House of Representatives
11 November 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr.. .Deputy SPEAKER (Mr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and .read prayers.

page 2865

QUESTION

COAL

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

– Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to this morning’s press reports, the Joint Coal Board intends to ask the miners’ federation on Monday of next week to raise the present darg to permit miners to produce at least one ton of coal a day more than they are producing at present, and to work hack on each of the three “ back “ alternate Saturdays that remain between now ‘and Christmas ? In view of the serious state of Australian industry, as the result of the acute shortage of black coal available from .New South Wales and of the need to avoid any disruption -of Australian industry, with its consequential effect on the whole Australian economy, will the Prime Minister make a personal “pica .to the New South Wales coal-miners to work each Saturday morning between now and Christinas, in preference to alternate Saturdays-?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not seen the report to which the honorable member has referred. I am aware that some time ago the joint Coal Board approached the miners’ federation with regard to the darg. I understood at that time that an agreement had been reached, particularly in respect of mine? in which power borers are installed, to increase the number of tons of coal that could be produced under the darg. The proposal referred to by the honorable member is apparently a new one. I have discussed with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel the possibility of the miners working on each of the “ back “ Saturdays. I shall not make any plea to the miners, but I shall point out to the coal-miners, as 1 have done previously, how important it is to ensure that adequate supplies of coal shall be made available for industrial and domestic purposes. The coal-miners, however, are not the only persons in the community who have failed to achieve full production. Not only some other workers, but also some people in much higher positions seem to be able to spend plenty of time in places other than their places of employment. The honorable member may rest assured that any appeal that I can make to workers generally, particularly to the coal-miners, to increase production, will be made.

page 2866

QUESTION

AHMED FORCES

Recruiting

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for the Army indicate the present position in regard to recruiting for the Citizen Military Forces? What is the percentage of recruits already enlisted in relation to the total overall requirements of the forces? Is the present rate of enlistment considered satisfactory?

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the honorable member for having informed me this morning that he proposed to ask this question, because I am now able to supply the information he seeks. Approximately one-quarter of the number of men required for the Citizen Military Forces has been recruited since the campaign officially commenced on the 1st July of this year. The over-all requirement for the new citizen army is 47,903, and up to the 28th October, 12,047 recruits, or 24.5 per cent. of the total, had been enlisted. Victoria leads the other States with the highest percentage of enlistments as 4,122 or 28.8 per cent. of the quota of 13,939 set down for that State have joined up. New South Wales is next, with 4,566 enlistments, or 25.4 per cent. of the target figure of 17,390. Comparative figures for the other States are as follows: -

Western Australia - 3,630 required, 804 enlisted, or 21.8 per cent; South Australia - 4,272, 859, 19.7 per cent; Tasmania, - 1,848, 356,19.2 per cent.; Queensland-6,824, 1,340. 19.1 per cent.

Although there is a slight lag in enlistments in the less populous States compared with those in Victoria and New South Wales, recruiting to date is quite satisfactory. Recent publicity drives and Army exhibitions in the States have yielded good results, and have been responsible, no doubt, for improved weekly averages. If the present rate of enlistment is maintained, requirements for the Citizen Military Forces will be fulfilled in a little more than twelve months.

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Iask the Minister for the Army whether the film All Quiet on the Western. Front was shown by the recruiting group during the recent drive for recruits for the Citizen Army in Tasmania. Does the Minister consider it a suitable film to be shown or one likely to encourage enlistment?

Mr CHAMBERS:

– I am not aware that the film All Quiet on the Western Front was displayed in Tasmania. I do not know whether the film is based on the book of that name, but if it is, it is not suitable for display in Tasmania. I shall ascertain the facts.

page 2866

QUESTION

MR. ARTHUR CROUCH

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has a Mr. Arthur

Crouch, of Sydney, been appointed to the staff of the journal BCON, which circulates amongst members “of the occupation force in Japan ? If so; will the Minister say whether Mr. Crouch is an exserviceman? Was the position on BCON advertised in the newspapers, and were there any other applicants for the position? If so, what were their names, qualifications and war service? If the Minister cannot supply this information immediately, will he make inquiries, and issue a full statement later?

Mr CHAMBERS:
ALP

– I am not conversant with the details of the appointment referred to by the honorable member, but I issued instructions some time ago that all appointments are to be made from among ex-servicemen. I shall inquire into the matter mentioned by r,he honorable member.

page 2867

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Kr.’ CONELAN”.- Can the Minister t’or Works and Housing say whether Parliament House is a temporary building, and whether a site on Capitol Hill was set aside in the Griffin plan for the permanent Parliament House? In view of the fact that the Parliament will have a larger membership after the next general election, will the Minister obtain Cabinet approval to conduct a world-wide competition for plans and specifications for a new building, as it will take several years for such a competition to be completed?

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

– In my opinion, the present Parliament House is a very good 01le, and I only hope that I shall be here in it for a long time. It will be a good enough stable for me for the next ten or fifteen years. Therefore, whilst admitting that the honorable member’s suggestion has merit, and should be kept in mind, I believe that it is far too early to start a competition for a new Parliament House that might not be built within the next twenty years. If such a competition were held, we might have a repetition of what happened in connexion with the permanent administrative building in Canberra. The design for that building was prepared over twenty years ago, and, whilst it was regarded as suitable at the time, it was not of the type of which modern architects would approve. Therefore, I consider that it will be time enough to call for designs for the new Parliament House when we are in a position to go on with the building.

page 2867

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I desire to make a personal explanation. When asking a question yesterday about King Island, I mentioned the matter pf air services. I have received from” the warden of the island a telegram stating that some misunderstanding may exist concerning the cancellation of air services, and he desires me to inform the public, through this House, that there is still a curtailed passenger service to King Island on three days a week.

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation consider bringing Australian civil aviation conditions into line with those of the United States of America by making it compulsory for all aircraft to carry de-icing equipment? Will he inquire into the existing practices, as I have been informed that a recent unofficial inspection of twelve aircraft on the ground at the Essendon aerodrome in Victoria disclosed that only one had de-icing equipment properly attached? As it has been stated that such equipment reduces the pay-load of aircraft by 50 lb. an engine, will he request the Department of Civil Aviation to insist on such equipment, even though icing may be only an occasional hazard in Australian flying conditions?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think it is correct that all aircraft in the United States of America are obliged to carry de-icing equipment. Many services in that country fly south where de-icing equipment would- rarely be required and these aircraft are probably never flown north where icing conditions can be frequently expected. It is most advantageous that aircraft should be equipped with de-icing equipment and I should like to see Australian aircraft so equipped. There is no objection to deicing equipment on the score that it reduces the pay-load by 50 lb. an engine. That is less than one-quarter of the passenger allowance and that consideration has not influenced decisions. I take the opportunity of saying that Australia is a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, whose standards have world-wide acceptance. The Department of Civil Aviation is doing its best to live up to them. I say with a great deal of confidence that Australia is nearer to acceptance and application of those standards than is any other country.

page 2867

QUESTION

WAR PENSIONS

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister for Repatriation the case of an Australian who served, in the British Army during World War I. and in the Australian Army in World War II. He sustained injuries and was discharged from the forces as medically unfit. Will: the Minister inform, me of the: steps- that should be taken to obtain a pension, from the British Ministry of Pensions for him ? The pension to which he unquestionably seems to be entitled is not being paid to him, although representations have been made on his behalf from. Australia to the British Ministry of Pensions. The facts associated with his case are not i’*i dispute.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– The- details of the case should, be sent, to the Repatriation Department or to. myself, as Minister, because we- act as agents in Australia for the British. Ministry of Pensions^ If the honorable member will supply the parrticulars to me, I shall personally interest myself in the matter on behalf of the ex. serviceman concerned..

page 2868

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH REVENUE

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the overbuoyancy of Commonwealth revenue, which, during the first four months of the current financial year, exceeds the estimated receipts by £25,500,000, will the- Treasurer, (a) present amended Estimates to the House in the new year, and, (b) review the rates of income and indirect taxes with a view to reducing them commensurately with actual revenue returns ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The Estimates of receipts and expenditure for the first four months of the current financial year are not set out in the budget statement which L presented to the House. That document covers the estimated revenue and expenditure for the whole of the financial year, and receipts for the first four months of that, period must not be taken as a guide to what will be the position at the end of the financial, year. Whilst I hope that. the revenue will continue to be buoyant,, I cannot be certain that it will be. At the moment, considerable revenue is being received from taxation, but the present rate of receipts may or may not continue during the remainder of the financial year. The right honorable gentleman has also asked whether I shall review direct and indirect taxes in order to ascertain whether any justification exists for reducing, them. One of the promises that I made during the las: election campaign-:-

Mr Fadden:

– The- Treasurer did not carry out that promise.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I promised that from time to time, direct and indirect taxes would be reviewed.. In fact, 3 said that the review would, be made from month to month.

Mk. Fadden. - All that the right honorable gentleman has- done has been, to examine, the. position.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I recall that thiright honorable member for North Sydney made- a public- comment on the fact that I was showing- such solicitude for taxpayers. The Government reviews the financial position from month to month and from quarter to quarter.. During the last election campaign, 1 promised that taxes would be reduced when the financial position, warranted that action. My promise still stands.

page 2868

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the- Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been drawn to the following motion which was carried this week at the Conference of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation -

That before approval is given on behalf of Australia on any future proposals for- an international wheat agreement, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture should consult the Australian Wheat Growers Federation.

Will the Minister say whether he is prepared to extend that courtesy to the federation ?

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

– I have seen thai resolution* of the Australian Wheal Growers Federation in a newspaper article. My. reply tq the honorable gentleman’s question whether I am prepared to give effect to that resolution is, that that will depend upon the circumstances at the time.

page 2868

QUESTION

CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question relates to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the denial of the right of appeal from decisions of the conciliation commissioners to the Arbitration Court. That provision was contained in amending legislation that was enacted last year. Is the Prime Minister aware that some of the unions are objecting to the fact that there is no right of appeal to the Arbitration Court from the awards of conciliation commissioners? Is the right honorable gentleman also aware that some unions obtain a species _ of appeal by the device of striking against the award of the conciliation commissioners knowing that the Government will then appoint some person to investigate the cause of the strike. As a result of that device the union gets another hearing of its dispute, which is denied to-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! [ quite sure that the honorable gentleman would not wish the Chair to frame his question for him. He should frame his question before rising, if he cannot do so otherwise.

Mr BEALE:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of these facts, and will he review the whole question of the right of appeal from awards of conciliation commissioners to the Arbitration. Court ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The matter of the. right of appeal from a decision of a conciliation commissioner to the Arbitration Court was given a great deal of consideration when the bill to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act was being drafted. The Attorney-General and I consulted at great length with the Chief Judge of the court and with other judges, including the Acting Chief Judge. The view of the judges was that provision for appeal was desirable. What the Government has always been afraid of in regard to appeals is that they will clog up the arbitration machinery very seriously. Frequently hearings are held up for a long time by adjournments. That state of affairs does not fit in with the Government’s view that quick decisions should be made in industrial disputes. For a great number of reasons, particularly that one the Government rejected the proposal for appeals. It is- true- that some unions prefer that there should be a right of appeal from awards of conciliation commissioners, though I have no recollection of having received any representations on this matter, and am merely outlining the reason* why the provision of a right of appeal -was- rejected. I have -pen a pr,e<=s statement- that one or two unions, or their advocates, would prefer that there should be a right of appeal from the awards of conciliation commissioners. The honorable member referred to the fact that the men go on strike in order to obtain a further opportunity to present their case, in some instances to another conciliation commissioner. I cannot at the moment recollect any particular instance of such a happening.

Mr Beale:

– The foremen stevedores and the ships’ painters unions are cases in point.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has referred particular disputes to the court for consideration. In most instances, the. result of such action has been that the case has been heard by a conciliation commissioner. This is a question in respect of which there are great differences of opinion. The Government considers that the present procedure should be given an opportunity to work and that the matter should be reviewed later in the light of experience.

page 2869

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Statement by Mk. R. G. Casey.

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– At a meeting in Boronia, Victoria, last Friday night, Mr. R. G. Casey, the president of the Liberal party., ie reported to have made serious allegations against senior officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. He is alleged to have said -

There are highly placed men who are prepared to sell information about their country for foreign money.

Will’ the Prime Minister arrange for Mr. Casey to be called upon to prove his allegations or to apologize1 to the public servants against whom this accusation has been made? In view of his statement, does- the right honorable gentleman consider that Mr. Casey may be able to throw some light on the alleged missing documents that were made so famous by the Leader of the Australian Country party?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen a report of the statement that is alleged to have been made by Mr. Casey at Boronia. I should have- thought that, if he had knowledge of highly placed public officials being engaged in sabotage or in the sale of secret documents to agents of a foreign country, he would, if he did not desire to bring the matter to the notice of the Government, at least have referred it to the Commonwealth Investigation Service. He could have done that without any publicity. I am not prepared to accept the press report as an accurate account of what Mr. Casey in fact said. Probably i he statement has been torn from its context. If Mr. Casey has any definite information, apart from suspicion, I request him, in the public interest, to adopt my suggestion.

page 2870

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA AND PAPUA

Migration - Administrative Arrangements

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to an article published in Renzo’s Digest of Tokyo, and reproduced in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, recommending the migration of 20,000 Japanese, principally to Dutch New Guinea, over a period of ten years? Has the right honorable gentleman been informed that at a meeting of the United Nations in Paris the representative of r,lie South African Government has said that it would integrate SouthWest Africa into the Union of South Africa and would not place it -under the authority of the “United Nations Trusteeship Council ? In view of the impossibility of establishing adequate defences in New Guinea under trusteeship or mandate conditions, will the right honorable gentleman give consideration to the integration of New Guinea into the Commonwealth of Australia, so that effective defences against possible aggression may be provided?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the article to which the right honorable gentleman has referred. It was previously suggested by a private individual that Japanese should be allowed to migrate to New Guinea or to Dutch New Guinea. The Australian Government made it clear that it was violently opposed to such migration. We are not able to interfere with the administration of Dutch territory, but we shall make every effort possible to prevent Japanese mi gration into Dutch New Guinea. A suggestion for the integration of Dutch New Guinea into the Commonwealth of Australia -would be regarded with some hostility by the Dutch Government.

Sir Earle Page:

– I was referring to the portion of New Guinea which is controlled by the Australian Government.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is hoped that the part of New Guinea that is now being administered by the Australian Government will eventually reach a stage of equality comparable with the mainland of Australia. I remind the right honorable gentleman that the residents of that, part of New Guinea which is under Australian control do not pay taxes, and accordingly I am not sure that they would want to be placed on an equality with Australian resident. The matter has already been considered but the right honorable gentleman may rest assured that the Government will further consider it.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– In the absence of th« Minister for External Territories, 1 address a question to the Prime Minister. In June last the Minister for ExternaTerritories introduced a bill relating to Papua and New Guinea. The principal purpose of the measure which was of some importance was to merge the administrations of Papua and New Guinea. I asked the Minister at the time whether there had been any opposition to the proposal at the meeting of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, particularly by Russia, as had been stated in this House. The honorable gentleman replied -

The Soviet view was that it would be impossible to envisage independence when all aspects of administration were refused and the plan would in practice inevitably prevent New Guinea attaining self-government or independence.

I observe that the bill has been withdrawn from the notice-paper. As the Russian representative at the meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations was so ‘well informed, will the Prime Minister state whether representations were made to him by the Minister for External Affairs to drop or to postpone the bill? Were any representations made by the Soviet Embassy in Australia in relation to the bill? If not, what is the reason for not proceeding with the measure? Will the measure be reintroduced?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The bill was not dropped because of representations made by any outside country. Before the bill was introduced I examined its conditions carefully with the Minister for External Affairs. It was intended to proceed with the measure during the present sittings of the Parliament but in the meantime some charges were made at the meeting of the Trusteeship Council for which there was no justification.

Mr White:

– By Russia?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I believe that they were made by other representatives as well as by the representative of Russia. It was suggested that the proposal might be referred to the International Court of Justice. The Australian representatives made a strong protest against any such appeal. The Minister for External Affairs discussed these protests with me personally, and not with the Minister for External Territories - I do not think he was here then - and I decided that in view of what had been said it would be far better for the Minister for External Affairs to deal with the objections at a later meeting of the Trusteeship Council. The right honorable gentleman agreed to do so. I am satisfied that the objections voiced at the meeting of the Council were made by people who were completely uninformed about the position; and I considered that it would be best to allow the matter to be settled in the Council. It is the intention .of the Government to bring down a bill during the next session* »f the Parliament.

page 2871

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Mr DAVIDSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is true that the Queensland Government is attempting to obtain railway engines, steel rails and structural steel from France and Belgium, and is requesting the Australian Government to make available dollar credits for the purchase of rolling stock in America ? This equipment is urgently needed to relieve serious shortages in railway rolling stock, which is holding up the rapid transport of goods, and must seriously hamper the planned development of coal deposits and of Empire food production in central Queensland. Did this action on the part of the Queensland Government result from the shortage of equipment in Australia?. If so, what is the reason for the -shortage, and what action Iia* been taken by the Minister for Transport, who has been approached in the matter, to explore fully the possibility of producing the required steel in Australia ‘?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– It is true that the Queensland Government is anxious to improve the transport facilities of that State. Some time ago, the Minister for Transport made valiant efforts to induce the States to agree to a scheme for the standardization of railway gauges throughout Australia. The Queensland Government was requested to join. in. that general scheme; but, because it objected to the inclusion in the scheme of a lin«i intended to make possible the exploitation of the fertile areas of the Channel country, the Queensland Government refused to do so. I understand that, as the result of further negotiations, the Queensland Government is now prepared to waive its objection and to join in the general scheme. No formal agreement has yet been signed. It is true that all the State Railways Departments in Australia, with the exception of the Tasmanian Railway Department, have made requests for permission to import railway equipment from overseas. I do nor recall any request having been made in connexion with steel rails, but requests have certainly been made for permission to import locomotives and roiling-stock. The Governments of Victoria and South Australia sought permission to import diesel engines from America in order to relieve the strain on their railway transport systems. It has also been proposed that an American diesel locomotive manufacturing company should enter into an arrangement with the Clyde Engineering Company for the purpose of manufacturing American-type diesel locomotives in Australia. Because of the heavy drain on dollars involved by such importations. I took the responsibility of -refusing these requests. I have to pay some regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the British Treasury has always been prepared to accept my word on behalf of the Government as to the essential nature of all proposed imports from dollar and hard . currency areas. I was informed that it was possible for the States to obtain certain types of diesel locomotives from the United Kingdom. Some of the States have placed orders in the United Kingdom for railway equipment. The honorable member referred to importations from Belgium. Belgium is a very hard currency area. An agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Belgium in relation to balances of payments between Great Britain and Belgium and the export and import of goods to and from one country to the other. A heavy drain has been imposed on the British Treasury in meeting certain gold payments. That drain cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. As British resources could not be further weakened, any requests for the importation of goods from Belgium, Switzerland and Portugal, all of which are hard currency countries, must be looked at very carefully. They involve a drain on British resources, which we cannot justify except for absolutely essential requirements. I shall prepare a statement dealing with the subject for the information of the honorable member.

page 2872

AUSTRALIAN ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION COMMISSION

Third Report

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Aluminium Industry Act - Third Annual Report of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, for year1 947-48. and move-

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Dame Enid Lyons) adjourned.

page 2872

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Immigration say whether Dutch exservicemen are to be brought from Holland to Australia as migrants? If so, what occupations will they follow in this country, and will they be distributed throughout all the States?

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

-The Dutch exservicemen referred to by the honorable member are allied ex-servicemen who are corning here with the assistance of the subsidy granted by the Australian Government to certain defined groups of allied ex-servicemen, and to men who served in the resistance movements in allied countries. When they arrive here, they will go to the homes of relatives or friends. They will be free to follow whatever occupations or callings they desire, subject only to the requirements of State law governing the registration of professional persons such as doctors, dentists, engineers and the like. There willbe no direction of labour so far as they are concerned, but they will not be allowed to live outside the localities indicated by their nominators in Australia.

page 2872

WAR GRATUITY

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

War Gratuity - SecondReport of the committee of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives appointed to review the provisions of the War Gratuity Act 1945-47.

The Government proposes to accept the recommendations of the committee.

page 2872

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th September (vide page 275), on motion by Mr. Lemmon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

.- The purpose of this bill is to authorize the making of a further advance totalling £14,000,000 to the States for the purpose of housing. This affords honorable mem- bers an opportunity to discuss what is generally accepted as the greatest human problem confronting any government - that is, the housing of the people. The Government has been so smugly complacent about housing that it is time some one drew attention to its failure to obtain the best return for the money that has been -advanced to the States. The latest available report of the Housing commission is dated June, 1946, and no other official or authentic information about its activities is abtainable. Having regard to the great difficulty experienced by many people in securing homes, it seems to me that it is time the matter was ventilated on the floor of the House. The housing of the people is a matter of tremendous importance. Without adequate housing, it is impossible to inculcate in the people a proper pride in themselves, their country and their way of life. Housing is seen to be particularly important when we consider the present disturbed condition of the world, and the effect of bad living conditions in breeding discontent among the people. Living conditions are far from good for many people in Australia to-day, particularly for newlymarried couples and young mothers who are compelled to live with parents in houses that were designed to accommodate one family only. In common with other honorable members, I have received many letters from constituents which describe the difficulties encountered by those who are seeking to obtain homes. I propose to quote from a letter written by Mr. Frederick M. Gray. of 60 Victoria-street, Lewisham, who is almost completely Wind. Four years ago, he obtained a permit from the Department of War Organization of Industry to build a house. A government advance was obtained, and documents were signed by a builder and himself. Later, when the builder could not fulfil his obligations, difficulties arose. Mr. Gray states in his letter -

Wc have spent years trying to get a house in Sydney and pounds on mug promises and interviews and still although owning this ground for four years, wo still have no house. We have a heap of correspondence from politicians and Housing Commission officers.. . . . Moreton, Secretary of the Housing Commission sent us a wire offering us temporary accommodation at Hargreaves Park which although 1. was struck instantly blind some time early last year and had been in a lot of pain during last year and still suffer a fair lot, the so-called emergency accommodation supplied by the commission turned out to be a converted morgue for which we were charged 1 5s. .per week. My wife was disgusted and we had to. lea ve it and are now in one room here at Lewisham which the Sun procured for us with two deaf and dumb folk.

