a reduction of the postal charges on food parcels sent from Australia to the people of Great Britain. As I receive numerous inquiries from people who are regularly sending gifts of food to our kinsmen in. Great Britain as to why .the Government is not able to reduce the present postal rates on food (parcels, I now ask whether any further effort has been made to reach an agreement with the British Government with respect to the reduction of those rates ? If so, is the Minister in a position to inform the House of the result of such negotiations?

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

– The honorable member for Hume and all other honorable members who have raised this matter are to be commended for their interest, because it is the unanimous desire of the Parliament to do everything possible to bring about a reduction of postal charges on food parcels despatched overseas. When the matter was raised by the honorable member for Wentworth, I said that I had shown a copy of the cablegram we had sent to the British Government to the honorable member for Balaclava, who also desired to raise the subject. To that cablegram we have received the following reply from the British Government : -

We fully appreciate the reasons which have led the Commonwealth Government to re-open this question and it has again been very fully and sympathetically reviewed in all its aspects by the United Kingdom authorities concerned.

We fear, however, that apart from the serious practical difficulties which would be involved at this end there is the consideration that the present credits received from the Australian Postal Administration do not fully cover handling, conveyance and delivery costs in the United Kingdom, so that any reduction would have the effect of subsidizing this particular service and it would be argued that we were imposing an additional burden on the general taxpayer for the benefit of a limited number of individuals.

In general the considerations advanced in my telegram No. 538, of 22nd December, 1945, still apply and we feel that a special concessionary rate for individual food parcels would not be justified. We are, of course, anxious that the flow of parcels (which are very greatly appreciated here) should be maintained and we are, therefore, glad to note that, in your view, the present postage rates do not constitute a serious deterring factor.

We have done all we can to secure the change desired by honorable members on both sides of the House. I am afraid that nothing further canbe done.

page 3557

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that after the next four years there will develop an acute shortage in the marriageable female age groups of potential wives in the Com monwealth? If so, will the Minister for Immigration investigate the matter and explore the possibility of bringing to Australia young single female migrants of marriageable age ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I think it is axiomatic that the future population possibilities of a nation depend upon the number of females in the community between the marriageable ages of fifteen and 45. The figures which I cited in the House in answer to the honorable member for Denison indicate that there is a serious downward trend in that section of the population. The prospects are that we might reach a population of about 8,000,000 in this country, and then decline. Everything possible will be done in our immigration plans to bring to Australia a large number of adult male workers to do a lot of hard manual work, and also a number of marriageable females in order that the perpetuation of the splendid Australian people shallbe made possible.

page 3557

QUESTION

FEED WHEAT

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether the Victorian quota of feed wheat has been reduced by 60 per cent. of the basic figure? If so, will the Minister reconsider that decision with a view to granting a more reasonable quota?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of the Victorian feed wheat quota for poultry being reduced by 60 per cent. of the basic figure. The feed wheat quotas were fixed a considerable time ago, and so far as I am aware there has not been any major alteration of them. I know of no reduction in recent months, nor do I think it likely that any reduction will be effected.

page 3557

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Mr LANGTRY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the threatened shortage of new cornsacks, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture discuss with the Australian Wheat Board the advisability of permitting the use of second-hand sugar bags for wheat as the practice of the board is to accept only bagged wheat?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I have already made inquiries as to the practicability of using second-hand sugar bags for wheat, but the Australian Wheat Board is not disposed to permit this practice. It is considered that if permission for the use of second-hand sugar bags were given, sacks in all states of disrepair would be used, thus complicating handling arrangements at the various wheat-receiving depots. I am sure that if the shortage of cornsacks were to cause a grave emergency, the board would reconsider its present attitude but, under existing conditions, it is not likely that the receival of wheat in second-hand bags will be permitted.

page 3558

QUESTION

HIS MAJESTY THE- KING

Screen Portrait

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement that has been made by the Minister for Information in regard to the inculcation of an Australian national sentiment by the display of the Australian flag on various occasions, I draw the honorable gentleman’s attention to the need to inculcate an Empire sentiment as well. Could he do something about the atrocity purporting to be a portrait of His Majesty the King that is flashed on the screen every time the national anthem is played in a picture theatre?- As the Minister is going to London shortly, will he endeavour to secure a more recent portrait of the King, and would he be prepared to utilize the resources of that section of his department dealing with films to have that picture made available for exhibition to the Australian public in theatres?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– There is a National Film Council consisting of Mr. Ernest Turnbull, managing director of the Hoyts chain of theatres, Mr. Norman B. Rydge, representing Greater Union Theatres Limited, and Mr.- Bernard Freeman, representing the MetroGoldwynMayer interests in Australia, and these three gentlemen control most of the picture theatres in this country. I shall discuss with them the suggestion that has been made by the honorable member for Richmond and tell them that I agree with what he has said about some of the slides screened in Australian cinemas purporting to be pictures of His Majesty the King. In many cases, these portraits are not at all complimentary to the King and I shall ascertain whether it is possible to get a more up-to-date and realistic picture for this purpose. I believe that a portrait of His Majesty should have the Australian flag as its background. By that means, we shall inculcate a regard for our own Australian emblem, and, at the same time, pay tribute to the kingship which is the central holding force of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

page 3558

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

RECONSTRUCTION Training : Fishing.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I understand that a school has been established at Cronulla, near Sydney, for the training of ex-servicemen desirous of engaging in the fishing industry. I ask the Minister ‘acting for the Minister for “ Post-war Reconstruction whether that training will be available to ex-servicemen from other States as well as New South Wales, or is it the intention of the Government to establish similar centres in all States? I have particularly in mind the Tasmanian fishing industry, which is of considerable importance.

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

– It is not intended to establish training centres in other States at present, although that may be done if it is considered that the need justifies it. Meanwhile, ex-servicemen from other States will be able to train at the school in New South Wales, which is equipped to cope with 60 trainees. The course lasts from four months to two j ears. There is a keen demand for the services of all who graduate from the school. There never has been any surplus. The Director of Reconstruction Training is authorized to pay the travelling costs to and from the school of trainees from other .States. It is not deemed advisable to open centres in the other States at present, because it would be necessary to provide each with a trawler, modern equipment and a trained staff of supervisors. Should the need for expansion of training facilities arise, the Government will consider the claims of other States for similar centres.

page 3559

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944, by which it was intended to make pharmaceutical benefits available to the public, was in the latter part of 1945 held to be invalid by the High Court as a result of certain proceedings instituted in that court. As a result of the referendum held last year, additional constitutional power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the provision of pharmaceutical benefits was vested in the Commonwealth Parliament. The Government now proposes to proceed with the provision of pharmaceutical benefits for the people of Australia, and accordingly presents this bill to the parliament.

It has been considered expedient to repeal the acts of 1944 and 1945 and to incorporate most of their provisions in this bill. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to make certain alterations in order to define the Government’s intention more fully. Most of the alterations to sections of the acts of 1944 and 1945 are of a minor character or of a procedural nature.. I do not propose to deal with them at this stage. Whilst the bill does not vary the general policy previously enunciated by the Government, I draw attention to some of ite clauses.

First, the term “ pharmaceutical benefits “ used throughout the bill applies^ in general, only to those pharmaceutical benefits which are to be prescribed by the regulations as being available to the recipients without charge. Secondly, the bill excludes from the right to participate in benefits thereunder persons who are patients in public wards of public hospitals, as defined in the regulations. The reason for this exclusion is that pharmaceutical benefits required in the treatment of such persons are already supplied without charge under the Hospital Benefits Act 1945. Secondly, clause 9 provides that the Director-General shall, on application by a pharmaceutical chemist - which term is deemed to include a friendly society dispensary - who is willing to supply pharmaceutical benefits on demand at any premises, approve that pharmaceutical chemist for the purposes of supplying pharmaceutical benefits at or from those premises.

In the case of friendly society dispensaries, the number in each of two classes of premises in respect of which approval may be granted by the Director-General in accordance with the provisions of clause 10 is governed by the number of such dispensaries which were carrying on business on the 1st August, 1945. Such dispensaries up to the number operating on that date will be granted approval to supply Commonwealth pharmaceutical benefits to persons generally. Dispensaries of that type, which commence or have commenced to carry on business at a later date, will be granted a limited approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits to their members and to the spouses and children of those members only. In view of the Commonwealth’s new powers, these provisions will operate uniformly throughout Australia, despite the law of any State. However, it will not be obligatory on the Director-General to grant approval in respect of premises at which a pharmaceutical chemist or friendly society dispensary is not permitted under the law of the State or territory concerned to carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist. At a later date, the Government will bring down legislation for the taxing, on a basis yet to be determined, of the income of such dispensaries. Hitherto they have been exempt from such tax. Taxation will be designed to ensure that, as far as possible, such dispensaries will not have an unfair advantage in competition with pharmaceutical chemists.

The Government has aimed at ensuring the availability, for the convenience of the public, of the maximum number of points of distribution of pharmaceutical benefits, and, whilst providing facilities for numbers of friendly societies’ dispensaries to deal in Commonwealth pharmaceutical benefits with the public generally in States where at the moment that is not possible, it seeks to prevent them having an undue trading advantage over private chemists. Clause 20 provides for the enlargement of the Formulary Committee from six to seven members and for an increase of the representation of the medical profession.

Section 22 of the act of 1944-45 relating to unnecessary prescribing has been omitted from the bill. The circumstances in which a medical practitioner may prescribe with or without personal examination of a patient will be dealt with by regulation. This matter is at present the subject of discussion between the Government and the medical profession through the federal council of the British Medical Association in Australia. The Government will have regard to the views of the medical profession before promulgating regulations on this point. Pharmaceutical benefits to be included in the Commonwealth pharmaceutical formulary will be determined on the conclusion of discussions which are also taking place with the federal council of the British Medical Association. Certain sections of the proposed act will not come into operation until they have been proclaimed. There will be a lapse of a few months before the scheme will be in force. In the meantime, administrative machinery will be set up and the drafting of regulations will be completed. It is difficult to estimate the cost of the scheme until the contents of the formulary are determined, but it is thought that the cost will be in the vicinity of £2,000,000 per annum.

Tinder this bill, there will be no compulsion on medical practitioners or pharmaceutical chemists to take part in the scheme; but by reason of the fact that the scheme is designed to lessen the economic barrier between the patient and efficient treatment for his illness or incapacity, the Government believes that the members of both professions will co-operate fully in giving effect to the Government’s intention. The Government has every confidence that members of the medical profession, who under the scheme will largely control the distribution of pharmaceutical benefits,will have regard not only to the best interests of their patients but also to the need for the economic expenditure of a large amount of public moneys. I hope that the bill will be passed without amendment.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies ) adjourned.

page 3560

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to amend the Hospital Benefits Act 1945, to authorize the making of regulations in relation to payments by the Commonwealth of hospital benefits in respect of Australian residents who are temporarily absent from Australia as from the 1st July, 1946.

After representations made by Australians who were temporarily stationed abroad and who remained liable to pay Commonwealth income tax, the Government, in June, 1946, decided that subject to certain conditions, maternity allowances, child endowment and hospital benefits should be made available as from the 1st July, 1946, to Commonwealth and State employees stationed temporarily abroad, members of the Australian defence forces and their dependants abroad - excluding hospital benefits for the members - and other Australian residents temporarily abroad. Clauses providing for the payment of maternity allowances and child endowment to such persons are included in the Social Services Consolidation Bill now before the Parliament.

Section 4 of the Hospital Benefits Act 1945 provides that the regulations may make provision for, and in relation to, payments by the “Commonwealth of hospital benefits, at such rates and subject to such conditions as are prescribed in respect of patients in private hospitals as defined by the regulations. The amendment to section 4 of the act proposed by clause 3 of the bill is to enable the regulations to make similar provision in respect of persons who are residents of Australia, as defined by the regulations, and who are temporarily absent from Australia, and such spouses, children or other dependants of any such residents of Australia as are prescribed.

It is proposed by clause 4 of this bill to amend section 8 of the Hospital Benefits Act 1945, to permit of retrospective effect being given to the regulations, so that they may operate from a day not earlier than the 1st July, 1946.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 3561

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th May (vide page 2923), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3561

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1946-47

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th May (vide page 2922), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3561

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th May (vide page 2322), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I had thought that, having advocated in this House for nearly thirteen years that the Northern Territory be given some measure of self-government, and in the light of the achievements of the people of the territory during the last five years, and its use as a jumping-off ground in the defence of Australia, something more than this pseudo-legislation would have been brought down : by the Government. Surely that is the only description which one can aptly apply to legislation of this type, which merely pretends to give some measure of selfgovernment to the Northern Territory, by proposing to set up what will be a legisla tive council in name but an advisory council in fact, dominated by nominated government officials. In other words, the elected members of the council will have no real voice, because the official members will be able to out-vote them. So there is not much that one can say about the bill. I regard it as a fraud on the Northern Territory, and the people generally. It is almost impossible to imagine a government with a sense of public interest bringing it forward in this honorable House. People who seemingly cannot read are deluding Australians in general, and the people of the Northern Territory in particular, by pretending that this is a measure to give selfgovernment to the Northern Territory. After its passage, the Northern Territory will continue to have about as much selfgovernment as the inhabitants of Siberian Russia or the inmates of a gaol. It seems to me that the territory will continue to be run by the North Australian Workers Union and a number of government officials. What pretentions has the bill in regard to giving the people of the territory the power to govern themselves? Although the body that is to be constituted is to be described as a legislative council, it will have no real power to legislate. It is to be composed of a majority of public servants, who will have to be “ yes “ men, otherwise they will lose their jobs. Everything that it does will be subject to veto by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), the Executive Council, the Parliament, and, of course, that secret junta which is called the caucus. It will be the plaything of the Communist-controlled unions in the southern parts of the continent which dominate the Government. After all these years, self-government is not being given to the Northern Territory. If the six locally elected councillors disagree with the public servants on the council, the latter will be able to out-vote them. The appointment of the officials will be on such a basis that any of them who does not obey the orders of the Government may be dismissed from office. The public servants will, of course, take their orders from the Minister for the Interior, who, in turn, will act in accordance with the desires of caucus, and of Vestey’s Limited, which seems to be able to get anything it wants in the Northern Territory, an example of that being the big meat contracts that it secured during the war. The Government, instead of giving to exservicemen and to smaller landholders an opportunity to develop the territory and carve out careers for themselves there, will virtually entrench these other people, and provide them with greater security up to 19S4 than they have ever had previously. I challenge the Minister for the Interior and the Government to deny that that is so. The proposed council will be so powerless that it will be unable to decide how often it shall meet or how long it shall sit. It will have no voice in the conduct of postal business, financial matters, aboriginal matters or land matters. The Government has taken mighty good care to ensure that the people of the Northern Territory shall have no voice in the allocation of land. I hope to have more to say about that later. The council will be unable to deal with financial matters, because the territory is not, and never will be, self-supporting so long as the Government continues to waste millions of pounds for the benefit of the larger landholders up there, and a bunch of contractors who have already made big profits. The council will have no real power in relation to aborigines. It will be unable to engage in town planning, because- the towns have been planned by Canberra’ officials who have made brief visits to the territory and have violated town-planning principles. The very basis of town planning is that the man who designs the lay-out of the town shall live in and grow with it, and mould it in accordance with its destiny. The people of the Northern Territory are not to be allowed to do that. The inhabitants of Darwin are to be thrust into the background, away from the choice allotments along the sea-frontage, which are natural residential sites, while all the picked positions are to be reserved for tourists, and naval and military officers, who will remain there for only a few years” and then return to the south. Territorians will continue to have no vote in the Commonwealth Parliament, except in relation to a limited number of matters, and no voice whatever in the Senate. Surely the least the Government could have done was to bring down legis- lation entitling the member for the Northern Territory to an unfettered vote in this House, instead of this pseudo legislation! That he should not have a vote on defence matters is utterly scandalous, in view of the fact that the Northern Territory was the defensive spearhead of the Australian people and, leaving out of account a small section of the coast of Western Australia, was the only portion of the continent that was “ blooded “ by an enemy during World War II. It is doubly scandalous because a so-called Labour Government left hundreds of Australians in Darwin unprotected and “ sitting targets “ for the Japanese in 1942, despite the fact that for months I and others had been persistently warning it of the need for the provision of air-raid shelters for the protection of those people. This bill does not change the position of residents of the Northern Territory. All that it does is to provide for legislative authority to be given to public servants to make such decisions as they care to make in public, in the presence of half a dozen civilians, who will be elected merely to listen to them. Why should it hot be termed an advisory council instead of a legislative council, seeing that its functions will be merely advisory? It will be exactly like legislative councils that have been elected at various times in other Australian territories as well as in the Northern Territory, and it will go the same way when it has served the purpose of deluding the people into believing that the- territory has been given self-government. There was a council in the territory more than twenty years ago, the powers of which were almost exactly in line with those which it is proposed to give to this council. What became of it? It ceased to exist, because the councillors soon got sick and tired of leaving their work and travelling thousands of miles merely to listen to public servants dictate as to what should be done. Honorable members will recall that there was a legislative council in New Guinea prior to the war. It was a pretentious body, the members of which gave to themselves the title “ honorable ‘’. It had a Hansard which, in appearance, was exactly like Commonwealth Hansard, and it behaved as though it was controlling the Pacific Ocean, whereas in reality it was no different from the proposed council in the Northern Territory. This bill, in fact, is modelled on the legislation which created that body. “When a Minister with a real totalitarian outlook assumed the administration of New Guinea, what happened? He, the commissar, abolished that council merely by flicking his finger. So will the council proposed to be set up under this bill be abolished the moment it becomes a nuisance to the Government, to Vestey’s Limited, or to Bovril Australian Estates Limited. The Government is continuing in peace-time the great latitude which was given to those concerns to make profits out of the armed forces during the war. Bovril Australian Estates Limited and Vestey’s Limited made fabulous fortunes out of the meat that was sent up to the islands. They were permitted to have their own officer, a lieutenant, at the naval depot at Camperdown, Sydney. He soon became a major, and his function was to control meat supplies for the armed forces in New Guinea. It was not very long before the price of meat for the forces was raised. Further, he had the power to dictate when the boats should leave Australia, and so little time did he allow that no small contractor, no small meat man not “ in the know “, had any hope of competing and delivering at the ship’s sides cargoes of meat in time for transport to the armed forces. In other words, he not only raised the prices, but also he dominated and so arranged things that only those “ in the know “ and who were in a big way in the meat business could get supplies to the wharfs in time for the meat to be sent to the soldiers. I raised this matter in the House by way of questions when the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully) was Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, but he denied the allegations. What I have said is true, and I have evidence from those who know - men who are in the meat trade in a small way - to prove it. The Minister defended these people when the country was at war, but now that the war is over he allows Vestey’s Limited and Bovril Australian Estates Limited to retain, or allocate to their subsidiary interests 2,000 square miles of land in the Northern

Territory which should have been made available for settlement by exservicemen. I remind the House that the late Mr. Cunningham of Strathmore station, on the Bowen River, presented 500 heifers, and that other station-owners also provided stock, to enable exservicemen to be established at Starkwaters station after World War I. Those men were philanthropists. Mr. Cunningham is dead, but his influence lives on. The profits from the station are used to maintain a club for ex-servicemen at Townsville, and to provide scholarships at the educational centre of Charters Towers. There are four scholarships known as the Cunningham scholarships. But have people like Vestey’s shown any gratitude to those who fought for them? No. On the contrary, the Government has seen that they are further entrenched in the territory. It is a disgrace that a so-called Labour Government which poses as a lilywhite government, should do that kind of thing. What has happened to the Legislative Council of Papua? Many of the white settlers who formerly lived in Papua have left the country and are going to Tanganyika and other places where the British Government is giving them a fair deal. These men are “ fed up “ with the Australian Government. Before the war the Labour party scorned to take any notice of the territories of Papua and New Guinea. It would not agree to legislation introduced by a government led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) to include New Guinea in Australia’s defence system. The right honorable gentleman knew that there was danger from the Japanese, but he could not get the support of the Labour party to defend those territories. Now a Labour government wishes to take control of them. I remind the House that so anxious was the Labour party to continue its vote-catching campaign that it said that no member of the Citizen Forces should fight north of the equator. Yet to-day it has the audacity to hunt white men out of these territories. During the war the Labour party adopted a vote-catching policy in the hope that “little Johnny’; and “little Freddie” would vote for its candidates, but what happened when the fighting men of Australia came back from the Middle East?

They had hardly landed on Australian shores when they were sent off to New Guinea to resist the oncoming Japanese. Despite this Government’s vote-catching policy, those young men, together with men of the Militia, fought gallantly and gloriously; by their courage and valour they won a victory in the Owen Stanley Range which saved Australia. The Government does not understand the young men of Australia; it understands only the “ rat-bags “ in the community, and that is why it introduced this legislation. The Government which refused to allow Australian militia-men to fight north of the equator is now inviting representatives of other Empire countries to come south of the equator to discuss the peace terms with Japan. How must Mr. Churchill and General Mac Arthur regard such a proposal? No doubt at the Peace Conference, they will remind the Government of their attitude at that time.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

– The honorable member must connect his remarks with the bill.

Mr BLAIN:

– I am connecting them with the equator. The people of the Northern Territory demand that the Government shall be sufficiently interested in the territory to ascertain its requirements. I entered this Parliament in 1934 as an advocate of economic regionalism, and I still hold the same views. The Northern Territory is governed by remote control, but I am pleased that the Australian Country party at least is adopting a similar outlook towards the Northern Territory and to Australia generally to that which I have held for many years. Only two days ago, I came across a publication which reminds me of the words of Matsuoko when Japan took possession of Manchuria. He said then in reply to England’s diplomatic representative, “ I could not have said it better myself”. I cannot do better than quote from the pamphlet. Under the heading “ Frustration and its Causes”, there is the following paragraph : -

On every side there is a feeling of frustration with respect to participation in government. This is especially so in rural districts for reasons which I will outline in due course

People - and especially young people - start out with an urge to get something done and to participate in governing and law-making activities. But they come up against so many brick walls that they give up the attempt in despair.

One way in which they can participate is by active membership and executive responsibility, in those local organizations whose interests are their interests.

That depicts the Northern Territory exactly -

But here again one meets that sense of frustration which dampens the spirit of achievement, enterprise, and democracy that one would expect to flourish in a young nation with a battle for existence in immediate prospect-

Those are wise words -

Why should this sense of frustration exist, and how can it be removed? A major cause is that the people have permitted their governments to drift further and further away from them. One reason for this is the encroachment of government into private affairs during the two wars - an encroachment permitted by the community to continue in days of peace. Another is the undoubtedly increased duties which governments have assumed with public consent and often in the public interest. In Australia, electorates have grown so large that the people have no chance of knowing their representatives or candidates for election personally, and the representatives in turn have no opportunity of knowing the electors in constituencies with sixty .or ninety thousand voters.

It is different in the Northern Territory. Although it is a very large area, I am personally acquainted with practically every one of the 7,000 electors. I shall be visiting the territory again soon, where the people are still suffering from a sense’ of frustration because of the method by which they are governed. They want to control their own affairs and make their own ordinances, subject only to veto by the Governor-General. At page 15 of this booklet, the author continues -

By listening to the bedtime story that administrative experts know better how to. run our affairs than we know ourselves, we have all contributed to the decline in political morality which will saddle us with a simple dictatorship before the century is ended, unless we assert our right, to be regarded as individuals. Another dangerous tendency is apparent today. When the Australian colonies decided to join one another in’ forming a nation (the Commonwealth ) , the best constitutional minds examined two main systems of government - Unification, which means one central government for Australia; and Federalism, which means decentralization of government and administration. They chose the Federal system.

The difference, between Unification and Federalism ia: this, Under a unified system a central government is, supreme. From its capital city it can direct all operations in all parts of Australia. It would, of course, have power to establish local governing- bogies, but these bodies would only receive those functions vhicli the supreme authority cared to give from time to time. If such local bodies were given any functions at all the central government could take them away over night at any time. They would, have no permanent, constitutions and it would be impossible for them to plan regular programmes because there would be no guarantee that their functions or their machinery would be allowed, to remain in existence; mid innumerable problems from Cape York to Cape Leewin would have to be referred to Canberra for decision, involving delays and decisions by public servants 60 far removed from the scene of operations that they could npt hone to understand local points, pf view.

That expresses what is happening in the Northern Territory, and what I fear will happen all oyer Australia unless the Australian Country party wakes, up and advocates the policy which it supported years ago, namely, a regional system pf government. “We are at present; being dominated by ft government which believes in unification. The Government proposes to subdivide the Northern Territory into electoral districts, but they bear little relation to regional requirements. The author of this pamphlet goes on -

Consider this in relation to the system of Regional Development Committees which have been established in all States. The States have been divided into’ small areas, and committees Iia ye been set up not to administer local affairs, but to report to State capitals’ on local matters.

Even the State gove.rnm.ents hat.e to relinquish authority. The measure .of bigness in any government is the amount pf regional authority which if is prepared to give away, but the present Commonwealth Government is determined to keep ali power in its own hand?. The writer continues -

They have ill-defined “powers “ of recommendation and advice, but no power to act. It is conceivable that, if’ the present trend towards centralization at Canberra proceeds, these regional committees could be used as the phantom structure ,of a unified system - a central government at Canberra with all powers and all authority; small local committees with no .powers and no ,f unctions except advisory on.es scattered throughput the continent

That is what has happened in New .South Wales, which has been divided info .seventeen (regional areas. Officers in the

Premier’s Department have a. whole series1 of maps depicting, geological features, terrain, contours, timber resources, &£. A great, many facts., have been collected, but th,e Government takes, good care not to give away any real authority to the local people. In the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Government has an opportunity to begin de novo, and to g-ive to the body which it proposes to. set up definite local governing powers.

The passages which I have quoted are taken from the National Development Booklet, No. 2, An Introduction to Atomic Politics, an rural research and development, written by Mr. Ulrich Ellis. This man has ideas. I could npt have expressed them better myself, and that is why I have quoted him. I believe in regional development rather than in the rigid system of unification into which this Government is drifting. I ask the members of the Government to read and study the booklet. The Government must adopt the policy of regionalism, or democracy will be destroyed. The bill now before us is valueless. Vesteys Limited has spoken, the Labour unions have spoken, and caucus has spoken, so I am powerless.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- It is with some diffidence- that I take ‘part in this debate, but my diffidence does not arise out of the fact that I represent a city constituency. I have visited the Northern Territory, and have had interesting talks with the people there. I hay.e listened to the experts, and to the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) and the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who deputized for bini during (the war, and I believe that we should interest .ourselves more in this vast area in the north pf Australia. During the last few days we have discussed the problems qf population, development and defence. Each one of those problems vitally concerns our empty north. Insofar as the measure gives a degree of local government to the Northern Territory, it is a. step in the right direction. The limitations imposed in that respect can be explained effectively by the Minister. I rise principally to voice .some pf the thoughts u,pp.n pur empty north of “ the .man down south and what he thinks of it, and the potentialities of the Northern Territory, as the result of views expressed by visitors to the Northern Territory and by many of our servicemen who served there during the war. So far as this Government is concerned, at any rate, the story that we have entirely neglected the north and have adopted an entirely undemocratic attitude towards it, cannot be sustained. It was the late Mr. Curtin who, when he was Prime Minister, appointed the Northern Australia Development Committee which immediately brought together scientists, research workers and factual observers in order to evolve some plan for the development of the north. The Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Lemmon) in his second-reading speech, said that the people of the Northern Territory and the northern Australian are sound and have a really live interest in the development of their country. However, when one visits the Northern Territory, and seeks information he is quickly told, “ You are from the south. We do not want you “. Residents give a stranger the impression that the best thing he can do is to make no comment upon the Northern Territory. If we are to investigate the problems of the Northern Territory on a national basis, the people of the territory must be induced to cast aside their disguise, and let us look under their whiskers and find the real Australian. The development of the north is a vast problem. Those people who describe it as a desert should study the reports of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. If they did, they would learn that the north is a vital defence bastion. But the development of the north will involve an expenditure of millions of pounds. During the occupation of the territory by the armed forces, Darwin had its face lifted because the army spent plenty of money; but lack of financial resources retards the development of the territory. I have listened avidly to what experts have had to say on this problem. The greatest authority I can find is the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which has issued several reports upon the future of the Northern Territory. If we tackle the problem of populating and developing the territory and providing adequate defence, we must consider what are the basic foundations for such a plan. It is not just an accident that only 6,000 or 7,000 people live in the area. Of the 288,000 people who live in the area of 1,562,000 square miles north of the 26th parallel, 200,000 live on the Queensland coast in the so-called sugar country, and from 5,000 to 6,000 people in the north-west of Western Australia, whilst the remainder reside in the Northern Territory. The reason for the present position of the territory is that its development involves huge expenditure. . It is a vast area, and cattle-growing will be the major means of development for many years to come. When the honorable member for the Northern Territory speaks about leases and what can be done to settle ex-service personnel on the land, and how vast areas can be cut up into other areas which would still leave them vast, he is interesting and informative. His information is based on firsthand experience and general knowledge of conditions in the territory.

But another question which is exercising the minds of those who have been appointed to investigate the potentialities of the territory is the problem presented by the short wet season and- the long dry season experienced in that area. This raises the question of what crops, and other industries outside the standard avocations of grazing and mining, can be carried on in the area. A very interesting report was issued recently by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The main point with which the investigators were concerned was to see what can be done with the vast area north of the twenty-sixth parallel as one vast unit. They reported that the Ord River - Victoria River area, the Katherine, Darwin and Barkly Tableland districts offer the best prospects for intensive development when sufficient money and an adequate organization are made available for that purpose. I have been told by cattlemen from the Northern Territory that one of the difficulties involved in developing markets for cattle in the Far East, India and other countries is that by the time cattle from the inland reach Wyndham after being overlanded they are in poor condition. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has plotted a vast plan for the construction of a dam on the Ord River, which will be larger than the Hume “Weir, and for the setting aside of 1,000,000 acres as a grazing area for cattle passing through to Wyndham. Any one with a farming background knows that the north is not fattening, but grazing, country. If a pampas were created in that area, cattle could be fattened en route to Wyndham and our exports of prime chilled beef could be made four times greater at one stroke.

The bill represents a step in the development of the territory. The honorable member for the Northern Territory practically advocated the territory to be created- a new State almost immediately; but it has only a sparse population and no financial resources. Therefore, its development must be financed by the people of the south. A fine spirit exists among people in southern States towards the development of the Northern Territory, and this spirit was born largely as the result of the part played by the territory in our defence during the war.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has also reported that the Katherine River area offers great possibilities for development. The honorable member for the Northern Territory is wide of the mark when he speaks as though the territory is simply awaiting the touch of man to enable it to blossom into full productivity. We must be blunt on this matter. Much of the territory is arid, and we have no hope of populating that area. We must face the facts as we find them. One group of experts tells us that the Northern Territory will grow anything and everything, whereas another group of experts says that it will not grow anything. We must bump the heads of those experts together, and devise a sound plan for the development of the territory on its known potentiality. This problem will test the ingenuity of our scientists, graziers and practical men for many years to come. However, the territory contains pockets of fertility which will enable us to make good use of the north.

Whilst the bill may be regarded as only a meagre measure designed to cope with the present situation, our plans for the development of the territory are still only in sketch form. The bill is a step forward in the right direction. It is most unfair to lay at the door of any government the charge that, because the administrative head-quarters are not on the spot, but in Canberra, the Government must be utterly biased. Whilst the administration may be remote, and, perhaps, on occasions, ill-informed, nevertheless it makes a national approach to the problem and is keenly conscious of the importance of the development of the Northern Territory. There are, perhaps, half a dozen experts on the Northern Territory in this House. I have named them. Maybe, I should include the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) and some other honorable members from Western Australia, who are closely in touch with developments there through the North Australia Development Committee. They know of the liaison with scientists in an endeavour to ascertain how best the north of Australia can be developed.

Another important aspect of the bill is that it proposes to establish a measure of local government for the Northern Territory, which can be expanded as its development progresses. This proposal might, of course, be challenged on the ground that it does not provide for entirely democratic representation, the number of government representatives to be appointed to the Legislative Council outnumbering the non-government representatives; but it could also be argued that while the Northern Territory still remains unable to finance its activities and provide its own facilities, its government should proceed slowly to the highest levels of democracy. Those people who live in the Northern Territory, and those who have travelled through it, are aware of its future potentialities, but we must ensure that they are not overboomed by enthusiastic and too colorful writers. We should recognize the fact that the development of the territory is a problem that we may take twenty or 30 years to solve. If we consider the bill from that point of view, we may well regard it as a sensible piece of legislation.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · Barker · ALP

– I am very highly amused to see a Labour Government bringing in a measure to establish a legislative council.

During the whole of my .political career I have always understood that, in the view of the Australian Labour party, a legislative council was the most terrible thing that could exist in Australian politics. At last I am happy that even the Labour party can see some virtue in such a much-abused and often misrepresented institution.

Mr Holloway:

– - The name does not matter.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– If it were not for its name the party to which the Minister belongs would not have achieved the success it has at the elections. Despite its toryism and reactionaryism, its name is worth, much more to it than any policy which it has submitted to the people. Under that name the party is able to turn the greatest political somersaults and still retain the confidence of the misguided. This bill deals not with the development of the Northern Territory but with its administration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It does not deal with the matter with which the honorable member is now dealing.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It does not deal with many of the matters which the Chair permitted the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) to discuss. While the honorable member was speaking the Chair must have been otherwise engaged or not interested in the honorable member’s remarks. I approach this question of the administration of the Northern Territory with some degree of trepidation for my knowledge of the Northern Territory is extremely rudimentary, though possibly it is a little better than of some other honorable members, because I have visited the territory on three or four occasions. Some honorable members who, no doubt, will take part in this discussion, have not yet done so. Most of us have, however, read a good deal about it. Some attempt should be made by the Government to give honorable members an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the territories under the control of the Commonwealth. The Opposition believes that during parliamentary recesses honorable members should be given opportunities to visit the Northern Territory, New Guinea, Papua and the other islands under our control so that a cross section of members in this chamber may have first-hand knowledge of some of the problems with which it is their responsibility to deal.

The Opposition is happy to give its blessing to this proposal for the establishment of a legislative council in the Northern Territory. We trust that it will improve the prospects of the development of the territory. My personal view is that it simply confirms the old adage that the closer the Government is to the people the better it is for the people. The distance between the Northern Territory and the seat of the government ultimately responsible for its destiny has been too great. In all too many instances government departments in Canberra have not accurately understood some of the problems that confront the residents of the Northern Territory. The proposed legislative council is to be a somewhat peculiar institution. It is to consist of eight government representatives and six elected representatives. The manner in which the Northern Territory has been carved up to secure the proposed elected representation is most interesting. It seems as though the left wing is to be guaranteed at least two of the elected representatives by the peculiar way in which Darwin has been selected for special consideration to the detriment of places like Tennant Creek. It is not unlikely that at some future date Tennant Creek may have a greater population than has Darwin. That, however, is problematical, because the policy of the Government seems to he to keep the price of gold down to a fantastically low level, thus retarding the development of many of our outback areas. Regulations and ordinances made by the legislative council are to become law from the date upon which they are promulgated, but they are subject to veto by the Administrator, who is to be chairman of the council. That seems to be a peculiar arrangement. Possibly it will work well ; we do not know. Such regulations and ordinances are also to be subject to veto by either House of the Commonwealth Parliament. They must be laid on the table of the Parliament and if they are objected to successfully they will not become operative. In view of the fact that so few members know very much about the Northern Territory, honorable members will obviously have a certain amount of diffidence about exercising the right of veto against such regulations and ordinances as may be placed before us. I impress upon the Minister the necessity for taking steps to ensure that honorable members are given opportunities to gain first-hand knowledge of the Northern Territory. I trust that the proposed legislative council will function successfully, but I have my doubts. I admit that I am frequently a “ doubting Thomas “ in respect of matters of this kind, and that sometimes even my own friends on the Opposition front bench wonder how I arrive at my conclusions. If this bill should ultimately prove to be the means whereby we can establish some successful form of local government in the Northern Territory it may lead to the expansion of settlement in that area and thus be a worth-while contribution to our statutes.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- Though this is a notable measure, it has not provoked a notable degree of interest. It seems that both the Government and the Parliament regard it as a minor measure, not comparable in importance with a thousand other issues that are brought before us. A proposal of this character, which deals with the destiny of one-sixth of the area of this continent, and with the administration of one of the last of the vast areas on the f ace of the earth as yet undeveloped and unoccupied, merits the gravest consideration. The Northern Territory contains an area of more than 500,000 square miles, or the equivalent of six times the size of Victoria, yet the Government proposes to administer it, not by legislative acts, but by ordinances. One man, the Minister for the Interior, or on occasions, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, performs by executive act all the functions normally performed in a State by the State Government.. This bill is a tremendous responsibility. It is a great pity that the matter has not been taken more seriously in the past, and is not taken more seriously to-day. The administration of the Northern Territory is a difficult problem. Apparently it proved too great a task for the State of South Australia, because that State voluntarily passed the administration of it over to the Commonwealth. Probably our record of administration has been even more ignominious than that of South Australia. Our failure in this regard is something of which we all should feel ashamed. We should be prepared to devote ourselves more assiduously to the problems of the Northern Territory.

This measure cannot be regarded as far-reaching. It provides of course for what is described as a legislative council, but which, upon examination, is discovered to be shorn of real authority. As the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has said, it could fairly be described as an advisory council. I do not complain about that. It is inevitable that vast sums of money will be expended in the Northern Territory if it is to be developed as it should be, and as most of this money will necessarily have to be obtained from outside the territory, it would be inconsistent with all ‘the traditions of responsible government to permit these funds to be disposed of by a few thousand people in the Northern Territory. I say, therefore, that I do not complain about the setting up of this body. It is more or less in line with the evolutionary processes of the development of remote areas in this country, in North America, and probably in most other undeveloped areas of the world. I am glad, however, that even this step has been taken, because here we have something on which we can build in the future. We have the beginning of a democratic government in the Northern Territory, and I am sure that as the population of that area increases, the locally-raised revenues increase, and the experience of the council itself increases, greater authority will be reposed in it. I remind the House, however, that this is not tho first attempt to improve the administration of the Northern Territory, it is merely the most recent of an interminably long sequence of attempts commencing with the passing of the control of the Northern Territory from South Australia to the Commonwealth. At one time the Northern Territory was divided into two areas, Central Australia and North Australia. Since then, that administration has been in the hands of a group of men, and subsequently, of one man. An attempt was even made to procure the establishment of a chartered company to develop the Northern Territory on the lines followed in India and other places a long time ago. None of these devices has been successful so we are having a shot at this, and I am pleased that we are doing so. At least it shows some interest and activity, and I wish the Legistative Council well. I still believe, of course, that, to an overwhelming degree, the actual administration of the Northern Territory will be carried out by the Minister for the Interior, with the aid of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and of the Administrator of the Northern Territory. Believing that it will still be the fate of the Northern Territory to be controlled largely from Canberra, I say that surely an administration involving the performance of all the functions of a State government and a State civil service, warrants serious treatment by the Department of the Interior. This administration cannot be regarded as only a small department of another department. There should be a substantial group of specialists in that department devoting themselves constantly and exclusively to the affairs and the problems of the Northern Territory. As to the choice of the Administrator, whose responsibilities will be great and his power for good or opportunity for failure tremendous and far-reaching, not only in regard to residents of the Northern Territory itself, but also having relation to the whole destiny of this country, we should not be content with any one who is not the best man that can be procured. But when one examines the estimates, and sees the remuneration made available, not only by this Government but also by the Government of which I was a member and by all past governments, for the Administrator of the Northern Territory, one can only feel that we have had nothing better than we could have expected. It is proposed to pay to fifteen conciliation commissioners some hundreds of pounds a year more than the sum paid to the Administrator of the Northern Territory, and, running through the list of salaries of the Public Service, one can discover hundreds of men whose salaries are greater than that of the Administrator. Humanity being what it is, we cannot expect to get the very best man or as good a man as we need, until governments are prepared to pay to the holder of this responsible office a salary sufficiently high to attract worthy applicants. I urge the Government to take that matter into consideration. I believe, too, that the Administrator should have greater authority than he has at present or has had in the past. When I was Minister for the Interior the ordinances were amended to repose vastly increased authority in the Administrator. It is my regret that the present Administrator has not even more power than he now possesses and my greater regret that no administrator has attempted to exercise all the authority that has been reposed in him.

As to the Northern Territory generally, I have only a few observations to make as one who has not only had the responsibility of administering the territory, but who also has been there on many occasions and devoted himself to the best of his ability to acquiring some knowledge of its problems. The Northern Territory is not like Greenland or Antarctica, a. mysterious unknown area ; it is merely a big and fairly poor area, geographically remote from the rest of Australia ; but the belief seems to exist that there is something insoluble, something mysterious, about it that has deterred people from grappling with the problems of its development, which, so far, is crude. The needs of the Northern Territory are obvious. It needs the expenditure of money on it for developmental purposes, because these are not the days when people are driven by sheer necessity to go to remote areas and live under desperately hard conditions. People to-day are able to make a living without going to the Northern Territory, and, if we are to populate the territory, people will have to be attracted there by the hope of higher profits in enterprise or higher wages if they work for wages, and not less comfortable conditions of living than they are able to procure for themselves in more populous parts of Australia. It is obviously necessary to provide means of transport and communication at a cost that peoplecan contemplate with equanimity. There must be roads, railways, air services, radios, postal and telephonic services, so that people who contemplate settling in the territory shall not, at the same time, have to contemplate cutting themselves off from the rest of the world. It is possible to-day, with modern transport, to travel from almost any part of the Northern Territory to any capital city of Australia in 24 or 48 hours. The only bar is the cost. We must ensure that the people in the territory already and those whom we hope to induce to live there shall be able to afford the cost of existent services and hopedfor services. The Commonwealth and the States seem to have been always prepared, to lay down railway systems and never expect them to return the interest on the capital outlay. The interest charge on ihe railway to Alice Springs is about £250,000 a year, which no one expects it to earn. Yet, when it is a matter of air or road transport, or postal and telephone services, we get to work with a pen and paper to figure whether the proposed service will pay its way. No basic difference exists between a government providing a railway service, a road service, a postal service or an air transport service. If it is proper that a Government should lay down a railway expecting that the line will not earn sufficient to meet the interest bill on the capital outlay, it is equally proper that it should establish, on the same premise, any other service. Without those services we shall never develop the Northern Territory. When the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) says that it is proposed to ex! end the railway from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek, I am not enthusiastic. ‘ I do not regard that as tremendously urgent. I do not know of anything that could be sent to pr brought from Tennant Creek that could not be carried by modern road transport. It would be infinitely cheaper for the Government to subsidize a road transport service to Tennant Creek than to expend a vast amount pf money on building a railway there. It is hard, dry country, where a good road already exists and it is easy to maintain a good road. In other parts of the territory, where the average annual rainfall is high, it is not so simple to establish road transport services, but there is need for a fast-moving transport system. I instance the need for a railway through the Barkly Tableland to connect Wyndham on the west coast with Townsville on the east via either Dajarra or Mount Isa.

Mr Blain:

– The Townsville Harbour Board will fight for Dajarra to the tooth. It wants that railway.

Mr McEWEN:

– If the Commonwealth Government is to expend money on railways in the Northern Territory - and I am in the forefront in advocating that it should - those railways ShOUld be constructed in areas where, because of rainfall, it is not feasible, without vast expenditure, to build all-weather reads. Cattle are produced in the Northern Territory under uneconomical conditions. Herds are fattened and then driven hundreds and thousands of miles to railheads. By the end of their journey they are either exhausted or dying. We should go ahead with a line from Wyndham to Mount Isa or Dajarra to serve the Barkly Tableland, if I am told that the Queensland Government will not agree, what is it that it will not agree to?

Mr Blain:

– It does not want Mount Isa to have a port.

Mr McEWEN:

– We do not need Queensland to bear the cost of servicing our territory. If it is necessary for a railway serving the Northern Territory to traverse a few miles of Queensland and Western Australia, we have no cause to ask either State Government to provide the money. Under uniform taxation, even if the State governments did pay the cost of the lines, the cost would eventually have to be entered into the Commonwealth books of account and the Commonwealth would have to bear any losses. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to build railways to serve the Northern Territory and to bear whatever loss is involved.

Mr Scully:

– Whatever expenditure was incurred on building those railways, they would create a national asset.

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes, a tremendous national asset. Hundreds of thousands of cattle are bred in the Northern Territory where millions should be bred. There should be no need to walk all the condition off fat cattle in driving them to the railhead. I cannot think of any greater national waste than- that. All the difficulties of’ the Northern Territory can be resolved by the enterprise and courage that all ‘Commonwealth governments have lacked. I do not absolve myself or those governments with which I have been associated, for their failure to have provided essential services for the Northern Territory.. Those are the things we must pro-vide if we are to develop itThere is a lot of talk about the agricultural potentialities of the Northern Territory, the development of Darwin, and so forth. On that subject I offer this observation: There is a belt of the Northern Territory known as the “ Gulf Country “, which has a high rainfall, but in which poor and rough grass is grown. This belt of country extends from the Gulf of Carpentaria to beyond the Victoria River. Darwin lies on the outside of that band, and, for practical industrial purposes, it might as well be on an’ island. Darwin can play no part in the industrial life of the Northern Territory, although it is an important area which must be developed on its own account. I am strongly in favour of developing Darwin, but I have no illusions that such development will contribute very much to the industrial prosperity of the Northern Territory. I believe that the Northern Territory has great possibilities for the development of agriculture and irrigation, but progress cannot be hastened beyond a certain limit. Most of the things that can be grown in the Northern Territory, with irrigation and modern agricultural methods, can be grown equally well, or perhaps better, in the temperate areas of the southern part of Australia.

Mr Haylen:

– What about tobacco?

Mr McEWEN:

– Frankly, I do not know much about tobacco. We are growing tobacco in the temperate zones of Australia, though not very well.

Mr DUTHIE:

-Is there any possibility of producing cotton economically in the Northern Territory?

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not think so. I speak merely as a practical man without technical knowledge of either tobacco or cotton. My point is that we should not grope about and experiment, at a cost of ^perhaps millions of pounds, just to grow something- in the Northern Territory which could not be. disposed of’ economically and’ which could be equally well produced1 in the southern areas, of the continent. Indisputably, there, are vast opportunities for the exploitation of the Northern Territory.

Mr Duthie:

– Cotton ist being grown on, Miligimbi Island.

Mr McEWEN:

-That is an island and is not comparable with the country tb.a.t I am talking about. The mining and pastoral industries of the Northern Territory should be encouraged to expand. I consider that the Government ought to, be more generous in assisting the mining industry. I hold this opinion because of the history of the development of hath Australia and North America, Both continents were exploited in the first place by miners and pastoralists. Subsequently, agricultural pursuits, were developed in order to supply the needs of the mining and pastoral ‘populations. The system of evolution Jed from cattle to sheep, and from sheep to agriculture. I consider that the same pattern will be followed in the development of the Northern Territory. We should recognize that fact now and settle down to the business of developing the mining and pastoral industries and to encouraging, in a small way at this, stage, the raising of sheep in suitable areas. This would lead eventually to the full agricultural development pf the territory,

Nothing remains to be proved about the capacity of the Northern Territory to carry vast herds of pattie. All that is necessary for the prosperity of the cattle industry is the establishment of conditions of husbandry more closely approximating those adopted in other countries. I know of no other civilized country in which cattlemen leave 20-mile stretches of rich grassland unstocked with cattle merely through failure to provide adequate water supplies or to erect a fence. Everybody acquainted with the Northern Territory knows that all .over it there are what territorians pall “ buffer areas “, which are not used for stock. These areas represent may thousands of square miles of country which, if provided with adequate water supplies and fences, could carry hundreds of thousands of cattle, and - a fact which is infinitely more important - hundreds of Australian families. I can only offer an assumption as to the reason why this has not been done. It is that many small pastoral lessees simply have not sufficient money to enable them to erect miles of fences. We who engage in farming in the southern parts of the continent need to erect only a few miles of fences when we take over a property, whereas, in the Northern Territory, a pastoral holding of 100 square miles, even if it be in a square block, requires at least 40 miles of fences. Owing to transport costs and higher wage costs in the Northern Territory, the cost of building such fences is prohibitive to the average settler. I do not believe that there is in the Northern Territory a block less than several hundred square miles in area. Thus, the small pastoralist has not sufficient money to carry out developmental work. Furthermore, the big companies have made perfectly clear that they do. not want to develop the territory along the lines that I have indicated. I shall not engage in a tirade against the big companies, because I consider that they, as well as the small pastoralists, have a part to play in the Northern Territory, and are entitled to remain in occupation if they exploit its opportunities for wealth production properly, but not unduly, thus providing employment and opportunities for the settlement of Australian families in that area.

If we are to develop this nation, the Commonwealth Government must eventually adopt a policy of making financial advances to persons who volunteer to take up land in the Northern Territory. One of the inexplicable anomalies of Australian policy is that’ the States, which have much less money than the Commonwealth, have comprehensive and wellmoulded schemes’ for the financial assistance of settlers who wish to take up land, even land on which other settlers have failed to prosper, whereas, in Commonwealth territory, there are still thousands of square miles of Crown land which has never been alienated. No Commonwealth government has prepared a scheme for the settlement of these areas, apart from a paltry arrangement which provides for a maximum advance of £800 to aid settlement in the Northern Terri- tory. The ordinance providing for this advance was not intended to aid pastoralists. It was designed merely to help the few farmers who have engaged in peanut growing or one of the other minor agricultural activities in the territory. I urge the Government to encourage settlers. In respect of the settlement of ex-servicemen, it seems to me to be indefensible - I shall not use extravagant language - that the Commonwealth should be prepared to raise millions of pounds to help the States to establish men on State lands but not to aid one exserviceman to establish himself as a pastoralist in the Northern Territory. At present, the grant of a loan of £1,000 to exservicemen to enable them to establish themselves on the land applies throughout Australia, but, in my opinion, the amount is inadequate. In the comparatively small State of Victoria, the maximum amount which may be advanced to an exserviceman who desires to settle on the land is £6,000. In the Northern Territory, where so much money must be expended on settlement, the maximum loan is only £1,000. I hope that before long the Government will be able to announce a plan to assist ex-servicemen who desire to settle in the Northern Territory. Meanwhile, the Government should undertake essential preliminary works, including the provision of water supplies in areas which have been resumed, and on suitable crown lands which eventually must be made available for settlement. In providing these facilities, the Government would not incur any financial loss. The cost of putting down bores could be recovered if the Government eventually decides to lease the land to the large, wealthy pastoral companies. If, on the other hand, the Government makes the land available, as I believe it should, to small lessees, they could repay the cost under a suitable long-term arrangement. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 3573

QUESTION

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

CHARGES by Mb. F. A. Lush.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

by leave - I have now received from the Investigation

Service of the Attorney-General’s Department a report of the inquiry which I asked that service to make concerning alleged irregularities in the Land Sales Control Office, Sydney. From the report, it is apparent that the inquiry, so far .as it has proceeded, has confirmed what I have already told the House, namely, that there was evidence of irregularities in the administration of the Land Sales Control Office in Sydney. From the outset, the inquiry has been hampered by Mr. Lush’s illness. In view of the alleged irregularities referred to in a weekly newspaper, the Commonwealth Actuary, who administers Land Sales Control, went to Sydney under my instructions on Friday, the 9th May last, to inquire into the matter. On Monday, the 12th May, Mr. Lush saw a Macquarie-street specialist, and next day applied for six weeks’ sick leave. The application was supported by a certificate from the specialist stating that if Mr. Lush did not have a complete rest he was in danger of a nervous breakdown, which might incapacitate him for several months, and that he must have a complete holiday and rest of at least six weeks.

Last Monday, the Commonwealth Medical Officer in Sydney examined Mr. Lush, and has furnished the following advice : -

Mr. Lush was medically examined by me on the 2nd June, 1947. He is suffering from anxiety neurosis and is unfit for duty. I do not think he will be fit to resume for at least one month. Brigadier Galleghan (DeputyDirector Commonwealth Investigation Service, Sydney) requested an opinion as to whether Mr. Lush is in a fit state for questioning. I do not consider him to be well enough, as he is at present unable to concentrate even on matters relating to his own health.

I told the House last ‘week that, in the light of the report to be made by the Commonwealth Investigation Service, the Government would decide whether or not there should be a further inquiry, either by the Public Service Board or by some other authority. Having reviewed the position, the Government regards the information now available to it as warranting the institution of a public inquiry on oath to investigate the alleged irregularities in the Land Sales Control Office, Sydney, and any associated matters dealt with in the Land Sales Control Office, Canberra. Steps to this end will be taken as soon as is practicable. I understand that the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will have to make some arrangements in* regard to the inquiry.

Mr McEwen:

– Will the person who conducts the inquiry have power to summon witnesses?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government proposes to institute a public inquiry on oath. I leave the technical legal details to the Attorney-General, who is now examining the matter.

Mr Anthony:

– It will not be a departmental inquiry?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have already made that clear.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

- by leave - The control of real estate transactions has become a matter of great public importance. In recent weeks, many references have been made to the subject in the House, and the public have voiced suspicions regarding its administration. Before the terms of reference in connexion with the public inquiry on oath are formulated, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) should consult with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) in order to ensure that the scope of the investigation shall be sufficiently wide to permit of a complete examination of all the relevant matters that have. been ventilated in this House. The Government may find it necessary to extend the scope of the inquiry beyond the Land Sales Control Office, Sydney, because similar rumours have been circulating in other States about the administration of real estate transactions. The Government should not make a hasty decision in formulating the terms of reference, which should be sufficiently wide to enable, once and for all, this unsavoury business to be resolved.

Mr. CHIFLEY (Macquarie - Prime Minister and Treasurer) - by leave - I have already explained what the Government proposes to do in connexion with this matter. The terms of reference for the public inquiry on oath will be drafted by the Attorney-General’s Department to cover those specific matters which I mentioned.

Sitting suspended from 1248 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3575

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3573).

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- I referred to the necessity for the adoption of a different policy in -order to promote closer settlement in the Northern Territory, and that must be done if soldier settlement is to be encouraged. I do not suggest that closer settlement should be attempted on an agricultural basis. I have very little knowledge of the agricultural prospects of the Northern Territory, although I am aware that growing cotton and peanuts has been attempted, but my experience is that most of the primary products grown in the Northern Territory can be produced quite well in more temperate areas. It is scarcely reasonable to expect consumers to pay a higher price for tobacco, cotton or peanuts simply because they are produced in the Northern Territory, and while those products can be grown in more temperate climates, growers will obviously not be attracted to the Northern Territory. I do not regard agriculture as the most important immediate or potential industry for northern Australia ; the proven industry there is cattleraising. I should welcome the introduction of a policy designed to facilitate settlement in this area of the men who fought for this country, many of whom were stationed there during the war. I realize that it is not practicable to expect men selected at random to make a success of cattle-raising in the Northern Territory, but there are young men with sufficient courage, enterprise and ambition to do so. The implementation of any scheme of closer settlement would involve the acquisition by the Government of lands now held by wealthy lessees under pastoral leases, and would necessitate the release of large tracts of land at present held by the Crown. From time to time large areas of land leased to pastoral companies revert to the Crown, but for various reasons the release of that land to promote closer settlement has been postponed. I advocate most emphatically that Crown lands now available for lease, leased land which has reverted to the Crown, and areas which will revert to it in the near future, be thrown open for settlement as soon as possible. First, preference should be given to men who desire to settle without government assistance, and secondly, preference to men who desire to settle with government assistance. Even now it is quite an adventure for men from other parts of Australia to go to the Northern Territory to inspect a property. Lease3 are not granted to applicants until a meeting of the Land Board has been held, and I suggest that some provision be made whereby unsuccessful applicants who visit the Northern Territory may be interviewed at some convenient centre there. The necessary particulars could be obtained from them then and placed on record, so that it would not be necessary for them to make a second trip to the Northern Territory for interview in respect of subsequent applications.

It is imperative that the Government should repossess itself of all leased areas which revert to the Crown, instead of renewing the leases. I criticize strongly the present Government and its predecessor for having renewed the leases of large lessees instead of making that land available to new settlers. Some of the leases in northern Australia are far too large. The biggest station in the Northern Territory is Alexandria Downs, which occupies an area of approximately 11,000 square miles. This huge tract of valuable land is one of the best situated properties in the Northern Territory. It was due for reversion to the Crown on the expiration of the lease in 1941, but notwithstanding the fact that Darwin was being bombed by the Japanese at that time, the Government availed itself of the provisions of a most unusual clause in the ordinance, which provided that an existing lessee had only to make written application for a renewal of his lease and by that means the North Australia Pastoral Company’s lease was renewed. In addition, the Government added to it 463 square miles taken from the adjoining station, Rocklands. When I was Minister for the Interior, the manager of the North Australia Pastoral Company interviewed me and requested that I renew his company’s lease. I told him emphatically that it was the policy of the Lyons Government to resume this land and to make it available for closer settlement, and that nothing would deter the Government from following that course.He accepted my decision, but during the term of office of the Curtin Government, he renewed his application, and this huge area of 11,463 square miles - the size of Belgium - was leased to the company fora further period of 42 years. Furthermore, the Curtin Government leased an area of 3,000 square miles to the Vestey interests while the Japanese were actually attacking the Northern Territory. I could give a number of other instances, hut I do not think that is necessary. The position is intolerable, and I earnestly ask the Government to rectify it. For some time I have been advocating the construction of a railway from Queensland to the Northern Territory, for reasons which I have elaborated. If such a railway is built, it will pass through Alexandria Downs. That would be intolerable. In such an event, that property must be compulsorily acquired and made available to other settlers. (Extension of time granted.] I thank the House for its indulgence. Having made a speech in some detail in regard to the Northern Territory, I did not want to resume my seat without paying a tribute to the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain). It has been by means of his good offices, and with his aid, that I have been able to acquire much of the knowledge that I have of the Northern Territory. He has an extraordinarily difficult duty to perform in representing an area of more than 500,000 square miles. Although his interests are not exactly the same as some of those which pre-occupy our minds, this House is indebted to him for the knowledge that he brings to bear when discussing any subject in it. I submit, from my knowledge, that he is able to make a constructive contribution to the well-being and development of the Northern Territory.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

.-in reply -I first thank the House for the cooperation which it has so far shown. I also thank the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) for the many valu able suggestions which he made in the early portion of his speech. I have not an extensive knowledge of the Northern Territory as has the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), for whom I am acting on account of his illness. The honorable member for Indi developed considerable heat in the latter portion of his speech. The leases to which he referred were advertised in the normal way, according to the terms of the ordinance governing the matter, when they expired. This very large property was subdivided into four blocks, for the purpose of providing an opportunity for those who wished to apply for smaller areas, to endeavour to establish themselves on it, yet only two large companies submitted tenders. I do not favour large tracts of Australia being held by companies, because I believe that greater progress is made when more people take up land and more intense forms of cultivation are adopted in any part of Australia. No really sound alternative suggestion has been made. The purpose of constituting the proposed Legislative Council is that it shall make recommendations and, in fact, pass laws, in relation to such a matter.

Mr Harrison:

– That cannot affect Alexandria Downs.

Mr LEMMON:

– I invite the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) to make a close examination of the bill. He will then find that it proposes to confer practically the powers of a State parliament, subject to Commonwealth law.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

-The existing leases cannot be altered.

Mr LEMMON:

– Does the honorable gentleman believe that the Government should introduce a law to break down an agreement containing conditions relating to the ownership of land?

Mr Harrison:

– The honorable gentleman is arguing that this will overcome the difficulties complained of. Of course it will not do that.

Mr LEMMON:

– The honorable gentleman cannot have it both ways. Up to now, he has taken very little interest in the bill, and probably does not know what it contains. The honorable member for Indi said - wrongly, in my opinion - that the proposed Legislative Council is not being taken seriously. What he meant was that a great deal of interest has not been taken in it. The reason is probably to be found in the lack of knowledge of most honorable members in regard to the northern portion of this great continent; Therefore, I am pleased to accept, and I shall recommend to the Government acceptance of the suggestion of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that arrangements shall be made to enable representative members of each party in this House to make an inspection of the great tract of country which constitutes the Northern Territory and the northern parts of Queensland and Western Australia; because I am confident that nothing but good could result from greater knowledge being obtained by members of this House of the great wealth potentialities of those portions of the continent.

