House of Representatives
2 June 1949

18^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

OBJECTION TO INTERJECTION
- Later:
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- MR. C. F. ADERMANN, M.P
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- H.M.A.S. SYDNEY
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- AVIATION DEVELOPMENTS
QUESTION
- AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND REQUISITES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN SONGS
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- DEPUTATION TO THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION
QUESTION
- THEFTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
REPATRIATION HOSPITAL, HOBART
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
PETROL
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1948-49
- Second Reading
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1948-49
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1949-50
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Repatriation - Royal Australian Navy: Releases
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Payments to Union Officials
- Guided Weapons Testing Range
- New Guinea Timber Lease

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

page 437

OBJECTION TO INTERJECTION

Later:

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– The question raised by the honorable member is not a new one. The urgency of the problem has always been great. The matter of providing Australia with its own songs and folklore is an important part of nationbuilding, as the honorable member has observed. The Australian Broadcasting Commission some years ago conducted a competition for Australian songs, but, I am sorry to say, very few people submitted entries and the prize offered was not awarded. I shall take up the matter with the Australian Broadcasting Commission, commercial stations and other interested bodies to see whether I can find sufficient enthusiasm among them to encourage the production of Australian songs. The Australian people themselves, of course, must play a part by composing and submitting songs. I shall refer the matter to Cabinet.

Mr Fraser:

– “Will the Minister examine the possibility of overseas monopolies preventing any such songs from being published?

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, I shall do that. If there is any combine which operates to prevent the publication or singing of Australian songs, I shall do my best to break it, as I would try to break any other monopoly, insofar as the constitutional powers of this Parliament - limited as they are - will allow that to be done. In this connexion, my withers are unwrung. I have done my best to popularize Australian songs, and have not always obtained full credit for my action when I tried to popularize the singing of Advance Australia Fair. I am consoled by the fact that the royalties paid in respect of Advance Australia Fair have gone to the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales, of which the honorable member is an elder. One of these days, I may apply to be made a canonized saint of that church.

page 441

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Sickness Benefit - Payment op Local Government Rates by Pensioners.

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

page 443

REPATRIATION HOSPITAL, HOBART

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Repatriation to a pressing need at the Repatriation Hospital in Hobart. A patient at that institution has drawn my attention to the fact that the food prepared there is not always suitable for certain types of illnesses. Will the Minister investigate this matter, and ascertain whether a fulltime dietitian can be appointed to the hospital.

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

– The food provided for patients at the Hobart Repatriation Hospital has been investigated by myself and the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in Hobart on a couple of occasions following complaints. There are some difficulties in connexion with the food at the hospital. During the last parliamentary recess, I made certain inquiries and found that some improvement had been effected. However, I shall again investigate the matter, and if the appointment of a dietitian would help one will be appointed.

page 444

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

PRIZE, Money.

Mr FRANCIS:

– In to-day’s press appears a report indicating that £4,000,000 is being made available by the British Admiralty as prize money to be distributed amongst naval and air force personnel who participated in the capture of prizes on the high seas during the war. The distribution of this money is to be made according to rank, individual amounts ranging from £4 to £40. I understand that each dominion is to share in this disbursement and I should like to know what sum will be made available to Australia and when payments will be made.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is true that prize money will be available for distribution in Australia. I believe that I made a statement some time ago either in this House or, in the press during a recess, and explained the method by which the money would be distributed. That has been a matter for discussion between the three service Ministers and myself. I shall obtain further information on the matter, and advise the honorable member of the exact position.

page 444

PETROL

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

– by leave - The Government’s arguments in support of the need to continue petrol rationing in Australia are unconvincing and unrealistic. Every Australian petrol user is vitally interested in being given uptodate and authentic information upon which he himself may decide whether petrol rationing should be retained in Australia, four years after the war has ended. The responsibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to the Australian people is not discharged merely because he decides, on confidential information, that rationing should continue. The latest excuse is that the need for the con tinuance of petrol rationing is solely because of the shortage of dollars. But many other excuses, all equally unsound, have been given in the last few months.

Mr Edmonds:

– I rise to order. The Leader of the Australian. Country party obtained leave to make a statement on petrol, but so far he has not made a statement about petrol. He has only attacked the Prime Minister and the Government. I ask that the Chair rule that he must confine his statements to petrol.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The procedure is that an honorable member may ask for leave to make a statement. The Chair has no knowledge of the subject of the statement. The Leader of the Australian Country party has been given leave to make a statement and he may proceed with it.

Mr FADDEN:

– What about the recent excuses of Government spokesmen that there was a world shortage of crude oil, that refinery capacity was inadequate, that there were not sufficient tankers, that there was insufficient crude oil within the sterling bloc, and that the Haifa pipeline had been closed? In .September, 1948, the Treasurer stated that the closing of the Haifa pipe-line meant an annual loss of petrol, not crude oil, of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 tons a year. Even on the Prime Minister’s greatly exaggerated figures of 88,000,000 gallons, which is one-third of a million tons a year, to end rationing, Australia needs only a fraction of the petrol output of the Haifa refinery, which re-commenced operations in May, 1949, after having been out of action for more than a year. It can now be classed as an additional sterling source. There is a sterling surplus of oil and a large annual increase of the production of sterling oil. England is exporting everincreasing sterling oil tonnages to Europe, including Italy. How then could it be harmful to Britain if we were given a fraction of the petrol available from the newly re-opened Haifa pipe-line? If the Haifa pipe-line closure was the excuse for not giving us relief from rationing last September, why can it not, now that it is again operating, provide that relief? One excuse after another has been offered as a so-called reason for the continuance of petrol rationing, and, as each is nullified by changing world conditions, a new excuse is invented.

I am not prepared to accept, without considerable reserve, the Prime Minister’s assertion that i£ rationing were terminated petrol consumption would increase by about 20 per cent, in Australia. He might be convinced by his rationing officers’ reports, but I am not. A very senior and experienced man, Mr. A. Date, who resigned as secretary of the Liquid Fuel Control Board after six years, has made a very different estimate that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 gallons extra a month would be required. He, surely, must have been a most experienced officer, as no inefficient officer should have held his position for so long. Mr. Date’s arguments are open to investigation. They were published extensively in the press, and they allow for the present inefficiency in the policing of petrol rationing by black marketing and otherwise, the fact that essential users at present are getting their full requirements and would not want to buy more, and the extent to which kerosene and solvents are now used illicitly and would reduce the present imports of these items into Australia with a consequent saving of exchange. Since the Prime Minister’s statement was made. Mr. Date has again checked his April, 1949, estimates, and he contends that Government advisers are grossly exaggerating the probable increased use. It would show up their inefficiency too much if rationing officers admitted the extent of the petrol blackmarket.

In England, the Vick report on the black marketing of petrol estimated that the unauthorized use of petrol accounted for 36,000,000 gallons a month, but when transport and essential-user petrol was coloured red, it was discovered that 114,000,000 gallons a month had been black marketed. Does the Prime Minister know, or can he or his advisers hazard even a guess at, the amount of unauthorized gallonage used in Australia? Has the Prime Minister allowed for this factor and for the present use of substitute fuel in suggesting that petrol sales will increase by 88,000,000 gallons a year if rationing is lifted? The only way in which an unbiased decision can be reached by the

Australian public is for it to be given the information on which the Government relies. Petrol rationing has been abandoned in Belgium, France and Portugal. There is no rationing, in the accepted sense, in Holland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Ten European countries have no restriction whatsoever for foreign tourists. Token rationing only exists in Eire, where sixteen gallons a month is allowed for an 8 horse-power private car and that is almost four times the Australian ration. Marshall aid countries still rationed are Great Britain, Iceland, and Italy. The British ration approximates that of Australia, without regard to the large distance factor in our country areas. Turning to the British Commonwealth, Canada abolished rationing the day after V-J day. The Union of South Africa has no petrol rationing. These countries use twice the amount of petrol for each vehicle that Australian petrol users consume.

Reference to authoritative British and American trade journals published this year, many of which have reviewed the sterling and dollar oil position, will establish beyond any doubt that the proauction of sterling oil is in excess of sterling area requirements. For the past six months, this has been known and published in these journals, but it has not yet been realized by the Government, which is probably relying on information at .least six months old. The official case for the continuation of rationing is that the sterling area is not producing enough petrol for its requirements, and that if Australia gets more, the United Kingdom will either have to get correspondingly less or spend more dollars. I shall prove that that is a complete misconception, because the Government has not taken into full consideration the fact that oil supplied from the so-called sterling area is only portion of the sterling oil available. Care must be taken not to confuse sterling oil with oil supplied from a sterling area. The term “ sterling area “ is a definition used in financial circles to describe those parts of the British Commonwealth which transact international settlements with one another on the basis of sterling, using London as their common banking centre. The sterling area, however, excludes many sources of sterling oil. The logical definition of these terms, generally accepted by the petroleum industry, is as follows : -

Petroleum, entering into international trade, can, in general, be defined as sterling oil if it is produced outside the United States of America or Canada by any company whose central control or ownership lies within the sterling area. The production from Dutch and other non-dollar areas is also deemed to be sterling oil as a result of certain financial arrangements.

Britain’s sterling oil production in 1948 has been estimated authoritatively at 64,000,000 tons, according to reports in reputable British trade journals.. A greatly increased sterling oil production is estimated for 1949. Of that 64,000,000 tons, the sterling area consumes 45,000,000 tons a year, according to a statement by Mr. Ian Hamilton, M.A., F.R.G.S., in a recent issue of the Imperial Review. In 1948, this left 19,000,000 tons a year to be sold elsewhere and clearly established that there is a surplus of sterling oil. That is obviously the reason why Britain, according to a news item in to-day’s press, is able to supply Argentina with 5,700,000 tons, or approximately 1,700,000,000 gallons of liquid fuel during the next twelve months, in return for meat. The Prime Minister has estimated that 88,000,000 gallons will be required annually to end rationing of petrol in Australia. Britain is to supply Argentina with nineteen times that quantity in twelve months. My contention is that the surplus oil available should be distributed so that the Australian producer may participate more equitably. In that way, Australia could be put on equal terms with Argentina, our greatest competitor on the normal British meat market.

The unrestricted availability of bunker oil for foreign ships in British ports also tends to prove my contention that petrol rationing may be lifted in Australia without detriment to Britain. The sales of sterling oil to European countries receiving Marshall aid increased from 18,000.000 tons in 1947 to 26,000,000 tons in 1948-49, with planned sales of 30,000,000 tons in 1949-50. Those figures are given in a statement issued by the London Petroleum Press Bureau for April, 1949. The Prime Minister and the

Minister for Shipping and Fuel seem to be unable to get their heads together on the petrol story. In answer to a question last Friday, the Prime Minister gave the honorable member for Wide Bay the following information: -

Shipments of seamless steel tubing, which was surplus to Australian requirements, were also made to Borneo and Singapore. The piping was required for rehabilitation of the oil wells in Borneo. Oil from that locality is exported to Australia and other sterling areas, which obviates the expenditure of dollars.

Yet, speaking in the Senate on the 10th March last, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel stated as follows: -

The production of petrol in Borneo or any other “soft” currency area will not improve the position, because any demands made by Australia upon such sources will result in reduced supplies being available to Great Britain.

The Government would have us believe that we get little sterling benefit from sterling oil produced outside the British Common-wealth. This notion, however, overlooks the fact that the dollar expenditure for oil exploration, drilling, erection of refineries and related equipment, for existing sterling oil production was incurred years ago and was included in earlier United Kingdom balance of trade figures. It is not a current dollar expenditure. So far as the future position is concerned, the United Kingdom has developed the manufacture and production of oil drilling and refinery equipment and expects to sell this equipment to English, continental and American oil companies, thus reducing this dollar component in future sterling oil. If petrol rationing cannot be relaxed or abandoned because of extra sterling and soft currency production, which, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel says, will not improve the position, when and for what reason will rationing ever be lifted?

Many of the excuses that have been previously advanced by the Government for continuing petrol rationing have been abandoned by the Treasurer, no doubt because I have successively disproved each of them by up-to-date evidence. So the Prime Minister, driven to the last ditch, now relies on the dollar shortage, based on confidential information which he will not disclose for general scrutiny. He hopes that petrol users will be unable to find out whether that excuse is as flimsy as have been the other government arguments which I have successively disproved. After my experience of the grave financial errors in the last three budgets, I am not prepared to accept any assurance from the Prime Minister or his advisers on blind faith alone. In the absence of detailed information, I shall have to deal with the latest assertions in the light of information gathered from other sources.

In a nutshell, as it were, the Prime Minister bases his latest case on the shortage of dollars. However, I am informed that in New Zealand, within the last few weeks, the Finance Minister, Mr. Nash, when replying to a deputation from motoring interests who sought the abolition of petrol rationing, agreed that dollars were no longer the reason for continuation of rationing. He is also stated to have agreed with the deputation that petrol rationing should now be abandoned, but as New Zealand had agreed to comply with a request of the British Oil Trade Advisory Committee to continue rationing, he would now seek to have New Zealand released from that agreement. Surely Mr. Nash has access to financial information similar to that available to the Treasurer on petrol supplies related to the overall dollar position. Yet, according to my information, he agrees that it is not a question of dollar shortage. The Treasurer’s confidential information obviously refers to the general dollar position and not particularly to the various dollar-sterling manipulations with respect to oil.

The confidential information which has evidently convinced the Prime Minister might not stand up to the close scrutiny of open debate. For instance, it might give the dollar drain through increased imports of fuel oil into Britain, but it might not disclose certain dollar or foreign exchange profits and benefits arising therefrom. These overall gains arise from the sale of British coal, which dollar fuel oil imports release for profitable export. It might disclose the dollar losses from the imports of Virginian tobacco into Britain, but it might not allow for the profitable re-export of high-priced

Virginian cigarettes of British manufacture which are at present flooding the Australian market. In the same way, I was not prepared to accept blindly the Prime Minister’s decision that the latest offer to him of sterling petrol, made on the 24th May, this year, was not acceptable because the sterling would ultimately be converted into dollars. I was not convinced that he had had sufficient time to make proper inquiries about this new offer from a new company, so I made certain inquiries myself, and learned that the letter of the 24th May was handed to the Treasurer at 10 p.m. on that date, and yet the next day, at 4 p.m., he was able to give an involved prepared statement to the House. It appears most unlikely that he made a sufficiently detailed verification or investigation of that current offer, and it may well be that the information which he disclosed on convertibility related to the offer in August last year from a different company.