I have received numerous letters from young married people living with their “ in-laws “. The discontent and domestic strife which arises from such situations is shattering many marriages. I propose later to cite figures which prove that housing conditions in New South Wale9, and, indeed, throughout Australia generally, have improved very little. One wonders whether the immense amounts of money which have been made available for housing are being used to the best advantage. Because essential commodities are scarce, a great many houses remain in an unfinished state. That freezes the materials which have been used basically in the construction of the framework of homes. The commission has failed to make available the essential requirements for completing homes once the building* have been commenced. Another factor is the inability of salary and wageearners to keep pace with the unending increases of the cost of living. We must take those- facts into consideration when we are making plans to house the people. The Minister said, in his second-reading speech -

The main aim of the agreement is the pro vision of good standard housing for the lower income groups.

If that objective can be achieved, members of the Opposition will not be at variance with the Minister, because the policy which he has enunciated goes to the crux of the housing situation. The success or’ failure of the Government to provide homes for that section of the community forms the basis of my criticism to-day. An examination of facts and figures shows the utter failure of the Government to house those people Although hostilities ceased more than three years ago, housing remains the major unsolved problem, and disillusioned home-seekers are bitterly critical of the Government’s unfulfilled promises to provide them with dwellings. Soaring building costs prevent persons on the lower ranges of income from building their own homes, and, therefore, they must look to the Government for assistance to obtain homes. Records relating to the progress of housing, which a rr always conservative, show the extraordinary increase of the price per square for standard homes. The Government has accepted the responsibility to provide bornes for the people in the lower income groups, it has made large sums of money available to the States, and it has endeavoured to obtain priorities for its building projects. However, the net result of all that effort has been complete failure to achieve the building target which the Government set itself after the war. It has failed lamentably and miserably not only to provide sufficient homes but also to train sufficient skilled labour through the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. Home-building was a wartime casualty, and should be rehabilitated. The magnitude of the Government’s failure is revealed in figures. In 1944, the Commonwealth Housing Commission fixed a target of 50,000 homes in the first post-war year, rising to 80,000 homes in the third year. The setting of that target followed a fact-finding inquiry which assessed the housing shortage throughout the Commonwealth at 300,000 homes. The commission also recommended the construction of an additional 4j0,000 homes a year after 1945 in order to meet the normal requirements. We can judge the success or failure of the Government’s venture by the results that had been achieved. In 1945-46, when the target was 50,000 dwellings, only 15,376 homes were completed. In the next year, 32,607 homes were built. In 1947-48, the number was 42,867.

Mr Lemmon:

– An Australian record.

Mr HARRISON:

– I shall show how, and by whom, those 42,867 houses were constructed. The Government may seek to take the credit for the building of those homes, but when we analyse the figures showing the number built by private enterprise and the number built by government instrumentalities, respectively, the true story is revealed. The rate of construction is sufficient to meet only normal requirements. The lag of 300,000 homes is net being overtaken. In other words, the Government’s scheme has not made any impact upon the major problem. That is not the whole story. Official statistics, for reasons which may be known to th>Government, no longer show the number? of homes built by private enterprise and the number built by government instrumentalities. Only the total number of houses constructed h shown. That fact is significant. Unles an honorable member is prepared to dig deeply beneath the surface, he is unable to ascertain the number of homes which are being built by government instrumentalities. I have succeeded in digging a little below the surface, and I should like to know why the details of construction are no longer shown. Is it because the Government is ashamed to reveal itfailure to build homes compared with the achievements of private enterprise? Does not the Government desire to disclose the increasing number of home? which are being privately built? Doesit wish to conceal the lag in home building on the part of its own instrumentalities? I should like to know the reason. From July, 1945, to September, 1947, 70 per cent, of the homescommenced by private enterprise were completed, but government instrumentalities completed only 55 per cent, of the homes which they commenced. The Minister, in his second-reading speech said that between April, 1944, and June. 1948, 15,271 dwellings had been completed under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Commonwealth Statistician has disclosed that 42,867 new houses were completed in 1947-48. Of that number, 6,370 were built by government instrumentalities and about 36,500 by private builders. That means that, in spite of steadily advancing building costs, six times more homes are being built by private builder? than are being built by government instrumentalities, notwithstanding the priority in building materials taken by the Government, and the making available of huge amounts of money to the States to carry out their building projects. Professor Copland, a former economic adviser of the Government and the former Prices Commissioner, recently wrote a pamphlet called Bach to Earth in Economics. He bluntly stated. -

At the present rate of housing construction the housing. crisis will become almost a permanent feature of the Australian economy, a disquieting thought and a desperate prospect for large scale immigration on which we made such a commendable start since the war.

He stated further -

The Minister for Immigration hopes this year to attain his goal of 70,000 immigrants per annum. If he does it will be an astonishing achievement in the face of post-war transport difficulties in the world and the shortage >f houses in Australia

He then, added -

In fact, in housing, it would appear that u condition of stability (better described as stagnation) in the level of housing construction has been reached. The explanation of this is again partly shortage of basic materials more than low output per man in building construction. But the high and rising costs of construction act as a powerful deterrent to enterprise in the building industry.

Mr RANKIN:

– Perhaps that is caused by the fact that the Government took his advice on economics.

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

– The Government in must take responsibility for any advice it accepts. If it accepts wrong advice it is obviously culpable. Professor Copland may have been the Government’s economic adviser, but he was not its adviser on housing. He has pointed out its ineptitude and smug complacency. The m-nth of his statements is aptly illustrated by statistics which’ show that 1.7,100 buildings were erected in New South Wales in 1939 and only 16,825 in the year ended the 30th June, 1948. So instead of going forward we are falling back with the housing programme. The lack of houses will remain as a continuing crisis unless the Government is willing to tackle the problem strongly and with common sense. The failure to build more homes can be attributed basically to the failure of the Government to ensure sufficient output of essentials for the production and transport of building materials. We have been drumming that fact into the minds of members of the Government ever since the war ended. Nothing can be said about it now that is not already trite. But however trite the statement may be, it must be repeated that every ton of coal lost affects the production of some essential for housing. Let us consider three of these essentials - bricks, tiles and steel. I do not propose to say anything about galvanized iron at the moment because I cannot even think of galvanized iron and remain calm. The production of bricks is 20- per cent, less than it was in 1938-39, the year that preceded the war. That is an indictment of the Government. Il is useless for it to try to defend itself by saying that it cannot reach its target because of the lack of basic materials. The provision of sufficient materials is its responsibility. Three years ago we emphasized the primary need for the production of a stock-pile of buildingmaterials. We still have no stock-pile. The output of terra-cotta tiles for the seven months of 1947-48 was only slightly higher than that of 1938-39. I know that in reply the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) will say something like this: “At least we are doing something about housing, but what did you do? Nothing!” Doubtless that will be his opening gambit, but the present production of essentials like bricks and tiles does not approach the production in 1938-39. Then,, the output of steel is less than 100,000 tons monthly compared with 97,500 tons in 1938-39, which means that the production of such an essential foi home building is only comparable with that of 1938-39. The restriction of the output of coal by the Communistcontrolled miners’ federation is becoming a part of our national production set-up. Industries. including those producing building materials, have to adjust themselves to these set-backs. Production difficulties will not be solved by the Government’s waiting until the miners are out on a limb, and then using brave words and threats, well knowing that it will not be called to back them up with action. Surely, the Government realizes that the acceptance of coal production hold-ups in industry as a regular occurrence is bringing into being a psychology that is reflected in lowered output generally. The success of the Government’s housing scheme depends on production. The Prime Minister ha9 belatedly recognized this, although we have been hammering it into his mind for years. He showed his recognition of it last month in an address to a conference of trade unions in the Sydney Trades Hall convened by his Government in the hope of persuading the workers to increase production. The conference was attended by 140 delegates of 64 federal trade unions.

In the issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 6th November, the right honorable gentleman is reported to have said at that conference -

I think it is a disgrace to the trade union movement that, when there are differences between unions, they cannot find- some way to settle the disputes without depriving the community of things it should have.

I am not always, able to see the reason that they drive mcn to strike.

The newspaper article continued -

Mr. Chifley said it would be a long time before people could get. many of the. things they wanted..

The great need, for houses, public works, electric light undertakings, schools, and other modern amenities could not be met, no matter how much money was available.

Mr. Chifley added ;

What is short to-day is not- money, bub willing hands.

Those strong words were wrung from the Prime Minister in extremis after he had at; last realized that increased production, w-as essential for this nation’s welfare. No sooner- had those words- been uttered by the right’ honorable gentleman than the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) came into’ the arena. In an article published over his> name in the Australian Worker, the official organ of the- Australian “Workers Union, on the 3rd November, Senator Cameron said-and I. ask the House and the country to note that this was not a chance observation, but a- considered statement prepared for publication -

If, as the result of- workers increasing the productivity’ of the: soil and increasing the production of- materials and. commodities of ill kinds, the wealthy continue to be made wealthier and more powerful economically and politically, and the expenditure on preparations for war in times of peace continues to be increased and military conscription or slavery to be extended, workers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by increasing production beyond’ what would be necessary to maintain themselves and their families . . . Increasing strike action,, however, by workers nowadays in most countries in the world would indicate that the dangers of producing surpluses is being realized’ by thom where the necessary provision is not being made to raise their standards of living and to provide for co-operative and peaceful trading among, the nations. Coal-miners, for example, have few. if any, illusions about the matter.

I ask the House and the’ country to note the class hatred expressed by the Minister in that statement.

Here, once again, this Minister - as if quite customary with. Ministers in thi;-. Government - expressed, a personal view., and in expressing that view he sabotaged completely the Prime Minister’s appeal for greater production. He sabotaged., not only the housing programme, but also the industrial effort of Australia. Ministers of ‘ the Labour Government, the socalled leaders, of the Australian Labour party, set both the time- and tempo for production in industry. On the one hand the Prime Minister appealed for increased production, because of the. great housing shortage and the need for building up the economy of this country, . whilst on the other hand one of his Ministers said to the workers, in effect, “ It is all right, boys, this appeal for increased production is a fallacy and a. myth. The more you produce the worse it will be for you ,:. This is a sort of: fillip for the miners. Even while he was addressing the coalminers, the Prime Minister knew full well that somewhere the completion . of houses was being held up, and the families of workers were being deprived of the ordinary amenities and comfort.’ of civilization-..

A great deal has. been said about, the Australian Government’s failure to train ex-servicemen under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme so thai additional skilled, labour will be available for the building, trade. Thi? is one of the factors which has comtributed to the collapse of the government housing- scheme. Honorable mem; hers- and the people of this country are aware of the plan that the Government evolved to train ex-servicemen who had no opportunity of training prior to the war, so that they could take up useful occupations. It was decided to open the building industry to those men. As I have previously pointed, out, in July, 1939 150,900 persons were engaged in the building- industry. In 1948, 168,000 persons were so engaged - an increase of only 11 per cent. In the Commonwealth Public .Service the increase in the same period was 101,400 employees, or more than 150 per- cent. The total number of persons employed in- the service- now if 169,200. Whilst we could do without this galaxy of public servants in over inflated government departments, we cannot do without homes for the people. Although the Government has encouraged an increase in departmental staffs under its own control by no less than 150 per cent, compared with pre-war figures, it has encouraged the training of ex-servicemen and. other mechanics in industry has only increased in. the same period to a degree that has increased the total number of employees by only 11 per cent. The reason for that is the refusal of the Communistcontrolled Building Workers’ Industrial Union to permit these men to be trained. The Communist policy is against the construction of houses and other- units essential to the national economy. The Government has bowed to the wishes of that union, with the result that the building trades have not gained much skilled labour. The Government’s failure to train ex-servicemen for the building trades was publicly criticized by the president of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, Mr. Ken Bolton, in the November issue of Reveille, the official organ of the league. In an article headed “ Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Muddle! - Who is Right?’ Mr. Dedman and Mr. Bolton can’t Agree”, the views of both the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr.. Dedman) and the State president of the league are stated. With regard, to the position in New South Wales, Mr. Bolton said -

In 1939 there were 47,010 men in the building industry, while in 1948 there are only 38,710; this at a time when ex-servicemen are screaming for homes.

The Building Workers’’ Industrial Union and the Plumbers’ Union, whose representatives sit on the Industrial Committees which govern the intake of trainees, have said, “ No more trainees’, using as their excuse, that there are insufficient building materials available. Mr. Dedman endorses, this opinion, or should I say excuse.

The answer to that one is that for the month of May, 1048, Commonwealth Employment Bureau figures indicate that 1,371 unfilled applications were received from private employers for building tradesmen.

In other words, 1,371 employers already have sufficient materials to carry out 1,371 building operations. In addition, employers spend hundreds of pounds in advertising for tradesmen. Pick up a- copy of the Sydney Morning Herald and just count up the nun ber of people who want carpenters and plumbers. Now! Would they advertise, i’ they did not have materials?

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) said repeatedly during the debate on the Estimates thai the basic reason why these men were not being trained was the shortage of materials. If there are 1,371 vacancies in New South Wales for building tradesmen, it is reasonable to assume that thenis sufficient material available to provide 1,371 men with work: Mr. Bolton wen’ on to say -

Yes, there’s 3,045 still waiting to be trained . they are made up of carpentry 2,052, brick laying 064, plumbing 163, and plastering 166 These are authentic figures taken from thi> official minutes of the New South Wale,Reconstruction Training Committee, held on the 7th October, 1948. Mr. Dedman can’; explain this lot away.

There is a demand for skilled men, Ye men are awaiting training.

The greatest blight upon our young people is that they must share houses with others. Janet Kalven, in a book entitled, The Task of Women in thi Modem World, referred to the home. If I had to preach a sermon, I should use a passage from that book as my text. Il the light of the figures that I propose to quote, I urge the Minister to take not’ of it.. Janet Kalven wrote -

The home is at once an economic and industrial centre preparing goods for family use; a school in which the young are introduced tithe universe; a sanctuary of rest and relaxa tion; a temple dedicated to the praise of God

That refers to the home and not to thihouse; There is ‘ a great difference between the two. The people of Australia want, homes., The census of June, 1947. showed that, at that time, 116,828 family groups were sharing houses. Thiaverage Australian house has two, or at the most three, bedrooms, one bathroom and one lavatory. According to that census, in 271 instances five or monfamilies were sharing a single house Can one imagine anything more destructive to the morale of those families? The shortage of houses is the major problem that confronts us to-day. The census showed, further, that four families were occupying each, of 818 houses, threefamilies. each of 4,446 houses, and two families each of 25,002 houses.

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– People were living in tents when the Opposition parties were in power.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) has just entered the ‘chamber. I anticipated that interjection by pointing out that more bricks, tiles and steel were being produced, and more houses built in 1938-39 than at the present time. In 1944, the Commonwealth Housing Commission assessed the Australian housing shortage at 300,000 homes. It declared that “>0,000 homes should be built in the first post-war year, and that the number should be increased to 80,000 in the third post-war year. To-day, there is no sign chat even the target of 50,000 houses that was set for the first year has been reached. Indeed, only 42,000 houses have been built. Of that number, approximately 6,000 were constructed by the Commonwealth Housing Commission mid the rest by private enterprise. I suggest to the Minister, as I have done before, that there is only one way in which to implement an effective housing policy. That is to place it on a properly organized basis and to free it from the red tape and bottle-necks which ruin real productive effort. We must adopt a six-point plan. First, it is necessary to appoint a. first-class business executive, as was done by the Department of Munitions in 1939, with full power to break bottlenecks and expedite the supply of materials and the construction of homes. The executive who was appointed by the Department of Munitions was given a free hand, and he produced the goods. I suggest, therefore, that we should appoint such an. executive now to deal with a problem that is just as urgent as the problem of munitions was in 1939. Secondly, the Government should remove all sales tax upon building materials. This tax is still imposed upon many materials that are essential to building operations.

Mr Lemmon:

– “Will the honorable gentleman mention even two such commodities?

Mr HARRISON:

– Sales tax is imposed upon sinks, baths and ordinary household hardware.

Mr Lemmon:

– That is entirely untrue.

Mr HARRISON:

– Thirdly, financial assistance should he given to encourage home ownership. The Government says that it does not want to encourage home ownership because it will create, to adopt the phrase that was used by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), “ little capitalists “. The best sheet-anchor that this country can possibly have is the home owner. Every man who marries aspires to own his own home. Fourthly, the Government should aim at increasing the output of buildingmaterials by expanding coal production and giving greater encouragement toworkers, including incentive payments and reduction of taxes. Fifthly, ir should encourage men, especially ex-servicemen, to be trained in th<building trades, so that large* numbers of young men may enter the industry. Lastly, the Government should proceed with the demolition of slums and the provision at reasonable cost of good houses which can be purchased on suitable terms.

These things can he done by a government that is determined to face up to thisproblem. Unless practical action such a? that which I have indicated is taken, we can expect, as Professor Copland has said, to have as a permanent feature of our economy a never-ending shortage of houses.

Mr THOMPSON:
Hindmarsh

– I listened with interest to the speech of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison), particularly to his remarks in connexion with what he referred to as the powers and responsibilities of this Government. He dwelt upon the fact: finding commission, as he termed it, that was appointed by the Treasurer in 1943 to inquire into housing in Australia and to report to the Government. That so-called fact finding committee was the Commonwealth Housing Commission. I had the honour to be appointed a member of that body. When my appointment was announced, I was a member of the South Australian Parliament. The Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, congratulated me upon -my appointment and went to great pains to explain that housing was the responsibility of the State governments. He told me that when the State Premiers met the Prime Minister to discuss the transference of powers from the States to the Commonwealth and housing was mentioned, every State Premier insisted that it should be the responsibility of the States. That was the first fact brought to my notice by the Premier of South Australia following my appointment to the commission. After examining the terms of reference the commission ascertained that, so far as the Commonwealth was concerned, it could only inform the Australian Government about the. housing position in Australia and furnish advice upon the financial aspects of the home-building schemes submitted by the States. That is still the position. The purpose of the bill now before us is to authorize the raising of a loan of £14,000,000 to finance activities under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. That agreement was the outcome of recommendations made by the commission. After examining its terms of reference the commission realized that it had no authority to construct houses and that its function was limited to bringing pressure to bear on the States to meet the housing position and to raise the standards of housing generally. If honorable members will refer to the report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission they will see that it amply bears out what I have said. The sole responsibility of the Commonwealth, under the scheme is to provide the requisite finance and to lay down housing standards and conditions under which advances may be made to the States to finance the construction of homes. The Acting Leader of the Opposition has said that the Commonwealth is opposed to private home ownership. That is not so. The commission ascertained that the basic wage earner was not in a position to finance the purchase of his own home, and accordingly it recommended that the State housing authorities should institute group building schemes to provide houses for low-wage earners at a reasonable rental. The commission also laid down conditions relating to the sale of homes to home purchasers. The Commonwealth is not able to build a home for the ordi nary member of the community. Its activities in this field are confined to the building of homes in the Australian Capital Territory, war-service homes for ex-service personnel and for certain of ite officers in Commonwealth employment. The Acting Leader of the Opposition referred to letters he had received from people seeking to purchase their own homes. I receive letters every week from such people. About a fortnight ago a man whom I know well wrote to me asking what the Australian Government could do to enable his married son to obtain a home. In reply I informed him that if his son was an ex-serviceman he could obtain a war-service home, or he could secure an advance from the Commonwealth Bank to finance the building of a home, but that apart from those two courses the Australian Government had no power to help him. The Acting Leader of the Opposition has charged the Government with having fallen down on the job of providing homes for the people. The honorable gentleman knows very well that, apart from war-service homes and homes for its own officers, the Commonwealth has no responsibility or authority. He is well aware that responsibility for housing the people rests solely upon the States and that the States refused to hand thai responsibility to the Commonwealth. He was most unfair in attempting to blame the Australian Government for the acute housing position which exists in Australia to-day. The honorable gentleman quoted certain figures relating to the number of homes constructed. Those figures refer only to the States which are working under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. South Australia, which, in common with other States, suffers from an acute housing position, is not working under that agreement. That State government has not received any money from the Commonwealth for the building of homes. It is financing and undertaking its own home-building programmes. It is co-operating with the Commonwealth, however, in adopting the standards laid down by the Commonwealth in the agreement.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition referred to the decline in the production of bricks and tiles since 1938-39 and said that he was afraid to refer to the galvanized .iron position. Honorable members who know anything about the building industry are well aware that in 1938-39 tile production was limited almost entirely to terra cotta tiles. [Quorum formed.’] To-day in almost every suburb of every city are to be found factories engaged in the production of cement tiles. The volume of cement tile production to-day is very great. The monthly average production of bricks in 1938-39 was 60,000,000. In June of this year the production was 5.2,100,000, and in July, 50,100,000. I am sure that when the Acting Leader of the Opposition made his criticism of the brick making industry, he did not realize that his argument was likely to rebound on him. Any one who knows anything about brickmaking is well aware that there were very few up-to-date brickmaking plants in Australia in 193S-39. Brickmakers had to go down into the muck and slush, dig out clay and after forming and firing the bricks, manually handle them. Brickmaking was one of the heaviest and dirtiest of jobs. Many brickmakers enlisted during the war years and after their, discharge from the armed forces, sought . more congenial employment. They would not return to the mush and slush of the pug holes. That is why brick production has declined. Brickmakers are not prepared to install modern machinery in their works. A few months ago the South Australian Government brought out a number of migrants to work in the brickyards. It agreed to provide homes for them on their arrival. “When the migrants arrived here they were established in newlyfinished Housing Trust homes. Immediately complaints were made by other people that the newcomers had been given homes while they themselves had been waiting for five or six years for a home without obtaining one. When I spoke to the State authorities about the matter [ was informed that as the migrants had come to Australia to make bricks for the building of homes they had been :1 VeIl priority in the allotment of homes. After working two or three weeks in the brickyards and experiencing the conditions of employment there the migrants said, “ We did not ‘think that we would be asked to make bricks under these conditions. We made bricks in England under very much better conditions. We shall seek other employment”. They left -their jobs and engaged in other .work, but they stayed in their homes. They could not be evicted. The Acting Leader of the ‘Opposition blamed the Government for not bringing about more production, but I remind him that he is the representative of the employers, including the manufacturers oi bricks, so that he must -accept some of the responsibility for the ‘present position.