The honorable member for Indi argued that a greater remuneration should be paid to the Administrator of the Northern Territory. I draw his attention to the fact that, since the present Government has been in office, it has increased the Administrator’s salary from £1,200 plus a non-taxable allowance of £500 a year, to £1,800 plus a non-taxable allowance of £500 a year, an increase of £600 a year. His salary will be included in the review that .is being made by Cabinet of the salaries of all heads of Commonwealth departments.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain), in terms that were critical but not constructive, endeavoured to give the impression that the position in this new organization will be one of elected representatives versus the representatives appointed by the Government. That is entirely contrary to fact. The aim Avill be to ensure cooperation among all the representatives. Very little revenue is gained by the Commonwealth from that part of Australia. The Department of Works and Housing anticipates expending £1,000,000 in the rebuilding of Darwin, in an endeavour to make it a gateway to Australia of which all Australia will be proud, instead of the eyesore which it was previously. The

Department of the Interior proposes to expend in the next twelve months over £600,000 of the taxpayers’ money on that project. All of this money is raised in the southern areas of the continent. As these large expenditures are to be incurred in the Northern Territory, the Government considers that it is entitled to have representatives in the Legislative Council. Those representatives will be heads of departments and trained men such an engineers, who will advise, assist, and co-operate with the elected members. I am confident that that will be the spirit in which this new body will apply itself to its deliberations. That will be beneficial not only to the Northern Territory but also to the whole of Australia.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory went on to say that this new organization will have very little power. Its power will be practically equivalent to that of a State government. He said that it will have no power to transact postal or trade and customs business. Has any State government such power? He then said that the council would have no control over aborigines or land leases. As a matter of fact, it will have power to pass ordinances dealing with both those subjects. The only overriding authority is that of the Governor-General, it being required that decisions of the council must be assented to by him, but that stipulation applies to acts passed by this Parliament. I believe that this legislation will benefit the Northern Territory. I am sorry that the Minister for the Interior, who knows the area so well, and who has been the force behind the preparation of this measure, is not present. This legislation will be a monument to his work on behalf of the territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

After section four a of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - k4b. - (1.) There shall be a Legislative Council for the Territory. “ (2.) The Legislative Council shall consist of-

the Administrator;

seven official members, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Administrator and shall hold office during the pleasure of the GovernorGeneral ; and

six elected members, who shall be elected in the manner provided in this Act. “ (3.) Official members of the Council shall have seniority according to the dates of their appointments, or, when two or more are appointed on the same date, according to the precedence assigned to them by their appointments. “ 4c. - (1.) For the purposes of the election of the members of the Council referred to in paragraph (c) of the last preceding section, the Territory shall be divided into five Electoral Districts described in the Schedule to this Act. “ 4g. Each election of members of the Council shall be held on such date as is determined by the Administrator, which date shall, if practicable, be the same date as that fixed for a general election of the House of Representatives. “4j. The qualification of an elected member of the Council shall be as follows: -

He must be a British subject of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the Council, or a person qualified to become such an elector, and must have been for three years at the least resident within the Territory at the date of nomination. “ 4p. The Administrator shall be Chairman of the Council and shall preside at all meetings of the Council at which he is present and, in his absence, the senior official member of the Council who is present shall preside. “ 4s. An ordinance, vote, resolution or question, the object or effect of which is to dispose of or charge any part of the revenue of the Territory, shall not be proposed in the Legislative Council except by the Administrator, unless the proposal has been expressly allowed or directed by him. “ 4v. - (1.) An Ordinance made by the Council shall not have any force or effect until it has been assented to as provided in this Act. “ (2.) Every Ordinance passed by the Council shall be presented to the Administrator for assent. “ (3.) The Administrator shall thereupon declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Act, that he assents thereto, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the Ordinance for the Governor-General’s pleasure. “ 4w. Within six months from the Administrator’s assent to any Ordinance the GovernorGeneral may disallow the Ordinance, and, on notice of the disallowance being published by the Administrator in the Government Gazette of the Territory, the Ordinance shall be disallowed from the date of publication. “4x. An Ordinance reserved for the Governor-General’s pleasure shall not have any force or effect unless and until within six mouths from the day on which it was presented to the Administrator for the GovernorGeneral’s assent, the Administrator publishes- in the Government Gazette of the Territory a notification that it has received the GovernorGeneral’s assent.

Amendment (by Mr. Lemmon) agreed to-

That, in proposed new section 4j the words, “ three years at the least resident within the Territory “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “six months at least resident within the Commonwealth and three months at the least resident within the Territory”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Blain:

– I rise to order. I desire to move amendments to proposed new section 4b and other proposed new sections in clause 4.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Clark).Clause 4 has already been agreed to.

Mr McEwen:

– I rise to order. Clause 4 contains proposed new sections running from b to z, and there might well arise confusion in the minds of honorable members as to whether the whole of clause. 4 or only a part of it was before the committee for consideration. Neither I nor the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) appreciated the position.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If there has been a misunderstanding, I will re-open the clause.

Mr Blain:

– May I now move my amendment to proposed new section 4b?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Strictly speaking, we cannot go back to that stage. The committee has agreed to an amendment to a later proposed new section in the clause.

Mr McEwen:

– I rise to order. Was it not agreed that the clause should be re-opened because of a misunderstanding? This bill affects the honorable member for the Northern Territory in a peculiar way. It is probably of greater importance to him than any other legislation which may be submitted to this Parliament in a decade.

Therefore, I suggest that you allow him to move his amendments. I am sure the committee will not object.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Technically, the amendment of the Minister (Mr. Lemmon) excludes the proposed amendments of the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain), but if it is the wish of the committee, he may move them.

Leave granted.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

by leave - I move -

That, in proposed new section 4b, subsection (2), paragraph (b) the words “during the pleasure of the Governor-General” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “for three years from date of appointment. No official member shall be removable by the Government by reason of any act done by him or vote cast by him in Council or in connexion with the Council’s business.”

Government officials holding positions on the council will be merely “ Yes “ men unless this amendment is accepted. They are dependent upon the Government for their salaries, and it takes a strong man to cast a vote against the wishes of the Government when he knows that his living depends upon doing the bidding of the Government. We do not want the Government members of the council to be merely “ Yes “ men. We want them to vote in accordance with their reason and their consciences, but they should be protected against victimization.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

by leave - I move -

That, in proposed new section 4b, sub-section (2), paragraph (c), the word “six” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ten”.

The proposed new section would then read - (2.) The Legislative Council shall consist of-

  1. the Administrator;
  2. seven official members, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Administrator and shall hold office during the pleasure of the GovernorGeneral : and
  3. ten elected members, who shall be elected in the manner provided in this Act.”

The boundaries of the proposed electoral districts have been badly drawn. The bill provides that there shall be five electoral districts. I suggest that an additional electoral district be provided to cover the Barkly Tableland area. This would enable provision to be made for the appointment of two additional elected representatives to the council, thus providing for a predominance of elected members. In his second-reading speech, the Minister suggested that it was proposed to constitute a measure of selfgovernment somewhat comparable with a State legislature. He cannot have it both ways. If he believes the proposed Legislative Council should be comparable with a State legislature provision should be made for the elected members to be greater in number than the nominated members. The schedule of the bill describes the Batchelor district as constituting the whole of that part of the territory which is north of the 20th degree of south latitude, excepting the Darwin and Tennant Creek districts. That area extends 23 miles south of Tennant Creek and 4 miles south of Kelly’s Creek, and includes the whole of the country north to Darwin. It includes the whole of the Barkly Tableland, which is mostly held by large station-owners, who have a community of interest with the people of Queensland. 1 suggest that a new electoral district, to be known as the Barkly Tableland district, be constituted, extending from the 20th degree of south latitude north to Newcastle Waters. Such a district would constitute an economic region, to the potentialities of which the residents of the Northern Territory are very much alive. Furthermore, it would constitute a compact electoral district, the residents of which have a community of interest. If such a proposal were adopted the Batchelor electoral district could then comprise the area from Newcastle Waters to Darwin, excluding the Darwin town area.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I support the contention of the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) that the boundaries of the electoral districts as set out in the schedule are not well drawn. The governing factor is the 20th degree of south latitude; but I have seen no reasons advanced why that limiting boundary should have been selected. The problem of representation in the Northern Territory is not so much one of representation of men because of their opinions as representation of interests in which the men are engaged. There are three principal interests in the Northern Territory, the pastoral industry, the mining industry and the town settlements of Darwin and Alice Springs. At present there is no doubt that the Darwin settlement must be in a very fluid state. No one knows in what form it will be finally crystallized. It is strange that the bill should provide for two members to represent the town of Darwin. “Under the present system of election nothing short of a miracle would produce two different viewpoints in the town of Darwin, and, accordingly, the interests of that town could well be represented by one man.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory referred to the Barkly Tableland. I have not been in that area but I have been informed by those who have visited it that it constitutes one of the principal areas of the Northern Territory suitable for the development of the pastoral industry. If the administration of the proposed Legislative Council is to achieve anything, the interests of those engaged in the pastoral industry in the Barkly Tableland must not ,be overlooked.

Mr Blain:

– Why not give them separate representation ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I agree that they should have separate representation. From what I have heard from stockmen, the Barkly Tableland lends itself to the biggest and quickest possible development of the live stock industry. Under the proposed distribution of electoral districts the towns of Darwin and Alice Springs are to be directly represented, and the gold-fields area of Tennant Creek is to have separate representation, but the whole of the mining, cattle and sheep interests in the rest of the territory are to be bulked together and be represented by only one member. The number of cattle men in the Northern Territory could easily be outweighed by a very small influx of men on the mine-fields, all of whom are to have their voting strength. A good deal of mining is in progress in the area south of the 20th degree of south latitude. A fairly large quantity of mica is also produced there, though the production is not as great as it might be because the Government is not fully alive to the importance of that industry. Just before the conclusion of World War II. there were reports of the discovery of uranium-bearing materials there. I do not know to what degree the Government has interested itself in these discoveries. On the other side of Alice Springs there are the gold-fields, such as The Granites, in which Mount Isa Mines Limited is interested. A position might easily arise in the Northern Territory as a result of this bill, not perhaps following the first election but after the second election in which every person elected to the Legislative Council will be a representative either of towns or mining-fields. That is neither wise nor just. The territory should be subdivided into electoral districts in such a way that the cattle and sheep interests are represented by their own representatives. A miner is not likely to adequately represent the views of a squatter or a squatter the views of a miner. Need exists to review the conditions under which the territory is to be subdivided for the purposes of this proposal. Who was responsible for subdividing the territory into electoral districts? Was it done in Canberra on advice from the Northern Territory administration or were the views of local residents considered ? Was the Northern Stock-owners Association, the Northern Territory Development League, or any other representative body of opinion consulted ? Or did the officials merely say, “After all, from our point of view, the proposal meets the main need that the principal centre of population, Darwin, shall be adequately represented”? It is natural to ask that, because that is the Labour approach. The bigger the population the bigger the chance of Labour nominees securing seats. Unless honorable members are nodding in daytime, they are not unaware of the chance that control of the council will be in the hands of people whose political views are those of the Government. The proposed boundaries ought to be revised.

Jttr. LEMMON (Forrest- Minister for “Works and Housing) [2.56].- The Government does not propose to accept the amendment. The numbers referred to by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) are absolutely incorrect. On a population basis Darwin would have three representatives on the council instead of two.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The Government ought to be shocked at its modesty.

Mr LEMMON:
ALP

– Yes. I wonder that the honorable member is not, also. Three thousand of the total population of 5,900 in the territory live in Darwin. That completely disposes of the argument of the honorable member for Barker in respect of the membership of the council. The electoral districts were seriously considered by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), who, since his youth has spent many years in the territory and knows it and the people in it thoroughly. He has consulted with the Administrator of the Northern Territory and departmental officers, who have been associated with the territory since it was taken over from South Australia. After due consideration, it was decided that the electoral dis tricts proposed in the bill would ensure reasonable representation of the different sections of the people. Darwin will be represented, not by miners or pastoralists, I should say, but by businessmen, workers in industry or public servants. The Batchelor district is mainly pastoral, and we expect it to return a pastoralist as its representative. Our survey leads us to believe that mining interests will probably be represented by the person returned for the Tennant Creek district. The Alice Springs district will have one representative who, as it is mainly urban, will probably be a businessman or a worker, although, perhaps, a miner could be returned. We consider that the Stuart district will return a pastoralist as its representative. Therefore, the five districts will probably be represented by two pastoralists, one miner, and three men similar to the representatives of towns anywhere in Australia. In collaboration with the officers of his department, the Minister for the Interior has done good work in drafting this legislation in an endeavour to give representation to the varied interests in the Northern Territory.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

– I support the amendment proposed by the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain), who has good reason for having proposed it. The proposed legislative council for the Northern Territory will not be effective legislatively, but it will be useful as a forum for discussion. No legislative decisions will flow from it, notwithstanding this measure, because Government nominees, who will work to orders, will dominate the council. That is what is intended. That is how the system operates in the Advisory Council of the Australian Capital Territory and all legislative councils in the British colonies. The only thing that we need to fix our minds on is ensuring that each zone in the territory shall have a spokesman. If the honorable member’s amendment were accepted by the Government, I would immediately support another amendment designed to prevent the elected representatives from being in the majority. I do not think for a moment that the Government should or could tolerate a state of affairs in which the elected representatives could outvote the Government’s nominees, because I do not think it normal or feasible that administration of the expenditure of millions of pounds raised in the rest of Australia should be in the hands of a few elected representatives of that vast area. Darwin, though an important place, is virtually an island in respect of the rest of the territory. Its influence on the development of the territory is minute. Development of the resources on which the territory depends, cattle and mining, does not start until one reaches a point 200 miles south of Darwin.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Any development of the territory is in spite of Darwin.

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes. It seems to me that the mining industries and pastoral industries, on which the future of the territory depends, will have little chance of adequate representation in a council consisting .of seven Government nominees and four representatives of little towns, for that is all they are, and only two representatives of the stable industries. That is absolutely cock-eyed and, in my opinion, it negatives most of the value of the proposal. I have not much confidence that at this stage the Government will accept amendments of any kind, but I urge it to accept the amendment proposed by the honorable member for the Northern Territory. If it will not, it should undertake to consider a future review of the constitution of the council to ensure that the mining industry and the pastoral industry shall have more than two spokesmen on it. If the body is to make a useful contribution of advice on the administration of the Northern Territory, the only two industries that can possibly be the source of development of the territory must be more adequately represented. The area of the Northern Territory is about 500,000 square miles. Four representatives are to be elected by people in 200 or 300 square miles and only two by people in about 500,000 square miles.

Mr Pollard:

– It is the old story of acres rather than people.

Mr McEWEN:

– It is a story, not of acres, but of industry. Australia can be developed only by industry. I do not ask that the elected representatives shall comprise the majority of members of the Legislative Council. In that view, I am probably at variance with the honorable member for the Northern Territory, but I urge most strongly that, if the Legislative Council is to be effective, it should not be constituted in this “cockeyed “ manner. The bill proposes that the town of Darwin shall have two representatives, although the town has no more to do with the rest of the Northern Territory than Adelaide has with New South Wales. That is a fair analogy. The mining centre of Tennant Creek will be allowed one representative, who will be interested in the development of this auriferous mining area. The township of Alice Springs will also have one representative. Apart from those three towns, the remainder of the Northern Territory will have only two elected representatives. I ask: Will the position be satisfactory if both those representatives are pastoralists? If they were, employees in the pastoralist industry in the Northern Territory would not have a voice in the

Legislative Council. Or, again, will it be satisfactory if the two representatives are employees in the pastoral industry?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Or miners.

Mr McEWEN:

– In such circumstances, the pastoral industry will not have a spokesman. I support the amendment.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

, - I rise again, not to embarrass the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon), but to assist him, as I believe that he is trying to help me. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), who’ administers the pastoral areas in the Northern Territory, is absent through illness, but the Minister for Works and Housing will control the expenditure of millions of pounds in Darwin. At the present time, Darwin is under a triple administration, because three Ministers are now controlling it instead of one as previously. I invite the Minister to examine the schedule, and note carefully how the bill provides for the representation on the Legislative Council of the five electoral districts. Under this bill, Darwin will have two representatives, Batchelor one representative, Tennant Creek one, Alice Springs one, and Stuart one, making a total of six. I do not object to the proposal that Darwin should have two representatives, provided the Minister will agree that Stuart and the Barkly Tableland each shall have two representatives.

Although I may be in disagreement with the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) on this point, 1 consider that Darwin should have two representatives. The population of Darwin may be divided into the business section, public servants, pastoralists who frequently travel distances of 300 mile? to come to the town, and a class which I have described in other speeches as “ hillbillies “ and “ratbags “. Personally, I hope that the two representatives of Darwin will be a business oi professional man, such as a legal practitioner, and a respectable artisan who is a member of the North Australian Workers Union. During the last few years, the “hillbillies” and “ratbags” have increased in numbers and influence. Apparently the views which the local newspaperexpressed were not sufficiently “ red “, because a Communist named Mortimer came to Darwin from the south and established a paper which presents the opinions of the Communist party. Darwin always experiences an influx of Communists when an election approaches, because they hope that they will defeat me. However, their efforts do not perturb me. I congratulate the Minister forWorks and Housing on the action which he has taken to counter lies, and the warped and twisted mentality which is reflected in these “ rags “. He has authorized the Department of Works and Housing to prepare and circulate its own roneoed news-sheet in order to give a proper presentation of the news and counter the obtuse ideas of these “hillbillies” and “ratbags”. As I stated, I do not object to the proposal that Darwin shall have two representatives on the Legislative Council, provided the Minister agrees to my proposal that Stuart and the Barkly Tableland each shall have two representatives. The representation which the bill proposes to grant to Stuart, is ill-advised and illconsidered. The electoral district of Stuart will extend to the 20th parallel of latitude, east and west, from Alice Springs, and in this area, the division of interests is clear cut. The mining industry is concerned first, with the production of mica, and, secondly, with the production of wolfram at Hatches Creek and Wauchope, The Granites and Tanami gold-fields. This is in the region of the 20th parallel of latitude, which Mr. Davidson, the famous explorer, traversed in 1900. Stuart is becoming an important centre, and the considerable interests in this area should be adequately represented. I am surprised that the Government did not decide that it was entitled to two representatives on the Legislative Council, one to represent the pastoral industry and the other to represent the mining industry. Batchelor should also have two representatives for its mining and pastoral interests. Tennant Creek and Alice Springs each should have one representative, and the Barkly Tableland two representatives. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Blain’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 34

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

by leave - I move -

That, in proposed new section 4b, sub-section (3.) be left out.

I consider that the provision in regard to seniority in this proposed new subsection is quite undemocratic. In fact, it is simply ludicrous that such a provision should be inserted in the bill. Surely we are a democratic community. I am amazed that the Government should expect us to accept this provision without any explanation whatever.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– The Govemment cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Blain:

– Will the Minister explain why there is any need to refer to seniority.

Mr LEMMON:

– The president of the council willbe the administrator. It may be necessary for the administrator to be absent from the territory in Canberra or elsewhere during sittings of the council. Provision must be made in such circumstances for an officer or another member to take his place and the appropriate member surely would be the senior member. The provision is inthe bill for that purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

by leave - I move -

That, in proposed new section 4c, sub-section (1.), the word “five” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ six”.

The purpose of this amendment is to clear the way for making Barkly Tableland a separate electoral district. It is unthinkable that the Barkly Tableland should be included in Batchelor. If this amendment be agreed to, I shall later submit an amendment for an alteration of the schedule in order to define the Barkly Tableland district as follows: -

The whole of that part of the territory which is north of the twentieth degree of south latitude, and extending to the parallel of south latitude passing through Newcastle Waters excepting Tennant Creek district as described in this schedule.

It would be a serious mistake to disregard the importance of the Barkly Tableland. Some senior officer of the department in the territory should have been available to advise the Minister on this important subject. The people of the Barkly Tableland rarely go near Darwin. They turn to Queensland for all their requirements. In the same way, the people in the Wave Hill and the Victoria River Downs districts turn to Western Australia for their needs. If the Government’s proposal is adopted, it will be found that representatives of the Darwin district will consist of men who have no interests in common. A representative from the Barkly Tableland area will be rubbing shoulders with men of whom he knows nothing whatever. For that reason I urge the Government to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

.. - The proposal in the proposed new section 4g, that each election of members of the council shall be held on such date as is determined by the Administrator, is not democratic. I therefore move - by leave -

That, in proposed new section. 4g, the word “Administrator” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Council “.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- It seems to me that this amendment applies the test as to whether the proposed Legislative Council is to have any authority at all. I have made it perfectly clear that, in my opinion, it ought not to have financial authority. But if the council is to be anything but a sham, surely it ought to be authorized to fix the date of the election of its own members ! I know of no deliberative body that is worthy of being so described, which is denied the right to have a voice in fixing the date and the conditions of the election of its own members. I do not regard the matter as tremendously important, but I do consider that the test is whether the council is to function as a deliberative and responsible body or is to be merely a facade behind which the Government will carry on in the completely autocratic manner in which some governments have carried on hitherto. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

.- The Government cannot accept the amendment. The term of office of elected members is laid down in the proposed new section 4f, and this proposed new section merely provides that the Administrator shall have the power to determine the date of the election. Should the House of Representatives be dissolved months earlier than at the expiration of the prescribed tenure, the Administrator would be empowered to fix a concurrent date, and thus avoid the necessity for having the election held on a date other than’ that fixed for a general election of the House of Representatives. No principle is involved; consequently, the Government is not prepared to agree to an alteration of the provision.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– The proposed new section 4k provides that an elected member of the council shall be deemed to have vacated his office on certain grounds. Under paragraph d, a ground for vacation of office is that -

  1. . he, in any way, otherwise than as a member, and in common with other members, of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons-

    1. becomes concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Commonwealth; or
    2. participates, or claims to be entitled to participate in the profit of any such contract or agreement or in any benefit oremolument arising therefrom;

That provision will render ineligible for membership of the council storekeepers, small business men, the owners of small stations, and contractors who supply small quantities of goods to government instrumentalities,such as hospitals and schools. Eligibility will be confinedto those whoare members of concerns such as Bovril Australian Estates Limited and Vestey’s Limited. The business men of Darwin and AliceSprings, as well as lawyers and other professional men, would be desirable members,because they have a stake in thecountry. Surelythe Governmentdoes not wish to disqualify business men whocould give excellent advice to it? I ask the Minister to consider this matter veryearnestly before he proceeds to have the proposed new section passed. It appears to me now to be worse, in the “ dynamite “ that it contains,than I considered it tobe when I first examined the bill.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The proposednewsection, as it stands, makes provision inrelation to a very well-recognized principle in respect ofthe position of elected members of governmental bodies. It is a principle which none of us would wish to have abolished. But the knowledge that I have of the Northern Territory enables me to recognize immediately the possibility of difficulty arising because of the peculiar circumstances that exist. Apart from cattle properties and mining ventures, practically the whole of the activities of tie Northern Territory are conducted by the Government. If a bore is to be sunk, a boring contractor is engaged. If material has to he carted for the erection of a windmill a contract is given to some person to cart it. If a windmill breaks down, or the engine ceases to function, someone is given a contract to pump the water. If a little clearing has to be done about Darwin, some one quite often does it by contract. In remote places like Wave Hill and Rankin Springs, if dipping has to be done or supplies have to be taken to stock inspectors, and so on, inevitably there will be found some one who will make a minor contract with the Government. There are not very many people in the whole of the Northern Territory from whom elected persons may be drawn. The wish should not be to exclude a substantialbody of persons. I would not subscribe to the abandonment of the whole principle, because that would ‘be dangerous. But I urge the Government to consult its advisers, and to examine this provision further, with a view to finding a safe and acceptable way in which the difficulty may be overcome.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

.- This proposed new section has caused me, the Administrator, and the department considerable concern. We havehad regard to the special difficulties that havebeen referred to by the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) and the honorable member for Indi(Mr. McEwen). After a lot of consideration, the decision was that it would be too risky to omit such a provision from the bill. The Government and the department will continueto watch its effect. If, after a period of trial, any provision is found to be detrimental to the good government of the Northern Territory, or not to give that elasticity of government which is desired, alterations will be considered. At the moment I am unable toagree to any alteration.

Mr. BLAIN (Northern Territory) provides that, in the absence of the Administrator, the senior official member of the council who is present shall preside at meetings of the council. I move -

That proposed new section 4p be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following section : - “ 4p. A Chairman shall be elected at the first meeting of the Council in each electoral term and shall preside over all meetings of the Council, and, in his absence the Council may elect a Temporary Chairman,”

That is a reasonable request. I cannot understand why the principle of seniority should be observed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

.- I move-

That, in proposed new section 4s, the words “ the Administrator, unless the proposal has been expressly allowed or directed by him “, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ vote of the Council “.

Mr BLAIN:

– It is amazing to me how the existing provision came to be embodied in the measure. The Government cannot pretend that it is giving the residents of the Northern Territory democratic rights, amounting to State rights, while at the same time proposing to treat the elected members of the Legislative Council as children. I am sure that this provision does violence to the Minister’s own sense of fair play.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I have always had at heart the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, and I do not wish to be misunderstood when I make my point on this proposal. The fact is that no private member elected by the people to this Parliament can initiate any measure which has for its purpose the levying of a charge, the raising of a loan, or the expenditure of money from revenue. Such measures must be initiated by the Crown, through a Minister. We are all familiar in this House with the procedure of Mr. Speaker getting up and announcing that he has received a message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation of revenue for such and such a purpose. Members of this House, in committee, may move to reduce the amount of a loan or appropriation, but they may not move to increase it. Therefore, the proposal in this clause to place on the Administrator of the Northern Territory the onus of initiating financial measures is in keeping with the procedure of the House of Representatives.

Amendment negatived.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- Proposed new section 4u is the operative part of the bill in that it provides that the council may make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the territory. I mention the matter in order to refer to the existing ordinances, and to express the presumption that they will be continued, reviewed or amended by the council which the Minister has stated - I think the analogy was somewhat generous - will have powers equal to those of a State parliament. The Minister said that the Alexandria leases on the Barkly Tableland had been advertised, and that any one could apply for them. The regulations dealing with land leases contain over 400 clauses.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The proposed new section deals with the powers of the legislative body which is to be set up.

Mr McEWEN:

– I understand that, but there is provision for the existing ordinances to be continued, and for the Legislative Council to review, revise, amend or add to them. It is in relation to that power that I wish to speak. The relevant clause is as follows: -

If a new pastoral lease of any lands is gazetted as open for application before the expiry of the existing lease of the said lands the Board shall, other things being equal, give preference in allotting the lease to the holder of the existing lease, whether that lease is under this Ordinance or under any Act or Ordinance previously in force in the Northern Territory or North Australia or Central Australia should he be an applicant for the new lease.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not continue in that strain. The proposed new section provides that the council may make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the territory. The honorable member may not discuss existing ordinances.

Mr McEWEN:

– The ordinance provides that when land is resumed from a lessee, if the availability of the land is notified before the expiration of the lease, no one on earth except the lessee is entitled to it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is now discussing a matter which has previously been referred to in this House. I will not allow the debate to continue on those lines.

Mr McEWEN:

– I submit that it would not be for the good government of the territory if a law continued in force which excluded all potential applicants for land other than the lessee in possession

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable member does not respect my ruling, I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr McEWEN:

– Then, as I cannot get it in by any other way, I must resume my seat.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I move -

That, in proposed new section 4v, sub-section (2), the word “Administrator” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ Governor-General in Council “.

The Minister (Mr. Lemmon) has distributed a proposed new clause which he intends to move providing that, in addition to the Governor-General, the Legislative Council may initiate certain legislation. This indicates that, at the last moment, the Government has relented, and decided that the council shall have some scintilla of authority.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

.- The Government cannot accept the amendment. To do so would be to do some of the objectionable things with which the honorable member charged the Government in his second-reading speech. He says that the power of the council is already too limited, but he would limit it still further. It is provided in the bill that ordinances shall go to the Administrator for assent, but he would have them sent to Canberra for assent by the Governor-General. That is opposed to the very spirit of the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments (by Mr. Blain) negatived -

That, in proposed new section 4v, sub-section (3.) be left out.

That proposed new section 4w be left out.

That proposed new section 4x be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following section: - “ 4x. - Where any Ordinance is disallowed by the Administrator, it shall, if a request be made unanimously by the elected members of the Council, be remitted to be laid on the table of each House of Parliament for special consideration within three months of such disallowance “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 verbally amended and, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 4a.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– I move -

That, after clause 4, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 4a. Section five of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the word ‘ GovernorGeneral ‘ the words ‘ or the Council ‘.”

Ordinances governing the Northern Territory in the past have received the assent of the Governor-General. Under this bill they will become operative after they have received the assent of the Legislative Council.

New clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3587

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th May (vide page 3067), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.- This is a bill to amend the War Service Homes Act and for other purposes. During his second-reading speech the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) stated that the purpose of the bill is to provide amendments to the act considered desirable and necessary to expedite the fulfilment of the country’s obligation to provide war service homes for 20,000 applicants who have already lodged their claims, and for the many thousands who will be lodging claims in the next few years. Generally speaking, I am in accord with the provisions of the bill, but it does not go nearly far enough to meet, the wishes, of ex-service mem and women’. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) made a worthy contribution to the debate by placing, before the. Government, concrete constructive suggestions, which.,. if adopted1 by the Minister-, would1 achieve much. Unfortunately, I cannot offer the same commendation to the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) who, in one sweeping statement, said that members of the Opposition were “ riding on tha soldiers’ backs,”. Exception was taken to that remark at the time and I propose to advance some arguments in rebuttal of the- honorable member’s allegation. I do not think that honorable members will quibble with what I have to say because^ ever since I have been a member of this House, I have never by word or action cast any reflection on any man who does not wear an ex-serviceman’s badge. I. know only too well the many causes that may have prevented a man from serving, his country in the. fighting forces during the’ war. .E have brothers and a son who saw service-. Out of the whole of our family only one brother was unfortunate1 enough to be prevented from taking his place in the fighting services and. I would hate anybody to cast any reflections upon him for not having done so. I object to the statement that we on this side of the House ride’ on the soldiers’ backs merely because we try to do everything possible for them. The opinions, which I now express, are those which I have held throughout the course of two wars,, and I do not intend to abandon them.

In his second-reading speech the Minister divided the proposals1 in this bill into five parts. The first proposal is to- change the name- of the Commissioner of War Service- Homes to that of Director of War Service Homes. I do not believe that any one will1 complain’ about that. Tike second proposal provides for the War Service Homes Commission or its agents to acquire materials needed for the build ing- of war service homes’. I take no exception to that proposal providing it is understood that the persons- empowered to acquire such materials’ will’ not be un-reasonable in their demands’ and as the result! of their .unreasonableness cause- ill feeling between ex-servicemen and’ C1V1

Bans’. In the re-establishment legislation provision was made for- preference to be given to ex-servicemen, all other things being; equal. I trust that the persons- to whom the Minister- delegates power to acquire, materials will do. their utmost, to ensure that ex-service men and women who are so desperately short of housing accommodation will be provided with homes as rapidly as possible. The. third proposal provides that the amount of advance to an applicant for a war service home, may be increased from £1,2:5.0, to £1,7’50-. That, increase is merely designed: to bridge the gap between pre-war and present prices. In these days it is almost impossible for anyone to acquire a home, for £1^50. The Minister has indicated that the raising of the amount of the advance will assist in the object of group building. I understand that, the system of group building was> copied) from the New Zealand scheme for providing homes for ex-servicemen, which has some excellent features. I am surprised that the Minister did not copy more of the ideas being developed under the New Zealand scheme. In- 1944 the New Zealand Government passed1 legislation providing loans of up to £1,500’ for ex-service men a-nd women to purchase- or build homes’. Advances are- made to the- full amount of the valuation and the rate of interest chargeable is 2 per cent, for the first year, and 3 per cent., thereafter. In addition;, im order.’ to bridge the gap between pre-war and present prices of building materials, the New Zealand Government grants to its ex-service men and women supplementary loans of £2,50 free of interest for so- long as they continue to live in the home. It is a pity that some such scheme could not be adopted in this country. The rate of interest on advances for waa: service homes in Australia is 3$ per cent. The New Zealand Government also provides for ex-service men and women 50 per cent, of the State-erected rental homes which may be obtained without family qualification. Tn this country we provide 60 per cent, of such rental1 homes; but unless the family exceeds1 the husband1, wife and one child, an ex-serviceman is not eligible for a rental howe-. It is asking’ a little too much to expect ex-servicemen to increase their family responsibilites- at a time when they cannot secure a home for themselves and their families.

It will be seen that the legislation passed by the New Zealand Government is more beneficial to ex-service men and women than is the Australian legislation. I wonder whether this Government has unintentionally connived in rendering the provision of such additional benefits possible. I recall very vividly how this country recently agreed to supply wheat to New Zealand at a very cheap price, subsidizing the standard of living of the New Zealand people to an amount of £1,800,000 per annum. That amount of money would be sufficient to grant the supplementary loan to which I have referred to no fewer than 7,200 exservicemen annually. The Australian taxpayers are paying for that subsidization of the people of New Zealand, and if they were asked to vote for its continuance I doubt very much whether they would do so.

It has often been said in this House and elsewhere that nothing is too good for ex-service men and women, a view with which I entirely agree as I am sure do all other honorable members. The Government, however, has not been generous in its treatment of ex-service men and women. The private banks assist their officers to purchase or build homes by advancing the requisite finance at a very low rate of interest.

Mr Fuller:

– The charge is as high as 10 per cent, at times.

Mr HAMILTON:

– The rate of interest charged to the bank officers is as low as 2 per cent. No private trading bank would grant loans at such a low rate of interest unless it profited from the transactions. With their action in this respect I am whole-heartedly in agreement. Private concerns should be commended for adopting such a policy. Honorable members will recall that recently I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) whether the Commonwealth Bank was advancing money to its officers at a low rate of interest for the purpose of building or acquiring homes. I had the information, but I wanted to have it corroborated. The Prime Minister replied that he would obtain the information and supply it to me. I have it, and I will refer to it in a few moments. The

Commonwealth Bank was instituted to conduct ordinary banking business and to provide money to all classes of people at the lowest possible rates of interest. It has done so at times, and it is doing so now by providing money at 2i per cent, to its own officers to build or acquire homes. In some instances the rate is as low as 1 per cent. For the benefit of the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller), I say that the policy started in 1924. The highest rate that it has ever charged its officers on loans for the purpose of acquiring or building homes was 6 per cent. All honorable members will agree that the rate of 2£ per cent, charged by the Commonwealth Bank is fair and I would say that the bank is not losing on it. The Commonwealth Bank is a government instrumentality though, and the Government, which has proclaimed on the hustings and everywhere else that there is nothing too good for exservicemen, is charging them 3-if per cent. The same Government is subsidizing the Government of New Zealand by selling it wheat at a cheap rate for a number of years. That deal involves a loss of £1,200,000 a year. If the deal with New Zealand were abrogated and Australian wheat were sold to that country at world parity, that money would-be available to assist ex-servicemen to obtain homes at the lowest prices and lowest rates of interest and their annual saving in repayments would amount to £26 5s. to each ex-serviceman.

Mr Scully:

– Ex-servicemen are paying a lower rate of interest than they ever paid before.

Mr HAMILTON:

– Because my brother did something in years gone by it is no reason why I should do the same thing.

Mr Scully:

– The honorable member’s party borrowed money at 6 per cent, in London.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I was not a member of the party then. I was otherwise engaged. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) said that the Opposition, when in power, evicted exservicemen from war service homes. That charge has been investigated, and it has been proved that only three were evicted, and that they were evicted because they would not pay rent when occupying good positions.

Mr Bowden:

– They were degrading the name of ex-servicemen.

Mr HAMILTON:

– Yes, exactly. 1 place before the Government what the Commonwealth Bank is doing for its officers and what the Government of New Zealand is doing for ex-servicemen in that dominion, because I maintain that the Australian Government could and should do likewise for Australian exservicemen. No government supporter, however hostile he may be to me and my colleagues, can fail to recognize that what I have said is worthy of consideration. I trust that, as the result of the reconsideration that I hope for from the Government, we shall soon be called upon to consider another bill to amend the War Service Homes Act in order to make similar benefits available to our exservicemen.

There is a great shortage of homes in Australia, particularly for ex-servicemen. The secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia has supplied me with information that in that State last year about 500 houses were completed, whereas 5,500 marriages, in which the majority of males concerned were ex-servicemen, took place, and 11,000 infants, the parents of the majority of whom were ex-servicemen, were born. That comparison discloses a desperate position, but every one is aware of the acute shortage of homes. Why the shortage? The Minister for Works and Housing is not alone in pointing out the shortage of building materials. One of the root causes of the scarcity of building materials is the -shortage of coal, which is the medium by which we get iron, steel, brass, screws, nails, piping, baths, sinks and timber and many other items required in building. Daily we see in the press accounts of losses of coal production owing to stoppages on the coal-fields. Even though this bill empowers the Department- of Works and Housing to commandeer available materials, the measure will not remove the trouble. To do so we must root out the main cause. The Government has the responsibility to remove the trouble at the source so that we shall be assured of sufficient coal to meet the requirements of the community, lt also has been claimed that we are short of labour. Since entering this Parliament, I have repeatedly stressed that many ex-servicemen, who require homes, were more than 21 years of age at the date of their enlistment and are therefore disqualified from learning trades under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. Those young men left school in the depression and never had the opportunity of learning a trade. There is ample work in the building trade, not just for the present but for years to come. I partly agree with the Government’s policy not to flood the labour market with too many trainees, but one section absolutely ignored by the Government consists of men who enlisted between the ages of 21 and 25 years, who want to learn stonemasonry, but are not allowed to do so. The cost of stonemasonry has increased alarmingly. A lot of foreigners are carrying out stonemasonry particularly in Western Australia, as the Minister for Works and Housing knows, but bricks are used instead of stone in the foundations of homes, and, in every 25,000-brick home, there are 8,000 bricks in the foundations. In every three homes we waste sufficient bricks to erect another home, because we do not use stone, which is plentiful. I do not know at whose instigation it is being done, but I have seen, as most honorable members, no doubt, have also seen, eaves three feet over the walls of houses. The honorable member for Boothby, who is in the building trade, will agree that no need exists for that overhang. Not only is timber being wasted but also the tiles that have to be used to cover the extra roofing area. Before the war that was never done, and the homes that were then built are standing up very well. Of course, I am not referring to the “ jerrybuilt “ homes erected after the first world war.

I support the hill because it is a means of increasing the availability of homes for ex-servicemen, but I submit that the Minister for Works and Housing ought to investigate the policy applied by the Commonwealth Bank in making advances to its officers for housing purposes. He was not present when I raised that subject.

Mr Scully:

– I made a note of the honorable gentleman’s point for submission to the Minister.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I thank the VicePresident of the Executive Council. I also ask the Minister for Works and Housing to follow the New Zealand example in making supplementary loans to ex-servicemen. I hope that the authorities responsible for the building of homes for blinded ex-servicemen will consult their organizations about plans and specifications. No need exists for me to dilate on what the honorable member for Boothby said on the subject of plans and specifications generally. I trust that the Government will take the opportunity afforded to it by the forthcoming recess of reconsidering its policy in relation to war-service homes and other matters affecting ex-servicemen and that as the result we shall have placed before us when we re-assemble a measure in which the Government will honour to the full its repeated promises to ex-servicemen and its declaration that nothing is too good for them.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- But for an incident relating to evictions, I should not have delayed the House on this measure. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) brought down a storm of abuse on his head when he referred to evictions from war-service homes ordered by the Lyons Government. I have known the honorable member for Lang, whose constituency adjoins mine, for many years, since long before I entered the Parliament, as a man renowned for his concern for and care of ex-servicemen, particularly occupants of war-service homes threatened with eviction. He challenged the Opposition’s attitude to evictions when it was in power. He was replied to, but, having already spoken, he had no opportunity to conclude his case.

Mr Scully:

– How many exservicemen did the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) evict from war-service homes when he was Minister in charge of War Service Homes?

Mr HAYLEN:

– That is the point. The honorable member for Moreton savagely attacked the remarks of the honorable member for Lang and questioned his veracity. I know that the honorable member for Lang is not given to making inaccurate statements. He speaks infrequently in this House, but when he does speak it is with great effect. Questions about those evictions must be settled once and for all. Opposition members are prone to utter pious platitudes about their concern for ex-servicemen, and to charge honorable members on this side with lack of concern for them, but, when their remarks are thrown .back in their teeth and their sorry record as a government is brought to light, they become hostile and make such reckless statements as were made about the honorable member for Lang. The welfare of ex-servicemen is the concern of us all, and when we are required to consider matters affecting them we should eschew party bickerings and unite in our efforts in the interest of men to whose cause we are doubly dedicated for service in two wars. We are bound to reestablish ex-servicemen. Instead of acrimonious debates, in which slurs are cast, we should bend our efforts to helping ex-servicemen. That does not imply that debates should be less strenuous; but they should be on a higher level. The matter of evictions was raised-

Mr Francis:

– By the honorable member for Lang.

Mr HAYLEN:

– And there was an immediate reaction from the Opposition benches. The honorable member for Moreton was infuriated, as he always is at any reference to evictions. Like a goanna on a stump puffing its gills, he has sat through this debate denying all responsibility for those evictions. Without being offensive about these things, I shall read to the House records of Hansard. Hansard is an organization that adds nothing unfactual to our speeches. It puts them into the form that is closer to the heart’s desire. What is recorded is accurate and as sacred a9 the holy writ. So quotations from Hansard about this matter from ministerial sources should be useful, authentic and final in relation to the evictions! When the honorable member for Lans; referred to these evictions, he was howled down by members of the Opposition. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) delivered a stormy speech, and stamped up and down the chamber in an endeavour to make political propaganda, but his remarks were devoid of substance. Other members of the Opposition, who shared in this iniquitous thing, delivered similar speeches. They must accept the blame for having supported a system which threw ex-servicemen, and workers in many industries out of their homes. That was a legacy of the financial and economic depression, and members of the Opposition cannot avoid responsibility for it. Reference to Hansard of the 26th. July, 1945, page 4467, discloses that the then Minister for War Service Homes, Mr. Frost, replied to a series of questions which the honorable member for Adelaide, now the Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers), had addressed to him regarding evictions from war service homes. The first question was -

How many applications for the eviction of returned soldier occupiers were made to the courts in each State by the War Service Homes Commission in the years 1932 to 1936, respectively?

The Minister supplied the following information : -

Yet honorable members opposite declared that in Western Australia, no persons had been evicted from war service homes. Hansard, telling this inglorious story of evictions of ex-servicemen during the financial and economic depression, shows that the total throughout the Commonwealth was 1,009. Cold, analytical figures support the contention of the honorable member for Lang that this tragedy, which had been perpetrated, stands to the eternal discredit of the government which administered the War Service Homes Department at that time.

Mr White:

– Did the figures which the honorable member read relate to applications or evictions?

Mr HAYLEN:

– The position is fully explained in the answers which the then Minister for War Service Homes gave the honorable member for Adelaide. I ask the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) to bear with me while I read this information to the House. The honorable member for Adelaide, in his search for information, asked -

Which members of the present Parliament were Ministers in any of those years, and what portfolio did each occupy?

The answer was -

Right Honorable R. Gr. Menzies, K.C., M.P., Attorney-General and Minister for Industry, Honorable T. W. White, D.F.C., V.D., M.P., Minister for Trade and Customs-

Mr White:

– I resigned my portfolio as Minister for Trade and Customs.

Mr HAYLEN:

– At that time, that incident was described as “ White’s flight “. One of the best deeds that the honorable member ever did for the nation was to resign from the government of the day. I shall read the remainder of the answer, because it contains names which are familiar to honorable members -

Honorable E. J. Harrison, M.P., Minister for the Interior; Honorable Sir Frederick H. Stewart, M.P., Minister for Commerce; Right Honorable Sir Earle Page, G.C.M.G., M.P., Minister for Commerce; Right Honorable W. Al. Hughes, K.C., M.P., Minister for Health and Minister for Repatriation, Vice-President of the Federal Executive Council.

I come now to a name which rings a bell in our memory concerning evictions. This honorable gentleman becomes most agitated when these matters are driven home to him -

Honorable Josiah Francis, M.P., Assistant Minister for Defence and Minister in charge of War Service Homes.

Had this matter not ‘been hotly contested by the Opposition, I should not have exposed it. I resent bitterly that the honorable member for Lang, who has rendered honorable and yeoman service for ex-servicemen, should be almost wiped from the scene by these gallants who rush to the table of the House when anything is said about exservicemen and their responsibilities to them. Hot words can be defeated by cold records; and I am reading the actual records. I imagine from the glum expressions of members of the Opposition that they are considerably stricken by this reminder. Again, the inquiring mind of the honorable member for Adelaide prompted him to ask and again I quote -

How many returned soldiers were evicted from or otherwise vacated their war service homes between 1932 and 1936 inclusive?

The then Minister in charge of War Service Homes replied -

  1. From 1st January, 1932, to31st December, 1936, orders of the court were executed by the War Service Homes Commission in respect only of the following number of cases : -

New South Wales 5; Victoria 3 ; South Australia 7 ; Western Australia 8 ; Tasmania 1 ; No Order of the Court was executed in Queensland and two warrants were current in South Australia as at 31st December, 1936.

Mr White:

– Those are lower numbers than the honorable member indicated earlier.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The numbers are not important. It is a matter of culpability. The statements by members of the Opposition that an anti-Labour government did not evict ex-servicemen from war service homes is a lie, because the whole system at that time was directed to throwing out of his home any man who could not afford to pay the rent. The valiant member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton), who uses the most flamboyant language, declared that anti-Labour governments did not evict ex-servicemen from war service homes because they could not pay their rents. The honorable member for Lang, being an Irishman, knows that all the evictions which made history were carried out because the tenants could not pay their rent. That is the essential meaning of eviction. The honorable member for Swan advanced an extraordinary argument. When he speaks of evictions to Irishmen and the descendants of Irishmen he should remember that they can talk about the subject with authority, often derived from personal experience. I return now to this most interesting and diverse document and I remind honorable members that I am still quoting from Hansard. The answer which the then Minister in charge of War Service Homes supplied continued -

  1. In addition to the cases, enumerated in (a) the undermentioned number of persons vacated their homes following upon the granting of an order of the court: -

New South Wales 245; Victoria 97; Queensland 19; South Australia 47; Western Australia 33; Tasmania nil.

If honorable members opposite are deriving any satisfaction from the thought that only a few ex-servicemen were evicted from war service homes, I direct their attention to the following answer : -

  1. The number of purchasers or borrowers included in (b) who could have made satisfactory arrangements but rather than do so vacated the home after the granting of an order of the court, was made -

Those persons were given a second chance. The landlord, which was the Government of the day, came round and harassed them for the rent. An exserviceman usually said, “I cannot pay the rent, and I shall vacate the premises.” At the time, large numbers of people were being evicted from their homes, and the newspaper proprietors were selling their papers with stories about families being thrown into the streets, who were sleeping under a tarpaulin and who were without food and shelter. Despite the pious denials of members of the Opposition, ex-servicemen were among the persons who were evicted at that time. This is the inescapable conclusion which must be drawn from the records of Hansard. The numbers of exservicemen who were thrown out of war service homes after they had been given a second chance were -

New South Wales, 197; Victoria, 49; Queensland, 14; South Australia, 4; Western Australia, 16; Tasmania, nil.

Again, the honorable member for Adelaide thoughtfully asked what was the number of purchasers or borrowers who were so hopelessly involved as to have noprospect of meeting their obligations, and who vacated their homes as a result of an order of the court. The answer was-

New South Wales, 48; Victoria, 48; Queensland, 5; South Australia, 43; Western Australia, 17; Tasmania, nil.

Finally, the honorable member for Adelaide asked for information about the number of cases in respect of which satisfactory arrangements were made and proceedings withdrawn subsequent to the granting of an order of the court. The reply was -

The number of cases in respect of which satisfactory arrangements were made and proceedings withdrawn subsequent to the granting of an order of the court was - New South Wales, 303; Victoria, 01; Queeusland, 58; South Australia, 25; Western Australia 63; Tasmania 2.

In other words, the ex-serviceman had to bring his father, mother, sisters, cousins, and aunts to the court to prove that they could find some money somewhere with which to help him, even if they had to deprive themselves. They were then allowed to live in these houses. Of course, many of these houses were not fit for habitation. They had been “ jerry-built “ on plans which had enriched the master builders. Yet honorable members opposite continually criticize the Government’s housing scheme, and the Minister for Works and Housing, who is valiantly coping with a problem which is admitted to be beyond the ability of any human being to solve in a short period. The end of the story, as told in Hansard, is most illuminating, and drives the last nail neatly into the coffin of the Opposition in regard to its record of evictions of exservicemen from war service homes. The honorable member for Adelaide asked -

Who constituted the governments of those years 1

With dramatic finality, Hansard replies -

The Lyons Ministry, from the 6th January, 1932, constituted the Government of the Commonwealth through the period under review.

Mr White:

– Fancy that!

Mr Barnard:

– It is not fanciful. It is a stern reality.

Mr HAYLEN:

– This story must be told. Members of the Opposition provoked it by their insistence that they are the friends of the ex-serviceman, and that members of the Labour party have been guilty of mischievous interference with their plans on his behalf. The story does not require to be adorned. The cold facts need no elaboration.

Now I turn to the bill itself. I congratulate the Minister for Works and Housing on having had the courage to get rid of the War Service Homes Commissioner. Any one who is required to deal with commissions knows that, sooner or later, he will be in trouble. I am looking at the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) at the moment, but he is looking elsewhere.

This machinery measure makes certain provisions with regard to priorities. I remind the Minister for Works and Housing that his activities are being watched closely by ex-servicemen and their organizations.

Mr Gullett:

– That is right.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I thought that the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) was too busy looking after refugees to take notice of what the Minister for Works and Housing was doing. The Minister will have a difficult task in dealing with priorities, but I assure him that it is a subject with which honorable members on both sides of the chamber are deeply concerned. The bill provides that the limit of advances under the War Service Homes Act shall be £1,750. That amount is, of course, far too high, but we all know, actually, why it is so high. It includes between £200 and £300 for standing time in the building industry. This is unavoidable under present conditions, but I hope that we shall be able to lower the ceiling before too long. It is obvious to me, and to all who know anything about housing, that it will be impossible for many exservicemen to pay off their homes under existing conditions. The working men, who constituted 95 per cent, of those in the services, will not be able to own their home under, these conditions, but will be living in the kind of false glory that existed after World War I., when the occupants of war service homes were not home-owners, but merely the occupiers of homes at cheap rentals from which, when the depression came, many of them were evicted. We do not desire that to happen again. We must face the fact frankly that there will need to be a heavy writingoff of the cost of the houses at present being constructed. That will be the only way in which we can meet the position when times becomes normal.

In conclusion, I regret that remarks of honorable members of the Opposition in regard to evictions forced me to draw attention to the subject of evictions. Honorable gentlemen opposite resisted statements that were being honestly made by the honorable member for Lang, and it was forced upon me, therefore, to deal with this matter. Honorable gentlemen opposite cannot expect to escape forever from being faced with their own sorry record relative to the eviction of former occupiers of war service homes.

Mr Francis:

– I rise to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

– Has the honorable member been misrepresented?

Mr Francis:

– I have. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) made some sweeping condemnations and incorrect statements.

Mr Haylen:

– I rise to order. 1 object most strongly to the remarks of the honorable member for Moreton. I quoted from Hansard and I object to his challenge of the authenticity of Hansard.

Mr Francis:

– I shall proceed with my personal explanation. The honorable gentleman uttered a scathing criticism of the administration of the War Service Homes Department.

Mr Barnard:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Moreton has not disclosed any grounds to support his statement that he has been misrepresented. He cannot, in the guise of a personal explanation, re-enter the debate.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am listening carefully to the honorable member. He must confine his remarks to a personal explanation and may not engage in lengthy debate.

Mr Francis:

– So far, I have not been allowed to utter more than a dozen words or so without interruption. I object to the frivolous manner in which the honorable member for Parkes has debated this subject, and I challenge the accuracy of his statements. In support of my challenge I refer briefly to the report of a committee of inquiry presented to this Parliament, on the 20th July, 1932, on war service homes administration. The committee consisted of three returned soldier members of the Public Service. The chairman was Mr. J. T. Treloar, the officer in charge of the Australian War Memorial, and the other two members were Mr. Thomas, an official of the Treasury, and Mr. D. W. Allen. Their report entirely refutes the statements of the honorable mem,ber for Parkes. The committee stated that it could not do otherwise than compliment the War Service Homes Commission on its work and added that the making of any recommendations for improved administration would be very difficult. I now desire to quote from Hansard-

Mr Mulcahy:

– I rise to order. This is not a personal explanation; it is debate.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for Moreton to confine his remarks to the scope of a personal explanation. Does the honorable gentleman consider that the statements from Hansard which the honorable member for Parkes quoted misrepresented him in any way?

Mr Francis:

– The honorable member for Parkes has misrepresented me. I direct attention to answers to questions which appear on page 597 of Hansard of the 9th October, 1935. Mr. Thorby, who was Minister in charge of War Service Homes, was asked how many evictions had been carried out. The honorable member for Parkes said that there had been 245.

Mr Barnard:

– I rise to order. In making a personal explanation, the honorable member for Moreton is not entitled to go into details of this description. He is entitled only to direct attention to the particular matter in respect of which he claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr Harrison:

– I also rise to order. The honorable member for Moreton has risen to make a personal explanation. He is entitled, therefore, to direct attention to facts relevant to the matter which will indicate that he has been actually misrepresented. How, otherwise, could he make his position clear?

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Moreton may refer to the matters in which he alleges that he has been misrepresented; but he may not engage in a long debate and he may not refer to happenings of many years ago.

Mr Francis:

– I agree with your ruling, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, and I intend to proceed along those lines. The honorable member for Parkes said that there had been 245 evictions in New South Wales while the Lyons Administration was in office. I intend to cite figures which will show ‘ that that statement is inaccurate.

Mr Barnard:

– 1 again rise to order and ask whether the honorable member for Moreton is entitled to read a statement from Hansard in dealing with his assertion that he has been misrepresented by the honorable member for Parkes ?

Mr White:

– The honorable member for Moreton was a Minister at the time to which the honorable member for Parkes referred.. I submit that he is entitled to cite figures to refute the accusations made by that honorable member. He was personally concerned in the matter, as he was a. Minister.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I make it clear to the honorable member for Moreton that he must not indulge in debate. He may refer only to the matter in respect of which be claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr Francis:

– The honorable member for Parkes said that there had been 245’ evictions from war service homes during a period that the Lyons Government was. in office. The reply given by Mr. Thorby to the specific question of how many evictions there had been within stated periods was as follows: - 1st August, 1932, to 31st July, 1933, nil-

Mr Mulcahy:

– I rise to order. The honorable member is not making a personal explanation; he is engaging in debate.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Chair will decide that matter.

Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr Harrison:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Moreton has claimed that he has been misrepresented by the honorable member for Parkes in regard to evictions from war service homes, and in seeking to clear himself is endeavouring to cite certain figures from Hansard. I submit that he is entitled to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall hear the honorable member for Moreton.

Mr Francis:

– The Minister for War Service Homes was asked in October, 1935, how many persons were evicted from war service homes by order of the court and this is his reply - 1st August, 1932, to 31st July, 1933, nil; 1st August, 1933, to 31st July, 1934, one; 1st August, 1934, to 30th September, 1935, three.

That is a complete answer to the unfounded statements, of the honorable member for Parkes. I submit that I have shown clearly that I was misrepresented. I know the facts in regard to this matter, because I was a Minister at the time. The observations of the honorable member for Parkes are in keeping with his past record.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– I commend the bill, but I regret that the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) did not see fit to say something of a constructive character. As a matter of fact he descended to the sewer in order to find material for cheap and unfounded criticism of a previous administration in relation to war service homes. I hope that I shall never wallow in such depths.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member had better discuss the bill.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I propose to do so although considerable leniency has been shown to other honorable members in the course of this discussion.

I have risen mainly to ask the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) for some specific information on the subject-matter of certain questions which I put to him some time ago concerning applicants who desired to erect war service homes in country districts. I know, from conversations that I had with the Minister, that he is concerned about the practical impossibility of having war service homes erected in country districts because of the inability to secure the services of architects, and the operation of a priority system which penalizes country applicants. I believe that many of the amendments proposed by the bill are designed to overcome these difficulties. I am happy in being able to state that to ‘be his purpose.

The principal means by which the honorable gentleman seeks to overcome existing difficulties is by the acquisition of materials. I should like to know to what extent hs -intends to acquire .materials in certain country districts. £ hope that he will not use recklessly the powers given by the bill, for the purpose of acquiring materials in country districts in order to enable priority to be given to the erection of homes in towns and cities, and thus prevent country applicants from obtaining them. ‘The priority system should not be operated rigidly. There may be thousands of applicants for homes in the cities, and only a few in each country town. If a country application happens to be later than city applications, will it have to await the satisfaction of all city applicants? I should like to have the assurance that where labour and material requirements in the country can be met, the erection of homes will be proceeded with.

I should also like the Minister to make a statement in regard to administrative costs. I believe that he has in mind the averaging of those costs, so that country applicants will not have to pay the heavy initial charges that have been imposed on them. I have asked a question in regard to architects’ fees, and have cited a n ease in point. Where there are no architects in country districts, applicants for homes have to pay for at least three visits by the nearest architect. The nearest architect to St. George is at Toowoomba, and the cost of three trips by him is £20 each trip. This imposes a heavy charge on the country applicant. I should like the Minister to be specific a3 to what is implied, because many exservicemen desire to know exactly what he has in mind. They have expressed satisfaction at his attempts to remove .past anomalies and to grant them necessary assistance. I should also like the honorable gentleman to assure me that the initial deposit payments are to be equalized ; in other words, that the deposit which will be required of the country applicant in future will be no greater than that required of a city applicant. T should further like the honorable gentleman to explain what is to be the position of applicants in country districts where no architects reside. A reply indicates that the administrative costs are to be on a flat rate basis, and that every applicant is *to pay an equal amount. Does the department intend to insist upon super vision by an architect, or will an experienced builder suffice as an alternative? WiM the country applicant be compelled ibo accept the standard specifications and plans of the department in the event of lis not being prepared to pay the architect’s costs? I tope that the Minister’s replies will be satisfactory on every point that I have raised.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I, too, commend the bill. The Minister for Works and Sousing (Mr. Lemmon) stated in this House a -short time ago that the improved economic position of the people of this country is one of the main reasons for the existing shortages of homes, and that a further reason is that prior to the war the Commonwealth Government had no voice in home construction, the matter being left to State governments and private enterprise, which did not provide the tomes that were needed, although a large number had been promised. That is true in some degree. I wish to add to it; because, unless we get to the root cause of the housing problem we shall never solve it It seems to me that, if we realize the fundamental cause of the whole problem, we may approach nearer to solving it. The Minister has discussed reasons for the shortage and is, I know, doing everything that he can to overcome it. He is sincere and honest, and at every turn I have been highly satisfied and pleased with the courteous manner in which he has handled every problem 1 have presented to him. I believe that this bill represents an attempt to overcome the difficulties that he found existed when he toot charge of this department.

The building of homes in this country has been carried out, until quite recent times, wholly by private enterprise, which has not provided adequate housing for the people. The story of home construction has been the same the world over. There is a shortage, because the building of homes for the people on the lower incomes has been unprofitable, and it is unprofitable to-day. There is the core of the problem. Many books have been written on the subject, and I recommend to honorable members the reading of one entitled Breaking the Building Blockade that I found on a shelf in the Parliamentary Library. In support of what I have 6aid, I read this brief passage from it -

New housing has always been built predominantly for the very small group of the population enjoying the highest incomes. That left the old housing to filter down to the middle and lower-income groups. Not only was this process slow, and subject to a variety of frictional influences, but it rested on an inadequate base. The number of upper-income families who got the new houses was so small, relative to the whole population, that the volume of new housing fed into the total supply was seldom enough to offset the increase in population and the deterioration of old houses. Consequently, the general standard of housing quality tended to decline whenever the volume of new construction fell below a certain level - which was most of the time.