The offer of the 24th May was made by Ampol Petroleum Limited, an allAustralian company, and it was to import 30,000,000 gallons of petrol in sterling tankers in the next twelve months. I am advised by Mr. W. G. Walkley, the managing director, that the morning after the Prime Minister’s rejection speech, Mr. Walkley telephoned New York to confer with the American suppliers of petrol from Bahrein Island in the Persian Gulf. The New York office of the supplying company, which offered to sell Australia sufficient petrol in non-convertible sterling to end rationing in Australia, stated that sterling currency earned from its sales in Australia is placed into its resident London account. There, are no tags or dollar convertibility conditions relating to this account. If at any future date the company desired to convert some of its sterling to dollars, it would have to apply to the British exchange control authorities for permission to do so. The company would take the full risk of convertibility and the British exchange control authorities would have full and complete power either to grant or reject such an application. The supplying company sells large quantities of oil elsewhere within the sterling area and also in the United Kingdom, where it has a marketing organization. Because of Great Britain’s own increasing fuel oil consumption, some of its applications to convert sterling to dollars would be made to permit expansion of the United Kingdom policy in order to sell coal at a foreign currency profit. The company is erecting refineries in Europe and elsewhere, and is spending large sums, of sterling to purchase its stores and equipment and for sterling tanker freights. Because of the vital evidence which I have produced in rebuttal of the Prime Minister’s contention, I am not prepared to accept the arbitrary decision that he has made which was based on information of which he will not give the details.

The Prime Minister has not even made it clear whether he accepts the story prepared for him without reservation and without inquiring whether it contains any bias in the interests of any particular group. I am strengthened in my “ doubting Thomas “ attitude by certain assurances repeated in this House last year on vital Australian defence matters, which I knew to be incorrect, and which I had to dispel by disclosing documentary evidence. Because of that experience, I do not regard as sacrosanct any assurances based on details, the ultimate values of which cannot be probed by frank discussion and open argument. All the arguments which the Government has advanced so far have been disproved, by conclusive evidence to the contrary, and I have no doubt that the dollar argument, if the details were made available freely to the House, could be as easily dispelled.

SUPPLY. (“ Grievance Day.”)

Mk. A. A. Calwell, M.P.- Me. C. F. Adermann.. M.P. - Mk. R. T. POLLARD M.P. - Co-operative S Societies - Peanuts - Farmers’ Motor Vehicles - Proposed Aerodrome foe Naracoorte - Land Settlement of EXSERVICEMEN - Electricity Shortages - Alleged DISCOVERY of Noah’s ARK

Question proposed -

That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– In this country we have long been accustomed to fight for freedom of speech whenever that freedom has been threatened. Any attempt to stifle freedom of speech is regarded as a catastrophe in a democratic country, and the tradition of all democratic peoples is to resist any such attempts. However, it is clear that the present Government has not the same regard for freedom of speech. Through its mouthpiece, the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), it has resorted to victimization in an effort to stifle criticism of its actions or its members, however much that criticism may be justified. Of course, the actions of the Minister for Information himself have provoked almost continuous criticism. When I took part in the debate on the Appropriation Bill last night I criticized the Government for its decision to increase postal charges. In no part of my speech did I make any criticism of the Minister. However, the Minister, who followed me in the debate, opened his speech on a note of malice. Referring to me, he said: “I have been waiting for him for quite a while”. Then, shielding behind a letter that he alleged he had received, he attacked me. I do not know whether he wrote that letter to himself or whether some one of like mind who was afraid to reveal his name to the public or to substantiate the allegation contained in the letter wrote it. In any event, the Minister stated that since he regarded it as a confidential document he did not propose to reveal the writer’s name. In reply to the serious charges made against me in that document, I say unhesitatingly that my character and record of activities are on public view and have never been challenged. I am not afraid to answer before a committee of the House, or before any other responsible body, to the charges contained in the document. In the House this morning I invited the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to appoint a committee of the House to investigate those charges, but the right honorable gentleman declined to do so. By adopting that attitude he has condoned the unprovoked attack made upon my character by his Minister. It is clear that the Prime Minister is not concerned a-bout the character of any member of the Opposition, and that he is quite unperturbed that his Ministers and supporters should make such attacks upon honorable members who criticize his Government. I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon whether he would appoint a select committee to investigate the charges made against me by the Minister for Information and he said, in effect : “ I know that the honorable member had some controversy with the Minister for Information last night, but I am not concerned about that “. I remind the right honorable gentleman that the attack made upon me by the Minister was absolutely unprovoked, and for his benefit I shall repeat the charges made against me so that he may realize their seriousness. The Minister alleged that I had used my office in the Federal Members’ Rooms, and used the services of my official secretary to organize a co-operative body in my electorate. The Minister also alleged that I organized that body shortly before a general election, that I subsequently “ dumped “ it, and that the shareholders lost their money. That is a tissue of lies.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member ought to talk about lies !

Mr ADERMANN:

– The facts are that two co-operative bodies were formed recently and operate in Kingaroy, Queensland. One is a maizegrowers’ association, and the other wa? formed to engage in trade. I believe ir. co-operative effort, and I am a member of one co-operative society. That particular society was formed about 1920 by the local peanut-growers and is a subsidiary of the Queensland Peanut Board. The assets of the society are vested in that board. Neither of the co-operative societies has been disbanded, noT has any money been lost by their shareholders. I attended meetings of each of those bodies by invitation as a member of Parliament. Naturally the controllers of those organizations thought that I would be interested in their efforts. On behalf of the Maize Growers Association and growers I put up a fight to get the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), who interjected a few moments ago, to grant a licence for the export of their surplus grain, and subsequently he authorized the issue of an export licence. To return to the co operative associations, I point out that both bodies are still in existence, and that their shareholders have not lost any money. I had nothing to do with the formation of either organization, so that I could not have used my official office or my secretary for that purpose. Had either of the organizations concerned approached me, or my secretary in my absence, for assistance, I would have given them the courteous attention that any other honorable member would accord to his constituents.

After the Minister for Information had made his attack upon me last night I challenged the Government to appoint a committee of inquiry or to table the letter on which the Minister’s attack upon me was alleged to have been based. Had he done so we could have discovered who the writer of the letter was - that is, of course, assuming that the Minister had not written the letter himself. Alternatively, I challenged the Minister to repeat his allegations outside the House so that I would have an opportunity to take action. Such statements as that alleged to be contained in the letter must be either true or false, and if the allegations are not true, they must be lies.

So much for the allegations that I formed a co-operative organization in my electorate in order to win votes, and that I subsequently “ dumped “ the shareholders, who lost their money. I propose to say a few words now concerning another aspect of the Minister’s allegations. The Minister coupled the firm of Dalgety and Company Limited with the allegations that he made against me. As far as I know that firm has always enjoyed an honorable reputation. Why the Minister used its name, I do not know. I have had no association with Dalgety and Company Limited, and so far as I have been able to ascertain that firm has not been associated with either of the co-operative bodies to which I have referred. The Minister attributed ulterior motives to that worthy firm when he said that, at its instigation, I disbanded a cooperative trading society, with the result that the shareholders of the society lost their money. I have not yet seen a Hansard “ flat “ containing a report of the speech that the Minister made last. night. Therefore, I must rely upon my memory of what was said. The honorable gentleman does not deny that he made such a statement, or that that is the inference to be drawn from his remarks. To attack a man’s character and a firm’s reputation under the cover of parliamentary privilege is a mean action. The Minister would not be game enough to repeat his remarks outside the House.

The Minister criticized my activities, as chairman of the Peanut Board in relation to the grading of peanuts. He said, in effect, that I had approached the foreman who was in charge of the grading and had asked him to accept third grade peanuts as first grade nuts. I nailed that lie last night when I said that no grading of peanuts has been done since 1942. I was asked later by an honorable member whether I had made a mistake about that, because an application by the Australian Workers Union for a variation of graders’ wages is now before the Arbitration Court. That is not the kind of grading that the Minister for Information or his anonymous correspondent had in mind. Until 1942 payments to growers were made on the basis of the percentage of each load of peanuts that was suitable for marketing in the shell. The price paid for nuts suitable for marketing in that form was slightly higher than that which was paid in respect of those that were not so suitable. There was no need to classify peanuts as first or third grade. A fool-proof system was developed. Each load of peanuts that was delivered by a grower was given a number, put through a cleaning machine and weighed. Four per cent, of the nuts were then removed from the consignment. The small parcel of peanuts, which bore the same number as the entire load, was then taken to a shed in which approximately 50 women and girls worked. If 60 per cent, of the nuts in the small parcel were classified as being fit for sale in shell, the grower received a slightly higher price for 60 per cent, of the total quantity, than he received for the remaining 40 per cent. Tt would have been necessary to bribe almost every one in the peanut industry to secure an alteration of the decision of the gradera, The grading was done mostly by women. The sample from each consignment of peanuts examined by the graders was held for about three months after the completion of the grading so that a grower could, if he so desired, have it re-examined in his presence. The system was almost fool-proof. I do not know the date that is mentioned in the letter from which the Minister read. I repeat that since 1942 no system of grading which would affect the payments made to growers has been in existence. We now take all of the peanuts as they come from the thrasher. They are not classified as first or third grade nuts. The Minister has accused me of acting dishonestly and of using my position as chairman of a marketing board to obtain a financial advantage.

Mr Edmonds:

– The honorable gentleman accused the Government of dishonesty.

Mr ADERMANN:

– In the speech that I made at Gympie I was talking of the Queensland Government and not of the Australian Government. It is playing a low game to use a confidential document in order to launch an attack upon a man’* character that is quite without foundation. When I appealed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and said that the Minister’s remarks were offensive to me, no action was taken. The Minister was allowed to get away with it. I am not questioning your ruling. 1 have perforce to accept it. I am quite unable to understand the reference in the letter to the sacking of a grader. The wi-iter could not have been referring to the foreman who was in charge of the work prior to the war, because that foreman is still with us. I do not know what part of the Minister’s statement is true. All that I can say is that if the honorable gentleman is a man and if he has regard to the facts that I have been able to place before the House, he will play the game and withdraw his remarks. The Prime Minister has refused my request that a select committee consisting of honorable members of this House be appointed to investigate the Minister’s allegations. If such a committee were appointed, the members could go to Kingaroy and question whomsoever they liked to question. I should make no prior arrangements, because I know that truth will prevail.

I do not withdraw the statement that [ made at Gympie. When I used the words “ dishonest government I was referring to the Queensland Government, because the last electoral re-distribution in Queensland was so arranged that the value of a vote in some electorates is three times the value of a vote in others. So far as the number of electors is concerned, the present Queensland Government is a minority government. From memory, I think it polled approximately 15,000 votes less than the Opposition. If it secures the votes of approximately 40 per cent, of the Queensland electors, it will remain in office. That is not honest in a democracy. I believe in the principle of one vote, one value. I do not wish to alter the statement that I made at Gympie, but I do wish to correct the Minister’s statement that I was referring to the Australian Government.

To what use is the Department of Information being put? Has the Minister nothing better to do than to use the department, as apparently he is using it, to produce fabricated statements upon which to make attacks on members of the Opposition ? Some people call such statements dossiers, but they are only lying statements designed to defame the char,acters of those who seek to oppose Ministers politically. I am prepared to accept any criticism that is made on political grounds. We are all jealous of our own characters, as we have a right to be. Some one once wrote -

If wealth is lost, nothing is lost; if health is lost something is lost; but if character is lost, all is lost.

Never, in all the criticism that I have voiced in this House, have I, as far as I can recall, deliberately attacked the personal character of any honorable member and I do not intend to do so. I desire to keep my criticism clean, but I intend to make it nonetheless hard, because the Minister for Information attacked me in an abusive way last night. I shall make it hard where I feel that it should be hard, just as I try to be fair when I feel that the Government is entitled to commendation. I do not seek to condemn the Government for everything it does, nor does the Opposition generally. There are some bills to which we give our approval and which we do not challenge, because they are essential for the welfare of the community. I ask the Minister for Information, who attacked me in such a callous way under cover of parliamentary privilege and with no specific evidence of any kind, in an attempt to defame my character and victimize me, to play the man and apologize.

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

Honorable members interjecting.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Minister will resume his seat for a moment. The Chair is in charge of the House and intends to see that the debate is conducted in an orderly manner.

Mr POLLARD:

– Let ns have a look, I repeat, at this lily-white honorable member for Maranoa.

Mr Gullett:

– I rise to order ! As you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, know better than I do that under Standing Orders personally offensive attacks are out of order, I ask you to check the Minister if he continues with his outrageous attack on the honorable member for Maranoa.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member .concerned may ask for a ruling.

Mr Gullett:

– I have referred to Standing Orders.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not have an opportunity of quoting any Standing Order unless he is careful. The Chair is listening to the Minister. Honorable members are responsible for what they 3ay to the House, but the Chair is responsible for ensuring that unparliamentary language is not used. The Chair, other than that, has no control.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order! I refer you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, to Standing Order 272, which states in part - !Nb Member shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member thereof . . . and all imputations of improper motives and nil personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

That is irrespective of whether such reflections are couched in parliamentary terms or not. If they are offensive, or impute improper motives, they are highly disorderly and I ask you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, to apply Standing Orders accordingly.