The honorable member cited figures in connexion with the production of tiles, “but the figures do not indicate the true position. It may be that they refer only to terra-cotta tiles, and not to cement tiles, also. In 1938-39, the average monthly production of both terra-cotta and concrete tiles was 3,680,000, whereas production in June of this year was 6,040,000. If the building of houses if lagging, the responsibility does not rest upon the Commonwealth, which has advanced money to the States to build homes, on .the condition that they comply with a prescribed standard. The Acting Leader of the Opposition said that he could not obtain information about the activities of housing authorities. I have here a statement issued by Mr. L. P. D. O’Connor, deputy director of the Housing Division of the Department of Works and Housing, at the direction of Mr. Welch, the Director of Housing. In this statement complete figures are given about the houses begun and completed, and no attempt has been made to conceal the part played by government housing authorities as compared with private enterprise. The figures are as follows :-

The Commonwealth Housing Commission reported in 1944 that we should set a target of 50,000 houses to be completed or’ in the course, of completion in the first year that active building’ operations’ were resumed, this number to be increased to 80,000 a year in three years’ time. The commission estimated that there was a shortage of 300,000 houses. As the Acting Leader of the Opposition correctly stated, 40,000 new houses are needed every year to provide for increased population and to replace old buildings. The commission allowed for this, and estimated that the shortage would be made good in ten years’ time if the programme could be adhered to. No provision was made in the estimate for the housing of immigrants, because the commission had no way of estimating the number that would be entering, the. country, but it pointed out that one dwelling, unit would be needed for every four immigrants. Until the making of the. present agreement with the States, the responsibility for building houses rested, entirely upon State authorities and private enterprise. Apart from building war service homes, and homes for Commonwealth employees, the

Commonwealth was not’ concerned. When the commission set the target’ of- 50,000 houses for the first year; and. 80^000 for subsequent years> after .three years;, iti recognized- that the houses would be built by Commonwealth and State housing authorities, municipalities and private enterprise, and it recom’ mended that- the States should seek the co-operation of municipalities. ] am not prepared to throw mud at the States for any delay that may have occurred in putting the housing programme into effect. Building in al’ States has been limited by the labour and materials available. Some time ago: the Premier of South Australia said thai building in that State was held up, not by lack of money, but by the scarcity of materials and labour.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition criticized the Department of. Post-wai Reconstruction in connexion with the training of ex-servicemen for the building industry..’ I have kept myself in> formed about what is being done under the training scheme, and master builder. have, told me of their difficulties in finding employment, for trained or parti* trained men. It is all very well foi honorable members to say that they have seen advertisements in the newspaper.’ seeking bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers, but the builders themselves find it hard, to keep their men in constant employment because of the difficulty in obtaining regular supplies of materials* They often have to take men away from ohe job and put them on another, or rather1 than risk losing them, just keep them pottering about doing odd jobs.

Mr Spender:

Why are material:scarce ?

Mr THOMPSON:

I have already explained that bricks are scarce because conditions in some of the brickyards are so bad that men will not work there. Brickmakers who worked under odious conditions before the war. and then entered the Air Force or some Other service where they obtained some mechanical training; were not prepared, upon their discharge, to go’ back to the muddy brickyard again, if’ they could obtain a mechanic’s job some1 where else. The Acting Leader of theOpposition has referred to the shortage of baths and sinks. Admittedly, the SUPply of fittings for houses is not sufficient to meet the demand, but the absence of baths and . sinks has not prevented people from occupying new homes. After having shared accommodation for years, they are content to take a new house, and put up with the inconvenience of having to wait for the installation of a bath or sink at a later date. The housing programme provided for a target of 50,000 houses in 1945-46 and 80,000 a year three years afterwards. As the building programme developed, it was inevitable that some classes of fittings would be in short supply. As I have stated, men are not prepared to work in certain industries where conditions are unhealthy or unpleasant. Whilst that position is difficult to overcome, this Government cannot be blamed for it. Honorable mem.bers opposite may rant as much as they like about the shortage of coal and steel, and I realize that insufficient supplies of those two materials handicap the progress of the housing programme, but again, the Government cannot be held responsible for the position. Honorable members opposite have complained that the Government’s policy of appeasing militant unions is one of the causes of the low output of urgently required building materials. I have a thorough knowledge >f industry and of the psychology of workers. In the past, employees in many industries have had to submit to hardships in their jobs, and I can understand why they desire to take advantage of the present shortage of labour in order to improve their conditions. They have not lost the fear that when the supply of labour exceeds the demand in industry they will again he waiting outside the factory gates until vacancies occur. In our speeches in this House we should endeavour to convince the workers that we believe that they should get a fair deal in employment, and that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that they enjoy an adequate standard of living. Honorable members opposite have the right to express their opinions about the reasons for the existing shortages of building materials, but I desire to impress upon them that when TheY “ 9ling off “ at workers such a.? the “ wharfie “, and say that he must do this or that, they have no knowledge of human psychology if they expect their gibes to influence the men to toil hard. A few words of encouragement will often accomplish more than threats. The Prime Minister has stated that the coal-miners and employees in many other basic industries owe a responsibility to the country to increase production. 3 have always expressed that opinion, not only in this House, but also at meeting? of employees. But we shall not encourage them to work harder by throwing stones at them and upbraiding them. I admit that members of the Opposition are just as honest as I am in endeavouring to get the best conditions for the Australian people. The Acting Leader of the Opposition has referred to deplorable housing conditions, and has cited instances of as many as five families sharing a house. I know only too well that people are living under impossible conditions, on verandahs, and even in disused stables, because they are unable to obtain better accommodation. Doubtless, the Acting Leader of the Opposition is as anxious as I am to remove those unfortunate conditions, but the remedy does not. lie in blaming the Government for the housing position. Some years ago, all States except one had Labour governments, and non-Labour parties have endeavoured to make a good deal of political capital out of the fact that State Labour governments at that time did not embark on. housing programmes. To-day. however, non-Labour governments are in office in three of the States, and,’ if they fail to use the money which is available for housing, they must accept the responsibility. During the eighteen months I was working on the Commonwealth Housing Commission I devoted 70 or SO hours a week to an examination of housing problems, and, in doing so, I accumulated a good deal of information which I should like to give to the House. However, I do not consider that it will be necessary for me to do so. I urge honorable members not to make the debate on this bill an opportunity te attack the Government, or to blame it for the failure to mee the housing target which the Commonwealth Housing Commission set three .years ago. The States should be encouraged to speed up their building programmes in order to overtake the leeway. I have not travelled extensively in New South “Wales and Victoria during the last two or three years, but I know that new homes are being erected in many parts of South Australia. Those dwellings are additional to the numbers which the Acting Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. Mr. L. P. D. O’Connor, Deputy Director, Housing Division, Department of Works and Housing, has computed the cost per square for brick buildings erected by private enterprise in the various States in 1944 and 1948. The details are a« follows : -

A square is 100 square feet, and the average house, with two or three bedrooms, has approximately 1,000 square feet. On that basis, a brick house which cost £1,200 in New South Wales in 1944 now costs £1,800. A similar dwelling in Victoria, which cost £1,320 four years ago, now costs £1,840.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lazzarini

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– This bill authorizes the raising of money to be advanced to the States for home building. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) has stated chat there is no scarcity of money for housing, but that the essential physical elements required in the construction of homes are in short supply. He gave all the reasons why the housing position is so acute, and dwelt unduly on the scarcity of bricks. I remind him that bricks are not the only material used in the erection of a house. Bricks, timber and fittings nf nil descriptions are in short supply, because of the industrial policy which th<Government has pursued. The OpposiHon has consistently emphasized the need for the increased production of all mate rials re’quired to overtake the Common wealth-wide leeway in the construction of homes, but our representations have been ignored. I ask the Government to explain what it has done and what it proposes to do to overtake the leeway. Th<Government must be blamed for the disastrous shortages of materials which art preventing many people from obtaining adequate shelter for the people.

There are at least two matters which the Government was happy to relinquish in favour of the States. One is housing, and the other is the land settlement of ex-servicemen. The Government transferred those two important and onerouresponsibilities to the States after it? efforts to administer them, had ended in the kind of frightful tangle which ischaracteristic of the Government’s general administration.. By a National Security Regulation in April, 1943, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), who wathen Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, appointed the Commonwealth Housing Commission. That body immediately investigated the housing position, and presented its report on the 25th August. 1944. The report was not encouraging, and did not reflect any credit on the administration and efforts of the Government. In October, 1945, as the result of the bungling and chaos which then existed, this Parliament passed the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act, which transferred to the States the responsibility for the construction of homes. The Commonwealth accepted b part of the financial responsibility. Iti that way, the Government passed the buck to the States, which are now responsible for the administration of the housing scheme and the building programme. After that, according to the budget papers, £11,015,000 was handed to the States in 1946-47 and _ £13,305,000 was handed to them in 1947-4S. and the estimate for this year is £14,130,000, of which £3,126,000 was handed over in the first three months of the present financial year. The handing over of these vast millions of federal money enabled State governments and especially the Labour Government of New South Wales to make extravagant promises forecasting an early end to the bousing shortage. Ex-servicemen and others living in make-shift dwellings or trying to make do in furnished rooms or with their relatives were told during the last State general election that 30,000 dwellings a year would be completed in Yew South Wales alone.

In the middle of 1946, a Brisbane woman and her nine young children were found living in a tent. She said that although the Housing Commission had cold her she would be given a house in two or three weeks, on making inquiries she had found that she had been excluded from the housing project concerned. At Rockdale, a few miles from Brisbane, a family of six was found living in a disused fowl-house which measured 20 feet by 14 feet. The ages of the children, of whom there were four, ranged from thirteen years to nine months. The Housing Commission when contacted indicated that the family was on the waiting list for temporary housing.

It will be recalled that for 1945-46 the target was 24,000 homes throughout Australia. However, the results for the first half of the year were not very heartening, for only .192 houses were completed by the Government’s administrative efforts in Queensland and the total for the whole of Australia, was a mere 1,791. Under these conditions, is it any wonder that the Commonwealth passed the whole responsibility for housing on to the State government? The States themselves were quick to see that they would have to use private enterprise on a large scale in an endeavour to overcome the leeway for which the Australian Government’s apathy was largely responsible. Although some of the shortage has been caught up, the position is still far from satisfactory. Houses are needed in every city and town and, indeed, in every hamlet in Australia. Much of the blame for this is due to the Australian Government which has shown incredible apathy and complacency in dealing with Communistinspired dislocations and disruptions in the industries that supply the commodities requisite for the effective sheltering of the people of Australia.

Many military and air force establishments which had served their purpose by the end of 1945 were converted into temporary housing accommodation. Some of them in Queensland and in ‘Other States although in many cases occupied only as temporary dwellings, have been in use’ for almost three years and are still in use. Some at Victoria Park, Brisbane and elsewhere have been the scenes of violent crimes. Such happenings have been to -no small degree attributable to the conditions under which the tenants have had to live. A few days ago, a Sydney stipendiary magistrate described one of the New South Wales temporary housing settlements as “ a den of iniquity and a centre of vice and crime because of the congestion there “. More than 5,000 people are accommodated in about 200 army huts each of which is divided into about four flats. Most people living under those conditions are decent and cannot get desirable accommodation elsewhere. But, undoubtedly, some undesirable people * congregate in temporary housing settlements. The obvious solution is to stop up production of bricks, timber, galvanized iron, builders’ hardware, and other materials essential for the building of more houses. People should not be compelled to live under such conditions for two and even three years before they and their young families can hope to get a home of their own.

Even when people obtain possession of a home under the various State housing projects anomalies remain to be rectified. In a recent debate in this House, 3 proved that every shilling rise of the basic wage gave -the Federal Treasurer at least £1.000,000 more in extra tax. The story does not end there. Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, certain rentals are subsidized by the Commonwealth Government. Shortly, the Commonwealth has accepted responsibility for making up the equivalent of the economic rent of the dwelling based on the basic “wage. With every increase of the basic wage under the formula, the tenant has to pay more rent and more tax and so the Commonwealth is relieved of a part of its responsibility in subsidization of such rentals. The catch is that such increases of the basic wage, are intended to cover merely the rise in the cost of living, and if .the individual .concerned has to pay extra tax and extra rent from .such increases obviously his standards of .living are lower and his family has to do without food and clothing which such . increases were given to provide. With the withdrawal of millions of .pounds in subsidy on staple foods such as milk and potatoes, the .basic wage was bound to rise. The higher prices of these commodities is a direct result .of the Australian Governments policy .in removing subsidies from them. Tie subsidies paid by the Commonwealth kept the price of commodities down. It would have been sensible to keep them in operation, but, so great was the Government’s chagrin at the defeat of the recent referendum, that it took a different stand. As the States were to take over the control of prices and rents, it said, “ That .being so, there will he no subsidies “.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I hope the right honorable gentleman will connect his arguments about subsidies with housing.

Mr FADDEN:

– The principal act provides for the subsidization of rents, so the matter of subsidies ‘.is wrapped up with the subject before .us. Anyway, .1 have made my -point.

In the same way, the cost of housing, building materials, and a thousand and one other commodities has increased greatly as a direct result of Labour policy in instituting the 40-hour week at a time when production should have been increased. The maintenance of high federal indirect taxes, such a3 pay-roll tax and sales tax on many commodities, including an estimated 5 per cent, of building materials, has also largely contributed to the rise of the prices of houses, furnishings, wireless sets, food and other essentials. The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison), in his speech, said that certain building materials were still subject to sales tax, and he was contradicted by members of the Government, who said that that was not true. In fact, his statement was true. Many commodities used a9 building materials are still subject to sales tax. Nails, for instance, are taxable.

Mr Rankin:

– If they can be got.

Mr FADDEN:

– Yes, and I doubt whether houses could be built without them. ‘Nuts and bolts, door handles brackets, coat hooks, bathroom fittings and hinges are all subject to sales tax. Structural steel is also subject to the tax, and it is used extensively in the erection of modern buildings. The cost of building a home is so high that it is beyond the financial capacity of the average man to build one. Only the rich can afford to do so. Others must obtain financial assistance from the Government or building societies. I am armed with the latest figures reflecting the increase of the cost of home-building in Australia. They are as follows: -

Surely such homes are the minimum requirement of a young man and his family !

Dame Enid Lyons:

– Are those the average costs in Australia, or do they relate to one State?

Mr FADDEN:

– They are for the State of New South Wales. They prove my argument. The cost of building has risen so high that the 53-year term for repayment set down in the bill is not long enough. The costs and the conditions that I have mentioned will, no doubt, please the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), because he has stated that it is his policy and desire not to make “ little capitalists “ out of home-seekers in Australia. The policy that is being pursued by this Government is assuredly implementing his wishes in that direction, which. I repeat, is to see that independency of ownership is minimized, and that “little capitalists “ are not created.

I understand that under the Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement, a certificate by the Auditor-General of a State is regarded by the Australian Government as sufficient indication that Commonwealth loan funds have been expended in accordance with the terms of the agreement. As many millions of .pounds of Commonwealth public funds are involved each year, and as the Commonwealth Audit Act may be extensively amended by a bill which is at present on the notice-paper, I should like to see provision made for a closer scrutiny of .State accounts by the officers of the Commonwealth Auditor-General’s Department. I consider that there is possibly, and probably, insufficient scrutiny, or insufficient vigilance in connexion with the expenditure of these large sums, amounting to .millions of pounds. . I should like to see a tightening up of supervision and I ask that some definite assurance be given in that regard.

Food, clothing and shelter are the three fundamental human essentials. It is evidently the policy of the Australian Labour, party, by any test that may be applied, or from whatever angle the searchlight of investigation is directed, to make each person in Australia less and less self-reliant in respect of those three factors. The implementation of that policy does not go unnoticed by discerning people. The Government realizes that, in order to be consistent with its socialization policy, it must make people more dependent upon it, and, consequently, more subservient to the policy of the Australian Labour party with relation to socialization. Consistent with that policy, we find a continuation of the system of building permits, and of .control in respect of building materials. To-day, it is almost impossible for an individual to build a home on his own initiative. In any case, as 1 have said before, it is only the very rich people who can afford to acquire their own homes. Even after the average person has obtained a permit and arranged for the necessary materials, it is necessary for him to obtain financial assistance, usually through some government instrumentality, in order to put the work in hand. The present state of housing throughout Australia is not such as can result in credit or satisfaction to the Government. Rather has it been respon- sible for much annoyance and disgust to the people of Australia generally.

Mr DALY:
Martin

.- The bill before the House seeks to authorize the raising of moneys to be advanced to the States for the purposes of housing. It is generally agreed that one of the greatest problems facing this country to-day is housing. The magnitude of this task was realized by this Government during the war. Following the end of the war, the necessity to institute national control over the building of homes in order to relieve the acute shortage of accommodation became apparent. This problem has not only just arisen. Our situation is somewhat different from that of other countries that were sadly bombed in the war years, and where destruction of great magnitude took place. In this country our housing problem has arisen as an aftermath of the depression and war years, when building cf homes practically ceased. The difficulty has been aggravated by the great increase in national prosperity in this country since the waT. To-day many young couples are well able to pay the rent of a dwelling, should one be available for them. The problem that confronted the Government in pre-war years was altogether different. In those days many young married couples, because of lack of employment, were forced to live with their “ in-laws “. They did not have the money to pay the rent of a house or dwelling. Consequently, the demand for homes in pre-war years, when all the materials and labour necessary for building were available, was not as great as it is to-day. It is idle to blame this Government entirely for the shortages that now exist in this regard.

If my memory serves me rightly, when the matter of placing this industry under national control was referred to the people of this country by referendum, the fiercest opposition to the proposal was encountered from the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) and the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). At that time those honorable gentlemen said that this was a problem for the States to handle; that it was socialization, and that this Government should mind its own business. Those facts should be borne well in mind by Opposition members when they now criticize this Government’s efforts to assist with the provision of homes.

I point out to the members of the Opposition that in times of peace this National Parliament has no constitutional authority to build homes for the people of this country on its own initiative. The Constitution limits our activities in respect of housing to the construction of war service homes, homes for munitions workers in times of war and homes for certain of its own officers. Therefore it is idle to blame this Government for the general shortage of houses. Much criticism has been levelled «t the Government by the Leader of the Australian Country party about housing conditions in the various States. I agree that it is a national tragedy that people have to live in temporary housing settlements, and that we are not in a position to provide homes for all of the people who need them. It must be remembered, however, that the State governments, particularly those in the more populous States such as New South “Wales, have done a valuable job in making emergency accommodation available to many thousands of people.

During the recent rents and prices referendum campaign, members of this Government guaranteed to the people of this country continuity of occupation of their homes if the referendum were successful, and the members of the Opposition stoutly asserted that the defeat of that referendum would not in any way affect them in that regard. What do we find to-day? The New South Wales Government is sorely pressed to provide emergency accommodation for people who are awaiting the construction if homes by private enterprise or by government instrumentalities. Yet, when that Government endeavoured to pass through the Parliament of New South Wales an act to deal with black-marketing in houses, to prevent evictions, and to give some measure of security to the people in the occupation of their homes, the Upper House, an unelective body, which is controlled by the same parties that sit in opposition in this Parliament, rejected the measure. Its passage would have relieved considerably the demand for emergency accommodation in that State. It would have overcome the all-too-prevalent practice of people in the metropolitan area of Sydney, and in other parts of the State, being evicted by people who had bought the homes at black-market prices, over the heads of people who were occupying them. There have been many unscrupulous deals in that regard. I exclude from my remarks people who had genuine reasons for desiring to occupy their homes. Despite that, the Opposition continues to criticize this Government. I 9ay to the people of my constituency and to other people in the metropolitan area of Sydney, who, this week, and in the weeks ahead, may find themselves on the streets, with no other accommodation available, that they can attribute their position to the defeat of the referendum. It is for that reason that they have to face the gloomy and unfortunate prospect of having no dwelling at all. The people responsible are the members of the Opposition in this Parliament, and in the State Parliament of New South Wales.

Mr Harrison:

– What utter rot!

Mr DALY:

– Those are the facts. I am happy to say that about April next the Australian Labour party will probably control the upper house in New South Wales. The people will then be able to look forward to the enactment of very progressive legislation which was rejected by the Liberal party. I realize that my remarks are not very comforting to the people who face the very serious prospect of eviction. I suggest to the people living in the metropolitan area of ‘Sydney, who are to be evicted, that they should approach the Liberal members in the State Parliament and ask what action they intend to take to prevent them being thrown on to the street. Efforts should be made to keep those people in their homes. I was amazed to find the Leader of the Australian Country party speaking of price control in relation to housing. Those responsibile for the rise of the price of housing and for the spiralling of prices of building materials and other commodities are no other than the members opposite who told the people that prices would find their own level. They did not tell them that the sky was the limit.

Mr TURNBULL:

– How long has price control been lifted?

Mr DALY:

– It does not matter how long price control has been lifted. As honorable members know, prices are spiralling out of all proportion to what they were when price control was administered by this Government. It is significant that when these facts are being put plainly, organized efforts are made by the Opposition to put speakers off their thoughts, and to try to stifle comment. However, I do not mind reiterating the facts. Whilst the Opposition does not like my approach to the problem, I must say that I was amused by the efforts of honorable members opposite to pass on to this Government the responsibility for the rise that has taken place in building costs. The full responsibility for the rising costs of building materials and other commodities, for- evictions, and for troubles associated with emergency accommodation, rests on the honorable members who sit opposite in this Parliament.

Mr McDonald:

– What about the introduction of the 40-hour week?

Mr DALY:

– Despite organized opposion by honorable members opposite over the years to hinder this Government in its efforts to solve this national problem, the record of anti-Labour governments in pre-war years was a sorry one indeed. Following the ratification of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement not long ago, this Government has been responsible for breaking all records in Australia for the construction of dwellings. Between 1945-46 and 1947-48, over 91,000 new houses were completed in this country. The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement commenced to operate in 1945. By the 30th September of this year, under that agreement, approximately 17,000 dwellings were erected. The figures rose from 4,887 in 1946-47 to 6,370 in 1947-48. Those figures show the efforts that are being made by this Government, acting in cooperation with the State governments, to solve the housing problem.

In New South Wales and other States, the people now look to the Government to provide them with houses; In the year.1 before the war, no requests were made to1 the Australian Government or State governments to provide houses for the people. Economic conditions forced young couples to live in the homesof their parents, for they could not afford to rent houses of their own. The position, to-day is entirely different. The policy that was pursued in pre-war years by th*1 anti-Labour parties in the Commonwealth and State Parliaments did not provide for the housing of the people, but now the people realize that their capacity to purchase or rent homes depends in the main upon the activities of the Australian Government and- the State governments. Acting in co-operation with the State governments, this Government has caused thousands of houses to be built throughout Australia. A. system of rental rebates has been instituted, which is something that- was noi thought of by honorable members opposite. It has afforded great relief to many people in the lower income groups, because under it they can afford to occupy adequate and proper accommodation. Throughout the metropolitan area of Sydney, thousands of homes have been erected and are now occupied by happy families in the true Australian fashion.