There we have the basic reason for our housing shortage; and, as I have said, the position is the same all over the world. I maintain that the shortage is due mainly, not to the improved economic position of the people, but to the fact that private enterprise could not draw sufficient profits from home building. That has gone on for generations. Although the shortage has been acute for years, the people have put up with it. To-day, however, a different attitude is being adopted. That is not a result of the better economic position of the people, although it could easily seem to be so. The position that I have outlined could not hold forever without breaking down, and we have the breakdown to-day in an intensified form because the’ housing shortage now affects a different strata of society. Whereas the depressed people raised no outcry, this new strata to be affected is vocal. Persons who have been comfortable in the past cannot understand why they are unable to be comfortable at present. During the war years, very few homes were built, but a large number of marriages was contracted. I have drawn attention to that point on a number of occasions in this House. In the last twelve months in Victoria, the number of marriages was approximately 17,000, and the homes built did not number 12,000. In 1942 or 1943 - from memory, I cannot say exactly in which year it was - there were 29,000 marriages, and fewer than 600 homes were built. All of these reasons must be taken into account when we are discussing the present housing shortage. I consider the argument not to be sound that the better economic position of the people is the main reason for the shortage of homes. We must bear in mind, also, that during the war years this country became less an agricultural country and more an industrial country. Whenever that happens to a country, the housing shortage in the cities becomes more intensified. Honorable members will recall that, only a few weeks ago, I mentioned that in Melbourne there were 104 evictions a month, 80 per cent, of them due to the efforts of ex-servicemen to obtain homes. In the early part of the year, I was told by an official of the Emergency Housing Department in Victoria that 9,000 exservicemen had applied for homes from the Housing Commission, and I have recently been informed by the commission itself that there are now 13,000 applicants on the list. What happens to the children of those applicants? If we are sincere in our demands for more population, we must take care of the children already in the country, and if we cannot provide homes for their parents the outlook for the children is bad. The report of the War Service Homes Commission for 1945-46 stated that relief had been given to widows, but they were widows already in homes. There is nothing in the report, and nothing in this bill, to indicate that war widows will be provided with houses at a reasonable rental, or will be assisted to buy homes if they have the means to do so.

Mr Lemmon:

– A widow who is eligible can buy a house if she has the deposit to put down.

Mrs BLACKBURN:

– But there is no authority to subsidize the rent paid by war widows?

Mr Lemmon:

– It is not specifically provided by legislation, but it might be done administratively.

Mrs BLACKBURN:

– I should like to know what standard is insisted upon in the construction of war service homes, and whether it is higher than that .required in regard to houses generally. Is it true that the requirements are such that contractors are unable to reach the standard, so that many of them have refused to tender for war service homes contracts, or have been unable to complete the contracts into which they have entered? Some of the builders have, I know, gone into liquidation. I have discussed this matter with the Minister, and it was mentioned in this House the other night by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy).

Recently, the secretary of one branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia wrote to me on the subject of insurance taken out by occupants of war service homes. After referring to the report of the War Service Homes Commission for the year ended 1945-46, he went on -

Have a look at the War Service Homes report, you will see over £400,000 paid into Consolidated Revenue, from insurance on servicemen’s homes.

He added that if this money represented the insurance premiums paid by occupants of war service homes it constituted a strong argument in favour of the reduction of interest rates on money advanced for the building or purchase of such homes - something for which several honorable members, including myself, have asked in this House from time to time.

I suggest that the Minister should consider a proposal that, to start with, only the barest essentials of a war service home should be constructed - enough to house a married couple, the rest to be added as the necessity arose. In this way materials, which are now scarce, might be made to go a little further. I am convinced that the Minister will take my suggestions into consideration and, if possible, act upon them.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– Seeing that the wish of the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) is to erect homes, and all members of this Parliament wish to help him, let me make one practical suggestion: In spite of the present high cost of building, some houses have been built at a fairly reasonable cost. I suggest that such cases should be investigated by the Minister’s department with a view to discovering the method employed. I have in mind a house in Tasmania of six rooms, which if. about to be completed. There are three bedrooms, a living room, a dining room and a kitchen. It is of brick veneer on a high cement foundation, such a foundation being usually regarded as adding to the cost. There are the usual offices, wash-house, bathroom, &c. It i9 sewered, and there is electric light, an electric hot water service, an electric cooker and electric power points. That house, with an iron roof, has been completed for just over £1,200. I believe that the methods of the builder ought to be investigated. I know that the work took a long time because it was held up. through the shortage of materials. I have some practical experience in these things, and I know that it is a well built house, if this builder could obtain regular supplies of materials he might be able to cut his costs a little. At any rate, contractors who are prepared to build houses faithfully and well at a minimum cost should be encouraged by an investigation of their methods, and business should be put in their way if investigation proves that it would foe a paying proposition to do so.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Capricornia

– Like the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton), I feel some peturbation over the proposal to give to the Minister authority to acquire building material. Unless this authority is exercised with discretion, the provision may have a boomerang effect upon exservicemen themselves. I do not bow to any one in my desire to serve the interests of ex-servicemen, but I do not believe in demanding undue preference for them. I have never demanded that kind of preference, and I will never do so. As a matter of fact, ex-servicemen themselves do not ask for an extreme degree of preference. All they want is a reasonable opportunity to overcome the disadvantages arising out of their service, and an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves in civil life. Certainly, at the present time, we must do all we can to provide homes for exservicemen, and I agree with the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) that improved amenities should be provided in homes in country areas. Of course, one of the principal obstacles in the way of providing additional homes is the shortage of building material, and that is why power is being taken in this bill to acquire materials for the construction of war service homes. I point out. however, that it is not the War Service

Homes Commission only which finds it hard to get materials. The ordinary citizen also finds it difficult to get materials with which to build himself a home. I repeat, therefore, that this power of acquisition by the Commission must be exercised with discretion, lest it be used to confer an unfair advantage upon exservicemen, and lest it engenders a feeling of resentment against them in the minds of other persons. I can understand that a deputy director, keen to do his job, might be inclined to go toundue lengths in the acquisition of building materials. The total quantity of building materials is limited, and the demand upon them by State instrumentalities is heavy. I can imagine, therefore, that after the Commonwealth authorities and State instrumentalities have satisfied their needs, there may be nothing left to supply the heeds of private enterprise. I suggest, therefore, that while the total quantity of building materials remains limited, provision should be made to apportion them fairly among those who need them. The Minister should instruct his directors and deputy directors to exercise the power of acquisition with discretion until theroot difficulty, insufficient production, is overcome.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

in reply - If those honorable members who have taken exception to the provision in regard to thecompulsory acquisition of building materials Were to read the bill carefully, they would learn that it isnot proposed that the Minister should delegate his power inthis regard to directors or deputy directors. The power is toreside solely in the Minister himself. I realize that it is a very widepower, and for that reason I am not prepared to place on the shoulders of directors of deputy directors’ the responsibility of exercising it.

The provision has been put into the bill for two reasons. The right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) and I think, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) mentioned cases of builders who, having taken contracts for the construction of war service homes,were unable to complete them. Instances have arisen in Victoria where ten or twelve exservicemen have let contractsfor the construction of their homes to contracting companies whichbecame involved in bankruptcy proceedings before the homes were completed. It is proposed to utilize the services of my department to complete them. Any loss involved will be borne by the department.

The honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) referred to a house of particular design being constructed in Tasmania at a cost of £1,200. From the honorable member’s description of the house, it seems to be an attractive proposition. I shall have it examined by an officer of my department who is engaged in examining housing costs and construction throughout the Commonwealth. He has already completed his inquiries in four States. At present he is examining conditions in New South Wales. When his inquiries there have been completed he will go to Victoria and Tasmania thus completing a review of building activities throughout the Commonwealth. In his reports this officer indicates meansby which economies may be effected inbuilding operationsby the saving of materials and the acceleration of construction. Valuable information is also being made available by the experimental building station at Ryde, not only to Government departments engaged in building construction but also to private builders.

Reference has been made to the raising of the amount of the advance for the purchase or construction of a war service home from £1,250to £1,750. Some honorable members appear to think that all advances made will beof the maximum amount. Nothing could be further from the truth. Maximum advances will bit made only in special circumstances and will beutilized tocover the cost of the land, on site work, and various preliminary expenses incidental to the actual construction of the homes. The contention of thehonorablemember for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that eventually the cost of such homeswill have tobe written downis entirely incorrect.

I thank the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) for the constructive suggestions which he offered during the course of this’ debate. I assure him that there will not be merely two standard specifications for group construction. As much variety as is” possible will be achieved. Every step is being taken to keep costs down to the lowest possible figure. Building costs vary in the different States. A house’ similar to that mentioned by the honorable member for Darwin could for instance, ‘be constructed in Western Australia for approximately £l,100, whereas a comparable house in New South Wales would probably cost £1,400. By adopting the group construction system costs can be substantially reduced. Where practicable it is proposed to construct houses in groups of Between 50 and 100.

Mr Sheehy:

– Will the Minister consult with his departmental officers in the States in order to ascertain who are the most suitable builders to undertake group construction ?

Mr LEMMON:

– Tenders are usually called for group construction. In some, instances no difficulty is experienced in obtaining suitable tenders. If ho suitable tenders are received the department approaches firms of good repute with whom it has made contracts over a period of years in an endeavour to induce them to undertake the work on a cost plus fixed fee basis. This procedure must be resorted to because of the unusual circumstances that exist to-day.

The Government believes that in order to ensure the success of the scheme it is necessary that the Minister should have power to acquire materials. Essential ingredients of cheapness of construction are a continuity of supplies of building materials and. a reasonable standard of specifications. The New South Wales Government has recently decided to build 90,000 homes during the next three years. !’ compliment it upon that ambitious pro* gramme and trust- that it will be achieved. Such a programme will make heavy demands upon available building materials in New South Wales, and unless power is given to acquire materials in that State the War Service Homes Commission would be left with nothing with which to carry on its building programme. I assure honorable members that this power of acquisition will not be used ruth lessly, but with due regard to the requirements of all Users of building materials.

There seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to the provisions of this bill. The honorable member for Balaclava Said that other than ex-servicemen will ill future be employed in administration of war service homes, whereas that work was formerly carried out exclusively by ex-servicemen.

Mr White:

– I referred to the Commonwealth Public Service Bill under which the War Service Homes Commission became a directorate within the department administered by the Minister.

Mr LEMMON:

-I was under the impression that the honorable member was referring to the bill now before the House.

I desire to correct a misstatement made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) regarding the number of war service homes constructed during the last twelve months. The honorable gentleman Said that barely 100 homes had been completed. That is untrue. Having regard to the fact that industry is only now being geared up for civil production, the Government’s record is one of which it may well be proud. The Labour Government has built On the average 300 times as many homes as Were constructed by anti-Labour governments in the years between the termination of World War I. and 194.0.

Mr White:

– The annual report of the War Service Homes Commission discloses that only 109 war Service homes were built in 1945.

Mr LEMMON:

– Since the end of World War II. 341 War Service homes have been constructed and 2,189 homes have been allocated to ex-servicemen under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In the period when building tradesmen were walking the streets of this country, trying to exist on the dole because they could not find employment, when building materials were plentiful, governments led by honorable members opposite constructed a total of only 1,000 homes. During the last year an antiLabour government was in office only two war service homes were constructed.”

Mr White:

– .Under the regime of the Labour Government in 1944 not even one war service home was constructed.

Mr LEMMON:

– At that time tho Japanese were on our very doorstep.

The honorable member for .Swan (Mr. Hamilton) endeavoured to draw a comparison between the war service homes scheme in New Zealand and that in operation in this country. I remind the honorable member that the housing position should be very much better in New Zealand than it is in Australia because New Zealand industries were not disrupted by the war as were industries in this country. What contribution did New Zealand make in arms and munitions to the African campaign ? Generally, the people of New Zealand continued to lead normal lives during the whole of the course of World War II. The statutebook of New Zealand contains no such enactment as the War Service Homes Act.

Mr Hamilton:

– I am aware of that.

Mr LEMMON:

– The honorable member made great claims for the virtues of another Labour Government in New Zealand. If a comparison between the war service homes schemes in the two dominions is to be made, let us remember that in many cases the widows of Australian ex-servicemen pay in rental for their homes no more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week. Responsibility for the balance is borne by the nation. These benefits are derived from the provisions of the War Service Homes Act.

Reference has also been made to the payments made to 1 the War Service Homes Insurance Trust Account. The War Service Homes Commission administers an insurance scheme covering all war service homes in respect of which some indebtedness remains. .The premiums charged are 50 per cent, less than those charged by insurance companies.

Mr Hamilton:

– The Minister is, I trust, not hoping to make a profit on insurance.

Mr LEMMON:

– Not at all. I am merely indicating that if the commission can operate successfully an insurance scheme on such low rates of premiums the insurance companies must be making very handsome profits.

The honorable member for Bourke said that because of the tightening up of the specifications for war service horner some contractors would not submit tenders. It is true that there has been some difficulty in that regard. After the termination of World War I. the commission found that a great many of the homes erected for ex-servicemen were “ jerry built”, and in consequence the provisions of the specifications were considerably tightened up. It may be that in order to prevent “ jerry building “ the commission has been over cautious. That is merely an administrative matter which will be examined in due course. The honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) referred to the construction of war service homes in country areas. As a farmer and having lived in the country practically all my life, I know the extra cost involved in periodical inspections of a home under construction in country areas by qualified architects. I am sure that we shall be able to work out in the department a scheme for a flat rate to cover all administrative fees of architects in such cases. Another approach will be the preparation of a reasonable number of standard specifications. As the construction of war service homes has been taken over by the Department of Works and Housing, in which it is proposed that there shall be a separate directorate of war service homes, greater progress in the construction of those homes ought to be possible than would have been possible had the War Service Homes Commission remained the constructing authority, because, whereas the organization of that commission was limited, the department, which faces a huge constructional programme for years to come, has a wide range of architects and engineers and an organization spread over the Commonwealth. That organization will be used to provide services in country areas.

Mr White:

– The Housing Commission of Victoria has a panel of architects. Does the Minister intend to have anything of that kind? It would be helpful.

Mr LEMMON:

– I am not keen on panels and committees. The best committee, is a committee of three, with two absent and the third left to himself to get the work done.

Mr.White. - He would be a Hitler.

Mr LEMMON:

– That may be, but the man working alone carries the responsibility and has no one else to blame. I regard panels as a good means of avoiding what one does not want to do. I am not saying that that applies to the honorable gentleman’s suggestion.

Mr White:

– I suggested a panel of professional men.

Mr LEMMON:

– I can only repeat that I. am not keen on panels. An exserviceman may employ a private architect if he so desires. That was the position previously and it remains unchanged. In addition to the increased financial assistance provided for in the bill, we plan to let contracts for the construction of houses in big lots. Thereby we shall obtain cheaper houses and a greater number.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Definitions).

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.-I oppose this clause.I do not believe that we shall have a better system of building war service homes under the proposal advanced by the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon). The War Service Homes Commission and staff have done a good job, and I pay a welldeserved tribute to the Commissioner and his officers. This clause does away with the War Service Homes Commissioner, for it provides -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the definition of “ The Commissioner “ and inserting in its stead the following definition : - “ ‘ The Director ‘ means the Director of War Service Homes appointed for the purposes of this Act, and includes any person for the time being performing the duties of the office of Director of War Service Homes; “.

The functions of the commission are to be transferred to the Department of Works and Housing. I object to that, because that department has in front of it, a programme so gigantic, according to the plans for major public works that were prepared during the war and soon after the war, on which little or nothing has been expended so far, that war service homes will be lost in the scramble and will not be built. However great may be the desire of the Minister for Works and Housing to ensure the erection of war service homes, the scheme is not in the best interests of ex-servicemen. The Minister would be wise to reflect before proceeding with this proposal. In another piece of legislation, the Government took the first step to dismember the War Service Homes Commission when it placed the commission under the authority of the Public Service Board and thereby threw the department open to recruitment from any branch of the Public Service, regardless of whether the recruits have had war service, whereas, formerly, that department was a close preserve for ex-servicemen. This bill completes the process, because it makes possible the transfer of the commission’s staff from war service homes projects to all sorts of other projects under the control of the Department of Works and Housing. The only people who will benefit from this proposal, if it is enacted, will be the officers of that department as distinct from those now associated with war service homes. The War Service Homes Commission could have continued and should have been allowed to continue the excellent service it has rendered to exservicemen since World War I. All inquiries into the administration of the War Service Homes Department have established that the commission employs a faithful and efficient staff, whose sympathies, mirroring those of the War Service Homes Commissioner himself, have steadfastly supported the claims of the ex-servicemen. The Parliament should pay a tribute to the Commissioner and his staff for the splendid services they have rendered.

Contrasting with the wonderful record of the War Service Homes Commission, I direct the attention of honorable members to the neglect of the Minister for Works and Housing and his predecessor as Minister in charge of War Service Homes (Mr. Lazzarini), to ensure the availability of the materials without which a housing programme cannot be carried out. The report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission told the Minister quite clearly that it was his task to go out and get materials, but he has neglected to do so. The report has been ignored. The former Minister in charge of War Service Homes, said clearly that he had no doubt that he would be able and had, in fact, got all materials necessary to build homes and furniture. The New South Wales branch of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction gave an assurance that it would have no difficulty in ensuring the supply of bricks. Yet the erection of war service homes, as well as homes generally, is held up because of the lack of bricks, timber and all the materials specified in the Commonwealth Housing Commission’s report as being essential prerequisites to a housing scheme. The Government will not ensure the erection of homes by destroying the organization that has built about 22,000 war service homes. The transfer of the control exercised by the War Service Homes Commission to the Department of Works and Housing will bring about the destruction of the goodwill and the experience of the commission’s officers, whose usefulness will be dissipated in the Department of Works and Housing. The principle is wrong andI am entirely opposed to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power to require delivery of goods).

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– This clause deals with the acquisition of materials for home-building. Has anything been done to importtimber from overseas?

Mr Lemmon:

– Yes, timber is being imported continually. That matter is being watched closely by the Controller of Timber.

Mrs Blackburn:

– In large quantities? Mr. LEMMON. - As much as we can get.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I regard this provision as the crux of the whole bill. If this proposed new section fails - I hope that it will not - the whole bill must fail. This is the provision which will enable the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) to acquire materials required in the erection of homes. It reads -

After section sixteen a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “16b. - (1.) The Minister may, by order in writing, require any person who deals in goods, or has goods in his possession, to deliver to the Director, or to some other person specified in the order, at such place as is specified in the order such of those goods, or such quantities of those goods, as are so specified, and within such period or at such times, and in such manner (if any), as are so specified.

When I directed certain questions to the Minister, he replied that the Commonwealth did not control land in the States. In other words, land is vested not in the Commonwealth but in the States. Under this bill the Minister will take power to acquire land and building materials for war service homes. It is in respect of the materials that I place my hope and confidence in the Minister doing the correct thing. In other circumstances I would not have manifested great pleasure in this bill. I would share the anxieties which the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson) expressed when he said that this law must be administered with great discretion and some discrimination. I agree that that is so. Generally, I do not like the thought that owners of goods may be dragooned into supplying them to the Minister whenever he may so require. However, all honorable members agree that ex-servicemen must be provided with homes. Some ex-servicemen are in such dire need that they are inclined to pay the price demanded for a dwelling. I congratulate them on their ability to do so.

Usually I do not accord my unqualified pleasure to a provision of this description, because the owner of goods might be dragooned into parting with them. In view of all the circumstances, I approve of this proposed new section, but I hope that the Minister will exercise his authority with discretion and discrimination in acquiring land and building materials. He must use his powers effectively but justly. Finally, I hope that he will obtain all the building materials that are required for the erection of urgently needed war service homes.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I share the hopes of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) and the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson). This proposed new section is the crux of the bill. Under this provision the Minister is taking powers to acquire building materials of all kinds. I direct attention to the definition of “goods”- goods ‘ means articles, substances or commodities which, in the opinion of the Minister, are required for the purposes of this Act”.

I ask the Minister, and I want him to answer the question without equivocation, to inform me whether he will be able to acquire the materials owned by a private builder ?

Mr Lemmon:

– Under this legislation the Minister could acquire these materials if he were silly enough to attempt to do so.

Mr WHITE:

– Although the Minister may seek to conceal the true position, the fact remains that he will have power, under this bill, to acquire the materials owned by a private builder. Unless this power is exercised wisely, it will be the most totalitarian act that the Government has yet attempted. The Government possessed these powers in war-time, but built comparatively few homes. At that time it did not acquire building materials. Now, nearly two years after the cessation of hostilities, the Government intends to embark upon a policy which will lead to a tug-o’-war between the Commonwealth and’ the States for building materials. For example, the New South Wales Housing Commission requires building materials for the construction of homes, and the Commonwealth will require them for the erection of war service homes. A tussle will develop between the Department of Works and Housing and private builders and merchants for the possession of materials. The powers which this bill will confer upon the Minister are extremely wide.

Mr Sheehy:

– Is the honorable member perturbed ?

Mr WHITE:

– No, but I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Batman. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy), who has been a builder, must realize the possibilities offered by this provision.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr WHITE:

– This clause is very farreaching, and I question whether it is necessary to give the Minister the power which it provides. We should be seeking to lift controls rather than to increase them. The natural corollary of controls is black markets. Proposed new section 16b, which is embodied in this clause, reads in part - (1.) The Minister may, by order in writing, require any person who deals in goods, or has goods in his possession, to deliver to the Director, or to some other person specified in the order, at such place as is specified in the order such of those goods, or such quantities of those goods, as are so specified, und within such period or at such times, mid in such manner (if any), ns are “o specified.

That is a most comprehensive power, the use of which could do a considerable amount of damage. The provision continues - (2.) Upon service of an order under this section, the person to whom the order is directed shall, to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the order, give priority, over all other business in which that person is engaged, to the delivery of the goods specified in the order.

That also is very far-reaching in its effect. The definition of “ goods “ is far-reaching in effect. It would permit the Minister to take possession of goods in any warehouse, shop or timber yard. The forms which will need to be furnished in order to comply with this clause will involve business firms in a great deal of extra clerical work, for the proposed new sub-section 8 also provides -

The Minister may, by notice in writing, direct any person who deals in or has in his possession any goods to produce to an officer authorized for the purpose by the Minister any books, papers, accounts or documents of any description specified in the notice relating to the cost of goods, or to stocks of goods, and to permit the officer so authorized to take copies of or extracts from any such books, papers, accounts or documents.

That is comprehensive to an extraordinary degree. In effect, the enactment of this clause will enable the Minister to oblige any storekeeper, merchant or warehouseman to furnish complete stock sheets. If the Government takes possession of all the goods available for building purposes ordinary people will find it utterly impossible to carry on their operations. Fears have been expressed by honorable members on both sides of the chamber that there may possibly be abuse of these powers. If the powers are wisely used it may be all right; but I remind honorable gentlemen that dictators are always, at first, planners. The wide powers which the Government is now seeking were not needed during the period between the two world wars. I remind honorable gentlemen also that, according to the annual report of the War Service Homes Commission for the year ended June, 1946, a total of 21,488 houses have been built during that time, but during this year, so far as we know, only 106 houses have been completed, though others are being constructed. Honorable members on this side of the chamber have warned the Government many times during the last three years that when the war ended it would be submerged in applications for dwellings for ex-servicemen. During that period it should have taken steps to accumulate reserves of materials for home construction, so that when the demand occurred it could be met; but nothing of that kind was done. I ask whether the enactment of this clause is not likely to make confusion worse confounded. The Department of Supply and Shipping is not functioning effectively. During the last two years, for example, gas has been rationed one day in every five in Melbourne because coal has not been available. I ask the Minister to indicate in some specific way why these powers are necessary. I wish the honorable gentleman success in his administration. He is a young Minister, and he has taken on a big job; but it will serve no good purpose for us to remain quiet and not point out to him tho magnitude of the task that confronts him.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– The attitude of the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) has amazed me. The honorable gentleman has advocated, in season and out of season, the claims of ex-servicemen for consideration and preference, yet on this occasion, when the Government is proposing a measure that will ensure preference for ex-servicemen in relation to war service homes, he is objecting to it. We consider that the Minister should have power to ensure that first preference will be given in building materials for the construction of war service homes.

Mr White:

– What I said was: Will this scheme work?

Mr THOMPSON:

– I give the honorable member credit for the interest he takes in the welfare of ex-servicemen, but on this issue he has gone back to the old argument that private individuals should be protected and relieved of all controls. I do not know whether the honorable gentleman has been in Canberra for so long that he is unaware of the housing situation in the capital cities, and of the acute shortage of materials for building purposes. About three years ago when the Commonwealth Government lifted its controls over building materials even the Liberal Government of South Australia found it necessary, in the interests of progress, to institute a system of control to replace the one that had been removed, and legislation was placed on the statue-book of the State which gave the Government power to declare any building material. The materials so declared were thereafter obtainable only on the production of priorities. Because of the procedure that was adopted in South Australia the South Australian Housing Trust has been assured of a substantial percentage of the available building materials. The State government protected the interests of returned servicemen, for 70 per cent, of the houses available through the housing trust for renting, and 100 per cent, of the houses available for sale are reserved for exservicemen. Honorable members of this Parliament have adopted the attitude that everything possible should be done to help ex-servicemen. We rightly consider that men who were away On service and were unable to do anything at all in those years to provide housing for themselves and their families should be given a preference. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that they shall have such a preference. The honorable member for Balaclava should he consistent. He has asked whether this provision will work. 1 have some knowledge of affairs in the building trade and of housing generally. I did not speak during the second-reading debate because I knew that time was pressing, but I remind honorable members of the contents of the report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission, paragraphs from which the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) quoted some days ago. If we do not take steps io ensure that materials shall be available for the building of war service homes we may be sure that there will be a lag in the construction of such homes. For that reason I submit that we should support this clause and do everything possible to enable the Minister to carry out the important duties that have been entrusted to him. Unless this clause is approved I fear that certain sections of the community may enjoy an undue advantage. Any advantage should lie with those who are entitled to war service homes. The enactment of this clause will undoubtedly help in the construction of war service homes. We have passed legislation to enable ex-servicemen to secure homes at a low interest rate and upon easy repayment terms. A duty rests with us, therefore, to make sure that materials will be available for the construction of the homes. For this purpose som» measure of government control of materials is absolutely essential. If materials for war service homes are mad<“> available by manufacturers in a reasonable way the powers provided in this clause will not need to be exercised. But the Minister must be put in a position to say to manufacturers, “If you are not prepared to make a reasonable proportion of your products available for the construction of war service homes we shall be obliged to acquire the materials by compulsion “. This clause is necessary in the interests of ex-service men and women.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– No honorable member of this Parliament is so adept as the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) in drawing red herrings across the trail of debate. He has extraordinary facility in twisting the verbiage of honorable members on this side of the chamber and putting a wrong construction upon their words in order to support the steamroller tactics of the Government. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy), who has an intimate knowledge of the building trade, saw fit to criticize some provisions of this bill, and I listened to him on this subject with more confidence than I did to the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The principle behind this clause is most dangerous. I am perfectly certain that no honorable member can direct attention to any legislation which contains a provision so farreaching as this. If we were not staggering towards the close of a sessional period this would be the theme of a full dress debate. Of course, we who sit on this side of the chamber are concerned about the provision of war service homes for those who need them, and of other houses for ex-servicemen who do not want to come under the war service homes scheme, as well as for the public generally. But this proposed new section seeks to give to the Minister complete power to acquire whatever material he may need, no matter to what purpose it may be devoted. The Labour Premier of New South Wales, in the policy-speech that he delivered recently, promised that 90,000 homes would be built in that State in three years. I shrug my shoulders when I hear such astronomical figures mentioned. He said that 50 per cent, or more of those homes would be made available to ex-servicemen who made application for them. The honorable member for Hindmarsh says, “ Away with that 50 per cent, of ex-servicemen. We are not concerned about them. Because we have a war service homes scheme, we propose to take the material that may be used to build homes for them, and, if necessary, use it for the building of war service homes, or, alternatively, force them to come into the war service homes scheme if they wish to have a home built for them “. I know of no other power, except the Defence power under which the Government can practise acquisition as it proposes to do under this bill. The Defence Act was designed for the specific purpose of the defence of this country. What happens under it? When the Government decides to acquire land for any purpose, and uses the power conferred by the Lands Acquisition Act, it has to pay a fair and just price to the owner of it. How often have honorable members drawn attention to the Government having acquired land which has cost the owner hundreds of pounds, and who has been paid only £25 for it? Sub-section 1 of the proposed new section 16b reads -

Tie Minister may, by order in writing, require any person who deals in goods - -

Such a man was the object of the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, who said that a person who held building supplies should be forced by the Government to make them available- or has goods in his possession, to deliver to the Director, or to some other .person specified in the order, at such place as is specified in the Order such of those goods, or such quantities of those goods, as are so specified, and within such periods or at such times, and in such manner (if any), as are so specified.

I can readily visualize a builder who has taken a contract for the construction of a number of homes dealing in goods or having in his possession a sufficient quantity of the necessary building materials to execute that contract. Under this proposed new section the Minister will be empowered to say to him, “ I desire the goods that you have in your possession. I requisition them, and you must hand them over.”.

Mr Lemmon:

– Provided the Government pays just compensation.

Mr HARRISON:

– Honorable members will note that the Lands Acquisition Act contains similar terms. A man who has spent hundreds of pounds on goods may receive only £25 for them because that is the just price placed on them by the Government.

Mr Barnard:

– Does not the honorable gentleman want the Government to have power to build homes for ex-servicemen ?

Mr HARRISON:

– The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) relinquished the administration of war service homes, and is ill-advised to intrude in this debate. Sub-section 3 of the proposed new section provides -

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, upon delivery of any goods in pursuance of an order under this section, the goods shall become the property of the Director, freed from all interests, charges or encumberances which were, prior to that delivery, vested in any person.

What will happen to the persons whose homes have been half completed and who have an interest in the goods ? When the Minister has acquired their building materials they may receive payment of just compensation. The person to whom the order has been directed is to be required to furnish in writing to the Minister the name and address of every person who, to his knowledge, had an interest in the materials acquired. Sub-section 4 of the proposed new section provides -

The Director shall pay just compensation to any person who delivers goods in pursuance of an order made under this section and to any person who had, at the time when the goods were delivered, an interest in those goods.

Sub-section 5 provides -

The amount of any just compensation for the purposes of this section shall be such amount as is determined by agreement or, in default of agreement, by action against the director in any court of competent jurisdiction.

There is no reference to the payment of a fair market value for the goods acquired, and no .mention of the original cost of the goods. The Government may acquire the goods and say to the holder of them, “ We will fix a price which we consider a just price “. When land is acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act, a dissatisfied owner is told, “You can go to the court and sue us”. We all know to what lengths litigation is likely to be stretched when claims are made against a government. A government is not likely to be defeated in a court of minor jurisdiction. There are many examples of its having taken the matter to the Privy Council when it has been defeated. It would be a sorry day for any unfortunate man whose material had been acquired if he dared to challenge the Government on the fairness of the price paid to him. That is why we are opposing this proposed new section. The question is not whether war service homes should be provided for exservicemen. A vital principle is involved. Honorable members opposite, who have socialistic leanings, have always wanted to embody it in legislation, but up to now have not been courageous enough to do so. The measure containing it is brought down in the dying hours of a sessional period, the Government hoping that it would not be noticed. A. very dangerous precedent is likely to be established. We could under stand the Government taking powers of this nature in times of war. But we are no longer at war, although honorable members opposite, in their desire to retain controls, are indulging in a pipe dream which makes them believe that the war is still with us. We are in the days of peace. Why does not the Government let contracts for the construction of war service homes and leave it to the builders to obtain the necessary materials? That principle has always been followed in the past. The production of building materials should be encouraged. The Government has to answer the charge of having failed to release men from the forces to manufacture tiles and to fell timber in sufficient time to enable it to be seasoned and ready when homes had to be built. Bricks and other accessories should have been manufactured in quantities large enough to enable stocks to be built up. Men should have been released long before they were, so that homebuilding essentials could be produced rapidly. The Government failed to do that, and is now faced with a market that is in short supply. When the Premier of New South Wales promised that 90,000 homes would be built in three years he knew full well that the materials for their construction were not available.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden

– The most significant words in the remarks that have just been addressed to the committee by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) were that the war is now over and that what has to be done in time of war need not be done now that peace has returned. The opponents of this proposal are objecting to the translation into action of the promises that were made during time of war as to what would be done for the servicemen when they returned to civilian life. We all can remember that, during the struggle, it was frequently said that everything that we had we possessed because of the efforts of those who were defending Australia. It was said that when the men returned nothing should be left undone to re-establish them in civil life. Now, as the honorable member for Wentworth said, the war is over and, therefore, the rights of property suddenly becomes extremely important again, and the promises made to servicemen become of little consequence. In this provision we have an opportunity to ensure that materials for the building of houses for ex-servicemen shall he acquired when needed, and those who raise their voices against it are placing the rights of property above the rights of every other section of the community.

Mr TURNBULL:
Wimmera

– In my second-reading speech I said that I hoped that provision would he made in the bill to obtain materials for the building of war service homes. I am against controls in general, but I believe that it is necessary to take action to obtain timber for home building. There is a lot of black marketing in timber at the present time, and the Government should do what is necessary to obtain the timber that it requires. I support the clause.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) charged the Government with using a great deal of building material on public works. He did not name the particular works-

Mr White:

– I can name them now. They include buildings for the Prices Branch in Canberra, and substantial buildings at Tottenham.

Mr LEMMON:
ALP

– The only buildings of any consequence now being constructed for the Commonwealth Government, in which materials suitable for housing are used, are repatriation hospitals, and my department will continue to use materials for that purpose.

The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) accused the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) of drawing red herrings across the trail, but he himself made many efforts to do that very thing. Indeed, one of his principal statements was entirely untrue. He said that, under this clause, the Minister might, for any reason whatever, acquire materials. That statement is not true. The clause provides that materials may be acquired for the purposes of this act, and the purpose of the act is to build war service homes. Starting from that false premise, the honorable member loosed a flood of diatribe. Moreover, the honorable member was obviously insincere. For instance, section 16 of the

War Service Homes Act 1918-1935 states - (1.) Subject to this act, any private land, or; with the consent of the Minister, any land being Crown land of a State, road or land which has been dedicated, reserved, or set apart for any public or other purpose, whether by any State or by any private person, and whether or not such land is vacant or has dwelling-houses or other buildings already erected thereon, may be acquired by the Commissioner for the purposes of this act.

That provision is already in the principal act that was introduced by the Government which was supported by the honorable member for Wentworth. Only one important factor was omitted, namely, materials. This clause is a test of the sincerity of honorable members opposite. Are they willing to concede this power to the Government so that it may checkmate the black marketeers, and acquire at a just price the materials necessary to build houses for ex-servicemen?

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- All the vehemence of the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) does not make his statements true. We question whether the scheme for the acquisition of materials will work. That is the issue. I pointed out that 20,000 war service homes were built under the contract system, many of the contractors being themselves ex-servicemen. Now, the Government proposes to sweep them aside, and seize building materials in its usual bureaucratic way in the belief that it can do the job better than the contractors could. Ever since I returned to Australia in 1943, I have been asking questions in this House about the building of war service homes. I do not want to say, “ I told you so “, but I point out that when I asked a previous Minister in charge of war service homes why more homes were not being built I was told that materials were not available. I said that the Government hadbeen wasting building materials over a number of years. To-night the Minister twisted my words by making it appear that I had said that the Government was wasting building materials to-day. I remind the Government, however, that during the war, two power alcohol distilleries were constructed, one of them in the electorate of the then honorable member for Wimmera, Mr. Wilson, who is now

Administrator of Norfolk Island. The cost was £1,500,000 and that distillery has never produced a pint of power alcohol.

Mr Lemmon:

– The construction of the distilleries was authorized by the Government which the honorable member himself supported.

Mr WHITE:

– The distilleries were constructed by a Labour Government. This Government also constructed an aluminium rolling mill at a cost of £500,000, and the other day it was sold for a few thousand pounds. During the war, the Government spent £7,500,000 trying to manufacture tanks, but never succeeded in making one that would work. It embarked upon the manufacture of Webley pistols, and turned out a few inefficient weapons at an average cost of £250 each. Those are examples of maladministration by the Government. Therefore, it is wicked for the Government to introduce legislation designed to take the building of war service homes out of the hands of private contractors. It is also wrong for the Minister to twist my words in order to suggest that I, and other honorable members on this side of the House, are opposed to the building of war service homes. Other examples of the Government’s extravagant use of building materials are the construction at Tottenham and Broadmeadows of great stores costing £520,000 during the last two years of the war, and the construction of a building for the Prices Branch in Canberra to house members of the ever-growing bureaucracy, which numbers 100,000 more now than at the beginning of the war. Authority is now being sought to spend millions of pounds on the construction of additional offices in Canberra. Let us consider for a moment the miserable record of the present Government. During 1944, when materials and labour were available, no war service homes were built. In the last report of the War Service Homes Commission it is stated that there are on the list 14,456 applications for war service homes, yet only 106 houses were built by that department last year. If the Government proposal for the acquisition of building materials will work, good luck to it, but before I will be convinced I must have more evidence than has yet been forthcoming.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Total cost of dwelling-house).

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.- When I was speaking on the motion for the second-reading of the bill, I said that, under the New Zealand home settlement scheme, money was advanced at 2 per cent, for the first year, and at 1 per cent, thereafter. I also said that the Commonwealth Bank-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not entitled to discuss interest rates, but only the amount that can be advanced.

Mr White:

– I rise to order. The clause refers to the amount which may be advanced, and the money is advanced at interest. Surely, therefore, the honorable member is in order in referring to interest rates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may refer briefly to the terms upon which advances are made.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I thank you, sir. The amount of the advance is increased in this clause from £1,250 to £1,750 in order to cover increased building costs, and the borrower is required to pay interest at the rate of 3f per cent. In my second-reading speech, I pointed out that another government instrumentality advanced money at 2^ per cent. I now ask the Minister to give to ex-servicemen the right to borrow money on the same favorable terms as other persons enjoy.

Mr Lemmon:

– I will examine the matter with a view to seeing what can be done about the rate of interest.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Sale of dwelling-houses).

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– In the principal act power is given to the Commissioner to require larger deposits from country applicants than from city applicants. What is the respective position of country and city applicants under this clause? Is it proposed that initial deposits will be uniform?

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– In respect of advances in excess of £1,250 the deposit required will be 5 per cent, of the amount of the advance. In respect of advances of less than £1,250 the commission has authority to fix the deposit at 3 per cent, or 4 per cent, of the amount of the advance. In this respect, country dwellers will be placed in the same position as city dwellers.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Maximum advance).

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- Under this clause the maximum advance for homes bought on mortgage is to be increased from £1,250 to £1,500, whereas the maximum advance in respect of advances under the rent purchase system is £1,750. I am aware that the maximum advance will not always be granted, but I am unable to understand why a differential increase should be provided in this clause. An applicant who obtains an advance to build his own home may employ his own architect and thus have to meet greater initial expenditure. In addition, he may have purchased the land some years earlier at a high value and thus be placed at a disadvantage as compared with the purchaser of a house in a group settlement. The maximum advance should surely be made uniform.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– In bringing forward this bill the Government desired to amend the principal act in such a way as to meet present difficulties. In order to ensure that there would not be a monotonous uniformity in group settlements - that the houses would not be as alike as peas in a pod - it was decided that as many variations of design and size as possible should be permitted. Some ex-servicemen may desire more costly forms of construction than others. For that reason the maximum advance was raised to £1,750. It is not desired that all homes constructed should be of that value. In Western Australia homeconstruction costs are lower than in other States. In Western Australia a house of an excellent type can be constructed for from £.1,000 to £1,100. In South Australia, a similar house would probably cost £1,200. Costs in Victoria are somewhat higher, the highest costs being in New South Wales. In view of these circumstances, the Government decided to raise the maximum amount of the advance to £1,750. There was no necessity for increasing the maximum advance for mortgage purchase because that would not in any way contribute to better or cheaper forms of construction. The Government, however, thought that it would be an added advantage to those who employ private contractors, and perhaps engage their own architects, if provision were made to increase the maximum amount of the advance for such purposes.

Mr.White. - The Minister is being less generous to the individual who has to employ his own architect than to one who is prepared to accept a mass production house. I appeal to him to reconsider his decision.

Mr LEMMON:

– The Government is not being less generous to those who desire to employ their own architect. When this bill becomes law, any private individual purchasing a war service home on the rent-purchase or mortgage system, which is the main basis of the act, may obtain an advance up to £1750.

Mr White:

– That is not provided for in the clause.

Mr LEMMON:

– If an ex-serviceman desires to employ his own architect, the commission will lend him up to £1,750 provided he has the requisite deposit. If he desires to secure a lump sum mortgage, he is entitled only to £1,500.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.

New clause 4a.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– I move -

That, after clause 4, the following new clause be inserted: - “4a. After section four of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part 1.:- 4a. - (1.) The Director may, in his discretion, treat an eligible person and the wife or husband of that eligible person together as an eligible person for the purposes of this Act, and any reference in this Act to an eligible person shall be read as including a reference to a husband and wife with whom the Director proposes to enter, or has entered, into any transaction in accordance with this sub-section. (2.) Any such husband and wife shall be jointly and severally liable to fulfil the obligations of an eligible person, purchaser or borrower under this Act. (3.) The Director shall not apply this section in relation to any land, or land and dwellinghouse, if the land, or land and dwellinghouse, is or are owned or proposed to be owned by the eligible person and his or her wife or husband otherwise than as joint tenants. (4.) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, so long as any land, or laud and dwelling-house, owned or being purchased by a husband and wife as joint tenants is subject to a contract of sale, mortgage or other security in accordance with this Act, a transfer, conveyance, assignment or surrender of any interest or share of that husband or wife in the land or land and dwelling-house shall not have any force or effect unless it is made with the consent in writing of the Director. (5. ) Where a husband and wife together purchase or borrow under this Act, the powers of the Director under section thirty-three of this Act may be exercised as against both of them if either of them becomes bankrupt or insolvent or if the interest of either of them in the land or dwelling-house is the subject of execution by a creditor.’.”.

The object of this amendment is to extend to eligible persons the opportunity to secure homes jointly with their wives or husbands as the case may be under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act. Existing provisions allow assistance to be granted only to the eligible person and precludes a wife or husband erecting or acquiring a home as joint tenants. Land owned jointly by an eligible person, and the wife or husband of that person as the case may be, must now be transferred to the name of the eligible person before assistance may be granted. The amendment proposed will remove this bar and permit the director to grant assistance to a husband and wife jointly.

Provision for assistance to be granted in this way has been requested by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, and individual applicants, and has also been advocated by the Law Institute of Victoria on behalf of eligible persons, as a reasonable method of assistance which encourages saving towards complete ownership by the husband and wife, each having a personal interest and the knowledge that the home will pass by survivorship. Proposed new sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed new section will give power to the director to grant assistance along the lines mentioned, and sub-section 4 will restrict transfer by either the wife or husband without the express consent of the director in writing.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I agree that the proposed new clause is necessary. However, it reopens the question as to who are eligible persons. Many eligible persons will apparently not be included in this provision. The clause should be redrafted specifically to provide that war widows shall be included as eligible persons. They are so included in the principal act, but administratively they are shut out if they cannot produce evidence that they possess a banking account which enables them to provide a substantial deposit for their homes. It is unfair to impose a means test on women who lost their husbands as the result of war service. Now is the time for the rectification of this anomaly.War widows without children receive a pension of only £2 15s. a week-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member is not. entitled to refer to war widows’ pensions.

Mr WHITE:

– The subject is referred to in the principal act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not referred to in the proposed new clause.

Mr WHITE:

– This new clause proposes to amend the principal act in which many references are made to eligible persons.. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the. necessity for specifically including war widows as eligible persons otherwise many children will continue to grow up in slums who might be decently housed in a war service home. The Parliament has no say in the administrative acts of the commission, and because of that this anomaly should be adjusted.

New clause agreed to.

New clause 6a.

Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP

– I move -

That, after clause 6, the following new clause he inserted: - “6a. After section, seventeen a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 17b. - (1.) The Director, or a person acting with the authority of, or in accordance with the terms of a contract with, the Director, shall not be bound, in or in connexion with the erection of a dwelling-house for the purposes of this Act, by any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth (including any by-law, ordinance or regulation of any local governing authority) relating to or affecting the building of houses.. (2.) Where a person has acquired the ownership of, or an interest in, any dwellinghouse erected for the purposes of this Act, that person shall not be liable under the provisions of any law referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section, to any action or proceeding, or to be disturbed in the enjoyment of his rights in respect of the dwelling-house, by reason, directly or indirectly, of the manner or circumstances in which the dwelling-house was originally erected. (3.) The Director shall not erect, or cause to be erected, a dwelling-house the erection of which would, apart from this section, be or involve a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any law referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section unless -

he considers it necessary so to do in order that homes may be provided expeditiously for eligible persons at prices which are within their means ; and

he has obtained a. certificate of a qualified architect certifying that, in his opinion, the proposed dwellinghouse, or dwelling-houses of the description of the proposed dwelling-house, will not be or are not detrimental to health or safety and will be or are substantial and durable.’.”.

This amendment is proposed principally for the purpose of giving to the Director power to erect homes which will conform to reasonable design and construction in any locality irrespective of whether such buildings may in some measure contravene the building ordinances adopted by local governing authorities. It is not expected that circumstances will arise which will require the extensive exercise of the power as it is hoped that local governing bodies will co-operate to the fullest extent in efforts which are made to bring about alleviation of the acute housing position. Nevertheless, it is desiraable that the Director should have the proposed power to ensure the full use of land acquired for purposes of homes for ex-servicemen which otherwise might remain vacant because of any law, including any by-law, ordinance or regulation of a State or local governing authority, restricting building to a specified form of construction. For example, in areas proclaimed by local government ordinances for brick construction only it may not be practicable to erect homes in brick because of cost or other considerations. On the other hand, it may be possible to provide homes of a different form of construction which would be comfortable and in conformity with good living standards at a. cost within the limits of the act and the ability of the ex-serviceman to pay.

The amendment is also for the purpose of enabling expedition in planning and erection of dwellings in groups. While the power sought will override that of local governing authorities, it will be used judiciously and only where it is found necessary in the interests of exservicemen to depart in some way from the standards of construction adopted by the different local governing bodies. Subclause 2 of the new clause protects the ex-serviceman or later purchaser against any action or proceedings subsequent to the erection of the home. Subclause 3 restricts the Director to the use of the power only when it is considered necessary to do so in order to provide homes expeditiously and to the erection of homes which are certified as being substantial and durable in construction and not detrimental to health or safety. Consider, for example, what might happen in relation to the Beaufort home, which embodies a new form of steel construction. Some local governing authorities with outmoded building laws may not permit houses of that type to be constructed within the areas under their control. Restrictions of that kind would constitute a definite deterrent to the success of the housing programme. As the result of research carried out at the Commonwealth experimental station, it has been proved that in varying climates an 8-ft. wall, properly ventilated, constitutes an ideal wall for home-construction purposes. Some local governing authorities, however, prescribe that walls of dwellings must not be of a height less than 10 feet. As time goes on and we get away from these old-fashioned prejudices, standard8-ft. wall with appropriate ventilation may be generally accepted. Because we want to be able to take advantage of all modern improvements in building construction it is desired that the powers sought in this clause be granted.

New clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3614

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1947

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

Clause 28- (1.) Schedules I., III., V. and VII. to the Principal Act are amended by omitting the words “First £52 Pension to Member; £26 to Widow” (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words “ First £65 Pension to Member; £32 10s.0d. to Widow”. (2.) Schedules II., IV., VI. and VIII. to the Principal Act are amended by omitting the figures “£52” (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the figures “£65”.

Senate’s Amendments. - Leave out “ First “ (twice occurring).

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

It was intended that the increase of rates effected by clause 28 of the bill should apply to all the rates specified in the respective schedules amended by this clause. By an oversight the clause has been so framed that the increases apply only to the rates in some columns of the schedules but not to the rates in all the columns in which the rates are set out. The amendments made in the Senate overcome this defect and it is recommended that the committee agree to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3614

UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1947

Bill returned from the GovernorGeneral with a message recommending anamendment.

In committee (Consideration of the Governor-General’s message) :

Governor-General’s recommended amendment. - After clause 1, insert the following new clause : - “1a. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.”.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment recommended by His Excellency the Governor -General be agreed to.

The bill contains no provision for fixing the date upon which it shall come into operation. Consequently sub-section 1a of section 5 of the Acta Interpretation Act applies. That sub-section provides - . . every Act . . . shall come into operation on the twenty-eighth day after the day on which that Act receives the Royal Assent unless the contrary intention appears in the Act.

The bill has passed both Houses, but its passage has taken rather more time than was expected. Consequently, if the provisions of the sub-section referred to arc allowed to operate, the bill cannot come into operation until after the 1st July, 1947. In consequence the authority to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund contained in the bill could be exercised only in respect of the revenue for the financial year 1947-48. This is opposed to the Government’s intention, which is that the money shall be a charge against the financial year 1946-47. The amendment proposed by the GovernorGeneral’s message will enable this situation to be corrected.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I do not want to be a carping critic about bills having to be returned to the Parliament by the Governor-General for rectification of a serious omission caused by careless drafting, but, doubtless the omission resulted from the Government’3 methods of placing a host of bills before honorable members and requiring their consideration in inadequate time, although, we know from experience that slipshod drafting frequently occurs, because of the haste with which the draftsmen have to work in order to keep pace with the Government’s legislative energy. Before the second-reading debate on one bill had been concluded the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) circulated nearly 50 amendments that he intended to move in committee. This is the second bill that has come back to us to-night for the repair of a drafting error. What else can we expect when measures are raced through the drafting office and then through the Parliament by the process of legislation by exhaustion. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that we shall be allowed more time to consider bills, and that when they reach us they shall be as nearly as human hands can make them in their final form as far as the Government is concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported ; resolution adopted.

page 3615

WAR GRATUITY BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th May (vide page 2990), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

.- This bill for an act to amend the War Gratuity Act 1945 will meet the general approval of honorable members. It contains three main provisions. Section 10 of the War Gratuity Act 1945 provides that service subsequent to the date twelve months after the cessation of hostilities shall not count for war gratuity. For the purpose of the act, the 2nd September. 1945, was proclaimed as the date of the cessation of hostilities. Under the act as it stands, therefore, service after the 2nd September, 1946, does not count for war gratuity. The Government subsequently decided that, having regard to the fact that general demobilization had not been completed at the 2nd September, 1946, the date of entitlement to gratuity should be extended until the forces had been established on a more or less postwar footing. The date selected was the 30th June, 1947, and the bill gives effect to that decision by inserting the words “ 30th June, 1947 “ in lieu of the words “ date twelve months after the cessation of hostilities” wherever they occur in the act.

The bill also provides for the amendment of section 27 to ensure that members serving at the 2nd September, 1946, or who re-enlisted subsequent to that date, shall not suffer any loss of interest on gratuity by reason of deferment of the date of entitlement to the 30th June. 1947.

There is an amendment to section 14 to make less restrictive the provision for a minimum of three years’ gratuity in the case of death when the member left persons totally dependent on him. In the act as it stands, the persons who might bc entitled to the benefit of this provision were widow or widower, child, parent, step-parent, foster-parent or dependant of the deceased member, provided that they were beneficially entitled under the will of the deceased to any part of his estate, or would, had the deceased died intestate, have been entitled to a share in the distribution of his intestate estate. The amendment proposed in the bill gives entitlement to persons of the specified relationship who were totally dependent on the member at the date of his death, but removes the restrictive provision relating to entitlement under the member’s will or under an intestacy. The removal of this restrictive condition follows the adoption by the Government of a suggestion from the Central War Gratuity Board that the amendment was necessary in order that certain deserving cases should not be deprived of the benefits of this section. Those amendments will, I think, be acceptable to all honorable members. I take this opportunity of suggesting some other ways in which the principal act might well be amended. I recently asked the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Treasurer, about the use of the war gratuity for the purchase of homebuilding blocks. The text of my question was as follows: -

Has the Treasurer .given consideration to the extension of section 22 of the War Gratuity Act, and the relevant regulations, in order to include ex-servicemen who desire to purchase blocks -of land for home-building but who, for obvious reasons, cannot proceed with building operations immediately? If not, will the Treasurer give consideration to this proposal 1 If he lias considered and rejected it, will Tie -explain the reasons for ‘his decision ?

The right honorable .gentleman said that if my suggestion were given effect the way would be open to racketeering. I would agree with him but for the safeguard that I propose. In every State there are land valuation boards, and I propose that no ex-servicemen should oe allowed to buy a home-building block without the value of that block having first Deen determined by the land valuation board. That would destroy any possibility of imposition on ex-servicemen or the payment of black-market prices. That would be sufficient safeguard against the machinations of unscrupulous land agents. I commend that suggestion to the attention of the Prime Minister. I agree that it is not an easy matter to widen the scope of the act, because once it is widened all sorts of abuses become possible, but I wish to place before the Prime Minister specific examples of ways in which it could be widened. The first concerns ex-servicemen who wish to invest in irrigation projects. Moat exservicemen have already spent their deferred pay, but wish now to make a good start in life. The Government could help them to do so, as I am sure it will, if it released to them their war gratuity to enable them to invest in those projects. The second example concerns the war gratuity of men who, for pertinent reasons, wish to settle abroad. They are not entitled to take their war gratuity out of the country. I regard that as a bad precedent. Any one who wishes to make his home in another country is entitled to do so. I do not think that he should be thus disqualified from the benefits of the cash value of the gratuity in whatever country he chooses to live. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that the provisions of the act should be relaxed in order to permit of the payment of the gratuity to ex-servicemen who desire to purchase machinery for their businesses. Any exserviceman who applies for a loan for this purpose is immediately referred to the Repatriation Department. In the States, agricultural loans are approved by prescribed authorities, namely, certain banks. In Tasmania, these applications are considered by the Agricultural Bank. Under section 91 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act, as defined ‘by directive No. 8, -an ex-serviceman who requires a loan must have been engaged in the business before he enlisted. That transfers the responsibility to the Repatriation Department, and emphasizes the necessity for paying, under certain conditions, the war gratuity before the due date. What I have said may appear to be anomalous, but that is the anomalous position in which the ex-serviceman is placed. The all-party parliamentary committee which was appointed to make recommendations regarding the payment of a war gratuity, examined the problem thoroughly. The act having “been passed, and tried in practice, could, with advantage, be re-examined now. We have had time to study the problems which have arisen since the bill was passed, and I urge the Prime Minister to re-appoint the committee, if only for a brief period, to re-examine the various matters which honorable members have raised. ‘The appropriate amendments of the act, which,

I believe, the committee would recommend, would be of great benefit not only to ex-servicemen, hut . also to the country as a whole.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- I support the statements of the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder). A certain degree of caution must be exercised in administering the war gratuity, and I do not need to describe the dangers attendant upon paying the gratuity prematurely. In principle, the act is sound, but the Government can be over-cautious. Definite cases of hardship should be examined by a competent body with a view to determining whether the money should be payable to them in advance. Tho Commonwealth Government, acting as trustee for hundreds of thousands of ex-servicemen. must ensure that the war gratuity to which they are entitled shall be used to the best advantage. Many sound projects demand additional capital, and this requirement can be met, in many instances, by the payment of the war gratuity before the due date. Some exservicemen need a little extra capital to assist them to establish their businesses on a sound basis. Where an exserviceman is able to show that he can manage his business competently and that it is sound, the Government, rather than allow him to borrow the additional amount, should authorize the payment of his war gratuity to him. He could use the money to better advantage at present than five years hence. The payment of the gratuity to him now might make just the difference in putting his business or home on a firm financial basis. If the gratuity is withheld and he struggles against financial difficulties for another five years, his gratuity, when paid, will be welcome, but will be received too late to be of the best possible benefit to him. If the gratuity were paid to him now, he could use the money to greater advantage. Several instances occur to my mind. For example, a builder requires additional capital, which his war gratuity would provide, so that he may acquire stocks of building materials for his business. If a man on a single-unit farm were paid his gratuity now, he could, by wise buying, put bis farm on a reasonably sound financial basis. What is required is a sympathetic administration, which will be empowered to decide each application on its merits. I agree that we must have certain definitions hut, on the other hand, the administration should not be too rigid. Some latitude should be allowed in order that each case may be considered carefully, and the facts weighed and decided on their merits. -

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- While I believe that the all-party parliamentary committee, which submitted the recommendations that form the basis of the War Gratuity Act, did an excellent job, and we have no serious complaints, certain anomalies have since arisen and require adjustment. I shall cite an example. I know of elderly parents who had three unmarried sons, and who, during World War II., enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force. The youngest was killed. He had made an allotment to his mother. During the war, the father died. The fact that the mother has a good home precludes her from obtaining the war gratuity now for the purpose of purchasing a house. Apart from the dwelling, she has only small assets. She is 71 years of age, and must wait for five years before she can receive the gratuity. . The two surviving sons, since they were discharged, have married. Although the mother Was not really dependent upon the youngest son, he would, if he had remained alive, have maintained her now. I have made representations on her behalf, but I am informed that the terms of the act preclude the gratuity being paid to hai’ before the due date. An amount of approximately £220 is involved. Possibly, she will not be alive five years hence when the gratuity becomes due. She is entitled to it. She is- the only person who has any claim to it. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) should relax the provisions of the act with a view to ensuring that the aged parents of deceased servicemen, to whom the war gratuity has been allotted, shall receive the money now.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- Under the act, the war gratuity will be payable in 1951, unless the applicant can show absolute destitution or extremely hard adverse circumstances which warrant his drawing the money in advance.

Lt is regrettable that this qualification is fo rigid, because a large number of exservicemen have excellent reasons for drawing the gratuity now. Perhaps they have families and desire to purchase furniture for their homes. Because they cannot prove destitution or extraordinary hardship, they are not able to draw the gratuity. So, in the briefest terms, I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) to consider the advisability of relaxing the existing conditions governing the payment of this money. Recently, I was informed that a man with three children was unable, through lack of capital, to furnish his house. His gratuity should be paid to him for this purpose. Under certain conditions, ex-servicemen should be permitted to draw the gratuity before the fixed date.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.- Some time ago, I directed the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) to the circumstances of an ex-serviceman to whom I consider the war gratuity should be paid now. A few days ago, the right honorable gentleman informed me that be had written to this ex-serviceman. The position is that he desires to purchase pumping equipment for a small farm which he had bought with all his available capital. He urgently requires his war gratuity now, but, under present conditions, is not eligible to receive it inadvance. Not a large number of exservicemen are in this category, and their claims should receive serious consideration. They will engage in primary production, which will be of advantage to the country. I do not recommend a complete relaxation of the conditions governing the payment in advance of the gratuity, because we do not desire a repetition of what occurred after World War I. In certain circumstances, however, the Treasury would be doing exservicemen and the country a service by allowing them to negotiate the war gratuity bonds now. In the specific instance which I have cited, the Treasurer suggested that the applicant should approach the Repatriation Department for assistance under the Re-establishment and Employment Act. Unfortunately, the department deals only with business loans. In Western Australia, exservicemen who require loans for agricultural purposes are required to apply to the prescribed authority, namely, the Rural Bank. When this ex-serviceman makes application to the prescribed authority, it must determine whether he is an eligible person. Sub-section 3 of section 91 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act sets out the qualifications necessary for one to be an eligible person. In addition, the prescribed authority considered that the definition was too wide, and, upon making representations to the Department of Postwar Reconstruction, received directive No. 8, to which I referred earlier this week, and which narrows the scope of the definition of “ eligible person “. It specifically stated that before any person became eligible to receive a loan he must satisfy the prescribed authority as to his need. Every person who had six months’ service could apply, but only those who had been engaged in a particular type of agriculture for six months before enlistment could obtain advances for that particular purpose. A poultry-farmer, for example, could not even transfer his activities to an apiary. The result is that a man in the middle twenties has absolutely no chance of obtaining money to increase the output of his property. I have previously mentioned the case of a poultry-farmer with a wonderful war record who was approved by the prescribed authority hut was refused a grant. That man could have increased the productivity of his property a great deal by the expenditure of a little money, but he could not obtain it.