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) has just concluded one of the lamest defences of a colleague that I have ever heard from a Minister in this House. He said that the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) did not make allegations against the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann), but had merely quoted 3ome information which he had received Heaven knows how. If that is to be accepted as a defence there is nothing to stop me from saying that I received an anonymous letter in which it is stated that a Minister of the Crown committed a burglary. Afterwards, I could deny that I had made any charge against the Minister, and was merely repeating what some one had written. Such behaviour could not be defended. If the Minister for Information has the information upon which he based his statement last night he should be prepared to submit it to the investigation of a select committee of the House, which would be empowered toexamine witnesses on oath and to call for papers. I was surprised when the Minister for Information attacked the honorable member as he did, because I did not expect him to go to the limit. I know that he has a strong antipathy to certain persons, but I had not previously suspected that the honorable member for Maranoa was one of them. I am sure that an overwhelming majority of the members of this House agree that the honorable member for Maranoa is one of the most gentlemanly and best conducted members here. Why, he has never even been named yet! I believe that the Minister for Information will, upon reflection, realize that if he used a document last night, the authenticity of which he cannot guarantee, for the purpose of maligning the honorable member for Maranoa, the proper thing for him to do is admit as much. Further, it is the duty of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) to protect the honour of the Government, and one of his Ministers is silent to-day because of action that the Prime Minister took with that end in view. Since so grave an allegation has been made against the honorable member for Maranoa, who is a public figure, the responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister to ensure that his case is properly investigated. Matters cannot be left where they are. If it comes to a matter of getting down on to certain transactions of the Ministry, then I ask the Ministry what was Mr. J ustice Ligertwood doing in Sydnry lately but inquiring into certain allegations made by a former member of this House who, as I said on the day after he was sworn in, was of such a character that he should be expelled from the Parliament for treason and blasphemy. As the result of that man’s allegations, Mr. Justice Ligertwood has sat for over 50 days to decide whether any imputation should rest upon a Minister of this Government. The Government had sound grounds for instituting an inquiry into those allegations. I was one of those who spoke in this chamber a long time ago, I believe, in opposition to my own party-

Mr Fuller:

– That is nothing new.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Perhaps not; but it would be something new for honorable members opposite to do so, except the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Fraser), who seems to enjoy some sort of poetic licence to oppose the Labour party outside so long as he votes for it inside ‘this chamber. Some years ago I took the stand in this House that the Prime Minister should take that course in order to have matters of this kind cleared up. What was my reason? I am not concerned about the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) ; I do not worry about him. He is not in my close circle of friends. But every one of us has an obligation to see that the public reputation of this chamber and of the Government is maintained at the highest possible standard and that no imputation against the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) should be made by members, or Ministers, without having it cleared up. If the statement made about the honorable member for Maranoa is founded on fact, he would be the first to admit that he was not entitled to remain a member of this House. But the statement is not founded on fact. I do not believe that there is an atom of truth in it ; nor, I think, does the Minister believe that there is. In this matter, I say emphatically that an apology is called for from the Minister.

I now wish to discuss a matter about which T received a. letter yesterday from the Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford), the windy Minister. For some time I have been attempting to negotiate for the establishment of an aerodrome at Naracoorte in my electorate. Everything seemed to be going perfectly and beautifully. Engineers visited the locality. A survey was made, although it was not exactly a theodolite survey. At any rate a reconnaissance in force was made by some of the heads of the Department of Civil Aviation. In addition, I received very encouraging letters on the subject. However, yesterday I received a letter from the Minister which was so long and windy that he would be able easily to fly a fortress in it. This is the gem of the letter -

Ft is regretted that this means a revision of my advice to you on the 11th September, 1947, but the circumstances now are such that, with the many immediate needs for development of aerodromes regularly used by airline services, it is not possible for my department to undertake the development of an aerodrome at Naracoorte at the present time.

I say, emphatically, that it is about time that the Ministry ceased leading people in various districts up the garden path and then dropping them. Naracoorte is in the centre of a growing district. It is situated on an air route, and should be catered for by the establishment of an aerodrome. I leave the matter there. I believe that the Minister, upon reflection, may have occasion to consider the subject further.

The next matter with which I wish te deal relates to soldier settlement. Here, again, we come up against the difficulty that service personnel who enlisted in the forces at an early stage and were honorably discharged because of wounds, injuries or other causes, are told to-day that because they were out of the forces at a certain date they are not eligible for any benefits under the Commonwealth soldier settlement scheme. That is a rank injustice which upon reflection the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) should decide shall not continue. I am sure thai other honorable members have made certain .representations on this matter. It should be investigated thoroughly. ] shall despatch a letter to the Minister giving details of certain cases which were raised by a member of the Parliament of South Australia, who, in the course of his remarks, used this very good Biblical illustration -

Why, even the workers in the vineyard in the Biblical parable at least all got the same reward, those who toiled all day getting like payment with those who came only at the eleventh hour.

In this instance, those who came early in the morning are not to receive anything at all.

Mr Dedman:

– They did not work all day.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No ; but. according to the Biblical story, those who did not work all day received the full reward. When those who had worked all day complained, the householder said to one of them, “Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny “. That should be the attitude of the Minister in this matter.

I am told that because of the shortage of electricity in Sydney, where there were 21 blackouts yesterday - I believe the practice is spreading to Melbourne - when private invitations are sent out to friends to attend social functions, the letters “BYOC” are shown on the invitations in addition to the letters “RSVP”. The latter letters are an abbreviation of a French phrase the meaning of which is generally known. Upon inquiry I found that the letters “BYOC” stood for the phrase “Bring your own candle “. That is because people in Sydney never know at what time the suburb in which they attend a function may be blacked out. Persons who are prepared to take part in any conviviality after dark must provide their own illumination.

The last matter to which I shall refer relates to a press report regarding Noah’s Ark. It is reported in the cable news from overseas that some Russian fellow some years ago on the slopes of Mount Ararat, a high prominence situated on tie border of present-day Russia and present-day Turkey, discovered what he believed to be the remains of Noah’s Ark. Wo should take a deep interest in this matter just as other people are doing. Expeditions of archeologists and scientists have been fitted out in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and a similar expedition is being fitted out in the Netherlands to go to Mount Ararat to see if there is anything to justify the claim made by that Russian. The Turkish Government,’ is whose territory Mount Ararat is, has refused permission to those expeditions to visit Mount Ararat because of representations which havebeen made to it by the Soviet Government. The latter government suspects that those expeditions may include people who may take views inimical to the interests of Soviet Russia, and, therefore, it does not want Dutch, British and Americans at Mount Ararat at all. A matter of this kind should receive the closest attention of the Australian Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) is at present overseas. Recently he presided at a meeting at Lake Success, the occupants of which, compared with those of Noah’s

Ark, are a great improvement in variety and miscellany. Before the Minister returns he should be sent to Mount Ararat to investigate this discovery, because no one can say that in any circumstances he could be looked upon as being even remotely harmful to the interests of the Soviet Union, whilst, as President of the United Nations General Assembly, there is no doubt that he needs to have the backing of all the information he can get from the remains of Noah’s Ark in order to keep that useless hulk afloat.

Motion (by Mr. Fuller) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided. (Mb. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 26

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 457

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1948-49

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st June (vide page 431), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr EDMONDS:
Herbert

.- During the debate on this bill honorable members have taken the opportunity to touch on a wide range of subjects. It is my intention to deal with one or two of the matters that have occupied the attention of honorable members. At the outset I wish to refer to certain comments made last night by the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) about the peanut industry. The honorable member said that no graders were employed in the industry. I do not want it to be thought that I have a personal interest in this matter. I do not know any graders or foremen in the industry, nor do I know any one who is interested in it, except the honorable member for Maranoa, who is chairman of the Peanut Board. In fairness to the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), who w.as attacked on this subject by the honorable member for Maranoa last night, I think that I should state what I know of the industry. In 1945’, prior to my election to this Parliament, I was State President of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union, and in my official capacity I prepared a log of claims for submission to the Arbitration Court covering workers in the peanut industry, which is the only industry of any magnitude in Queensland not covered by an award of the court. All endeavours by the union to obtain an award have been viciously opposed and rejected by the Peanut Board. That log, which was also bitterly opposed by the board and by the growers, included the designation of grader and a rate of wage to be paid to persons of that designation. There seems to be some confusion about the kind of graders mentioned in the debate last night. I do not know to what kind of graders either the Minister for Information or the honorable member for Maranoa referred. I am referring to a person who grades peanuts and upon whose grading the price of the crop is determined. It is unfortunate that an honorable member opposite, who poses as a believer in trade unionism, should offer such strong resistance to the granting of an award to an industry of the magnitude of the peanut industry.

Mr Duthie:

– How many employees are involved?

Mr EDMONDS:

– Hundreds are involved. The attack on the Government launched by honorable members opposite during this debate appears to have been principally directed against the Minister for Immigration- (Mr. Calwell). The Minister’s work has been of outstanding value. If anybody has done a good job to secure the future of Australia that person is. the Minister for Immigration. I do not adopt the role of his defender because I believe that of all the members of this House the Minister is perhaps the best able to defend himself. He certainly does not need assistance from me. Whilst I have no wish to resort to the parish pump, I have no hesitation in saying that m the district which I represent in Queensland, the work of the Minister for Immigration has been of tremendous assistance. 1 invite honorable members opposite who seem to find great delight in criticizing the Minister and the Government’s immigration policy, to come to Queensland and to say in front of the sugar-cane growers of that State, the things that they say about the Minister in this chamber. In only three districts of north Queensland, Herbert River, Tully and Innisfail, Bait workers out approximately -130,000 tons of sugar-cane last season. Members of the Australian Country party in this chamber who claim to be the champions of the man on the land, will have some understanding of what that means. Without immigrant labour, that cane would have remained unharvested, and its value would have been lost to the industry and to the country.

I was interested to read an article on immigration in the Sydney Morning Herald to-day. I am not one of those who believe that everything that appears in the press must be true. My experience has taught me that many press reports are completely without foundation, but I know that there is truth in this article.

It has a direct bearing on Australia’s immigration policy, and upon the administration of that policy by the Minister for Immigration. It was written by Sir Frederic Eggleston, a former Australian Minister to China, in reply to an article on the immigration policy of the United States of America written by Dr. C. E. W. Bean and published on the 26th May. The article states -

Sir Frederic Eggleston, former Australian Minister to China and to the United States, has submitted the following statements in reply to an article on United States immigration policy by Dr.C. E. W. Bean, published on May 20 : -

I suppose all discerning readers have -ecu that the article by . Dr. C. E. W. Bean dealing with U.S. immigration policy does not justify the title it hears. The impression given to Dr. Bean’s article, namely, that our policy is more harsh or more insulting than that of the United States, is not correct. America’s exclusion of Orientals was always ruthless before the establishment of the quota systemand now, outside the quotas, it is still ruthless for all migrants. Few exceptions are made, and deportation follows any violation of temporary permits. Notwithstanding the trifling quota given to Orientals by the United States, Australia has always been, and still is, more lenient in her policy than America.

The difference is that American action is taken as a matter of course by the people of that country and is not ventilated in the press, whereas, in Australia, criticism has a political basis and is made without a knowledge of the circumstances of each case, in ignorance of Australian policy, and in ignorance of the policy of other countries.

That is the very root of the trouble in this country. The article continues -

In addition, the liaison between the Australian Associated Press and Reuters is used to ventilate cases in Asiatic countries in order to get an additional stick tobeat the political tom-tom. The result is that grave damage is done to Australian interests without any real cause whatever.

The U.S.S.R. totally excludes all migration. Malaya, Siam, the Philippines, and Indonesia all have exclusion policies with small quotas or none at all. Most of these countries have internal discriminations against foreigners, while there are practically none in Australia. Canada and New Zealand, I understand, have a passport system of entry by which complete control is retained over admissions. These countries escape criticism while we, by the action of the Australian Press, are made the Aunt Sally for attack in South-East Asia.

It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence that nobody can say whether we are unjust to the Filipinos in the person of SergeantGamboa unless the treatment of Filipinios generally is known, nor can he say whether Indonesia has been treated badly in the case of Mrs. O’Keefe unless he understands that thousands of Indonesians, who were given sanctuary here during the war on a solemn promise to return, have gone back in pursuance of the promise given.

It is also clear that the leniency of the Australian Government in extending permits for long periods enables some people to make “ hard cases “, and this is one of the main causes of the outcry against Australia’s policy. Readers of my article in “ Pacific Affairs , quoted by Dr. Bean, will know that I am not in favour of a completely exclusive policy, but the transition to the policy whichI advocate will be a difficult one and will be made almost impossible by the press campaign.

When it is realized that no Australian party proposes any change in the immigration policy at the next election, the futility of the press campaign can be realized.

That is the answer to all the fuss that has been made about our immigration laws. I am sure that all Opposition members, whether they be members of the Liberal party or the Australian Country party, will, if they forget party politics, agree with the writer of that article.

– I shall tell the honorable member the story about that later. A man named Goebbels did that and then, instead of being the hunter, he became the hunted, and that will be the position of any one who does it in Australia.

The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) said last night that the Australian Government employed Communists. Of course it employs them and so do the tory governments of Victoria. South Australia and Western Australia, and Communists are employed also by private enterprise. When Concrete Constructions Limited, the company that is building the administrative block at Canberra, installed the sewerage at Townsville, it always promoted any man whom it found to be a Communist and whom it regarded as likely to create dissension among the workers. The company made him a ganger and boasted about doing so. Its attitude can be summed up in these words, “ The Communist is the best ganger we ever had, for, having been appointed a ganger, he becomes almost a slave driver “. So, what on earth is the good of talking about the Government employing Communists? My mind flies back to 1945, immediately before I was elected to the House. The Communists staged a strike in the pastoral industry in New South Wales and Queensland. The Australian Workers Union had filed applications in both the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the Queensland Arbitration Court for increased shearing rates. There was a good chance of the union’s being successful, and the Communists did not want it to get the credit. As a matter of fact, they did not want the increase, because they did not want contentment and harmony; for they thrive on discontent and discord. They formed themselves into bogus committees all over the country and told the shearers to reject the instructions of the federal executive and the State executives of the Australian Workers Union not to join in the strike. The only way in which a man could then get work in the pastoral industry was by going to the Communist bogus organizations and paying them a fee. In Queensland, the fee was £1. The Communists described it as a “ clearance fee “. Our advice to the members of the Australian Workers Union was to ignore the Communists, to refuse to pay the fee and to tell the graziers that they were willing to shear. Many of our members tried to follow that advice, but they were not successful, because, when they went to a grazier, the response was, “Show me your clearance “. When a shearer replied, “My union has told me not to pay the clearance fee because it is illegally charged by a bogus body”, he was told, “I do not want any trouble, and, until you pay your fi to the ‘ Communistshow ‘ and bring me your clearance, I cannot employ you”. Mr. Tom Dougherty, the general secretary of the Australian Workers Union, has a letter at his head office in Sydney from a grazier in New South Wales stating exactly the same thing. Honorable members opposite condemn the Communists now, but the only men whom the graziers would employ were Communists or dupes who had fallen into the trap and paid fees to their illegal organization. Incidentally, those funds were afterwards used to defend Communist enemies of the Australian Workers Union in Queensland courts. The money was paid to Max Julius, a Communist barrister who practises in Brisbane. What did honorable members opposite expect the members of the Australian Workers Union to do when the graziers of New South Wales and Queensland refused point-blank to employ them because, in effect, they were not Communists or had not subscribed to the bogus organization established by the Communists ?