The Government has been subjected to much criticism by the press in relation to housing. From time to time ballots are conducted in New South Wales for houses built by government enterprise, but the newspapers do not publish the results of those ballots so that people who are sorely in need of a home may know whether they have been successful in obtaining one and when they may occupy it. Some people are prepared to criticize the Government, but are not prepared to offer constructive criticism or to make a practical effort to solve the housing problem. . They content themselves with decrying the efforts of the Commonwealth and the States. I felt that it was necessary to make a few remarks on this subject, and the reactions of honorable members opposite show that even they realize the truth of what I have said. I congratulate the Australian and State governments on their efforts to solve our bousing problem, and I look forward to a continuance of the present progressive housing policy. I trust that the housing target will he achieved and eventually passed.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I like the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly). He is full of youthful enthusiasm. Whatever he says, he says with real vim. Although he occasionally delves into the past, generally he looks around about him, keeps his ear to the ground and makes a remark or two that he hopes will be acceptable to his constituents. From that stand-point, I thought that he did remarkably well in the speech that he has just delivered. However, from the stand-point of the argument that has been advanced by honorable members opposite over a long period of time, he made a mistake. Since I have been a member of the Parliament, I have frequently heard Government supporters relate the history of the last twenty years in order to show how infinitely better conditions are under this Government than they were under any other government. En relation to the housing problem, I have heard supporters of the Government say to honorable members on this side of the House, “ What did your government do in the 1930’s when the people wanted houses? Nothing”. This afternoon the honorable member for Martin told us the reason for that. He said that there was no constitutional power to do it. That disposes once and for all of that argument, and I am delighted that it should have been disposed of by a Government supporter. However, I have not the slightest doubt that the same old ghost will appear again.

What surprised me very much was the rather feeble use that was made by the honorable member of the good old referendum argument. It is a remarkable fact that in every debate that takes place in this House honorable members opposite seize upon the referendum on rents and prices as the cause of the many ills from which we are suffering. If they do not say that the cause of our ills was the last referendum, they say it was the referendum of 1944. If ever two referendums were thoroughly and completely dealt with by the Australian people, it was those two. If the Australian people, are as gullible as honorable members opposite seem to believe they are, the outlook for the future of this nation is not very bright. If honorable members opposite consider that the people voted at the last referendum in the way in which they did solely because of the eloquence of members of the Opposition, they have not a very high regard for the intelligence of the Australian people. It is sheer moonshine to lay at the door of the referendum on rents and prices the blame for all our housing difficulties. This Government controlled prices until the 20th September of this year. The increase of building costs since then has not been noticeable, so far as I know. It certainly has not been ascertained precisely. The increase during the previous twelve months, however, was a very remarkable one. There were several reasons for it. One of them was the failure to produce the needed commodities. Another was the failure, until quite recently, of this Government to encourage, at any rate by words, proper production by those engaged in industry. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) recently appealed for an increase of production, and that appeal was overdue. Last week the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron), in an article in the Australian Worker, urged the workers to be careful not to produce too much and to produce only sufficient for themselves and their families. I should like to know how that doctrine can be interpreted. How can any worker in any industry, unless he be a primary producer, limit his production to the needs of himself and his family? If the proposal of the Postmaster-General is carried into effect, production will be limited generally. I regard that statement as being one of the most serious and damaging statements that have been made by a member of the Australian Government for many years, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had only a few days previously made a plea that was completely opposed to it. It is a blot upon the governmental record of the occupants of the treasury bench.

Whenever a bill is introduced in this House, I make it my business to find out first what is good about it. That may appear to some people to be a peculiar attitude for a member of the Opposition to adopt, but it seems to me to be the only practical one. In relation to this bill, there was one passage in- the Minister’s second-reading speech that caused me some satisfaction. I was about to say it caused me considerable satisfaction, but that would hardly be a correct statement, because my satisfaction is limited by the Minister’s words. At the end of his speech, the honorable gentleman, said -

Although the agreement is primarily intended to make provision for rental housing, it is also provided in the agreement that the houses may lie sold subject to certain conditions, and negotiations with the States to settle the administrative procedure in this connexion are now in train.

That shows that at least there is a realization of the need for some provision for the purchase of houses to be included in ti re Common wealth and State Housing Agreement. We are told that the administrative machinery is about to be established. When the agreement was first discussed in this House, it was pointed out that any housing scheme that did not provide for the possibility of ownership was not a good one. I believe, -is all honorable members on this side of the House believe, that in the ownership of their homes by the people lies the greatest possible security for the future welfare of this country. A person’s own home is a much clearer place to him than is a house that he rents. There is something in the knowledge that a man’s home is a place from which he cannot be turned out which gives him confidence to face the world, and which provides his family with the background of security and stability which is necessary to produce good citizens. Nevertheless, in most government housing schemes to-day the emphasis is on houses to rent, or, in other words, on ownership by governments. In my view, the more home ownership is in government hands the less likely we are to achieve that freedom and splendour of citizenship that makes a free and splendid people. A great point of difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe in the diffusion of ownership throughout the community, whereas honorable gentlemen opposite believe in . the concentration of ownership in government hands.

Mr Lemmon:

-: - Every one of those 17,000 houses is for sale.

Dame ENID LYONS:

– They have not hitherto been offered for sale. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said -

The agreement is primarily intended tomake provision for rental housing.

If the houses are for sale, why did the honorable gentleman make that statement? The honorable gentleman alsosaid -

It is also provided in the agreement that the houses may be sold subject to certain conditions.

When the Minister is replying to thisdebate, I invite him to state the terms and conditions under which private ownership may be achieved. I ask him to furnish to honorable members full details regarding the price and the terms under which the houses are to be made available. The provision in the agreement enabling thehomes to be purchased gives me somehope. I sincerely trust that that principle will be extended and that in laterschemes greater facilities will be provided for people who desire to possess their homes. There can be no real stability in the community unless that is provided for.

Mr Lemmon:

– The moneys sought tobe appropriated under this bill are to be utilized for the purpose of makingfurther advances to the States, under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The agreement sets out the conditions under which houses may be sold.

Dame ENID LYONS:

– That in noway sets aside anything that I have said, nor does it set aside my view that thesuccess of all housing schemes lies in concentration on ownership rather than-, on rental. If the Minister contends that all hone-Table members on the Government side of the House believe in private ownership, all I can say is that their published utterances tend to belie his belief. Not long ago a man whose name I believe is Bulmer, who is the secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union in New South Wales, made a statement tothe effect that he was opposed to theownership of homes because the ownership of a home tended to rob a worker of” his militancy. What a frightful thing it would be to rob a man of his militancy, to give him contentment where previously he knew only discontent, and to give him a feeling of peace and happiness where otherwise he might have led a life of discord and unhappiness ! . The opinion held hy Mr. Bulmer is shared by many honorable members on the other side of the House. It is against that view that [ register my strong protest. For that reason, I applaud the words in the Minister’s speech which I quoted as they give us hope for the future, that under these government housing schemes some people will be able to purchase their own homes.

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

in reply - I wish to reply first to a point raised by the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons). The honorable member has always contended that she endeavours to see the good points in any legislation brought before the Parliament. I remind her that the purpose of this bill is to appropriate an additional £14,000,000 to enable- further advances to be made to the States for the specific purposes set out in the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The honorable member appears to believe that some alteration of the terms of that agreement have been made since it was first negotiated in 1945, that the original agreement did not contain provisions for sales to be made, and that our consciences, having been newly awakened, we have recently inserted such a provision in it. Such a belief is entirely wrong. The agreement which now operates is exactly the same as the agreement made in 1945. Under it, provision has been made for sales to tenants.

Mr Spender:

– With the consent of the Treasurer in writing?

Mr LEMMON:

– No. The States have to obtain the written consent of the Treasurer for sales below capital cost. Under the agreement, sales may he made to tenants only. The States are not permitted to sell houses to people who do not live in them and who desire to become landlords. Sales are restricted to people who wish to become home-owners.

Finance for the purchase of such homes is provided either by the State finance authority, by co-operative building societies or by the Commonwealth Bank. In the case of ex-servicemen, finance is provided by the War Service Homes Commission. Where a tenant has been in. possession of his home for a specified period the total payment of that portion of his rent which is allowed for amortization is rebated to the tenant in reduction of the capital cost of the home. We have done everything (possible to enable tenants to become home-owners. On the 5th June, 1948, the Prime Minister wrote to the State Treasurers indicating his desire that they should proceed with the selling of the homes built under the scheme. Many of the States are now in the process of effecting sales to tenants.

The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) complained of the continued imposition of sales tax on home-building materials and fittings. The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) referred to. the imposition of sale? tax on baths, sinks and builders’ hardware. No sales tax is imposed on baths, sinks, bricks, timber, riles and coppers. Indeed, no sales tax is imposed on. most of the materials, fittings and fixtures used in the construction of a home. It is true that sales tax is imposed on a few items, including nails, but their total cost would not represent more than .3 per cent, of the cost of a house. The sales tax of 10 per cent, on requirements that represent only 3 per cent, of the total cost of a home would amount to only a few pounds. Probably as many nails are used in box factories as in home construction. The sales tax is still imposed on bolt’s and nuts; but how many bolts and nuts are used in the construction of a house? No items which are now subjected to sales tax at the 10 per cent, rate are solely used in the construction of homes. Reference was also, made te the statement, alleged to have been made by fi member of the Government that the Government did not desire to create “ little capitalists “. I have pointed out that the Government is making every endeavour to encourage home ownership. At the commencement of his speech, it was apparent that the Acting Leader of the Opposition had a guilty conscience, for he said that honorable members on this side of the House would probably reply to his criticism by harking back to the past and contrasting what is now being done with what was done when the Opposition parties were in office. The Leader of the Australian Country party criticized the New South Wales Government, which he stated, undertook to build 30,000 homes a year. No promise was ever made by the Premier of New South Wales that the New South Wales Housing Commission would build 30,000 homes. He said that, as the result of the combined efforts of private and. governmental agencies, it was hoped to build 30,000 houses in New South Wales. He has succeeded in having 15,400 houses built. When the governments formed by the Opposition parties were in office, they did not build a single house, notwithstanding their promise to provide £20,000,000 for housing. The Premier of New South Wales fixed a target of 30.000 houses and, at least, succeeded in having more than half that number built. That is a better result than the sorry history of the promises made by honorable members opposite.

I propose now to deal with the increased cost of construction. No one denies that housing costs have increased tremendously. During his secondreading speech, the Acting Leader of the Opposition, said that he had received certain information from the Commonwealth Statistician in. regard to the cost of construction by private individuals and by governments, but that he had to go deeper in order to have those costs dissected so that he could ascertain the position. The honorable gentleman also claimed that the figures were presented by the Commonwealth Statistician in such a way as to hide the facts. In fact, a breakdown of the cost figures furnished by the Commonwealth Statistician was supplied to him by my department. The fullest information has been made available to him and to honorable members generally. The figures are furnished to the press from time to time in monthly housing reports issued by my department. We have never denied that there has been a great increase of costs. The figures published by my department every quarter show the rising trend very clearly. We admit frankly that since 1939 the cost of home building in Australia has increased by approximately 100 per cent. Australia, however, is not the only country in which home-building costs have risen steeply. According to information furnished to the Town Planning Conference, held at Zurich in June last, homebuilding costs in various countries have increased as follows : -

Some of those countries were not directly affected by the war. The Acting Leader of the Opposition complained about the Commonwealth entering the housing field although, as a matter of fact, the Commonwealth’s part is confined to providing the money. He also complained about the activities of the State housing commissions, and said that all houses should be built by private enterprise. Nevertheless, on many occasions, those who are about to build factories ask that a housing settlement be established in the area under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Acting Leader of the Opposition and his supporters cannot have it both ways. He also said that the delay in providing houses was caused by the scarcity of materials. He cited figures relating to some materials, but he did not mention that the production of certain other materials had increased by more than 200 per cent. He mentioned the production of ordinary burnt bricks, but he did not refer to the production of cement bricks and prefabricated canite, which are now being used in the construction of houses. He claimed that the production of tiles was lagging, but the figures he cited referred only to terra-cotta tiles. He omitted to mention that the production of terra-cotta tiles and cement tiles was 70 per cent, higher than before the war. A little later in his speech, he abandoned his theory that the housing shortage was due to the scarcity of materials. He said that the fact that some builders were advertising for carpenters and bricklayers proved that plenty of materials were available, and that the real trouble was due, to a breakdown, of the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. E suggest, that he should make up his mind about, what he. thinks is really responsible for the situation, of which he complains ?’

Mr Duthie:

– Is it true that 19,000 ex-servicemen have qualified under the reconstruction training scheme?

Mi-. LEMMON.- It is quite true. The Acting Leader of the Opposition quoted from a letter written by a partially blind man, who had obtained a permit from the Department of War Organization of Industry to build a house. He had obtained the necessary finance, and had entered’ into a contract with a builder to erect the house, but the builder had defaulted. Well, surely he cannot blame the Commonwealth for that. If the house in question had been a war service home, the War Service Homes Commission would have got another builder to do the job or would have done the work itself. If the man had been blinded or otherwise incapacitated during his war service, he would have been given a first priority for the construction of his home. Apparently, however, this unfortunate man had to depend upon a private builder. If the permit was issued by the Department of War Organization of Industry, it must have been’ not later than 1945. It is now 1948, and the man is still without a home. The story, as told by the Acting Leader of the Opposition, merely demonstrates the failure of private enterprise;

The Acting Leader of the Opposition further complained that housing programmes had not been fully carried out. It is true that certain objectives were set,, and it is good to set a high objective’. lt must be remembered:, however, that the programme provided merely that the building of a certain number of houses should be begun. It was known that there would be considerable delay in the completion of the houses, but the position has improved so much that the completion rate is close to the commencement rate. Last year, 43,635 dwelling units, including 7 68 flats, were completed by Commonwealth and State housing authorities, and by private builders. The Commonwealth was directly concerned with the erection of war service homes only. That is the largest number of dwellings built in Australia in a year since. 1927^ The average number constructed each year during the ten years beforethe Labour Government came into, office was only 27,000. By the. end. of the present financial year, it is expected that between 48,000 and 50,000 more dwellings will have been completed.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition mentioned a number’ of things which, he said, should be done in order to hasten the construction of houses. He said that we should appoint, a business executive to control and direct housing construction. Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, the actual construction of houses is the responsibility of the State housing authorities. In two of the States, the housing authorities function under the direction of Liberal governments. If those governments wish to appoint business executives they are free to do so. Certainly, .the. Commonwealth cannot prevent them from doing so. I suggest that the Acting Leader of the Opposition should discuss the matter with hia colleagues in the Liberal Governments of Victoria and South Australia. He also blamed sales tax as- a factor- delaying the construction of houses, but his argument in that respect has been completely exploded. He touched upon the subject of home ownership, and I have already explained that the agreement provides that the occupants of houses constructed under the agreement may purchase them if they desire to do so. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has encouraged the State housing- authorities to sell the houses that, are built under the agreement.

Slum clearance was the next subject discussed by the Acting Leader of the Opposition. As I have already mentioned, he also complained of the scarcity of building tradesmen. Well, does he suggest that tradesmen, who might be employed on the construction of new houses, should be used to pull down houses already existing? In my opinion, this is not the time to undertake slum clearance. The policy of any government interested in providing, homes for the people should be to use all available labour find material for the construction of new dwellings, so that the young people who now have to live in slums may be able to move into other areas as soon as possible. The time for slum clearance is not when there is a general scarcity of houses, but when there is a reserve of labour and materials for which an outlet is sought. The Government is determined that never again will people go without homes because of a shortage of money. The only thing that limits our ability to provide homes is the physical capacity te build them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Authority to borrow £14,000,000).

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- This clause authorizes the raising of £14,000,000 for making advances to the States for the purposes of housing. Can the Minister say whether this is regarded as merely an instalment, and whether we may expect that further amounts will be raised from time to time for the same purpose? The shortage of homes is so great that the expenditure of £14,000,000 will hardly touch the fringe of the problem.

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

– The amount of £14,000,000 was approved by the National Works Council in the belief that the various housing authorities would not be able to expend more this year. Up to June last, a total of £31,115,000 had been made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. More money will be made available from time to time in order to finance such building as the council believes that the housing authorities are able to accomplish.

Sitting suspended from ti to S p.m..

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Application of moneys).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I direct attention to the Second Schedule to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which relates to the manner of ascertaining losses incurred by a State in or in connexion with the administration of housing projects. Paragraph 1 of the schedule reads -

As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Treasurer of the State shall supply to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth a statement showing the amount of any lossesincurred by the State during the financial year in respect of its housing projects. The following provisions shall apply for the purpose of preparing any such statement.

I do not propose to go into the details, but the statement which is referred to in paragraph. 1 is divided into two parts, one of which is headed “ Receipts “ and the other “ Payments “. The return should show all the revenues received in respect of a housing project, and all payments, so that the net balance may be indicated. If a State shows a loss, a certain obligation devolves upon the. Commonwealth. I understand that the Parliament has not been informed at any time of the contents of those returns from the States. I should like the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) to inform me, first, whether the States have submitted the returns in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act; secondly, what is the purport of those, statements, so that honorable members may know whether there have been profits or losses; and thirdly, whether the Minister has any objection to laying the statements on the table.

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

.- The statements to which the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has referred have been made available to the Commonwealth by the Treasurers of the respective States. Speaking from memory, I believe that last year, most of the States showed a small credit, but New South Wales has a small debit. When we determine the rent, we allow a small percentage for tenancies which may not be filled. At present, because of the extraordinary demand for houses, all the tenancies are promptly filled. An allowance is also made for depreciation. As nearly all of the houses are newly constructed, the portion of the rent which is earmarked for depreciation is really accruing, and, therefore, is becoming a credit. A few years hence, the houses will begin to deteriorate and those credits will be absorbed in costs of maintenance. If a person purchases the house which he is occupying, the credits which will accrue will be offset against the capital cost of the home. The State Treasurers have submitted their returns for this year in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, but the Commonwealth is challenging certain items which they had included as capital expenditure on the ground that they are excessive. When the position has been clarified, I shall make the returns available to honorable members .who are interested in them.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- As this clause deals with the application of moneys for housing purposes, I submit that honorable members will be in order in suggesting ways in which the money may be more wisely spent or distributed than those which the Government proposes. I believe that the Government, in expending approximately £2,000,000 on the construction of administrative offices in Canberra, is utilizing valuable labour and material which can be employed to better advantage in building houses. The Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) praised his department, and claimed that a record number of houses was built in 1947-48. He overlooked the fact that the building programme i9 only keeping pace with the number of homes which the Commonwealth Housing Commission regards as the normal requirements of Australia, mid is not overtaking the leeway of 300,000 homes. The Minister stated, in effect, that the Government does not propose to use labour to pull down homes for the purposes of slum clearance. The corollary to that statement is that the Government should not use valuable labour on public works when the manpower and materials are urgently required for housing the people. I do not deny that the Government is assisting in the construction of many homes, but private enterprise is doing even better. Doubtless the Minister will reply that the materials required for the administrative offices are different from those required for homes. In some respects, such a statement will be correct, but the honorable gentleman will not bo able to convince any person that bricks, timber and skilled labour which will be used in building the administrative offices could not be better employed in the construction of homes for the people. We have obtained artisans from the United Kingdom to accelerate the Government’s building programme, but some of them are employed in patching Parliament House. To-day, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) asked the Minister for Works and Housing to inform him when the new Parliament House would be built.

Mr Conelan:

– That is not true.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member asked a question about the new Parliament House.

Mr Conelan:

– That is different. The honorable member for Balaclava should tell the truth.

Mr WHITE:

– What was the purport of the honorable member’s question?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order!

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member for Griffith is not sure of what he said.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order! The Chair will not permit the honorable member for Griffith to interject in order to reply to the honorable member for Balaclava. Incidentally, the remarks of the honorable member for Balaclava are somewhat wide of the clause.

Mr WHITE:

– I am emphasizing that the Government should practise what it preaches. It should not waste labour, imported and local, on the construction of administrative offices when the housing programme is of greater importance. Who will say that the demands of any department are of greater importance than the need to provide shelter for people without homes? I agree that departments in Canberra should be properly accommodated, but the Government should not construct administrative offices until the leeway in housing has been overtaken.

I now wish to make some practical suggestions to the Minister. I know that he is enthusiastic, and if he will adopt my proposals, the money to which this bill relates will be spent to greater advantage. Recently, I directed the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs to the shortage of zinc oxide which is required for the manufacture of paint and of spelter for .galvanizing iron. Paint and galvanized iron are in short supply because substantial quantities are being exported. I also asked a question about the shortage of electrical fittings, large quantities of which are being exported. Australia makes sufficient electrical fittings to meet the needs of the local market, but because of large exports, the local demand is not being satisfied and houses cannot be completed. The Minister has also stated that sales tax has been removed from practically every item used in the building trade. I consider that all items required in the building trade should be exempt from sales tax. Thi9 impost is still applied, I understand, to certain lines of builders’ hardware, and is a factor in preventing the reduction of building costs. The Minister should also explore the possibility qf permitting the importation under customs by-law of goods required in the building trade. Oregon is an instance. In South Australia, there is a great demand for that timber which is not, in a sence, competitive with our native timbers. The entry of baths and sinks should also be permitted under customs by-law, because the shortage of such fittings is preventing the completion of many houses. The importation of such fittings can be closely watched so that it will not injure Australian industries. The Governmentshould also take a strong stand against the Building Workers Industrial Union. The Communist secretary of that organization has visited joinery shops in Melbourne and has scattered the .skilled staffs. The organization unsuccessfully submitted certain claims to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, .and to a Commonwealth conciliation commissioner, but disrupters and saboteurs in the building trade went to factories-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member is not entitled to discuss that subject.

Mr WHITE:

– The Government must deal with that industrial problem, and ensure that thousands of ex-servicemen, who are awaiting training as plumbers, carpenters and bricklayers under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, receive their instruction and obtain employment in industry as quickly as possible. Of course, the Communists are delighted when many people have no homes. Discontented people - and homeless people are often discontented - suit the ideology of those disrupters. 1 strongly advise the Minister to retard the activity on public works in order that it may not interfer with the housing programme. If I misrepresented the honorable member for Griffith, when 1 stated that he wanted the new Parliament House built-

Ma-. Conelan.. - The honorable member .misrepresented me.