I urge the Prime Minister to broaden the conditions governing the immediate payment of the gratuity so that the money may be used by men who, having become tired of waiting for land under the land settlement scheme of the Government, ha? expended all his own capital on a property and has then found himself greatly needing a little extra cash to bring the property into full production. Such men need to buy certain machinery, pumping outfits, and the like. In certain instances, when they have approached departmental officials, they have been advised to make an application for the war gratuity on certain grounds which, in fact, do not apply to. them. The majority of exservicemen do not desire to put their names to false statements of that description, [n all the circumstances, I urge the Government to investigate the matter, with the object of liberalizing the conditions so that men may be able to do more to rehabilitate themselves and to increase the productivity of their properties.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) will agree that valid reasons have been advanced by honorable members for the liberalizing of the conditions governing an immediate payment of war gratuity. To do so would not involve the Government in extra expense, for the money belongs not to the Government but to the returned men. If they need it they should be allowed to collect it. At present, it can be collected immediately only if the amount is less than £10, or if the person involved is blind, or totally or permanently incapacitated, or if he is of an age which qualifies him to receive the old-age pension, or if he needs medical attention, or if he is suffering from real and acute distress, or if the money is needed to acquire a home. I am aware, of course, that the conditions governing the payment of gratuity were recommended to the Government by an allparty committee. The committee did good work, but I believe that it would agree that since its recommendations were made conditions have changed considerably. The Opposition members of the committee are in favour of liberalizing the act. I asked the Prime Minister some questions on this subject some little time ago, and he was good enough to furnish me with a lengthy statement setting out all the conditions applicable to the payment of the gratuity. I regret, however, that some members of the Royal Australian Air Force, who were on service in London during the blitz, but who were not regarded as being actually on active service, do not seem to be eligible. I consider that the provision that members serving overseas who did not qualify for the full taxation concessions are not eligible for gratuity at the overseas rate in respect of such service outside Australia is unjust. These men served, it is true, in more or less static jobs, in supply positions, and the like, but they suffered all the terrors of the blitz over London and we all agree that London had its share of air attack. That is an anomaly which calls for remedy. Ex-servicemen who leave the country should also be allowed to collect their gratuity. I have in mind an exsoldier who left Australia to settle in Eire, but he had to leave his gratuity behind. It will be “ dead “ to him for some years. The case that has been submitted in favour of making the gratuity available for expenditure on improving the productivity of a property by the provision of irrigation and the like, is, in my opinion, unanswerable. Ex-servicemen should also be able to draw the gratuity in certain circumstances for the purchase of furniture. A man who is fortunate enough to obtain possession of an empty flat should be allowed to use his gratuity to buy furniture for it. Men who are heavily in debt should also be permitted to collect their gratuity. They should not be forced into the hands of moneylenders, who charge high rates of interest for any accommodation they give. I do not consider that the Government should be too ready in paying over the money, because the very object of deferred payment is to keep the money out of the hands of certain individuals who would relieve the ex-servicemen of it too quickly, but the parents of deceased soldiers should be allowed to collect the gratuity due to them. As the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) has said, in some instances these unfortunate parents may not have very long to live, and the money should be available to them to ease their declining years. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will ask the all-party committee to reconsider the whole subject and submit new proposals in regard to it.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I support the request of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) that the conditions governing the immediate payment of the war gratuity should be made more flexible. I do not blame the Government for taking precautions to prevent those entitled to the gratuity from spending it on wildcat schemes of one kind and another. We all know that after World War I., many unfortunate returned men were relieved of their gratuity almost as soon as they received it. For example, furniture was taken into their house and, two hours afterwards, it was taken out of another door. The Government was made aware of such circumstances, and it took action to prevent a recurrence of them ; but I consider that the conditions governing the immediate payment of the gratuity are, at present, too rigid. Exservicemen should be allowed to draw the money for expenditure on legitimate land schemes, irrigation projects and the like. Men suffering from medical disorders should also be able to collect their gratuity. Recently I submitted to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard), the case of a man in Darwin suffering from war neurosis, who desired to collect his gratuity. From what I have heard I fear that the departmental officials who were requested to investigate the case put this unfortunate man through a kind of third degree. This was most unfortunate. The man had served in the Middle East, he was in hospital for four months in 1942, for three or four months in 1943, and for some time in 1944. He wandered off into isolation in the Northern Territory where hospitals for the treatment of war neurosis, such as those in Bathurst, Orange and places in the south, are not available. I received a telegram only an hour ago from this man which was very direct in its terms. The stress of the man was shown, by the fact that he sent his telegram “ urgent, collect “, and it is not the habit of people in the Northern Territory to send telegrams in that way. The telegram read : “ No payment yet; must I die first”? I shall hand this telegram to the Minister for Repatriation and ask him to re-examine the case. I urge the Prime Minister to review the conditions governing the immediate payment of war gratuity in order to make them less rigid.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

in reply - The remarks of honorable members who have participated in this debate have clearly revealed the danger of removing certain restrictions at present governing the payment of war gratuity. Each honorable member who has spoken has suggested a liberalizing of conditions in a different way. The all-party com mittee which made recommendations to the Government on this subject included six returned soldiers. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), and the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. MacDonald) in particular, have interested themselves in repatriation matters for many years. The committee also had the invaluable experience of Senator Collett in helping it to reach its decisions. Senator Collett was formerly Minister for Repatriation and his experience in consequence of his administrative work in that connexion, and his association with ex-servicemen’s organizations for many years in Western Australia in particular, were of the utmost value: I believe that the honorable gentleman was president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in Western Australia for many years. He, and the other members of the committee, issued warnings against allowing the gratuity to be used for all sorts of purposes. It was represented to the committee that, after World War I., the value of the gratuity was very quickly lost to very many men who received it. The former Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) and I were guided, to a great degree, in our decisions on this subject by the valuable advice and experience of the gentlemen that I have mentioned. The desire of the Government was to ensure that the gratuity would not be wasted.

The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) referred to the purchase of land. I must confess that this business of selling blocks of land smells to high heaven, as far as I am concerned. We know that before controls were instituted during the war, many people who had a block of land which had lain idle, for 20 or 30 years in some cases, were anxious to sell and persons offering such blocks of land for sale made housetohouse calls in some areas in an endeavour to persuade the wives of exservicemen to buy the land at exorbitant prices.

Mr Falkinder:

– I said that the price should be determined by a properly constituted authority.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That is so, hut the business of policing the sale of blocks of land is extremely difficult. We all know that the argument is advanced by vendors that because a factory has been built on “ the opposite corner “, or a dog track has been opened in the neighbourhood, or some other such event has occurred, the land has suddenly increased in value about threefold. Reference has been made also to the desirability of making the gratuity available for the purpose of agriculture or irrigation. Other reasons advanced in support of applications for the payment of gratuity were, that it was needed for agricultural purposes, and to buy a motor car in order to follow the occupation of a commercial traveller or to sell a patent medicine from door to door in a certain district. A speedway rider wanted to buy a motor cycle, his argument being that he needed to engage in what was a part-time occupation. I could cite hundreds of ludicrous reasons that have been given. I am sure that no honorable member would lend his aid to the widening of the act so as to cover such matters. I, as Treasurer, was very much impressed by what was said by the members of the committee of ex-servicemen, including a member who had administered the Repatriation Act for many years. They considered that the gratuity ought not to be paid immediately except for the purchase of homes, which would be tangible assets. The purchase of furniture has been mentioned. After World War I., much shoddy furniture was sold to numerous ex-servicemen at high prices, and within a month was to be found in second-hand auction marts. Now that the war gratuity boards are functioning, they can make a more complete investigation of what may be regarded as anomalies. One amendment is the result of the recommendation of a war gratuity board that certain conditions should be made less restrictive. I have never departed from the idea that when the boards had had an opportunity to settle down and make themselves acquainted with all the conditions, those members of the committee of exservicemen who are still available might be requested to meet again and consider new aspects that have arisen. I have been anxious to learn what has been the experience of the war gratuity boards, which have now been functioning for some months and have been gaining experience. I am prepared to consider a further examination of members of the committee to which I have referred, but could not go further than that to-night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the War Gratuity Act 1945.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remainder of bill - by leave - considered as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3621

SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION DECLARATORY BILL 1947

Second Reading

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill from the Senate, the purpose of which is to declare that certain enactments relating to social services shall have full force and effect. It is complementary to the Social Services Consolidation Bill, and exercises the additional powers which are now vested in this Parliament as a result of the social services referendum last year. The object of it is to remove legal doubts, arising from the decision of the High Court in the Pharmaceutical Benefits case, as to the validity of certain other. Commonwealth social services legislation. Honorable members will recall that decision. It was fatal to the validity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. The reasoning of the court showed that there was the gravest doubt as to the validity of certain other legislation which we now propose to declare by this bill shall have the force of law, acting on the power that is contained in the legislation that has been made law with the approval of the people of Australia. The proposed amendment of the Constitution was approved by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of the Parliament. At the referendum, it was approved not only by the majorities required by the Constitution, but also by a majority of “ Yes “ votes over “No” votes in every State of the Commonwealth. The new power now vested in this Parliament is the power to make laws with respect to “ the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services - but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription - benefits to students, and family allowances “. Th’ese new powers were effective as from the 19th December, 1946, when the Constitution alteration received the Royal assent.

The mere grant to the Parliament of a new power, however, does not have the automatic effect of validating any relevant legislation already in existence at the time when the new power is conferred. Therefore, the Parliament must either expressly or impliedly confirm any existing enactments which it wishes to continue in force by virtue of the new powers. The purpose of this bill is to afford to the Parliament the opportunity of taking this step, and so keeping faith with the people.

The enactments proposed to be validated are set out in the schedule to the bill. The subject-matter of most of them is clear from their titles, and the relevance of the new powers will also be obvious to honorable members. They are: Maternity Allowance Act, Widows’ Pensions Act, Child Endowment Act, Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act, Hospital Benefits Act, Education Act, Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, Part IV.a, and Re-establishment and Employment Act, Division 5 of Part II., and Parts III., IV. and XI. The inclusion of the last three items in the schedule may, however, require clarification. The Education A.ct 1945 sets up the Commonwealth Office of Education, also the Universities Commission, and provides for .assistance to university students. The new power with respect to “ benefits to students “ is clearly relevant to this act.

Part IVa. of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act is the part which provides for allowances to the wives of invalid pensioners. There is considerable doubt as to whether this part was a valid exercise of the power to provide invalid and old-age pensions, which, as honorable members are aware, has always been in the Constitution. The new power to provide “ family allowances “ is, in my opinion, adequate to enable this part to be validated.

Four portions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act are also included in the schedule. They are - Division 5 of Part II. - The Commonwealth Employment Service; Part III. - Vocational Training; Part IV. - Disabled Persons; and Part XI. - Power to make Regulations.

So far as these provisions confer benefits on discharged members of the forces, they are, no doubt, valid as an exercise of the defence power. But the activities of the Commonwealth Employment Service are not confined to discharged members of the forces. Parts III. and IV. of the act are at present being applied only in relation to discharged member? of the forces, but they contain provision for their extension by regulations to other classes of persons. It is therefore desirable to validate them.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Act is not included in the schedule because it has had no actual operation in the past and because its future operation is being considered by the House in a separate measure.

Honorable members will observe that clause 2 of the bill will make the act retrospective to the 19th December, 1946, which, as I have already said, is the date upon which the alteration of the Constitution became law.

Several of the acts mentioned in the schedule will; of course, be superseded by the Social Services Consolidation Act. That act will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The present bill will ensure the validity of the acts in question from the 19th December, 1946, to the date to be so fixed by proclamation.

Sub-clause 2 of clause 2 of the bill is intended to validate administrative actions done under any of the acts in the schedule, or under regulations made under any such act. Examples of the effect of the sub-clause are - (1) Grants of child endowment and widows’ pensions will not have to be remade; (2) appointments of officers will not have to be remade; (3) approvals of private hospitals for the purposes of hospital benefits will not have to be remade; and (4) proclamations and Gazette notices bringing legislation into operation will not have to be republished.

Honorable members will see, then, that the bill does not, in substance, make new laws, but merely validates laws already made, or authorized by this Parliament or earlier Parliaments. It is, as its short title implies, declaratory. I trust, therefore, that it will receive the approval of the House.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I have discussed this bill with my leader, and the Opposition can see no reason for opposing it. While it is all to the good that we should regularize our social service legislation, no one by the greatest stretch of imagination could ever imagine that such provisions as maternity allowances, widows’ pensions and child endowment were ever likely to be challenged.

Dr Evatt:

– The Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill was challenged.

Mr HARRISON:

– Of course, and there was ground for it, but those other social services have become so woven into the social fabric that he would be a brave man, indeed, who would challenge them. Nevertheless, it is well that the will of the people, as expressed in the referendum on the proposals for the alteration of the Constitution, should now be given legislative effect.

I observe that the Government is interpreting the provision authorizing the Commonwealth to assist students as conferring authority upon it to give effect to the Education Act mentioned in the schedule. Am I to take it that the Government believes that, under this provision, it has authority to take control of educational establishments throughout the Commonwealth, and to become responsible for education?

The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has said that the provision in regard to the Commonwealth employment service is not designed to achieve the complete reestablishment and employment of exservicemen, but it is intended that the employment service shall become woven into the civil structure. The AttorneyGeneral said -

But the activities of the Commonwealth Employment Service are not confined to discharged members of the forces. PartsIII. and IV. of the act are at present being applied only in relation to discharged members of the forces, but they contain provisions for their extension by regulations to other classes of persons. It is therefore desirable to validate them.

I mention this matter because it shows what the Government had in mind when it introduced the original legislation.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

in reply - The legislation referred to by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) expressly reserved power to make the Commonwealth Employment Service generally applicable to the community. It is now thought to be important to declare that provision to have force and effect under this bill, because it could not be regarded as valid under the defence power.

The honorable member also asked whether the power to make provision for benefits to students was to be interpreted as giving authority to the Commonwealth Parliament to pass laws for the general control of education throughout Australia. As I said during the referendum campaign, and again when the legislation was before the Parliament, the answer to that question is “ No “. It is not proposed to set up a system of education, or to make education compulsory, as the States have done, but this is a power to pass laws to give benefits to students, and not students of any particular age. Such a power cannot be confined within a narrow compass. Benefits could be conferred by assisting students by way of grant so as to relieve them of the payment of fees to public or private institutions, or by the purchase of books or the provision of bursaries. It is not a power to regulate and control education in a general way. It is. a wide power, but it falls a good deal short of what was suggested by the honorable member.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3624

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1947. Quarantine Bill 1947. Beer Excise Bill 1947.

page 3624

STATES GRANTS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th May (vide page 3123), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– The House has become accustomed to an annual States Grants Bill, but the bill before us to-night is of a different character in that it is a supplementary measure rather than what might be termed the main States Grants Bill. I do not intend to trace the history of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It suffices to say that the recommendations of the commission provide the basis for the legislation designed to adjust the financial difficulties of the three less populous States, sometimes described as the claimant States. When the Commonwealth Grants Commission issued its last report it already had some idea that a bill of this kind would become necessary, because the report contains the following passage : -

In the light of the information available when it presented its thirteenth report in October, 1946, the commission formed the opinion that, because of the rapid changes in economic and financial conditions which were occurring, the grants assessed for South Australia and Tasmania would not be sufficient to meet the indispensable needs of those States for the financial year 1940-47. Accordingly, amounts deemed by the commission to be reasonable in the circumstances were added to the assessed grants.

Paragraph 7 of the report reads -

In paragraph 138 of the Thirteenth Report the Commission pointed out that it was obliged to present its report early in the financial year 1946-47; but that it was not possible at that stage to estimate precisely the extent of the deterioration or improvement likely to occur in 1946-47 as compared with the financial year 1944-45. Unexpected developments later in the year might easily upset any estimate made at that point of time.

The deterioration of the finances of the three States having taken place, the commission made certain recommendations the results of which are embodied in the bill now before us. The commission recommended that South Australia should be granted £400,000, Western Australia £628,000 and Tasmania £50,000, to meet their obligations in the current year. I have no particular comment to make on the amounts allotted, except the rather obvious one that the Tasmanian share appears to be very small indeed. It is very much smaller than the claims lodged on behalf of that State. Those who read the Commission’s report will see that certain reasons are advanced for the reduction of the claims submitted by the State. On this point the report states -

The likely effect of the recommendations will thus be that Tasmania will be left more heavily in deficit in 1946-47 than either South Australia or Western Australia unless the Tasmanian position improves relatively to that of the other claimant States before the 30th June, 1947. This effect may appear anomalous, but there are already indications that, when the year 1946-47 is finally reviewed, the application of the Commission’s usual methods will result in a substantial net adverse adjustment in the assessment of the grant for Tasmania. Moreover, the Tasmanian Treasury has not been able to provide the Commission with definite information as to the expenditure which is likely to be incurred for relief to primary producers during the remaining two months of 1946-47, but has indicated that, because of proposed amending legislation, “ it is possible that expenditure under the scheme will have to be carried over to the budget for 1 947-48 “. Such postponement of expenditure until the next financial year might well have the effect of reducing the estimated deficit by approximately £100.000. Any deficit actually incurred in 1940-47 will come under consideration when the financial year 1040-47 is the year of review and grants are being assessed for payment in 1948-49.

That, no doubt, is meant to be encouraging to the Treasurer of Tasmania, and I hope he derives what comfort he can from it. The fact that it is necessary to bring forward a bill of this kind in order to relieve the position that has arisen in some of the States gives added point to the suggestion made in this House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) in 1945 when a States Grants Bill was before the House, namely, that the activities of the commission might well be extended to cover the whole field of the financial relations between the Commonweatlh and the States in such a way as to bring about a better and more equalized adjustment of development throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. The time has arrived for us to adopt a Commonwealth outlook in connexion with this matter. Those who live in the three more populous .States, or what are referred to by the Commission as “ standard “ States, are generally of the opinion that they are bestowing upon the three less populous States some kind of benefit to which those States are entitled only by the operation of the law of charity. One of the things constantly overlooked is that the three “ standard “ States constantly derive certain benefits from the Commonwealth Treasury and that while these benefits are also extended to the less populous States the amounts are not in ‘any way commensurate in size with those received by the more populous States. That becomes obvious if we consider social services payments. The amount of money expended by the Commonwealth in New South “Wales on social service payments is enormous by comparison with that expended in the other States. That makes a great difference in the budgetary position of the States. There are other factors involved in the financial relations of the States. I exclude the first and basic proposition that at present payments from collections of uniform taxes cover the whole situation. I am now referring to special payments and the like, particularly to social services. There are also other ways in which the Commonwealth disburses money to the States, and Other ways in which the relations between the Commonwealth and the States are affected in a financial way which are not generally taken into account. Consider the movement of population from State to State. Tasmania, in particular, has suffered in this regard. For many years Tasmania has had the highest birth-rate in the Commonwealth and yet it has had also the smallest natural increase of population due to the drift of population from Tasmania to the more prosperous States on the mainland because of the greater opportunities there. That means not only loss of taxpaying and producing population, but also that the State has lost the services of citizens who during their early years of life were dependent upon the Treasury of the State for education and like benefits. Other financial benefits to the .States have flowed from expenditure on railways. During the war that was particularly evident. It was also evident in war expenditure in other directions. Some of the less populous States, notably Tasmania, failed to share in disbursements of Commonwealth moneys and, now that the war is over, they find themselves a considerable distance behind the other States. That point should be taken into consideration. I have not checked the expenditure figures for this year, but in 1945 total Commonwealth disbursements in the States, apart from taxes returned to the States, amounted to between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000. The amount distributed to the States on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission was only £2,500,000. Now, with additional disbursements on account of social services and like payments it seems certain the figure will be approximately £3,500,000 when this bill becomes law, and the proportion will be even more in favour . of the more populous States than it was in 1945. I believe that a good case could be made for an even more comprehensive survey of the relative position of the States than we have had hitherto. If we look for a moment at the necessity for national development we see still another reason for providing machinery that will cover this field in a way it has not been covered up to the present time. The problem of soil erosion which is constantly raised in this House is in one sense a .State matter ; it is also completely and utterly a national matter. Whenever we put into operation works for the prevention of soil erosion we render a benefit not only to the State in which the work is carried out but also to the development of the Commonwealth as a whole. There are the further problems of water conservation and electrical undertakings and the old and difficult question of railways. We are now contemplating the standardization of railway gauges. Thai project will not touch Tasmania at all and consequently there should be some way of equalizing the amount expended in the various States. The plea I make to-night is that we should provide flexible machinery that will cover the whole field of the financial relations of the States. We must consider not only the possibilities of one State, the lack of prosperity in one State as against prosperity in another, but also the interdependence of rural areas upon city areas, of sparsely populated districts upon heavily populated districts, and the interdependence of prosperous regions or less prosperous regions. Unless we can get an overall development of the Commonwealth we shall not do the best possible for Australia. In 1938 a bill was introduced into the House which sought to revive, by name at any rate, the original interstate commission established by the fathers of federation. I am well aware that when we talk about the proposal to revive the interstate commission, which did not come to fruition, we are treading on delicate ground.

Mr Chifley:

– The honorable member knows what happened to the interstate commission.

Dame ENID LYONS:

– Yes. I have been through this matter very carefully and I know precisely theposition. I suggest that, although some body of that kind may be set up, we do not have to adhere slavishly to everything envisaged in earlier days, nor could we do so. We move from moment to moment. The idea may have been very good inconcept and not brought to notice in a proper fashion. We may well take the germ of that idea now and bring it to fruition. The terms of reference of the interstate commission were as follows : -

The Commission shall inquire into and report to the Governor-General upon -

any anomalies, preferences or discri minations alleged to exist in relation to interstate commerce;

any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Constitution relating to interstate commerce:

applications made by any State to the Commonwealth for the grant by the Parliament of financial assistance in pursuance of section ninety-six of the Constitution;

any matters relating to grants or financial assistance made in pursuance of that section by the Parliament to any State which are referred to the Commission by the Governor-General ;

any matters relating to the making of any grant of financial assistance by the Parliament to any State in pursuance of that section, which are referred to the Commission by the Governor-General ;

any matters concerning the financial relations between the Commonwealth and any State which are referred to the Commission by the Governor-General ; and

any other matters, whether related to any matter specified in the preceding paragraph of this section or not, which the Governor-General refers to the Commission.

In introducing that measure, the Prime Minister of the day had this to say which I think is pertinent and might well be taken into consideration in regard to the matter that I have discussed -

There can be little doubt that it is highly desirable that the legislative and administrative functions of any Parliament are greatly assisted by the existence of permanent bodies empowered to inquire into difficult subjects and report to the Parliament. Particularly does this apply to a Federal Parliament such as this. This Parliament is concerned not only with the welfare of the whole of the Commonwealth but also with the interests, sometimes divergent, of the six States forming the Commonwealth. Many bodies already in existence are designed to assist Parliament in this respect. I need only refer to the Tariff Board, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. But notwithstanding the existence of these permanent bodies, it is frequently necessary to appoint royal commissions to inquire into certain matters. The Commission which this bill proposes to establish will be a body of experts which, by reason of their long tenure of office and the permanent records of their activities which will be kept, will have every phase of federation and its effects at their finger-tips and will be able, therefore, not only to safeguard the interests of the States, but also to advise this Parliament on many matters of vital importance.

That I contend is of considerable importance to the claimant States. No finality has been reached on whether supplementary grants shall be available in years of rapid deterioration of budgetary positions. Some conclusion will have to be reached on the principle of CommonwealthState financial relations before the less populous States will have any security. In any case, I commend the proposal to the Treasurer. The report of his Treasury officers to the commission is not particularly reassuring to the less populous States, but I trust that, if he does not bring into operation such a scheme as I have discussed to-night, he will ensure that the system of supplementary grants in years of rapid deterioration of budgetary positions shall not receive too intense opposition from the officers of the. Treasury.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I commend the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) for the manner in which she has presented the case of the less populous States. I whole heartedly agree with her as a representative of one of those States. It is good when honorable members on opposite sides of the House can unite on matters of policy that to the States concerned assume national importance. I compliment the honorable member for her sound reasoning on what I regard as a possible national planning authority for the States of Australia, the nucleus of which is found in the Commonwealth Grants Commission, as was ably pointed out by her. With our central system of finance, the Commonwealth Government will soon have to plan, as the honorable member suggested, two or three years ahead for the expansion of the primary and secondary industries of the States. State functions have deteriorated as the result of the imposition of a uniform income tax. The States do not have the same responsibilities as they had. The controller of the purse controls the people, as we find when we hand our money over to our wives. The Commonwealth Government is and should bo in the dominant financial position of all the Australian governments with sovereign powers. Australian development must be national and not on a state or petty parochial basis. The Commonwealth Grants Commission could be developed into a national planning authority for industrial development throughout the Commonwealth.

Application of the policy determined by it could be applied through the system of grants to the States. The States immediately concerned are, of course, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, which are more or less at the mercy of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Therefore, we are beginning in those three States what may have to become a national policy for the whole Commonwealth that will ensure decentralization of industry and encourage the rapid, industrial development that is occurring, not only in Australia, but throughout the world. We do not want to fall behind in that industrial expansion. So I commend the honorable member for Darwin for the theme that she developed and I have further developed. [Quorum formed.]

The bill before us to provide supplementary grants to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania this financial year is evidence that that one grant a year to those States is rather unbalanced owing to the quick development of our industries. We cannot cope with it. This grant gives me the impression that the Commonwealth Grants Commission recognizes too that a lot can happen in twelve months in a State’s industry. I advocate supplementary grants as the regular practice. The honorable member for Darwin hinted that that was necessary. The first grant could be made early in the financial year and the second late in the financial year, as this grant is being made late this financial year. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the States to plan their expenditure a year ahead. This provision will help them considerably. Tasmania has even been blamed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for not having been able to state its financial commitments for two months. It is impossible to expect States to stipulate their financial commitments twelve months ahead. So I suggest a system flexible enough to meet the changing financial circumstances of the States concerned. Hence I welcome the supplementary grant and should like to see it a permanent feature of the Commonwealth’s dealings with the less-populous States.

I am sure that the Tasmanian people appreciate what the Commonwealth

Grants Commission has done for them in recommending that an extra £50,000 be granted to the State this year. This bill proposes to carry that recommendation into effect. That will bring Tasmania’s total grant for the year to about £865,000, the highest amount that the State has ever received from the Commonwealth in this way. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) and the Commonwealth Grants Commission, “ Thank you for what we are about to receive “, but I cannot understand why Tasmania has not been given a greater amount.

In Tasmania, we have many things that we, with reason, are proud of. I intend to mention a few of them in order that honorable members generally may be assured that Tasmania is not wasting this money, but is expending it on developments of national importance. Our area schools are known all over the world. We have seventeen of them already and have planned sixteen more, but we can proceed with the plans only with money provided by the Commonwealth Government as the result of a recommendation by the Commonwealth Grants Commission that we be provided with funds for extension of our educational programme. The second development on which we are expending this money is that of the hydro-electric power system. Victoria recently asked Tasmania to send hydro-electric power across Bass Strait to Victoria to assist it in its industrial expansion. We are not greedy, but the Government of Tasmania has planned a vast programme of hydro-electric power expansion up to 1952 to cope with our own industrial expansion. I hope that we shall soon be able to supply hydro-electric power to the southern States of Australia.

Mr O’Connor:

– Sell it to them.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is not an impossibility. That would help to pay for the hydro-electric installations. In Tasmania, 306 factories have been registered since the end of the war. Then our social services need money for development in conjunction with the Commonwealth social services. Then we have our health services, which, I think all will agree, are the best in the Commonwealth, except, perhaps, for those in the Australian Capital Territory itself. We have a more advanced health service than any other State. A mobile unit travels throughout the island X-raying people for signs of tuberculosis. A mobile dentistry unit visits schools. Honorable members will agree that the care of the teeth is most important. Approximately fifteen doctors are employed by the State Government. We have pioneered a free medical scheme, and the cost of medicine has been reduced to an average price of 2s. a bottle. That has been the forerunner of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill. In this field, Tasmania, has definitely been the leader. We are not wasting the grant that we receive from the Commonwealth, because education, hydro-electric power, social services and health are fundamental to any country or any State.

Considerable financial difficulties arise in the operation of the State railway system. According to my information, Tasmania is the only State whose railways show a deficit. This loss, which is approximately £330,000 a year, is due to the short distances between the towns. One cynic stated that if a train travelled at a speed exceeding 40 miles an hour it would run over the edge of the island. The railway lines are short, and the Government will never be able to make the system pay unless it charges exorbitant freight rates. The standardization of railway gauges, to which the honorable member for Darwin referred, does not affect Tasmania, but the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) assured me shortly after I became a member of this House that Tasmania would receive a grant to enable the Government to develop the railway system of the State when the plans for the standardization of railway gauges on the mainland had been formulated. We shall welcome that assistance.

Our dependence on the Commonwealth Grants Commission is absolute. The grant which we receive from the Commonwealth represents a substantial portion of our income. The progress of our educational, cultural, medical, social and hydroelectric power services is conditioned completely by the amount which the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommends should be made to Tasmania annually. Therefore, in pleading the cause of this island State, I am not behaving in a parochial manner. Because we are situated so far south, what we are doing is not so well known to people on the mainland as it should be. “We .are not wasting the Commonwealth grant. We should like the amount to be increased in order that we may expand our development. Our population, which is now approximately 252,000 persons, is increasing and our industries are developing. I support the view of the Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Cosgrove, that there should be elasticity and flexibility in the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the three less populous States.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

in reply- - The matters to which the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) and the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) referred have provided an interesting field for discussion for many years. Personally, I am surprised that honorable members do not read more closely the reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. These are most informative documents, which are splendidly compiled and constitute a veritable mine of information for any one who desires to study these matters. The financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, to which the honorable member for Darwin referred, were discussed at the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. For some time, a conference of departmental officers has been examining the general position. The honorable member for Wilmot described the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States as a most important national question. Naturally, the less populous States are constantly beset with financial problems. As the honorable member for Darwin pointed out, certain changes are now taking place. The population of Tasmania tended to migrate to the mainland in the early stages of World War II., when the manufacture of arms and equipment had not touched Tasmania, but was being carried on extensively in Victoria. Now that position is becoming rectified,.

Mr Duthie:

– It has corrected itself now.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The real reason is that the agricultural .community of Tas mania did very well out of World War II. They were guaranteed good prices for their produce. In addition, industrial activities in Tasmania have extended since the end of the war. The newsprint industries are constantly expanding. The Commonwealth Government is endeavouring to encourage the development of industries in the less populous States. Apart from the national advantages accruing from this development, it is a good material concept from the stand-point of the Commonwealth. The more difficult the financial position of the less populous States the greater will be the contributions which the Commonwealth will have to make for the purpose of assisting them.

The position of South Australia is similar to that of Tasmania. Partly a3 the result of war-time activities and the erection of big factories, industry has developed rapidly in that State. The Government does not take credit for that, because the construction of the larger factories was proposed when the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) was Minister for Munitions. At one stage, many people considered that these large factories in South Australia would prove to be “ white elephants “ after the war, but their fears have ‘ not been realized. It is possible to encourage the establishment of industries in South Australia, and to this end, there has been co-operation between the Secondary Industries Commission and the State authorities. While each political party likes to claim credit for having inaugurated this development, I personally have never been concerned .about that. I desire that the less fortunate States., as I describe them, shall be given an opportunity to develop on a wider scale so that they may become independent financially of the Commonwealth.

Western Australia has not fared so well. While industrial activity in South Australia and Tasmania has increased, we have not, for geographical and other reasons, been able to help Western Aus*tralia to the same degree. I have discussed with those honorable members who are interested in the matter, the extension of the activities of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on a national basis to cover all the States for the purrpose of presenting to this House a general financial picture of Australia. As a rule, these subjects are not very entertaining to some honorable members, and whileI have been a member of this House, it has been difficult to have a thorough debate on this subject. The relations between the Commonwealth and the States, and the relative financial position of each, unquestionably have an important bearing on our national development. I informed the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers that I regarded it as the duty not only of the Commonwealth, but also of the more populous and more fortunate States, to be prepared to assist the less fortunate States. Some one described them as the “mendicant States “, but I have always regarded them as the three younger sisters.

Mr Barnard:

– They have been described more than once as the “ three mendicant States “.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have never so regarded them. The more populous States, which have been more fortunate in their industrial development, should help South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania in various ways. Assent to this principle was given by the then Premier of Queensland, Mr. Cooper, and the then Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McKell, and even the then Premier of Victoria, Mr. Dunstan, realized that the interests of one State affected the interests of all.

I shall not deal extensively with the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As the honorable member for Darwin pointed out, the House is now considering a most unusual type of grant. We have not previously had the experience of dealing in one year with two sets of grants by the Commonwealth to the States. The report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission explains the situation very clearly. The relations between the Commonwealth and the States have not been forgotten. Probably this matter will never be settled on a financial basis, but we have been examining many aspects of it. The introduction of uniform income tax has made a great change in that relationship, and the acceptance by the Commonwealth of responsibility for social services has relieved State budgets of considerable expenditure. In the past, Victoria, and to a lesser degree. South Australia and Western Australia, provided a lower scale of social services than did other States, but had the Commonwealth not accepted this responsibility, those States would later have been obliged to improve their social services. I hope that, some time, an opportunity will be given to the House to debate this subject most thoroughly. This bill is designed to meet a temporary need, and no more than that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3630

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th May (vide page 3126), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr McBRIDE:
Wakefield

.- The decision of the Government not to renew the wine export bounty has caused a good deal of concern among grapegrowers and wine-producers throughout the Commonwealth. The Government referred this subject to the Tariff Board for consideration and report and I realize that the terms of reference were reasonable. The board was asked to report upon the following questions : -

  1. Is the continuance of the payment of a bounty on fortified wine exported after 28th February, 1947, justifiable?
  2. If the payment of a bounty is justifiable -

    1. what rate of bounty should be paid; and
    2. for what period should the bounty operate ?

In the course of its investigation the board took evidence from a very fair cross section of the industry. The following witnesses tendered evidence at the public inquiry: -

Leslie Nattle Salter, chairman, Australian Wine Board, Shell House, North-terrace, Adelaide.

Kenneth Thomas Hardy, president, Federal Viticultural Council of Australia; president. Winemakers Association of South Australia; managing director, Thomas Hardy and Sons Limited, vignerons and vinters, 89 Curriestreet, Adelaide.

Desmond Theodore Du Rieu, chairman and managing director, Renmark Growers Distillery

Limited, and representative of the South Australian Co-operative Winemakers Association. Berri, South Australia.

Colin Powell Haselgrove, managing director, The Emu Wine Company Proprietary Limited, Morphett Vale, South Australia, a subsidiary of thu Emu Wine Company Limited, BromleybyBow, London.

William Henry Davies, president, Australian Wine Producers Association of New South Wales, 350 George-street, Sydney.

Robert Croxton Davis, on behalf of Australian Wine Producers Association of New South Wales, 350 George-street, Sydney.

Ellis Middleton Elsworthy, president, Federal Grape Growers Council of Australia, Box 971H, General Post Office, Adelaide.

Charles Stanley Panton, Timbaringa Farnellstreet, South Curl Curl, Sydney; former general secretary of the Federal Viticultura Council of Australia - evidence given in a private capacity.

Consequently, it must be admitted that representatives of all branches of the industry were consulted. The advice of every one of the witnesses was that the bounty should be continued. The witnesses pointed out that during the period of the operation of the bounty the industry had been stabilized throughout the Commonwealth and wine production had expanded tremendously. It was admitted that the industry was in a flourishing condition at present owing to the high prices ruling in both the local and export markets, although the export market was not so large as in pre-war years. The witnesses stated that present indications were that there might be a substantial drop in the price that wine-makers could get for their product overseas, and that this naturally would be reflected in the prices paid to grape-growers for the fruit that they delivered at wineries and distilleries. It was pointed out to the board, also, that under our post-war reconstruction programme large new areas were to be planted to grape vines, for the purpose of both wine-making and dried fruits. The board was informed that many ex-servicemen had been encouraged to plant vines, and that if the price available for grapes fell to any degree the stability of the industry would be seriously affected and long range planning would be greatly hindered. In relation to the new plantings it must be recognized that seven years will elapse before the vines come into full production. A good deal may happen in that period. It was therefore suggested that a period of at least ten years should be given to the industry to stabilize itself.

The history of the wine bounty is interesting. The first Wine Export Bounty Act was passed in 1924, and the rate of bounty was fixed at 4s. a gallon on all wine exported from Australia. That rate of bounty applied until 1927. During that period the industry expanded very greatly and the quantity of wine exported from Australia increased from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 gallons per annum. It must be clear, therefore, that under the aegis of the bounty the wine-makers were able to develop a substantial overseas trade. The amount of bounty varied from time to time. .From 1927 to 1928 it was ls. 9d. a gallon, from 1928 to 1930 it was ls. a gallon, and from 1930 to 1931 ls. 9d. a gallon. That was during the depression period when conditions were extremely difficult. From 1931 to 1935, the rate of ls. 9d. a gallon was reduced by 20 per cent., and in 1935 it was fixed at ls. 3d. a gallon with a provision that it should be reduced by Id. a gallon each year until it fell to ls. a gallon, which rate applied from 1939 until the expiry of the act on the 28th February . of this year. During the war our export marketshrank very considerably, but the industry was maintained because local consumption of wine increased quite phenomenally. In pre-war days the Australian consumption was about 4’,000,000 gallons annually, and we exported about 3,500,000 gallons. In 1945 local consumption was about 8,000,000 gallons. However there has already been a substantial reduction of local consumption because, in 1946, the quantity had fallen to about 6,000,000 gallons. That fact points to the necessity of stimulating the local consumption and also of recapturing our export market. We are facing some adverse factors however in connexion with our export trade, the principal of which is that the excise duty in Great Britain has been increased very considerably. That has increased the price of our product on the British market. In pre-war days the price of the sweet wine that we exported to England was from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a bottle. Foreign wines of a similar type ranged in price from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a bottle. British wine? which was made principally from dried fruits imported from South. Africa, was sold at from ls. 9d. to 2s. a bottle. That was the cheapest wine on the British market. Prices have increased substantially however. Foreign wine which was bringing up to 7s. 6d. a bottle is now priced at from 15s. to 17s. 6d. a bottle; Empire wine, including wine from Australia, which was bringing up to 3s. 6d. a bottle is now fetching from 12s. 6d. to 14s. a bottle, and British wine, which was selling at up to 2s. a bottle, is now costing from 5s. 9d. to 6s. 6d. a bottle. These prices, therefore, will make a big difference to the market available to us. The tremendous advantage that we enjoyed of about 100 per cent, in comparison with foreign wines has been reduced to 13£ per cent. That will limit considerably the likelihood of our increasing our export market. It would be futile for us to imagine that we shall sell as much wine at from 12s. 6d. to 14s. a bottle as we sold at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a bottle. The Government should realize, therefore, that elements are present which could cause us very great difficulty in this industry before very long. We must also realize that we are faced with the prospect of considerable competition from South Africa, where the cost of production is, I should imagine, very much , lower than the cost of production in Australia. Pre-war imports of wine into Great Britain totalled about 15,000,000 gallons, of which Australia supplied about 3,500,000 gallons or from 20 to 22 per cent, of the total. Australia normally produces about 20,000,000 gallons of wine annually, whereas South Africa produces 60,000,000 gallons annually. It is true that Australian vignerons had an extraordinarily good vintage this year; in fact it was an all-time record. We produced 24,000,000 gallons of wine. This was due, in a measure, to the damage that was caused to grapes in certain areas which usually grow grapes for dried fruits. In consequence of the damage much of the fruit had to be sold to the wineries, where it was converted into wine that will eventually be distilled into spirit for fortifying our sweet wine. It is clear, however, that wine production in this country is increasing and it will doubtless increase more and more when the new plantings come into full pro- duction. I consider therefore that the Government could very well have given more careful and more sympathetic consideration to the views expressed by the expert witnesses at the Tariff Board inquiry. Admittedly a bounty is not necessary at the moment, but if the Government had so desired it could have paid a bounty at a reduced rate, and the collections of excise duty on fortifying spirit could have been paid into a special fund which would have been available to assist the industry in the difficult period which undoubtedly lies ahead. Also it has to be remembered that while this act was operative it not only benefited the wine-maker but also had a beneficial effect on the grape-grower; because under it, while the Government was paying a bounty on the export of wine, the bounty was applicable only to that wine which had been made from grapes purchased from growers at fixed prices, which were determined annually by the Minister. This assured to the growers a reasonable price for their grapes. I do not know whether honorable members realize that, although the bounty of ls. a gallon does not appear to be substantial, it represents £4 a ton on the grapes from which the wine is produced, or £4 a ton to the grape-grower. At the moment, the growers are receiving a satisfactory price of between £8 and £9, or perhaps £10, a ton; the amount varies according to the type of grapes. In pre-war times, very much lower prices were profitable to them; but, in common with all other producers throughout the world, their costs have risen, and I cannot imagine the prewar prices for grapes being profitable under present cost conditions. Therefore, the Government has a very real responsibility in the matter. The Minister might very well say that the Government has other ideas for assisting the growers should they need an increase. Nevertheless, I repeat that the growing of grapes, and particularly new planting, demands a long-term policy.- Unless ex-servicemen are given the assurance that when their vines come into full bearing they will receive a reasonable price for their product, they will not be encouraged to go on the blocks. The Government would be well advised to reconsider the matter even now, or at least to give, some assurance to the growers and others connected with the industry in regard to what it proposes to do in order to meet a decline of prices, so that they will be able to go ahead with the expansion of the industry, confident in the expectation that, should the need arise, they will receive proper and adequate assistance. The present legislation does not envisage any of those things. It has been brought down to enable the Minister to continue payment of the bounty on certain wines that are produced under bounty conditions. In order to qualify for the bounty, a wine-maker will have to 3how that he has paid a proper price for his grapes. As the grapes for the last vintage were purchased under price-fixing conditions, it is only reasonable that the wine-maker should receive the bounty on that proportion of his vintage which he exports. In that regard, the Minister has not been at all liberal; because it is realized that the wine produced in last year’s vintage should not be marketed for between two and five years. Consequently, the winemaker has been saddled with the fixed price, and will have no opportunity of obtaining the bounty on the wine when it is exported. But the bill does propose to give some relief to the wine-maker who sold, wine before the 31st October last, and did not export it before the 28th February of this year, when the “Wine Export Bounty Act lapsed. Therefore,, a certain measure of justice is being meted out to the wine-makers in that respect. But I direct the attention of the Minister to the clause of the bill which empowers him to make these payments, because, whilst I should be the last to claim any legal knowledge, it appears to me that that provision is of very doubtful validity. Clause 14 reads - .

The Minister may withhold the whole or part of the bounty which would otherwise be payable to a claimant if he is satisfied that at any time the claimant has received a payment of bounty under the Act or under the Wine Export. Bounty Act 1939-44 to which the claimant is not entitled.

One of the conditions under which the bounty is to be paid is that the winemaker can prove that he will suffer hardship if he does not receive it. I have always been under the impression that the Constitution sets out very definitely that, whilst the Government has power to pay bounties, those bounties have to be paid under very definite conditions. This throws overboard that constitutional limitation on the power to make bounty payments, because the Minister may pay the bounty to one man who may have made a bad sale of his wine, or may need it for some, other reason, and withhold it from another man who has produced under exactly the same conditions but has made a better sale. The Minister ought to have another look at that provision, because it seems to me that, if challenged, it might very well be proved to be ultra, vires the Constitution.

Another feature of the proposal of the Government is that it is prepared to set aside certain moneys which, at the expiration of the act, had accumulated in the trust fund, into which was paid a portion of the money collected by means of excise. Over £1,000,000 is available in that fund, and the Government, proposes to set aside £500,000 of it, the balance to go into Consolidated Revenue. The original suggestion, I understand, was that the Minister or the Government should set aside £500,000 for five years, with a view to assisting the industry. The Minister has relented somewhat in that regard, and it is now proposed to extend the five years to ten years - a period which, of course, as I have already said, is necessary in an industry of this character. I do not think that the Minister will suggest that that £500,000 will give to those who are engaged in the industry the security which was given to it by the wine bounty. Whilst we are pleased that he has relented to that degree, I am sure that all sections of the industry would be very much more satisfied, and would have greater confidence in the future, if they could be assured of the subsidy which the Wine Export Bounty Act gave to them. I regret very much that the Government has seen fit to allow this very useful legislation to lapse, and proposes to substitute for it this less satisfactory measure. However, I commend the Minister for having relented to the degree that he has. I hope that, in the very near future, he will announce to the industry the kind of assistance that he proposes to give to it should the need arise. Such a need could arise very quickly; consequently, it would be well if the Minister orhis advisers were to give urgent consideration to the problem, so that those who are already in the industry, and others who propose to enter it, will have a feeling of security in the new venture that they are about to undertake.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– The remarks of the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) make it almost unnecessary for me to say anything, he having covered so widely the desires of the grape-growers in the wine industry. I impress upon the Minister and the Government the original reason for the provision of the wine export bounty. Although conditions are not normal at present, there is every reason to suppose that in a year or two assistance in connexion with the export of wine will be required. On that account, I am somewhat concerned. A pool of £1,110,000 accumulated during a period when export was not possible. We would act wisely if we took advantage of the position, and retained not £500,000 but the whole of the fund for the assistance of the wine industry in the future, because this is probably the only year in several years in which there has been a good production of wine. I hope that the Minister and the Government will decide to relinquish the idea of placing the balance of the pool into Consolidated Revenue. While I was in the United States of America, I noted with interest and consternation that, in Chicago, New York, San Francisco and other places visited, our wines did not appear to be known as were South African wines. Having regard to that fact, I urge that the whole of the pool be devoted to the interests of the grape-growers. The money was collected from the wine industry. It is all very well for the Tariff Board to say that it is a tax on the people. It was a tax on the industry, by which it was paid and accumulated. It cannot be regarded as a gift to the Government. I support the appeal of the honorable member for Wakefield that the Government, in its wisdom, shall see fit to preserve the pool intact. If that be not done, after the £500,000 has been expended the Government will have to review the position. Confidence would be given to the wine industry in Australia, and a long-distance policy could be adopted in connexion with the export of wine, if the whole pool of £1,110,000 were available to assist it to take advantage of post-war conditions,as we hope that it will in the ensuing year.

Sitting suspended from 11.80 to 12 midnight.

Friday, 6 June 1947

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I agree with everything the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) says on this measure, but I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without calling attention to the fact that clause 5 of the bill is unconstitutional as well as being unjust. Section 51 of the Constitution contains this provision -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth :

Clause 5 of this bill provides that -

Bounty shall be payable in respect of fortified wine . . . in respect of which the exporter satisfies the Minister that -

the price at which the wine was sold did not return a reasonable profit, or that, for some other reason, the payment of bounty is justified….

The imposition of those conditions are not in accordance with section 51 of the Constitution. I believe that it is wise to continue to pay an export bounty on wine, but the bounty must be paid upon all fortified wine exported. The Minister cannot choose between the wine exported by one person and that exported by another, and decide that bounty shall be paid on the one and not on the other. To say that the bounty shall be paid only when a reasonable profit has not been made is to introduce a new and vicious principle. A wine-maker may have made a profit, but providing the Minister says that it is not a reasonable profit, he may authorize the payment of a bounty of1s. a gallon on all the wine that person exports. There is no provision in the bill for the payment of a bounty of less than ls. a gallon. One exporter may have made a loss of ls. a gallon so that, -with the bounty, he will break even. Another exporter may have made a profit of 3d. a gallon, but because he is able to persuade the Minister that the profit is not enough, he will receive a bounty of ls. a gallon on the wine which he exports. Section 51 of the Constitution does not give to the Minister power to discriminate in this way. This is. a rock against which the Government will stub its toes some time in the future unless it agrees to amend clause 5 to make it conform to the requirements of the Constitution, as well as of common sense and commercial practice.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Pollard) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for the payment of bounty on the export of certain fortified wine, and for other purposes.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– This is an appropriate .stage at which to press the point which I made in my second-reading speech. According to the requirements of the Constitution, the Government must pay this bounty, if the bill is passed, on all wine exported, or it must pay no bounty at all. Therefore, I say that the Governor-General’s message, with all due respect to His Excellency, is not constitutional, and the committee should not accept it.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has stated that clause 5 of the bill is unconstitutional. He may be right or he may be wrong - I do not know. The point is one which can be settled only if and when the act is challenged in the High Court. I can hardly believe that any wine-exporter - and . they have been treated reasonably well throughout the years by successive governments - would challenge the constitu tionality of a measure designed to ensure that certain persons in the industry, perhaps because of contracts entered into years ago, shall receive assistance in the way of bounty, as against others who are able to sell their product at current high market prices. Any one so doing would be revealed as a person desiring to take an unfair advantage of the Commonwealth and of his colleagues in the trade - as a person whose action would be likely to prevent the payment of a bounty to any one. Therefore, I suggest that the Government is wise to stand fast on the bill as drawn, and to insist upon the acceptance of clause 5 in its present form.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) seems to entertain an extraordinary idea of those engaged in the wine industry and, indeed, of current commercial practice. The Minister has said that it is unlikely that any wine-maker would attack this legislation, but let me point out that power is to be given to the Minister under this bill to say who shall be paid a bounty and who shall not, and the Minister may act entirely on his own discretion, without offering any reasons. The Constitution provides that there shall be uniformity in the payment of bounties and Ministers of State are given no discretion in the matter. According to the bill, the Minister may say to one exporter : “ I have studied your case, and I have decided that I will not pay you a bounty, but that I will pay a bounty of ls. a gallon to your competitor”. What will be the position of the Government if the dissatisfied exporter should appeal to the High Court?

Mr Pollard:

– We shall consider that situation when it arises.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That is the weakest of all possible arguments. It is the duty of Parliament to frame legislation so as to preclude, as far as possible, the likelihood that it will be challenged in the court. I was surprised to hear a Labour Minister use the argument of the lawyers, and say, “Let it go to the court”. I always understood that the policy of the Labour party was to frame legislation in such a way, and so completely in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, that nodispute concerning it could arise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed. Clause 1 agreed to.

Remainder ofbill - by leave - considered as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3636

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27 th May (vide page 2927), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.The purpose of this bill is to make a grant of £750,000 for the relief of cerealgrowers in New South Wales who have been adversely affected by the drought in that State. The money will be distributed among growers whose crops failed in the 1946-47 season. We all agree that the drought has been very serious. During the last three seasons the acreage under cereals in New South Wales was as follows : -

For the year 1946-47 approximately 4,000,000 acres were under crop, but three-quarters of the crop failed, so that whereas the estimated yield was 55,000,000 bushels, only 15,000,000 bushels were harvested. Seasons have been bad, not for one year or two, but for many years. In my own electorate the drought has been the worst in living memory, and the same is true of many other parts of New South Wales. There are many factors whichbring about a loss of wheat production in Australia. First, there is the shortage of superphosphates, which needs very serious consideration; secondly, there is a shortage of rural labour to help to bring in the wheat harvest; thirdly, there is a serious shortage of farm machinery. Tractors and trucks, and parts for their maintenance, are in very short supply. Practically every day we hear in this House questions seeking information as to the possibility of providing sorely needed machinery and equipment for our farmers. The continued shortages present grave difficulties to the primary producers. Transport hold-ups have alsoadded to their difficulties. During the recent transport hold-up many primary producers were forced to transport their produce to the markets in motor trucks, involving long uneconomic haulages. Seasonable conditions however constitute the greatest single factor affecting the success of farming operations. Weather conditions are unpredictable and remain a continuous hazard. Wheat-growers are disappointed with the treatment they are receiving from the Government. Many of them have reached a state of financial exhaustion, and unless speedy relief is afforded them on a generous scale they will find themselves in a position from which they may never recover. Huge amounts of money are held by the Government in wheat pools. Growers are asking that this money, which belongs to them, should be paid to them promptly. If the wheat pools were wound up expeditiously, there would, perhaps, not be so much need for a bill such as we now have before us. The long delay in the payment of this money is a source of irritation and vexation. Wheat-growers, in common with other sections of the community, pay their taxes to the Government; all the Government proposes to do in the bill now before us is to pay back to them in the form of drought relief some of the money which it has already taken from them. Taxation is so heavy that many wheat-growers are unable to build up reserves to tide them over adverse seasonal conditions.

This bill is welcome, but it has two big defects. The principal defect is that it has been introduced too late. The main purpose of this measure is to give to wheat-growers sufficient relief to extricate them from immediate difficulties arising out of the drought. Many of them have already been forced to borrow money and have lived on credit since they received their return from last year’s crop. Until they receive the relief proposed in this bill they will continue to be financially embarrassed. It is unfortunate that the introduction of this bill should have been delayed until after the sowing of this year’s crop has been completed. This relief should have been made available last year when it was known that this year’s crop would be a failure, or, at the latest, early this year. At least it should have been made available before the seeding season. That would have given the farmers an opportunity to make preparations to recover some of the very serious losses they incurred last year.

Since the introduction of uniform taxation income tax has been collected by the Commonwealth Government, part of the proceeds being distributed to the States. No provision is made in the Government’s taxation policy for special grants to be made to the States for drought relief. Whenever the State governments need assistance from the Commonwealth they have to approach the Treasurer cap in hand. As the Government has now become the sole instrument for the collection of income tax it should provide relief on a much more generous scale.

Mr Blain:

– Does the honorable member ask for relief on the basis of the rainfall in each particular district?

Mr HOWSE:

– No, on a bushel basis. Wheat-growers have no security; they do not know what the Government’s policy is to be from year to year. It is very difficult to obtain from Government spokesmen a statement as to exactly what policy is to be adopted in connexion with the wheat industry. Wheat-growers anticipate that sooner or later the present high prices will fall. It is obvious that they cannot be maintained, although it appears likely that high prices will continue for the next few years. Experts differ on this matter, however, and it is only a case of one man’s opinion against another’s. The Government should announce a long-term policy for the wheat industry, so that wheat-growers may know where they stand and plan for the future.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.I do not propose to address myself to the details of this measure. As a representative of a metropolitan electorate I have frequently witnessed in this Parliament the introduction of measures similar to the one now before us. I have not opposed them because in the complex economy of a modern community one does not desire to leave those who endeavour to conduct our primary industries entirely at the mercy of the hazards of climate, drought, fire, flood and the other elements that can upset the careful planning and hard work that they put into the conduct of their properties. Although I do not intend to oppose this measure, I suggest that as a Parliament we have been prone to take a rather unbalanced view of problems such as that which this bill seeks to remedy. If we. are to provide financial relief for primary producers, and they may comprise substantial sections of the Australian people, that relief finally becomes a charge upon the taxpayer of the Australian community. An analysis of our revenue collections would probably show that an overwhelming proportion of tax collections, particularly income tax, is derived from the metropolitan areas. If the Parliament is to expect that from time to time the taxpayers of the Commonwealth will be called upon to contribute to the relief of those sections of the community which have encountered these climatic disasters, it is, I believe, only reasonable that on appropriate occasions the Parliament should also examine the problems of those who conduct industries in the metropolitan areas whose financial stability has been affected by events over which they have no direct control. I have in mind the effect upon the economy of a State of a protracted industrial dispute. In Victoria in recent months we have had a metal trades dispute. I shall not enter into the merits of that dispute as between one party or the other. I merely say that the effect of such disputes on industries, both small and great, in my own State has been very serious. There are other economic factors which effect adversely our secondary industries, yet I have never heard a government in this place bring forward a proposal to assist industries so affected.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Sheehy

– Order! The bill before the House proposes the granting of assistance to the State of New South Wales for the purpose of providing drought relief. It has nothing to do with secondary industries.

Mr Haylen:

– Does the honorable member propose that there should be strike relief for those engaged in secondary industries?

Mr HOLT:

– No.

Mr Haylen:

– Has the honorable member examined the profits made by secondary industries?

Mr HOLT:

– I know something of this matter from practical experience. I know many industries in Victoria, both small and large, that will not derive any profits this financial year because of industrial disputes and hold-ups in the supply of coal.

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER. I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr HOLT:

– Here is an occasion on which the Parliament is asking the taxpayer to come to the relief of one section of the community. I do not challenge the provision made by the Parliament for drought relief. I have never opposed assistance of that kind. Occasions arise from time to time when this Parliament should examine whether the assistance we readily render to primary producers out of taxes imposed upon taxpayers in our metropolitan areas should not also be rendered to secondary industries which are adversely affected as the result of circumstances beyond their control. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) invites my attention to profits. One. of the greatest companies in Australia, one that has been most prosperous in past years; showed in its last annual balance-sheet a loss of £500,000.

Mr Pollard:

– What company is that?

Mr HOLT:

– General Motors-Holden’s Limited.

Mr Pollard:

– It will not get any drought relief.

Mr HOLT:

– No, but the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture would be the first to support a proposal for unemployment relief for people discharged from the company’s service.

Mr Pollard:

– I would.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member must relate his remarks to the bill, or I will not allow him to continue.

Mr HOLT:

– The underlying principleof this bill is provision by the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of drought relief to a great Australian industry, which, through causes beyond its control,, requires that assistance. The Parliament is to throw on the taxpayers of the metropolitan areas a burden that they are not resisting. So, the Parliament ought tobe prepared also to examine the kind of difficulty into which our great secondary industries can fall from time to timefrom causes beyond their control and deal with their problems too.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I look with concern on this bill, because it is proposed that the Commonwealth Parliament should more or less give carte blanche to the Government of New South Wales £750,000 todistribute among cereal-growers for drought relief. 1 do not intend to talk, about the complex economy of a modern community as did the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), but I offer a few observations on the varying rainfall areas in which wheat is grown in New South Wales and other Australian States. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) has not differentiated between the various districts and varying rainfall areas in which wheat is grown in New South Wales.

Mr Howse:

– We did not have any rain.

Mr BLAIN:

– Would the honorable member suggest that wheat-growers in such districts as Bathurst, Cowra and Orange suffered drought to the same degree as did wheat-growers at Lake Cargelligo or Wyalong? I do not think that the Government has sufficiently consulted the experts of the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales before bringing down this bill. Would people in Moree have the audacity to accept drought relief equal to that given to people at Lake Cargelligo or Wyalong? I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr.” Scully) if he would agree to that.

Mr Scully:

– If wheat-farmers had no crop they will receive drought relief. That is why it is being provided.

Mr BLAIN:

– I ask the honorable member not to evade the point. I am referring to district rainfalls. The honorable gentleman ought to know something about wheat areas and the varying rainfalls in areas where wheat is grown. If he does not know where the marginal area exists he ought to. I am in accord with the provision of drought relief, but I do say that wheat-farmers beyond the marginal line should be treated more liberally than those in the assured rainfall areas. The only bright light that I can find in the measure is the provision in clause 5 that -

The amount granted and paid under this Act shall he paid to the State upon condition . . that it is applied by the State, in a manner approved by the Minister, for the purpose of the alleviation of hardship suffered, in consequence of drought, by persons concerned in the production of cereal crops. . . .

I suggest that that can be determined only by an economic survey, which I should think the Department of Agriculture has made. I object to legislation of this type being brought before the House without it being definitely stated that areas where wheat is grown differ and that farmers west of themarginal line shall be granted greater relief than those in areas where they can engage in lamb-breeding and other primary pursuits. I only hope that the wheatfarmers out west will be treated on the most favorable basis.

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

– I whole-heartedly support the bill. Drought relief is being provided for wheat-farmers in New South Walesbecause, by an act of God, they lost their crops. No one can say when farmers will be visited by drought or flood or other disasters. Any stretch of country can become marginal overnight. Several meanings can be applied to the word “marginal “. I know what it is to go through drought and flood. Wheat can be grown in a 5-in. rainfall season if the farmers get the rain at the right time. The people who will share the £750,000 contributed by the Commonwealth may have to subsist till the next harvest on £1 a week if theyare single and 30s. a week if they are married, regardless of the size of their families. That has had to be done by wheat-farmersbefore. I hope that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) will state,when he closes the debate, that before the Government determined that a grant should be made by the Commonwealth Parliament a complete survey was made by the State authorities.

Mr Pollard:

– Yes, it was.

Mr HAMILTON:

– The Department of Agriculture of New South Wales will have to define the line of demarkation and set out the scale on which it proposes to distribute the money. Doubtless, the scale will slide in accordance with the quantity of wheat harvested by individual farmers in the wheat-growing areas of the State. I should like that confirmed by the Minister, because at any time in the remainder of the life of the Eighteenth Parliament Western Australian wheat-farmers may find themselves in circumstances similar to those in New South Wales which this bill is designed to help.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3639

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Debate resumed from the18th March (vide page 777), on motion by Mr. Pollard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

. -in reply - I do not intend to reply to the speeches on the second reading because, apart from a few facetious remarks, they were more or less complimentary. I have no criticisms to answer. Any features of the bill that require discussion can be adequately dealt with in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the definition of grower “ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “ ‘ grower ‘, in relation to a poll of growers taken for the purpose of this Act, means the occupier of an orchard of which not less than five acres is used for the growing of apples or pears or apples and pears; “.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– In Queensland, the average production of apples and pears an acre is about 60 bushels, Victoria 120 bushels and Tasmania 290 bushels, which increased last year to 300 bushels, and in certain rich areas in my electorate, growers produced 1,000 bushels an acre. On those figures, the proposed basis of representation on the Australian Apple and Pear Board is inequitable. Therefore, I move -

That, in paragraph (6), the word “ five” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “three”.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.I shall be pleased to support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) if he can assure me that one of the results will be to ensure that the Australian consumer will receive apples of better quality and at a reasonable price.

Mr Falkinder:

– This clause refers to apples for export.