Mr Rankin:

– Did not the Labour governments of Queensland and New South Wales allow the Communists “to intimidate graziers by burning their woolsheds and pastures?

Mr EDMONDS:

– Certainly not, as the honorable member is well aware. There is no greater distorter of facts in this House than the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin). The suggestion is absolutely untrue, and he knows that it is. Even yet members of the Liberal party are not unanimous on the subject of the proposed Communist ban. It is time that they made up their minds. Only about two weeks ago, on the 20th May, delegates to a Liberal party convention at Hobart expressed varying opinions about the desirability of banning the Communist party. Mr. G. T. Wright, a delegate from Burnie, said -

I put Communists in the same category as the rabbit menace in Australia. We ought to drive them underground and fill in the hole after them.

Mr. Wright was speaking to the following motion, not an amendment, that had been submitted to the convention : -

It is the opinion of this convention that it would be an unwise move to ban the Communist party, but that justice could be better served by prosecuting in the courts of law all persons charged with seditious or treasonable crimes, whatever their political party.

Honorable members opposite ought to examine the credentials of that fellow, because he was expressing Labour policy. Mr. D. Gunn, of Launceston, said -

Banning the Communist party would not rid the country of its members, but would simply drive them underground.

The move to ban the Communist party was defeated by the conference, but delegates decided to urge the Commonwealth Government and State governments to prosecute according to the law all persons guilty of seditious and treasonable crimes. That is exactly what the Australian Government is doing. What does the Liberal party really want? I suppose that its members are entitled to change their minds, but they ought to make a. final decision soon because an election is looming, and, unless they do so, people will be wondering what on earth they really intend to do about communism. My attention was attracted recently to a statement made by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). When somebody asked him whether he would provide ships to send Communists to Russia, the gallant old gentleman said. “ No. Let ‘em swim.” Nobody knows better than the right honorable member that, whether the Government provided ships, planes, trains or billygoat carts, or let them swim, it would have no right to deport them anyhow because a majority, if not all, of the people operating in Australia as Communists are Australian born. So what on earth is the good of talking about deporting them? Such talk only gives people something to laugh at, unless they happen to be fanatics, because it is very amusing. There was a time when the right honorable member for North Sydney did not want to deport Communists. He was a great mate of the “ Corns “ then. After Russia entered World War II., organizations known as “ aid to Russia committees “ were established throughout Australia. Everybody remembers that, until circumstances suddenly, compelled Russia to join the Allies, the Communists had decried the conflict as an “imperialistic war”. However, when Germany invaded Russia there was a tremendous stampede by antiLabour flag-wavers to join the aid to Russia committees alongside the Communists. At that time, the federal conference of the Australian Labour party was placed in the position of having to declare its attitude towards aid to Russia committees. It had to decide whether they were, in fact, patriotic bodies designed to assist the war effort or merely another means for the Communists to disseminate their filthy propaganda. The conference arrived at the conclusion that the committees were, in fact, subsidiaries of the Communist party. Each State executive of the party, and each branch within each State, was notified of the decision and informed that any member of the party then taking part in the work of aid to Russia committees must be withdrawn from such activities. We were fighting communism then, when many people who now accuse us of being either Communists or associates of Communists were working alongside Communists on those committees. They thought that the Communists were a great team of chaps in those days! One of ‘the most ardent of those flag-wavers was the right honorable member for North Sydney, who said, when he shook hands with no less an identity than Jack

Sharkey, “ The sins that you have committed in the past do not matter, comrade. We are pals now. Good on you J ack Sharkey ! “ Yet the right honorable gentleman and his. colleagues now have the indecent temerity to accuse members of the Australian Labour party of being Communists or Communist sympathizers! In Queensland, the Australian Labour party organization was torn to shredsbecause it refused to allow its members to take part in the activities of aid to Russia committees. Members of the party, and even entire branches, were expelled in the fight against the Communists, while the people who now point the finger of scorn at good Labour men actually helped them. The truth behind the Opposition’s present antiCommunist campaign is that it is devoid of any constructive proposals to submit to the people in its efforts to defeat the Government. It is obliged to use any sort of propaganda, honest or otherwise, and it has chosen communism as its catch-cry. Only a short time ago, hopes ran high in the Opposition camp. When the campaign against the Government’s banking legislation was at its height, honorable members opposite thought they were home and dried. They could not see how they could possibly lose the forthcoming election. But their prospects are not so favorable to-day. They are like many of the race-horses that I have backed. They go very hard, but they do not go fast enough. They go up and down in the one spot. They race too hard for the first two furlongs, forgetting that they must travel another six or eight furlongs, and, consequently, they have no breath for a finishing burst.

When a sick person is going to die, he sometimes suffers great pain for a period, then the pain passes and he becomes delirious. Members of the Opposition, particularly the supporters of the Liberal party, are now in a similar position. They have had a number of discussions about the allotment of portfolios after the next election. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) may invite me to state where I have obtained that news. If he desires to know how the news gets out from the Opposition party room, he should seek the leak, in the same way as members of the Labour party must seek to discover how news gets out from caucus. However, honorable members opposite have lined up the allotment of portfolios. The only difficulty is that three or four honorable gentleman believe that they will make a better Prime Minister than the right honorable member for Kooyong will. There will be a terrific scrap for that position. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) does not want to be Minister for the Army again, because it is just too silly to make oneself a lieutenant-colonel in peace-time when no honour and glory are associated with the rank.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– There is great safety, though.

Mr EDMONDS:

– The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) is a perfect “sitter “ for the job of Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Nobody would know better than he how to grow cabbages and beans, and, furthermore, his department would be run cheaply, because court records disclose that, sometimes, he forgets to pay his employees. So, if he does not have a wages bill, the cost of running the department will be infinitely less. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) is home and dried for the position of Treasurer, because his great knowledge of finance and figures would make Sir Stafford Cripps, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, look like an auditor of petty cash. The portfolio of Treasurer cannot be taken from him. The graceful and athletic figure of the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) will not adorn the Australian Country party benches in this chamber next year, because he has a nice little spot picked out for himself. The Australian Country party will throw him into the Senate. That will make it easier for the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen).I believe that the honorable member should be a member of the Cabinet, because he is ideally suited to control the gestapo that will hound down every man in industry who is prepared to claim and defend his industrial and social rights. Australians will be called upon to defend their industrial and social rights if the Opposition parties impose the ban that they have forecast. The only member of the Opposition whose job is assured in the new Parliament, always provided the Opposition parties win the next election, is the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who will be Mr. Speaker. I offer honorable members one guess as to why the honorable member for Barker will be elected Mr. Speaker. I believe that such a placid and agreeable person as he is should be retained in the Cabinet, even if his function is only to maintain peace and harmony there. That is the kind of talk that is heard in the party room.

However, like a dying man, honorable members opposite suddenly open their eyes in their delirium, and say, “ Before we can form a government, we must remove these terrible engine-drivers, clerks, union officials and farmers from the treasury bench. How can we do that?” They have set themselves an impossible task. They cannot tell the wheat-grower that they have paid him a better price for his product than the Labour Government has paid him. They cannot convince the wool-grower that, when they were in office, he received a better price for wool than he receives under the Labour Government. They cannot tell the dairy-farmer, who lived in a. state of semi-starvation under antiLabour rule, that his conditions have not improved since the Labour Government has been in office. They cannot satisfy the workers that they had a greater degree of social security under their administration than they have under the Labour Government. And they cannot tell the pensioners that 17s. 6d. or 21s. a week is as much as £2 2s. a week, which they receive from the Labour Government. They cannot even claim that the means test is comparable now with what it was when they were in office. The plain truth is that the Opposition parties have no means of convincing the people that they should be returned to office, and, therefore, they grab at communism as a popular catchcry and will continue to bark it until the next election. However, honorable members opposite have run their race. The people are sick and tired of hearing the two political parties that could not govern this country in wartime, when they had a majority in both chambers, tell the successful Labour Go vernment how it should administer the affairs of the Commonwealth. How on earth do honorable members opposite expect the people to believe anything that they say about the Communists, or any other subject? I hope that they will continue to tell the people stupid lies about decent and honorable Labour men being tied up with communism, because such talk will not get them anywhere. Honorable members opposite know that they are doomed to political defeat. As a man dies, the breath leaves his body. In the same way, the political breath has left the Opposition. I warn honorable members opposite to heed the words of Abraham Lincoln, “ You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) has two qualities which I admire. In common with some other honorable members opposite, he does not like communism. He is also a great believer in fairy tales. People who believe in fairy tales have good cause for satisfaction.

Mr MCBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– They live in a dream world.

– The right honorable gentleman really cannot believe everything that he says. He has too much common sense for that. Surely the Government is aware of the true position in this country. When we talk to our constituents and other people, do we find happiness, contentment, and all the things that make life worth living? Wherever I go, I find nothing but a sense of frustration and ill-being. People are nervous and fearful of the present and the future. In Melbourne there is practically no gas and electricity is available only at odd moments. Housewives in Melbourne never know whether they will be able to get a tram to take them to the shops or when their milk or bread will be delivered. They freeze because they cannot heat their houses. Those are not exaggerations but statements of fact, as every one who lives in Melbourne knows. The same kind of thing is happening in Sydney, where the electricity shortage is causing unemployment. Those are the conditions that obtain in what the Government regards as a prosperous and happy country. We are reverting to the conditions that existed in the middle of last century, when people lived in houses with leaky roofs and used rooms that were badly lit because there were not proper lights to use. To-day, the roofs of many houses in Australia are leaking because the materials to repair them cannot be obtained, and during electricity black-outs makeshift lighting appliances are used. The difference between the present time and the middle of last century is that 100 years ago the highest possible level of production was being maintained, whereas to-day we arc only scratching the surface of our productive capacity. The blame for that lies largely, but not entirely, upon this Government. Figures have been produced by the Government which show that the production of timber, tiles, cement, coal, and other materials has increased. It is true that the manufacture of many articles has increased by 5 per cent, or 10 per cent., but between 1939 and a few months ago the number of persons in private employment rose from 1,325,200 to 1,S27,300. Although employment has increased by 38 per cent, and, in addition, hundreds of modern machines which are in use now were not available in 1939, the production of some articles has increased only slightly or has actually decreased. The Government has acted wrongly by not giving the people an encouragement to produce. That is not surprising, because its policy is based on the old socialist doctrine that there should be the greatest possible equality of income and that the cake should be divided among all. No thought ever has been given to increasing the size of the cake so that the people may have more to share out among them. What positive action has the Government taken to increase production? Last night I heard honorable members opposite talk of the schemes that the Government has in mind. The Snowy Mountains project is one of them. That scheme is only in the blue-print stage and will not materialize for years. I do not propose to argue now whether the scheme for the production of aluminium in Tasmania is a good or a bad one, but we are still as far from producing aluminium in Tasmania as we were four or five years ago. Such schemes may be useful ten or fifteen years hence, but we need increased production now. We require a government that will give a lead to the people. If production is to be increased, the people must have incentives and discipline. That is recognized in the United Kingdom, where the Government is more advanced socialistically than is this Government. Mr. Horner, a Communist and the general secretary of the Mineworkers Union, has made the following statement: -

Miners will not dig more coal until they are given sufficient financial enticement.

In the journal of the Amalgamated En’gineering Union, one of the largest and most influential trade unions in the world, the following statement appeared : -

We shall get increased production -when we satisfy the people generally that it is worth their while to work hard. The ordinary man needs a kick or a carrot.

The Labour Government in Australia has a record of achievement for which there is no need to apologize. During the last eight years, the country has enjoyed prosperity of a kind never known before. We have witnessed remarkable developments in not only our secondary but also our primary industries. To-day the people of this country are enjoying unprecedented prosperity. As 1 said in my opening remarks, the conditions obtaining in any country must in a large measure be credited, or debited, to the government of that country. It is axiomatic that conditions in a country do not exist merely accidentally. Our present prosperity is direct evidence of the vigorous policy being implemented by the National Government. This Government has envisaged not merely the development of any State, or part of a State, but the development of the nation as a whole. At the same time, due to its wise administration. Australia’s prestige has never stood higher in the eyes of the world. Most Australians are proud of the part that this country is playing in the international sphere. Although we are a nation of only about 7,000.000 people, our representatives and spokesmen abroad are held in the highest esteem. That is not. accidental; Australia has done some-‘ thing tangible to earn that esteem. Thus, the Government’s policy is being vindicated, not only by the prosperity which Australians themselves enjoy, but also by the fact that Australia now occupies a position in the international sphere which no other country with so small a population has previously achieved.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 P-m.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.-The House is discussing to-night four bills which seek the appropriation of money to j>r’.’v:-de for the services of the Govern- ment for the next four mouths. A great many subjects have been dealt with by honorable members during the debate on these measures. Some strange statements have been made by honorable members on the Government side of the House. For instance, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) accused Opposition members, and particularly the members of the Liberal party, who are quite capable of looking after themselves, of being the friends of the organization known as the Friends of the Soviet Union and supporters of the Aid to Russia movement. He said that in all States the Australian Labour party had instructed its members to keep absolutely clear of the people associated with these activities because they were Communists. That instruction may have been issued in Queensland, but if it was issued in other States it was ignored. I well remember that when Russia was allied with Germany in the war with the Allied powers the Friends of the Soviet Union marched through the streets of Bendigo. In the second rank of marchers was the Honorable L. W. Galvin, the deputy leader of the Australian Labour party in Victoria, Mr. De Grandi, an old friend of mine, Mr. Duus and other prominent members of the Australian Labour party. These representatives of Labour gallantly marched behind the red flag, taking their place alongside the Friends of the Soviet Union notwithstanding that the Soviet Union was then opposed to the British Empire. No matter what honorable members opposite say, they cannot get away from the fact that the Menzies Government banned the Communist party and put the well-known Communists, Thomas and Ratliff, behind bars, and that immediately after the Labour Government had assumed office it schemed to release Thomas and Ratliff without incurring the opporbium of the people. The honorable member for Herbert accused the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) of rushing round and shaking hands with the members of the Friends of the Soviet Union and of waving the red flag at a time when Russia was our ally. The memhers of the Australian Labour party supported those people when Russia was our enemy. Long before then the Australian

Country party had made its position in relation to the Communists quite clear. We said that we would have nothing to do with them and that we would ban ti”* Communist party and drive its members underground like rabbits and after they were driven underground we would gas them if we could. The great majority of the people who are leading these antiBritishers are importations from another country. The Minister for Immigration (M.r. Calwell) proposes soon to introduce a bill to amend the Immigration Act to give the Government power to deport certain people.