Mr WHITE:

– I hope that the new Parliament House will be forgotten until the leeway in housing has been overtaken.. The provision of homes for the people must be the first consideration. The amount of £14,000,000, which this bill will make available to the States, should be expended wholly on the construction of homes, .and should- not be wasted on other projects. The PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) has urged workers not to over-produce-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order !

Mr WHITE:

– Such advocacy should not be tolerated. I urge the Minister to heed the suggestions which members of the Opposition have advanced during this debate because their adoption would help the Government to obtain greater production.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

.- The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) attempted to mislead the House about a question which I asked this afternoon, and I desire to correct any wrong impression which he may have created. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I asked the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) whether he would submit to Cabinet a proposal to conduct a competition for plans for the new Parliament House. According to information which I have received from the architects of the Department of Works and Housing, the preparation of the plans for the building will occupy four, or five years. The honorable member for Balaclava attempted to mislead honorable members when he stated that I advocated the erection of. the new Parliament House, before the bousing leeway had been overtaken. The purpose of this bill, is to authorize the raising of money to enable the States to proceed with their housing programmes; but the honorable member has. attempted to engage in political propaganda in connexion with the subject. Instead of being. satisfied. to give his wholehearted support to the proposal, he resurrected the old bogy of. communism, and endeavoured to belittle the excellent record of the Government in housing, the people. I recall that before the Labour Government took office in 1941-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member is not entitled to relate past history on this clause.

Mi-. CONELAN.- I know that any reference to the failure of anti-Labour governments in the past to provide adequate housing for the people is most disconcerting to honorable members opposite. However, the people of Australia remember how anti-Labour governments failed to provide employment during the financial and economic depression of the 1930’s, when an abundance of labour and materials was available for housing.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order! The honorable member is not in order in referring to the housing situation years ago.

Mr CONELAN:

– Honorable members opposite should be prepared to support the bill enthusiastically, and should not attempt to make political capital out of it. The Public “Works Committee investigates proposals for new public works. and rnakes recommendations thereon. It then becomes the responsibility of the Minister to determine whether man-power and materials are available for such works. The Public Works Committee approved proposals for certain public works three or four years ago, but I am certain that they will not be commenced until man-power and materials are available for them without disturbing the housing programme. I commend -the bill, and congratulate the Go vernment on. its excellent work in respect of housing during the last few years.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I should not’ have spoken but for the fact that- the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) has attempted to mislead the people of Australia about the proposals contained in the bill. We are considering clause 3, which provides -

Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for making advances to the States for the purposes of housing, in pursuance of the agreement the execution of which is authorized by the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1945.

I protest against the limitation contained in the_ clause which provides that the money must be used only through State authorities. It is the policy of the Australian Country party to preserve the Australian way of life and not to turn to the way of life recommended by certain foreign countries.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! The honorable member may not develop that line of argument-

Mr ABBOTT:

– I do not intend to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! Neither may the honorable member speak when the Chair is stating the procedure to be followed in considering the clause. Clearly the money to be borrowed is to be allocated for the purpose of. implementing the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The only debate that the Chair will allow on the clause will be on subjects that impinge upon the general housing programme. The Chair will not allow other matters to be raised.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Well, I refer to A bout Housing,, a booklet “ issued under the authority of the honorable Nelson Lemmon, M.P., Minister for Works and Housiug I presume it was also issued with his approval. The limitation proposed in the clause is an imposition on the people. We have been told by the Minister for Works and Housing that the houses built under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement will be sold to the people who want to buy them. The booklet, under the heading, “ State Government Housing Schemes “, states -

Interest is at the rate of 4i per cent, per annum … In respect of applications for nuance to erect dwellings, a charge of £3 3s. is made by the Commission for inspection and valuation of land and examination of plans and specifications, fi ls. is charged on applications to purchase existing dwellings.

There are other restrictions that make it an expensive business to build or buy a house under State government schemes. But I turn to page 40 of the booklet, where I find, under the heading, “ Trading Banks “-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! I ask the honorable member to confine himself to the parts relating to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am criticizing the limitations that are imposed upon people by confining the distribution of the money to be raided under this legislation to the States instead of also making it available- to the private banks that are so admiringly referred to by the Minister for Works and Housing in the booklet issued under his authority.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member may not evade my ruling, which is that, on this clause, references may be made only to such’ matters as impinge upon the general housing problem and the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I cannot allow a dissertation on private banks or any other banks.

Mr ABBOTT:

– May I quote from this booklet?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Only insofar as it deals with the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I imagined that the allocation of finance for the building of the houses envisaged under the agreement would be a matter to which I should be in order in referring. This official booklet says -

Incidental expenses involved in acquiring a home are kept at the minimum by trading bank methods.

The .DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- If the honorable member persists in that line of argument, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I turn to a matter adequately dealt with earlier by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White). Under the Commonwealth and

State Housing Agreement Act 1945, housing was made a first priority. I hope .1 am not wrong in suggesting that it is commonly desired that the homeless shall be housed instead of being compelled to live iri shack; at Hargrave Park, near Warwick Farm, under conditions that were scathingly referred to b,y a stipendiary magistrate in Sydney as a breeding ground for crime.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable gentleman has been asked repeatedly to keep to the clause. It is clear that he is trying to make a second-reading speech that he ought to have made when he had the opportunity to do so.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Not at all !

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member must not. interrupt when the Chair is stating its point of view. I have already stated the matters that may be discussed on this clause. They do not include the Hargrave Park housing settlement or any other temporary housing scheme of the State?.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 194& cannot be implemented if the resources without which houses cannot be built are filched by the Commonwealth Government and diverted to other purposes. I refer particularly to the question asked to-day by the honorable member for Griffith, in which he referred to the erection of a new Parliament House in place of the very large Parliament House that we already have in Canberra. The huge programme in Canberra for the building of government offices must seriously interfere with the housing programme. The figures quoted by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) in the debate on the second reading show how badly the housing programme is being interfered with. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, said that in three years from 1947 onwards the Government of New .South Wales would build 90,000 houses.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member may not pursue that line of argument. That is a matter that should have been raised in the debate on the second reading.

Mr ABBOTT:

– The point I make is that the official building programme in Canberra and other places is interfering with the housing programme. Within 200 yards of this building huge offices are being erected at the cost of more than £1,000,000. No one can tell me that that is not interfering with the housing programme.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! I shall not warn the honorable gentleman again.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am sorry that I am not allowed to state the people’s case.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that remark and apologize.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I withdraw and a pologize.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) was pathetic in his efforts to criticize the Government for its decision to distribute to the State governments the money to be raised under this bill. He and other honorable gentlement opposite have always impressed upon us the need to decentralize power. By giving the State governments full authority over the spending of their respective shares of the £14,000,000 the Australian Government is ensuring that decentralization of authority. Honorable gentlemen opposite have no monopoly of interest in the housing of Australia’s homeless people. We are at least as sincere in our desire to see people properly housed as they are. The increasing marriage rate is constantly creating a greater demand for homes. We are still trying to catch up the lag created before and during the war. It is a colossal task that will test our ingenuity and our ability to co-operate with both private enterprise and State housing authorities.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member must also keep to the clause. He is tending to get wide of it. I have repeatedly pointed out that the clause clearly and solely relates to the implementation of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I have allowed some latitude, but I do not intend to allow any more. The Chair will be strict in confining honorable members to a discussion of the clause.

Mr DUTHIE:

– It is difficult to keep within the clause. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) said that too much money was being expended on public works. I assure him that the Government of Tasmania is endeavouring to keep a proper balance between public works and the housing of the people. We need hospitals.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! This clause has nothing to do with public works. The honorable member must confine himself to the clause.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Many matters are incidental to housing, such as the. encouragement of the production of commodities that are used in housing, such as cement.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- Order ! The honorable member may not deal with that subject.

Mr Hamilton:

– Keep it foranother day.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I shall sit down and keep it for another day.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I propose to pursue my remarks about the application of the moneys to be borrowed. The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which is contained in the schedule to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1945, provides -

Each State shall ensure that adequate legislation exists in the State to enable it at all times to control throughout the State -

rental housing projects under this Agreement;

slum clearance;and

town planning.

This afternoon the Minister for Works and Housing denied that he was opposed to slum clearance. The agreement relates to slum clearance and the erection of houses in the areas cleared. It seemed to me an extraordinary proposition for the Minister to say that it was the policy of this Government to condemn people to live under subnormal conditions in subnormal houses fit only for animals. The Minister said that the Government would not waste time in pulling the houses down and erecting new buildings onthe sites.

Mr Conelan:

– The honorable member should be called to order.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I submit that I am perfectly in order in mentioning that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The honorable member is apparently attempting to reply to something that the Minister said in a previous debate. That is out of order. The Minister has not spoken on that line in the committee stages of this bill so the honorable member has nothing to reply to. Secondly, the honorable member is getting wide of the clause. The Chair has ruled that clause 3 deals only with the appropriation of moneys raised. Whilst the limits are narrow, they must be observed.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Clause 3 provides-

Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for making advances to the States for the purposes of housing in pursuance of the agreement the execution of which is authorized by the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1.945.

The relevant section of the agreement reads -

Each State shall ensure that adequate legislation exists in the State to enable it at all times to control throughout the State -

rental housing projects under this Agreement;

slum clearance; and

town planning.

As there has : not been any slum clearance policy in the States, I contend that the States are not carrying out the agreement between the Commonwealth and the Stateswhich was made in 1945, and ratified in Act 44 of 1945.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The Chair again points out that clause 3 deals merely with the appropriation of moneys raised.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Although that is perfectly correct the advances have tobe made for the purpose of housing, in pursuance of the agreement, the execution of which is authorized by the Commonwealth and State.Housing Agreement Act.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- The honorable member makes a very generous concession to the Chair, which is appreciated, but the simple fact remains that under this clause he cannot deal with the whole of that act.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am only dealing with clause 3.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- But that clause deals only with the appropriation of moneys.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I feel that there is a misunderstanding between the Chair and me. I am referring to clause 3–

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- But the Chair happens to be in charge of the committee, not the honorable member. If the honorable member does not comply with the ruling of the Chair, the Chair will be forced to invoke Standing Order 276, with which the honorable member is familiar. If the honorable member does not heed this warning he must bear the consequences.

Mr ABBOTT:

– To the degree that the agreement is being carried out, and houses are built, and slums cleared, 1 support the bill fully.

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

– On the point raised by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. . White) in regard to the lifting of duty on certain articles the position is that about six weeks ago I wrote to all State Ministers for Housing, pointing out that if they as Ministers for the authority, or if any firm desired to submit to the Commonwealth a request for the importing of any article for the purpose of constructing houses, and would give a firm order, or indicate a firm order, the Commonwealth would be prepared towaive duty on those articles. Some of the States have already placed orders for specific items, and others have indicated that they intend to doso. That is for all itemsother than oregon timber.

The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) endeavoured to point out that this clause limits the amount to £14,000,000. Although that is correct.. I endeavoured to point out to the committee, prior to the supension of the sitting, that £14,000,000 is only this year’s instalment. The fact is that that is the amount which the National Works Council considered it would be physically possible to spend on housing. Up to

June last we had expended £31,000,000; this year we propose to vote £14,000,000 ; and next year, when the National Works Council meets, that body may consider that the capacity to build more houses has improved, and £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 may be voted. The amount that the honorable member for New England referred to is simply for this year.

The next point raised by the honorable member for New England - and I believe that he deliberately misrepresented it to me–

Mr Abbott:

– I ask for the withdrawal of the word “deliberately”. That is offensive to me.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- It is not unparliamentary, so far as the Chair is concerned.

Mr LEMMON:

– Under the act, before any of this £14,000,000 can be expended on housing, slum clearance, or town planning, the States must enact specific legislation. Tie honorable member for New England says that thisGovernment compels people to live in slums.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN.- I endeavoured to prevent the honorable member referring to that matter, without being unduly harsh. The Chair has ruled that clause 3 refers only to the appropriation of the money. The Minister should keep within the limits of that ruling.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2901

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL (No. 2) 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 10th September (vide page 398), on motion by Mr. Johnson -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- The purpose of this bill is to provide for the representation of the Australian Capital Territory in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I support the bill, as I am sure everyhonorable member in this House does, because it is quite clearly a forward step. Although, in the broadest terms, the bill provides for a member in this Parliament to represent the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, thatmember will have only power to vote in this Parliament on such matters as affect the Australian Capital Territory. This bill draws attention to the administrationof the Australian Capital Territory, and to the need, in this community, for representation not only in this Parliament, but also in the process of local government in this area. I take it that I will be in order if I deal with the question along those lines. I do not wish to attack the Government, the Minister, or the administration on purely political or parochial lines, so far as this measure is concerned. A start has been made with the establishment of a university in Canberra, some Commonwealth departments have been transferred here, and in many ways the Government has shown a determination to make this city a worthy capital, and to develop it upon the lines that it should be developed, if it is to fulfil its proper function as the capital of this country. This bill will give the citizens of Canberra a member, with, asI say; certain restricted powers to deal with matters which directly concernCanberra. Perhaps one should not say “ citizens “ when speaking about the people of Canberra, because that term implies certain responsibilities and certain opportunities, which are completely lacking to the people of this community. Even after the passing of this bill, and the provision of a member, it is just as well to remind ourselves that the people of Canberra will still be classed with lunatics,criminals, children, aborigines, and of course, aliens, as people without an effective “voice in the national affairs of this country, and people without a say intheir own process of self-government. This bill provides, somewhat belatedly, a member for the Australian Capital Territory. I say “ belatedly” because, if we compare the situation of the people here with that of those in the Northern Territory, where there is only approximately half the population of Canberra, we find that there has been a member for the Northern Territory for many years, and also a measure of local self-government for some few years. Of course no one pretends that in Canberra, where there are only 16,000 people, the representative should have the same voice in national affairs as,, for example, the representative of an area such as many of us represent, where we have up to 80,000 or 90,000 electors. The point is that not only will the member foi” Canberra have no voice or vote, except on local matters, but also the people who live here will have no form of local government whatsoever in which they can take part.

Mr Blain:

– There is an advisory council.

Mr GULLETT:

– In the Northern Territory there is a form of legislative council which, under certain circumstances, has powers to act and do certain things for the citizens of that community. In New Guinea, even before the war, there was a similar council, and the Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) has told us that soon there will be another council in New Guinea, with certain powers to act. The Minister for External Territories told us with great pride, that the natives of New Guinea are to have a voice in their local self-government. Those who know anything about the natives of New Guinea will realize that they do not want a voice in their own self-government, that they are not capable of expressing themselves in that way, and that no possible benefit can accrue to them from having such a voice. In respect of New Guinea and this much-flaunted native question

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the matter that is being debated.

Mr GULLETT:

– I want to draw a comparison. I say that that statement was made by the Minister for External Territories to impress that international “wind-shop”, the United Nations. It would have been much more to the point, if instead of ensuring that we had a measure of democracy among people who were not developed to use it, had we seen to it earlier that people here, in a white Australian community, had the means of expressing themselves and of saying how their local affairs should be conducted. The citizens have no effective voice in the control of the Australian Capital Territory. As the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has pointed out, there is an Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. It consists of seven members, four of whom are nominated by the Government, ft is curious that that should be so under m Labour government, because I have heard honorable members opposite complain about the nominated membership of certain legislative councils in this country. However, the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council has four nominated members and three elected mein hers, which means that the nominated members are in the majority. Even if the council decides to advise that a certain course of action be taken, there is no authority to whom ii can give that advice which is bound to act upon it. I agree that tinMinister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) receives its recommendations, but he is not bound to take the faintest notice of them.

It may be said that, despite this disadvantage, the people of Canberra generally, are fairly well off, contented and happy. I admit that the Government can point to many advantages that they enjoy. For example, there is a good water supply, sewerage system and electricity service and a high level of employment. In short, Canberra is a country town with the amenities of a city. However, the fact that the people of Canberra are well treated does not. compensate for the fact that they have no voice in the control of their affairs. Whatever this community may be at the present time, no one can pretend that it is a democracy. It may be administered benevolently, but the fundamental rights of its people are not recognized. The organization is antidemocratic.

The Australian Capital Territory is a curious development in this country. It is a little area of socialist practice in the midst of an otherwise more or less democratic land, where we pay, at any rate, lip-service to the principles of the freedom, responsibilities and rights of the individual and of free enterprise. It is the happy hunting ground of planners. There is no interference -with those people in government positions who plan the life and the development of the community. They can tell the people exactly what they shall do and how they shall behave, and no one can effectively contradict them. For example, tradesmen in Canberra cannot put lettering on their shop windows unless it conforms to the size and the type stipulated by regulations promulgated by the appropriate departmental official. I notice that several honorable members are looking rather surprised, and no doubt they would regard that as most extraordinary in their own districts. If -the tenant of a government house, and nearly everybody in Canberra lives in a government house, wishes to grow a hedge 5 feet high, he is not allowed to do so. His hedge is cut for him, and he is not allowed to cut it himself, even though he wishes to do so, or to allow it to grow to the height that he desires. If a community group in Canberra wishes to erect a public hall, it cannot do so unless it receives departmental approval. I am reliably informed, and the facts seem to confirm my information, that departmental approval is never forthcoming for an operation of that kind. Some of the trade unions add to the difficulties by taking a stand against any form of community effort in Canberra. I am given to understand that when people in one of the new suburbs wanted to dig holes and plant their own trees in the streets, they were not allowed to do so because a trade union said that that work was usually done by its members. I could refer to other ways in which officials are allowed to interfere with the lives of ordinary individuals.

Not only has officialdom practically unlimited powers here, and not only have the citizens practically no powers at all, but the great majority of the residents are not allowed even to criticize the system. The great majority of the people are Commonwealth public servants or people who are employed by the Commonwealth, directly or indirectly. Until quite recently, Commonwealth public servants were unable to comment on any matter of public interest. That rule has nowbeen relaxed to some degree in that they are now allowed to comment on purely local matters. I put it to the House that the great majority of people here, who have almost no civic rights, have not organized protests and forced the Government to take some action to remedy that situation because, being public servants and living in government houses, and being dependent upon government tolerance and approval for almost everything that they do, they are not in a position to protest against the regime.

I am glad to see that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) is present in the chamber. 1. arn interested to see that the honorable gentleman is smiling in a somewhat disbelieving and supercilious manner. It would be much better if, instead of saying one thing to the people of Canberra in his broadcasts and remaining silent in the House-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Henty must con-: fine himself to the bill. He may not discuss individual members of the Parliament.

Mr GULLETT:

– I should not have referred to the honorable gentleman if 1 had not beard it mooted-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honorable gentleman attempts to evade my ruling I shall ask him to resume his seat. I shall not warn him a second time.

Mr GULLETT:

– In this Territory, the planners and the socialist organizers are supreme. The Government owns the land, controls the building of almost every house, controls the lease, directly or indirectly, of every shop, and exercises control over all business premises in one way or another. Every undertaking in Canberra operates by virtue of government, tolerance and approval. That is. 1 suggest, the perfect socialist set-up. It is, in effect, an experiment in socialism. It will be of interest, therefore, to see what conditions obtain in a state of affairs that is so much favoured by the planners. In Canberra, the cost of living is higher than in any town of a comparable size in the eastern States.

Mr Conelan:

– “What has this got, to do with the bill?

Mr GULLETT:

– It has a great deal in do with the bill, as every honorable member understands, except the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan > When the honorable gentleman raises his voice-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must confine himself to the bill.

Mr GULLETT:

– The Minister for the Interior spends a great deal of time in Canberra and continually receives deputations from residents. Therefore he must be aware of local conditions. I do not want to discuss the prices of peas, potatoes, clothing and furniture in detail. The fact is that they are all much higher in price than in other cities and towns of comparable size. The quality of goods sold in Canberra also is very poor. If the Minister doubts that, he need only read, in a recent issue of the Canberra Times, a reported statement by certain Canberra housewives who complained most bitterly about the conditions which they have to suffer. Also, anybody who doubts the disabilities of shoppers in Canberra need only read the Mansard report of the speech made by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), who told a harrowing tale about his experiences when he took a little string bag to the shops and was kept waiting for hours to buy indifferent goods, for which he was charged most outrageous prices. That may amuse honorable members opposite, but it is a tragic reality to the residents of Canberra.

Mr Beazley:

– They were not socialist organizers who sold the goods.

Mr GULLETT:

– I arn rather glad that the honorable member raised that point. Of course they are not socialist organizers. But in this community, the Government has set itself up to regulate everything. It built the shops, it built the houses, and it controls the leases. What has been the result? It has caused inconvenience, exploitation, and a measure of petty monopoly to the disadvantage of those who have to live in the territory. The people of Canberra are at the mercy of the Government and government officials, against whose acts they have no chance of securing redress. What p needed’ in this community, allied to the theories of the planners, is plain horsesense, which can be provided only by local self-governing bodies of the kind with which every honorable member is familiar in his own electorate. Representation of that kind is denied to the people, although it is one of their greatest needs.

I refer now to the Burley Griffin plan, which, of course, is the foundation of Canberra. It is a beautiful plan. Let us all admit that at once.

Mr Blain:

– I cannot agree with the honorable member.

Mr GULLETT:

– I am not an engineer, but the plan appeals to me. Although I like it, I say that it is not Holy Writ, but it is being treated as Holy Writ by the present administration. In many respects it is already out of date. We have only to look at the roads here,- which were built in the good old spacious days when it was thought that it would be very nice for us all to drive about in a leisurely fashion in carriages. Those roads are incapable of coping even with the traffic in Canberra to-day. That is only one aspect of the Canberra plan which is out of date. In this city, we have discarded what is regarded as’ a normal feature of any growing town - the main street. The Burley Griffin plan provides for shopping centres. The failure of the Government to alter that part of the plan has caused the greatest possible inconvenience to people who live here. Not for nothing do most towns have a main street. A main street is very convenient ; it is something around which a centre develops. Many people live long distances from the shopping centres in Canberra, and there are no intermediate shops. The plan should be altered so that shops could’ he spread throughout the industrial and residential areas. Housing limitations in Canberra are unduly severe. It is fitting that there should be restrictions on the types’ of houses that may be built in this area where the Government always has the final word, but unfortunately the policy of this Government seems to be to build an unlimited number of very small houses. I appreciate the difficulties created by shortages of labour and materials, and T realize that no housing programme- could be. perfect: However, tha Government has misguidedly decided, in favour of the construction of very small semi-permanent houses. It would be better to build a number of large, blocks, of temporary flats. The houses that are being built are incapable of accommodating, large families. Because of this general policy, 1 believe that, five or ten years hence, a very serious state of affairs will arise throughout Australia. Thousands of tiny homes that are. now being- erected will be inadequate for the. needs of families with more than two or three children. Canberra will suffer particularly severely from the effect of this short-sighted policy. If large blocks of temporary flats were erected, as- 1 suggest, young married couples could live in them for a few years and, as their families grew, they could move out to large, and. comfortable bouses.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! [ have allowed the honorable member considerable latitude. He should now return to the subject of the bill and state his opinions about that.