Mr HOLT:

– Whether the apples be for export or for consumption in Australia the principle has the same application. The idea is to increase the capacity of the producer to grow apples of good quality and to sell them at a reasonable price. Speaking as the representative of an electorate in which apples are not grown, but are consumed, I have been impressed very unfavorably with the increase of price and the deterioration of quality since the apple and pear acquisition scheme came into operation a few years ago. Before the Parliament goes into recess honorable members will consider the Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill, and there are rumbles in the air of the nationalization of the medical and dental professions. If, on the one hand, we have the measures which the Government has proposed for reducing the cost of medical services and, on the other hand, organizations such as have been established under this bill which reduced the quantity of apples available while increasing the price to the Aus tralian consumer, the old adage that “ an apple a day keeps the doctor away “ will have to be changed to “ a doctor a day keeps the apple away”. We are approaching that situation. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), when replying to the powerful representations made by the honorable member for Franklin, should give this explanation to those of us who, while we cannot refer to the number of acres of apples under cultivation in our electorate, do know how much the price of fruit has increased, despite the best efforts of tho Prices Commissioner, inspectors and a host of officials, and also how scarce apples have become. It is one of those continuing paradoxes which will never cease to mystify me, that as soon as a government organization takes control of a commodity such as apples the quality of the fruit deteriorates and the price increases. We must preserve the ageold proverb that “ an apple a day keeps the doctor away “ and not reverse it to “ a doctor a day keeps the apple away “, I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the curiosity of my constituents and myself on this important issue.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

– I have a certain measure of sympathy with the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder), who examines this subject from the stand-point of Tasmanian apple-growers. Indeed, they are the principal body of apple-growers in Australia. However, I remind the honorable gentleman that we are considering the Apple and Pear Organization Bill, and that the Tasmanian pear crop is small compared with the Victorian pear crop. Pears and peaches which are grown in the Shepparton and Kyabram districts are superior to Tasmanian pears. In addi-. tion, the crops produced per acre in those areas are possibly greater than the apple production per acre in Tasmania.

Mr Falkinder:

– That is not correct.

Mr RANKIN:

– Has the honorable member figures showing the production of apples per acre in Tasmania compared with the production of peaches per acre in Victoria ?

Mr Falkinder:

– I have the information.

Mr Barnard:

– The honorable member for Bendigo has shifted his ground, because he is now referring to peaches.

Mr RANKIN:

– My remarks relate to peaches and pears. Pears grown in the Goulburn Valley are worth eating, but Tasmanian pears are not. They are more suitable for stewing.

Mr Holt:

– Tasmanian pears are rather “ woody “.

Mr RANKIN:

– Yes, the brownskinned fruit is put in incinerators in the Goulburn Valley. As a producer of apples Tasmania is outstanding. At the same time, I remind the honorable member for Franklin that some areas in Victoria also produce excellent apples.

Mr Pollard:

– Probably the best in Australia.

Mr RANKIN:

– Excellent apples are grown in the Harcourt and Amphitheatre districts. However, Victorian growers admit that the quality of their apples is not equal to that of Tasmanian apples. Finally, I contend that growers of pears are just as entitled to a fair measure of representation on the board as are the apple-growers in the wonderful district which the honorable member for Franklin represents.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) has missed the point of this proposal. The rival merits of the fruit grown in Tasmania and Victoria do not enter into this discussion. However, for the purposes of my argument, I am prepared to concede that Victoria grows far better pears than Tasmania does, but I suggest that the honorable gentleman should support the amendment. If the pear production of Victoria is comparable with the apple production of Tasmania, he should realize that if the proposed basis of 5 acres is adopted .persons with small but prolific orchards will be excluded from voting for members of the Australian Apple and Pear Board. In Tasmania, production is so prolific that many orchardists derive a livelihood from small holdings. They are entitled to representation on this board. Therefore, we should urge that the area be reduced from 5 to 3 acres.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.In general, I support the views of the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) ; but, on this particular provision, I am naturally more Tasmanian than are the representatives of Tasmania themselves. In respect of all boards controlling primary producing industries, the principle of one man one vote should be adopted. I am aware however, that a man who grows a few apples or pears is not necessarily an orchardist, and that we must adopt an area basis when determining the franchise for voters. The amendment which the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) has submitted does not go far enough. In my opinion, the area should be reduced to 2 acres. Prolific crops of apples are grown in Tasmania on orchards of that size. These small holdings produce 200 or 300 cases of apples for export, and the growers should be entitled to vote for a representative on the board. The Minister should accept the amendment. The principle is supported by orchardists in my constituency which, everybody knows, grows the best apples and pears in Australia. They have adopted a very broad-minded view and have actually suggested to me that the franchise should be reduced to an area of 2 acres. I urge the Minister to adopt the proposal.

Mr DUTHIE:
“Wilmot

.Under the original act, the “ occupier “ of an orchard was a grower who produced 250 bushels of apples. The acreage basis was not mentioned. Now, the Government proposes to alter that position, and establish a 5 acre franchise. During the five year period 1941-45 inclusive, the average yields per acre of apples in the various States were - New South Wales 69 bushels ; Victoria 81 ; Queensland 73 ; South Australia 114; Western Australia 135; and Tasmania 287. As the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) pointed out, many of our orchardists in parts of southern Tasmania can produce up to 1,000 bushels per acre. Under the original act, an orchardist in New South Wales required a property of 3 acres in order to produce 250 bushels of apples. In Tasmania, an orchardist could produce that quantity on five-sixths of an acre. The proposal in the bill that the area shall be 5 acres will disfranchise hundreds of applegrowers throughout the Commonwealth, but principally in Tasmania, where an orchardist can obtain a living from a property of 4 acres. Yet he would not have a voice in the conduct of his own industry. I submit that to the Minister as an argument in favour of a reduction of the proposed acreage basis.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I cannot accept the amendment. The matter of qualification for the franchise has received careful consideration, but the Government believes that the fixation of an area of 5 acres as the property qualification will give a fair reflection in the selection of members of the board. I noted the pleas of honorable members representing Tasmanian electorates that the franchise should be based on an area less than 5 acres. While I have not the precise figures relating to individual orchards in that State, I do know that the average holding there is 9 acres. With the exception of Queensland the Tasmanian acreage per grower is the highest in the Commonwealth. In those circumstances the reduction of the qualification from 5 to 3 acres would hardly be justified, [f the acreage were reduced, as proposed, many people would be enfranchised who do not grow apples as their main or principal means of livelihood. The purpose of this measure is to serve the interests of the people to whom the growing of apples and pears is their main or sole means of livelihood. If the franchise qualification were reduced to 2 acres or 3 acres many people would be enfranchised to whom the growing of apples and pears is scarcely even a sideline. The franchise qualification under the previous measure was the production of 250 cases of fruit for export. That qualification disfranchised many individuals who grew considerable quantities of fruit. The Government gave careful consideration to this matter, and I am unable to accept this amendment.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) is on the wrong foot in this matter, and that is not often the case with him. The purpose of the bill is to control, not the wholeindustry, but the export section of it,, though the board will be able to act in only an advisory capacity. The measure has nothing to do with the local market. It is true that the previous act fixed the qualification on an export quota, but on account of the war that measure was never operative. It appears to me that the principle which the Government isadopting will favour the large growers. The Minister has said that the average acreage of orchards in Tasmania is 9 acres. It stands to reason, therefore, that very many orchards must consist of less than 9 or even 5 acres and that, even under the provisions of the bill, many orchardists will be disfranchised Tasmanian growers produce 60 per cent, of the apples exported from Australia, year in, year out. Queensland orchardists export a very small percentage. In some seasons their total export falls as low as 50 or 60 cases for the whole year. In fact it may be said that Queensland orchardists do not grow sufficient apples to meet the needs of the codlin moth, let alone the export or local market needs. South Australian growers sometimes have a small quantity available for export, and so do the Victorian orchardists, though sometimes they have none. New South Wales growers do not produce enough apples for the needs of that State. If the Minister were to apply to the wheat industry the principle which he has incorporated in this bill, he would find himself in a pretty pickle. If he were to say that small wheat-growers were not to have a vote in the selection of the members of the Australian Wheat Board he would disfranchise many thousands of wheat-growers. It must be patent, therefore, that, by insisting on a franchise qualification of 5 acres, he is disfranchising many growers of apples and pears. Another aspect of this clause strikes me as strange. It is that the Labour Government is supporting the big orchardists as against the small orchardists. We often hear honorable gentlemen opposite complain that State Legislative Councils are elected on a restrictive franchise, yet this Government, which has done so much to implement socialist policy, is now saying, in effect, “It is not the apple and pear growers who produce in small quantities that we wish to provide for, but only the people who are able to produce from large areas”. If the Minister would tour the areas around Huonville and along the Tamar in which apples and pears are grown and advocate the principle of this clause he would get a very warm reception even in the depth of winter.

Mr Barnard:

– They can give it rough and tough.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– So can the Minister, and I would be all the more interested in a tour of that kind for that reason. Even at this early hour in the morning, I have a liking for a littlelogic.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– As the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has pointed out, the franchise under the previous act was based on an export qualification of 250 cases. In support of my amendment I direct attention to the export quotas of the various States in pre-war days which were as follows: -

The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) asked for figures in relation to pear production for Victoria and Tasmania. Here they are -

It will be apparent, therefore, that Tasmania produces roughly one-third of the quantity produced in Victoria. The remarks of the honorable member for Bendigo do not really affect the case for my amendment. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) suggested that the franchise qualification should be 2 acres. That would be reasonable, but I would be satisfied with 3 acres instead of 5 acres as the qualification. As my proposition is so eminently reasonable, I urge the Minister to accept it.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– The most telling point in this discussion so far has been that 80 per cent. of the apples exported from Australia are produced in Tasmania. Consequently the conditions that exist in that State should be taken into serious consideration. I have received a letter from the Fruit Board of Tasmania to the effect that 3 acres would be preferable to 5 acres asa franchise qualification. The Minister has said that the average acreage of orchards in Tasmania is 9 acres. I know of one orchard of 250 acres, and there must be many others which greatly exceed 9 acres in area.

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– What is the date of the letter from the Tasmanian Fruit Board?

Dame ENID LYONS:

– It is dated the 20th February, 1947. The paragraph in relation to the acreage reads -

A reduction to 3 acres would mean that 171 additional producers would be included.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the. amendment.

Mr Pollard:

– I have a letter from the Tasmanian Fruit Board which suggests the adoption of an acreage qualification, but it does not mention any specific acreage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting sub-section (21 and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - “ (2.) The Board shall consist of-

two members to represent the growers of apples and pears in the State of Tasmania;

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.This clause deals with the constitution of the Australian Apple and Pear Board and provides that a representative of the employees engaged in the industry shall he included on the board. This is a new departure. As the Minister has declined to reduce the acreage qualification for franchise purposes, I appeal to him to consider amending the clause to provide that the representative of the employees shall come from Tasmania, as that State produces by far the largest proportion of our export trade. Under the previous act, there were four Tasmanian representatives included in the eleven members of the board. The proportion in this bill i3 two out of seven. The reduction of representation is thus from 37 per cent, to 28 per cent. As other honorable members have pointed out, it cannot be gainsaid that Tasmania produces between 62 per cent, and 65 per cent, of the total exports of apples and pears from the Commonwealth. Yet that State is to have only 28 per cent, of the representation on the board. That cannot be justified. Adopting the Tasmanian point of view, I suggest that the difficulty could be overcome and the representation could be made fairer if Tasmania had three of the seven representatives on the board. That would increase its representation from 2S per cent, to 43 per cent. I believe that all States should have representation, and they will have it under this legislation. But in fairness and justice, the State which exports the most should have the largest representation. Further, in support of that contention, I shall give figures which show how the Commonwealth is depending on Tasmania for exports of apples and pears, particularly apples. Before the war, mainland States often were unable to fill their quota of apples for export, and it fell to Tasmania to make up the deficiency. In 1939, Tasmania’s quota for export was 2,550,000 bushels, but its actual exports totalled 2,862,717 bushels, an increase above the quota of 312,717 bushels, due to the inability of Victoria and New South “Wales to contribute their quota. In 1938, Tasmania’s quota was 2,415,800 bushels, but it exported 2,881,07 6 bushels, an increase of 465,276 bushels above the quota. So in those two years Tasmania contributed to the export trade an additional 777,993 bushels. In order that Aus- tralia may maintain maximum exports, Tasmania is depended upon to come to the rescue when there are bad seasons on the mainland. That is another argument in support of its having three members on the board.

The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson), during the secondreading debate, maintained that Tasmania has no employee organization from which a representative could be selected. I inform him that the Australian Workers Union has in its ranks hundreds of employees in the apple and pear industry, from whom could be selected quite easily an employees’ representative for appointment to the board. I trust that the Minister will give this matter very serious consideration.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– I move -

That, in proposed new sub-section (2.), paragraph (6), the word “two” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ three “.

The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) has urged that the representative of employees should be engaged in the industry in Tasmania, and has stated whence the representative might come. Representing as I do an electorate within which the production of apples and pears is greater than in any other State in Australia, I suggest that that representative should, come from Franklin.

Mr Duthie:

– 1 would not disagree with that.

Mr FALKINDER:

– Figures which I gave in my second-reading speech furnished conclusive proof of the justification for increasing the representation of Tasmania. New South Wales produces 3 per cent, of exports of apples and pears, Victoria 12 per cent., Queensland 1 per cent., South Australia 10 per cent., Western Australia 14 per cent., and Tasmania 60 per cent. I leave the matter to the Minister’s discretion.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

. I have heard the plea of members from Tasmania in regard to representation on the board. One of the things which I have deplored ever since I entered this Parliament is that members from all over the Commonwealth seem unable to escape from the interests- of their States, and the quantity of this or that which is grown here or there. I have never been able to see that the interests of somebody who grows- apples at Launceston differs from the interests of somebody else who grows apples at Harcourt, Orange, or somewhere in Queensland. Whilst it is good to advocate the claims of one or another part of the continent, after all this- bil] deals essentially with the interests of the industry as a whole throughout Australia, whether it be the export section or the internal marketing section. They are intertwined, and each is dependent on the other. What adversely affects one section must eventually affect adversely the other section. In the circumstances, I plead with honorable members to cease wrangling about the relative claims of different States. The board will be composed of twelve members, who will be interested in the apple and pear industry, and will be selected by the growers. Some cognizance is being taken of the States from which they come, and of the quantities of apples and pears which those States produce. The members of the board will not battle on behalf of the people of a particular State, but will work hard to advance the interests of a very great Australian industry. In the circumstances, I am not able to accept the amendment.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.This clause deals with the composition of the board, and I have very grave objections to it as it stands. The Minister (Mr. Pollard) has stated that he has consulted at great length representatives of the industry, who have given him to understand that he has their approval. According to my information, they are far from satisfied with the proposal embodied in clause 6. Last December, a meeting was held between the Minister and representatives of what is known as the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association, which represents growers throughout the whole- of Australia. In regard to the constitution of the board, those representatives put forward and strongly supported the proposal that the members of the board, with the exception of one government member, shall be bona fide fruit-growers, that they shall be directly elected by the growers and not appointed by the Government, and that they shall consist entirely of growers. This bill proposes to constitute the board in an entirely different manner. It will have on it a certain number of growers’ representatives.

Mr Pollard:

– A substantial majority.

Mr RYAN:

– That is true. But the representatives of this association ask for a board composed entirely of growers’ representatives, with the exception of one Government appointee.

Mr Pollard:

– It cannot have such, a board.

Mr RYAN:

– I suggest that it should. In addition to the growers’ representatives, there will be on the board four representatives of exporters. The contention of the growers’ organization mentioned is that the exporters are not at all interested in the price of the fruit, and that price is a matter which concerns the growers entirely. All that the exporters get is a commission on the sale of the fruit, and whether it is sold at a high or a low price makes very little difference to them. So the proposal, which I support, is that the exporters’ representatives shall be excluded from active membership of the board, and shall be consulted in an advisory capacity as often as is necessary.

The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) has said that a suitable employees’ representative can be found. Although some of the employees may be members of the Australian Workers Union, I know of none in my electorate who belongs to either that or any other union. I doubt very much whether the honorable member can find more than one or two in Tasmania. So I ask, why should an employees’ representative be put on the board? That is my first main objection.

Mr Pollard:

– I want to correct the honorable gentleman. He said that there are four representatives of the exporters on the board. The number is three.

Mr RYAN:

– I accept the Minister’s correction. My argument is still valid. The Minister contends that we should not deal with parish politics. I agree with him in general. But what we want is a reasonable balance of the various States concerned. I should be quite willing to have two representatives from Tasmania, but not two representatives from Western Australia, for the reason that there is no justification for that State having a larger representation than Victoria. These were the exports from Victoria and Western Australia for the ten years from 1930 to 1938-

Compare that with the exports of apples and pears from Western Australia over the last ten years -

It will be seen that exports from Western Australia have been approximately 2,000,000 bushels less than those from Victoria. Therefore, why should Western Australia have twice the representation on the board that Victoria has?

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I asked that the representative of the employees on the board should be a Tasmanian, but the Minister did not answer my suggestion. He said that we should consider this matter in a national way. I point out that on the Australian Meat Board Tasmania was given the lowest representation, and finally no representation at all; but although Tasmania is the principal apple exporting State, it is to receive only 28 per cent. of the representation on the board.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I regret that in my enthusiastic advocacy of a national outlook I overlooked the very strong plea of the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) that the employees’ representative on the board should be a Tasmanian. The bill does not say where that representative shall come from, but it may well be that when it comes to appointing some one he will be a Tasmanian. That would give Tasmania additional representation. I thank the honorable member for bringing the matter to my attention.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– With all the gentleness of a sucking dove the Minister for Commerce and

Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) addressed us this morning urging the development of a national outlook. I delighted in the knowledge that the parish pump is never more to creak in this chamber, but when I noticed that the bill provides for representation on the board on a State basis, I wondered where the Minister was leading us. Since theboard has been constituted on a State basis, I cannot understand why Tasmania, which produces 60 per cent. of the apples, should be given only 28 per cent. of the representation. The Minister must have spoken with his tongue in his cheek, and I am disappointed in him. Seeing that the principle of State representation has been accepted, the representation of the various States should be based on production. I very strongly support the amendment of the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder).

Mr HAMILTON:
Swan

.The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) compared the quantity of apples exported from Victoria with the quantity exported’ from Western Australia. The honorable member’s figures covered the period from 1930 to 1938, but he omitted to give the figures for 1939.

Mr Ryan:

– Those figures are not available yet.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I have them here. In 1939, 1,300,000 bushels of apples were exported from Western Australia. Over a period of ten years the average yearly exports from Victoria were 635,000 bushels as against 632,000 bushels from Western Australia. Let it be remembered that the production of apples in Western Australia is increasing rapidly, whereas production in Victoria is practically static. Soon Western Australia will be on the heels of Tasmania as a producer of apples. I believe that the exporters should be represented on the board in order to advise the growers. Section 14 of the original act states the purpose for which the board was set up, and honorable members should keep that purpose in mind when they are considering the bill. Growers in Western Australia have said that they are satisfied with the present constitution of the board, but they cannot understand why the total number of representatives has been reduced.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.The Minister (Mr. Pollard) has appealed for a broad, national outlook and a reasonable balance. This clause refers to the constitution of an Australian Apple and Pear Board, and because the appeal has been made for a national outlook I feel qualified to enter the discussion. Where would the industry be if there were not people to eat the apples and pears? Therefore, we who represent the consumers have the right to say something on their behalf. I realize that the clause deals with exports, but the board will have a say regarding the proportion of the total crop which is to be exported. The ideal of a national outlook appears to have been abandoned, because no provision is made for representation on the board of any one except those who are pecuniarily interested in the selling of apples and pears. This Labour Government, which professes to be concerned with the welfare of the people in general, has not provided for representation on the board of the consumers.

Mr Lang:

– If it were to do that it would have to create an international body, because the consumers of the apples and pears which, we export are overseas.

Mr HOLT:

– I realize that, but the consumers in Australia are concerned with the proportion of the crop that goes overseas. I have heard honorable members in this chamber asked why the export of suitings should be permitted when we are short of them in Australia, and why the Government should permit the export of tallow when we are short of soap. Therefore, it is relevant to concern ones self with what portion of the crop is to be exported, and if the consumers are not represented on the board how can we preserve a reasonable balance and a national outlook? The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who is now at the table, has the warm, kindly look of a family man. He will listen to me sympathetically when I explain that it is proposed in this measure to acquire apples for export at 3s. 3d. for a 40-lb. case, which is less than Id. per lb., while the housewife has to pay as much as ls. 2d. per lb., more than fourteen times as much as the grower is to receive.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The honorable member must direct his attention to the clause.

Mr HOLT:

– I am doing so. As I have pointed out, housewives are being required to pay fourteen times as much for apples as the grower is receiving. If the consumers were represented on the board by a distinguished feminist like the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) that sort of thing might not be permitted to occur. If my remarks be not relevant to the. clause, I do not know anything about parliamentary procedure.

Mr Pollard:

– The board is not to be established to export apples and pears.

Mr HOLT:

– I am aware of that; its function will be to advise the exporters of apples and pears. Why does the Minister attempt to split straws? While apples are being acquired at Id. per lb., they are being sold to the Australian consumer at a price which represents a profit of 1,400 per cent. Those who represent the Australian consumer should have something to say about such a state of affairs. Apples and pears constitute two of the most valuable fruit foodstuffs available to the Australian people. The only two vegetable items included in the basic wage regimen are potatoes and onions, the prices of which are very low by comparison with ruling retail fruit prices.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the clause.

Mr HOLT:

– Time and again bills are brought before us dealing with all important primary foodstuffs of the Australian people, and their discussion is usually confined ‘ to a few members who have some direct electorate interest in them. Most of us ignore their effect on the consuming public. In respect of apples and pears the consuming public has had a very raw deal. How can the present retail prices of apples be justified having regard to the meagre return to the growers? Until the Minister satisfies me on that point I shall not be satisfied with this clause or with any organization that may be established under it.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– The remarks made by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) would have great weight had the committee been discussing the marketing of apples and pears in Australia. This bill has no relation to that subject; the internal marketing is not involved ; it deals with the marketing of apples and pears outside Australia. The bill provides for the establishment of a board to advise the Minister on matters relating to the export of apples and pears. Under section 4 of the principal act, to which the clause now before the committee refers, a board was established consisting of sixteen members. Under the clause now before us the number of board members is to be reduced to twelve.What justification is there for the proposed reduction? The only possible reason I can suggest is that a smaller board might be conducive to speedier decisions. In considering a proposal of this kind, we must ensure that the new board is so constituted as to give to the States fair and adequate representation having regard to the importance of the industry in each State. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) who, as Minister for Commerce introduced the parent bill, went to considerable pains to obtain the views of apple and pear growers’ organizations in each State concerning the constitution of the board. The results of his very wide survey were incorporated in the parent act. Before arriving at a decision to reduce the membership of the board did the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) conduct such a survey? I do not think so. In my view the board provided for by the parent act constitutes a much more reasonable and just representation of the industry than does that proposed in this clause. The principal controversial matter in the clause concerns the proposed representation of Tasmanian growers, Tasmania being the biggest exporter of apples. If the Minister would adhere to the composition of the board as set out in the parent act, the growers of Tasmania, and of Victoria, the second largest exporting State, would be satisfied. It is essential that we should constitute a board which will work harmoniously in the interests of the producers in all States. The constitution of the present board is much better than that proposed in this bill. The industry would be more satisfied if the Government re-constituted the board in accordance with the principal act.

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) has advanced the specious argument that representation of apple and pear growers on the board should be on a State basis. The only fair representation would be according to production in each State, which would give Tasmania the representation to which its overwhelming productionentitles it. Why does the Minister refuse to recognize the justice of production as the basis for the representation of apple and pear growers in each State?

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) asked a question of the Minister. So did I. Neither of us has been answered.

Mr Pollard:

– The answers are in my second-reading speech.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Tasmania, as the greatest exporter of apples and pears in the Commonwealth, is equitably represented on the present board, because representation is based on production. That principle should be continued. On that basis, Victoria is entitled to greater representation than Queensland, and Tasmania is entitled to greater representation than either. I have not heard a valid explanation of the proposed change, and I shall not be satisfied until I hear one from the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Chairman of the Board).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.This clause provides that the Government representative shall be the chairman of the board. I cannot understand why the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) has not accepted the recommendation made to him in December by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association, that the chairman of the board should be an apple and pear grower or an officer of the association. The Wheat Industry Stabilization Board, on which, I concede, there are no government representatives, elects its own chairman, thereby establishing the principle that a board set up to deal with primary products should determine who should preside over it. The chairman of the Australian Apple and Pear Board occupies a highly responsible position. Members of the board are scattered round Australia and they meet at comparatively rare intervals. Most of the executive work is done between meetings by the chairman, on whose capacity largely depends the successful operation of the board. It is unlikely that a chairman appointed by the Government will have the confidence of the fruit-growers that would be enjoyed by either a fruit-grower or a member of an . organization connected with the industry. As government finance is not involved in the operations of the board, as it is in the operations of the Australian Meat Board, I fail to understand why the Minister should insist upon appointing the representative of the Government on the board as the chairman. I ask him to reconsider the matter.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– I support the claim of the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) that as no government money is involved in the operations of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, whose main function will be to advise the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) about the export of apples and pears, the chairman should be not, as is proposed in this clause, the representative of the Government on the board, but be chosen by the board itself, be he grower or exporter. The provision that the government representative shall be the chairman of the board, whose operations will be of the utmost importance to those engaged in the production and export of apples and pears, stems from the socialist doctrine espoused by the Government that it must be the determining factor in every phase of primary and secondary industries. Like every other member of the Australian Labour party, the Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture subscribed, on joining that party, with his signature on the dotted line, to the plank of the party’s platform that its objectives include the socialization of all industries. I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to admit the truth of what I have said in that respect and that he is not pandering, as the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) earlier accused other members of the party of doing, to the name of the party rather than to its real objectives.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order ! I ask the honor.orable member to return to the clause, which has nothing to do with the Australian Labour party.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– I am prepared to respect the honorable gentleman for adherence to the philosophy of the Australian Labour party, but it seems hardly necessary that he should be determined to apply its policy to this board whose importance to the Government will lie mainly in the advice that it will tender to it about the export of apples and pears, by insisting that, instead of the logical choice of a fruit-grower or an exporter, the chairman shall be the government representative. The Minister would act wisely if he retraced his steps, and left the power with members of the board to determine who shall be chairman. The matter is not of great significance to the Government or the welfare of the industry, I suppose, but the adoption of the Government’s proposal may lessen contentment and harmony in the industry.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) will agree that our approach to the bill is not hostile and that we are seeking to improve it as far as possible. Ever since I have been a. member of the House of Representatives, it has been customary for a Minister in charge of a bill when a proposal unacceptable to the Government has been made to say why it is unacceptable, but we have not heard one word from the Minister explaining the Government’s attitude in this matter. It is as hard to squeeze information out of the Minister as it is to squeeze water out of a stone. Our objective is to improve the bill. I do not object to many of its provisions, butI do object to the provision that the Government representative shall be the chairman of the board. We should like to know why our proposals are unacceptable.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses8 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Powers and functions of Board).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.This clause gives the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) complete control over the decisions of the Australian Apple and Pear Board by providing that it shall be subject to any direction of the. Minister. The same policy has been applied by the Government to other boards set up to control other branches of primary production. Those boards are supposed to represent the views of the primary producers, yet their whole authority is subject to the whim of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture who sets himself up as dictator of what they shall or shall not do. The Minister cannot deny the accuracy of my statement. This provision will destroy the confidence of the growers in the board. Honorable members should not agree to this proposal, but should retain the section in the original act which does not give to the Minister dictatorial powers. I cannot understand why this proposal has been made, because the board is only an advisory hoard.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I direct the attention of the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) to subsection 1 of section 13 of the principal act, which deals with the powers and functions of the board. It states - (1.) The Board may -

  1. make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the making of regulations for the purpose of regulating the export of apples and pears from Australia;
  2. make reports and suggestions to the Minister on such matters as the quality, standards and grading of any particular class or kind of apples and pears to he exported from Australia:
  3. advise, and make recommendations to, the Minister in respect of matters arising in connexion with any programme for the export from Australia of apples and pears;
  4. advise, and make representations to, the Minister or to any other authority on matters affecting the welfare of theapple and pear industry; and (c)either on its own behalf or in colla boration with any other Board or Authority, take, or arrange for the taking of any action which, in the opinion of the Board, is likely -

    1. to lead to the improvement of the quality of, or the prevention of deterioration, before or during transport from Australia, of apples and pears; or
    2. to expand existing markets or to secure new markets for apples and pears.

Under paragraphs a, b, c and d, the board may make recommendations or tender advice to the Minister, but under paragraph e may make certain decisions on the improvement, not only of marketing conditions within Australia, but also of the industry itself. The Government considers that it is desirable that the board should be subject to some direction and have power to make recommendations to the Minister. That becomes more desirable because the bill will empower the board, for the first time, to use revenue which is collected from exporters of apples and pears, and not from local market sellers of those fruits. Consequently, the Minister should stand in the capacity of an arbitrator between the exporters and those who may be concerned solely with the development of the home market, if ever their interests should clash. The two interests do coincide, but it could happen that the board might take a course of action injurious to the sellers of apples and pears in Australia. In the circumstances, the Minister should possess similar powers to those which he exercises in regard to other matters set out in this legislation. The bill will establish a degree of uniformity which was lacking under the principal act. I assure the honorable member for Flinders that, invariably, a reasonable Minister would act, after hearing the case submitted by the chairman of the board, along lines best calculated to benefit the apple and pear industry in Australia. A good deal of “ hooey “ and humbug has been talked about bureaucracy, socialism, communism and the heavy hand of the Labour party. The original legislation, which was introduced by the then Minister for Commerce, Mr. Archie Cameron, made all the activities of the board completely subject to the final decision of the Minister, with the exception of the powers and functions set out in paragraph e of sub-section 1 of section 13. The Government proposes to bring paragraph e into line with the other activities of the board in respect of the powers of the Minister.I shall not always be Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. One day the honorable member for Flinders may administer this department, and I am sure that he would exercise wisely and impartially the powers vested in him.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13-

Section fourteen of the Principal Act is amended -

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I move -

That, before paragraph (a), the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (aa) by inserting in sub-section (2.) after the word ‘ adopted ‘ the words ‘ but omitting the years 1940 to 1947 inclusive ‘ ; “.

Sub-section 2 of section 14 of the principal act, which deals with the power of the board to control the export of apples and pears, reads -

In adopting a basis to be applied by the Board in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding sub-section the Board shall take into consideration the average yearly exports overseas of apples and pears from each State during the period of three years immediately preceding the year in which the basis is adopted and such other factors relating to the production of apples or pears in each State and the available markets therefore as the Board thinks necessary.

The Minister (Mr. Pollard) will appreciate that during “World War II. the export of apples and pears practically ceased.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. The wording of sub-section 2 is completely adequate for the purpose. Whilst I understand the objective of the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons), I assume that an intelligent board would naturally take into consideration the factors which operated in World War II.

Dame Enid Lyons:

– The Minister would leave the matter to the discretion of the board ?

Mr POLLARD:

– I think so.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– I raised this matter in my secondreading speech. I do not believe that an intelligent board could escape taking into consideration the conditions that existed during World War II. On the other hand, the board must observe the wording of sub-section 8 of section 14, which states -

For the purpose of arriving at a decision upon any matter referred under the last preceding sub-section to an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall take into consideration the average yearly exports overseas of apples or pears from each State during the period of three years immediately preceding the year in which the matter is so referred . . .

The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) cannot escape the mandatory provision in that sub-section. The intelligence of the board does not enter into the discussion. The act provides specifically that the board shall take into consideration certain happenings in the three-year period prior to its making a decision. The Minister must acknowledge the justice of the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I move -

That, before paragraph (a), the following paragraph be inserted : - (ab) by inserting after sub-section (2.) the following sub-section : - (2a.) In cases where a State fails to fill its quota forreasons unacceptable to the Board, the Board may reduce by fifty per centum of the quantity in default, the quota of that State for the year following.’ “.

The purpose of the amendment is to cover a situation which occurred in several years and which operated to the detriment of certain States. In 1937, New South Wales was short of its quota of apples for export by 30,980 bushels, Victoria by 37,459 and Western Australia by 141,221, and Tasmania had to contribute, over and above its quota in an attempt to make up the quantity allotted to other States, 121,461 bushels. The purpose of the amendment is this: The position arises principally from the fact that when the prices on the local market are high, exporters prefer to sell the fruit for local consumption and ignore the quota for export. If we are to have orderly export, or export which promotes the interests of Australian growers, our commitments overseas must be filled. Some penalty provisions of this kind would help to stabilize the industry, and deter speculators and those who have no sense of loyalty to the export board, from taking advantage of the local market.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment. I realize the objective that the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) had in mind in submitting it, but I cannot agree to place in the hands of the board power to impose penalties. If the honorable member will refer to section 13 of the principal act, she will see that the board “may make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the making of regulations for the purpose of regulating the export of apples and pears from Australia”. This kind of problem could possibly be dealt with under those powers.

Dame Enid Lyons:

– Will the Minister consider an amendment along the lines which I suggested, but incorporating his idea? Would it operate under section 13?

Mr POLLARD:

– Without being dogmatic, I think that that is a possibility.

Dame Enid Lyons:

– Will the Minister examine the matter?

Mr POLLARD:

– Yes.

Amendment negatived.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.I direct the attention of the Minister (Mr. Pollard) to two points in relation to this clause which I ask him to elucidate. The first refers to the phrase “ and the sale and distribution after export” of apples and pears. Does that mean that the Government proposes to undertake the sale overseas of apples and pears ? That is what some growers fear is the meaning of the phrase. I do not think that that is so, but I should be glad if the Minister would clear up the matter. The next point relates to the provision the effect of which is to substitute the Minister for an arbitrator in the case of a dispute arising. The growers will be better pleased if the provision of the previous act for the appointment of an arbitrator were re-enacted.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– The clause gives the board power to control the sale of fruit after export, but it is not intended that the board shall itself engage in such operations. This provision is similar to a provision in the acts relating to canned fruits and dried fruits. It does not vest power in the board to sell the fruit, but it authorizes the board to lay down conditions in relation to export, prices and satisfactory procedure in general. As to the substitution of the Minister for the arbitrator, as provided in the previous act, all I wish to say is that in my view the Minister should accept his proper ministerial responsibility in a matter of this kind. He should be sufficiently informed of any matters in dispute to be able to give a decision without going to the expense of appointing an arbitrator to make an investigation. In any case a Minister charged with the responsibility of appointing an arbitrator would unconsciously seek an arbitrator who would be likely to be favorable to the board if a decision in favour of the board were desired, or a decision favorable to the growers if that were desired. The Minister is in a position to obtain all the information necessary to make a decision. The purpose of the clause is to avoid all the humbug and waste of time involved in the appointment of an arbitrator.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (Poll on question of continuance of Act).

Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin

– I move -

That the clause be left out.

Section 26 of the principal act, which this clause seeks to repeal, provides -

  1. If at any time within six months after the expiration ‘of three years from the commencement of this Act, or within six months after the expiration of any subsequent period of three years, a request in writing signed by not less than five hundred growers is forwarded to the Minister asking that the question of the continued operation of this Act be submitted to a poll of growers, a poll of growers on that question shall be taken in the prescribed manner within six months of the date upon which the request is received by the Minister.
  2. If, at a poll taken in pursuance of this section, a majority of the growers entitled to vote at the poll vote in favour of the discontinuance of the operation of this Act, this Act shall cease to have effect upon a date to be fixed by Proclamation not being later than the expiration of six months from the date of the taking of the poll.

The growers surely should have the right to decide whether or not the act should remain in operation. It is ordinary democratic procedure to make provision for the repeal of a measure which is unsatisfactory to the people who are chiefly affected by it.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I support the amendment. In 1938, when the previous act was under consideration in this chamber, the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) supported the inclusion of the section which the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) has quoted. If the Minister has changed his mind, I should like him to give his reasons for having done so.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Clark:

– The amendment of the honorable member for Franklin is not in order. If he does not desire section 26 of the principal act to be repealed he may vote against this clause.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– We may be quite sure from what the Minister (Mr. Pollard) said earlier in our discussion of this bill, that no amendments will be accepted, but I should like the Minister to explain why he has changed his mind in regard to section 26 of the principal act. If he desired its retention in 1938, why does he desire its repeal now? It is the democratic right of the growers of apples and pears to vote on the continuance or otherwise of this measure. We may be sure that if the board does its work so as to develop our export trade the growers will desire it to continue in operation, but if its activities are not in the best interests of the industry, and therefore of Australia, they will rightly desire its abolition. The people who are closely in touch with the board will be in a better position than people in the Riverina or at Mr Lofty to initiate a move for its abolition, if they consider that course desirable. I therefore fail to understand why the Government should desire section 26 to be deleted.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– It is true, as stated by the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan), that when the 1938 bill was before the Parliament I favoured the inclusion of section 26 but I have learned a great deal about the apple and pear industry since that time, and I now consider that the section should be deleted. It would be preposterous to allow a disgruntled individual to tour the country seeking 500 signatures for a poll on the continuation of the act. An individual might take that course out of pure cussedness, and if he obtained the requisite number of signatures, the Commonwealth Government wouldbe put to the expense of holding a poll of more than 11,000 orchardists, the great majority of whom would probably desire the continuance of the legislation. If orchardists become dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme they may make an approach to the Government through their parliamentary representatives, or they may petition the Parliament for the repeal of the act.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3653

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1947

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 21st February (vide page 130), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That, in respect of all apples and pears exported from the Commonwealth, in lieu of the rate of charges imposed by the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938 and subject to a lower rate being prescribed by regulations under that Act as proposed to be amended by the bill to give effect to this resolution, charges be imposed at the rate of One penny for each case, two half-cases or three trays of applies or pears exported.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Pollard and Mr. Lemmon do prepare and bring in u bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Reading

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the maximum charge which may be imposed on apples and pears exported from the Commonwealth. The Apple and Pear Export Charges Act at present provides for a maximum charge of id. a case, subject to any lower rate being prescribed by regulations. The rate at present prescribed by regulation is id. “a case. It is proposed that the maximum charge which may be imposed under the act shall be increased from Jd. to Id. a case. The whole of the levies collected are paid to the Australian Apple and Pear Board, and are applied to meeting the administrative costs and other expenditure of the board under the Apple and Pear Organization Act. By virtue of action proposed in the Apple and Pear Organization Bill, the functions of the board are to be extended to embrace additional services to the apple and pear industry. The increase of the maximum rate of levy is intended to provide for any additional revenue which may be considered necessary or desirable to enable the further functions of the board to be effectively applied in the interests of the industry.

Mr Falkinder:

– What are to be the extended functions of the board?

Mr POLLARD:

– The bill provides that, the maximum levy which may be struck will not exceed Id. a case. The purpose of the levy is to finance the operations of the board under the legislation which the House has just passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3654

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH PACIFIC AIRLINES AGREEMENT BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 3221), on motion by Mr. . Barnard -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

Motion (by Mr. Barnard) proposed -

That the foregoing message be taken into consideration, in Committee of the whole House, forthwith.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– This appropriation will authorize the execution of an agreement between the Governments of Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand for the establishment of the British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines. The measure will enable a trans-ocean service to operate across the Pacific Ocean under government auspices. The three governments will be joint participants in the scheme. A company is to be registered with the necessary capital. We live in a world of shrinking dimensions. Since the first pioneering flight was made by the late Kingsford Smith, flights across the Pacific Ocean have become a mere commonplace. But we should not allow the measure to pass in a few minutes, in the early hours of the morning, without considering what it means. A little thought and consideration should be given to it, because air traffic across the Pacific Ocean will now increase, and with the growth of aircraft there will be, I hope, reductions of air rates. It should be possible for the “ man in the street “ to travel by air. The fares should not be so prohibitive that only peripatetic Ministers and business executives can travel by air. Greater understanding among the countries of the world can be promoted by the closer contacts which air travel makes possible. The Government has decided to make this service a government-controlled one, and a joint enterprise. The Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr.Barnard), said in his second-reading speech -

Hie Australian Government at the Chicago international Air Conference advanced the view that international air transport should l>e under international ownership and control. This view did not receive full support, but the tripartite organization set up to operate the service in North America is a step in this direction.

Australia has expressed its view in regard to government-owned services in the councils of the world. On the first occasion it had the support of Afghanistan and one other country, but could not “ sell the idea “ to Great Britain or the United States of America. Honorable members will note that the Americans intend to operate their own trans-Pacific air service side by side with this joint service by Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. That service will be provided by Pan-American Airways, which shows that, big as these airlines are, they can be conducted by private enterprise. I believe in government direction of and partnership in air services. I advanced that view many years before the Labour Government came into office in this country. Partnership makes available the resources of government, in conjunction with the drive and initiative of private enterprise. Australia has a fine record in defence and civil aviation, and Australian airmen have pioneered many air routes and types of aircraft. Yet the Government, after entering into a partnership with Qantas Empire Airways Limited, has “ swallowed “ that company, which over the years has had the finest record in the British Empire. I have a statement made in London by the managing director of Qantas Empire Airways Limited, Mr. Hudson Fysh, who was a member of the first squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in World War I. In it he said -

The decision of the Commonwealth Government to purchase the Qantas private shareholding in Qantas Empire Airways Limited has come as the result of greatly increased expansion and capital requirements for the latter organization, and is in line with governmental policy and with previous action by all other main Empire units . . .

It is naturally with reflections that the old Qantas company faces the end of a 27 years era of work which, has continued under the support and confidence of the various governments of the day, beginning from the early pioneering days of faith alone, through the developmental stages, when governments and business began to take notice and take more of a hand, to the present times of outstanding national and international importance, and when large financial considerations are involved.

Qantas, originally founded by Queensland enterprise and shareholders, is the oldest name in air transport in the Empire, and probably the second oldest in the world, and the organization has been one which from its humble beginning has tried to carry on in this realm with honour -the world leadership won in the air by the Australian aerial pathfinders and the Australian Plying Corps and the Royal Australian Air Force in their own spheres, and now must accept -the changes which time prescribes in all things.

It is rather sad to find that splendid company going out of existence. The Government first took over’ the British Overseas Aircraft Corporation’s holding in it, and appointed certain directors to the board, but within a few months of having established that partnership it “ swallowed “ the rest of the company. I do not know how much complacence there was in regard to the transaction on the part of the company. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has said in this House - I quote the sense only, not his actual words - “ Because of the need for greater capital to purchase new Constellation aircraft, which is rather too big for private enterprise to finance, the Government has taken over the company”. It is rather sad that the enterprise of the old company, covering a period of 27 years, is being lost. Of course, the airline will continue to operate, whether it is under the control of the Government or of private enterprise. Australia has thousands of highly-trained members of air crews. But the dead hand of government control will be felt by the service. Once a service has been nationalized or socialized - call it what one may - efficiency falls off and costs rise. That will be demonstrated in the balance-sheets relating to the operations of TransAustralia Airlines. We must appreciate the fact that a Pacific air service will operate. Australian National Airways is the instrument which is operating the present service. Although it is not a very regular service, it is operating successfully. The record of that company, too, is a good one.

I regret that the service of Qantas Empire Airways Limited is to be entirely government-owned, and wish that it were otherwise, and that private enterprise was still in partnership with the Government, because there would then be greater efficiency and less cost to the taxpayer.

With those comments, I wish the service well, and hope that it will foster trade and travel and carry many passengers between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. I trust also that the fares will be cheap, so that as many as possible may travel by this means.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In committee : ( Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Barnard) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the execution, by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, of an agreement for the purpose of establishing, operating and developing trans-Pacific air services between Australia and North America and between New Zealand and North America, and for other purposes.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remainder of bill - by leave - considered as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3656

INTERIM FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 3220), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.The purpose of this bill is to provide certain benefits for members of the interim forces. These do not include all the benefits under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, but the bill provides for re-establishment leave, legal assistance, repatriation pensions and certain other benefits where appropriate. Everybody recognizes that members of the interim forces should enjoy these benefits, and the

Opposition approves the measure. However, I have some doubt as to just who is covered by the bill. Clause 3 defines a member of the interim forces as follows : - “ Member of the Interim Forces “ means a person who, after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, and prior to a date fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, enlists or re-engages in, or is appointed or re-appointed to the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth for a term not exceeding two years.

There is some doubt in my mind as to whether this bill will cover those who are now serving with the occupation forces in Japan. It would certainly be unfair if they were excluded.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.Many reports have been received from Japan about the welfare and discipline of our troops there. I believe that it is a mistake to enlist young men of eighteen for service in an occupation force in a foreign country. Youths of that age were not allowedto go overseas on service during the war, and we know that the morale and discipline of very young men may suffer when they have not enough work to do as members of an occupation force. I know of some young members of the Australian occupation force who have been punished for serious offences, although I do not say that such instances are numerous. There is now a move in Great Britain against enlisting youths of eighteen for garrison duty overseas. I ask the Minister whether the age of enlisting has been raised to twenty years ?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.Clause 5 contains the following provision : - (1.) A member of the Interim Forces shall, immediately prior to his discharge, unless his discharge is, in the opinion of the prescribed authority, other than an honorable discharge, be entitled to leave of absence -

  1. where the member has been engaged in those Forces for a period of not less than six months - for a period of thirty days; and
  2. in any other case - for a period of fifteen days.

I ask the Minister whether the leave provided for in that sub-clause is exclusive of any leave which a man may have accumulated as a member of the forces. I believe that his discharge leave should be additional to any other leave to which he had become entitled before his discharge, but had not taken.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · ALP

– Those who are now in the forces, and those who enlist before the 30th June, will receive the benefits of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, but those who enlist after the 30th June will be entitled to the benefits provided in this bill. The point raised by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) has nothing to do with this bill at all. It can be raised at the right time and in the right place.

The honorable member for Balaclava also asked me about the rights of servicemen to leave of absence. Sub-clause 1 of clause 5 is as follows: - (1.) A member of the Interim Forces shall, immediately prior to his discharge, unless his discharge is, in the opinion of the prescribed authority, other than an honorable discharge, be entitled to leave of absence -

  1. where the member has been engaged in those Forces for a period of not less than six months - for a period of thirty days; and
  2. in any other case - for a period of fifteen days.

That is designed to exclude the person who enlists after the30th June, 1947, and who, having a period of re-establishment leave due to him from a previous period of service, seeks to aggregate the two periods of service for the purpose of calculating leave under this measure. I hope that this explanation clears up the point raisedby the honorable member.

Mr White:

– I submit that the other point which I raised could have been dealt with during the consideration of clause 4, and that would have been the right time and the right place to do so.

Mr LANG:
Reid

.- I am interested in youths of eighteen years of age who may have to serve overseas.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This bill deals only with benefits to servicemen.

Mr LANG:

– I do not want to be brushed aside like that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow honorable members to debate matters outside the scope of the bill.

Mr White:

– I rise to a point of order. Clause 4 of the bill states -

In addition to the rights derived by members of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth, who enlist or re-engage in, or are appointed or re-appointed to, those Forces after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, as the conditions directly governing their service in any of those Forces under any law regulating that service, the benefits, advantages and assistance which shall accrue to, or in relation to, those members by reason of their service after that date, shall be those which are provided for or in respect of those members by this Act and the regulations made under this Act and shall be no others.

I submit that that provision covers the men about whom I have inquired.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 4 deals with benefits to the forces, and has no relation to enlistment.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3657

APPROVED DEFENCE PROJECTS PROTECTION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd June (vide page 3248), on motion by Dr. Evatt -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

– The bill now before the House is designed to deal with the problem of protecting defence projects which have been approved by the Minister for Defence as immediate defence projects. The bill provides, in the case of such undertakings, that any person who, without reasonable cause or excuse, by boycott or threat of boycott, advocates or encourages the prevention or hindrance or obstruction of the carrying out of an approved project shall be guilty of an offence. All honorable members will agree that some such measure as this is very desirable, though itmay be that some honorable members believe that the penalties should be more severe. It may be that there are various grounds for believing that the provisions of the bill against these actions ought to be more precise ; but on the whole my own feeling is that the bill is a very good step in the right direction. The whole bill, of course, is produced by the discussion that has occurred over the guided weapons testing range in the centre of Australia. The Communists made a threat that they would ban any work on the range. That threat which was made by the Building Trades Federation under the control of Mr. Thomson has galvanized the Government into action. The first question that arises is, why ? The answer to that is as put by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) that the threat by the Communists is a threat of a boycott for political and not for industrial purposes. In brief, the Communists said, “We have not some industrial claim in relation to this matter, but we have a political claim. ‘ We are not saying that wages ought to be better, that conditions ought to be better; we are not putting forward some demand that an employer should concede; we are saying that the construction of a guided weapons testing range is a matter which should not be engaged in by the Commonwealth Government.” As to that, the House will be completely unanimous. The range is an item in the defence policy of Australia, and as such every Australian who is concerned with the problem of defence will support it. Therefore, the Attorney-General says, “ Here we have a threat founded not on industrial, but on political grounds. Here is something which does not proceed from a desire for better conditions, but which, on the contrary, proceeds from a desire either that there should not be preparations of this kind in Australia, or that such preparations ought to be made by Russia and not by the British Empire.” Up to that point everybody can agree. If the Government and the Parliament of this country are both in agreement that this project should go forward, then the most stringent penalties should be imposed against those who want to frustrate it. The -one question that is left in my mind - and it will be left in the minds of many honorable members - is this: If that be true on this matter, why has it not been true on other matters? We have only to cast our minds back to what occurred in relation to the association between this country and the Netherlands East Indies, for example, to recall that the ban which was imposed by the same Communist group upon trade between this country and the Netherlands East Indies, had no relation to industrial problems, no relation whatever to wages that ought to be paid or conditions of work on the waterfront. It was designed primarily and essentially to exercise political pressure upon the Government of Australia, to say to the Government, “ Look ! We do not believe we should have more peaceable contact with the Netherlands East Indies. As Communists we believe that one side should be f avoured “, and as a result we had the waterfront ban, and ships tied up for months, indeed it might be said, quite accurately, for years. All I want to say to the Attorney-General is that if this bill be a good bill - and on the whole I think it is - why should not the same kind of provision have been applied against those people who were holding up contact between this country and a former ally in the East Indies? The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), in the course of the discussion on the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, indicated that a certain section of the Crimes Act would be repealed. I recall to the attention of the House the fact that, on the 30th April last, the honorable gentleman said -

We have had much to do in preparing the new order that we were elected to bring in, but in duo course we shall repeal that section of the Crimes Act.

He was referring to section 30j of the Crimes Act; but if we look at the other sections of the Crimes Act, in particular the immediately following section, we shall find that the Minister was referring to the probable repeal of a group of sections, one of which deals expressly, in terms rather similar to those in this bill, with the problem of boycotting public works of importance to the Commonwealth. It is rather remarkable that within the course of very little more than a month the Government, through a Minister, should have said in effect, “ We are going to wipe these provisions out of the Crimes Act “ and than through another Minister should say, in effect, “We are going to re-enact these provisions relating to the boycott in a slightly different form in order to deal with the problem of the guided weapons testing range”. Everybody in this House will believe at once that if this country determines that it will have certain defence projects established in Australia, no person ought to be allowed to frustrate that idea. Therefore the whole sense of the House will be favorable to the substance of the bill now before us. But the more true that is, the more remarkable it is that we should have been told only a few weeks ago that the existing provisions of the law in the Crimes Act which deal with this very matter were to be repealed. The logic is not easy to understand. Honorable members on this side of the House have repeatedly said that strikes against production in Australia, against something which is of the essence of Australian reconstruction, should be treated as illegal. The Government says to that, “No; we will not do it. You cannot treat strikes as illegal. You cannot penalize people for engaging in strikes “. Why? Because the Government says you cannot compel people to work, and unless you feel that a penalty against a strike will compel somebody to work the penalty is futile. Bight on top of that argument the Government produces a bill the terms of which propose to punish people for engaging in a strike, a boycott or any action designed to prevent a national defence project from being carried out. That seems to be a matter of some considerable inconsistency. No doubt the Attorney-General will explain to us in his reply how he reconciles these two points of view. What this bill seeks to do will, I believe, commend itself to the House. First, there is to be a defence project. Secondly, the Minister declares in the Commonwealth Gazette that that project - and I quote the exact words of the clause– is “ an immediate defence project “. Having done so, the consequences of the bill follow, and any person who, without reasonable cause or excuse, by boycott or threat of boycott, prevents, hinders or obstructs the carrying out of the project is to be guilty of an offence. I support that view, and, I believe that every honorable member will do likewise. There has been some comment here and there about the expression “ without reasonable cause or excuse “. That expression, as the Attorney-General knows, has been considered in relation to the provisions of the Crimes Act. To my mind it is a proper provision. It allows the tribunal which deals with a charge to say, “Was there really a genuine, fair and honest excuse for what was done? If there was not, what was done is and should be an offence against the law of the Commonwealth “. I do not want to discuss the matter in detail because it is a rather idle occupation to talk about details of matters of this kind. On the whole, while I feel that this bill may turn out to be inadequate in the sense that something more may need to be done, it is a very good and sensible step in the right direction. It would be a monstrous thing to suppose for one moment that the Commonwealth of Australia, acting in collaboration with other countries of the British Empire, should set out on a project like the guided weapons testing range in Australia and then by silence or otherwise, consent to allow a few agitators to frustrate it, and do nothing about the matter. I believe the bill to be sound in the sense that it provides that people who are opposing themselves by word or by deed to the will of this country on matters of great moment should be punished. The substance of the bill is such as to commend it to all honorable members.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I oppose the bill, and ask that it be withdrawn. I do not think there has been any subject that has stirred the people of Australia so deeply as this subject of the proposed guided weapons testing range has, carrying with it, as it does, a threat of the violation of the aboriginal reserves. People in many thousands throughout the country have raised their voice in protest, and that pro-‘ test has been honest and sincere. I have no hesitation in saying that there has been no political propaganda in it. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) was reported as having said that he knew that Soviet influence was behind the protest. He was later, though not so loudly or so publicly, reported as having denied saying that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has just said that the Communists made a threat, but the truth is that the Building Trades Federation made the threat, and that is somewhat different. I have not seen any of the Communist newspapers that have been published on the subject, but I have been told that, at an earlier date, there was published in the Communist newspapers support of the ban or a decision to ban the range. I am told that now the Communist newspapers are in favour of the Government’s proposal. Most probably the Communist party of Australia has no particular policy on the subject and individual members have regarded it as nonpolitical. However, it seems to have been the policy of the capitalist press and others to make a political issue out of the general protests. The people who count, the people for whom I speak and in whose interest I strongly oppose the bill, are a great mass of honest people who have taken a stand against the violation of the land that we have declared a sanctury, a violation which, if it takes place, gives a denial to the undertaking that we have given in the Charter of the United Nations before the ink on that document is dry.

It is not only for the aborigines that I speak. There is an ever-growing belief that the serious study of and education about world peace and the carrying out of the provisions of the United Nations Charter should be undertaken. Such persons as wish to continue this work of education look with apprehension at the huge amounts of money to be expended in the development of armaments at a period when the world is looking towards peace and ultimate disarmament. Groups of people have already planned for an educational campaign towards an understanding of the Charter. This bill can, if required by any government, be used against such groups of people, against pacifists or other sections of the community, if they, by speech or writing, dare to advocate or encourage the prevention of an approved defence project. There is absolutely nothing in the bill to protect such people, and the assurance of the Attorney-General to-day would not be taken into account in the event of a case going before the court.

There is no need at all for the introduction of this bill. The Crimes Act, which is still on the statute-book, adequately covers whatever ground the Government wishes to cover in respect of the protection of any approved defence projects or any other matters of the same sort. The Labour handbook, at page 73, which sets out the federal platform of the Australian Labour party, states that the objectives of the party are, amongst other things -

To amend the Crimes Act by repealing the sections relating to political or industrial offences.

But the Crimes Act is still law and thereshould be no need to introduce a bill of this kind. This bill and the failure of the Australian Labour party to repeal the sections mentioned in its handbook represent a blow to freedom struck by those who should be the advocates of freedom. There is not even the excuse of war precaution. This is a coercive measure of the worst kind undertaken in a time of peace. I believed that the policy of this country was government of the people by the people in the interests of the whole people. Before introducing a proposition such as this so-called defence proposal a referendum should have been held. I do not and cannot claim t6 know that the majority of the people are against the range, but I think the duty of the Government was clear in that respect. Its duty was to find out. I must vote against what I interpret as a coercive measure, contrary to’ the principles of the Australian Labour party and freedom of expression. Under the provisions of the bill, it is possible to make criminals of men and women whose opinions, held in all sincerity, may be at variance with those of the government of the day.

I have spoken of the Crimes Act. A bill was introduced in this House in 1926 to amend the Crimes Act. The right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) said in February of that year in a speech on that bill -

This bill would not have been introduced but for the fact that the Government worked up a stunt about the Communist menace.

Is that not true again to-day, with the difference, of course, that the stunt has been worked up by members of the Opposition and the Government has “ fallen for it” aird brought, down a bill of the same type. The report continues -

Under cover of an attack upon a section of the trade unionists of this country, the whole trade unions movement is threatened.

Honorable members who wish to check the details of that debate might very well do so. The late Dr. Maloney made a fine speech and the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) also ably contributed to the debate. Those speeches should not be forgotten.

The Minister will no doubt say, “ What about protection of an approved defence project ? “ In speeches that I have already made in this House I have said that I cannot call the guided weapon testing range project, and I do hot believe it can reasonably be called, a defence project-. Nor is it reasonable at this time to discuss at such length any approved defence project of such cost after we have gone through a war to end war and at the beginning of a period df peace, so-called;

This bill does more. Under its provi- sions, industrial conscription is foreshadowed. If there should not be sufficient workers, without any ban or any attempt tit preventing workers from working on the project, what will the Government do? I suggest that there is everything in the bill to allow industrial conscription and that, with the Crimes Act at the back df it, I feel that there would be ho hesitation on the part of the Government, having once said that it would go On with the project, to conscript workers for it;

On the question of the safeguarding of freedom of speech for these who honestly and sincerely believe that this is wrong, at what point does speech become incitement to sabotage? There is nothing in the bill to show that free speech is protected. What do we mean by “ defence “ ? The defence policy of the Australian Labour party is framed with the object of promoting the peace of the world. I quote from a speech delivered in this House in 1938 -

The defence policy of the Australian Labour party is framed with the object of promoting the peace of the world. The Labour party proposes that Australia should act in the matter of defence in such a way that its ambitions may become the rule of contact for the rest of the world. The only prepara tions foi- war which cart be consistent with the peace of the world are those for the exclusive purpose of” resisting invasion. If nation’s concentrated solely on resisting invasion tH their own country and did nothing more, it should be obvious that they will not.be suspected or feared. Consequently, war will be unlikely.

The passage continued -

That is why it regards as ‘objectionable the provision df large ships of war: these are equivocal weapons, because obviously while these may ha used for the defence of Australia they may also be used foi- other purposes including the general defence of the Empire. A. great deal of the danger of war eventuating is undoubtedly due to preparations made for war. Nations cannot continually prepare for war without incurring that danger.

Honorable members will recall that the two countries which were most adequately prepared for World War II. were Germany and Japan. The passage proceeded -

J hold that whatever happens to Australia, or to any nation in the long fun. we must make a stand for world peace, and, with that object in view, if it is necessary to make preparations for war, only such action should be taken as could not be construed as anything hut preparation for the actual defence of our own territory.

In establishing this testing range, we shall experiment with weapons df mass destruction which can only be described as weapons of aggression. They cannot be used for defensive purposes* I invite the attention of the Attorney-General to the case of Bex v. Archdale Commonwealth Law Reports, vol. 41, page 128, in reference to the Word “ boycott “. A portion Of the written judgment which appears on page 138 reads- =-

The word “boycott” has acquired a signification which is now generally recognized in common speech. It connotes a concerted withdrawal of intercourse of some kind. Manifestly no exhaustive definition can be formulated . . .