Mr Edmonds:

– He should be in the House.

Mr RANKIN:

– There are many occasions on which the honorable member for

– The Minister makes a lot of silly statements and asks a lot of silly questions. They are not worth answering. The fact remains that country people are expected to work extra hour* and to produce 84 per cent, of the exportable wealth of Australia. All the wool, wheat, meat, and metals that we export are produced in the country districts. When our primary industries face a serious recession of prices, the present day “ golden age “ of which the Prime Minister speaks so glibly will disappear, and will be replaced by a cold iron age in which people will have to work hard to save this country’s economy. The day when they can walk out when any one speaks to them, will go and they will have to do their duty to Australia as the primary producers are expected to do theirs to-day. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has asked for increased butter production. I support his request, and I hope that the dairyingindustry will fall into line; but the treatment that the dairy-farmers have received is responsible for the serious slump in the output of butter fat. Lately, production has slightly increased, but for a long time there was a steady decline. The only primary industry that has gone on steadily is the grazing industry, which is the one primary industry that the Government has not yet interfered with. But the cat’s claws are outstretched as it watches the quail and hopes to grab it and bite into its fat. The Government is breaking its. neck to take over from the

Joint Organization. It is breaking its neck to interfere with the meat industry also. As the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture knows very well, it had one try to get its hands on to that industry. It had a “ go “ at the pig industry, failed dismally and was glad to get out of the picture. The grazing industry is the only industry that has not only held its own but has also gone ahead. The Government makes no attempt to supply the essential needs of primary producers, such as ordinary fencing wire, wire netting, cyanide and ammunition. About fifteen months ago I asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, as the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice), a question about cyanogas and ammunition, and I said that ‘rabbits showed every sign of increasing to plague proportions. It was about the time of the opening of the duck season, and the Minister was so narrow minded as to say “ Ob ! So you want to go duckshooting, do you?” I have not been duckshooting for about four years, and I had no- intention of going on that occasion; but I had an interest in the welfare of my country and my fellow Australians. I knew the menace of the rabbits, and the Minister ought to have known it too, because he has his satellites spread throughout Australia. But apparently they did not report the actual position to him. Recently, I again asked whether dollars would be made available for the importation of cyanogas and .22 calibre rifle ammunition. I was given a. reply by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Customs, but, although my question had stressed the need for the importation of cyanogas or other fumigants, no mention was made of them. The reply furnished by the Minister for Trade and Customs read -

There is a substantial local production of 22 calibre ammunition.

I should like to know where the local production has gone. I could take 10,000 rounds into any small town in northern Victoria or southern New South “Wales and sell them at twice the proper price. It is impossible to get .22 calibre ammunition. Repeatedly, I receive letters asking me to help the writers to get some, but

I have to tell them that it is not possible. One can buy an odd box at hardware stores, of course, but not onehundredth of requirements is available. Fumigants are unprocurable. Primary producers cannot buy cyanogas. The shortages mean added work and a waste of time in trying to keep the rabbits at bay. The rabbit plague causes a terrific loss of forage. The rabbits not only eat the pastures but befoul them, and stock do not do well on pastures after the rabbits have been on them. That means a great loss to the country. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and his colleagues imagined that they had discovered a new Australian industry in the rabbits. They were sending millions of skins to the United States of America. At that time, the American soldiers were being paid colossal rates. They received about three times as much money as the Australian Government paid the men it conscripted. So much did they earn tha.t they were able to buy rabbit-fur coats for their girl friends. The market for Australian rabbit skins was tremendous. After the war. when the American troops had been demobilized and had spent their money, the Government of the United States of America restricted import licences for rabbit skins by 60 per cent. When the market was wide open and rat biters could get 3s. a skin, every man at a loose end went rabbiting and made good money out of it. To-day, however, people are not willing to do the hard work that rabbiting entails, and rabbits constitute now a national menace instead of what the Government was so misguided to regard as a flourishing industry. The reply to my question continued -

Import licences are freely issuable for 22 calibre ammunition when produced in countries whose currency in relation to sterling is considered “ easy “.

Despite the fact that available supplies do not fully meet the present demand licences n.re not at present being issued for the importation of this ammunition from the dollar area. Licences for limited quantities from the dollar area were issued last quarter, but the demand for allocation of dollars for other goods with greater priority made it impossible to continue the allocation for .22 calibre cartridges.

The Government wanted to import certain commodities to provide more amenities in the cities, especially for the wharf labourers who were too tired to unload the stuff that was imported. The wharf labourers are the people who dictate the foreign policy of Australia. They took the side of the Indonesians. That prompts me to say without hesitation that I am with the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) in connexion with the deportation of the Indonesian family that came here and was succoured in Australia during the war and then tried to work a scheme to stay here. We do not want Indonesians here. Doctor Soekarno, who was supported by the wharf labourers and who went to Japan, where he was decorated by the Emperor, gave to some friends of mine and of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) a “ safe conduct “ in Java. Then the Indonesians ambushed the men and shot them. Not satisfied with having shot them, they tore them to pieces as a tiger tears its prey. They are the people whom the wharf labourers stood up for. If they had the opportunity again they would add to the ill-feeling that has been caused between us and the Dutch. Those of us who know anything of the facts realize that we owe a great deal to the Dutch for the part they played when the Japanese plunged down through the islands with a view to attacking Australia but were halted. There are certain things about the Minister for Immigration with which I agree. With others I disagree.

Mr Hughes:

– Stick to that !

Mr RANKIN:

– Yes. I disagree with the unprovoked and foul attack that he made on the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) yesterday. The Minister quoted a letter the writer of which was not prepared to allow his name to be revealed. The Minister tried to make out that he had cast no aspersions on the honorable member for Maranoa, but he read a foul letter, which was devoid of truth, and which alleged vile things about the honorable member for Maranoa. The reading of that letter by the Minister was heard by the radio listeners and the letter was also made available to the readers of newspapers that published it. Forty per cent, of the listeners and the newspaper readers would believe that there was something in what had been said. They would take the attitude : “ There must be something in it, or it would not have been published in the press or allowed to have been broadcast “, or they would say “ the Minister would not dare to say it unless there was something in it”. I regret that the Minister saw fit to make such statements.

– I should say that the growers are getting a good price now, and I do not believe that our economy would be endangered if sugar plantations were extended to cover a much greater area of the beautiful country that I saw recently in Queensland.

– He had seen a lot of tobacco. Some of it was not very good. but some was high quality mahogany leaf that had been grown in good country, and it commanded a price that, in the opinion of the buyers, was too high in comparison with the price of the other leaf. I have also shown samples to the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and to people at the United States Embassy in Canberra, who said that the mahogany leaf was so good that it would have been used in the United States of America for only one purpose, the making of cigars. The leaf that I showed to the Minister was grown on Gunbower Island. I hope that the Government will take action to protect tobacco-growers and other primary producers in northern Queensland and the Northern Territory. “We must subsidize their products and keep them on the land ifwe are to hold Australia for ourselves. Those great areas in the north of Australia, with their long seaboard, must not be left open to any enemy, and God knows, there are hundreds of millions of potential enemies only a few hours’ flight from our shores.

– Some of the pastoralists in the north express the opinion that a settler on a small area requires a capital of between £15,000 and £20,000 in order -to make a successful start. I do not know the reasons that ‘they give for holding that view, but I doubt the accuracy of their estimates. Some of the successful settlers in thenorth began with substantially less capital than £15,000 or £20,000, and they carried on under worse conditions than those that prevail to-day. Although transport facilities in that part of the Commonwealthare still bad, they are a considerable improvement on the original conditions. I do not believe that a young man who is prepared to work, requires such a large capital as £15,000 or £20,000. The real obstacle is that the present settlers do not want any opposition or competition. They do not desire other people to take over the land and make a success of their ventures. In the same way, in the early days of Australian settlement, the squatter did not want the settler, because he knew thai if one settler could farm successfully, a veritable flock of new settlers would come into the district. Indeed, a squatter used to call the settlers “ cockies “ because a few came ahead of a large flock whenever there was a living to be made. A similar outlook causes the present settlers in the north to take a pessimistic view of a small settler’s prospects of success. When I was in Darwin some days ago, I was told that a new settler on a small holding must have considerable capital. In my opinion, that view is absolute rot. I do not believe that a young man who is keen to work, requires such a large sum of money before he can make a success of his venture. I emphasize the necessity for increasing the population in the north in the interests of national defence. No one will defend his country so strongly as the man who has his home and land in it, and hopes to leave his family there in comparative wealth, or, at least, with social security.

Honorable members opposite frequently claim that the people of Australia are extremely sorry that they voted against the rents and prices referendum. Personally, I do not know of any one who regrets the defeat of the referendum other than a few who derived some advantages when the Commonwealth controlled rents and prices. Those persons include those who were employed in administering prices control, and others who, in their business, worked on a cost-plus basis. The majority of the people are extremely glad to have shaken one tick off their backs. It is sad to relate that the Government found soft jobs for the persons previously employed in administering prices control. The Government transferred them to other departments, instead of allowing them to be absorbed in productive work and to become of some value to the community. They became as it were, an additional lot of fleas on another dog. The defeat of the referendum aroused the Government to extreme anger, because it loves power, and delights in being able to order people around. Thoroughly disgruntled, the Government looked around to see how it could square its account with the people and the Opposition. It speedily found a way to do so, by withdrawing the subsidies that it had been paying on foodstuffs and other commodities. In addition, the Government refused to assist the States to administer prices control by providing them with experienced staff.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) put -

That the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mb. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 31

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question, so resolved in the negative.

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

– The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) said that he thought the people of Australia were very pleased that the permanent power to control rents and prices had not been given to the Commonwealth. The only conclusion to which I can come is that he is hopelessly out of touch with public opinion. I have with me a copy of the Wagga Wagga > Daily Advertiser, one of the Henderson chain of newspapers, which, in the course of an editorial in January, 1949, stated -

The increase in thu cost of living since the end of the war has been heavy, and since the Commonwealth Government relinquished controls, following the order of the electors, it has risen so steeply that the country is on the verge of a minor inflation. Undoubtedly the action of the federal authorities in withdrawing subsidies has bad a lot to do with the situation, but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that the transfer of price controls to the States has proved a dismal failure, and will probably prove to be a calamity in the next few months. Few unbiased people who voted against the referendum last year would now deny that they made a grave mistake. Up till that time there was reasonable stability, and Australia’s cost-of-living rise was lower than any other country’s.

The cost of living in this country was, in fact, the lowest in the world. To-day the opinion expressed in that article i3 widely held throughout Australia. I contrast the considered views expressed in that article with the foolish statements made by opponents of Labour during the referendum campaign. For instance, a pamphlet was issued by the Liberal party in Western Australia. A photograph of Mr. McLarty was prominently displayed, and underneath it was his promise to the people of Western Australia, which read : “ I will give you better price control “. A similar pamphlet was issued in South Australia with a similar caption displayed under a photograph of Mr. Playford. The honorable member for Bendigo placed great stress on the cost of administration of prices control by the Australian Government, but I remind him that the administration of prices control by six separate governmental authorities is costing far more than did the former system. Every month six State ministers and their advisers have to assemble in one of the capital cities, and their travelling costs money. Despite the best efforts of the States, their administration of prices control has proved a dismal failure, as the newspaper to which I referred pointed out.

Some critics of the Government have accused us of handing over control of rents and prices to the States too hastily. That criticism does not appear altogether consistent with the contention of our opponents that the States could more efficiently administer prices control. I recall that at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers to arrange for the transfer of responsibility for prices control from the Commonwealth to the States, which was held in this chamber, a tentative date for the transfer was mentioned. The Premier of Victoria, Mr. Hollway, then said to the Prime Minister : “ Do you not think, Mr. Prime Minister, that you ought to continue the control of rents and prices a little longer ?” The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) said that, the verdict of the people was that the Commonwealth should not continue to administer the control of prices and rents, and that, in accordance with the people’s verdict, he did not propose to delay the transfer of its administration to the States. The State Ministers then requested the Australian Government to continue its administration of controls, which had been so successful, a little longer. Indeed, it was, as the newspaper article that I have just read pointed out, the most successful in the world. The Australian Government was not overhasty in transferring its power of prices control to the States. As the Prime Minister pointed out so clearly, it had to act in accordance with the decision expressed by the electors, because respect for the declared will of the electors is a democratic principle to which members of the Australian Labour party have always subscribed.

During the campaign which preceded the taking of the referendum on control of rents and prices we made it clear that in the interests of the community, we would continue to pay subsidies on commodities for which payment was justified, and we have continued some subsidies. Superphosphate, for instance, is subsidized by as much as £2 los. a ton, and the Government is still paying very substantial subsidies on tea. I remind honorable members of those facts because members of the Liberal party are urging the Government to “ re-institute “ subsidies. In fact, some members of that party have gone much further and have advocated that the Government should pay subsidies on all manner of commodities. Mr. R. G. Casey, the president of the Liberal party, has even suggested that the Commonwealth should subsidize the cost of house construction. However, some members of the Liberal party ave opposed to the payment of subsidies. For example, Miss Nancy Wake, in one of the weekly contributions which she makes to the press, wrote -

I think we would be better off if we paid free market price for tea, did away with these irritating coupons, and have the money that we are forced to pay for subsidies deducted from our taxes. The tea would not really cost any more. But the cost to the Government would be reduced.