Mr GULLETT:

– I have been doing my best, sir, but I bow to your ruling. In conclusion, I shall refer briefly to the general design of Canberra.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Has the honorable member any ideas about the design of the bill?

Mr GULLETT:

– Yes, I have, sir. The bill is merely a machinery measure, about which it would be possible to say nothing at all, but I take the line, which r indicated at the beginning of my speech, that the people of this- city suffer from the lack of adequate representation. I am trying to give it to them in some measure. Therefore, my remarks might reasonably be considered to apply to the bill. However, I shall accept your opinion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My final comment is that the provision of representation in this House for residents of the Australian Capital Territory should be supplemented by some adequate form of local self-government. The citizens of Canberra should have some effective instrumentality of their own election, not merely some body which may give advice to some other authority which may, or may not, take the advice which is tendered to it. They should he provided with some means of. putting their own wishes into practice. That is a fundamental need of any community, and it should be gratified, in Canberra without further delay.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden

.- The speech by Mr. Ulrich. Ellis, to which the House has just listened, is full of misstatements.

Mr Blain:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro has referred to a speech by Mr. Ulrich Ellis. There is no person of that- name in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Chair did not hear any name mentioned-. There is no .point of order.

Mr FRASER:

– In the speech there were so many mistakes that- it would not he possible for me to reply to all of them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not think that the honorable member should attempt to do so.

Mr FRASER:

– I shall not attempt that impossible task. Before ‘ proceeding to deal with the principles laid down in the bill, I should like to correct one or two of the. most serious misstatements made by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) in the speech which he has just read to the House. As an illustration of the tyranny under which the people of the National Capital suffer, the honorable member said, for example, that the people are not even allowed the freedom to cut their own. hedges. He invited the House to believe that in this city,, in which I am glad to know he has taken up residence, a person cannot even let his hedge grow to the height he likes, and that a resident is not allowed to cut it himself hut must have it cut by some government official at the prescribed height of 5 feet. That is typical of many false statements about the National Capital that have been repeated for many years) which are calculated to deceive a great many -people as to living conditions in Canberra. In all that sort of nonsense there is no truth whatever. Any resident of this capital city may cut his own hedge if he likes, and at the height he likes. This is just one of those silly stories that the honorable member for Henty, having allowed himself to be gulled into believing, now seeks to persuade the House is true. If a resident of this city wishes the Government to cut bis hedge, officials of the Parks and Gardens Section of the Department of the Interior will cut it, and at the standard height. If a resident wishes to cut his own hedge, he has as much freedom to do so in Canberra as he would have were he residing in any other city or town in Australia. I shall waste no more time in refuting the misstatements made by the deceived honorable member for Henty.

It has been said that the Australian Capital Territory has not one representative but 74 representatives, since every member of the House of Representatives has an interest in the National Capital. Indeed, many citizens of this city have opposed moves to have a member for the Australian Capital Territory elected on the very ground that if one member were elected by the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and made responsible for the representation of this city, its people would lose because they would no longer have the interest of every other member of the House. I do not believe that that is true. I believe that, the election of a member for the Australian Capital Territory will confer many benefits on the people of this city and will enable all honorable members who have an interest in it to gain a better understanding of the problems that its people face and how they should be attacked. For many years, those who sought to obtain the election of a member for the Australian Capital Territory had also to contend against the argument that if the residents of the Australian Capital Territory were granted representation in the National Parliament they would have to pay higher direct taxes. In the past, when State taxation was very much heavier than federal taxation - before uniform income tax was introduced - the residents of the National Capital enjoyed a substantial monetary advantage. Many of them feared that if they obtained the right of representation they would have to accept the obligation of paying higher taxes. That was one of the current attitudes on the part of the people of Canberra themselves which held back the representation of the Australian Capital Territory in this Parliament. With the introduction of uniform income tax the force of that argument was swept away. For many years I have been associated with the citizens’ rights movement in the National Capital. For a long time that movement asked for the election of a member to represent the Australian Capital Territory with full voting rights, and was not prepared to accept anything less than that; but repeated deputations to successive Ministers for the Interior and Prime Ministers proved to the citizens of Canberra that no government, either of the party which is at present in power-, or of the parties which are at present in Opposition, was, in. the then state of development of Canberra, prepared to give the Australian Capital’ Territory representation by a member with full voting rights. While it is argued, and quite properly, that it is undemocratic that 15,000 residents of Canberra should be without a direct voice or vote in the National Parliament, it would be, it is contended, even more undemocratic that 15,000 people in this city should exercise equal voting rights with the 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000 electors who comprise the average electorates in the existing Parliament. The opportunity of the residents of the Australian Capital Territory to obtain the election of a member came with the movement to increase the size of this National Parliament. It is only since legislation was introduced to increase the size of the National Parliament by reducing the size of the electorates on the mainland to an average number of 40,000 voters, and the Tasmanian electorates to an average number of 30,000 voters, that the effort to obtain a member for the Australian Capital Territory has been finally crowned with success. The residents of Canberra, as represented in the citizens’ rights league, have accepted the view that for the present, and until the population of the Australian Capital Territory increases, the voting power of that member should be limited to matters directly affecting the Australian Capital Territory. The point I wish to make, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind, is that, whilst it may be true that it. would be undemocratic at present to give the Australian Capital Territory a member with full voting rights, it would also be very undemocratic if full voting rights were not given to the members for the Australian Capital Territory immediately this territory obtained a number et voters equal to one more than one-half nf the average electoral quota. The number of names on the electoral roll for the Australian Capital Territory is at present growing at the rate of from 1,000 to 1,200 a year. Because the present Government believes in the National Capital and has with tremendous energy planned to develop this city, the population of Canberra will grew’ even more rapidly next year. I submit that the Australian Capital Territory should automatically be granted a member with full voting rights immediately its electoral population is one more than one-half of the minimum electoral quota. I ; -An.. existing electoral laws, when in any State, after the number of quotas has been arranged and the number of members for that State has been fixed, there remains one over one-half of the quota of that State, it is given an extra member. So, the principle is clearly established, and should not be forgotten when we are providing for representation of the Australian Capital Territory, that one over one-half of a quota should give the member for this Territory full voting rights in this chamber. I believe that by the 1952 elections the member for the Australian Capital Territory will be able to claim full voting power in this chamber. In the meantime, it is exceedingly important that steps should be taken to give to the people of Canberra some self-governing’ authority. It is true that there are very considerable and practical difficulties in the way of doing so because this city is financed partly from the Commonwealth Treasury. The funds which are expended in Canberra far exceed those contributed by its citizens alone. Those funds come largely from the general revenues of the Commonwealth. While that continues, it is obvious that the Commonwealth itself must have a substantial say in the management of Canberra. However, the revenues of this city are growing rapidly.

The benefits of the leasehold system which has operated in Canberra since its foundation, will be appreciated more as the years go by. Already Canberra leases are yielding substantial revenue for the Government. The population of Canberra is growing, and its people are contributing a large annual sum in direct taxes because they are paying into the Commonwealth Treasury the full total of Commonwealth and State tax. I believe that an attempt should be made to establish a Canberra budget, and to provide in that budget money for a local municipal council to manage the affairs of this city. That council should be elected by the Canberra people, and should have the right to control the revenue contributed by the people of this city.

Canberra is an interesting example of both the advantages and disadvantages of official planning in the absence of compensating democratic electoral rights. The honorable member for Henty went to great lengths to show the disadvantages of life in this city, but as I have said, many of his illustrations were entirely inapt. The advantages of life in Canberra are plain to any one who visits this city and compares its amenities with those of the average town of comparable size in other parts of Australia. The advantages of security and physical planning are enjoyed by Canberra people, but it is absurd to say that the defects of life here are the result of the operation of a socialist system. No socialist system operates in this city, and no form of democratic life really exists here, nor can it exist, until the people of the Australian Capital Territory are represented in the National Parliament. The defects of the administration of Canberra, and the disadvantages of life here, are, in fact, the defects and disadvantages of a totalitarian system of government. Canberra officials hold over the lives of the people of this city, far more power than is exercised or possessed by officials anywhere else in the Commonwealth. The disadvantages that flow from that situation should be understood by the people of Australia as being the disadvantages of a totalitarian system of administration. This is a city in which, if one lives in a government boarding house, the Government puts the milk on one’s porridge in the morning. It would be only a comparatively short step to add sugar also. But that is nothing more than a typical defect of a state of society in which complete power has been placed in the hands of officials, and in which those who are governed by the officials have no right or power to assert their position as free democratic citizens of the Commonwealth, f have a particular knowledge of these matters, because, -when I was elected to this Parliament as the member for EdenMonaro six years ago, I let it be known that, as one who had lived in this city for many years, I should he glad to help any Canberra citizen who wanted assistance until Canberra had a member of its own. In the last six years, many Canberra residents have chosen to look upon me as the member of this Parliament who takes a particular interest in the affairs of Canberra, and rarely a day passes “without half a dozen Canberra people coming to my office to seek my assistance or advice. I have been glad to help those people, and I concede that other members of the Parliament have also taken an interest in representing this city and looking after the interests of its residents. Because of my association with the people of Canberra, particularly during my membership of this chamber, I realize that there is an urgent need for direct representation of the Australian Capital Territory in this legislature. I shall be very glad indeed when a member for Canberra is elected, because he “will be able to give his full time and attention to the defects of the administration and the injustices which various ‘people in this city suffer, or believe that they suffer from. I shall be happy to pass that work over to whoever is elected as the member for the Australian Capital Territory. Despite all the speculation about my position, I have never said anything publicly except that [ shall continue to seek the voting privileges of the member for Eden-Monaro in this House. As the representative of that constituency, I shall be very happy to co-operate with the first member for the National Capital to press for various improvements that are needed in this city, and to keep before the Government the ideal that ‘Canberra should have a member with not only a voice in this Parliament but also, as soon as the population of this city warrants it, with full voting rights.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I congratulate the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) upon the introduction of this measure. Honorable members have stressed the undemocratic nature of the system which exists in Canberra to-day. Prom 1927 until the outbreak of “World War II., governments of the political complexion of honorable members opposite were in control of the planning of Canberra, and of its administration, and for Opposition members to stress now that this Government’3 measure of self-government for the National Capita] is not adequate does not excuse the fact that they gave to this city no form of self-government at all. The defects of the administration of Canberra to-day are a legacy to the present Minister from the past. The Minister was taken to task by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) because he had not done anything to modify the Canberra plan. I point out, however, that the Minister is the only one of a succession of Ministers who has attempted to vary the original plan to meet the needs of the Canberra community, particularly with the object of providing improved shopping facilities. The member for the Australian Capital Territory will not have the same voting power as other members of the Parliament. It is necessary to understand that, in order to give the member for the Australian Capital Territory full voting power, an alteration of the Constitution would have to be approved by the people of Australia. The Commonwealth is a federation of six States, and the Constitution sets out how those States are to be represented in the Parliament. When the Constitution was framed, it was not contemplated that territories controlled by the Commonwealth would ever be represented by members whose votes would be able to disturb the balance of the voting power of the six States in the National Parliament. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro, and the honorable member for Henty, were in agreement in one respect: they stressed the need ‘for civil self-government in Canberra. The honorable member for EdenMonaro pointed out how vast is the expenditure of national revenue in Canberra ‘above the revenue contributed by the people of Canberra. According to the Estimates for 1948-49, the revenue from all sources hi the Australian Capital Territory is expected to be £500,000 for the year. The vote for the Territory this year is £909,000, in addition to which capital works undertaken by the Commonwealth in the Territory are expected to cost another £2,256,000. Thus, expenditure in the Territory will be nearly seven times as great as the revenue raised in the Territory, and that is the impediment to the granting of civil selfgovernment. The present difficulty can be traced to a defect in the original plan for the building of Canberra. This is the National Capital, but it is also a city in which people must live. It would have been better if the plan had provided in the beginning for a governmental centre, with government buildings which would be the responsibility of the National Parliament. Outside that, there should have been a residential area which would enjoy civil self-government. Under the present system, it is difficult to differentiate between governmental and civic needs. Some weeks ago, I made a statement about services and shopping facilities in Canberra, and it earned me more publicity than any speech I ever made in this .Parliament. Even that august institution, the joint campaign committee of the private banks, took notice of the statement, [n a recent circular issued to bank clerks, it stated that a .socialist member of Parliament had discovered that socialism was defective, and that he had found it particularly defective in Canberra. In my statement, I referred to bread and milk, which are not socialistically produced in Canberra. I also referred to shopping facilities, and they are not under public control, either. However, I am not concerned with the distortion of what I said. I am concerned with the functions of the member for the Australian Capital Territory, who will have to consider problems which have arisen in Canberra. The most serious of these has to do with something which is the very reverse of socialism. It is the existence in this city of private monopolies. I congratulate the Minister for the Interior on his intention to provide more shops in Canberra. I hope that it -will be made a condition of the lease of those shops that the lessees shall have no connexion with any existing business in Canberra ; or, better still, that the shops, when constructed, shall be leased to the Canberra Co-operative Society. It 19 interesting to examine how closely various businesses are linked in Canberra. I criticized shopping facilities, and my remarks evoked a hysterical response from the Canberra Times. I have since discovered that one of the firms which I criticized owns a block of 3,000 shares in the company which publishes the Canberra Times, so that the voice of the journal was not the voice of an independent person who disagreed with me. but the voice of a servant defending his master’s products. There is much interlocking of business interests in Canberra, and no real competition. 3 hope that steps will be taken to check the monopolistic trend in Canberra business undertakings.

The member for the Australian Capital Territory, if he does not enter the Parliament by courtesy of some existing business interests which might finance his campaign, with the support of the Canberra Times, will ‘be a valuable acquisition, a valuable stimulus to the Government, and a help to the Minister for the Interior in the development of Canberra. This bill will remove a grave injustice. The people of Canberra are at last to have a voice in the Parliament. I hope that, when electing their member. they will make sure that he is independent of the private business monopolies which have grown up in the Territory. I congratulate the Minister for the Interior upon having introduced this measure which, though a simple one, is likely to have widespread repercussions.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

– It is necessary for me to speak on this bill because the speech of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) might convey the impression that the Opposition is opposed to the measure. That, of <.-i>ii rae, is not, correct. The Opposition welcomes the bill. As a matter of fact, we shall try to make it a better bill, and r.u ensure that the member for the Aus.tralian Capital Territory shall enjoy more power than it is proposed to give liim. I do not think that we shall have much success in our efforts, but we shall try. I suggest that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) and the honorable member for Fremantle should get together in an attempt to reach a common understanding about Canberra. The honorable member for Fremantle said that Canberra was not a socialist city but that it was, in fact, con- trolled by monopolies, and he cited examples to prove his point. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro may, of course, have his own reasons for expressing a different opinion, but he said that the conditions which existed in Canberra should be a warning against the disabilities which flowed from totalitarian governments. The two honorable members cannot both be right.

Mr Beazley:

– Is there any inconsistency between totalitarian government and monopoly?

Mr HARRISON:

– A socialist State is, by inference, a totalitarian State, because in a socialist State everything is controlled by the central government. The speech of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro came rather strangely from him because he is trusting that the selection committee may ultimately succeed in getting him the job as the nominated candidate. He reminds me of the maiden “ who wouldn’t and then who would “. He now finds that owing to the dispensation of providence and the Electoral Act he may be forced to take some other attitude with regard to Canberra than that which he had shown before. I shall have something more to say about that as I proceed. I repeat that the remarks made by the honorable member came rather strangely from a. member of the Labour party, who has signed a pledge to work for the socialization of production, distribution and exchange.

Mr Calwell:

– What has that to do with the bill?

Mr HARRISON:

– Only -this, that Canberra and the disabilities from which as a socialized city it suffers, is a warning to all of what may obtain under totalitarian government. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro has signed a pledge to support socialism and now will have to protest against the things that socialism is likely to bring about. Honorable members generally can see therefore the horns of the dilemma on which the honorable member is poised. The honorable member alleged that the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) had made a false statement. His first two phrases pointed to the honorable member as one who deals with veracity lightly. He said that the honorable member for Henty was reading a speech. All honorable members know full well that the honorable member for Henty did not read his speech.

Mr Conelan:

– He read only threequarters of it.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member for Henty did not even do what other honorable members do with the approval of the Chair - refer to copious notes. The honorable member for EdenMonaro said that the honorable member for Henty’s speech had been prepared by Mr. Ulrich Ellis. Both I and other honorable members know the honorable member for Henty well enough to know that because of his long experience and his interests in Canberra he was giving the House his own opinions. But when the honorable member for Eden-Monaro seeks to put his case to the selection committee any avenue that may lead to success is the right avenue for him. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) stated that the member who will represent the Australian Capital Territory will be of great assistance to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson). Although it has been supposed that, by proxy, all honorable members of this House are members for the Australian Capital Territory, the Minister has sat in the blissful peace of retirement on the treasury bench with scarcely a question directed to him about Canberra and, in fact, with scarcely any mention being made of the disabilities of Canberra. He has reposed in a sort of golden atmosphere on the front bench. I am afraid that that blissful state will be rudely shattered when the member for the Australian Capital Territory takes his place in this Parliament, because I can see that honorable member “ needling “ the Minister to a very great degree. I am interested in the bill itself because it sets out exactly what are the advantages that will accrue to the member who will represent the Australian Capital Territory and also the disabilities inherent in his representation of that electorate. It might be as well for us to consider those disabilities, because I suspect that the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory will find himself in a similar position to the honorable member for the Northern Territory. He will find himself absolutely frustrated in giving expression to the views of the electors of the territory, or indeed in taking any active part in the machinery of government. We have only to look at the circumstances surrounding the electors in Canberra and compare them with those of other cities to obtain some idea of the disabilities that are likely to flow from the measure. I understand that at the time the last census was taken there were about 17,000 people listed in Canberra. The Minister informs me that that figure represents a voting strength of from 9,000 to 11,000. In the Northern Territory, where there is a similar get of circumstances and an elected representative who suffers under disabilities similar to those that T propose to enumerate shortly, there is a population of approximately 10,000 representing a voting strength of about 5.000 to 6,000. Those figures mean that the representation of the Northern Territory is entirely different from that to be provided for the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra has double the number of voters and approximately double the number of people that the Northern Territory has. Let us pursue this aspect further, because it is interesting to try to obtain some idea of the relative value of the vote of a resident of Canberra and that of a resident of Tasmania. In Tasmania, after the next general election for this Parliament, that State will have approximately fifteen parliamentary representatives including ten senators and five members of the House of Representatives. The number of electors in Tasmania to-day is approximately 158,000. A simple sum on the part of honorable members will show that Tasmania will have a representative, with full powers in this Parliament, for every 10,600 of its electors, whilst the Australian Capital Territory–

Mr Conelan:

– Tasmania will not have fifteen representatives in this chamber.

Mr HARRISON:

– I am speaking in terms of parliamentary representation. There will be ten senators and five members of the House of Representatives. Canberra, with 9,000 to 11.000 electors, will have a limited representation. It seems to me that the Government has not been at all generous in giving representation to Canberra. It should give the Australian Capital Territory representation in a much wider and more generous form, because if it believes in democracy it should wish to see exercised to the full the maximum democratic value of each individual vote. Let us look at the disabilities that the honorable member representing Canberra will suffer under in this House. Clause 5 (1) of the bill reads -

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, the member representing the Australian Capital Territory shall not be entitled to vote on any question arising in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, in the capital city of Australia, with a population of 17,000, and a voting strength of between 9,000 and 1.1,000, the people are to have no voice in matters of national importance, although in Tasmania every 10,600 of the electors will have an elected parliamentary representative and a voice in matters of national importance. Clause 5 (2) states -

The member representing the Australian

Capital Territory may vote on any motion for the disallowance of any Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and on any amendment of any such motion.

That means that the parliamentary representative of the Australian Capital Territory will be nothing but a glorified cipher. The member for the Australian Capital Territory will not be able to vote on legislation other than ordinances of the Australian Capita] Territory.

Mr Johnson:

– The Acting Leader of the Opposition knows the constitutional difficulties which will prevent the member of the Australian Capital Territory from exercising a vote on legislation other than ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Minister has explained the constitutional difficulties in. his second-reading speech, but this House has the power to grant to the member of the Australian Capital Territory at any time- the right to vote on all matters. Sub-clause 3 of clause 5 reads -

The presence in the House of Representatives at any time of the member representing the Australian Capital Territory and the fact that he is a member of the House shall not be taken into account in determining whether at that time a sufficient number of members is present to constitute a meeting’ of the House for the exercise of its powers. ,

That sub-clause provides further proof that the member for the Australian Capital Territory will be only a factotum and a mere cipher in this democracy. Sub-clause 4 states -

The member representing the Australian Capital Territory shall be incapable of being chosen to be the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees of the House of Representative. or to perform the duties of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees.

Some honorable members may consider that the member representing the Australian Capital Territory will not suffer any disability through being debarred from occupying any executive position in the House.. I cannot understand why that provision has been inserted in the bill, because the member representing the Australian Capital Territory will represent as many people as each of the ten senators and five members of the House of Representatives for Tasmania mil represent.

Mr Scully:

– The member foi” the Australian Capital Territory will be able to move the gag.

Mr HARRISON:

– I agree with the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully). I have spoken most feelingly about other limitations which will be placed on the powers of the member representing the Australian Capital Territory, and the honorable gentleman does well to remind me that the new member, although he will not be able to vote on legislation of national importance, will not be prevented from moving the gag. I. sincerely hope that, in future, an honorable member who has limited voting powers’ in this- chamber will not exercise his right to move the gag. Subclause 5 reads -

The member representing the Australian Capital Territory shall not be. counted for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is an absolute majority in favour of any question in respect of which an absolute majority of either House or both Houses- of the Parliament is required under section fifty-seven or section one hundred and twenty-eight of the Constitution.