Several judges agreed that the meaning of the word “ boycott “ was vague. On page 140, Mr. Justice Higgins referred to section 30k of the Crimes Act which he described as vague, but the wording of it is substantially the same as paragraph a of sub-clause 1 of clause 4 of the bill. Mr. Justice Starke pointed out that the words “ without reasonable cause or excuse “ are also vague. I shall reserve any further remarks I have to make until the committee stage.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– While I respect the opinions of the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn), I cannot allow some of her remarks to pass without comment. We must be realists, and not make the mistake of falling into fallacies of the past. Many of the people who originally protested against the establishment of the range in Central Australia for testing guided weapons, were prompted by humanitarian motives on behalf of the aborigines, but they were fooled by the Communists. The honorable member declared that no evidence was adduced to prove that the Communists were behind these protests. She stated that this bill directs a blow at freedom, and at those who should be the guardians of freedom. She stated that the bill was the most coercive measure ever to be introduced into this Parliament. Surely it will be a blow to freedom if we do not protect our security and safeguard our defence secrets. In support of the last Commonwealth loan campaign, the Government exhibited the German V-2 rocket bomb in a number of suburbs of Melbourne, and an officer of the Australian Army described the mechanism of the weapon. Among the crowd who inspected it was a number of girls who were selling booklets. I thought that this printed matter was associated with the loan campaign, but, upon buying one, I discovered that the booklets had been issued by the Communist party in Adelaide, and had been written by a person named Watt. The general tenor of the remarks in the booklets was that “ We must attack all defence projects “. The honorable member for Bourke used similar words. She declared that we should not embark upon any measures for the defence of Australia. Are we blind to what is happening in other parts of the world? The spiritual home of these Communists, who are really spies in our midst, is the most heavily armed nation in the world to-day. Soviet Russia has25 airborne divisions compared with one airborne division possessed by the United States of America. If we do not take adequate measures against these spies - and to date the measures taken have been most inadequate - we shall be conquered, and the British Empire, which was the defender of civilization in World War II., will be overcome. Let us not be foolish about this matter.

I am glad to see that the Government is taking this action to protect our defence projects, but I should like these proposed measures to have a broader basis. This bill is to provide for the protection of approved defence projects, which are defined as -

Any work or undertaking for the testing of long-range weapons which is approved by the Minister of State for Defence . . .

In Great Britain, radar stations were erected in 1935.

Mr Holt:

– The definition of “ approved defence project “ is wider than the honorable member indicated.

Mr WHITE:

– That is so. I was more concerned with the reference to longrange weapons. Radar was one of the principal factors in saving Great Britain from Nazi Germany. Had the secret of radar not been preserved, Great Britain might have been overcome. Radar enabled the British fighter aircraft to be in the air to intercept German aircraft before they had reached Great Britain. Although the radar stations were erected in 1935, the Nazis did not learn the secret. Great Britain preserved its preeminence in radar throughout World War II., and, indeed, its researches were two years ahead of those of any other country. Now, Great Britain will be engaged in experimenting with long-range weapons in Central Australia. If we do not protect the secrecy of these weapons, we shall deserve the fate which will probably befall us.

The penalties which this bill provides should be adequate to fit the crime. Some persons who sat in the visitor’s gallery of the House last evening were well known Communists, who have held up our trade with the Netherlands East Indies, and who, in some respects, wield greater power’ than the Government. If any person should attempt to sabotage our defence measures, let the punishment fit the crime ! The penalties which the bill provides are a fine of not more than £500, or imprisonment for not more than six months. Six months imprisonment for a man who would destroy his country - a traitor who shelters under the Australian flag, but who owes allegiance to a foreign power! I am gratified that the Government has resisted the threats of the Communists to boycott the work on the testing range. In Great Britain, when Professor Nunn, a scientist, sold a uranium secret to the Russians, he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. The penalties which this bill provides should be sufficient to deter men from attempting to sabotage our defence projects. “We should not be squeamish about the severity of the punishment for such a crime. The Communists have announced their intention to damage Australian defence measures, and obtain defence secrets. “We know that Communists are employed in the Public Service. Some of the scientists on the staff of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research are avowed Communists. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) has mentioned the names of some of them, and we have read their sentiments. World War III. is already being talked about in some countries as a possibility. If it occurs, long-range weapons will be needed. We must conduct these experiments in order that the scientists of other countries shall not get ahead of us. I commend the provisions of the bill as far as they go”, but I believe that the penalties should more adequately fit the class of crime which they are intended to cover.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.This is an unusual measure, and had it been introduced at a time when the Parliament could give to it more deliberate consideration I am certain that we should have had a useful debate on the principles embodied in it. I have read the secondreading speech of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), and before I deal with the provisions of the bill. I propose to comment on one passage. He said, in effect, that the Government considers that until there is assurance of world-wide disarmament on a permanent basis it would be lacking in its duty to the people of Australia if it allowed the adequate defence of the country to be neglected. We all agree with that sentiment. He then said that, although hostilities in World War

  1. have ceased, the Government is determined that this state of affairs - unpreparedness - shall not be repeated while there is any danger of attack by an aggressor nation. My only comment on that pasage is that if it is implied that Australia neglected its defences in the past and that the Government is determined to- ensure ‘that danger shall not occur again, I welcome the change of attitude on the part of Government supporters that the statement represents. If any blame or criticism can be attached to successive Commonwealth governments prior to the outbreak of World War II., that blame or criticism must attach in greater measure to those who criticized expenditure on defence. I do not desire to re-open old wounds, but I was not prepared to allow the Attorney-General’s remarks to pass without that comment.

I said that this is an unusual measure. As the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) very properly reminded the House, it places restrictions upon rights which normally exist in peacetime, and imposes penalties which we have not been accustomed to find in previous Commonwealth legislation. So we ask ourselves why this action is being taken. Although there are references in the bill to dangers by aggressor nations, it is quite clear that the Government has in mind not so much external threats to our security as internal actions of a disruptive kind which may interfere with the experimental projects to be undertaken here in the interests of the defence of Australia and of other parts of the Empire. “ Approved defence project “ is defined in the bill as follows : - “ approved defence project “ means any work or undertaking for the testing of long range weapons which is approved by the Minister of State for Defence by notice in the Gazette as an immediate defence project and includes any other work or undertaking, being carried out or to be carried out either within or outside Australia for the defence of Australia or any Territory of the Commonwealth, which is so approved as an immediate defence project;

I also ! a!sk why this subject is being treated in this particular way. We have a Crimes Act on our statute book which is designed to deal appropriately with the very problem which is inherent in the provisions of this bill. There can be no doubt that the Crimes Act is intended to deal with the matters referred to in this measure. The fact is, of course, that the Government has chosen this method to to deal with the problem because, by its own administration, it has weakened the effect of the Crimes Act. Some honorable gentleman within the ranks of the Government, and some of its supporters, have alleged that the provisions of the Crimes Act are obnoxious, so the Government has been obliged to deal in this bill with a matter that properly falls within the scope of the Crimes Act. It has had to take this action because it will not apply the Crimes Act to those to whom it should be applied, although it is well aware that disrupters are at work in this country seeking to interfere with essential defence projects. This is a most unusual measure for us to be considering in peace time. The Parliament would be better served, and so would the country for that matter, if the Attorney-General would come out into the open and tell us precisely why the Government has felt it necessary to introduce this measure, which indicates clearly that threats are being made, in some manner, against the security of the country. In other words, certain individuals are challenging the security of this country, and are threatening to interfere with essential defence projects. On several occasions honorable members on this side of the chamber have criticized the Government’s attitude towards these individuals and have passed on to Ministers such informataion as is available to them on the subject. When we have done so we have usually been told that we are indulging in so much “ red-baiting “ or scare-mongering. Yet very shortly afterwards the Government has seen fit to introduce this bill, which contains provisions of great severity, and which indicates clearly that we were fully justified in the comments we made. It is very difficult for the people to know just where the truth lies in these matters. Is there in Australia to-day a group of men and women who are determined to overthrow our constitutional and democratic institutions? Are they planning to do this foul thing becauses of some fanatical zeal, or because of some political philosophy to which they consider they owe allegience? If this is the case the Government should act strongly. If these people are more concerned about supporting Soviet Russian methods and ideologies, and if they are determined to interfere with our defence projects, and if the Attorney-General has information to this effect he should say so clearly to honorable members. That is the only way in which the Government can gain the support which it needs in dealing with this serious matter.

The adoption of special legislation of this description must indicate that our security is threatened. The statement that certain individuals and organizations intend to declare black the guided weapons rocket range project is a challenge to our very existence. That the Government has accepted the challenge in this way is a good thing, but in the meagre second-reading speech of the Attorney-General honorable members were given totally inadequate information which did not satisfy either their justifiable curiosity or their concern for the welfare of the country. I hope that before the bill is passed the AttorneyGeneral will state clearly why this measure has been introduced. I hope that he will give us details of the factors which influenced the Government to introduce this bill. We should be told exactly what the Government knows about the ban that has been placed on the work of constructing the guided weapons rocket range. We should know whether the move is a concerted one, or whether it is confined to certain industrialists. I also ask specifically why the Government has chosen to deal with this matter in this way instead of by means of an amendment, if that were necessary, of the Crimes Act. Has the Government been f orced to adopt this procedure because some of its followers have declared certain provisions of the Crimes Act to be obnoxious? Are we to suffer challenge to our constitutional authority in this way? If such legislation as the measure before us is necessary because of interference or threatened interference with the ordinary rights of citizens, we should be informed of all the facts.

I have declared previously in this House that the best way for the Government to combat the menace of communism in this country is to come out into the open with all the facts, and to tell the people exactly what is happening. We are entitled to know what is being done, why it is being done, who are involved, and what are the direct objectives of the people who appear to subscribe to the view that major defence projects must be sabotaged. Are these individuals inspired by some queer academic outlook on society? Are they merely, doctrinaires who adhere to the Communist ideology, or does the matter go deeper than that? Are these men and women conspiring to overthrow the Constitution and the Government of this country by whatever means are available to them? Do they consider that the time is opportune for a revolutionary movement to be set on foot? The Government should take the people into its confidence on this subject, with the fixed determination of seeking their co-operation to stamp out the menace that threatens us.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I cannot allow this bill to pass without making some comment upon it. It is quite obvious that the measure aims to deal with Moscow Russian fanatics who are allied with the Communist party, and who may have their headquarters not very far from this building. It is time that the Government made available to the people whatever information it has on this subject. This morning the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) undertook to lay on the table of the library certain papers in connexion with a man named Rudkin. If ever any papers contained proof that an individual had acted against the welfare of his country these papers in regard to Rudkin contain such proof. Yet this individual is enjoying absolute security at present as an officer of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, although during the war he was convicted in a court of summary jurisdiction in Western Australia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He should really have been tried by a superior court which would have been competent to impose a much more severe penalty. Yet Rudkin, after having been convicted of a crime against his country in a time of war, had the impertinence to write to the Prime Minister of the day to the effect that a man should not be punished for his political views. Rudkin was convicted of conduct against the interests of his country and of the Empire. He was shown to be a traitor of the first order. Instead of being treated as such, he has been employed in a highly confidential capacity in a public department. After his conviction of a treasonable offence he had the confounded impudence to write to the Prime Minister and demand that he should be treated as a political prisoner. He was promptly informed that he was not being punished because of his political convictions; but because he had acted in a time of war, in a treasonable way, against the best interests of his country - the country in which he was born and in which he gained his livelihood.

I cannot understand why the AttorneyGeneral, in his second-reading speech, attempted to relate the penalties and convictions of a court of summary jurisdiction with those which could be imposed by a higher court. In the lower court a convicted person is subject to a fine of £500 or six months’ imprisonment, or both. In the higher court he may be fined £5,000 or twelve months’ imprisonment, or both. There is no proper relationship between these penalties in the respective courts. In the latter case, if the penalty is to be in proportion to that imposed in the lower court, it should be a fine of £5,000 or five years imprisonment at least. There is the further point that these persons are not in the least concerned about ‘being fined. It has been proved time and again that they never pay anything or anybody unless it suits them. A member of this House obtained a judgment against one of their newspapers in Queensland. He has not yet been paid, and never will be. If the Attorney-General has studied this matter, he knows perfectly well that the courts can impose any fines they like, and they will never be paid. Imprisonment for six months does not worry these men. A few months in gaol is a mere detail in the lives of treacherous rascals of this type. There is only one approach to this problem. In the event of men of this description being convicted they should be deported from the country after serving their sentence. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will say that Australianborn citizens cannot be deported.

I should like him to show me in the Australian Constitution any provision which would prevent it; and that is the fundamental document on which we work. In any case, Australia has ‘been entrusted with the control and administration of certain territories. The Government could easily put them on an island. I submit that they ought to be “tipped out” on an island on their own, with a few cornsacks and coco-nuts, and told to start afresh and run their own Communist show. Not until the Government takes its courage in both hands, and informs the electorate of the type of people that we have in our midst, will these persons be other than what they are - a pack of treacherous, traitorous rascals. Until we deal with them accordingly we shall get nowhere. Had it been daylight, doubtless I would have had a bit more to say. I believe that I have impressed my views on the Attorney-General. I trust that, in due course, we shall see an amendment of the legislation, which will entitle the Government to deal thoroughly and effectively with these people. I say quite frankly that in cases of this sort I would not allow the courts to have any option. I would not give to them the power to impose a fine, because my experience and reading have convinced me that quite a few of the “old boys” who sit on the Bench seem to take rather a delight in scaling down the penalty, which, in too many cases, especially those of this description, does not fit the crime. If men are found guilty by a competent court of the kind of crime provided for in this legislation I would not allow any court to impose a monetary penalty, but would simply say that there should be a certain limited sentence of imprisonment, and after they had served it they could be placed where they could study things that would be much less harmful to the Commonwealth and the British Empire, perhaps with some profit to themselves.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

in reply - The honorable member for. Fawkner (Mr. Holt) could not have been present during the previous long debate on the guided weapons range project at an earlier stage of this sessional period. I referred to it in my second-reading speech on thi? bill. I do not want now to go into all the facts in connexion with that project. What I said recently was, that it was quite clear that the Communist party, through its propaganda and pamphlets, was seeking, mot to modify the project for the protection of the Australian aborigine, but really to defeat and destroy the project entirely.

Mr Holt:

– I was in the House during that discussion.

Dr EVATT:

– That is proved, not by any secret material, but by open propaganda of the kind that I placed before the House. The federal executive of the Australian Labour Party, at a recent meeting, unanimously carried this resolution in connexion with the attempt to boycott the project -

It is apparent that the propaganda recently issued by the Communist party in connexion with this undertaking is for the sole purpose of defeating the Australian defence policy in the interests of a foreign power.

The honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn), in her speech, failed to distinguish between that resolution, with which I agree, and positive evidence of direction having been given by a foreign power to those who were responsible for that propaganda. That distinction is quite obvious. In the previous debate I cited to the House extracts from the pamphlet issued by A. Watt, secretary of the Communist party in South Australia and a member of the central council of the Communist party, which contained this sentence -

Workers must demand that the rocket range be scrapped.

The Communist newspaper, on the 28th March last, said -

The rocket plan is a part of the AttleeBevin and Chifley-Evatt policy of turning Australia into an imperialist base. This threatens early involvement of Australia in any future war fought with guided rockets and atomic bombs.

I was endeavouring to make it perfectly clear that there was no pretence, in the propaganda, of any desire for the protection of the aborigine reserve or of the natives in it. That raises a very serious question. This bill is the direct result. of those circumstances. I appreciate, as do other honorable members, the sincerity of the honorable member for Bourke in this matter. But I submit that her views are entirely fallacious. This bill is not aimed at persons who are concerned about the protection of the aborigines of this country.

Mr Rankin:

– That is only a cloak.

Dr EVATT:

– In the propaganda that I read, it was not even a cloak, but frankly an attempt to stop the project, on the theory which the honorable member for Bourke has repeated in this House, namely, that hostilities having come to an end, Australia should not embark on projects of this kind. I pointed out to the House in my second-reading speech that the attitude of Australia, of the Government, and I am sure of the Parliament, on this matter is not merely negative. Australia, in conjunction with Great Britain, is doing its utmost to obtain international agreements aimed at the prevention of the use of weapons of mass, destruction. But in the absence of an agreement of that kind, upon which the people of this country could rely, it would be absolute madness not to experiment with these projects, one of the many purposes of this experimentation being to determine whether such weapons of destruction as were used by Hitler in World War II.- V1 and V2- cannot be neutralized. All of these matters involve considerations of scientific and technical skills, of which I do not profess to have any knowledge. The honorable member for Bourke is quite wrong in thinking that the Government has fallen for any exaggerated ideas, or for any stunt, in connexion with this matter.

Mr Rankin:

– The passage of this legislation will not affect the right of appeal to the ordinary courts by any man or woman who is convicted under it?

Dr EVATT:

– Certainly not. In the case of a summary conviction there may be two appeals, one to an intermediate court and one to the High Court; and also, in the case of a conviction on indictment, the law provides for appeals. The honorable member for Bourke raised the question of free speech, but the right of freedom of expression must he reconciled with the duty of the citizen towards his own country, and the point is reached at. which unreasonable statements interfering with defence projects of the Government would not be protected, even under the Constitution of the United States of America which guarantees freedom of expression. That is, in accordance with decisions in all cases decided during the war, and all defence cases decided by the courts of that country. It is quite wrong for the honorable member for Bourke to quote a statement of defence policy made as far back as 1938, suggesting that the sole right of Australia in relation to defence is to defend the country against invasion. I thought that the error of that view had been abundantly proved by the experience of World War II. The nature of the weapons to which I have referred shows that it is impossible to place a geographical limit upon the defence of Australia against such weapons. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) suggested that the penalties were not severe enough; and the honorable member for Bourke believes that either these penalties should not be imposed at all, or that they are too severe. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who covered the matter very fully, and fairly from his point of view, submitted that the penalties are not proportionate to the offences. I submit that they are effective, that the real deterrent is not the precise degree of punishment but the degree of certainty of punishment if the offence can be proved.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– These fines will not be collected.

Dr EVATT:

– The term of imprisonment, and not the amount of the fine, is the greater consideration; and it must not be supposed, as the honorable member for Balaclava seems to suppose, that this measure is intended to cover the whole field of treacherous or seditious conduct. This legislation is simply aimed at the protection of recognized defence projects, that is, projects approved by the Government, and, therefore, impliedly approved if not expressly approved by the Parliament, whether they be undertaken outside or inside Australia. Under the definition, “ approved defence project “ includes “ any other work or undertaking, being carried out or to be carried out either within or outside Australia for the defence of Australia or any territory of the Commonwealth “. That means, in short, that there cannot be any boycott Of such projects. With due respect to the honorable member for Bourke, we do not need to provide a definition of a .boycott. At any rate, the declaring of a project, black in order to compel, or induce, people not to engage in such work is provided for, and that provision decides the very point raised by the honorable member. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said that the bill is “ a very good step in the right direction”. At any rate, he approves the principle of the bill. The words “ without reasonable cause or excuse “ in paragraph a of sub-clause 1 of clause 4 are sufficient to protect citizens who unwittingly offend against the objects of this proposed statute. It has been very difficult to draw the line in this measure between leniency on the one hand and severity on the other. The Government, in bringing down the bill to give effect to the views I have expressed, shows that it is determined that these defence projects, which, in the present state of international relationships may be vital to the security of this country and the British Commonwealth, must be protected against a series of acts which I think can be fairly summed up by the word “ sabotage “, that is, acts which are not directed by any desire to improve conditions of the workers, but by a political objective of defying and working arrogantly against the decisions of the Government and the Parliament of the country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has thrown a little more light upon the provision in clause 4, but he has not satisfied my own mind on the general policy of the Government. What he has told us, in effect, is that the Government recognizes that there is a Communist party working in Australia to objectives which are not in keeping with the maintenance of our constitutional authorities. It recognizes that fact to a degree that it believes legislation of this kind ia necessary, and, therefore, it seeks to protect from sabotage or damage approved defence projects. The very severity with which it approaches this aspect of the problem, the way in which it singles out this class of project for protection, only serves to highlight the absence of any protection for the community in other directions from this very menace. If there is a Communist menace, it will not be directed against approved defence projects only. Consequently, one would expect to find in the general policy of the Government other measures similar in principle to this directed towards those aspects of our economic and community life which also call for protection. But, despite repeated urgings by honorable members on this side of the chamber, the Government presents no measures of that character. Indeed, the Government repudiates any proposal of that kind. Here we have a recognition by the Government of a menace which it proposes to meet under this bill, but that menace is directed not merely to one objective, but to a general objective. Unless the Government is prepared to say what it proposes to do to meet the general threat that is constituted by the conduct of the Communist party, this measure is simply meaningless.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– Under clause 3, which covers projects being carried out, or to be carried out, either within or outside Australia any work at all can be declared by the Government to be an approved defence project. The provisions of the bill could be applied on the waterfront and indeed anywhere throughout what is known as the South-West Pacific Area. Almost any undertaking could be interpreted as a defence project. The phrase “without reasonable cause or excuse “ which appears in clause 4 could not be defined by the judges of the High Court in the case to which I have referred. Nor could the judges define the word “ boycott “. Later in clause 4 appears the word “publishes”. In this bill it does not necessarily mean to publish in printed matter. Its meaning also includes what may be innocent repetition in any form whatsoever. I should like some information also in regard to the words “ prosecuted summarily “ appearing in this clause. Is it not a fact that a sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment can be imposed only for an indictable offence tried before a judge and jury? Further, if the Government is not prepared to withdraw the bill entirely, at least it should eliminate the concluding words “ or of a person thereto authorized in writing by the Attorney-General”. The Attorney-General is well aware, under the provisions of the Crimes Act and certain other legislation, blank summonses have been issued in the past. That is an extremely dangerous practice and should not be permitted under this hill.

Dr. EVATT (Barton- Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs [4.40 a.m.]. - In reply to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) I point out that we are dealing with specific matters and not with people who may happen to belong to a particular party. However, that matter has been determined on the second reading and I pass now to the points raised by the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn). In clause 3, the definition of “ approved defence project” includes work to be carried out not only in this country but also beyond our shores provided that it is work for the defence of Australia or of a territory of the Commonwealth.

Mrs Blackburn:

– But almost any undertaking could be described as a defence project.

Dr EVATT:

– It could be described as such, but for the purposes of this bill it must be in fact a defence project. Suppose for instance a defence undertaking was being carried out jointly by Australia and the United Kingdom or the United States of America in the Admiralty Islands or even further north ; why should not that project be protected if it is for the defence of Australia?

The next point raised by the honorable member was in connexion with the definition of the word “ boycott “. In the case to which the honorable member referred a ship was declared black because of some dispute. It was not a defence project. Knox, C.J.j Isaacs, J., Gavan Duffy, /., and Powers, /. said it was argued. that there was no boycott. Then they said that the word “ boycott “ had acquired signification which was generally recognized in common speech. It connoted a concerted withdrawal of intercourse of some kind. The judgment continued -

Manifestly no exhaustive definition can be formulated, but, without attempting that, it may be said that the intercourse withdrawn may be of a social, commercial, professional or industrial nature, and may be with reference to a person or his property or his employees or any of his interests. A boycott does not connote a pre-existing contractual relation; it means withdrawal from such intercourse as would naturally and reasonably be expected to take place between the parties concerned as members of the community in normal circumstances. There was unquestionably a boycott of property in the present case 071 the part of the seamen and waterside workers in this case.

There is no definition that covers every case but that, I submit, was as far as the court would go ‘in defining a word of this kind. The conviction was in respect of a boycott, and the facts showed that in certain circumstances a ship which served lighthouses was declared “black”. There was a conviction of two persons for taking part in that boycott, and the High Court upheld that conviction and said that there was in fact a boycott. That is in principle a definition of “boycott”, and I think it covers the main purposes of this legislation.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– For instance, a refusal by waterside workers to load Dutch ships bound for Indonesia could be classed as a “boycott”.

Dr EVATT:

– It might be. If a vessel, in pursuance of such a refusal, were declared black, that would be a typical, and almost a classical, example of a boycott under modern conditions. The honorable member for Bourke is correct in pointing out that the word “ publishes “ is not meant to be restricted to written matter. A person may publish a declaration of a boycott or threat of boycott by word of mouth, by written publication or by broadcasting. It means all forms of publication. The last point made by the honorable member was whether contraventions of the provisions of this measure should constitute indictable offences. Sub-clause 3 of clause 4 provides that if an offence is prosecuted summarily - that is before a magistrate - a fine of not more than £500 or imprisonment for not more than six months shall be imposed, and that if the offence is prosecuted upon indictment, that is to say before a judge and jury, more serious circumstances being, no doubt, relied upon, a more severe penalty shall be imposed. As to summonses being signed in blank during the whole of the war period I can remember only one case of that being done. That was a case which covered the prosecution of an officer of the Allied Works Council. It was mentioned in this House by the former honorable member for Bourke, the late Mr. Blackburn. The effect of subclause 4 of clause 4 is that, in the absence of the consent of the Attorney-General, or the consent of a person authorized in writing by him, such as the Solicitor-General, a prosecution shall not be instituted for an offence against the Act. The Crimes Act contains a section which enables a prosecutor, by alleging certain things in the charge or indictment, to put the onus of proof of innocence on the defendant. That is one of the things that made some parts of the Crimes Act so obnoxious to the Labour movement, both political and industrial. There are other sections of the Crimes Act - the Leader of the Opposition referred to one - in which the remedies seem to be out of all proportion to the proper objectives of the act. It is unfortunate that the Crimes Act, which in addition to containing the great body of the criminal law of the Commonwealth, includes provisions dealing with treason, sedition, protection of the coinage and currency - laws which are absolutely essential to the preservation of the Commonwealth - should, because it is so called and because of the existence of a few sections in one part of it, have an association which is looked upon with suspicion by organized labour.- One of those sections deals with the onus of proof. There is in this bill no such invocation of that procedure which is unjustifiable in case3 of the kind we are considering. I regret that I have taken up so much of the time of the committee in explaining these matters. I have done so out of deference to the honorable member for Bourke who, I know, feels very keenly about this bill.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– When the Government decided to undertake the construction of the guided weapons testing range in Central Australia our sole concern was that adequate measures should be taken to protect the project. That protection is to be afforded by the provisions of this bill, and accordingly I give it my wholehearted support. I congratulate the Government upon having taken this step to ensure the safety and security of this important project. In indicating her opposition to the bil], the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn), stated that any defence project could be adequately safeguarded under the existing provisions of. the law. This is the first occasion on which I have ever heard the interests of the Communists advocated in this chamber. I was surprised to hear the words come out of the honorable member’s mouth. Her objections to the bill were precisely those -which are published in Communist journals from day to day. I am at a loss to understand why the honorable member should oppose a measure to secure the defence of this country. If we are to be safe we must protect the defence measures that are designed to keep us safe. The honorable member also indicated her opposition to some of the penalties prescribed for breaches of tho provisions of this measure stating that all such cases should be heard before a judge and jury. In Russia there would be no trial by judge or jury for those who endangered the security of the country. The fact that the bill provides for a fair trial for those who commit offences against the provisions of the bill is something which should be applauded and not condemned. The honorable member’s condemnation of the bill arises from nothing more than a desire to further the interests of somebody else, and who could that be but the Communists? I congratulate the Government upon having brought this measure before the House and I regret that any honorable member should oppose it in the interests of the enemies of Australia.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I take exception to the speech made by the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser). I am sure that no other honorable member would interpret my remarks as advocacy of the Communist party. What I intended to do, and what I hoped to do, was to protect, if possible, the interests of the thousands of people interested in this project. In my view the bill does not give them the protection they desire. It is not the policy of the Labour party to restrict freedom of speech. Every honorable member in this chamber realizes my position. I am no advocate of the Communist party. During the debate we had no discussions about Russia; I am not interested in or concerned about Russia at this moment. This concerns only Australia. I have with me two letters. One is from a minister of religion who has asked me to read it in this chamber. The other is from a former member of the 22nd Battalion, First Australian Imperial Force, who also has asked me to express his opposition to this project. Hundreds of other Australians are in sympathy with their views. I do not speak for the Communist party. I am not associated with it in any way. I have not read any statements issued by it on this subject, or any of its newspapers. I stand for freedom of speech for the people of Australia, and I must oppose any measure that seems in any way to menace that freedom.

Bil] agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3671

QUESTION

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1945-46

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, for the year ended the 30th June, 1946, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to be printed and referred to Committee of Supply forthwith.

In Committee of Supply:

Motions (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

Supplementary Estimates, 1945-46

That the following further sums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1945-46, for the several services hereunder specified, viz.: -

Supplementary Estimates fob Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1945-46.

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1945-46 for the purposes of additions, new works, buildings, &c, a further sum not exceeding £977,829.

Mr LANG:
Reid

.-I take this opportunity to ventilate in this Parliament the sending of lads of eighteen years to Japan as members of our occupation forces. During the recent war, mothers of youths of that age raised an outcry against the sending of their sons outside Australia on active service. I have a very keen recollection of a number of mothers waiting upon me in the Parliament of New South Wales. They produced hundreds of letters from Commonwealth Ministers and members of Parliament refusing to give them any promise that their sons would not be sent, untrained and unarmed, beyond Australian shores. I raised this matter in the Parliament of New South Wales, and it later came before this Parliament. I understand that the Commonwealth Government thereupon took action to prevent youths of eighteen from being sent abroad. From that time, they were trained in Australia and kept here. Youths of that age must not be allowed to serve with our armed forces in Japan now. I enter my protest against the practice. I point out to the committee that these youths are being sent to Japan, not on active service, but on garrison duty, and that garrison duty is much more dangerous to them than active service could be. At present there is widespread agitation amongst British mothers against the sending of their young sons to other countries on garrison duty. I say that garrison duty for lads is inadvisable and highly dangerous to them. Therefore, the Government should desist and prevent them from being sent to Japan. I do not want to say anything on this matter that would be harmful in any way, but I want the committee to understand the implications of my protest. I repeat emphatically that garrison duty is more dangerous to youths than active service. I do not want to say anything more specific than that. I am sure that chaplains who have returned from Japan will endorse my protestwith all of the power at their command. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers) is a good man, and I hope that he will pay heed to me. I have raised this matter, not in a carping spirit, but in fulfilment of an obligation. I would be recreant to my duty to my country if I did not do so. The Minister for the Army ought to be aware of the grave wrong that is being done in sending youths of eighteen years to Japan for garrison duty. If he was not aware of it previously, he knows about it now. Therefore, it is his bounden duty to consult the chaplains who have been in Japan in order to ascertain their views. Having done so, he should take action forthwith to discontinue the practice. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) also will interest himself in this serious matter. It may be said that there is difficulty in securing recruits for the armed forces, but it would be better to send fewer men to Japan than to continue sending youths. I appeal to the Minister for the Army and the Government to ensure that youths of eighteen shall not be sent to Japan on garrison duty. It will be too dreadful and too late when the damage has been done, and mothers say that they would far sooner their sons had gone abroad and perished on active service than have had them sent away on garrison duty, with all the trials and difficulties that confront them there. Garrison duty is recognized as worse than any active service. For the military forces it is bad enough. Military garrisons are a curse in any country. But to take youths from their homes and send them away or permit them to go away on garrison duty is an outrage and an injustice to our country and a wrong to their parents, and it may be disastrous to the. boys. I ask that action be taken to prevent it.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– A serious strike has been in progress at the works of the Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited, Sydney, for about four months. It has caused the loss of 4,000 tons of fabricated copper and of production valued at about £90,000. That is a considerable loss of material, which is in short supply, and is essential for other forms of industry. It seems that we are no closer to a solution than when the strike began. I give honorable members au idea of the seriousness of the strike when I say that the Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited is, I suppose, the only firm in Australia that manufactures copper bus bar, which is essential for all forms of electrical work. It is essential in electric motors and generators, for the carrying on of the plating industry and for a variety of -uses. Indeed, my opinion is that the strike will not only hold up practically the whole electrical equipment manufacturing trade, but also vitally affect the railways, unless something be done to end the extraordinary circumstances that prevail.

Four months ago, fork lift drivers employed at the works struck against wagepegging. They wanted a rise beyond the limits set by the recognized law of the country. The firm naturally could not agree to break the law. The men belong to the Ironworkers Association. On the 20th May, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) a question about copper bus bar and copper sheets, with reference to the strike at works of the Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited. The Minister then decided to spur the Disputes Committee of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions into action in Sydney. I understand that the Disputes Committee acted and that there appeared to be a settlement. On the 27th May, I asked the Minister what progress had been made, and he said -

Negotiations have been proceeding ever since this matter was raised by the honorable gentleman last week, and yesterday a conference was held in Sydney at which I believe a satisfactory agreement was arrived at. The parties are now discussing a resumption of work.

So far so good ! I thought the matter had been settled. I understand that some SO men were taken into employment at the works. But at that stage there was a strange intervention. Although agreementhad been reached between the employers and the Ironworkers Association in relation to fork lift drivers, who are covered by an award of the Ironworkers Association and who are, as it were, employees controlled by that association, when they agreed to return to work at the company’s works under certain conditions, having waived their original demands, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia picked up the gauge where it has been laid down and said, “ The Ironworkers Association may be satisfied with the terms and conditions of the settlement, but we are not, and we will carry on the dispute from where you left it. We go further, and say that the fork lift drivers really belong to our union and that we must now determine this dispute.” That union has made application to have that section of the men transferred to its control and the Ironworkers Association is resisting. It says, in effect, “ They belong to us. They are covered by an award of the Ironworkers Association and have nothing to do with the Federated Engine Drivers aud Firemen’s Association.” The retort of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association is, “ They have nothing to do with the Ironworkers Association, because we, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, have an award covering crane-drivers and they are virtually cranedrivers.” What body-snatching it is! The Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association proposes to snatch bodies from the Ironworkers Association, but it says, “ No ! Their bodies belong to us.” The extraordinary situation today, when the original strike has been settled, is that rival unions are now engaged in warfare to decide who shall control the fork lift drivers.

The unfortunate concomitant is that the Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited, whose works have been completely closed for four months, has lost “the production of 4,000 tons of fabricated copper and brass sheets, extruded brass and copper and bus bars and all sorts of articles essential in a multiplicity of industrial operations, an output worth £90,000. Although the rival unions are engaging in warfare to determine who shall control the men, the award of the court granted to the Ironworkers Association makes it perfectly clear that it relates to the fork lift drivers. The strike under the control of the Ironworkers Association has been brought to an end. I do not want to traverse the circumstances of the attempt by a Communistcontrolled union to withdraw labour from the works of Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited. That dispute might have been settled four months ago, and I do not want to enter upon a discussion of it now. However, I draw attention .to the fact that after this dispute had been settled another union entered the conflict, saying, in effect, “ This dispute might have been settled to your satisfaction, but we say that we must control this particular section of men because our award covers crane-drivers, and the machines in question are a type of crane. Therefore, we demand the bodies of these men, and you must listen to our application for their transfer to our union.” Those are most extraordinary circumstances, and I emphasize to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) that such a state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue. By tolerating the continuance of this sort of thing the Government is permitting these irresponsibles to sabotage a vital industry and two other related industries because of a petty inter-union dispute. I submit that this is a matter to which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and National Service should give immediate attention because there is grave danger of many of our heavy industries lapsing into chaos.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · Adelaide · ALP

.- In reply to the allegation by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) that lads of seventeen and eighteen years of age are being acceptd for service with the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan, it is a fact that youths of eighteen years are enlisted in the interim army. However, those youths do not enlist for service in

Japan, but merely for service in the interim army. The first contingent of Australian troops sent to Japan as members of the occupation force was shipped from Morotai. The personnel of that contingent had all seen active service in “World “War II. The average age of two-thirds of the Australians serving with the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan is 20 to 21 years, and twothirds of them are members of the Australian Imperial Force who saw active service overseas. A lad who enlists in the interim army and is to be sent to Japan is given at least six months preliminary training in Australia. That means that he is of the age of at least eighteen years or eighteen years and six months before he is drafted to Kure or Ita Jima. By that time he is nearly nineteen years of age. However, I can assure the honorable member for Reid that very few lads now serving in the interim army are likely to be drafted to Japan. The Australian component of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force is up to strength, and the normal intake of reinforcements is supplied by volunteers from drafts returned to Australia from Japan. “When drafts of troops return to Australia from Japan honorable members will have noted from press reports that at least 50 per cent, of them volunteer for further service there. I refer the honorable member to a report by the chaplains-general who visited the British Commonwealth Occupation Force area a few months ago. I gave every encouragement to those officers to visit Australian servicemen in Japan and investigate their conditions at firsthand. “When they returned I met them in conference and discussed matters with them, and in order to remove any anxieties existing in the mind of the honorable member, I emphasize that the chaplains-general did not make any reference to the apparent age of Australian servicemen in Japan. I think that that fact should dispose of his concern that large numbers of Australian youths of tender age are serving in Japan. Chaplain O’Reilly, of the Church of England, spoke in glowing terms of the conduct of the troops, and the prestige enjoyed by Australian servicemen, and only this week an officer of the Salvation

Army, who has just returned to Australia from Japan, wrote to me and paid a high tribute to the conduct- and the morale of our troops. However, I repeat my assurance that not 1 per cent, of lads enlisted for the interim army to-day will be required to serve with the British Commonwealth Occupation Force.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I am glad that the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) raised this point, and I suggest that the Government issue a direction to the Military Board that no member of the interim force under the age of 21 years be sent Japan. In making this request, I have in mind our experience during the recent war, when lads of eighteen in the Royal Australian Air Force were enlisted, but not sent abroad until they had become matured. I agree that garrison life is more demoralizing to troops than employment on war service, and I 3ay that lads of eighteen, or even 20, years of age are too young to be sent to a place like Japan. Australian lads of that age are no better than those of other nationalities, and, judging by the reports of crime committed in Japan by members of the occupation forces, one cannot help concluding that the chaplains-general did not see everything during their visit. In any case, I doubt whether all their reports were couched in terms of praise. I know the Minister is anxious to improve conditions, and that he has already accomplished a great deal in that regard, but I think he should make it mandatory that no one of tender age be sent to Japan.

I desire to mention another matter. A young man, who served in the Royal Australian Air Force under my command during World War II. as an air gunner, and whom I know well, has sent me a putting from Smith’s Weekly which reads -

” TOP SECRET” GUNSIGHT?

A charge that the War Disposals Commission has been guilty of selling a “ top secret” aerial gunsight for less than £3, has been made to Smith’s by Mr. C. O. J. Scafe, ex-Royal Australian Air Force gunner, now of Rockhampton (Queensland). Mr. Scafe says that a friend of his answered an advertisement in a Sydney magazine for a bomb-sight complete with 24-volt motor, price £2 17s. 6d.

The article goes on to say that the man referred to bought the bomb-sight for £2 17s. 6d., as the result of an advertisement inserted in- a Sydney magazine. It is a Mark 2c (star) gyro gunsight, which is a “ top secret weapon. The instrument was a British invention, and the British Government made it available to United States service departments during World War XT. Now we read that one of these instruments has been sold for less than £3 !

My correspondent writes: - The Mark 2o (star) gyro gunsight should still be kept as a “top secret”. He states that America is the only other country to know of its secret -mechanism, and it was a copy of these that they later installed in their superfortresses. This is the bomb-sight installed in the turrets of the Royal Air Force Lincolns of the type we are now building in Australia, and that specialists in the Royal Australian Air Force, who instructed gunners in their use, emphasize that the country that uses them has a great advantage over any other.

That fact was proved by Allied airmen in the later stages of the bomber offensive over Germany.

Mr FRASER:

– Why did not the honorable member read the whole of the article?

Mr WHITE:

– To please the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser), I shall do so. The article continues -

The bomb-sight had come from Disposals into the hands of a dealer. “ My friend asked me would I examine the sight and tell him how it worked,” he wrote. “ He brought it along for inspection in a sugar bag (rest the spirits of the ex-RAF gunners ) . “ He tipped something out on the floor. 1 picked it up and found I was holding a ‘ Mark 2c (star) Gyro Gunsight,’ one of the RAF’s top secrets at the end of the war.

Sold for £3. “ This job is a beautiful piece of mechanism worth hundreds and should still be secret. It is so ideal it is called ‘ the gunner’s dream.’ “ Its sale for less than £3 to a man who wanted it for its tiny electric motor is parallel to selling a Spitfire to a schoolboy to make a catapult from the rubber in the tubes. “And to think that there were no more than enough to equip a few of ‘ Butch ‘ Harris’ chosen bomber squadrons in England at the end of the war!

An RAAF expert, whom Smith’s interviewed, was surprised to hear that a Mark 2c (star) Gyro Gunsight had been sold. “ However, they were half obsolete at the end of the war, and are no longer standard equipment,” he said. “ There are no fitments for them in the latest bombers.”

Apparently, as far as the authorities are concerned, the Mark 2c (star) can stay in its sugar bag.

The Royal Australian Air Force expert may not know his job. Who is he ? The air gunner to whom I referred served two tours of operation and has used this bomb sight. He is not an unknown spokesman for the Royal Australian Air Force.

Mr Haylen:

– The bottom fact in the article was more important than the top secret !

Mr WHITE:

– I do not agree. This is a matter on which a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force, who had practical experience of the use of the bomb sight, and an unknown spokesman of the Royal Australian Air Force, have disagreed. I ask: How is it that these instruments are on the market? There have been considerable thefts of Royal Australian Air Force property. The allegation has been made that losses total hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Royal Australian Air Force does not know precisely what it has in stock. Perhaps these instruments have reached the Commonwealth Disposals Commission dishonestly. There is no such thing as “ semi-obsolete “. An article is either obsolescent, in which event something replaces it, or it is still up-to-date.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– The matter which the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) raised will be examined. These Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure total £2,283,597 and relate to the financial year 1945-46. The amounts set out were expended out of a general appropriation from revenue of £10,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. It is now necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure which is now submitted for approval were included in the Estimates and Budget Papers for 1946-47. These publications show the amount voted for 1946-47, together with the actual expenditure for the previous year, which is included for informative purposes. Details are also included in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1945-46, which has been tabled for the information of honorable members. -

The “ Supplementary Estimates “ detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. With the concurrence of honorable members, I shall incorporate in Hansard the chief items -

Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later stage.

Regarding the Supplementary Estimates (Works and Buildings) 1945-46, the total Appropriation passed by the Parliament for works and services under this heading amounted to £8,640,000. The actual expenditure was £6,290,000, or £2,350,000 less than the appropriation. Due, however, to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated and it is now necessary to obtain parliamentary approval of these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items concerned totals £977,829, which is spread over the various works items of the departments. Any details which may be required will be furnished at a later stage.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

. - I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) to reply to the matter which I raised a short while ago. I ask him to inform me what the Government proposes to do, and whether he has any further information about the dispute at Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I did not reply to the questions asked by the honorable member for Wentworth . (Mr. Harrison) because I know that he knows the details of this matter. I have had consultations with him every day this week about the dispute. What the honorable member said was quite correct. In other words, he asked me certain questions, I communicated with the disputes committee, and the dispute was settled. What the honorable member did not say was that the men returned to work and are now at work, including the four men over whom the dispute arose. However, they are not doing their usual work.

Mr Harrison:

– They are cleaning up the works.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I did not say that the men were doing anything else. The honorable member does not like me to say something that he avoided saying. That is why he could not remain silent.

Mr Harrison:

– The honorable gentleman told me this morning that the men had returned to work, and I informed him that they were engaged in cleaning up the works.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I told the honorable member that the men had returned to work. The dispute arose following the installation of new machines to replace cranes, and the men operating them applied for an increased rate of pay. They wanted the rates of remuneration applicable to crane-drivers, and the employers would not agree. Now, the rate of pay has been settled. Regardless of who does the work, the wages are satisfactory. The other facts relating to the dispute are as the honorable member for Wentworth stated. There was a line of demarcation between two unions. These men are no longer members of the Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Union, which had claimed that the men who used to drive the cranes should be retained to drive the new machines. The Ironworkers Association successfully contended that the men should be members of that organization. That is the substance of the dispute, and I hope, because it is serious, that the conference will solve the problem.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolutions adopted.

Resolutions of Ways and Means founded on resolutions of Supply reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Dr. Evatt do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 3677

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1945-46

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 3677

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1945-46

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all its stages without amendment or debate.

page 3677

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I had intended to make a statement on international affairs in reply to matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and other honorable members, and also on other matters, but in view of the length of the sitting I shall circulate such copies of the statement as are available. In order to meet the convenience of all honorable members I ask for leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The present statement contains an uptothemoment sketch of international affairs in which Australia is concerned and is supplementary to my statement in the House earlier in the session. The present statement will also carry out an assurance to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition to furnish information as to United Nations matters, with special reference to the Military Staff Committee. It will also give details, in reply to a question asked by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), on Australia’s contributions to international funds for humanitarian purposes. The details are to be found in Annexure “ D “.

  1. – UNITED NATIONS.

    1. Special Session of the General Assembly on Palestine.
    1. Following the United Kingdom Government’s request to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the 2nd April, 1947, to call a special session of the General Assembly to consider the Palestine problem, all the members of the United Nations were at once asked by the Secretary-General to state their views. Amongst the replies there was only one dissentient (Ethiopia) to the United Kingdom’s proposal, which was that a special session of the Assembly be held “ for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special committee to prepare for consideration of the . . question at the next regular session “.
    2. It soon became apparent when the session opened in New York on the 28th April, 1947, that the majority of members wanted it to be short and purely preparatory. However, the Arab States stated that they desired the opportunity to discuss the substance of the Palestine question. An attempt was made by them to consider an Egyptian proposal for “ the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence”. Although this proposal was not admitted to the agenda the Arab countries took every opportunity both in the plenary sessions and in the political committee to indicate their views on the solution of the Palestine problem.
    3. The Australian representative, Colonel Hodgson, was instructed, firstly, that the special session should avoid at present dis cussions of the final settlement, but that a committee with wide powers of investigation should be sot up to take evidence and examine such aspects of this delicate problem as it thought fit; secondly, that both Jewish and Arab representatives should be heard by the committee, which should consist of eleven to fifteen members; and thirdly, that the committee should report to the next General Assembly meeting of the United Nations.
    4. The results of this special session, which concluded on the 15th May, were satisfactory.

A committee of eleven, excluding the five permanent members of the Security Council, was set up with wide powers. The membership of this committee is Australia, Canada,’ Czechoslovakia, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, Guatemala, Yugoslavia, and India. The committee will start work next week, at a preliminary meeting in New York, and it is expected to report to the Secretary-General by 1st September this year, in time for the next regular session of the General Assembly which will begin on the 16th September.

  1. The Australian policy in such matters has always been to pursue the principle of full preliminary investigation of the facts. It is the only means likely to lead the United Nations to impartial and objective decisions. For a considerable time Australia appeared to be alone in supporting this method; but recent examples have vindicated our persistence - notably in the Balkans and now in Palestine.

    1. Disarmament.
  2. In terms of the General Assembly’s man date of the 14th December on disarmament, the Security Council established a Commission for Conventional Armaments on the 13th February. This Commission consists of all members of the Security Council, and it has the task of preparing proposals under the Charter for the general regulation and reduction of armaments and for practical and effective safeguards in connexion with such regulation and reduction. During the early discussion in the Commission on the scope of the Commission’s work the Australian representative, in an endeavour to avoid complete frustration by disobedience of the Assembly resolution, stressed that a positive approach should be adopted to the whole problem of disarmament. Australia, therefore, emphasized that the obli gations of all members of the United Nations should include the ultimate implementation of any disarmament scheme developed by the Commission and approved by the Council and Assembly. Our representative stated that the working out of Articles 43* and 53 of the Charter with due consideration to the selfdefence provisions under Article 51 is a primary condition in all planning for disarmament, and that the Military Staff Committee constituted by the five major powers should work on proposals in terms of these articles. He also stated that, concurrently with the examination by the Military Staff Committee, the Commission should obey the Assembly’s directive and undertake inquiries into general principles governing disarmament and an examination of the problems involved in an effective control system.
  3. At the present time a sub-committee of the Conventional Armaments Commission, con sisting of representatives from each of the
  1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
  2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
  3. The agreement or agreementsshall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article53. -

  1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy State, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such State, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned,be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a State.
  2. The term enemy State as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any State which during the Second World War has beenan enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Article 51. -

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collectiveselfdefence if an armed attack occurs against a. Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any timesuch action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. live permanent members of the Security Council, is preparing a plan of work for the future activities of the Commission.

  1. Military Staff Committee.
  2. In terms of the instruction issued by the Security Council in February of last year the Military Staff Committee has submitted to the Council a report on the military factors involved in the implementation of Article 43 of the Charter. Discussion in the Council on the report has been postponed to allow further opportunity of examining the report. The substance of the report is attached as Annexure “A”.
  3. It has been pointed out by the cynics that the five major powers represented on the Military Staff Committee are clearly of opinion that the forces which are to be placed at the disposal of the Security Council in the situations contemplated in Article 43 should be sufficient only for enforcement of measures against any combination of the smaller powers - in other words, the forces to be made available to the Security Council would never be sufficient for use against any permanent member of the Council deemed guilty of aggression.
  4. This conclusion is not surprising for it follows almost inevitably from the fact that the enforcement power of the Council, to the extent that it might be directed against any one of thefive permanent members of the Security Council, is subject to that member’s right of veto under the Charter. The contemplated restriction of the forces provided to those sufficient for enforcement measures against the smaller powers is merely a corollary of the major powers’ veto right, because no military force, however large, can be directed by the Security Council against any one of the Big Five except by its own consent expressed by vote in the Security Council.
  5. It is now being realized on all sides that the democratic powers should have supported the Australian proposals which attempted to limit the veto of each permanent member to enforcement measures. As it is, the threat of the veto is often suspended over comparatively minor points arising in the Security Council, e.g., an application for membership, the election of Secretary-General.
  6. The British Labour party’s recent pamphlet, which sums up the British Government’s policy on foreign affairs, says that: “The United Nations organization is by its very constitution prevented from dealing with disagreements between the Big Three; and any chance that it might have developed into an instrument for such purposes has been destroyed by the use made of the veto by Soviet Russia.” The pamphlet also states that “ the United Nations Charter is, by its very constitution, formally prevented from dealing with disagreements between the Big Three “. While we must agree that enforcement action under the Charter would beprecluded where one of the major powers was an aggressor, the same by no means applies “ formally” to the pacific settlement of disputes provided for in Chapter VI. of the Charter. Here it is specifically provided that parties to a dispute shall refrain from voting, so that decisions by the United Nations against a permanent member of the Council are expressly envisaged. The truth is that the veto is exercisable and is exercised to defeat an overwhelming majority in the Security Council where a nation, likely to be adjudicated in the wrong, is a close ally or associate of a power possessing a veto, e.g., the recent dispute in which Albania was deemed to be responsible for the killing by mine-field of 42 British seamen in the Corfu Channel.
  7. The same pamphlet also asserts that “ so long as Russia so rigidly asserts this right (of veto), the progress of the United Nations in dealing with many fundamental problems like disarmament or the control of atomic energy will be slow “. This assertion is, at present, almost incontrovertible. Finally the pamphlet asserts that “ the veto power does in fact commit the Big Three to appeasement of one another so long as action is confined to the United Nations organization - a situation which puts a premium on aggressive action”. Certainly the veto does assume that the permanent members will endeavour to “smooth out” their disputes inter se: such “smoothing out” may mean a just and reasonable settlement or it may, on the other hand, mean appeasement of the most patient or the most obstinate by the process of “compromise by exhaustion “, to use General Marshall’s extremely accurate phrase.
  8. What the pamphlet is saying at long last in 1947 is only what nearly all the middle and smaller powers envisaged and said in 1945 at San Francisco in the face of unimaginative opposition from most of the major powers. The operation of the veto has vindicated all the arguments of Australian and New Zealand leaders. As it is, the future of the United Nations may well depend more and more not upon the Security Council but upon the General Assembly of the United Nations using the additional power and authority vested in it at San Francisco as a result of incessant and successful efforts of nations like Australia.
  9. Atomic Energy.
  10. In accordance with a directive issued by the Assembly and by the Security Council the Atomic Energy Commission is continuing its research into the problem of international control of atomic energy and the prevention of its use for military purposes. In addition, the Commission has been directed to prepare a draft treaty or convention incorporating its proposals for the control of atomic energy and to submit a report to the Council for subsequent submission to the General Assembly.
  11. The Working Committee of the Commission has been considering various amendments made by the Soviet Union to the first report of the Atomic Energy Commission. In addition the Controls Committee of the Commission has been considering specific proposals for the control of atomic energy and is engaged at the moment on a consideration of the following matters : -

    1. the definition of terms to be used in the treaty;
    2. the operational and developmental functions of the international agency;
    3. the organization of the administration of the agency;
    4. the examination of the stages by which transition will be accomplished from conditions of national control to the final condition or predominantly international control.
    5. The Balkans Commission.
    1. The Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Security Council in December, 1946, to investigate Greek charges of border violations by her northern neighbours has signed its report (see Annex. “B”). Australia is represented on the Commission and has played a leading part in its investigations, the work of Mr. John Hood, General Chapman, and Mr. S. L. Atyeo, the Australian representatives, having been the subject of special recognition.
    2. The report includes an examination of Greek charges of aid by Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to Greek guerillas, and counter charges by the latter three states amount to allegations of tyranny and provocation by the Greek Government. The conclusion of the report, which largely justify the Greek charges, are not unanimous, owing to Soviet and Polish objections. But the Commission’s recommendations were accepted in modified form by nine of its eleven representatives. The main agreed recommendation is for the establishment by the Security Council of a Standing Supervisory Commission with wide functions enabling it to supervise frontier control arrangements and to report on constructive measures for conciliation in the Balkans. Among the measures suggested are the renewal of border conventions between Greece and the neighbouring States, and the development of free port facilities at Salonika.
    3. The main point made by the Australian delegate was the desirability of early and unfettered new Greek elections which should be accompanied by an amnesty for political prisoners. Australia also supported the suggestion that Salonika should be a free port.
    4. The recommended Standing Supervisory Commission, if approved, is likely to consist of five or six States not permanent members of the Security Council. Australia favours such a commission in preference to a single High Commissioner.
    5. In the meantime, the Security Council has adopted a United States resolution for the establishment of a sub-commission of the main Commission of Inquiry. This subcommission will remain in the frontier area pending a final decision by the Security Council on the basis of the Commission’s report. The Soviet and Polish representatives abstained from voting on this resolution. The sub-commission has now met in Salonika, but its work is unlikely to be helped by the policy of deliberate non-co-operation announced by Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
    6. The Security Council is expected to consider other aspects of the main Commission’s report in the near future.
  12. Other Security Council Matters.

Hungarian and Italian application for Membership.

  1. The applications of Hungary and Italy for membership of the United Nations have been referred to a committee for the purpose of review. This committee, which was set up by the Assembly as a result of an Australian motion in the Assembly last December, will report to the Security Council, but the Council is not likely to consider these applications until the Assembly resolution on the admission of new members has been considered. I refer to this resolution and to the draft rules for admission to United Nations membership at a later stage of my remarks.

Governor of Trieste.

  1. No agreement has been reached between the permanent members of the Security Council in discussions on the question of the governorship of Trieste. It will be recalled that at the Paris Peace Conference the Australian delegation maintained that selection of the Governor should be made not by the Security Council, where the veto procedure operates, but by a special body consisting of representatives of the four great powers together with those of three other States chosen by the conference. Had this course been adopted, the present stalemate would have been avoided.
  2. This is one further illustration of the way in which the spectre of the veto keeps intruding itself to delay or obstruct the Security Council from making a decision on matters to which the veto power could never have been intended to apply. Far from achieving unanimity, the Trieste governorship is an example of the way in which the veto tends to block almost any decision unless and until the majority give way to the most obstinate. Such situations are grievously damaging to the prestige and the effectivenes of the United Nations, and in this particular case one result is the indefinite continuance of conditions of economic and political insecurity in the Trieste area.
  3. The implied threat of the veto in relation to such administrative matters as the governorship of Trieste is in flagrant disregard of the General Assembly’sresolution passed last December, which was substantially an Australian resolution recommending the adoption of practices and procedures to assist in reducing the difficulties arising out of the application of the veto and to ensure the prompt and effective exercise by the Security Council of its functions. It is also proof positive of the unjustified dragging into the machinery of the Italian peace treaty of the Security Council procedure.

    1. It is, I submit, noteworthy that the British Labour party in its official pamphlet from -which I have already quoted, has in substance supported the Australian viewpoint on the veto. The pamphlet, in fact, says: “ Though it would be wrong to attack the veto in principle, since it merely represents a political reality, the Labour Government has fought continuously for some code of conduct which will restrict its damaging effects “.
    2. Trusteeship Council.
    3. The first session of the Trusteeship Council, on which Australia was represented by Mr. Makin. opened on the 26th March. The Trusteeship Council adopted its rules of procedure and approved a provisional questionnaire, which was to be the basis of an annual report on trust territories under the jurisdiction of each administering authority, on the understanding that the administering authority concerned could submit amendments to the Secretary-General for consideration at the next meeting of the Council. The Council decided to recommend that the General Assembly make provision under the Charter of the United Nations for periodic visits to trust territories on the basis of one visiting mission each year. It was understood that trust territories at present within the trusteeship system could be grouped for the purpose of visits into three areas each to be covered by one visiting mission.
    4. On the initiative of the Australian representative the Trusteeship Council examined petitions relating to the repatriation of Germans from Tanganyika, and as a result of information concerning the deportation of nonNazis supplied by the United Kingdom at the request of the Australian representative, the Council adopted a resolution approving the United Kingdom policy. The Trusteeship Council was assured that no petitioner would be compulsorily repatriated to Germany if he could find some other country willing to accept him, provided there was no objection on the grounds of security.
    5. At the suggestion of the New Zealand representative it was decided that a visiting mission consisting of Mr. Sayre of the United States, M.Ryckman of Belgium and Senator Cruz-Coke of Chile should visit Western Samoa in order to examine the petition of the inhabitants for self-government and for the termination of what the petitioners claimed to be “the unnatural division of the islands of the Samoan group “. The mission will reach Samoa next month and is expected to conclude its investigations late in August.
    6. Fourth Session of the Economic and Social Council.
  4. The Council at itsfourth session established an Economic Commission for Europe and an Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. I shall refer to these commissions later in this statement. Australia is a member of the latter Commission. Terms of reference of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East were restricted to investigation and study until further consideration is given to these terms of reference at the next session of the Economic and Social Council.
  5. The Economic and Social Council requested the Commission on the Status of Women “to take as its immediate programme of work the examination of legal and customary disabilities of women as regards political and social rights and (subject to consultation with the International’ Labour Office) economic rights, and educational opportunities, with a view to framing proposals for action “. Officers of the Commission will participate in drafting sections of the Bill of HumanRights in which women are concerned.
  6. The Council agreed that it would be appropriate for the proposed International Trade Organization to have power to advise and assist member governments in planning and carrying out programmes for economic development. This power was envisaged in paragraph 3 of Article XI. of the Draft International Trade Organization Charter, and will receive further consideration at the present meeting of the Preparatory Committee in Geneva.
  7. The Council requested the SecretaryGeneral to make regular reports on balance of payments to the Economic and Employment Commission and its sub-commissions. It also requested the Secretary-General to study and report on the balance of payments needs of devastated areas with particular reference to freely convertible currencies.
  8. On the subject of children’s relief, the Council agreed that international voluntary contributions for the International Children’s Emergency Fund should be sought for “ emergency relief goods for children, adolescents, expectant and nursing mothers “. The Secretary-General will arrange disposals with each country.
  9. The Council requested the subcommission on freedom of information and the press to prepare an agenda and lines for a conference on freedom of information. The date and place of the conference will be decided at the next session of the Economic and Social Council.

    1. United Nations Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies.

*F.A.O.**

  1. The Preparatory Commission on World Food Proposals set upby the Food and Agriculture Organization met in Washington from October, 1946, to January, 1947. Its recommendations have as objectives, developing and organizing production, distribution and utilization of basic foodstuffs to provide diets on a health standard for peoples of all countries and stabilizing agricultural prices at levels fair to producers and consumers.
  2. The Commission recommended the establishment of a World Food Council to attempt co-ordination of agricultural programmes. Other major recommendations establish a procedure for considering individual commodities, with the object of achieving mutually advantageous commodity agreements.

** See* also Appendix D.

  1. These recommendations are to be considered at the Third Session of the Food and Agriculture Conference at Geneva next August.

    1. International Labour Organization.
  2. The Thirtieth Session of the International Labour Conference will be held in Geneva commencing on the 19th June. The main items to be discussed are the Director’s Report, the question of minimum standards of social policy to be adopted in dependent territories, the organization of labour inspection in industrial and commercial undertakings, and the organization of employment service. The honorable the Minister for External Territories and Senator Amour have been appointed Government delegates.

    1. Provisional MaritimeConsultative Council.
  3. Australia is represented at the meeting of the Provisional Maritime Consultative Council which commenced in Paris on the 14th May. The Council will discuss, inter alia, the constitution of a world shipping organization which, under proposals that have been put forward, would develop safety measures for shipping, would consider any shipping problem of an international character referred by the United Nations for consideration, would provide machinery for co-operation among governments in the field of governmental regulations and practices, and might develop policies for non-discrimination in shipping. The Australian Government will not be committed to any decisions which may be taken by the Provisional Council.