Other Liberal members have also expressed similar views. It is clear, therefore, that there is no consistency whatever in the attitude adopted by our friends opposite on this important matter of prices control. During the referendum campaign I told the people quite frankly that they would be the greatest losers if the power to control prices was taken away from the Australian Government, and I pointed out that the greatest losers would be the primary producers. At that time the farmers were enjoying the benefits of a sound internal economy and buoyant markets overseas. In most overseas countries the cost of living had increased to 100 per cent, more than the Australian co.=t of living, so that the farmers were enjoying the best of both worlds. However, I emphasized that the discontinuance of the administration of prices control by the National Government would inevitably result in substantial increases of the cost of living, and that it was almost equally certain that the overseas prices of their products would steadily decline. The members of the Australian Country party, who claim to represent the primary producers, of this country, did the primary producers a great disservice when, with their bedmates, the members of the Liberal party, or whatever its name may be at the present time, they advised the people to vote “ No “ at the referendum on rents and prices control. We are confident that the Government’s policy was the correct one, and the blame for any inflation that may have occurred in Australia lies upon the shoulders of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party.

This afternoon the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) asked what the Prime Minister had done to combat communism and went on to inquire how many ‘Communists had been gaoled. Apparently that is the yardstick by which honorable members opposite measure the success of an attack upon the Communists. The lack of an effective system of prices control in Australia could give a great impetus to the Communist movement, because, without such a system, inflation may occur, and it is in the misery that is caused by inflation that communism flourishes. The only way in which communism can be destroyed in any country is by giving the people security of employment and freedom from want. That is what this Government is doing. First, it is trying to place the Australian economy on a stable basis; secondly, it is implementing a policy of full employment; thirdly, it is providing social services to give the Australian people the security to which we believe they are entitled ; and fourthly, it is seeking effective control of the hanking system so that if a recession occurs overseas and our income from exports is reduced a programme of public works can be put into operation in order to prevent unemployment in this country. It is only along those lines that communism can be fought effectively and it is along those lines that the Government is dealing with the problem now and will continue to deal with it while it remains in office.- The honorable member for Flinders said that he was a believer in free enterprise. I recall that not very long ago, when speaking on a motion for the adjournment of the House, the honorable gentleman pleaded for the establishment of a marketing scheme for poultry-farmers. He wanted the Government to give the poultry-farmers a guaranteed price for their eggs and to ensure that pollard, bran and wheat were made available to them at concessional prices. How does the honorable gentleman reconcile those requests with his professions of belief in free enterprise ? Did he support the Australian Country party in its demand for the stabilization of the wheat industry? Did he support the demand of the Australian Country party that wheat-growers should be assured of a guaranteed price for their wheat based on the cost of production? Did he support the request of the wool producers for a joint organization such as that which was created by this Government, in co-operation with the governments of New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom, for the purpose of stabilizing the wool industry? Enterprises such as those are co-operative enterprises. They are enterprises of the kind in which the Labour party believes and which this Government has established. Does the honorable gentleman desire that we should revert to the conditions that obtained before the war, when free enterprise was given a free rein by a Liberal government and thousands of Australian tradesmen were unemployed? In the depression years there were 700,000 unemployed people in this country. Is that the kind of free enterprise in which the honorable gentleman believes? It is under free enterprise of that kind that the Communist party achieves its greatest growth. Communism will not be destroyed by putting Communists into gaol or banning the Communist party. . Although the Menzies Government placed a ban upon the Communist party, Communists continued to occupy key positions in the coal-mining industry, the building industry, the Victorian railways, and in some of the engineering unions. That ban was “ phoney “, as is the story that is being told to-day by honorable gentlemen opposite. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was in Perth after his recent tour overseas, I listened to him addressing a meeting. He made a great oration, as he is always capable of doing, and concluded by saying, “ We shall fight the Communists. We shall smite them hip and thigh “. When he came to Melbourne, the “ big boys “ of the Liberal party apparently said to him, “ Bob, that is not good enough “. When the right honorable gentleman made his next speech he went a little further, but apparently his effort still was not good enough. By the time he reached Sydney he had apparently made up his mind that he would have to ban the Communist party again. Banning the Communist party will not destroy communism. The only way in which to fight it is by providing economic security for the people, as this Government is doing.

The propaganda in which the Leader of the Opposition is indulging to-day is just as dishonest as that which was indulged in during the rents and prices referendum campaign. Its purpose is to deceive the people of Australia. I have in my hand a quarter page advertisement, in which the right honorable gentleman promises that if the Liberal party is returned to power after the next general election it will provide houses for young couples. That is completely dishonest. How does the right honorable gentleman propose to provide houses for young couples? The Commonwealth has no control of the allocation of building materials or the issue of permits to build houses in any part of Australia other than in its own territories. That control is exercised by the State governments. The right honorable gentleman has said so himself. At a recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing, of which I was chairman, I made certain suggestions about how the Commonwealth might assist the States with regard to housing, and I was told by the Premier of South Australia that he did not want the Commonwealth to encroach further into the field. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition has promised houses for young couples. The advertisement contains the sentence -

You are penalized to-day by the Chifley Government, which gives priority to extravagant building plans for Commonwealth departments.

The Commonwealth has no authority to give priority to any building in Australia other than a building for defence purposes. If the Commonwealth desires to construct a building other than one for the purposes of defence, it must seek a permit for the necessary building materials from the State government concerned.

Mr Thompson:

– Even for a suburban post office.

Mr LEMMON:

– That is so. The advertisement refers to extravagant building programmes for Commonwealth departments. Any proposals for large Commonwealth buildings, other than hostels and houses, are referred to the Public Works Committee, on which .members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party serve with members of the Labour party. While I have been Minister for Works and Housing no major building programme that has been unfavorably reported upon by that committee has been undertaken by the Government. Furthermore, every report that has been submitted to me by that committee has been unanimous. Apparently, therefore, either the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the procedure of this House - and I can assure the House and the country that he does understand it - or his statements constitute just another one of his outright deceptions, which he is trying to foist on the people of this country. I now come to his next effort, or the next effort of whoever prepares those advertisements for him. Another such advertisement states -

This is what wo will do about rural housing.

I repeat that the right honorable gentleman would have no constitutional power whatever to do anything about rural housing other than to make finance available to the States should they desire to do something about it. The fact is that I raised the matter of rural housing at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture last August, at which representatives from all the States were present. The council decided that the matter of rural housing was one entirely for the States, and when I suggested that the State representatives on the council might discuss it and make representations along certain lines to the Commonwealth, they informed me that they desired no assistance and that if they should desire assistance they ‘ would approach the Commonwealth. No approach has been made. Let us again look at this advertisement. In it the right honorable gentleman declares that if returned to power his party would investigate the housing problem as it affected rural areas. As if there had not already been enough investigation in connexion with housing! He continued that the Liberal party would enable higher priorities to be given for rural housing. It is rather strange that the Leader of the Opposition should say that if he is returned to power his Government will give higher priorities to rural housing. That is merely another deception, because only the States can give priorities in regard to housing. The only parts of Australia in which the Commonwealth has power to give priorities regarding housing are the federal territories. He then goes on to say that his party will facilitate the erection of groups of workers’ homes by the State housing commissions and local government authorities. How can it facilitate the erection of houses by local government authorities? The only way it could do it would be by offering financial assistance to those authorities. It is rather strange that when the Opposition parties were in office, and when the present federal president of the Liberal party, Mr. R. G. Casey, was Treasurer, they went to the country during an election campaign and said they intended to make £.10,000,000 available for housing-

Mr Ryan:

– What authority has the Minister for that statement?

Mr LEMMON:

– We still have copies of the relevant advertisements. At the election previous to the one I have just mentioned., the LyonsPage Government was seeking return to office. The present Opposition parties that formed the Lyons-Page Government caused to be displayed throughout Australia posters bearing a picture of a great Commonwealth bank cheque which bore the words “ £12,000,000 paid to the wheat-growers of this country. Signed, Lyons-Page”. I was a wheat-grower in those days and I can say definitely that wheat-growers did not receive a penny of that money. That was just another deception. At the election after that they used the great deception about their housing plan that I have mentioned. At that time thousands of tradesmen, including carpenters, bricklayers and plumbers, were walking the city streets and the country roads seeking a few days work. Yet the present Opposition parties produced this deceitful advertisement. They were elected, but they did not make one penny available for housing. When they were asked why they did not do so they said, “We have not the constitutional power “. Has there been any alteration of the Constitution in regard to this matter since then? Of course not! But the federal president of the Liberal party, Mr. Casey, and the Leader of the Opposition, who is his office boy, now say, “ We are going to make this money available “, although they said, when they were in office, that they did not have the constitutional authority to make money available for housing. This Government, on the other hand, has really done something about that matter, lt realized in 1944 that we must be prepared when the war ended to deal with the housing position and it called the States together and brought into being the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement of 1945, under which we have made available to the States - although we were told by Mr. Casey, when he was asked to honour his promises, that it was not constitutionally possible - no less than £42,000,000 has been made available to the States for housing, through the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement and in this financial year a sum of £20,000,000 will have been made available under the agreement. Those figures underline the difference between this Government’s record of action and the record of promises made by the Opposition. It is a shocking thing that the Leader of the Opposition should allow his name to be used in advertisements that are completely dishonest, when he knows perfectly well that he has no power to keep his promises.

Mr Duthie:

– The Leader of the Opposition signs those advertisements.

Mr LEMMON:

– That is correct. Each of those advertisements carries his signature. Then we come to a matter that seems to concern the honorable member for Flinders. It is an article contained in the Daily Telegraph of the 1st March this year, under the heading, “ House-builders need subsidies to meet increasing costs “, and under the signature of Mr. R. G. Casey. In that article Mr. Casey gives Daily Telegraph readers a great story about what the Liberal party will do. One paragraph reads -

So control of the purse strings by Canberra puts the responsibility on the Federal Government. What are they doing about it?

The “ it “ refers to the matter of finances for housing. That shows how far out of touch Mr. Casey is when, as I have said, this Government has already brought into existence the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, under which, in combination with the operation of the War Service Homes Act, we shall make available approximately £20,000,000 for housing in one year. Another paragraph of the article states -

The Government can, if it wishes, iron out the gross fluctuations in the number of houses built and help maintain a constant and high level of home-building in good times and in bad.

That is the policy that Mr. Casey says that the Opposition parties will undertake if they are returned to office. Yet, when they had the opportunity to do so, at a time when both materials and man-power were abundant and they could have put into operation an effective home-building programme, they did nothing. It was in the periods when the Opposition parties had power and should have done those things, but did not, that communism grew by leaps and bounds in this country. That was the period when this allegedly great statesman, Mr. Casey, should have proved his statesmanship by doing some of the things that he now promises his party will do. This Government has already done those things, so it is rather superfluous for the federal president of the Liberal party to say that his party will do them when it obtains control of the treasury bench. He further states in the Daily Telegraph article from which I have already quoted, that rental subsidies paid under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement are limited, in their application, to basic wage earners. That is untrue. The rental subsidy under that agreement is not limited to basic-wage earners. It is calculated on the basic wage, but in Victoria and New South Wales, where the cost of houses is high, the father of a family who is the only wage earner in the house may receive a rental subsidy even though his income is £8 or £9 a week. That shows how little Mr. Casey knows of the general housing position, and of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Mr. Casey also claimed that inadequate attention was given to the use of new methods and materials and to research into largescale housing projects which, he said, had been entirely neglected. Apparently, the president of the Liberal party in Australia, who has travelled extensively throughout the country, knows nothing about the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, or about the information which it makes available to institutions interested in house-building. The station investigates new methods of construction, and its recommendations are sought and accepted by banks and insurance companies that lend money on house property. During the last three years, the station has drawn up codes of practice for over 40 new types of building. Apparently, Mr. Casey is also ignorant of the work done by the building materials section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which tests all kinds of timber and timber substitutes. The “ tall poppies “ of the Liberal party are completely out of touch with the requirements of the people in ‘regard to housing.

The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) attacked the plan for the rebuilding of Darwin, and referred critically to conditions in that town. I think he made six specific charges. None of them can be substantiated. Eight months ago, when I was about to visit Darwin, I discussed the situation there with the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson), the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), who asked me to examine the complaints that had been received about the Darwin plan. When J. reached Darwin, some of the residents told me the same kind of stories as we have heard from the honorable member for Parramatta. I thought that the only way to tackle the matter was to call a public meeting, which I did. I had with me the director of my department and the chief engineer, together with the ‘town planning officer, who is a fully qualified architect. I asked the people at the meeting to state their complaints about the plan and the general administration insofar as it affected the Department of the Interior and the Department of Works and Housing. However, no complaints were forthcoming. Then I was approached by two men, who said that the people were nervous about making complaints at a public meeting, so I asked officials of the Chamber of Commerce to bring to my office all those who had any complaints to make. About ten people representing different organizations came to see me. and they voiced some complaints and made suggestions. It became evident after discussion, however, that they had complained only because they did not understand the general plan for the development of Darwin. When the whole plan was put before them, and it was explained how it was proposed to develop the industrial area, the shopping area, the residential area, and. the areas set apart for the Army and the Air Force, they had no objections to raise. They said that, for the first time, they understood the plan, and were prepared to support it. The honorable member for Parramatta said that the plan was designed by the Department of Post-war Reconstruction for a population of 20,000. I remind him that the plan was prepared by the Department of Works and Housing, not the Department of Post-war Reconstruction. The first plan was designed for a population of about 20,000 because, at that time, it was believed that a large army establishment would be maintained there. However, when it was found that the military establishment would not be so large, the plan was altered. The honorable member for Parramatta tried to make out that we were still building for a population of 20,000.

Mr Beale:

– I said that the department was working on a plan prepared in 1946 which envisaged a population o. 25,000, which Darwin would never have.

Mr LEMMON:

– The first part of the plan covers a period of five years from 1945 to 1950, and envisages a population of 3,500 people. The fact is that Darwin now has a population of 6,000. We expected that owing to the damage done by bombing there would not be a very great influx of people to the town. The plan was to develop the town within the five years from 1945 to 1950 to accommodate a population of 6,000, and at the end of that period we could more accurately gauge the rate of growth of the population. That is how the plan is being developed to-day. Yet, the honorable member for Parramatta who, apparently, was satisfied to listen to all sorts of stories during his recent visit to the Northern Territory, said that construction is now being undertaken to accommodate a population of 20,000. Such a statement is untrue. He also said that it was planned to make the residential blocks 70 feet by 70 feet.