Although the member representing the Australian Capital Territory will give the citizens of Canberra and, incidentally, Jervis Bay,, a voice- in this House, he will be debarred from voting on matters of national importance. He may make interesting and valuable contributions to debates, but he will be prevented from supporting his views with a vote. Canberra is reaching maturity as a city. I have, emphasized that the ten senators and five members of the House of Representatives for Tasmania will represent approximately the same number of persons as will the member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr Conelan:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mr HARRISON:

– If the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) believes that the Senate is of no value to this parliamentary institution, he should state his views publicly. If he considers that the ten senators who will represent Tasmania after the next election will be of no value in the functioning of the parliamentary machine, he should be courageous enough to say so. The position is that ten senators and five members of the- House of Representatives will represent 158,000 people in Tasmania or approximately one representative to 10,000 electors. The representative of the Australian Capital Territory will represent between 9,000 and 11,000 persons, but he will be frustrated in that lie will be prevented from voting on any legislation other than ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory. I was most interested to hear the honorable member for Eden-Monaro state clearly at long last where he stood.

Mr Fraser:

– I have always stated my position clearly.

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

– I am gratified to know that the redistribution of electoral boundaries has at last assisted the honorable member to make up his mind.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lazzarini

– Order! This bill does not relate to the redistribution of electoral boundaries.

Mr HARRISON:

– That is true, but the limitations which will he imposed upon the member representing the Australian Capital Territory would have been of considerable assistance to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, because from time to time hi9 vote in this House has been contrary to the views which he has expressed outside it. [ considered that he would have preferred to represent the Australian Capital Territory because he would not have had to commit himself on matters other than ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory. The .honorable member for Eden-Monaro is, as I have already said, like the maiden who would, and then would not. However, he has magnanimously stated, at long last, that he will represent the electors of the Australian Capital Territory as long as he can, whilst continuing to perform his duties as the member for Eden-Monaro. I have no doubt that the residents of the Australian Capital Territory will be most grateful to the honorable gentleman. Members of the Opposition can assist the Minister .for the Interior to improve the bill, and I urge him to examine our suggestions most carefully. I have submitted an unanswerable case in respect of the right of the member for the Australian Capital Territory to vote on all measures.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I thrice congratulate Mr. Ulrich Ellis, who, as a member of the Advisory Council of the Australian Capital Territory, has succeeded in forcing the Government to provide for the representation of the citizens of Canberra and Jervis Bay in this House. Mr. Ellis will be remembered in history as the gentleman who has forced the issue. No one knows that better than the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson).

Mr Johnson:

– Before this evening, I did not know that Mr. Ellis existed.

Mr BLAIN:

– The Minister knew perfectly well of the existence of Mr. Ulrich Ellis. His persistent campaign in the Spotlight has forced the Government to grant the residents of the Australian Capital Territory representation in this House. He has constantly directed attention to the disabilities which the people of ‘Canberra suffer from. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) has been in a difficult position for some time. I understand that the Australian Labour party branches in Goulburn and in the Australian Capital Territory have rejected him, but he again seeks refuge in the new constituency of EdenMonaro. The Government should be ashamed for having denied to the people of the Australian Capital Territory representation in this House for so many years. As the elected member for the Northern Territory, I object to the remarks of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison), who has stated that the new member for the Australian Capital Territory will be merely a cipher, a factotum. I propose to tell a short story which is pertinent to my own position as the member for the Northern Territory. About ten years ago, when the representatives of the press were still allowed to mix with honorable members, I overheard one of -them ask, “ What is the use of having a member for the Northern Territory when he .is not permitted to vote on matters other than those relating to the Northern Territory?” A colleague replied, “ The member for the Northern Territory may not have a vote but he has a mighty voice”. I believe that my voice has been heard to good effect in the interests of the Northern Territory; and should the honorable member for Eden-Monaro gain the honour of being the first member to represent the Australian Capital Territory in this Parliament, I am certain that he will not be merely a factotum. I hope that he will make his voice heard as effectively as that of any other member in the Opposition, which, of course, will then be the present ministerial party. At last, due to the efforts of Mr. Ulrich

Ellis in forcing the issue, the Government has seen the light, and to some degree has recognized the right of residents of the Australian Capital Territory to parliamentary representation. For the benefit of honorable members, I propose briefly to trace the development of responsible colonial government from the legislative council. Unfortunately, this Government gave to the people of Canberra only an advisory council. Previous governmentsestablished a legislative council in New Guinea, but, later, that body was abolished.I was surprised to hear the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) decry the principle of legislative councils, particularly when this Government recently established such a body in the Northern Territory. The Government speaks with two voices in this matter. Although it is opposed to the principle of legislative councils, it acceded to my advocacy of the last twelve years to establish such a body in the Northern Territory. I admit, of course, that the Government, true to its policy of socialism, has ensured a majority of government nominees on that body. 1 quote the following from the Development of the Legislative Council 1606- 1945 by Martin Wight-

The constitutional development of the British Colonies, like that of England itself, is extraordinary for its continuity. The system under which Virginia and New York, Jamaica and Nova Scotia were governed in the Eighteenth Century changes by slow and lingering gradations into the system under which Nigeria and Ceylon, Jamaica and Kenya are governed in the twentieth. The Thirteen Colonies gained their independence by revolution and war. . .

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Lazzarini). - I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr BLAIN:

– It was my intention to deal with the place of the legislative council in the development of the democratic system of government. Clause 4 sets out the qualifications of the member for the Australian Capital Territory as follows: -

  1. He mustbe of the fullage of twenty one years:

I hope that, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro can fulfil that qualification -

  1. He must bea subject of the King, either natural horn or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom or of the Commonwealth;
  2. He must have been for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen; and (d) He must be either -

    1. an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives; or
    2. a person qualified to become such elector.

Clause 5 provides that the member representing the Australian Capital Territory shall not be entitled to vote on any question arising in the House of Representatives excepting on any motion for the disallowance of any ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory or on any amendment of any such motion. I shall refer to some of the problems with which the member for the Australian Capital Territory will have to deal. First, there is the necessity to bring the planning of Canberra up to date. Some weeks ago the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) said that Canberra does not function as a city should, whilst the noted British town-planner, Sir Patrick Abercrom bie, remarked that Canberra is not a city at all but a combination of suburbs arranged in the form of a wheel. Sir Patrick Abercrombie also said that a town cannot function unless it is the centre of some industrial life. Next year. I propose to take the opportunity to deal in detail with the development of Canberra from a town-planner’s point of view. At present the city is growing most rapidly around the railway station near Kingston. It is an axiom of townplanning that growth cannot be prevented around a town’s railway station. However, nothing is being done by the authorities in Canberra to provide a civic square at Kingston. There was a good reason why no provision was made on the original plan for a square in that locality. The Griffin plan, which some honorable members regard as sacrosanct, contemplated that, when the proposed railway from Yass to Jervis Bay, via the National Capital was constructed the station would be at Civic Centre. I do not believe that that railway will ever be constructed. A mighty work lies ahead of Canberra’s first representative in this Parliament.I trust that he will have some knowledge of the principles of town-planning, and will strive to have Canberra developed on scientific principles, thus silencing for over the nonsense that the Griffin plan is sacrosanct.

Mi-. JOHNSON (Kalgoorlie- Minister for the Interior) [10.4]. - in reply - The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) commenced his speech by complimenting the Government for having introduced this legislation to give representation in this Parliament to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The honorable member did not keep to the complimentary vein for long, but turned his attention to a lot of irrelevant criticism, which, in his own interests, would have been better left unsaid, because he had no* justification for most of it. It was wide of the mark and not in accordance with facts, as was stated by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser). I frankly admit that the representation to be given to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory is limited and that the new member will have restricted rights in this assembly. But we are giving the people at least some representation and voice in the Parliament, whereas the anti-Labour parties, although they were in power for nearly 25 years before Labour assumed office, made no effort to give them any representation at all. The honorable member for Henty showed utter ignorance of the facts about Canberra. He criticized the building regulations and said that people were not allowed to build without the permission of the Department of the Interior. That is true, hut that procedure is not confined to Canberra. The practice in every city and town in Australia is the same.

Mr Fuller:

– It is the same in every municipality.

Mr JOHNSON:
ALP

– Yes. In whatever locality a. person desires to erect any building, he must submit the plans to the local authority for its approval. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro unmasked the honorable member for Henty when he declared that the latter had spoken as the proxy of some one outside. The honorable member for Henty was astray in what he said about tree planting and shops in Canberra. His statement that the ownership of the Canberra shops is a government monopoly is absurd. With the exception of a section of a block at Civic Centre, which was built, by the Government, all the shops in Canberra were built and are owned by private enterprise. Week after week, 1 receive deputations from people in Canberra asking me what I can do to break the monopoly that private enterprise holds in Canberra. That is the reply to the honorable gentleman’s charge that the Government has built shops and holds the monopoly ownership of them. Another illustration of the fact that he spoke without knowing the facts was provided by his remarks about the need to vary the Griffin plan, a subject upon which the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) also had something to say. Only recently the Government entertained at a dinner, which was attended by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) and the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), the world-renowned town-planner, Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who, in a speech, praised the Griffin plan and said that it made all the provision necessary for the establishment of a. great capital city that would be free from the congestion that disfigured other Australian capital cities. Unfortunately for the people of Australia generally, he did not spend much time in Canberra. The Government would have been glad if he had been able to spend a few days in the city so that it could have benefited from his vast experience in town planning. What he said at the dinner, however, completely vindicated the Griffin plan. Another point of criticism was that the Government was building too many small houses in Canberra. T concede that that criticism has some justification: but what, was the position that confronted the Government when it came into office? Owing to the failure of our antiLabour predecessors to provide housing for the citizens of Canberra when they had the opportunity to do so, we had. almost overnight, to create a huge organization to undertake the gigantic task of building homes for the people. So that we should make the best use of the available men and materials, we were compelled to build many more small houses than we should have built under normal conditions. The housing situation in Canberra is a legacy left to us by past, administrations that ignored their duty to. public servants and other residents of the city. “We are taking the first step towards breaking down the existing trade monopoly in Canberra by build: ing “ corner “ shops. All. the matters that I have dealt with are really irrelevant, I suppose, because the purpose of the bill is to provide for the representation of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Any irrelevancies were introduced by honorable gentlemen opposite, and, on behalf of the Government and the department that I administer, I could not let them remain unanswered.. The honorable member for the Northern Territory said, I think, that a gentleman named Ulrich Ellis forced the Government to introduce this legislation. I have a list of the members of the first deputation to wait on the late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, asking for. representation for the Territory, and Mr. Ellis’s name is not on it. The deputation was led by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. On behalf of the Government, Mr. Curtin promised that the matter of the representation of the citizens of the Territory in the Parliament, would be investigated and that suitable action would be taken at the earliest possible moment. I am proud to be the Minister privileged to give effect to his promise. The members of the deputation were Mr. A. D. Fraser, Dr. L. W. Nott, Mr. K. J. Andrews,. Mrs. R. Stevenson, Sir Robert Garran, Mr. A. T. Shakespeare, Mr. A. Crawford and Mr. S. Rhodes.

Mr Blain:

– I rise to order. The Minister has completely misunderstood me. What I stated was that Mr. Ulrich Ellis was the spotlight which focussed attention on the need to appoint an advisory council.

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Lazzarini). - No point of order is involved, and the Minister may proceed with his speech,

Mr JOHNSON:

– When the bill was introduced it was welcomed by the Opposition, which undertook to co-operate in giving effect to the Government’s purpose by supporting, the measure and proposing, any amendments which it. might, consider desirable. Therefore, I do not propose to delay the House much longer. I assure honorable members that, the Government is anxious to extend to the people of the National Capital full parliamentary representation as soon as the local population increases’ sufficiently and the present constitutional difficulties can be overcome.

Mr Conelan:

– Has the Minister anything to say concerning a comparison of the populations of Tasmania and. Canberra ?

Mr JOHNSON:

– The aggregate number of Tasmanian electors is approximately 158,000. The honorable member for Indi mentioned the number of members of the House of Representatives and of senators elected to represent Tasmania, but he did not point out that the people of the Australian Capital Territory are not entitled to be represented in the Senate. For that reason the statistics quoted, by him do not furnish any real basis of comparison.

Certain honorable members criticized the lack of local government in the Australian Capital Territory, and I admit that in that respect the bill has some shortcomings. However, entirely different considerations are presented by the proposal to provide local government for the Australian Capital Territory from those which . obtain in constituencies in the various States. In the shires and municipalities in the States almost every citizen is required to pay rates to cover the cost of the services provided by local government authorities. However, the provision, of some degree of local autonomy for Canberra has not been overlooked, and during the last six months the Government has endeavoured to secure the services of some competent authority to advise it on the establishment of some form of local government which would retain the right of the Minister to intervene in certain matters.

Mr Rankin:

– What is the smallest number of electors in any constituency?

Mr JOHNSON:

– The relevant statistics are not available to me at the moment, but I believe that the smallest constituencies, would be tho.se of Tasmania, where the average number of electors in a constituency is from 30,000 to 35,000. The approximate number of persons in the Australian Capital Territory who would be qualified to vote at a parliamentary election is from 9,000 to 11,000. We admit that the bill has certain shortcomings, but it does at least represent an advance. Furthermore, it complies with the requests: made by very representative deputations which put the case for residents of. the Australian Capital Territory to the former Prime Minister, the late Mr. Curtin, and also to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). Both Ministers gave assurances that Labour would give to the people of Canberra representation in the National Parliament so that their grievances could be ventilated, and that was as far as the right honorable gentlemen believed they could go. I commend the bill to honorable members and I trust that before very long the Australian Capital Territory will qualify for representation by a member of the Parliament, who will be entitled not only to speak but also to vote on all matters concerning the National Capital, which has such a great future before it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.:

Clauses 1 to. 10 agreed to.

New clause 2a.

Motion (by Mr. Johnson) agreed to -

That, after clause 2, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 2a. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, ‘ the Australian Capital Territory’ includes the Territory accepted by the Commonwealth in pursuance of the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915, and described in the agreement set. out in the Schedule to that Act.”.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted:

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2917

UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th September, (vide page 430), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a. second time.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– Authority is sought to make a grant to the United Kingdom of £10,000,000 to be paid out of our overseas reserve and adjusted internally by payment through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The. Opposition is completely in agreement with the purpose of the grant, which is to assist the United Kingdom in its overseas difficulties and in the part which it is playing in the recovery of Western Europe. No honorable member will deny that it is our duty to furnish every possible assistance to Great Britain. We are mindful of the fact that our liberty is due in no small measure to the great sacrifices made by the British people during the war and in the postwar period. Indeed, it is remarkable, having regard to the tremendous sacrifices made by Great Britain during the war, that that country is still able and prepared to play a leading part in the rehabilitation of Western Europe. Great Britain’s interests in Western Europe are very great. First, it. must encourage the rehabilitation of the trade of Europe, and in that it is playing its part handinhand with the United States of America. Secondly, the United Kingdom needs to establish the stability of sterling, a matter in which this country has a direct and vital interest because our economy is so largely dependent on that of Great Britain. When we see Great Britain limiting her imports, developing her export markets, sharing her dollars, which she greatly needs, and which have been made available to her by the United States of America, with other countries, and at the same time maintaining a standard of armed preparation, which is very substantial indeed, particularly when compared with that of this country, every support will come from this side of the House for any aid that Australia proposes to extend to Great Britain. .

The problems of Great Britain, in terms of currency relate to dollars and sterling, because, in truth,some countries of Western Europe are, in many instances, as short of sterling as of dollars. In Paris recently, there were discussions about how best the matter of the shortage of sterling could be solved.

Hand in hand with the dollar advance being made by the United States of America, if. was provided that Great Britain should receive 1,263,000 dollars. As part of that arrangement, it. was provided that Great Britain should release, I think, the sum of £78,000,000 sterling to Western European countries, and, in addition, agree to unlock balances of sterling aggregating £55,000,000, which had previously been blocked, in accordance with arrangements ‘between Great Britain and other countries. The fact that Great Britain was prepared, despite its desperate circumstances, to make available £133,000,000 sterling to the Western European countries to aid them in their rehabilitation, itself reflects Great Britain’s belief in its ability to expand and endure. This proposed grant of £10,000,000 Australian currency to aid Great Britain has the complete approval of members on this side of the House. But it is not sufficient ‘for us merely to approve. In terms of money, the grant is not sufficient. A mere £10,000,000 is but a drop in the total ocean of Britain’s needs. If we are dealing only with the amount, I should say that £10,000,000 is insufficient, having regard to the problem that Great Britain has to face. I prefer to approach the matter, not so much from the point of view of currency as from what Australia can do to aid Great Britain. It is my belief - and I cannot imagine that this belief would not be shared by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) - that increased production is the key of assistance to Great Britain, and the key of assistance in the rehabilitation of the countries of Western Europe. It is upon this particular aspect that Government policy has fallen down. Let us examine where we stand in terms of international currency, which has a bearing upon the economy of Australia. We are short of dollars. During the last twelve months we have been reducing the dollar deficit, which has always existed in the life of this country. Before the war, when sterling was readily convertible -to dollars, that matter presented no difficulty, but since dollars have become a hard currency of the world, and it is not possible to readily convert sterling to dollars, that is a real problem of this country-

Mr Chifley:

– And to a lot of other countries, too.

Mr SPENDER:

– I do not dispute that, ‘but I am concerned particularly with how we are to approach such a problem here. In the last twelve months, in terms of dollars, we have cut down our imports to such a level that .1 believe it can truthfully be said they are below our basic needs for production and the expansion of our own economy. We have reduced them to the lowest possible proportions, with, I think, very serious consequences to the economy of Australia. The question that arises from that is whether we propose to continue, indefinitely, these restrictions, and if so, what will be the consequence to Australia. Under our arrangement with Great Britain as I understand it, that country desires Australia to live within its current incomeand. in short, is reluctant to see us draw upon the overseas balances of sterling which we have created.

M.r. Chifley. - That is the accumulated balances.

Mr SPENDER:

– And which now stand to our credit. We are, therefore, confronted with the need to live within our current income, in respect of sterling, and also in respect of dollars, and to reduce our imports from, the dollar area-:. That has a very serious bearing upon our ability to produce. Before I go on to develop the consequences of that course of action I shall make a few observations about the lag of production in this country, because that is of first-class importance. Our primary products may safely be said, taking the picture by and large-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The. honorable member must limit his remarks to the measure being debated. He is not entitled to embark upon a general discussion.

Mr SPENDER:

– With respect, may I ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have read the Prime Minister’s speech?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have read the bill before the House. I warn the honorable gentleman that he is only entitled to make reasonable and passing references to other matters.

Mr Beale:

– I rise to order-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– When the Speaker is on his feet the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) should know that he should resume his seat. 1 have given my ruling and the honorable member for Warringah must abide by it.

Mr. Si.en der. ; 1 rise to order. The Prime Minister’s speech dealt with the need to increase production, and to help (; re:it, Britain. It stressed that production was the key-note to the problem as did also the budget speech. We are concerned with a bill authorizing a grant of ?10,000,000 to Great i -rita in. I arn seeking to point out the consequences which will follow from the policy that is being pursued by Ausi Iia, in accordance with the arrange.ments revealed in the Prime Minister’s speech. Tt is for that purpose 011I3’ that I “.11 making these remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I shall follow the honorable gentleman’s speech,

Mid I shall interpret whether he is in order or out of order.

Mr SPENDER:

– I had not even started to speak about production-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I shall rake no cheek from the honorable member.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am only addressing the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member does not extend proper courtesy to the Chair, he will not be permitted to continue.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am observing proper courtesy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will resume his seat. If he does not behave himself I shall name him.

Mr SPENDER:

– I. am entitled to address myself to the problems before ibis country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- This bill is for the purpose of granting ti 0,000,000 to Great Britain to assist 1 lint country in its present economic crisis. I have read the Prime Minister’s speech, in which he emphasized the needs nf the British people.

The Prime Minister also referred to the economic crisis through which that country is passing, and stressed that it is the duty, and indeed, the privilege of Australia, to make a contribution to the Mother Country at this time. No one will quarrel with what the Prime Minister said in his speech or with the proposition that a grant is needed, any more than any one quarrelled with the bill to grant ?25,000,000 to Great Britain that was introduced last year.

The problem of aid to Great Britain in its present economic crisis poses the question of the quality as well as the quantity of the aid that this country, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, ought to give to the British people. I have spoken more than once in this House of the need for closer relations with Great Britain as a contribution to the solution of this problem. I have said that any contribution that we make to aid Great Britain will also help us. If on 110 other ground, at any rate 011 the ground of self interest it is up to us to make the greatest possible contribution, in quality as well as quantity, to Great Britain. I believe, and I think my view is shared by the Prime Minister and almost every honorable member of this house, that in this crisis we stand or fall together.

Since I spoke on this subject on the last occasion I have been abroad. I went, as a private member, for the specific purpose of trying to gather information from sources in the British Commonwealth, and particularly Great Britain, on how best we can help the British people in their crisis, and, by conversations with public men and others in that country, to discover what we can do to get closer together. When one talks upon this subject with British Cabinet Ministers, .members of the Opposition in the British Parliament, British elder statesmen - that is, those who have ‘been members of Parliament for a long time and who know something of the problems that face their country - high officials of the Commonwealth Affairs Office and the Colonial Office, officials of Dominion and Colonial Governments, public men, industrialists business men and trade union leaders, one becomes more sure than ever, first, that assistance is desperately needed, and secondly, that the .best form that assistance can take, over and above mere cash assistance, is a closer integration of Australian policy and activities with those of Great Britain. One becomes surer sti 11 that by doing so we shall make a contribution to the welfare of this country as well as that of Great Britain.

I should imagine that no one will argue that Great Britain does not require assistance. The crisis through which the British people are passing is not one that has suddenly descended upon them. Some of us think of what we call the dollar crisis of the United Kingdom Government as something extraordinary, accidental and new. But it is a truism to say that from the very moment that the industrial . revolution developed in the United Kingdom and changed Lt from a primary producing country to a country with great secondary industries, and crisis with which it is now faced began to develop. Directly its production began to increase, so its population began to expand in accordance with not unknown economic and eugenic laws. When its population expanded, its production began to increase still further. As its production and national wealth increased, it began to send its surplus wealth overseas and make investments in other countries. That is the origin of what we now refer to as Great Britain’s foreign investments. Although most people probably did not recognize it at the time, many of us now .know that from the moment when Great Britain began to invest large amounts of surplus capital in Argentina, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and other countries, it began, in one sense, to dig a grave for itself, because the very act of investing large sums of money abroad stimulated the trade of those countries and enabled them to enter into competition with it. The essence of what we may call the British economic system, which functioned admirably for nearly 100 years, is that there shall be take as well as give. The great thing about that system was that it worked. It did so because Great Britain did not close its doors. It traded freely with other conntries and admitted their products in ex- change for its own goods. There is a striking distinction between the British economic system, which underpinned the economy of the world for almost 100 years, and the system that has superseded it. The United States of America has not been willing, or, shall I say, has not yet acquired sufficient wisdom, to trade freely with the rest of the world. It is learning its lesson in the hard way. It has tried to ameliorate the difficulties that have developed from its insistence on one-way trade by means of loans of one kind or another, but the fact is that while it says that it wants to sell its goods to other countries it does not want to accept goods from those countries. Hence, there has arisen what we call the dollar crisis.