    1. Bretton Woods.
  4. The Australian applications for membership of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have been referred to the Bank’s Governors. A formal public statement of acceptance of the Australian applications has been made.

    1. Regional Economic Commissions.
  5. The Economic Commission for Europe and the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, established at the fourth session of the Economic and Social Council, are concerned with -

    1. measures for facilitating concerted action for the economic reconstruction of the respective areas and for strengthening the economic relations of the countries;
    2. investigations and studies of economic and technological problems of, and developments within, the countries;
    3. the collection and dissemination of economics, technological and statistical information.
  6. The first session of the Economic Commission for Europe opened in Geneva on the 2nd May, 1947, the main items on the agenda being the termination or the absorption of the activities of the existing economic committees for Europe and the arrangements required to deal with European inland transport problems.
  7. Australia has been appointed to the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. The territories which come within the orbit of the Commission’s work are in the first instance British North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, Burma, Ceylon, China, India, IndoChinese Federation, Hong Kong, Malayan Union and Singapore, Netherlands Indies, Philippine Republic and Siam. The headquarters of the Commission will be at the seat of the office of the United Nations in the Pacific, but pending the establishment of that office the Commission will temporarily be located at Shanghai. This position will be reviewed by the Economic and Social Council at its first session in 1948. The Commission will hold its first session at Shanghai on the 10th June, 1947.
  8. Proposals have also been made for the establishment of an Economic Commission for the Middle East and one for North Africa and Ethiopia. The proposal for the former Commission has not yet been formally presented, and the proposal for the latter Commission has been temporarily deferred to enable the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make, with the concurrence of the governments or administrations concerned, a field survey of the reconstruction problems of Ethiopia and of other North African devastated areas.

International Refugee Organization and InterGovernmental Committee on Refugees.

  1. The objectives of the International Refugee Organization, a specialized agency of a non-permanent character whose establishment was approved by the second part of the first session of the United Nations General Assembly, are to ensure the repatriation, resettlement and re-establishment of genuine refugees and displaced persons in countries able and willing to receive them.
  2. The Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization commenced its first session in Geneva on the 1 1th February, 1947, after eight members of the United Nations had signed its constitution. Australia’s acceptance of the constitution on the 13th May, ensured the early establishment of the organization, since fifteen signatures were required before it could come into existence. The Australian contribution was required in order to bring the total contributions above the 75 per cent. of the budget laid down as the minimum necessary to commence operations.
  3. The first session of the Preparatory Commission passed directives to the Executive Secretary recommending that he consult with Unrra and the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees with a view to obtaining accurate statistical information regarding the numbers and categories of refugees and displaced persons at present in their care. Recommendations designed to promote the smooth transfer to the International Refugees Organization of the activities and assets of Unrra and the Inter-Governmental Committee were also approved.
  4. The second part of the first session of the Preparatory Commission met in Lausanne on the 1st May, and Australia, following her signature of the constitution, is now represented.
  5. The sixth plenary session of the InterGovernmental Committee on Refugees opened in London on the Kith December, 1946. Mr. V. C. Duffy, of the Australia High Commissioner’s Office, London, attended the session as Australian representative. Particular stress was laid on expanding the activities of the Committee in the operational field particularly in relation to migration and settlement.
  6. The Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees met in a special plenary session in London on the 30th May to consider matters arising out of the transfer of activities from the Inter-Governmental Committee to the International Refugees Organization, and other matters arising out of the Preparatory Commission meeting of the International Refugees Organization in Lausanne.

*United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization**

  1. The Executive Board of Unesco met in its second session in Paris from the 10th to the 15th April. Dr. E. R. Walker of the Australian Legation, Paris, is a member of the Executive Board. The board approved the programme of activities for 1947 submitted by the secretariat. The programme included a project for the promotion of fundamental education throughout the world with special projects in China, Haiti, and British East Africa.
  2. On Australia’s initiative the board resolved that there should be greater decentralization of the work of the secretariat and more opportunities for participation by member governments and national co-operating bodies. Special stress was laid on the part of the programme dealing with a study of tensions crucial to peace. Thesecretariat was instructed to press for the ratification of a convention relating to customs duties and the removal of barriers to the free flow of information. To deal with the short term aspects of the Unesco programme a technical committee to advise on distribution of relief, to which Dr. Walker was elected, was established.
  3. The Interim Committee met on the9th May and decided that the transport of educational relief equipment for the Unesco appeal should be financed by voluntary committees where they existed.

International Children’s Emergency Fund.

  1. This fund was established on the 11th December, 1946. by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The executive board consists of 25 members, including Australia. The funds of the organization are to be made up from contributions from governments as well as from voluntary contributions with the aim of providing supplementary food for 20,000,000 children.
  2. The Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution on the 29th March approving the conclusions of the report of the executive board and transmitted to the

** See* also AppendixC.

See also Appendix C and Appendix D. executive board for its guidance the principles for the operation of the fund. These principles allotted priority to the following types of work: -

  1. The supplementing of essential food.
  2. The encouragement of re-establishment of children’s institutions destroyed by the war.
  3. Co-operation with the World Health

Organization.

  1. The Economic and Social Council also adopted a resolution providing for a special world-wide appeal for non-governmental voluntary relief contributions to meet the needs of children by way of a one day’s pay collection. The Government is at present considering the best means for the organizing of voluntary appeals in this country.

Other Agencies.

  1. Three other international organizations, viz.: -

The Postal Union,

The Telecommunications Union, and

The International Civil Aviation Organization, are holding, or have just completed assemblies. Australia is represented at all three, and provided the president of the aviation meeting in the person of the Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr. Drakeford.

  1. Each meeting has approved, or will approve, an agreement whereby the organization concerned will become a specialized agency of the United Nations. All three have observed the General Assembly resolution concerning Spain by excluding that country from their deliberatons.

    1. Codification of International Law.
  2. The United Nations Charter provides by Article 13 (a) that the General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.
  3. In pursuance of this the Assembly on the 11th December, 1946, adopted a resolution that there should be established a committee of the Assembly, consisting of seventeen members, including Australia, to study the methods by which the Assembly should encourage the development of international law and its eventual codification, and methods of securing the co-operation of United Nations organs and enlisting the assistance of national or international bodies in this work.
  4. The first session of this committee met in New York on 1 2th May. Dr. Wynes, of the Australian High Commissioner’s Office. Ottawa, is the Australian representative.
  5. The committee’s work is of great importance. Conclusions reached and plans formulated and developed by it will have a distinct bearing upon the permanent contribution of the United Nations to orderly and peaceful international relationships.
  6. The committee has adopted a proposal that an expert commission of nine members should be appointed, for three years, in the first instance, from names submitted by member governments and elected by the General

Assembly and Security Council in the same manner as the judges of the International Court of Justice. This Commission would carry out detailed studies and surveys, but so that its conclusions would be subject to control by the Assembly and to reference to member governments. The proposal will go forward for consideration by the Assembly at its next General Session.

  1. Admission of New Members.
  2. In December last, the General Assembly resolved, on an Australian motion, that a committee of the Assembly should be appointed to confer with a committee appointed by the Security Council with a view to preparing rules governing the admission of new members.
  3. This action was taken because it was considered desirable that the procedure to be adopted whenever a state makes application for membership should be fixed in order to lessen the difficulties which have in the past arisen in this regard, especially in connexion with actual or threatened exercise of the veto, at the Security Council even before the General Council obtained cognizance of the application. It was also considered that rules should be evolved which would be acceptable both to the Security Council and the General Assembly.
  4. The committees were appointed, and the membership was determined as follows: - Security Council: China, Brazil and Poland. General Assembly: Australia, Cuba, India, Norway, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
  5. The conferences are now taking place, and Australia has suggested that in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter the following draft rules should be put forward on behalf of Australia as the basis for discussion :

    1. Any State which desires to become a member of the United Nations shall submit an application to the SecretaryGeneral.
    2. Such application shall contain an undertaking by the applicant State that it shall accept the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations. (These obligations are contained in Article 2.)
    3. The Secretary-General shall acknowledge receipt of the application and shall send a copy to the General Assembly or to the members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session. The Secretary-General shall inform the President of the Security Council that the application has been received and has been forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
    4. The General Assembly shall consider the application and if it finds that the application has been submitted in due form by the appropriate authority of the applicant State and that the applicant has shown its willingness to carry out the obligations of the charter shall refer the application to the Security Council for its recommendations.
    5. The Security Council shall examine the application and shall send its recommendation thereon to the General Assembly together with a complete record of the discussion in the Council and the evidence submitted to it. This recommendation shall be based on consideration of:-
  6. The ability of the applicant State to carry out the obligations contained in the charter of the United Nations so far as such obligations relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the Security Council.
  7. Consideration of the question whether the applicant is a peace-loving State.

    1. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Security Council, the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contnined in the charter. In its consideration theGeneral Assembly shall take into account the evidence transmitted by the Security Council.
    2. If the Security Council recommends the applicant State for membership, the General Assembly shall decide by a twothirds majority of the members present and voting upon its application for membership.
    3. If the Security Council recommends the non-admittance of an applicant State, the General Assembly may, after full consideration in terms of rule6, refer the application together with a full report of the discussion in the General Assembly, back to the Security Council for further consideration.
    4. The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant state of the decision of the General Assembly. If the application is approved, membership will become effective on the date on which the applicant state presents to the Secretary -General an instrument of adherence.
    1. EUROPE.
    1. The German Settlement.

    2. The meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, held in Moscow from the 10th March to 24th April to discuss the German and Austrian settlements, failed to reach agreement on any major issue. The most significant division of opinion concerned the treatment of Germany as an economic unit. Both the Soviet and French members of the Council attached conditions to their acceptance of this principle with which the United Kingdom and United States members could not agree. The Soviet member pressed f or reparations to the value of ten billion dollars, payable both from surplus German industrial equipment and from current production, and for the discontinuance of the economic fusion of the United Kingdom and United States zones of occupation in Germany. Both Mr. Bevin and Mr. Marshall replied that reparations from current production had not been provided for in the Potsdam

Agreement and that, if they were taken before Germany had obtained a favorable balance of payments, the effect would be that the United Kingdom and United States, who were paying large sums to their zones of occupation for the financing of necessary imports, would be paying for Soviet reparations.

  1. From the Australian point of view one of the serious aspects of the conference was its failure to agree even on a method by which other belligerents in the war against Germany could participate in the preparation of the settlement. It will be recalled that this question had been discussed by the Foreign Ministers’ Deputies in London in January and February of this year. At that meeting it had been generally agreed that the methods adopted in preparing the treaty with Italy were in need of improvement. The Deputies considered that, while the Council of Foreign Ministers should retain responsibility for preparing the draft treaty, the major allies should be consulted during this stage. The Deputies did not agree on the methods of consultation or on the subsequent stages of the settlement.
  2. At Moscow, some little progress was made. The outline of methods of consultation was agreed. It was agreed informally that representatives of belligerents should have access to the Council of Foreign Ministers in the presence of representatives of other belligerents, the latter having the right of written comment; that four permanent committees should be established for the study of major issues and for the drafting of articles thereon; and that an Information and Consultation Conference should be established which would be the channel of communicating the views of the Council of Foreign Ministers to the belligerents and of receiving their comments thereon. No agreement was, however, reached on the membership of these bodies. The Council also agreed to the holding of a peace conference with powers similar to those of the Paris conference, but again were unable to agree on membership or voting procedure.
  3. It has always been the objective of the Australian Government to ensure for the German settlement a fully democratic procedurewhich would include a peace conference unfettered by binding preliminary “ tie-ups “ between the major powers. During the meeting in Moscow, Australia again voiced its objection to the principle of the four major powers taking upon themselves the full responsibility for making the peace to the exclusion of countries like Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, which had played important and at times decisive roles in the struggle against Hitlerism. It was emphasized that the Council of Foreign Ministers was never intended by the Potsdam Agreement to be more than a preparatory body, and that the procedure under discussion at Moscow, under which the Council retained the final responsibility for the German Treaty, was based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the function of the Council. This contention is based firmly on the actual terms of the Potsdam Agreement, and it is appropriate to recall the authoritative ruling on the subject made by Mr. Byrnes, when United States Secretary of State, on the 5th October, 1945: -

At Berlin (Potsdam) it certainly was never intended that the three powers present or the five powers constituting the Council should take unto themselves the making of the final peace. The Berlin declaration setting up the Council begins with the statement - “ The conference reached the following agreement for the establishment of a Council of Foreign Ministers to do the necessary preparatory work for the peace settlements “. The Council was not to make the peace settlements but to do the necessary preparatory work for the peace settlements.

  1. Australia has never accepted the succeeding development by which at the Moscow Conference of December, 1 945, the major powers did in fact go beyond the plain intention of Potsdam and arrogate to themselves the final voice in drawing up the treaties of peace. Such a development has meant that, in effect, each of the four powers has retained a veto. As I have frequently pointed out, agreement reached under such circumstances, without a genuine spirit of conciliation and an open application of the principles of the United Nations and the Atlantic Charters is little more than “ compromise by exhaustion “.
  2. In my opinion, history will utterly condemn the consistent efforts of a few powers to exclude from their undoubted moral right to sit at the peace table other nations which fought in the war of 1939-45 from first to last and without whose self-sacrificing and longsustained efforts in many crucial theatres victory would have been impossible or long delayed. If countries like Australia had not been continuously on guard and actively insistent on the rights won by the blood and treasure of their servicemen and citizens, I have little doubt that they would have been presented with an even more obvious fait accompli than most of the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. Yet Mr. Byrnes stated definitely that the Council was formed to confine itself to preparatory work only in connexion with the peace settlements.
  3. Australia has urged, as a means of breaking up the recent stalemate at Moscow, the callingof an unfettered conference of all the active belligerents which should assume final responsibility for the peace settlement. Such a conference would differ from the Paris conference in that it would elect its own directing executive and certain committees which would do the detailed and continuous work of drafting. Having done this, the conference could adjourn until the preparatory work was completed. It would not necessarily be the object of such a conference to produce a complete peace treaty as its immediate task. Australia had previously suggested that a treaty as such might not be necessary until such time as a responsible German government is in existence, but that the solution of urgent German problems could be incorporated in the form of an interim agreement which would be, in effect, a revised and enlarged Potsdam agreement. Australia has also emphasized that a future peace conference can avoid friction on the question of voting procedure, since in the end the belligerents must agree unanimously on what should be incorporated in the treaty. With adequate preparation and prior discussion, unanimous decisions can be reached providing always that “ compromise by exhaustion “ is guarded against.

    1. The Austrian Settlement..
  4. During the Moscow meeting, the Council of Foreign Ministers also considered the draft treaty with Austria. While agreement was reached on many points, the completion of the treaty was prevented by differences of opinion between the three western power’s and the Soviet Union over the major issues of German assets in Austria and of Yugoslav claims for reparations and for territorial adjustments in Southern Carinthia.

    1. At the London meetings of Deputies the British Dominions, including Australia and New Zealand, in view of their part in the war, pressed for participation in the Austrian settlement. These claims did not meet with general support. The United Kingdom Deputy, however, proposed that when the Council of Foreign Ministers had agreed on the draft treaty, it should be circulated to all active belligerents for their comment in the light of which the final text of the treaty would be drawn up and signed by all active belligerents. Even such an inadequate recognition of the rights of other belligerents did not receive the assent of the other three Deputies. Indeed, at the Moscow meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, it was decided that the treaty would be drafted and signed by the four powers alone and that the remaining belligerents would merely have the opportunity to accede to the treaty at a later date. While, therefore, Australia retains its freedom of action in relation to the treaty, it has protested against this completely unwarranted departure from the principle that those nations which took an active part in the war should also fully participate in the peace settlements.
    2. Italian Colonies.
    3. The article in the Italian peace treaty concerning the disposal of the former Italian colonies is one of the least satisfactory in a treaty which was agreed to at the. Council of Foreign Ministers’ Conference as a result of “‘compromise by exhaustion”. At the time of the Paris conference the Australian delegation maintained that this question of the colonies should be decided not by the four major powers acting alone but by a larger body including representatives of those countries like Australia. New Zealand and South Africa, which helped so much to liberate these territories and destroy tremendous enemy forces when Britain and the British Dominions were fighting a lone fight.
    4. The Australian delegation proposed that the decision should be taken by a committee representing the four malor powers and three others chosen by the conference. The delegation also objected to the proposal that, fail- ing agreement within one year, the matter should be referred for final decision to the General Assembly of the United “Nations, which will include many neutral, non-belligerent and even ex-enemy States. The delegation proposed reference back to a body composed of the 21 belligerents.
    5. Since the original proposal had already, before the time of the Paris conference, been agreed on by the major powers, and’ those powers had bound themselves not only to support each other in every such prior agreement but to speak at the conference in favour of the acceptance thereof by the Council, it was obvious enough that the more democratic and the more just proposal of Australia was deemed unacceptable, and so, despite the undoubted historical fact that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had contributed so much to victory over Italy in North Africa, they were excluded from the authority which could finally determine the disposition of these territories.
    6. The present position, therefore, is thai the Italian treaty places upon the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union and France the obligation of deciding on th* disposal of the Italian colonics within one year of the coming into force of the treaty. In a declaration, attached to the treaty as an annex, the four powers undertake to reach their decision “ in the 1 light of the wishes and welfare of the inhabitants and the interests of peace and security, taking into consideration the views of other interested governments “. Should the four powers be unable to reach a decision within one year, they undertake to refer the question to the General Assembly of the United Nations whose decision will be final. The declaration adds that Deputies of the Foreign Ministers are to continue consideration, of the question with a view to submitting recommendations to the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Deputies are also to send out commissions of investigation to any of the former colonies to supply the necessary data and to ascertain the views of the local population.
    7. The Deputies of. the Foreign Ministers have been appointed and it is expected thai they will meet in London on the 6th June. As stated at the Paris conference, Australia’? vital interest in the question before the Deputies has been earned on the field of battle. Honorable members will not need to be reminded in detail of the great part played by the Australian divisions in the .North African campaign against Italy at the cost of very heavy casualties. The names of Bardia, Tobruk, Derna and Beghasi are now writ large in Australian history. The Boya) Australian Navy also played an outstanding part in the campaigns and was represented in every phase of the naval fighting, while Royal Australian Air Force units earned fame in the same campaigns not only on their own account but also - a fact often forgotten - in the formations of the Royal Air “Force. The Government would be failing in its plain duty to these men if any efforts were spared to ensure that the views of Australia on the future of these areas are fully heard.
    8. Steps have therefore been taken to ensure that, so far as is permitted to us, Australia will participate to the full extent permissible under the terms of the treaty in the final decision on this question. While, as I have explained, the terms of the treaty in this respect are most unjust, the major powers were at least, largely as a result of Australian pressure at the Paris conference, directed to “ take into consideration “ the views of other interested governments. It has been made clear to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America that before giving our views, we should be in possession of all the information that will become available to the Deputies themselves as a result of sending commissions of investigation to the areas concerned. Our primary objective, therefore, is to ensure that Australia has a voice in deciding the composition and terms of reference of the commissions, because it is essential that the data to be obtained by the commissions is adequate, relevant and unbiased, that Australia receives in good time the reports of any commissions and, finally, that our views, based on the information contained in these reports, are presented not to the Deputies but on the very highest level to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
    9. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    10. While the Moscow conference was in session, a new development in United States foreign policy became evident. The first concrete proposals under this new “ Truman doctrine “, as it has come to be known, were put forward in the form of a bill submitted to and passed by Congress to afford material aid to Greece and Turkey. In the light of evidence submitted to the Congressional committees which considered the bill and of the statements of responsible party leaders, this doctrine is interpreted as a policy of granting material assistance and moral encouragement to certain countries in need of aid if they are to resist external pressure, whether physical or ideological. Moreover, it appears that the United States Government may also be prepared to give similar support to countries in other regions than south-eastern Europe.
    11. The motive behind the formulation of this doctrine can be traced to dissatisfaction with the course of international events in the last two years. It is clear that the United States Administration is determined that it will no longer tolerate the conduct of international conferences whereby lack of agreement is due to honest resistance to the policy of “ compromise by exhaustion “, or agreement is reached only through such illegitimate methods. The United States seems unwilling to condone any longer the manifest injustices necessarily caused by a policy of securing some solution, i.e. “ peace at any price “. Above all, the United States shares with other democratic governments a strong distaste for abuse of the veto in the Security Council, which, after all, is only another illustration of the same desire to force compromise or surrender by the implied threat “ Either the decision will be satisfactory to us - or else - there will be no decision at all “.
    12. When the bill for aid to Greece and Turkey was first submitted to Congress, the principal criticism levelled against it was that it appeared to enable the United States to take the law into its own hands and by-pass the United Nations. Therefore, in order to make the position perfectly clear, Senator Vandenberg, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, secured the passage of an amendment to the bill which stipulated that help given by the United States should cease at the request of the Security Council or Assembly of the United Nations or when such a request was approved by an appropriate majority of either of those bodies to secure its passage, regardless of whether a veto should be interposed by a member of the Security Council. This amendment was most significant as evidencing the conviction that if the matter had been left to the ordinary vote of the Security Council, no decisions at all would have been reached owing to the practical certainty of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ veto.
    1. THE PACIFIC AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA.

Australian Responsibilities.

  1. Events both during and since the war have imposed additional responsibilities on Australia which concern the maintenance not only of her own, but the whole of the British Commonwealth position in South-East Asia and the Pacific. At the same time, and in no way contradictory, is the need confronting us to play our due part, for which our experience equips us. in helping the peoples of these areas achieve their legitimate aspirations.
  2. These and other responsibilities have suddenly accentuated themselves. One effect of the war has been to release new nationalist forces in South-East Asia which Australian policy must take fully into account and which must be regarded realistically and with understanding. This development has been accompanied by a combination of circumstances resulting from Britain’s extraordinarily gallant effort in the war, which has made it essential for her to review and curtail her commitments in countries adjacent to or on the lines of communication to Australia.
  3. The lessening of British influence as expressed in concrete terms of forces or economic interests is one thing; but any lessening of British interest, evidenced by failure to give to South-East Asia and the Pacific their rightful place in British political thinking, is a very different thing and should be guarded against. For there are now, and there will be in the future, area problems of great magnitude which can be satisfactorily solved only if Britain, Australia and New Zealand make a joint approach towards them, bringing to bear on them the full contribution of experience and knowledge which each has to make.
  4. There is a natural tendency among some groups in the United Kingdom to become engrossed with problems of foreign policy on both sides of the Atlantic to the exclusion of problems in the Pacific and South-East Asia. The official British Labour pamphlet earlier referred to illustrates this observation. Although approachingcurrent international problems with refreshing frankness, it cannot be said to evidence much interest, still less grave concern, in the Pacific and the Far East.
  5. On a long range view, it is essential for Britain to retain, and indeed develop, a real awareness of what is occurring in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, where there are many general interests to be safeguarded and where things can be achieved only by the closest co-ordination of British, New Zealand and Australian effort.
  6. Co-operation of this kind presupposes that Australia for her part will continue to equip herself for her increasing regional responsibilities. On the British side it presupposes recognition that there will be many occasions on which Australia and New Zealand, on account of their location, their special area knowledge and other factors, could be accepted as the best judge of what is best likely to preserve British Commonwealth interests in this part of the world. There has already been some application of these principles; for example, in the appointment of an Australian to represent the four British Commonwealth countries on the Allied Council in Japan, and in the appointment of an Australian as Commander of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces. The principle cannot be limited and will no doubt be extended.

Japan.

  1. Preparations for Peace Settlement.

    1. It is increasingly desirable that an early peace settlement with Japan should be negotiated. We have been increasingly perturbed to notice a tendency towards the piece-meal disposal of matters that should be dealt with as a whole in a peace treaty with Japan. Australia, because of her status as one of the few major Pacific belligerents, and because of her geographical position, has always insisted on her right to play a primary part in the negotiations leading to the signing of such a treaty, and I have every reason to believe that both the United Kingdom and the United States of America accept the interpretation of Australia’s status as a necessary party principal to the Japanese settlement.
    2. Having regard to these factors, as well as to Australia’s representation of British Commonwealth interests on the Allied Council in Japan, we recently took the initiative in proposing a preliminary conference among the British countries concerned in the Japanese settlement. We also proposed that the venue of this conference should be in the Pacific. Canberra was suggested as the actual meeting place. Negotiations along these lines are still proceeding, Australia’s point of view is being considered, and it is hoped that agreement will soon be reached. Naturally we are anxious that representation at this conference should be on the highest possible level.
    3. Meanwhile, close study of the problems involved in a peace treaty with Japan has been going on for a considerable time in a preparatory working group for the Pacific settlement, which committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Frederic Eggleston, with his special experience as Australian representative both in China and in Washington. The committee is engaged in the direction of research and in the preliminary analysis of policy. Its members are equipped with expert knowledge of the Pacific. In their analysis of policy, they will work in the light of the principles of the Japanese armistice and those of the United Nations and the Atlantic Charter.
    4. As the Prime Minister has recently stated, it is plain that the future control and supervision of Japan will be the most important question for the peace conference to decide. By no pretext should Japan be permitted to imitate the example of Germany after World War I. and again emerge as a menace to the security of the Pacific or SouthEast Asia. The preparatory committee is giving particular attention to this question in its deliberations and has considered the feasibility of proposing the setting upof special machinery of control and inspection in order to ensure the implementation of the terms of the peace treaty that is eventually signed with Japan.
    5. But a merely negative policy towards Japan would be quite inadequate. There is no reason why the Japanese people, provided always that there is adequate control, should not gradually develop into a peaceful democratic state. Constructive reform of Japan’s social, political and economic pattern is equally important, and particular stress is being laid on the formulation of provisions to deal with review of the Japanese constitution and the gradual democratization of that country, including the continued encouragement of trade unions, progressive reform of the educational system and a more drastic reform of the system of land tenure than that already instituted. 100. In Paris, when the treaties for the five German satellites were being discussed, a statement was made by me as leader of the Australian Delegation which is fully applicable to Japan.* While the whole statement is relevant in any consideration of the Japanese settlement, the following extract deals in particular with general principles of peacemaking: - “ I therefore turn to consider what are the general principles which should govern the review of the draft treaties. First, we are not justified in imposing our common will upon the defeated enemy in any spirit of mere vindictiveness or caprice. Our aim is justice, looking to the future as well as to the past, for we are, in a sense, the trustees of all the United Nations, of all the ordinary men and women throughout the world who look to

First - we should adhere to our solemn undertaking in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter, and try to ensure that the principles set out in these Charters are given the fullest possible application in the peace treaties.

Second - we should ensure that our recommendations and decisions are based on an impartial and thorough examination of all the relevant facts affecting each of the questions raised.

Third - we should be careful not to impose such unjustifiable burdens and humiliations upon the peoples of thefive states as will prevent the growth of genuine democratic forces or foster the resurgence of Fascism.

Fourth - our main objective should be the attainment of a just and durable overall peace structure and not merely the settlement one by one of a series of particular and isolated claims by individual nations against their neighbours.”

  1. Role of the Far Eastern Commission. 101. It would be wrong in principle to accept the Far Eastern Commission as the peace-making body for Japan. Its procedures are governed by the veto, one result being that basic policy for the occupation of Japan, which, following a draft by myself in December, 1945, was agreed to on the official level eighteen months ago, was held up by the threatened exercise of the veto of one or other of the Far Eastern Commission members or by the delays which a member possessing a veto can always procure. It is also of the utmost relevance to note that the Far Eastern Commission is a body set up to deal with occupation policy and not with the functions of peace-making.
  2. Japanese Whaling. 102. The report of the Australian observer with the Japanese whaling expedition, which was made available on the 15th May, made it quite clear that the Japanese do not regard the International Whaling Regulations seriously. It also discloses that during the expedition in question they were concerned with salted meat and blubber for food at the expense of oil production, the world need for which commodity was put forward in justification of it when the expedition was first mooted. 103. On the 23rd April, advice was received that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General MacArthur, was contemplating a further Japanese whaling expedition to the Antarctic in the 1947-48 season. 104. The Australian Embassy, Washington, was instructed to inform the State Department that Australia strongly opposed any further Japanese whaling expeditions to the Antarctic, and that the future of the Japanese whaling industry was a matter to be settled at the peace conference. The Governments ofthe United Kingdom, New Zealand and Norway made simultaneous representations to the United States State Department protesting against further Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. 105. The earlier expedition was of an emergency character and assurances were given at the time by the United States Government that no future expeditions would ha undertaken except after consultation with Allied governments concerned. Up to the present there has been no formal consultation. There are also practical objections to any further expeditions. It is clear that Japanese ships will operate only at the expense of Allied factory ships; evidence has already been cited that the Japanese do not regard the International Whaling Regulations as binding. It is also a factor that their whaling fleet of speedy and readily convertible vessels might provide a naval war potential which should not be created. 100. Early in May the head of the Australian mission in Japan was instructed to inform the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers that any proposal to permit Japanese whaling in the Antarctic would be strongly opposed by Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
  3. Civil Aviation in Japan . 107. On the 8th May, Australian representatives in Washington took part in an informal discussion with representatives of the State Department, United Kingdom and New Zealand on civil aviation in Japan. This subject will be discussed later in the Far Eastern Commission. 108. Although reserving and exercising the right to be associated with these and any other discussions on the same subject, it is the Australian Government’s opinion, communicated to other governments on the 1st May, that the question of civil aviation in Japan is a matter for decision at the peace settlement. 109. Meanwhile, Australia has put forward the view that Japan should be permanently prohibited from owning any naval or military aircraft and should not manufacture or operate civil aircraft during the period of control. 110. We have also reserved the right to establish external airlines operating to and from Japan. In connexion with internal airlines, Australia has reserved the right to participate by establishing its own services in Japan or being a party to an international organization controlling internal airlines in Japan. It is felt that for internal airlines a joint international organization would obviate any conflict of international interests. Internal services should be separate from external services and cabotage rights should not be permitted.

    1. Disposal of Japanese Fleet. 111. On the 14th April, 1947, the Dominions Office advised that the United States Government had presented an Aide-memoire to the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China, setting out procedures for the disposal of those vessels. This is another important question which it is considered can only be appropriately decided at the peace conference. As distinct from this objection, but in conformity with it, the view is taken that Australia should have been more fully consulted before any hard’ proposals were made to effect allocation among these four powers. 112. Of most interest to Australia is the question, which is being explored prior to the lodgment of claims, of whether the Japanese fleet includes any light craft which would be suitable for conversion for purposes of interisland and coastal trade.
  4. Reparations. 113. The allocation of reparations and the division of reparations shares has always been regarded by the Australian Government as being a matter for decision at the peace settlement. lt should not be a question for final decision by the Far Eastern Commission, with the privileged and unjustified status given by the Commission to four powers alone by the possession of the veto. This is in line with the view that the settlement of affairs with’ Japan cannot be dealt with piecemeal and should be considered as part of the whole problem at the appropriate time. On the 8th May the Far Eastern Commission approved of the principle that shares of reparation shall be determined on a broad political basis, taking into account the scope of material and human destruction and damage suffered by each claimant country as a result of Japanese aggression, and taking also into due account each country’s contribution to the cause of defeat of Japan, including the extent and duration of its resistance to Japanese aggression. 114. Throughout the discussions on reparations in the Far Eastern Commission, the Australian representative has stressed the importance of adequate compensation being made to each United Nation to cover the physical losses and the personal injuries of servicemen, and in particular, the sufferings of prisoners of war and civilian internees. In the Reparations Committee of the Far Eastern Commission, discussion is continuing on the division of reparations shares. The procedure of that body, which includes the right of veto by each one of four powers, may prolong that discussion. 115. The Australian Government does not press for reparations from Japan which would cripple her economy, providing “ economy “ means the peaceful development of those Japanese industries which cannot be of significance for purposes of war. The principle we approve is the prevention of the resurgence of Japan as a threat to peace by the elimination of her war potential, and it is from this sector of her economy that the bulk or repara- tions should come. Careful investigation by a special committee is necessary to determine what capital and other goods should be removed, and how reparations should be distributed.

Situation in China. 116. Since the end of last year, the situation in China, both political and economic, has continued to deteriorate. The gap between the Government aud the Communists has widened. 117. In November, 1946, the Government determined to proceed with the National Assembly and draw up a new constitution, regardless of whether it conformed to the pattern of the Political Consultation Conference discussions. The Political Consultation Conference, held in January, 1940, was representative of all parties in China - Kuomintang, Communists and the various “third” parties united in the Democratic League. It had worked out plans for a coalition government, the merging of the Communist and Government forces into one army, and the drawing up of » new constitution along democratic lines. 118. The calling of the National Assembly by the Government was denounced by the Communists and supported only by the more right-wing of the “third” parties. It represented the final break-down of negotiations between the two major parties, and the begining of an all-out civil war. 119. The economic results of the civil war have been agravated by inflation of the currency. This has led to the development of black markets in both food and foreign currency. There has been considerable unrest in the form of labour troubles, student strike? and rice riots, despite attempts to enforce the regulations against black market racketeering. 120. Some attempt to broaden the political bias of the Government has recently been made by setting up a new State Council to originate policy on which members of other parties as well as the Kuomintang are to be represented. However, only the Democratic Socialist and Young China parties (which have split with the rest of the Democratic League) and some non-partisans, have agreed to take part in this Council and in the Executive Yuan (Cabinet). 121. The degree of support which the Government continues to receive depends very largely on its ability to implement the various constructive reforms, particularly the land reform, that it has promised. Failure to implement these promises may mean support for the Communists in the areas reconquered by the Government forces, and they may thereby be able to wage a guerilla war almost indefinitely.

Korea. 122. The Joint United States-Soviet Commission in Korea, reconvened on the 21st May, after an exchange of notes between General Marshall and M. Molotov, is meeting for the first time since the 9th May, 1946. 123. The Commission is charged, as provided by the Moscow Conference of 1945, with the threefold task of -

  1. working out proposals for a provisional Korean government;
  2. submitting these proposals to China, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for consideration;
  3. evolving, after consultation with the provisional Korean . government, proposals for a four power trusteeship for consideration by the Chinese, United Kingdom, United States and Soviet Governments. 124. Australia, as a Pacific power, is naturally interested in political developments in Korea, and is keeping in close touch with the United Kingdom Government.

Siam. 125. In accordance with the relevant articles of the Australian Peace Agreement with Siam, an “ ancillary “ agreement for the setting up of a Joint Claims Committee consisting of representatives of the Australian, the Indian and the Siamese Governments was concluded on the 6th January, 1947. The committee has since had several meetings and its members are now considering the detailed principles governing the manner in which claims against the Siamese Government are to be presented and adjudicated. These principles will be settled in the near future. 126. Action has been taken to set up in Australia, within the Department of the Treasury, administrative machinery for handling claims of Australian citizens against Siam, and for rendering assistance to the Australian ConsulGeneral, Bangkok, who is the Australian member of both the Joint Claims Committee and the Tin Commission mentioned below. 127. In view of the world shortage of tin, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Australian Governments agreed some time ago that exports of this commodity from Siam should be facilitated. A Tin Commission consisting of representatives of Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Siam was therefore set up in Bangkok in December, 1946. to supervise the export of metallic tin and tin ore from Siam. An essential part of the agreement setting up the Tin Commission made provision for the assumption by Siam of responsibility for the payment of compensation in respect of tin ore removed during the war from the properties in Siam of Australian and United Kingdom mining companies.

Netherlands East Indies. 128. On the 28th January last the Dutch authorities at Batavia issued Regulations prohibiting the export by the Republic of all goods produced on Dutch-owned estates, and the import into Republican territory of goods which could be used for military purposes. These regulations have been enforced by the Dutch Navy, and as a consequence all foreign trade with Republican-controlled areas has stopped. 129. While this is not a matter which affects Australia only - British, United States and Chinese ships having been held up by the Dutch Navy - it was considered that Australia had suggestions to offer to both the Dutch and Indonesian authorities, which might overcome the problem and assist in their negotiation. Australia wishes to import goods, such as sisal, from Indonesia, so we had a very considerable interest in helping to promote a solution. 130. A second and related problem, in the solution of which it was considered assistance could be given, was the problem of shipping goods from Australia. 131. These goods have been held up in Australia for some considerable time partly because there was no agreement between Dutch and Indonesian authorities as to their proportionate distribution when once they had arrived at Indonesia. 132. Towards the end of April four Australian representatives were sent to Batavia to assist the Consul-General in his discussion’s with Dutch and Indonesians. These officials represented the Departments of External Affairs, the Treasury, Commerce and Agriculture, and Supply and Shipping. 133. On the first problem, officials suggested that trade should be resumed without restriction, and that, pending the conclusion of current negotiations between Dutch and Indonesian representatives, the trade should be financed by frozen accounts so that when the title of goods shipped was determined payment could be made to the owners. 134. On the second problem, as a result of discussions by our officials with both Dutch and Indonesian representatives, both these parties made an arrangement governing the distribution of goods when delivered, and the payment by the Indonesians to the Dutch for those goods allocated to Republican areas. 135. On the 25th May, the Australian Consul- General at Batavia received a letter signed jointly by Dr. van Mook, representing the Netherlands Indies Government, and bySutan Sjahrir, representing the Indonesian Republican Government, stating that an agreed arrangement was being made between Dutch and Indonesian authorities for the distribution in Indonesia as a whole of Dutch-owned goods in Australia, and that, therefore, both parties desired the shipment of the goods from Australia. 136.It is to be observed that the receipt of this letter followed upon the lengthy negotiations which the Australian Government had initiated. The agreement between Dutch and Indonesians made possible the joint message to the Australian Government through the Australian Consul-General stating that both parties now wish the goods to be shipped. 137. Meanwhile, negotiations continue on the problem of a general resumption of trade. At present only native owned goods - particularly kapok and some rubber - can be shipped out of Indonesian-controlled ports. Only goods not on the Dutch contraband list can be sent to Indonesian ports. 138. While, therefore, the ships carrying goods to Indonesia may, under present circumstances, return with only limited quantities of goods, it is hoped by the time they arrive Dutch-Indonesian negotiations will have progressed sufficiently for a general restoration of trade. 139. The visit of Australian officials, which has resulted in agreement between Dutch and Indonesians on the question of distribution of goods in Indonesia, has also contributed to the solution of the general problem of future relationships. In this respect Australia will continue to help in any way possible. The visit also had the happy effect of bringing together Dutch and Indonesian representatives in a way which helped to lessen the feeling of suspicion and hostility between them. This, in the opinion of the Australian officials, is the main real factor preventing general and unrestricted agreement between the two parties. 140. The Dutch and Indonesian authorities have yet to reach agreement on ways and means of implementing a number of the more important provisions of the Cheribon (or Linggardjati) Agreement of the 2oth March last. The Netherlands Prime Minister, Dr. Beel, and the Minister for Overseas Territories, Dr. Jonkman, have recently visited Indonesia, and have examined the situation at first-hand. Apart from the general question of the control of foreign trade of Indonesia, there remain to be resolved significant differences of opinion concerning, for example, the restoration by the Republic of estates owned by the Netherlands East Indies Government and Dutch interests, not to mention foreign interests; the international status of the Republic of Indonesia and the mode by which its representation in foreign countries is to be effected, and the vexed question of currency and financial policy generally.

Portuguese Timor. 141. On the suggestion of the Australian Consul at Dilli, the Governor of Portuguese Timor has been invited to visit Australia. The’ invitation has been accepted and it is expected that he will arrive in Australia on a courtesy visit early in June. 142. The Governor has expressed his appreciation of the interest taken by the Australian Government and by the Australian Consul at Dilli in the promotion of trade and the improvement of communications with Portuguese Timor. It is hoped that, as a result of his stay here, more can be done in this direction. Besides permitting an exchange of factual information regarding conditions in Australia and Portuguese Timor, the visit may also facilitate preparations for formal discussions on the basis of a war-time understanding between the Australian and Portuguese Governments under which the Portuguese Government agreed in principle that relations between Australia and Portuguese Timor in respect of defence, commerce and air communications should be discussed and made closer.

  1. INDIA.

  2. In the last month the principal development in India has been the steps taken by the Viceroy to stabilize a rapidly disintegrating political and administrative situation. As a result of active consultation with all the leading political figures Lord Mountbatten reached the conclusion that the prospects of agreement on a unified India were negligible, that the only alternative was partition and that, in view of the rapid and grave deterioration in communal relations, the need for the earliest possible decision was urgent. 144. Subsequently, the Viceroy visited London for talks with the United Kingdom Government. He has now returned to India where an announcement of great significance to the future of that country has been made. The basis of the British proposal is that the Indians themselves should choose how they wish the transfer of power to take place. The United Kingdom Government will introduce legislation which will enable power to be transferred this year, on the basis of dominion status, to one or two successor States, in accordance with the decisions which the Indian people themselves take under the new plan. 145. In the face of these developments, Australia’s view on the broader problems confronting India must remain as expressed in my statement to the House on the 26th February last, when I said that Australia, as a member of the British Commonwealth enjoying a status of complete freedom, of autonomy in both domestic and foreign policies, looked forward to the achievement by India of a similar status and a similar freedom. The peoples of India could pursue all their national aspirations while maintaining the link by which all members of the British Commonwealth are bound together. The complete severing of the links which join the British and Indian peoples would be greatly prejudicial to them both and to all mankind. 146. Five days earlier, on the 21st February, I had remarked that whatever the future may hold, Australia wished India well. That wish remains and the hope is again expressed that whatever constitutional structure may be adopted by the Indian people to govern their affairs, there will be no permanent severance of association between them and the British Commonwealth. 147. The Australian Government regards the internal difficulties confronting the Indian people with a full measure of understanding. The world’s attention is focused on the manner in which Indians adjust themselves to the present situation, but how they do so is of a particular concern to Australia, a near neighbour which expects to share in the solution of many area problems in the future. 148. The Prime Minister of New Zealand made a statement yesterday which expressed the views of the Australian and New Zealand Governments so well that it is sufficient to give it full and complete endorsement. Mr. Fraser said - “ On behalf of the New Zealand Government, I would like to make it abundantly clear that we in New Zealand would welcome the continuation of our partnership with India on this new basis (as a British dominion). I would like to add, said Mr. Fraser, that the people of the British dominions do not regard dominion status as an imperfect kind of independence; on the contrary it is independence with something added and not independence with something taken away. It carries with it membership of a free and powerful association from which every element of constraint has vanished but one in which a way has been found for the practiceof mutual confidence and cooperation in the full respect for the independence, sovereignty and individuality of each member. The New Zealand Government therefore in acclaiming the approaching consummation of India’s independence, express the hope that that independence may be exercised within the British Commonwealth of Nations to the greatly increased benefit of all members of the Commonwealth and of the whole world and they assure the people of India in all circumstances of their friendship and goodwill.”

  1. ANTARCTIC.

  2. On the 8th April, Cabinet approved certain recommendations of the Antarctic Executive Committee which included -

  1. A financial grant of £100,000 to the Department of External Affairs to enable early planning to proceed for an expedition to the Antarctic, and for refitting the vessel Wyatt Earp ;
  2. ) Reconstruction of the committee as an Executive Planning Committee to include representatives of interested departments and expert advisers;
  3. The appointment of a leader for the expedition. 150. Since that date, the Executive Planning Committee has held two meetings. At the first of these, Sir Douglass Mawson offered valuable advice on conditions in the regions where Australian scientific work might most suitably be carried out on the Antarctic Continent. At the second meeting, Captain J. K. Davis gave departmental representatives the benefit of his experience in Antarctic exploration and gave further technical advice. 151. Naval representatives have reported on the availability to Australia and carrying capacity of ships for Antarctic work. 152. The Executive Planning Committee unanimously agreed to the nomination as executive officer of Group-Captain S. A. C. Campbell and this was approved by Cabinet on the 12th May. Group-Captain Campbell has already begun work on the procurement of stores and equipment for the expedition and will be assisted by other members of the Executive Planning Committee in the selection of personnel and in carrying out preparatory arrangements.

page 3693

APPENDIX A

Report of the Military Staff Committee.

The following is a summary of the report of the Military Staff Committee: -

Chapter 1. - Purpose of Armed Forces

  1. The forces are intended for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security in cases of a threat to or breach of the peace and acts of aggression.
  2. The forces are not to be used for purposes inconsistent with the Charter.

Chapter 2. - Contribution of Armed Forces

  1. Forces shall be composed of units normally maintained as components of armed forces of member nations.
  2. Forces shall be made available from best trained and equipped units of member nations.

Chapter 3. - Overall strength of Armed Forces.

  1. Moral weight behind forces will be great and this will influence size.
  2. Forces shall be limited to strength sufficient to enable Security Council to take prompt action in any part of the world.
  3. Estimate of overall strength of forces to be made by the Security Council with the Military Staff Committee and used as a basis for negotiating special agreements. (Acceptance by the Soviet Union is conditional upon the acceptance of their Article 11.)
  4. Overall strength may be changed by additional agreements. (Acceptance by Soviet Union is conditional upon the acceptance of their Article 11.)

Chapter 4. - Contribution of Armed Forces by Member Nations.

  1. All member Nations to have opportunity as Well as obligation to provide forces.
  2. Permanent members to contribute initially major portion of forces.
  3. The United Soviet Socialist Republics are insisting that permanent members shall make forces available “ on the principle of equality regarding overall Strength and composition “, deviations to be permitted by special decisions of Security Council. Other delegations agree that permanent members should “ make a comparable initial overall contribution “, but that “ contributions may differ widely as tostrength of separate components, land sea and air “.
  4. Size and composition of contributions of individual states to be determined on initiative of Security Council with advice of Military Staff Committee in process of negotiations with each member nation.
  5. No nation to be urged to increase its armed forces or to create a particular component for specific purpose of contributing to United Nations forces.
  6. Members other than permanent members need not contribute armed forces but may fulfil obligation by furnishing facilities and other assistance.
  7. Changes in size or composition of contributions of a member or group of nations may be proposed by the Security Council, the member or the group.
  8. Four power draft proposes strength and composition of national air-force contributions (Article 45) to be determined as in 12 above. Soviet Union proposes article in terms of Article 45 of Charter.
  9. French and Chinese propose that in cases of self-defence and of national emergencies members may use the forces they have made available to the Security Council.

Chapter 5. - Employment of Armed Forces

  1. Forces to be employed only by decision of Security Council and only for period necessary for fulfilment of tasks under Article 42.
  2. Forces to be used in time to forestall or to suppress promptly breach of peace or act of aggression.
  3. After forces have carried out tasks they shall be withdrawn as soon as possible to general locations governed by the special agreements in accordance with time of agreements.
  4. Soviet Union proposes that if forces remain in other territories they should be withdrawn not later than thirty days after expiration of period in agreements.

Chapter 6. - Degree of Readiness of Armed Forces.

  1. Degree of readiness of forces to be fixed by Security Council on advice of Military Staff Committee as result of negotiations for agreement.
  2. Degree of readiness to be maintained at a level which will enable them to start in good time with fulfilment of tasks.
  3. Forces to be either maintained in readiness for combat or brought up to readiness for combat within time limits specified in agreements.
  4. Degree of readiness of aircraft contingents to be maintained at level which will enable United Nations to take urgent military measures under Article 45. Soviet Union proposes that degree of readiness should be determined by the Security Council.

Chapter 7. - Provision of Assistance and Facilities, including Rights of Passage for Armed Forces.

  1. The United States, United Kingdom and China propose that agreements include general guarantee of rights of passage and of available bases required. France and Soviet propose that bases and assistance including rights of passage should be specified in agreements.
  2. Member nations to retain sovereignty and control over bases. &c, put at disposal of Security Council. (Not accented by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)
  3. If additional contributions are required from permanent members when enforcement action is under consideration the contributions should be of comparable size taking into account the value of assistance, &c, already given.

Chapter 8. Logistical support of Armed Forces.

  1. Members to provide their respective forces with replacement in personnel and equipment and supplies and transport.
  2. Each member to maintain reserves for its forces, reserve level to be prescribed by agreement.
  3. Chinese, the United Kingdom and the United States propose -

Members who cannot fulfil Article 29 above may invoke aid of Security Council who will negotiate with other members for provision of assistance. Agreement of member nations concerned must be obtained by Security Council before deficiences in contribution of one member can be made up by transfers from another member.

France and Soviet propose -

Deviations from Article 29 will be permitted at request of member by the Security Council with advice of Military Staff Committee if the member desires, &c, to be made available to it for proper provision of its forces at the disposal of the Security Council.

Chapter 9. General Location of Armed Forces

  1. Forces when not employed will be based either “ at discretion of member nations in any territories or waters to which they have legal right of access “, (United Kingdom, United States and China) or “within the frontiers of the contributing members own territories except in cases under Article 107 “, (France), or “within national borders, territories of ex-enemy states, territories of other nations by treaty published under Article 102, or in strategic areas Articles 82 and 83 “ (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
  2. Forces to be distributed geographically so as to enable the Security Council to take prompt action in any part of the world. (Not accepted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. )
  3. Any displacement of forces likely to modify the availability of forces will be brought to the notice of the Security Council, (Not accepted by Soviet.)
  4. Forces to be based during carrying out of measures under Article 42 in areas designated by the Security Council.

Chapter 10. StrategicDirection and Command of Armed Forces.

  1. Forces to be under exclusive command of respective contributing nations except when operating under Security Council.
  2. When forces called upon for measures under Article 42 they shall come under control of Security Council.
  3. While employed by Security Council the Military Staff Committee under Security Council shall be responsible for strategic direction.
  4. Command of national contingents to be exercised by commanders appointed by member nations and to be subject to discipline and regulations of national armed forces.
  5. Commanders of national contingents to be entitled to communicate directly with authorities of their own country.
  6. China, Soviet and United States of America propose an overall commander or commanders may be appointed by Security Council on advice of Military Staff Committee. French and United Kingdom propose an addition that commanders-in-chief of land, sea or air forces acting under supreme commander may be appointed by Secretary Council on advice of Military Staff Committee.

page 3695

ANNEX B

Balkans Commission Report

The Report of the Balkans Commission was signed on the 25th May.

The Australian representative has reported that the report will consist of a first part including a background of the discussions in the Security Council, the terms of reference of the Commission, its constitution, and the constitution of the Secretariat, procedures, the relation of liaison officers to the Commission and the working of subordinate groups, such as the Committee of Experts, investigating teams and drafting committees. The introduction describes also the itinerary of the Commission, types of evidence heard and method of selecting witnesses.

The second part of the report comprises consideration of the Greek charges against Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia under the following headings : -

  1. 1 ) Training of refugees.
  2. Security of refugees in guerilla units.
  3. Provisioning of army of guerillas.
  4. Hospitalising of wounded.
  5. Entrance of guerillas on to Albanian from Greek territory.

Other chapters deal with Greek charges alleging Yugoslav and Bulgarian interference in Greek internal affairs with the aim of detaching Aegean, Macedonia and Western Thrace, the persecution of Greek minorities in Albania, and the detention of hostages in Yugoslavia.

The report also examines Albanian, Bulgarian and Yugoslav contentions that the present Greek regime is responsible for the civil war and far northern disorders, and allegations of Greek provocation against these three countries.

The Commission’s recommendations were accepted in modified form by nine representatives. The main agreed recommendations were: the establishment of a supervisory commission by the Security Council, the renewal of border conventions between Greece and the neighbouring Balkan States, the development of free port facilities at Salonika. At the suggestion of the Australian representative, an amnesty for political prisoners is referred to in the preamble to the recommendations, suggesting that the Security Council should make known to the Greek Government its willingness if that Government so requests to lend its good offices in order to secure by all possible means the realization of this desirable measure “.

The position adopted by the Australian representative was that the permanent commission should be composed of five or six States. A term of two years for the supervisory commission was favored, after which the position would be reviewed. The suggestion for a free port of Salonika was also supported by Australia as a constructive proposal.

A further point of Australian policy was the inclusion of reference to new elections in the conclusions of the report, but the Australian standpoint was in the final instance supported only by France.

As had been expected, there was no agreed report. The Soviet submitted minority conclusions which were supported by Poland. The conclusions agreed upon by the majority received eight votes, with France abstaining on the grounds that the evidence was not conclusive. The Belgian and Columbian delegates also made a statement to the effect that it was not for the Commission to pass judgment upon Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union and Poland formally opposed any recommendations whatsoever.

page 3695

APPENDIX C

Statement on Australia’s Contribution to International Humanitarian Funds.

Australia has made two contributions to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, totalling in all£ A. 24,000,000. The contribution made by Australia was the fourth largest of contributing governments, being exceeded only by those of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

Almost the entire amount of the two Australian contributions has been expended or is committed for expenditure and little more than essential contingency reserves remain. It is intended that any unexpended amount remaining when Unrra has completed its operations will be transferred to the International Children’s Emergency Fund for the relief of children and adolescents who have been the victims of aggression.

The Australian contribution has been expended on the following broad categories of goods: -

Certain commitments not included in the above’ figures are iri process of being finalized.

The figure for clothing includes supplies of raw Wool to the value of £ A.10,092,687.

A lis tralian supplies have been consigned to both Europe” and the Far East. China has received agricultural and industrial rehabilitation equipment, food and medical supplies. A large order for locomotives for China is at the present time being filled. Our raw wool supplies have been consigned almost entirely to the war-devastated countries of Europe. The following are the countries which have received Australian relief supplies and the value of supplies consigned to each country (Major items only included) : -

In addition, raw wool amounting to approximately 55,000 metric tons and valued at £A.]0;092,6S7 has been supplied; the main recipients being: -

Small quantities have been consigned to Albania, Austria, Byelorussia, China, Greece, Ukraine arid Yugoslavia.

Items of relatively small individual value, not included in either of the country figures or the wool figures given above, have been supplied to the value of £A.2,679,313 bringing the total Australian supplies to £A.22,745,000> A more detailed statement of the distribution of Australian goods supplied to Unrra is contained in an appendix.

Apart from the contribution of the AuS” tralian Government to Unrra, voluntary appeals for used clothing for relief purposes have been conducted by the Australian Council for Overseas Relief and Unrra, an organization which has received governmental support. The first drive, conducted in 1945, resulted in the collection of 3>500,000 lb. of used clothing Valued at £A,i, 750.000. Contributions in money amounting to £A.25,815 were also received and were converted into clothing supplies. A second drive, conducted in 1946, was successful in collecting approximately 1,250,000 lb. of used clothing valued at approximately £A.734,000, as well as cash contributions of £450. The used clothing has been sent where the need has been greatest. The largest single recipient has been China, but large quantities have also been received by Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Czechoslovakia and others. Unrra has undertaken transport and distribution of the used clothing.

The Australian Government has recently agreed to contribute £A.4,000,000 to meet post- Unrra relief needs. This £A.4,000,000 will cover contributions to the International Refugee Organization, the International Children’s Emergency Fund, the U.N.E.S.C.O. Reconstruction Fund and general post-Unrra relief.

Australia is a member of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, whose functions are now being taken over by the International Refugee Organization. The Australian contribution to the International Refugee Organization, which will be concerned with refugees in both Europe and the Far East, will amount to £857,699 in 1947. Allocation of the remainder of the £A.4,000,000 Australian contribution among the other relief projects is at present under consideration, Allocation of general post-Unrra relief supplies among recipient countries and the form of our contribution to the International Children’s Emergency Fund, the U.1T.E.S.C.O. Reconstruction Fund and general post-Unrra relief are also being considered.

In addition. Australia is a member of the Interim Commission of the World Health Organization, which is taking over the health functions of Unrra as well as formulating long-term international health policies and programmes.

The prominent part which Australia has played in relief has been widely recognized. This recognition Was largely responsible for the election of Australia to the Central Committee of the Unrra Council, on which the Australian representative has made a noteworthy contribution. Australia is also repre1sented on the Committee of the Council for the Far East and has taken a foremost part in thi? committee’s discussions.

Further recognition has been given to Australia’s part in international relief by our election to the Executive Board of the International Children’s Emergency Fund.

The Australian Government has always appreciated and will continue to appreciate the fundamental importance of restoring wardevastated countries so that long-term economic and political stability may be achieved. The recent Australian contribution to post-Unrra relief constitutes a further recognition by the Australian Government of the needs of war-devastated countries and is a clear indication of the Government’s willingness to play its full part in meeting those needs.

page 3698

APPENDIX E

statement before the plenary session of Conference of Paris by the Australian Minister of External Affairs, The Eight Honorable Herbert v. Evatt, on the 31st July, 1940.

We meet here because we have been victorious comrades in arms. Together we have defeated the aggression of the Axis and their satellites. By united efforts and common sacrifices we have overthrown great tyrannies and won a new birth of liberty.

First of all, we do right to recall the great achievements of the leaders in the struggle - of the French to whom we pay special tribute at this centre of civilization, of the British who stood so firm even when almost alone, of the Russians whose epic resistance to Hitler was a turning point in the European war, and of the people of the United States whose effort has been of supreme significance in the Far East as well as in Europe and last but not least of our Chinese allies who held fast against Japan during the long years of indescribable suffering.

Our general standpoint as to the status of this conference is clear and definite. Our object has been to make this, the first peace conference, a reality and not a mere formality, to do everything possible to ensure that at this meeting of 21 nations the peace to come is based upon the principles of justice and ministers in the cause of peace and justice for all peoples.

The war we have fought was a people’s war; we are here to advance a people’s peace. We are only servants and ministers in the cause of pence and justice for all peoples.

Australia’s Title to Peace Making

Australia’s own efforts illustrate this fact and I cite them for that purpose. Twice in this generation Australia’s sons crossed the world for the defence of freedom in Europe; twice they have taken a worthy part in the defeat of those who set out to dominate Europe and the World. As we meet here, in company with the other nations who have shared the Sacrifices and contributed substantially to our common victory, my thoughts turn to my own countrymen who fought and died so that we and not our enemies should make the peace I think of the many thousands of Australian airmen who fought the enemy over Europe and the Middle East .throughout the whole six years of war. I think of the great campaigns waged by the Australian Imperial Force in North Africa and the Mediterranean until the ferocious and decisive battle of El Alamein was fought and won. I think of th* help given by the Australian Navy in delivering crippling blows at crucial moments agains the Italian Fleet and of the heavy toll levied upon our sailors on nearly all the seven seas. As General MacArt’hur has said, Australia’* war effort in the Pacific struggle agains Japan was exceeded only by the massive effort of the United States forces in that vast theatre of the world war.

This is not even a bare outline of Aus tralia’s contribution. Yet that contribution is paralleled by the bitter sacrifices and supreme achievements of the other sixteen countries to whom I have referred.

And so, in the name of Australia’s fighting men who from beginning to end gave themselves without stint to the war in Europe and Africa, and to tile war against Japan, I salute their comrades in arms represented here to-day. Australians will never forget those beside whom they fought, whether it be those, like the Greeks, whose gallant resistance to overwhelming Axis forces they were privileged to share, or those, who, from 1939 onwards, came across the seas with them from distant continents, from New Zealand, from India, from South Africa, from Canada, or those who carried on the desperate war of resistance in their own countries throughout the bitter years of enemy occupation, and rose in arm* to throw off their Axis oppressors.

Right of Participation by all Belligerents.

It is universally admitted that the contribution to victory made by the peoples represented here warrants their being consulted about the making of this peace. The real question which has concerned us was whether consultation by the major powers represented the full extent of our rights or whether active partners in the war should not also be entitled to active participation as partners in the makins of the peace.

Australian opinion on this point of fundamental principle was never in doubt. The right of making the peace should belong to all those nations who have been partners in achieving the common victory.

It seems at least to Australia doubtful whether the Potsdam Agreement was clear enough to guarantee to the actual belligerent* the right of full participation in the peace making process. Accordingly I was deputed by the Australian Government to place the case before members of the Council of Foreign Ministers then meeting in London in September last. There I urged that those countries which have made active and sustained contributions in the European sphere of war were clearly entitled to participate in the peace making: that a fair and democratic peace could be obtained only by fair and democratic procedures and that the justice of the peace settlements depended to a large extent upon the active participation of a wider group of belligerents than that of three or four or five major powers.

Australia was actively supported in its claims by all the other British Dominions, and also by the smaller European countries and our claims in no way detracted from the primary and necessary leadership of the major powers. But we insisted that meantime belligerents were entitled not merely to the right of consultation but to equal rights of actual participation in the peace making process.

I now quote a few sentences from Mr. Byrnes’ broadcast address of the 5th October, 1945, after the requests of Australia (and other belligerents) had been made public - “ At Berlin “, he said, “ it certainly was never intended that the three powers present or the five powers constituting the Council should take unto themselves the making of the final peace. The Berlin declaration setting up the Council begins with the statement: ‘The conference reached the following agreement for the establishment of a Council of Foreign Ministers to do the necessary preparatory work for the peace settlement’. The Council was not to make the peace settlements but to do the necessary preparatory work for the peace settlement.”