Mr Beale:

– I said that that was the original plan, hut that those measurements had to be extended.

Mr LEMMON:

That the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 5

– I am referring to the incident that occurred iri the House last night. A deliberate and premeditated attack was made on the reputation of an honorable gentleman whose character is unassailable. If it were possible to review the records of every member of the Parliament, the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann), who was the victim of the attack, would stand forth as a lily-white, to borrow the term used by the honorable gentleman who attacked him. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) knew what he was doing when he made that attack, although, in fairness to the Minister, I must say that I was surprised that he should have done such a thing because I had thought him to be above it. However, it is of no use to put forward the excuse for him that his action was not premeditated. The Minister rose in his plaGe and commenced his speech by telling us that he had been waiting a long time to “get” the honorable member for Maranoa. Then he proceeded to “ get “ the honorable gentleman by reading a letter, the contents of which he did not know were true or false. The letter in question was written to the Minister by a disgruntled person, and was of the type that we all receive from time to time from such individuals. The writer virtually implored the Minister not to reveal his name because he did not want it to be known. However, that did not deter the Minister, who did not hesitate to read the contents of that letter to the House, although he realized very well that the proceedings of this chamber are broadcast over the wireless to the world. I emphasize that the writer of the letter had not even the courage to permit his identity to be revealed. The action of the Minister was disgraceful, and although only a few honorable members opposite have attempted to defend the Minister’s action, because, they, no doubt, feel as I do about it, the attempts made by certain honorable gentlemen opposite to defend his action are even more reprehensible. I consider that the least that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) could have done was to propose the appointment of a select committee, as he did in the Blain incident, to enable the honorable member for Maranoa to establish his innocence in the only way open to him. Such a committee would have investigated and, I have no doubt, disproved, the scurrilous charges made by the Minister for Information, who should have had better sense and more respect for his office than to make those charges. I knew when I entered the Parliament that honorable members were expected to give and take hard knocks in debate, but I did not expect that it would be considered fair to reply to reasonable criticism by attacking the character of the critic. I remember an occasion in this House when an honorable member, who is no longer a member of the Parliament, smeared the name of a reputable citizen. It was subsequently established that there was no truth in the allegations that had been made, but they had been heard by hundreds of thousands of people and possibly were believed by many of them, because it is an old principle that the truth or refutation never catches up with the slander. I did not think that that would happen again. An attack by a Minister of the Crown upon the most inoffensive man in the House is something that it is very hard to swallow. I am convinced that I shall be able to hold my own in this House in future, without bringing myself down to that level. I am satisfied that honorable members on this side of the House will do their best to ensure that that kind of conduct does not occur again, and it is to be hoped that honorable gentlemen opposite also will do their best to prevent similar attacks being made from the Government benches.

A year or two ago I requested that better postal and telephone services be made available to people in outback areas, but not much has been done to provide them. I do not blame the postal authorities entirely for that failure because if their desire to supply improved services were the determining factor, the services would be provided. The reason that is given for the lack of postal services in outback areas is that there is a shortage of necessary materials. Despite the fact that the people who live in the outback will have to wait for many years before they get the system of communications that they deserve and, indeed, must have, a substantial increase of postal charges has been announced. In some instances charges are to be increased by 50 per cent, and in others by 30 per cent. The people want to know what has happened to the surpluses that have been shown by the Postal Department, in the last four years. It is expected that this year’s operations will result in a deficit. If there be a deficit, why should not the past surpluses be used to meet it? The revenue earned by the Portal Departmr,nt goes into Consolidated Revenue, but when the department gets into financial difficulties it cannot use the money that it has earned and to which, in my opinion, it is entitled. Instead, the Government proposes to make the people pay the deficit by increasing postal charges. I admit that conditions in the country are generally good. It may be that, because of that fact, the Government has taken the viewthat the people should pay more. The Minister for Labour and National .Service (Mr. Holloway) attributed the expected deficit to the 40-hour week, an increased number of employees and higher wages. The Arbitration Court, under pressure from the Labour Governments of Australia, agreed to the introduction of a 40-hour week. Before the Arbitration Court gave its decision, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation making a. 40-hour week operative in New South Wales, and the Queensland Government, a Labour government, announced its intention to introduce a bill similar to that which had been passed by the New South Wales Parliament when the Queensland Parliament reassembled. Therefore, the Arbitration Court had no alternative but to give a decision in favour of the trade unions. The 40-hour week has done more to cause the shortages from which we are now suffering than has any other factor in the nation’s economy. The reasons for the proposed increases of postal charges are the factors to which the Minister for Labour and National Service referred and the fact that the Government appropriates the revenue that is earned by the Postal Department and apparently does not give it back. Doubtless the proposed increases will come before the Parliament for ratification. It is to be hoped that the Government will reconsider its decision, because I believe that the deficit can be met without an increase of charges.

I rose mainly to deal with increases of prices and the misrepresentations that have been made by honorable gentlemen opposite in an attempt to delude the people as to the reason for them. Some people are now saying that they would vote “ Yes “ instead of “ No “ to-morrow, so it seems that in some instances the attempt has been successful. Some unthinking people who cannot put two and two together believe what has been told to them by certain honorable gentlemen opposite. It is untrue to say that, if the Commonwealth had retained control of prices, increases would not have occurred. Prices would have risen. If the people did not pay the increases directly, they would have paid them by way of subsidies. The sooner the truth is known, the better it will be for the country.

I shall defer further comments upon postal charges until the question is before the Parliament. I should like to refer to the subject of communism, which has been very lightly touched upon during this session, but I shall defer my remarks until a later occasion.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– in reply - I appreciate the action of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) in curtailing his speech, thus enabling the ‘business of the House to be expedited. The honorable gentleman could have covered a wide field. He referred to the suggested increase of postal charges and stated that improved services had not been provided. Since 1939 the number of telephones installed in Australia has increased from 661,000 to 1,005,000. Therefore, telephone subscribers are linked to 344,000 more telephones than they were in 1939. It is true that everything has not been done that we should like to do. Approximately 600 rural automatic telephone exchanges, which I regard as a great amenity in country areas, have been ordered and are being installed as fast as they are delivered. The honorable gentleman referred to the revenue earned by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Of the total of £36,000,000, £12,500,000 is a notional figure in respect of services provided for other government departments. It is merely a book entry. In addition, the Postal Department does not contribute to the sinking fund in respect of the department’s debt. The department has never paid its own sinking fund charges. The Treasury pays out approximately £2,000,000 a year in respect of that item. An honorable member asked where the profits went. During the last financial year and this year £20,000,000 has been expended on capital works for the Postal Department, and at the present rate of expenditure £12,000,000 will be expended in the next financial year. The Leader of the Australian ‘Country party (Mr. Fadden) interjected yesterday that that is borrowed money, but it is not so. It is Consolidated Revenue, which means that the Postal Department does not have to pay interest on it, and also that no sinking fund charges have to be paid. That fact relieves the. department of a charge of probably £330,000 a year. Therefore, the surpluses that have been mentioned are not surpluses in total but have been used for expenditure on capital works for the Postal Department which, as I have said, has amounted to £20,000,000 in two years. A sum of £45,000,000 has been provided for a three-year programme, including £12,000,000 to enable the Postal Department to place advance orders. I do not propose to deal fully with that matter now because it still has to be determined in some respects, and the House will have a later opportunity to discuss it. Nor do I propose to deal with all the questions that have been raised during this debate. I shall reply to some of the main points only. Unfortunately, one hears the same arguments used every time such debates take place, and finds oneself repeating the same replies, until the whole proceeding becomes a sort of litany of statements and responses. I do not like that kind of tedious repetition.

The honorable member for Gippsland mentioned a statement that was made in this House. Most honorable members know my views on their so-called privileges. I consider that those privileges have been somewhat abused at various times by all parties. I, personally, have never found it necessary to say in this House anything that I am not prepared to say on any street corner, which would permit any person to take any action considered necessary, through the courts.

Mr Anthony:

– Does not the Prime Minister consider that his Ministers should conform to that rule?

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member for Richmond does not conform to it.

Mr Anthony:

– I have never said anything in this chamber that I am not prepared to say outside.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am not quarrelling with the system of privileges, which was in operation before I entered politics. I am, relatively, a political amateur, and J do not profess to be experienced in those matters. Speeches made in the Parliament have always been privileged. 1 consider that a worse practice than that of honorable members making attacks, under parliamentary privilege, against other honorable members, is that of defaming persons outside the Parliament who have no right of reply. That has been done repeatedly with the full approval of honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) and the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) used to produce one scandal a week, which proved always to be a mare’s nest without even a bottom to it. At least honorable members are in a position to defend themselves against charges made against them by other honorable members.

The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) had something to say about expenditure. I consider that it would be only repetition for me, by replying to him, to cover ground that has already been covered by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman). The honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) had something to say about reconstruction policy, but the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) answered her effectively, so I shall not cover that ground again either.

There can be no illusion regarding the Government’s attitude to prices controls and the removal of subsidies. We were completely honest about those matters. Prior to the taking of the prices referendum we told the people that, if the Government were not given constitutional power to control prices, it would not be able to continue the payment of subsidies on goods over the prices of which it had no control. The first statement that 1 made in connexion with the referendum made that perfectly clear. Some honorable members opposite, particularly the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), as well as some of the Opposition’s advertisements in newspapers that advised the people to defeat the referendum proposals, said that the Government would never dare to withdraw subsidies. So the lies did not come from this side of the House, but from the advertising agents and some honorable members of the Opposition. We did the democratic thing. The people’s verdict in the referendum was very conclusive and we do not disagree with it. We never believed that six States could agree about any one matter. I have had some experience of trying to obtain agreement between States. I am chairman of the conference of Common.wealth and State Ministers that is held in August every year and know the difficulties of getting any six bodies, or any six men, of diverse interests to agree on any particular matter. When there is a diversity of opinion between governments it is very difficult to achieve a uniform method of administration. I repeat that there was no illusion on the part of the people about the Government’s views on the referendum and its intentions regarding subsidies if the referendum proposals were defeated. The honorable member for Gippsland and other honorable members opposite have stated that the Opposition was prepared to extend the period of the defence transitional provisions, to enable the Government to continue to control prices. But the legislation containing those provisions had only to be tested in the High Court of Australia and be declared invalid, and no matter what the Opposition believed or did, we would not have had the power to continue prices control. I think that it was generally recognized, as time went on, that power under the defence transitional legislation would be challenged some time and also that with the passage of time the High Court of Australia would be bound to examine closely what were claimed to be powers held under the Commonwealth’s defence power. We feared that something of that kind would happen and considered, therefore, that we should ask the people of Australia if they desired the Government to have those powers that it did not then possess constitutionally. In my first statement about the referendum, as I have already said, I pointed out that we would not be able to continue the payment of subsidies as before, unless we could control the prices of goods upon which subsidies had been paid. We kept our promise and obeyed the will of the people. I do not know why anybody should complain about that.

Several other matters were raised that I have heard raked before. One of them concerned the encouragement of workers to do more and better work. “We have been listening to that for a long time. At one time it was said that if taxes were reduced on incomes in the lower brackets everything would be all right. That has been done. Any one who studies the present scale of taxation deductions on lower incomes, particularly of taxpayers who have family responsibilities, will be surprised at the low amount of tax levied. The new scale of deductions for dependent children that will come into operation on the 1st July next makes the lowness of the rate even more pronounced. From time to time the argument has been advanced that the incentive of workers in the lower and middle in-come brackets had been destroyed by heavy taxation.

Mr White:

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have listened to that sort of statement for the last 25 years. Reference was made by some honorable members to the subject of taxation and the effect of rising prices on the wages of the workers. As I propose to issue a number of small charts showing the incidence of taxation and the effect of rising prices on wages, I shall not deal with that subject at this stage.

Reference was also made to the shortages that prevent the rapid development of our secondary industries. I am well aware that limitations have been imposed on the expansion of secondary industries because of the shortage of labour and materials but I believe that with perseverance they can be overcome. One difficulty has been that our industrial expansion has somewhat outgrown our physical capacity to meet these developments. These problems will solve themselves as time goes on. What we want, perhaps more than anything else, is a spirit of faith in our nation, not only among our industrialists but also among the workers who will have to do the donkey work. With such a spirit to spur us on, and with unlimited opportunity, coupled with an economy, the soundness of which has never previously been equalled in our history, our future is assured. The Labour Government is determined to do its best to exploit our opportunities to the fullest extent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 502

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1948-49

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 18th May (vide page 16), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the hill he nowread a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 502

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1949-50

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 18th May (vide page 17), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I rise to ascertain from the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) whether the Government proposes to push through at this hour all the detailed schedules which are contained in the bill now before the Parliament. By agreeing to discuss the four cognate measures together in order to facilitate the proceedings of this House, the Opposition has co-operated with the Government; but if the Government intends to push through detailed Estimates covering £71,000,000 of public expenditure at this late hour, we shall take such opportunities as are available to us now to discuss them. It is most unfair to expect the Parliament to debate these Estimates at this hour of the night. I ask the right honorable gentleman to report progress on the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 502

ADJOURNMENT

Repatriation - Royal Australian Navy: Releases

Motion (by Mr. Dedman) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · ALP

.- On the 10th March last, the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) asked me a question about an ex-prisoner of war who, he said, had complained about alleged inefficiency and waste of time on the part of officials of the New South Wales branch of the Repatriation Department in attending to him and taking his application for medical treatment. The appropriate repatriation authority has reported to me on the alleged unsatisfactory handling of this case. The report reveals that the person to whom the honorable member referred in his question is a Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis applied at the New South Wales branch in Grace Building at 2 p.m. on the 8th March last for acceptance of a disability as being related to war service. When asking his question in this House, the honorable member for Parramatta gave the impression that Mr. Davis was filling in and signing forms for the whole of the time between 2 p.m. and 4.35 p.m. on the day in question. That statement, however, is not borne out by the facts which I shall mention at a later stage. The forms of application that Mr. Davis was asked to fill in and sign were similar to those which are completed by all applicants for medical benefits and pensions. The first application form, 20e, includes a medical report to be filled in by the doctor. The questionnaire sets out 21 simple questions, the first eight of which are -

Full name.
Full address.
Date of birth.
Place of birth.
Regimental No. and unit.
Date and place of enlistment.
Date and place of discharge.
If more than one enlistment please give full details.