This problem, which has now developed into a roaring crisis, was brought to a head by the violent impact of two world wars upon the British economic system. Partly during the first of those wars and certainly during the second one, Britain was obliged to spend its external credits. To save the world in 1940 and 1941, it sold £2,000,000,000 of its foreign investments. The enormous income derived from those investments had enabled Britain to bridge the gap between its import and export trade and to balance its budget. On top of that, certain other crises developed. One of them was the uncalculated and perhaps incalculable fact that Europe did not recover after the war. Most economists thought that trade would develop in Europe when hostilities ended, that its economy would return to working order and that Germany, France and Italy would be in a position to buy goods from British manufacturers. Owing to the vast and unthoughtof disorganization caused by the war, that rehabilitation did not take place. That was an additional factor that struck at the British economy and caused it to quiver and shake and almost crumble away. Faced with that situation, the British people have had to take extraordinary measures. They have had to deny themselves in a way that no people ever expected to become necessary. They have had to reduce their purchases from abroad. Because of the nature of their economic organization, they still find it necessary to buy most of their food from abroad. They have had to cut down on those purchases and ration themselves. Being short of machine tools, and enormously short of capital equipment, they are now in the position, in Kipling’s words, of trying to rebuild their economy with worn-out tools. They have had to try to restore their manufacturing industries and sell their products abroad in order to obtain enough money to enable them to buy the things which their industries have needed. The situation has been aggravated by the fact that the European countries have not been able to buy their goods and that the United States of America, for what might well be said to be understandable reasons although one may not agree with them, has not been willing to buy British goods in exchange for American goods. Thus, Great Britain has found itself short of capital goods, desperately in need of food which normally it does not produce but brings from abroad, and with a gravely disordered European neighbour which, as the Prime Minister has said, it has found necessary to under-pin by means of its own extraordinary efforts. All of these circumstance have created a crisis which nobody could have contemplated and which has put Great Britain in a more economically unsound and disordered position than it has ever been in before or, please God, will ever be in again.

It is not enough for us in Australia merely to nod our heads and say, “ That is too bad, but we cannot do anything about it “. Upon the premise with which I began my speech, I say that we stand or fall together in this crisis. That is why, I believe, the Government has seen fit to bring down this bill, and why we must give not only this very modest degree of aid but also greater aid in terms of both quantity and quality. The British people have made extraordinary efforts on their own behalf. I noticed only a month or so ago, when I was in England, that British exports had risen 40 per cent, above tho pre-war level. Considering that it is making its effort, as I have said, with worn-out tools, that is a very courageous and magnificent effort. I had the privilege to attend the trade union congress at Margate at the invitation of a member of the trade union movement of Great Britain. At that gathering, I listened to a speech by Sir Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, answering a series of resolutions which had been placed upon the notice-paper of the congress by the trade unions, which were represented by over 1,000 delegates assembled in the hall at Margate. All of those resolutions demanded greater returns from the proceeds of industry. They sought increases of wages and a diminution of dividends. I well remember how Sir Stafford Cripps entered the hall at eleven o’clock on that morning and commenced to speak dispassionately, without any window-dressing or propaganda. The theme of his remarks was : “ There is only a certain sized cake. If you want a bigger share of the cake, you must make a bigger cake.” He pointed out that dividends declared by public corporations in Great Britain in the previous year had amounted to approximately £300,000,000 and that salaries and wages paid by the same corporations over the same period amounted to over £4,000,000,000. As a matter of arithmetic, he explained that, if every worker in the community. shared equally in the distribution of 25 per cent, of the dividends of those corporations, a diminution which he said would be ruinous and unthinkable, the return to each one would be no more than 4d. in the £1. Therefore he said, “ If yon want a bigger slice of cake, you must make a bigger cake “. It is a tribute not only to the personality of Sir Stafford Cripps, but also to the 1,000 delegates who listened to him, that, when he finished his speech, the audience rose as one man and applauded him. I have mentioned that incident in order to indicate that the courage and resolution of the British people in this crisis have been nothing less than superb. Therefore, anything that we can do in Australia to aid them, qualitatively or quantitatively, will be to our honour.

What can we do ? We should not look at this problem only from the point of view of the need for a mere cash contribution. We should realize that the best sort of contribution that we can make to the recovery of Great Britain is a closer integration of our own political and economic efforts with those of Great

Britain. I am treating this, not as a matter of external affairs or the relations between the various units of the British Commonwealth, but as a matter of Australia’s specific relations with Great Britain in a specific crisis. There are plenty of illustrations on all hands of the disintegration of the relations between Great Britain and the various units which we have been accustomed to think of as forming the British Commonwealth. As all honorable members know, it is an undoubted fact that one unit, Eire, does not exist any longer as a unit of the British Commonwealth. We have also received indications recently that India, Pakistan, South Africa and Canada are in some respects drifting away from Great Britain. Those are elements of what wo might call disintegration. On the other hand in Australia, and also in New Zealand, we have units which do not show signs of drifting away from “ the British system “, as Paul Maguire so well calls’ it. What I mean by the British system is the system under which certain units are not foreign to one another. All members of the British Commonwealth, of course, are independent nations in one sense, but in another sense they are not foreign to each other. We have common aims, and a common interest in pursuing those aims. Australia has not only a duty but also a great opportunity to walk closely hand in hand with Great Britain in relation to economic, political, financial, defensive and trade matters in such a way as to restore the economy, the prestige, and the power of the Mother country and, at the same time, restore and enhance our own power. As Australians in an Australian Parliament, our fundamental purpose must of course, be to increase our own power and prestige. My thesis is hat the most effective way in which we can do so is by a closer integration of ou«- efforts which those of the other countries constituting the British Empire, but especially with Great Britain. As an illustration of how we can more closely integrate our efforts with those of Great Britain to our mutual advantage, I should like to see established in ustralia portfolio of Commonwealth relations. I should like to see in this House a Minister for Commonwealth relations working either in co-ordination with or in subordination to the Prime Minister or the Minister for External Affairs. It should be the principal task of a Minister for Commonwealth relations to ensure the closest co-ordination between Australia and Great Britain, and the other units of the British Empire. Such a Minister should know what is happeningin all departments at any particular time.

Mr Daly:

– Would such a Minister have to travel?

Mr BEALE:

– Ah ! The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly), who is known by a well-known sobriquet becauseof his travelling activities–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order t The honorable member must return tothe bill.

Mr BEALE:

– I am sorry that your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents me from making an appropriate answer tothe honorable member’s interjection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Thehonorable member must return to thebill.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member for Martin has asked whether such a. Minister as I have in mind should travel?’ I want to answer him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must deal with thebill before the House. This is the last warning that I shall give him.

Mr BEALE:

– Very well. The Minister for Commonwealth relations should be charged with the responsibility of coordinating the various activities and’ matters in which the Australian Government has relations with the BritishGovernment. There are many matters,, including defence, trade, migration, diplomatic representation exchange of British and Australian officials on various levels, and a dozen other -matters between Australia and Great Britain which could well be co-ordinated by a special Minister. Such a ministry has been established inGreat Britain and in some of the otherunits of the British Commonwealth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– This billrelates to a proposal to make a grant toGreat Britain. The honorable membermust discuss that matter.

Mr BEALE:

– I was under the impression that I had been discussing matters relevant to the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honorable member is straying a long way from the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with some bewilderment. We could make the best possible contribution towards the recovery of Great Britain, upon which our own strength and future so greatly -depend, by having the right sort of personalities exchanged between the two countries. It is- a sine qua non of proper and effective relations with Great Britain that there should be a proper exchange of the right sort of officials between Great Britain and Australia. As an Australian, I believe that officials of the British Government have a great deal to learn from this country, just as we have a great deal to learn from them. The Minister for Supply and Development (Senator Armstrong) has stated that not once in our history has a British Prime Minister or former Primo Minister visited Australia. If that be true, it is a great pity. Australia may be only a speck in the ocean, or a drop in the world bucket, as it were, but I believe it to be a great pity that Ministers of the British Parliament and high officials do not visit this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is trying to get in a number of matters which are not related to the bil]. The legislation deals specifically with a proposal to make a monetary grant to Great Britain. The debate should be limited to that subject, and whether the amount is sufficient or insufficient. The honorable member may not continue to debate matters which have no relation to the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– I am not trying to get in anything.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honorable member that he will not -succeed in his efforts.

Mr BEALE:

– I am endeavouring to make a constructive contribution to the problem of how we can make our best contribution to the recovery and welfare of Great Britain. The Prime Minister’s -speech on this bill covers many of the matters with which I have been dealing. I believe that our best contribution to the recovery of Great Britain can be made by means other than a gift of money. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the Chair cannot rule that L may not discuss any matter other than the grant of money.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– In addition to the grant of money, the most effective contribution that we can make to the recovery of Great Britain is by co-ordinating our activities more closely with Great Britain than we have in the past. For your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I illustrate bow this co-ordination may be achieved? The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) is very properly agitated over the small population of this country, and is doing his utmost to attract British migrants here. The best way to achieve that objective is by an exchange of officials with Great Britain on the right level. We have not done so in the past.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is endeavouring to return to a subject which, the Chair has already ruled, is not related to the bill.

Mr BEALE:

– As the result of conversations that I had while I was abroad, I am persuaded that one of the most important contributions that we can make to the recovery and welfare of Great Britain is by an exchange of officials who deal with matters of common interest. We should endeavour to effect exchanges of officials of the right sort and with the right personalities. There are many matters arising out of this debate to which I should like to refer, hut I confess that your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are almost as inhibiting to me as they were to the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not reflect on the rulings of thu Chair. If he has any views on the bill, he should express them while he has the opportunity to do so. He will not have that opportunity for very long if he continues in the present strain.

Mr.BEALE. - Australia’s future is wrapped up with the future of the British people, not on any flag-waving basis, and not because of the Union Jack or anything we have read in schoolbooks, but simply because 7,000,000 people in the south seas have no hope and no future without the closest alliance with the still powerful people of the British Commonwealth. Great Britain is not merely a nation of 45,000,000 or 50,000,000 people living in a misty island in the North Sea. That nation has developed a great colonial empire with possessions dotted in extremely favorable strategic positions all over the world. It was because of their strategic value that those possessions were chosen by the statesmen and rulers of years gone by. Great Britain and its colonies and possessions have at their disposal vast resources of raw materials, which are more profuse and better distributed than are those of any other country. One often hears of the greatness of the United States of America. I venture to suggest that geologists, demographers, and scientists who study these matters, could tell us clearly and truly that the raw materials of Great Britain and its colonies, and the members of the British Commonwealth, are greater than those of the United States of America or of any other country or group of countries. That is an additional reason why we should stand together and not say “Britain is finished; let us wipe her”. We should accept the plain, blunt, economic as well as patriotic fact, that not only our welfare, but also our very existence as a nation of only 7,000,000 people, depend upon our association with Great Britain. . We should not permit our foreign policy, trade policy, or economic policy to deviate by one hair’s breadth from that agreed upon with the United Kingdom. This contribution of £10,000,000 towards the solution of Great Britain’s sterling problem - it is a sterling problem as well as a dollar problem - is, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, as only a drop in the bucket. Above all financial considerations, we require complete co-ordination with the United Kingdom and that can be achieved only by exchanging officials of the right type, closer trade and relations, a free interchange of ideas and agreement on questions of policy. Only in that way can we make a worthwhile, effective, and ultimately, triumphant contribution to the recovery of the United Kingdom as well as to our own welfare.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Thompson) adjourned.

page 2924

ADJOURNMENT

Distillate and Kerosene

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I bring to the notice of the Government a matter of very grave importance to the farming industry of New South Wales. I direct the attention of the House to the manner in which a deputation arranged by the Wholesale Cooperative Society of New South Wales through Mr. George Booth, member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for Kurri, was received on the 4th November last by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley). On the 23rd September last, I asked a question in this chamber relating to the reduction of imports of power kerosene, lighting kerosene, and distillate. For the year ending the 31st March, 1949, the quantity of power kerosene that the oil companies are permitted to sell in Australia has been reduced by 59,528 tons or 19.9 per cent., lighting kerosene by 29,290 tons or 25.8 per cent., and distillate by 2,394 tons or 2.1 per cent. compared with the actual sales for the year ended the 31st March, 1948. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I raised this matter in the House some weeks ago. there was a slight disagreement between us. I shall not refer to that matter now, but the rural cooperative societies in New South Wales are alarmed at the reduction of imports. Those societies have a wide membership. According to the New South Wales Pocket Year Booh for 1948, the number of active societies in New South Wales in 1944-45 was as follows : -

Members of those societies are mostly working people. Following my question in this chamber, representations that I made to the Prime Minister on behalf of the co-operative societies, and representations made by Mr. Booth, M.L.A., who is also chairman of the Wholesale Cooperative Society of New South Wales, it was arranged that a deputation should meet the Minister for Shipping and Fuel on the 4th November last concerning that meeting. I have received the following letter from Mr. Doak, secretary of the Tamworth Farmers Co-operative Society Limited who was a member of the deputation: -

Please find enclosed a copy of the discussion that took place at the meeting between the co-operative societies and the Minister for Supply and Shipping on Thursday last at the office of the Minister.

Hie remarks were definitely uncalled for and insulting. We felt that he could have shown a little manners and at least listened to what we had to say, but he didn’t want to hear a thing and opened his door for us to go four times in a space of twenty minutes, which was the time we spent with him.

There were no recorded minutes, but the copy enclosed is fairly close to detail ae to what was said and can be used by you as you wish.

I shall also quote from a letter written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) by one of the leading Labour supporters in the City of Tamworth. The address given is Peel-street, Tamworth, and the writer is well known to the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Scully). It is dated the 24th September, 1948, and states -

The quota scheme recently announced, and made retrospective to April, has created very great consternation and indignation amongst the farmers in this area of the State. I pass along to you the following comments in good faith with the idea that you might have a very thorough inquiry instituted to see whether some of the so-termed major companies have been granted favours at the expense of the Ampol Company. … It is very, sincerely suggested that the quota system is a result of such influence. . . .

That is the influence of the larger oil companies -

Unless the matter is handled to the satisfaction of the farmers, the outcry will develop into a very unpleasant set up.

I propose now to read some of the remarks made by the Minister to the deputation which waited on him on the 4th November. Members of the deputation were Mr. Sims, representing Curlewis and Gunnedah; Mr. Endicott, representing Nelungaloo; Mr. Duprez, representing Manilla; Mr. Tome, representing Inverell; Mr. Doak, representing Tamworth, and Mr. Bawden, representing Narrabri and Bellata. The record, that I -have received of what was said at that meeting with the Minister is as follows : -

Mr. Sims introduced the deputation to Senator Ashley and stated that it represented 54 co-operative societies and the interests o’f the fanners generally. (Mr. Sims took the place of Mr. Booth, M.L.A., who arranged the deputation and who was absent through illness.)

Senator Ashley. Let us be frank I have not time to listen to propaganda, It is Ampol you are representing?

Mr. Sims endeavoured to explain the case but was continually interrupted by Senator Ashley and explanation was impossible.

Senator Ashley. You are here as a deputation from Ampol to get an increase in their quota. I can tell you now that Ampol ib going to get nothing from me.

Mr. Doak. ; I represent the Tamworth Co-operative (consisting of 800 farmers), not Ampol, and I would like some message to take back, to the farmers.

No reply to this from Senator Ashley

Senator Ashley said he though we wore there to state individual cases, and had he known this was not so, he would not have received ns He went on to say, “You have the wrong story “.

Mr. Doak. ; If we have the wrong story, can you tell us the Tight story.

Senator Ashley. If you interview Sir George Wales, he will tell you the right story. This has been discussed with him and he knows all about it and he agrees with me. He will be in Sydney this week.

I do not know what Sir George Wales has to do with the Government or why he should be delegated to reply to a deputation representing rural co-operatives. According to “ Who’s Who “, he was knighted in 1937, is a former member of the Legislative Council of Victoria, was Lord Mayor of Melbourne from 1934 to 1937, has been a member of the Melbourne City Council since 1925, plays golf and billiards, belongs to the Athenaeum Club and the Savage Club, and his address is 669 Burke-road, Toorak. His business associations are not. mentioned, and the book does not say whether he knows anything about oil, or whether it was because he lived in Toorak, was a member of the Athenaeum and

Savage Clubs, and played golf and billiards that he was brought into this matter. The record continues -

Senator Ashley. I am very busy, and I want to get the facts of the case. This is all propaganda for Ampol.

Mr. BAWDEN ; We represent co operative Societies and in the event of fuel supplies being cut off, the co-operative societies would go out of business.

Mr. ENDICOTT ; Do you approve of cooperative societies?

Senator Ashley. I am not in the witness box to answer questions and will not be cross-examined by you or any one else. The co-operative societies arc the people who go out and sell shares to the farmer and then sell him kerosene at Id. per gallon cheaper.

Was there any sin in letting the farmers have cheaper kerosene? -

Mr. SIMS ; The reason why we are tied up to Ampol is because: they were the only people in the early days who would deal with us.

Mr. Endicott. ; ls it a fact as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald about the 14th August that power kerosene imporations were to be reduced by TJ per cent?

Senator Ashley refused to answer and stated it was propaganda and he was not there to answer questions.

Mr. Bawden stated he resented Senator Ashley’s remarks about the delegation being purely propaganda for Ampol.

Senator Ashley. What are co operatives? If you say Ampol, you mean co-operatives and, if you say co-operatives, you mean Ampol. They are the same thing. You are only wasting my time and your own. (Starting to leave.) I have another meeting and cannot waste any more time with you.

Mr. Dupre. ; How is the Government going to save dollars if they restrict our kerosene and so prevent us producing? You are responsible to us and the people for supplies of kerosene for production. .

Senator Ashley in reply stated this is a matter between the Government and the oil companies.

Mr. Sims said we will have to report to our people that we have had a. most unsympathetic hearing.

Senator Ashley. A.M..1*. Company has gone out on a definite sales and advertising campaign and they were asked not to.

Mr. Doak. As far as we are concerned, at Tamworth, we have not, but if the A.M.P. Company had done so, they were not the only ones.

Senator Ashley. It is no use arguing it is just a waste of time.

Mr. Sims. ; As far as we are concerned, we have definitely not gone out on any sales campaign.

Mr. Sims went on to say that is was anticipated that there would he a definite shortage of fuels in the next year.

Senator Ashley You can rest assured that no one will go short and essential services would be sure of kerosene and, if you give iiic specific cases 1 will have them investigated.

The record continues -

Mr. ENDICOTT ; In view of the case in the Sydney Morning Herald re 19 per cent, reduction in imports of power kerosene-

Senator Ashley. I do not want to listen to this - it is all propaganda.

Mr. ENDICOTT ; (continuing) and the importation of 19,000 tractors this year, is it a fact we will be short of kerosene?

Senator Ashley refused to listen and would not answer the question.

Mr. Doak. Both Mr. Sims and myself are in business where we carry a full range of groceries, hardware and produce, and my society has approximately ?7,000 worth of stock.

Mr. Sims. ; Now we have to go back to our people and report an unsympathetic hearing.

Senator Ashley. As far as you are concerned, I represent all New South Wales and 1 do not want any help from any one. We fixed Queensland up and we will fix New South Wales up the same way. We are now checking the Tamworth district.

Mr. Doak. We are unable to procure lighting kerosene and distillate right now. What will we tell the farmers?

Senator Ashley replied that any essential services would be sure of supplies. He said you could get supplies from some other company. Mr. Sims said that there was an advertisement in the Inverell paper stating that another company had supplies for its own clients only, if this was the case, how are our customers to get supplies’?

Senator Ashley replied that he could not waste any more time - got up and commenced to leave.

He finally stated that he would deal with individual cases when produced.

Mr. Bawden replied that he would have his work cut out dealing with 30.000 individual cases. Senator Ashley replied, “ I do not believe you have them “.

Mr. Doak. I told him that we supply lighting kerosene to our customers over the counter in bottles in all quantities; what was the procedure there - would we have to make individual application for all these people to him or would he give us some assurance that supplies would be there for that purpose.

Senator Ashley. Get in touch with me and I will deal with each case on its merits.

That is nonsense. It would he impossible for him to deal with each case on its merits, because people came into the stores and bought what they wanted over the counter. The deputation was received with discourtesy and hostility, and it was plain to every member of the deputation that the Minister did not intend to hear what they had to say. Tn fact, he summarily dismissed them. They felt so strongly on the matter that they despatched the following telegram to the Prime Minister : -

Incensed at reception to-day by Senator Ashley of Co-operative Wholesalers Societies’ deputation re kerosene and distillate. Apparent that the senator had no intention of hearing our case. Respectfully request your personal attention. (Sgd.) Sims, Chairman of delegation.

I trust that the co-operative societies will not let the matter rest where it is. It is a disgraceful thing that a responsible body of men should be treated so discourteously by a Minister who is supposed to see that, food is produced to feed starving people overseas.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

page 2927

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Pharmaceutical Benefits

Mr RANKIN:

N asked the Minister repre.senting the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. How long has the pharmaceutical benefits plan been in operation?
  2. How much has been paid, to the latest available date, to authorized chemists in respect of prescriptions dispensed under the plan ?
  3. How ninny such prescriptions hare been dispensed?
  4. How many persons are employed by the Government in each State directly and indirectly in connexion with the plan?
  5. What has been the total cost to date of the pharmaceutical benefits section of the department, including salaries, allowances and general expenses?
Mr Holloway:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Since the 1st June, 1948.
  2. The amount paid to approved chemists for .prescriptions dispensed as benefits, to the 31 st October, 1948, is £10,985. (This figure does not include payments to medical practitioners, hospitals and other agencies.)
  3. The number of prescriptions claimed for within that period is 76,293.

    1. Sixty-tiro directly employed. Accounting mid other work associated with the services is performed by the general departmental administration. “). Work preparatory to the introduction of the services commenced in January, 1944. Total cost of the section since that date han hern approximately £65,000.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1948/19481111_reps_18_199/>.