Mr. Byrnes’s statement was completely satisfactory in principle. However, in the subsequent Moscow agreement of December last the Council of Foreign Ministers was accorded a right not expressly given to it in the Potsdam agreement, i.e. the right of final review of the Peace conference’s recommendations.

However, it is certain that the Moscow agreement intends at least that, as an essential condition of the concluding stages of making peace with the five enemy States, “ recommendations “ should proceed from this conference to the Council of Foreign Ministers. This intention should be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter, otherwise what comes out of this conference will be imperfect and of small significance.

Other declarations which have been made are also important.

Speaking in London at the end of the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers last year, M. Molotov said, in reference to the proposed peace conference, that such a conference “ is convoked in order to name improvements or changes inthe drafts; otherwise conferences are not necessary,” and Mr. Byrnes, speaking after the Moscow meeting, said that the Moscow procedure “ contemplates and requires “ that the nations represented at the conference - “ formally and publicly make their recommendations. Certainly the United States would not agree to a final treaty which arbitrarily rejected such recommendations. Certainly the great powers which drew up the draft Charter for the United Nations at Dumbarton Oaks did not ignore the changes suggested by the smaller powers at San Francisco.”

And, speaking of the peace conference, Senator Vandenberg thus referred on the 21st May last to the American policy on the matter- “ It is a policy which invites all of our partners in the war - instead of a closed corporation of big powers - to have a proper voice in the making of the treaties and the writing of the peace which result from common victories which we all helped win.”

More recently in July last Senator Vandenberg said - “ After the peace conference the’ last word ‘ again reverts to the four great powers in the Council of Foreign Ministers. But the conscience of the Allied World will have spoken in the interim, and it speaks with superlative authority.”

Without making any further analysis of the precise meaning of the Potsdam and Moscow declarations, enough has been said to justify certain conclusions. Each of the 21 nations has equal rank and voice in this conference. We have a big job to carry out and we should proceed to its performance with the utmost despatch. For it is absolutely clear that in these final stages of the peace making the greatest possible weight will be attached to the deliberations and recommendations of the nations which admittedly have “ actively waged war with substantial military force against European enemy States”. Much depends upon the question whether in practice the sponsoring powers here will follow the example of San Francisco and be prepared to hear their cobelligerents not as suppliants of as advocates or as mere consultants, but as partners who have proved their worth as partners in the great struggle against our enemies. The spirit which will animate this conferenceis far more important than the mere literal adherence to declarations which have been made in the past.

Principles of Peace Making

I therefore turn to consider what are the general principles which should govern the review of the draft treaties. First, we are not justified in imposing our common will upon the defeated enemy in any spirit of mere vindictiveness or caprice. Our aim is justice, looking to the future as well as to the past for we are, in a sense, the trustees of all the United Nations, of all the ordinary men and women throughout the worldwho look to us to give an enduring and a just peace to them and their children. However concerned we may be in the interests of our own countries, we must never lose, sight of the fact that all the peoples of the world have a stake in this pence.

If we approach our task in this spirit we shall keep in mind certain fundamental principles -

First - we should adhere to our solemn undertaking in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter, and try to ensure that the principles set out in those Charters are given the fullest possible application in the peace treaties.

Second - we should ensure that our recommendations and decisions are based on an impartial and thorough examination of all the relevant facts affecting each of the questions raised.

Third - we should be careful not to impose such unjustifiable burdens and. humiliations upon the peoples of the five States as will prevent the growth of genuine democratic forces or foster the resurgence of Fascism.

Fourth - our main objective should be the attainment of a just and durable overall peace structure and not merely the settlement one by one of a series of particular and isolated claims by individual nations against their neighbours.

Australian Proposals

We fully appreciate the work already represented by the draft treaties which the Council of Foreign Ministers has prepared for our consideration. But, it is the obligation as well as the right of the nations which have not shared in the preparation of these drafts to analyze them in the light of sound general principles and to make such constructive criticisms and specific recommendations as arc called for.

Accordingly the Australian delegation will, like the other delegations, draw attention to those provisions in the draft treaties which can and should be improved. Wherever necessary we shall make suggestions for the inclusion of additional provisions on matters that have either escaped the attention of the drafting powers, or would appear to be necessary to give full effect to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the principles of the United Nations Charter, principles which arc binding’ on all represented at this conference.

Proposals and suggestions of the Australian delegation will be made from time to time in the appropriate commissions and committees. Here T shall only refer to some of the main questions that in our opinion require examination, and indicate briefly our provisional point of view.

Territorial Provisions

First, there are the territorial provisions of the treaties. The importance of territorial changes achieved by war has often been exaggerated. For many people in the frontier regions of this small, crowded continent, the question as to which side of a boundary they live on is really less pressing than that of how to make a reasonable living for themselves and their children. It is not surprising that many people are inclined to cry, bread before borders: butter before guns.

So far as particular frontier adjustments are concerned, Australia adheres to the view we have consistently expressed in the United Nations organization that before a decision is reached, there should be a thorough exami- nation of the relevant facts in each case. No doubt the Council of Foreign Ministers has had much material placed before it. There is every reason why this conference should have access to this same material and any other new facts relevant to particular frontier changes. I would stress the fact that we are concerned not merely with the individual proposals considered in isolation from each other but also with the wider implications, political and economic, of the changes considered as a whole. The Australian Delegation will therefore favour where necessary the appointment of a special fact-finding committee, to prepare and report on material required by the several committees concerned with the frontier provisions of the various, treaties.

Italian Colonies

On the question of the Italian colonies, the Australian delegation considers that the making of decisions as to the future administration of the colonies should rest, not with the Foreign Ministers’ Council as such, but with all those countries which, like Australia and the other British dominions, have through their great losses and sacrifices in liberating such territories, earned a vital interest in their future disposal or administration.

Trieste

The main principle of the proposed settlement for Trieste is similar to that submitted by Australia and New Zealand to the Council of Foreign Ministers as long ago as September last. But some of the features of the solution may prove unworkable in practice. It seems too that we shall be brought face to face again with the further difficulty that it is proposed to give the Security Council important discretionary powers in relation to Trieste, and that under the Charter of the United Nations organization any proposed decision of the Security Council may be blocked by the veto of any one permanent member of the Council.

For these reasons ‘ it seems essential that the Trieste proposal should receive the closest scrutiny from this conference.

Reparation Questions

I now mention the economic and financial aspects of the treaty, including the reparations proposals. I submit that these aspects require close review before the treaties will be satisfactory from the point of view of a just overall settlement.

One overriding principle of the settlement should be to ensure economic co-operation between the five countries and their neighbours.

We feel that the Council of Foreign Ministers has not un-naturally concentrated its main attention upon political and territorial problems rather than upon economic and social arrangements.

It is our hope that all the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers will welcome a strengthening of the treaties in their economic and social aspects.

The reparations provisions of the treaties are admittedly incomplete and important questions are left unanswered. Article 04 of the draft treaty with Italy certainly gives an impression that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is to be given some degree of precedence over other claimants who suffered heavily at Italy’s hands. It may be too that several of the proposals would tend to assure to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a privileged position in the future direction of the trade and economic life of all the countries contributing reparations. These reparations provisions need precise clarification. For that purpose the Conference is entitled to receive the fullest information as to allthe facts and reports on reparations placed before the Council of Foreign Ministers. In the absence of that information, a fair and impartial review of the treaties is obviously impossible.

Speaking more generally, the Australian delegation takes the realistic view that if reparation are exacted to a point which seriously retards the economic rehabilitation of the nations paying them the general level of trade and living standards of other countries and peoples will be endangered. In principle the exaction of properly assessed reparations is reasonable and just. But the treaty should provide an assurance that reparations now exacted will not create a situation of serious economic concern to European countries.

In considering the problem of reparations, it is important to keep in mind that some of the countries with which we were to make peace have for a long period been subject to economic domination by Germany. In such cases their economic structures, including their industrial development and distribution of resources, have been distorted by the practical compulsion which required them to fit into the economic needs of Germany. The readjustments now to be imposed are of such a character that a major re-orientation of their economic structures may prove to be beyond their slender resources. This inter-dependence in the economy of European countries illustrates the principle that reparation claims should be dealt with as an integrated whole and not in isolation from each other, or in a way which will once again establish economic subservience on the part of the contributing country.

European Economic Organization

The economic questions are so important that the peace treaties could usefully include provision for closer economic co-operation between European states. Agriculture, steel, coal, hydro-electric power, and all the major resources of Europe wherever situated, should become available to all the peoples of Europe. While the federation of European States may not be practicable, some of the benefits of such a system could be achieved by encouraging the establishment of economic organizations on a European or regional basis. This would not prejudice the real autonomy of each national unit.

It again would be of practical value if all the European countries affected by the proposed treaties became members of the Food and Agricultural Organization, the Inter national Wheat Council, the International Labour Office and other organizations designed to promote the twin objectives of full employment and higher living standards.

It is by such practical measures of economic co-operation that the gaping wounds of Europe may gradually be healed. We must do our utmost to promote such economic arrangements that full employment and high living standards may ultimately be secured for all European peoples.

Throughout international discussions on economic policy Australia fought successfully for one principle of full employment, not only for domestic but for international reasons, in the realization that a low level of employment in any part of the world inevitably threatens employment standards elsewhere. Nothing can be more disastrous or more likely to lead to a resurgence of war and Fascist aggression than unemployment, poverty and low standards of life. Poverty and depression in Europe menace peace and prosperity, not only there but throughout the world.

A Positive Peace

The task in which we are engaged is not the mere perpetuation of armistice terms, not the mere cessation of a period of armed conflict, not the mere preparation for another interval between European wars. True peace is not the mere absence of war but a positive and actively beneficial state of affairs. And so the ultimate task before us is nothing less than creating the framework for a renewal of European civilization, but civilization in “ larger freedom “. That is a noble enterprise. It is fitting that countries like Australia should make their contribution to this great objective. In the Pacific we are inheritors of European civilization and in a sense trustees for it. In the field of arms we have twice come to Europe to redress a balance heavily tilted in favour of tyranny; our contribution in the field of social and economic well-being may equally help to prevent the utter disaster of another European war.

We cannot accept the cynical view that history must, of necessity, repeat itself. The fact that the war chapters of history have been repeated in the past is largely due to the lack of foresight on the part of some of those who imposed the peace. The peoples of the world look to this conference to help substantially in framing a peace based on social justice and economic betterment. Only by such a. peace can freedom from fear and freedom from want be ultimately assured to the men and women and particularly to the children, of this continent.

I now lay on the table the following paper : -

Foreign Affairs - Statement by Minister for External Affairs, dated6th June, 1947, together with related documents. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 3702

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Chlfley) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day: -

Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill 1947 - Second reading - Resumption of debate, and

Hospital Benefits Bill 1947 - Second reading - Resumption of debate - made orders of the day for the next sitting, being made the next orders of the day for this sitting.

page 3702

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3560).

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I did not exercise the right that I might have exercised to object to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) moving the motion for the re-arrangement of the business of the House to enable the debate on this measure to be resumed at this stage, because it seemed to me and my colleagues that the difference between debating this bill now and debating it in a couple of hours’ time is not of great moment.

At the outset I direct attention to the extraordinary history of this legislation to confer pharmaceutical benefits on the community. The original measure had its first reading on the 7th March, 1944, and its second reading on the 31st March at 1.13 a.m. The whole of the debate on the second reading of the measure occurred in the early morning during an all-night sitting. The Minister’s speech in reply began at 3.40 a.m. That was the original act. It would be idle to pretend that an important measure receives the same examination at 2 a.m. as if it had been brought in during the ordinary debating hours of the Parliament. The committee stage of the bill began at 3.42 a.m. and was completed by 4.10 a.m., at which hour the bill was read a third time. The services to be provided under the original act were estimated to cost the country about £2,000,000 a year. The measure, which involved a number of precedents in public administration, was, therefore, discussed between 1.15 a.m. and 4 a.m. on the same day. Subsequently, it appeared to the Government that the measure should be amended, and again, by a remarkable set of circumstances, the amending bill, instead of being introduced when it could have been fully considered by the Parliament, was introduced at 1.20 a.m., seven minutes later than the time of day that the parent bill was introduced. The second reading was completed at 2.12 a.m., and the bill was read a third time at 2.18 a.m. It will be seen, therefore, that the original act and the amend ing measure, like the bill now before us, were debated - if “ debated “ is the right expression to use - in the small hours of the morning during all-night sittings. If my memory serves me aright, our previous sitting, which began at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, ended at 4.50 a.m. on Thursday the House met again at 10.30 a.m. Thursday, and it is now 5.45 a.m. Friday. So this legislation may be said to have come before us at the end of two successive all-night sittings.

The purpose of the bill is ostensibly to re-enact legislation the validity of which was in doubt because of a decision of the High Court. That decision was followed by a referendum of the people, the object of which was to clothe the Parliament with that new power in relation to social services. The referendum was carried. The Parliament is now armed with new power to deal with pharmaceutical benefits. But I direct the minds of honorable members to the fact that we are not being asked to re-enact the original measure and the amendments subsequently agreed to in respect of it. If that were so, I would not occupy the time of honorable members for another minute; but, so far as I have been able to examine this bill in the limited time that has been available to me, I have discovered that it introduces a number of changes into the law. By the truncated method of debate to which we have to submit, we have had no time to examine these in detail. It is clear, however, that although in the original measure friendly societies dispensaries we’re limited in the provision of the pharmaceutical benefits provided under the scheme to deal with the members of the associated friendly societies, that has been changed and friendly societies’ dispensaries will be permitted under this measure to engage in general trading operations. Hitherto they were- confined in their general trading operations to the provisions of State laws on the subject. In Victoria, for example, friendly societies’ dispensaries were prevented from dealing with o’.her than the members of the associated friendly societies and their families. This bill sweeps aside the State law and provides, in the words of the Minister in his secondreading speech -

In the case of friendly society dispensaries, the number in each of two classes of premises in respect of which approval may be granted by the Director-General in accordance with the provisions of clause 10, is governed by the number of such dispensaries which were carrying on business on the 1st August, 1945. Such dispensaries up to the number operating on that date will be granted approval to supply Commonwealth pharmaceutical benefits to persons generally.

In the future, no matter what the State laws may provide, friendly societies’ dispensaries will be able to cater for the general public.

Mr Thompson:

– They do so now in some States.

Mr MENZIES:

– That is so. I believe that in two States they are limited to trading with the members of friendly societies. This bill, however, opens the door widely and in the future the friendly societies’ dispensaries will be able to dispense pharmaceutical benefits to the general public irrespective of the provisions of any State law.

Mr Holloway:

– Only a certain number of them.

Mr MENZIES:

– That is so. The number is limited to those which were carrying on business on the 1st August, 1945. Honorable members are probably well aware that the number of pharmacists operating in Australia is about 3,000. These persons perform an extremely valuable community service. They have been described as an indispensable adjunct to normal community life. I understand that 80 per cent, of the pharmaceutical businesses throughout the country are conducted by one individual, who rests upon his own activities in order to make a living for himself and his family. This measure undoubtedly strikes a serious blow at the welfare of those pharmacists, who are not financially equipped, in most instances, to stand up against the kind of competition that will resemble, in some respects at least, the competition of chain stores. I have never been able to discover the attitude of the Government towards persons who conduct small businesses, but we all are well aware that these individuals have passed through a very tough time in the last six years. This bill will impose added difficulties on chemists in every town, city, village and hamlet throughout the country. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) is not unconscious of the circumstances to which I am referring. I have no doubt that on earlier occasions, when the previous pharmaceutical benefits legislation was before the Parliament, the Government refrained from opening the door wide to friendly societies’ dispensaries because it was realized that, whereas the income of such dispensaries would not be taxable, the incomes of pharmacists conducting their own businesses are taxable. As these individuals were performing valuable service to the community they were not interfered with; but now the Government is permitting the friendly societies’ dispensaries to spread their wings over the whole field of business, and that will undoubtedly be to the detriment of the private chemists.

Mr Holloway:

– The matter of taxation will be straightened out later.

Mr MENZIES:

– I am quite sure of that, for ihe Minister, in his secondreading speech, stated on that point -

At a later date, the Government will bring down legislation ‘for the taxation, on a basisyet to be determined, of the income of such dispensaries.

Mr Chifley:

– The matter will be dealt with when the law is being amended on the next occasion.

Mr MENZIES:

– I am second to nobody in my belief in the Treasurer’s capacity to impose taxes. As a general proposition, that is beyond all argument. But when the Treasurer, with this prehensile quality, this capacity for picking up unconsidered trifles from the potential taxpayer, can do nothing better than say that, at a later time, he will bring down legislation for taxation on a basis that has yet to be determined, all that I can say is that, if I were running a friendly society’s dispensary, I should have a pretty shrewd idea that for some weeks, months, perhaps years, I might be able to have a pretty fair run, and when this undetermined tax had been brought into existence at an undetermined time, I might run a fair number of my competitors out of business.

Mr Holloway:

– Chemists are not so simple as that.

Mr MENZIES:

– Chemists, I warn the Minister, will not be so simple, if I know anything about them, as to believe that this bill provides a scheme which, will be satisfactory to them; because what is being done is to guard their privileged competitor; and all that is said to that privileged competitor is, “ “We warn you, my dear fellow, that some day v,e might do something about you “. We have had a good deal of experience in this House, particularly at 5.57 a.m., of Ministers saying, “ If honorable members will accept my assurance, I can promise them that this matter will be looked into, and something will be done about it”. Of course, that is very well meant. But there are too many instances behind us of nothing having been done about it. I should have thought that this matter cannot be one which possesses very much urgency, if, as the Minister said in his secondreading speech, months will elapse before the preparatory steps can be brought into being. The honorable gentleman said, “ There will be a lapse of a few months before the scheme will be in force “. Very well. If there is to be a lapse of a few months, why should not the Government do both things during that period of time; first, if it so determined - and we cannot prevent it from so determining - authorize the friendly society dispensaries to do these things; and secondly, determine in concrete terms what tax is to be imposed upon them, so that the competition between them and the small man may be fair competition? I warn honorable members that the simplest way in the world to destroy private industry of this kind is to create a few large monopolistic people to compete with the individual citizen conducting business in a small way. They will drive him out of existence.

Mr Chifley:

– The right honorable gentleman might say, in fairness, that it will restrict friendly societies in two States.

Mr Thompson:

– It will practically ruin a lot of dispensaries.

Mr MENZIES:

– Perish the thought. In two very important States, under this bill, there will be some restriction in certain areas.

Mr Chifley:

– In two States.

Mr MENZIES:

– In two very important States there will be an enormous expansion of the operations of friendly societies dispensaries. What I am emphasizing is that, if it be right to say to a friendly society dispensary, “You may cater, not only for your own members, their wives and families but also for the public generally”, then that must he because of the determination that the friendly society dispensary ought to be given an open trading charter; and if it be given an open trading charter, then I say that it ought to pay exactly the same taxes as are paid by any other trader, so that competition will be fair.

Mr Holloway:

– It very likely will.

Mr MENZIES:

– I want to know whether it will ; because, all that we have at the moment is this rather soothing observation that, at a later time, the Government will bring down legislation for the taxing of these people on a basis that has yet to be determined.

Mr Chifley:

– It is a million to one on certainty that it will come up in the next sessional period.

Mr MENZIES:

– Of course it will come up, sure as eggs ! No taxation measure ever fails to come up. But I want to know what is going to be in it. The Treasurer does not know; the friendly societies do not know; the fellow who is providing this pharmaceutical service in this country does not know. And if all that he knows is that his competitor, who gets his authority to compete under this bill, will not have his wings clipped in any real fashion, by the legislation that is to follow in three months, six months or a year’s time, then there is every justification for the view that, to bring in a bill of this kind for the third time, literally in the closing moments of a sessional period, is all wrong. Here is a problem that needs to be looked at, and one on which the representations of responsible citizens in this country ought to be heard.

Mr Duthie:

– They have been heard.

Mr MENZIES:

– I am very happy to have this unofficial assurance from a back government bench. But if the gentlemen in question have been heard on the subject of this bill, they have a definite advantage over me, because it fell on my table, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, for the first time to-day. So, if the consultation has taken place, it must be treated as retrospective. I do not know. Of course, they are entitled to see a bill of this kind. Have we gone so far in administrative authority in Australia that ordinary citizens are not to be allowed to have more than a couple of hours’ opportunity, in the small hours of the morning, to look at a bill which vitally affects their interests and their business operations? No case whatever has been made for this urgency, and, above all, for the extraordinary circumstance that, for the third time in its history, this legislation conies along, literally like a thief in the night. This time, what it does is to steal a substantial portion of the business of 3,000 good Australian citizens.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– I do not desire to deal with the bill generally, but I do desire to deal with that aspect of it which has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), who claimed that it will enable friendly societies so to prosper that they will ruin the private chemist, because it will give to friendly society dispensaries the right to dispense for other than their own members and the members of their families. What the right honorable gentleman apparently does not understand in regard to friendly societies generally is that, under the present system, the whole of their members get their medicine free from the dispensary by paying a quarterly rate. I say to the right honorable gentleman that, no matter what State one may go to, one will find that the friendly society dispensaries are few in number compared with the private chemists, and that, in the great bulk of cases, the friendly society member, in order to reach the dispensary, has to pass a private chemist’s shop. The fear of the friendly society dispensary is that, when those members may have their prescrip tions dispensed by any chemist, and will not need to go to them in order to obtain their medicine free of cost, a big proportion of them will go to the private chemist, and thus help to build up his trade. The right honorable gentleman did not tell us that members of friendly societies dispensaries will not be precluded from going to private chemists. This bill says, in effect, to friendly societies dispensaries, “You cannot in any shop opened since 1945, dispense any prescriptions at all under the Government scheme “. But, at the same time, it allows members of friendly societies to go to private chemists. It does not compel members of friendly societies to go to the friendly societies dispensaries for their medicine. The number of friendly societies dispensaries is very small compared with that of private chemists. When I was speaking to the secretary of a large friendly society last Monday, he told me that there was no friendly society dispensary in Goulburn, which is a large city. Members of friendly societies in that city have to depend upon private chemists for their medicine. He also told me of the extreme difficulty experienced by members of friendly societies in obtaining their requirements from private chemists. Many private chemists who have a list of members of friendly societies who purchase medicine from them, refuse to take another member of a friendly society on their list because they already have as many as they require. Without reflecting at all upon the private chemists, we know that the friendly societies dispensary movement has satisfied a big need for ordinary lodge members. The bill prevents friendly societies from opening new dispensaries, or dispensing prescriptions under the Government scheme in dispensaries opened since 1945 for other than their own members. The Leader of the Opposition said that the aim of the bill was to drive private chemists out of business. I remind him that under the measure a friendly society will not be permitted to open a new dispensary in a suburb to dispense prescriptions under the Government scheme. At the same time, however, a private chemist may open as many new shops as he wishes and cater for both members and non-members of friendly societies.

Persons who believe in the co-operative principle, particularly persons in country districts who are members of cooperative societies, will object to the taxation of friendly societies’ dispensaries. Cooperative societies are allowed to deal with non-members. The right honorable gentleman also said that private chemists would be driven out of business because the friendly societies’ dispensaries are to be permitted to expand in Victoria. However, they are to be prevented from opening new dispensaries in South Australia and Queensland. I cannot follow his argument in that respect at all. I can see no reason why the friendly societies’ dispensaries should any more be restricted than private chemists. As to the comparative service rendered by the friendly society dispensary and the private chemist, the latter is mainly concerned with profit. He is not obliged to observe the hours of work laid down in awards, whereas employees of friendly societies’ dispensaries are bound by awards. I assure honorable members that the friendly societies dispensary movement does not welcome this bill at all. Those societies believe it will do them more harm than good.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- At this unconscionable hour I do not propose to repeat my reasons for opposing this measure. I explained them fully in respect of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill passed in 1944. My purpose in speaking to-night is to say that whatever opposition I expressed then has been borne out by what has taken place in New Zealand, where similar legislation has produced most extraordinary results. In that country the consumption of medicine has increased by leaps and bounds. I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has said. There is no doubt that under this measure the granting of unlimited licence with respect to certain friendly societies’ dispensaries must make considerable inroads into the business of private chemists. It will also endanger the prospects of many exservicemen who have just opened new dispensaries. For that reason alone further consideration should be given to the measure.

I should like to know what action islikely to be taken by the Government, against private chemists who refuse tocome into this scheme by refusing to enter into contracts with the Government. Will any penalties be imposed upon them? If not, what steps does the Government propose to take to make these facilities available to residents in country districts? Many chemists in my electorateare anxious to have an answer to that question.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) investigate the action of certain private chemists in offering salaries up to 100- per cent, in excess of award rates to registered chemists employed by friendly societies’ dispensaries for the purpose of bringing about the closure of friendly societies’ dispensaries through lack of registered chemists? Will inquiries be madeto make a check on chemists who offend in that way? I have been informed1 by some friendly societies’ dispensariesthat as the result of such action they will not be able to obtain the services of fully qualified chemists. As the friendly societies have done splendid work for many years and set a fine example of cooperation, embracing our young men and women, in every State, Parliament should place on record its appreciation of the magnitude and value of their work, because many friendly societies will be wiped out in a very short period as the result of this legislation. The department, I am sure, recognizes the great value of this work, from which the workers of this country have received great” benefits.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

in reply - I inform the honorable member for Bourke (Mrs. Blackburn) that I have had conferences with representatives of the friendly societies and other sections of the community interested in this legislation. Before I left Melbourne last Monday I had consultations with officers of the friendly societies. They did not make any complaints to me that chemists were attracting staffs from their employment. Their sole request to me was that the Government should not amend this bill in any way. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any need for me to worry the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) about prosecutions for enticing people away from their employment.

The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) will be relieved to learn that there is no suggestion of compulsion in this measure. Following intensive consultations, practically the whole of it has been agreed to by the parties concerned. They are co-operating with the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) in respect of the final features of the complete formulary and the method of taxation. The representatives of the friendly societies and the Pharmaceutical Guild have been in constant consultation with the Minister, and step by step have agreed to the provisions of this bill. Their statements indicate that they are completely satisfied with it.

Mr Ryan:

– If individual friendly societies do not want to come into the scheme, they may stay out?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Yes, the scheme is a voluntary one; but I could not imagine any society wanting to stay out of it. The position of country districts, which was also mentioned by the honorable member for Flinders, has been thoroughly considered by the parties. When this legislation was before the House previously, private chemists complained that they were subjected to unfair competition by the friendly societies, because the societies did not pay income tax. That anomaly has been rectified, and for the first time in the history of friendly societies in Australia they will be taxed just as are pharmacists.

The only complaint made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was that insufficient time had been given to the Parliament to consider this measure. I do not remember any bill in the last twenty years which has received greater consideration than this measure. The original legislation was introduced in 1944. In 1945 it was again discussed in the Parliament on two occasions, and came before the High Court following the second discussion. At that time, the measure was being discussed freely by people throughout Australia. Later, the referendum proposals to obtain for the Com monwealth social services powers were discussed in this House, and the measure now before us was one of those which the Government indicated would be submitted to the people. During the referendum campaign, the bill was discussed by speakers at almost every meeting.

Mr Adermann:

– What caused these lengthy discussions?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– They were brought about because the High Court had declared the measure ultra vires the Constitution. Since then, the people, by a majority vote at a referendum, clothed this Parliament with power to legislate in respect of social services. At the last election the Government promised the people that this bill would be introduced. The people elected the Government to give effect to it. In introducing the bill now. the Government is merely honouring its promise to the people.

On the 1st August, 1945, there were approximately 155 friendly societies’ dispensaries in Australia. They operate in open competition with the chemists in respect of the formulary. New branches of friendly societies’ dispensaries which have been established since that date may supply medicines and the like only to members and their wives and children. That is, perhaps, unfortunate for the people of Australia. The object of this bill is to bring about uniform conditions in all the States. In order to achieve uniformity, some States must gain something, and others must have something taken from them. In the main, matters in dispute between the parties were settled by conciliation, the Minister for Health making decisions only on matters in respect of which agreements could not be reached. Those decisions were made only after the closest consultation with the parties concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I ask the propounders of this wonderful piece of legislation, who asked for it to be introduced? Have the people been clamouring for free bottles of medicine,or is this one of the bright ideas emanating from the brains trust of the Labour party? This bill may well make us a race of hypochondriacs. Everybody will want to carry a bottle of medicine around with him, and keep a few bottles in reserve on the shelf. Chloroform would do the Government good. We should then have debates of better quality. The average Australian takes 200 aspirins a year. I suppose they will be on the free list. Any one will be able to drop into a chemist’s shop and get a sticking plaster or dill water or any old thing free. I consider this will be all right for the chemists. No doubt it is part of the Government’s full employment policy. That is all the good that I can see in it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3708

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3561).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3708

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without amendment -

Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1947.

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1947.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1947.

War Service Homes Bill 1947.

War Gratuity Bill 1947.

States Grants Bill 1947.

Wine Export Bounty Bill 1947.

New South Wales Grant (DroughtRelief) Bill 1947.

Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill 1947.

British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Agreement Bill 1947.

Interim Forces Benefits Bill 1947.

Approved Defence Projects Protection Bill 1947.

Supplementary (Works and Buildings) Bill 1945-46.

Without requests -

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1947-48.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1946-47.

Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1945-46.

page 3708

UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1947

Bill returned from the Senate with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendment recommended by the Governor-General in this bill and transmitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives for its concurrence.

page 3708

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of the Senate’s amendments) :

Clause 5 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the definition of “grower” and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “ ‘ grower ‘, in relation to a poll of growers taken for the purpose of this Act, means the occupier of an orchard of which not less than five acres is used for the growing of apples or pears or apples and pears;”.

Senate’s Amendment No. 1. - In paragraph (b ) leave out “ the occupier of an orchard of which not less than five acres is used for the growing of apples or pears or apples and pears “, insert “ a person who carries on the business of growing apples or pears or apples and pears and, for that purpose, utilizes an area or areas comprising not less than five acres “.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the franchise shall be vested in the person actually engaged in the industry, thus entitling him to the franchise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 6 -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended - (b)by omitting sub-sections (5.), (6.), (7.), (8.), (9.), (10.), (11.) and (12.) and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: - “ (5.) The members representing the growers in any State shall be elected by a poll of growers taken in the prescribed manner in that State.

Senate’s Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 -

In paragraph (6) before “ (5.) “ insert “ (4.),”.

In paragraph (b) before proposed new subsection (5.) of section four of the Principal Act insert the following sub-section : - “ (4.) The member appointed as the Government representative shall hold office, unless sooner removed from office by the GovernorGeneral, for a period of three years but shall be eligible for re-appointment.”

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

These amendments relate to the appointment of the Government representative on the Australian Apple and Pear Board, who under clause 7 of the bill is to be the chairman of the board.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 13-

Section fourteen of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (7.) all the words from and including the word “ request “ to the end of the sub-section and inserting in their stead the words “ refer the matter to the Minister for determination”; and

by omitting sub-section (8.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - “ ( 8. ) The Board shall give effect to any determination made by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section.”.

Senate’s Amendment No. 4. - In paragraph (b) leave out “determination’; and”, insert “ decision ‘’.

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This amendment is self explanatory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate’s Amendment No. 5. - Leave out paragraph (c), insert the following paragraphs: - “ (c) by omitting from sub-section (8.) the words ‘ an arbitrator, the arbitrator ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ the Minister, the Minister’; and

  1. by omitting from that sub-section the word ‘ arbitrator ‘ and inserting in its stead the word ‘ Minister ‘.”.
Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Minister and not the Arbitrator shall determine disputes between the board and the persons covered by the act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3709

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) - by leave - agreed to -

That Mr. Beale be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, in place of Mr. Gullett, resigned.

page 3709

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 3709

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) whether he can indicate to honorable members approximately when the House will resume. In recess honorable members have many arrangements to make. I realize that the right honorable gentleman cannot state now the precise date, but he may be able to indicate it within a fortnight.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

. - in reply - I have not discussed the matter with my colleagues, but the approximate date when the Parliament will resume is the 17th September next - certainly not more than a week either way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3710

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1947 - No. 51 - Postal Telecommunications Technicians’ Association (Australia).

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

External Territories - E. D. Jordan.

Health - R. C. Taylor.

Supply and Shipping - E. J. Pearse.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Shipping Coordination) Regulations - Orders - 1947, Nos. 21- 24.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinances 1947 -

No. 2 - Conservation of Soil.

No. 3 - Building Operations Control.

House adjourned at6.37 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 3710

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

Mr Howse:

e asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is the House to be afforded an opportunity of discussing the recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; if so, when?
  2. As one of the major recommendations is stated to be stabilization of essential farming on an international plane, including international commodity arrangements, can he say how far, if at all, such arrangements would be binding upon any or all of the United Nations?
  3. If the arrangements are not to be binding, are they likely to be of any value?
  4. If they are to be binding, does this mean that Australia would have to obey any instructions and impose any restrictions of output decided upon by the United Nations?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

  1. The honorable member refers no doubt to the recommendations of the World Food Board Preparatory Commission. This commission, which was set up by Food and Agriculture Organization met in Washington in late 1946 and early in 1947 to consider methods of achieving two objectives -

    1. Developing and organizing production, distribution and utilization of basic foodstuffs to provide diets on a health standard for peoples of all countries.
    2. Stabilizing agricultural prices at levels fair to producers and con sumers.

The commission’s recommendations outline the basis on which these objectives might be achieved, and in particular establish a procedure for considering individual commodities, with the object of reaching mutually advantageous commodity agreements.

These recommendations, which are to be considered at the third annual meeting of Food and Agriculture Organization at Geneva in August this year, do not, however, commit Australia to any particular agreement.

Our representatives attending the Food and Agriculture Organization meeting will be instructed to emphasize that all countries entering into discussions on any arrangements in respect of any commodity, should be free to consider the issues affecting the particular commodity on their merits and in the light of the circumstances existing at the time.

I should also point out that the International Trade and Employment Conference at Geneva is at present examining the question of commodity arrangements, and the Preparatory Commission’s report will need to be conditioned by consideration of the decisions reached at the Trade and Employment Conference. As the honorable member knows, the recommendations of the Trade and Employment Conference on this and other matters are to be fully discussed in this House.

Because of the short time left to this session, it is unlikely that there will be an opportunity to discuss the Preparatory Commission’s recommendations. I am however, making arrangements for the report of the commission to be tabled as soon as possible. 2 and 3. As already stated Australia will not be committed to any commodity agreements by accepting the recommendations of the commission. Under the proposals, they will be negotiated by countries interested in particular commodities, and will be binding only on those countries which agree to the terms eventually decided upon.

  1. Does not apply.

Postal Department: Non-official Post Offices.

Mr Duthie:

e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

In view of the adjustments which have been made or are contemplated in respect of the salaries of officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, will the Postmaster-General furnish informationshowing whether the allowances paid for the conduct of non-official post offices have been increased correspondingly or, it not, whether it is proposed to improve the rates of pay and conditions under which these offices are being carried on by local residents, often at great inconvenience?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

The rates of pay and conditions of employment of non-official postmasters are prescribed in a determination issued by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator which came into operation on the 1st July, 1942.

Some time ago, the Postmaster-General directed that the allowances and conditions should be reviewed closely by the department, in conjunction with the Non-official Postmasters Association of Australia, with the object of reaching agreement concerning a basis upon which to approach the Public Service Arbitrator for improved rates of pay and conditions, consistent with those enjoyed by permanent employees of the Public Service.

As a result of this review, which was comprehensive in scope, plaints were lodged with the Public Service Arbitrator covering -

An application for marginal increases to the extent proposed in connexion with comparable salaries under determinations in relation to permanent employees; and

2) An application for increased rates of pay and improved conditions of employment of non-official postmasters.

A determination regarding the first plaint was issued by the Public Service Arbitrator on the 24th April, 1947, to operate as from the 1st April, 1947. This variation of the original award provides for non-official postmasters in charge of full-time service offices to receive increases ranging from £16 to £29 per annum, and for an increase of £16 in the annual amount upon which the monetary value of the work unit in respect of scale-rate offices is calculated.

The Public Service Arbitrator has now issued a determination covering the second plaint and, unless this is disapproved by Parliament, it will apply as from the 1st June. 1947. Briefly stated, this particular determination provides for the following improvements to be effected in the rates of pay and conditions: -

page 3711

RATES OF PAY

Postmasters at full-time service offices - A further increase ranging from £22 to £118 per annum.

Postmasters at scale-rate offices - A further increase of £22 in the annual amount upon which the monetary value of the work unit is calculated.

page 3711

SPECIAL ALLOWANCES

Availability allowance for attendance during the normal post office hours - An increase ranging from £3 10s. to £13 per annum.

Allowances for attendances after the normal post office hours, the special payments in each case being in addition to the remuneration made on a work unit bnsis for the transactions handled during the period of attendance -

Telephone attendance - Increased from 1s.1½d. to1s. 6d. per hour.

Mail attendance - Increased from1s.1½d. to1s. 6d. per hour and to 2s. 6d. in certain cases.

Telegraph attendance - Increased from 2s. 3d. to 3s. 9d. per hour.

Holiday attendance - Increased from 2s. 3d. to 3s. per hour, and to 3s. 9d. in certain cases.

Attendance for continuous telephone service - Increased from £130 to £182 per annum.

Allowance for the provision of accommodation and light - Increased by £6 10s. per annum in certain cases.

page 3711

ANNUAL RECREATION LEAVE

The scope of the existing annual leave pro vision extended to cover persons in charge of “self-contained” scale-rate offices where the extent of actual postal occupation exceeds 22 hours weekly on a work unit basis.

In addition, the work unit value of a number of items of business has been increased.

It is estimated that, as a result of both determinations, non-official postmasters and telephone office keepers will benefit to the extent of about £270,000 yearly, based on the present volume of transactions. It will be recognized, therefore, that persons controlling non-official offices throughout the Commonwealth are being treated equitably in the matter of salary adjustments.

The Government is fully conscious of the valuable part which is being played by nonofficial postmasters and telephone office keepers in the provision of postal and telecommunication facilities in Australia, and recognizes that without their co-operation and assistance it would not be practicable to extend essential facilities to the local residents, particularly those in outlying areas where other means of communication are infrequent and the absence of post office services would involve great inconvenience, if not actual hardship, in many cases.

The Government takes this opportunity of expressing its appreciation of the meritorious work which was performed by non-official postmasters and telephone office keepers during the war period, when normal communications were adversely affected by the exigencies of the war. The Government is confident that these employees will continue to give the utmost possible co-operation in the future in the rehabilitation of post office services upon which, as announced recently by the right honorable the Prime Minister, it is proposed to spend approximately £30,000,000 during the next three years.

Food Control

Mr Hughes:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is Australia a member of the International Emergency Food Council; if so, who is the Australian representative?
  2. Is Australia bound to obey the direction of the International Emergency Food Council with regard to the kind and quantity of foodstuffs allotted to Great Britain and elsewhere?
  3. Which Australian foodstuffs are under the control of the council and what are the quantities and destination of each kind?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

  1. Australia is a member of the International Emergency Food Council. The Australian representative on the council is Mr. J. U. Garside, Commercial Counsellor of the Australian Embassy, Washington.
  2. The International Emergency Food Council is an extension of the war-time Combined Food Board with membership greatly enlarged. As such, it is essentially an advisory body, with authority to make recommendations to governments concerning the supply and distribution in or to any part of the world of foods, agricultural materials from which foods are derived and equipment and non-food materials ancillary to the production of such foods and agricultural materials. Since the council has been established as the international authority to advise on equitable food allocations, it is clearly desirable that its recommendations should be carried out as far as possible. Moreover, each member government, including Australia, has given an undertaking in the International Emergency Food Council agreement to put itself in a position to implement all recommendations which it has accepted, seeking special national action when: necessary. When the International Emergency Food Council was established, the Australian Government took care to ensure that our food contracts with the United Kingdom were not endangered. Exports of Australian foodstuffs supplied under contract to the United Kingdom are therefore still being shipped in accordance with those contracts.
  3. The Australian foodstuffs subject to allocation by the International Emergency Food Council are - Wheat and flour, rice, beans and peas, edible oleo stearine, margarine, meat and sugar. The quantities of these products allocated for export in 1947 and the destinations to which they will be shipped are as follows: -

Wheat and flour. - The Australian exportable surplus is 40,000,000 bushels of wheat. This has been allocated in the form of wheat or flour to India, Pacific Area, Malaya, the United Kingdom and a number of other destinations (such as Mauritius) which will receive small quantities.

Rice. - The exportable surplus is 26,000 tons. This has been allocated to New Guinea, Pacific islands and Malaya. ‘

Blue peas. - Three thousand two hundred and fifty tons have been allocated to Ceylon, Malaya and Mauritius, but as it now appears that some of these countries do not desire all the peas offered, the allocation is being reviewed.

Edible Oleo Stearine - Eight hundred tons have been allocated to the United Kingdom.

Margarine. - One thousand two hundred and fifty tons have been allocated to the order of the British War Office.

Meat- For the first half of 1947, 80,000 tons have been allocated for export from Australia. Of this 77,000 tons will be shipped to the United Kingdom. The balance will be exported to India, the Netherlands East Indies, Philippine Islands and Pacific islands. It has not yet been decided whether the council will make any allocation in the second half of 1947.

Sugar. - The council has allocated to Canada, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean and Pacific areas (including New Zealand) 268,000 short tons (raw value) to be supplied jointly by Australia and Fiji. Of this quantity, Australia is to supply at least 100,000 short tons, proportion of the balance will also be supplied by Australia, but the actual quantity involved will not be known until advice is received from the British Ministry of Food which controls the Australian exportable surplus of sugar. A preliminary estimate of the total quantity which will be supplied by Australia is 124,000 short tons.

Commonwealth Litigation

Mr Ryan:

n asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. How many Victorian barristers were briefed in respect of Commonwealth cases in Victoria from the 1st November, 1946, to the 30th April, 1947?
  2. How many of such barristers were briefed more than once during that period, itemizing the numbers briefed twice, three times, four times, five times, six times and more than six times, respectively?
  3. What is the number (if any) of such barristers briefed during that period who are not ex-servicemen, giving the number of times each has been briefed and the reasons, in each case, for the non-employment of exservicemen?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

  1. to 3. The detailed information asked for is being obtained and I shall furnish it to the honorable member as soon as possible. The general position is that during the period in question approximately 85 per. cent, of all the briefs delivered in Victoria went to exservicemen and approximately another 7 per cent, to barristers who had given special defence services to the Government during the war.

Commonwealth Investigation See vice.

Mr Harrison:

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. How many investigations into Commonwealth Public Service matters have been made by the Investigation Branch of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department in each of the last five years, and .how many public servants were concerned?

    1. How many investigations arc now in progress, and how tunny public servants arc concerned ? :!. Have any complaints been received from public service organizations regarding these secret investigations; if so, by what organizations and in relation to what investigations?
  2. What is the present strength of the Investigation Branch compared with two years ugo?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

– As far as practicable the information will be obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable members as early as possible.

A ustralian Reconstruction Brigade : Passports to Yugoslavia.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 9th May, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) asked n question in regard to passports being granted to members of the Australian Reconstruction Brigade to enable them to proceed to Yugoslavia. I. promised to have inquiries made and lay m statement on the table of the House for the information of the ‘honorable member, and now advise the honorable member as follows: -

I understand that there is actually no urbanization in existence known hb thi? “ Australian Reconstruction Brigade”, but that certain persons who sailed by Asturias gave themselves thai tit.lv.

Tcn mcn sailed by Asturias under tin- auspices of lbc “ World Federation of Democratic Youth” tn attend the World Youth Festival in Prague anil afterwards to proceed in Lidice, Czechoslovakia, to assist in rebuilding tin: town. They were grunted passports valid for the .United Kingdom. Australia and all European countries, lt is not known what vises were placed on their passports as the grant of vises for foreign countries is a matter for a consul nf the country concerned and nut for the Commonwealth Government’. 1 am informed that Asturias is no longer u troopship, but is known as a. “hired transport “. It is owned by the United Kingdom Government and is run by the British Ministry of Transport. Booking was in the hands of the Orient Line, and the men in question placed their names on the booking list in the usual way and when accommodation became available it was allotted to them. The mcn paid their own passages.

No official recognition or support to the World Federation of Democratic Youth has linen accorded by the Commonwealth Government.

Coal.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 21st May, the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) asked a question concerning the personnel of the Joint Coal Board.

page 3713

II 281

I now wish to advise the honorable member that the names of the members of the Joint Coal Board are -

Chairman: K. A. Cameron, formerly manager of Broken Hill, South Mine.

Members: A. E. Warburton, formerly of the New South Wales State Treasury; R. P. Jack, formerly production manager to the Commonwealth Coal Commissioner.

Pa pee Bags

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 4th June, the ‘ right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been called to newspaper reports that the Federation of Retail Grocers and Storekeepers Associations of Australia has issued a warning that public health would suffer unless the Federal Government obtained immediate supplies of wrapping paper and paper bags?
  2. Has the Government received any official complaints regarding the matter?
  3. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate investigation with sv view to taking whatever action the Government can to meet the situation?

I now advise the right honorable gentleman as follows’: -

  1. No.
  2. No.

    1. The types of paper most widely used for general wrapping and for paper bags arc Sulphites ami Krafts manufactured in Australia. ‘

Upon representations being made to the Department of Trade and Customs, by paper trade organizations in November, 1940, that Australian production of these types of paper was falling short of essential current requirements, facilities were provided in December, li)4(i. for the .importation up to 30th June. 1947, of 5,000 tons of Kraft and Sulphite papers from sterling and non-sterling countries. Evidence of availability for early shipment was required as a precedent to the granting of n. licence ».nd to date licences for only 2,000 tons have been applied for under these conditions.

Supplies in overseas countries are difficult to locate and prices arc much higher than for comparable papers produced in Australia. As the control of the distribution of paper was relinquished by the Government early in 1940. distribution is now determined between the local manufacturer of the paper and the user, or the merchant, who sells it to the user.

Shortage nf brown paper supply is due to such factors as shortage of wood pulp, coal, labour and new machines. Australia’s case for increased supplies of wood pulp from abroad has been pressed. A representative of Australian paper manufacturers is at present abroad and is endeavouring to obtain further supplies of wood pulp. Machines already on order are not expected for two and one half years.

As all aspects of the position are kept constantly under review by the Government it is felt that an investigation as suggested by the right honorable member would not disclose any information which is not at present known.

The Government, is at present taking all possible action to alleviate the shortage of wrapping paper and paper bags and in this connexion it might be mentioned that export prohibitions have been imposed on used newsprint and waste paper of all kinds in order to conserve all available supplies of raw material for the manufacture of paper in Australia. It has also become necessary to impose an export embargo on printing, writing and wrapping papers and manufacture thereof becauseof the acute shortage in Australia.

So far as public health is concerned the administration of pure food legislation in Australia is the function of State governments. I am advised that it is considered desirable that certain foods such as cheese, ham, bacon, butter and cooked meats should be correctly wrapped in suitable paper, the type of wrapping utilized for most grocersand storekeepers’ supplies would be immaterial from a. health point of view.

Public Service.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 4th June, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked a question regarding recently announced increases in the salaries of public servants in the £450-£750 group.

I desire to inform the honorable member that the officers referred to are covered by Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator’sDetermination No. 27 of 1947, which was tabled on the 14th May last. If not disallowed the increase will have effect from the 8th May, 1947. The determination covers clerical officers only. Professional officers’ salaries are under review by the Arbitrator.

Broadcasting : Appointments by Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– On the 29th May, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder) asked the following question : -

I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether that honorable gentleman is satisfied that preference was extended to ex-servicemen in the making of recent appointments to the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, having in mind the fact that anon-serviceman was appointed to one position in Launceston whilst an exserviceman who applied for a. position in Hobart was not even granted the courtesy of an initial interview.

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information : -

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has assured me that it observes constantly the preference provisions of theRe-establishment and Employment Act.

An ex-serviceman was chosen originally for the position in Launceston to which the honorable member referred, but he declined the appointment, and the applicant who was the second choice was selected. The appointee was not an ex-serviceman.

The fact that the commission did not interview all the applicants for positions in Hobart does not imply any discourtesy to those who were not interviewed. The commission followed the usual procedure of selecting for interview the most likely candidates, and feels that this is the only feasible course when a large number of applicants is involved and the appointment is a matter of urgency.

The commission has pointed out that of 42 journalists appointed recently throughout the Common wealth, 30 were ex-servicemen, and one was an ex-servicewoman.

Housing : Borrowings from Commonwealth Bank by Staff ; Government Housing Scheme ; Statement by Mr. N. Lemmon, M.P., on Costs.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 27th May, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Hamilton) asked whether officials of the Commonwealth Bank may borrow from that institution at a very low rate of interest for the purpose of home-building. I now supply the following information to the honorable member: -

Officers of the Commonwealth Bank service are eligible under section 177 of the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945 to borrow money from the bank for the purchase or erection of a home in which they intend to reside. This section of the act continuesa provision included in the Common wealth Ba nk Act as far back as 1924.The rate of interest at which the bank’s officers may borrow under this provision is fixed at 1 per cent. above the rate which they are allowed on “ officers’ deposits “ and varies from time to time with the fluctuations in. fixed deposit rates. The actual rate charged has been at times as high as6 per cent. per annum and as low as 2½ per cent. per annum. It has been the long standing practice of other Australian banks, as well as the Commonwealth Bank, to provide special facilities including concessional rates of interest to assist their officers to acquire their own homes in which to reside.

Mr Fadden:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice -

  1. Washe correctly reportedin a Sydney morning newspaper of the 17th February, as having said that “ unless costs were strictly controlled there was a danger of the Government’s housing scheme becoming too costly to carry on “ ?
  2. Was he also correctly reported as having said that “ unfavorable comment was being made on the proportion of unfinished houses throughout Australia”!
  3. If so, will he state the average cost per square of (a) brick dwellings and (b) timber houses in each State prior to the war?
  4. What were the comparative figures for (a) and (b) at (i) the 1st February, 1947, and (ii) the 31st March, 1947?
  5. How many homes have been completed in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland since the end of the war, and how many were under construction in those States at the latest available date?
  6. What target of completed homes has been fixed for each of the three States at the 30th June, 1947, and the 31st December, 1947?
  7. What action, if any, has been taken by the Government to control the costs of homebuilding and to complete unfinished homes?
Mr Lemmon:
ALP

n. - The answers to the honorable gentleman’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and 4. The following answers on comparative costs of metropolitan building, as far as 1939 figures are concerned, are as accurate as can be obtained. The State housing authority figures, however, are based on actual contracts. The table includes - (a) 1939 costs per square for private dwelling construction arrived at on the basis of figures obtained from established lending authorities; (b) State housing authority costs for two dates in 1947, as supplied by State housing authorities themselves. In reading this table it should be borne in mind that a comparison between States of the costs per square must take into account different specifications, arising in part from variations in by-laws and building practice between the States, as well as differences in equipment and fittings. While it has not been possible to obtain accurate figures for private building costs for 1 947, which vary a great deal, it is known that in the main they are above the figures shown for State housing authorities.

The following table sets out the number of dwellings completed by States throughout Australia from 1st July, 1945, to 31st December, 1946, the latest date on which complete information is available. This information is collected by the Commonwealth Statistician by means of a Builders’ Return, which goes to all builders of new construction throughout the Commonwealth. In addition, there is a substantial but unknown number of ownhome builders in every State.

From the same source the following number of dwellings were under construction at the 31st December, 1946. -

  1. No targets have been set for completed houses. All targets are in terms of commencements, which is the more logical approach in an expanding period. Targets for commencements have not yet been set for any part of the year 1947-48. For the year 1946-47 targets are as follows: -
  1. Action taken by Commonwealth Government to control costs of building Falls under the following main heads: -

    1. Action under Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. - Principles of strict economy have consistently been urged on the States, who are building a considerable proportion of total dwelling construction, and in

February last new standards of economical construction were agreed upon between Commonwealth and State officers.

  1. Work of the Prices Branch. - Both through the control of the price of building materials and through special investigations into building costs with a view to eliminating profiteering’, the Prices Branch is endeavouring to arrest and roll back rising building costs.
  2. Control of Building Materials Allocation. - While the Commonwealth’s power to control the allocation of materials is much more limited than during the war. by co-operating with the States the Commonwealth has been able to ensure a reasonable equitable distribution of materials and thus, by eliminating undue competition, has tended to hold down prices.
  3. Work of the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station. - The station has been actively at work investigating alternative methods of construction so as to save both time and materials. It has already put forward a large number of useful suggestions and has designed a prefabricated house of promise.
  4. Work of the Councilfor Scientific and Industrial Research. - Supplementary to the Work of the Building Station is that of the Materials Research Section of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which is concentrating on research into the properties of building materials.
  5. Work of the Standards Associationof Australia. - The Common wealth is co-operating with the Standards Association of Australia in the production of a set of standard specifications for the building industry. When these are completed, it is hoped to persuade the materials manufacturers to concentrate on the mass production of a relatively small number of standardized items, which should result in a considerable cheapening of their cost.
  6. Training of Building Labour. -It is hoped to train, through the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, some 33,000 men for the variousbuilding skills. When these have entered the industry and gained full efficiency, they should assist gradually in the reduction of building costs.

Commonwealth Bank: Purchase of New Premises.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 13th May, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) asked a question regarding the acquisition by the Commonwealth Bank of the building known as Somerset House, No. 9 Martin-place, Sydney. I now supply the following information to the honorable member : -

The Commonwealth Bank purchased this property for £90,000. So far as I am aware the property has not been valued by the State Valuer-General. I have no knowledge of any action by the former owners of Somerset House relating to the purchase of Gladstone Chambers. No. 90 Pitt-street, and I cannot see that the Commonwealth Bankhas any responsibility to the tenants of No. 90 Pittstreet, merely because the vendors of Somerset House may have seenfit to purchase that property.

Meat Rationing

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice - 1.Is it a fact that North Queensland butchers are refitting to accept coupons for meat delivered to the wholesale and retail trades?

  1. If so, what action does the Government propose to deal with this matter?
  2. Does the action of the North Queensland butchers suggest to the Government that it might secure the co-operation of meat interests throughout Australia in its drive to keep prices down and to secure more meat for Great Britain if the. Government abolished meat rationing altogether ?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : -

  1. Certain butchers in the Cairns area have advised the Deputy Director of Rationing, Queensland, that they propose to disregard all meat rationing regulations after the6th June.
  2. Any defiance of the law will be met by appropriate action by the Government.
  3. No.

Department of Post-war, Reconstruction : Public Relations Officers.

Mr Falkinder:

r asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -

  1. What salaries are paid by the Department of Post-war Reconstruction to public relations officers employed by the department in the respective States ?
  2. Is it a fact that men employed as public relations officers by the department at salaries over £600 per annum have had no previous journalistic experience?
  3. Is it a fact that, some months ago, public relations officers representing the department in each of the State were flown from their respective capital cities to Sydney for a conference lasting one day only and at which conference the topic discussed was the distribution of pamphlets?
  4. What is the total number of ex-service personnel employed by the Post-war Reconstruction Department as temporary Commonwealth public servants?
Mr Dedman:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. Journalists employed in the Public Relations Division of the Department of Postwar Reconstruction with salaries in excess of £600 per annum, all of whom have had journalistic experience, are paid in accordance with the awards of the Australian Journalists Association. One permanent officer on loan from another department, whose duties are mostly of an administrative character, is employed with temporary classification and salary range of “Publicity Officer, £696-£768”.

  1. A conference of certain officers of the division was held in Sydney in September, 1946, which lasted for three full days. The question of pamphlets formed a minor part of the agenda, which consisted principally of matters relating to re-establishment of exservice personnel.

4.648.

Textiles: Import of Cotton from Japan.

Mr Pollard:
ALP

d.-On the 28th May, the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) asked whether a total of 12,000,000 yards of cotton goods is to be shipped to Australia from Japan and whether the distribution would be made by the Government equitably between the various Australian mills or by private organizations. The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : -

The Government has entered into a contract for the purchase of approximately 12,000,000 yards of Japanese cotton textiles which are necessary to meet essential Australian requirements.

The Department of Trade and Customs is at present completing arrangements for the distribution of these goods to the trade. Although finality has not yet been reached, I am able to assure the honorable member that the basis for distribution will be determined by the department so as to ensure an equitable allocation to the various Australian users of the types of cotton textiles being obtained from Japan.

War Services : Payments by United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments.

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What payments nave been made by the United Kingdom Government on behalf of the Commonwealth on account of war costs and services in Great Britain, the Middle East, the South-West Pacific, and other areas?
  2. What payments by the Commonwealth have been made for the United Kingdom Government for war services in the same or other areas?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - The information is being obtained and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Mr Fadden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is Mr. M. A. Weir, the vice-president of the Sydney Water Board, leaving for the United States of America on Monday, the 2nd June, to arrange for the conversion of theboard’s 7,500,000 dollar loan on the American market?
  2. Will the Treasurer now countermand the peremptory request he made to Alderman Chandler, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, to cease negotiations for a private loan on behalf of the Brisbane City Council so that Mr. Weir and Alderman Chandler will be on an equal footing in their negotiations?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - The answers to the right honorable gentleman’s questions are as follows : -

  1. I understand that Mr. Weir, of the Sydney Water Board, is proceeding to New York to arrange for the conversion oil 1st October next, of the board’s loan for £7.500,000.
  2. No peremptory request was made to Alderman Chandler. What I did was to give him certain advice which he wisely followed. As I have previously explained to the House, there has been no preferential treatment of the Sydney Water Board. The board has the option of redeeming its loans on 1st October next on giving notice of its intention to do so on 1st September. This entails the raising of a new loan for this purpose in the month of August. As negotiations for this loan will not commence until arrangements for the Commonwealth loan are completed, they will not interfere with the Commonwealth loan which is now being negotiated. The Brisbane City Council’s loan, on the other hand, is redeemable on 1st September next, on giving notice on 1st August. This means that a loan raising would be necessary in July and as negotiations must commence sometime before that they would conflict with those for the Commonwealth loan. It was for this reason that Alderman Chandler was asked not to proceed at this stage with negotiations on behalf of the Brisbane City Council.

Wheat: Flour Tax

Mr McEwen:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that figures supplied to the honorable member for New England about the 24th April, 1947, showed that the flour tax collected for the seven years from June, 1939, to June, 1946, was £4,567,099 more than the seven years’ payments therefrom (1940 to 1946) to the Australian Wheat Board?
  2. As £2,843,000 is the total amount authorized by Parliament to be paid from this fund for “marginal area” reconstruction, will he state (a) what has been done with the difference, viz. £1,724,099 and (b) why it has not been paid to the Australian Wheat

Board to bring the home consumption wheat price a little closer to the approved minimum of 5s. 2d. ports, thereby carrying out the intention of section6 of the Wheat Industry Assistance Act 1938?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. The figures referred to in the honorable member’s question arise from a reply furnished by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture on the 30th April, 1947, to a question asked by the honorable member for New England. The figures given for flour tax collections totalling £13,060,419 were in respect of financial years and covered the period 1st July, 1939, to the 30th June, 1946. The figures given in regard to payments to the Australian Wheat Board totalling £8,493,320 were in respect of calendar years and covered the period 1st January, 1940, to the 31st December, 1940. However, the amounts of £13,060,419 and £8,493,320 are not comparable figures as they are not in respect of identical periods, and the deduction of one from the other does not serve any useful purpose. On the question generally I would refer the honorable member to the reply furnished by myself on the 15th May, 1947, to the question asked by the honorable member for Barker in regard to flour tax. This explains the position in relation to receipts and expenditure on flour tax.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - On the 6th May, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) asked a question relating to debits to pay accounts of prisoners of war of the three services. I have ascertained the position to be as follows: -

In the Navy, Army and Air Force, the pay account of each member who was hold by the Japanese was credited with pay and allowances ofhis rank for the period of captivity and no deductions were made in respect of rations supplied by the Japanese, the only debit raised in the account being in respect of any allotment authorized by the member concerned.

In regard to members of the Naval, Army and Air Force who were held captive by the Germans and Italians, the same policy was followed in regard to other ranks. Officers received credits from the German and Italian governments during their periods in captivity in accordance with the Geneva Convention. In the cases of Army and Air Force officers, their Australian pay account was charged with the actual expenditure incurred from the credits received from the enemy by the officer concerned, or 3s. 4d. per day for the period of captivity, whichever was the less. As Naval officers were not in receipt of the field allowance of 3s. 4d. per day applicable to Army and Air Force officers no deduction was made from their pay accounts inrespect of credits from the German and Italian governments.

L.F.Johnston,CommonwealthGovernmentPrinter.

Canberra.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 June 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1947/19470605_reps_18_192/>.