The remaining questions are equally simple. The next form is an acknowledgement of non-liability for treatment. Then there is an agreement concerning the doctor’s clinical notes. The next form is “ Repatriation Survey of ex-Prisoners of War (J)- Personal Statement”. That, too, is a simple form with only seven questions on it. Then there is a form which applies to men who served in a theatre of war with Japan. Its purpose is to save applicants a second visit. There are certainly not twenty pages of forms, and, as I have said, they can be filled in quite simply. The honorable member for Parramatta, when referring no Mr. Davis in his question, said -

He has told me that he telephoned the doctor at the hospital and was told to attend at 2 p.m. He did so and between that time and 4.35 p.m. he and the doctor were engaged in filling in fifteen or twenty pages of forms.

The information contained in the few forms completed by Mr. Davis provides a basis for the essential medical files of the department. None of the information asked for is superfluous. The files are essential in the consideration of claims for medical, hospital and pension benefits. With regard to the allegation that between 2 p.m. and 4.35 p.m. Mr. Davis and the doctor were engaged in filling in forms, [ find that it was not until 2.50 p.m. that the medical officer attended to the patient. Mr. Davis was advised by a private practitioner to approach the Repatriation Department. He was given a letter introducing him to Dr. Dean of the New South Wales branch. On the 8th March, he contacted Dr. Dean by telephone and it was arranged that he should call on the doctor at 2 p.m. Upon arrival at the repatriation office, he was asked to report at the medical counter, which is the customary procedure, and to apply for acceptance of his condition. It was necessary for him to complete the necessary papers and this took him approximately half an hour. He was then asked to wait in the medical waiting room, and as soon as the clerk was free to attend to him he was told that Dr. Dean had made arrangements for him to see Dr. Mack. Dr. Mack attended to him as soon as he was free of another case, and Mr. Davis subsequently left the building a little after 4.30 p.m. In a conversation later with a responsible officer of the Repatriation Department, Mr. Davis said that had he realized that he should have gone to the medical counter in the first instance instead of arranging an appointment with Dr. Dean, much of the waiting time would have been avoided. As I have already stated, the time occupied in completing and signing the forms regarded as essential for the proper handling of repatriation medical cases was not unreasonable. It may be, however, that the honorable member was told that Mr. Davis spent some time with the repatriation medical officer on the day in question completing some personal statements for an appendix relating to a survey of prisoners of war which the Repatriation Commission is having compiled. That, of course, had nothing to do with the normal routine practice with applications for medical treatment and benefits. It is pointed out, however, that ex-prisoners of war realize that the help that they can give to the medical officers in this connexion is for the benefit of this section of ex-servicemen as a whole. While Mr. Davis was at the department on the 8th March, the opportunity was taken by the medical officer to obtain the assistance of Mr. Davis in this way, thus obviating the necessity to invite him to the office for that special purpose. In the course of a discussion with a responsible officer of the department, of Mr. Davis’s experiences at the New South Wales branch on the 8th March, it was pointed out that Mr. Davis had stressed the fact that he, at the time of his conversation with the honorable member for Parramatta, had been, to use his own words, “ a bit hot under the collar “. Mr. Davis added, when speaking to the official of the department, that he had nothing but praise for the attention given to him by the officials of the department. I have no doubt that some complaints about repatriation matters are well founded, because the department does not claim to be, nor do I claim it to be, a perfect instrumentality. However, I suggest that if honorable members would bring their complaints to my notice personally or in a letter, it would save ventilating in this chamber matters that could be dealt with effectively otherwise.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) has just urged members of this chamber to bring their complaints to the notice of Ministers rather than ventilate them in this chamber. I have taken a complaint to the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan), but have received no redress at all. Therefore I am bringing it before the Parliament, and I have selected the motion for the adjournment as the appropriate occasion .because the broadcasting of proceedings has ceased, and I have no wish to do the Navy recruiting campaign any harm. I remind the House, however, that I could have easily selected another occasion on which to offer my criticism. However, I do so now, and my criticism, I think, is shared by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson), who asked a question a day or two ago on a similar subject. I refer to the recruitment in the Navy of young men for a long term of years. When some of the young men find that for family or other compassionate reasons it is necessary to seek relief, not the slightest compassion is shown by the officials of the Department of the Navy. I should not like to regard the Minister for the Navy as merely the echo of the voice of his department, but I contrast his attitude with that of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers) when similar problems are taken to him. He certainly, in my view, assesses the problemsaccording to what he thinks ought to be done, and tries to do what he thinks ought to be done. But, when problems are presented to the Minister for the Navy, they are met with a reply like, “ I shall take the matter up with my officers “. When they have knocked back an application, that is the stone end of it. I shall relate the facts of the case which I brought to the notice of the Minister. I think it merits consideration. A. young man occupied a position in a bank in a country town. He was only seventeen years of age when he was attracted by the advertisements that the Navy has all over the country about the adventurous life at sea and so forth. As soon as he turned eighteen, he enlisted and signed indentures for twelve years. I ask, as I have asked the Minister, whether it is fair to tie a boy down for twelve years when he is only eighteen years of age and is at a most impressionable period of his life, and then not give him a chance of changing his mind or occupation? . The lad I have in mind served for about two months, found that he did not like being in the Navy, and deserted. His parents wrote to me about it. They told me that he was completely unhappy and would never do any good in the Navy. They asked me whether I could do anything to obtain his release. Naturally, I placed the facts before the Minister for the Navy. He gave me the reply any one would expect, which was that nothing could be done while the sailor was a deserter, but that, if he gave himself up, consideration would be given to his case. I told his parents that and said that it was also my opinion that the boy should give himself up. He did so. He then served the appropriate sentence for desertion. I have forgotten what it was, but I presume that it was severe. Then he resumed his place in the Navy, but still wanted to get out. His superiors asked him why he did not give it another try and undertake the examination for stoker. He did so and passed. But he is still completely unhappy. The point is that the boy’s mother has been practically driven into the lunatic asylum by her son’s experiences. The boy’s father came to me and told me that the mother had suffered a complete breakdown owing to her worry about the boy. The father is only a working man, but he said, “ There used to be a time when a man could buy his son out of the Navy. I own my own home, but I am willing to sell it for what it fetches and pay the proceeds to the Government, if it wants the money, to buy my son out. I will do anything to save my wife’s health “. I related all the circumstances to the Minister, without the slightest result. The boy is still tied down for twelve years. The mother’s health is breaking down. The father is ready to buy the son out if that is required.. But there is not the slightest show of compassion by the department. Before a boy of eighteen is required to sign on for twelve years, he should have to undergo a probationary period of three or six months. A period of probation is almost universal in vocations that call for a long period of indenture. A girl wishing to train as a nurse first has to go through, a period of probation to see whether she is likely to settle in to the profession. Similarly, other jobs requiring a long term of indenture provide for a period of probation. My interest in this matter is not so much on behalf of the son as of the mother. I have done everything in my power in letters to and personal interviews with the Minister to have something done, but without avail. “When I heard the honorable member for Hindmarsh ask a question about a similar matter, I realized that, not only I, but also he and perhaps other honorable members, are concerned about the way the Navy is treating boys who have enlisted in its service. I repeat that I have chosen this hour of the night, when we are not on the air, to bring these facts to light. I do not want to damage the Navy’s recruiting campaign. I realize the difficulties it faces in recruiting. Its difficulties in obtaining recruits these days are no less than those than those of other services. But if the Navy wants to retard recruitment, it has only to keep on doing the sort of thing that I have complained about. Then, if its actions are publicized, as they should be, when it shows no compassion in cases like that which I have instanced, its recruiting campaign will undoubtedly be seriously affected. If the department continues with its present attitude I shall have no compunction in seizing every opportunity to publicize the facts.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- 1 shall refer to the matter raised by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard). I am sorry that he spoke as he did, because it makes it necessary for me to detain the House while I point out what I asked on the 10th March. My question was not stated by the Minister. He said, though, that I had alleged in my question that Major Davis had spent from 2 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. filling in forms. He conveyed to the House the impression that I had asserted that all the time had been spent in that way. That makes it necessary for me to read my question, which was as follows: -

My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation, concerns a complaint that has been made to me hy a constituent. The constituent, who is in ill health, was a prisoner of war in the hands of the Japanese. He was sent to the Repatria-tion Office in Grace Building, Sydney, to obtain’ a certificate to enable him to be X-rayed at Randwick Military Hospital. He has told me that he telephoned the doctor at Grace Building and was told to attend at 2 p.m. He did so, and between that time and 4.35 p.m. he. and the doctor filled in fifteen to twenty pages of forms.

That, of course, is quite different from saying that he spent all his time filling, in forms. Had he done so, he would not have had any medical examination at all. The question went on -

Is the Minister aware of the existence of this orgy of red tape! Is he aware, further, that it is causing great discontent among exservicemen? Will the honorable gentleman, say what he is prepared to do … ?

I asked that question in the interests of ex-servicemen, particularly ex-prisoners: of war. I am sure that the Ministeraccepts my assurance that they were dis- contented with the state of affairs at Grace Building and that he will confirm that as a result of the question an improvement took place. Improvement was promised to Major Davis and he benefited from it. It is quite true that Major Davis did not complain about the medical attention that he received. Most exservicemen will say that they are considerately treated. The complaint related to the long delays and what I described then, and still describe, as an “ orgy of red tape “. It is all very well for the Minister to say that Major Davis filled in only three or four forms. The result is the same whether one fills in the same form 44 times or fills in 44 different forms. Major Davis asserts that, while he was at Grace Building, he and the doctor filled in no fewer than fifteen or twenty pages of forms. That may have been three or four forms in triplicate or quadruplicate. The fact is that they wasted a great deal of time filling in nonsensical papers. That sort of thing has caused bitterness amongst ex-servicemen. I should have thought that most honorable members, having heard the Minister’s statement, would agree that my case had been proved. Obviously there was a great deal of unnecessary rigmarole. As the Minister has seen fit to quote what Major Davis is supposed to have said to members of the department on other occasions, I shall quote what members of the department have said to him. One of the doctors in particular complained about what he described as “ all this red tape “ and expressed the view that there was too much of it and that that sort of work should be cut down. When Major Davis visited the department after I had raised the matter in this House, he was again told by members of the staff that, their attention having been directed to it, they realized that there was too much “ red tape “ and that there would be an improvement. If there has been an improvement, I think that my question has been justified. As for the Minister saying that 1 should have approached him in the first place, some honorable members on this side of the House have had experience of failure to get satisfactory results by going to Ministers before raising complaints in the House. It seemed to me in the circumstances that it would be in the best interests of exservicemen, who were very bitter and discontented, to bring this matter of public importance to the attention of the Minister and the people by asking a question in the House. I am glad at least that my efforts have achieved the desired result.

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for the Navy · Kennedy · ALP

– I wish to reply to the speech that was made by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony). The honorable gentleman said that if an officer “ knocked back “ an application for discharge from the Navy, that was the end of the matter. If that was the way in which h he allowed his department to be administered when he. was in office, I have nol-bing further to say. But if he intended that remark to be a gratuitous insult to me, I hasten to assure him that the statement was not true. I shall tell him what happens when seamen apply for release from the Navy on compassionate grounds. The application is made in the first place to the man’s commanding officer. It is then sent to the Naval Board, and instructions are issued for a naval padre of the religious denomination of the applicant, to make an investigation and furnish a report. The department acts on the padre’s report. If an application is subsequently made to me by a member of this House, I refer the matter to the department and ask for a report. If an investigation has not then been made by the appropriate padre, arrangements are made for him to make inquiries so that I may be supplied with detailed information. Action is taken according to the padre’s report. I cannot recall all of the details of the case mentioned by the honorable member, although he discussed it with rae yesterday after he had asked a question on the subject in the House. I asked the department to send me the file dealing with the application, but it has not yet arrived.

Mr Fuller:

– The question was asked only yesterday.

Mr Anthony:

– I asked about the cas* months ago.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honorable member spoke to me about it yesterday, and 1 said then that I would send for the man’s file. It has not yet arrived. I have adopted the usual procedure. In order to make the situation abundantly clear to the honorable member, I shall explain the grounds on which releases are granted from the Navy. Incidentally, the grounds for release which now exist have been in existence almost since, the establishment of the Royal Australian Navy. In th, first place, a man may be discharged on the ground of medical unfitness. In the second place he may be granted a compassionate release. A third method by which a man may gain his discharge is to “ buy himself out “. That procedure is not permitted at present for reasons that I shall explain. As I informed the honorable member yesterday, the Government decided after the war to maintain an interim navy until it made its final decision upon peace-time naval policy. Men were enlisted in the interim Navy for a period of two years, and the last enlistment of that character was made prior to the 30th June, 1947. All enlistments made since the 1st July, 1947, have been in the permanent Navy. Members of the interim Navy are now being discharged from the service if they have not re-enlisted in the permanent force. In consequence, the Navy is in a similar situation to that, of industry. There is a shortage of manpower due to the fact that the Navy is not attracting recruits in sufficient numbers because economic conditions outside the service are too attractive, apparently, to young men. However, when the first winds of an economic blizzard blow, there will be no dearth of recruits for the Navy. The present Tate of enlistment is about 120 men a month. The recruits are sent to Flinders Naval Depot for their initial training. I emphasize that men can secure their release from the Navy at present only on medical or compassionate grounds. Every application for discharge is investigated carefully on its merits.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 507

PAPERS

The following papers were pre- sented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department-

Commerce and Agriculture - W. P. Dunk.

Treasury - B. D. Haig.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes -

Huonville, Tasmania.

Londrigan, Victoria.

St Leonards, New South Wales.

Wangaratta, Victoria.

Migrants- Statement by the minister for

Immigration regarding the employment of displaced persons in Australian Coal Mines and in Iron and Steel Works at Newcastle and Port Kembla.

House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.

page 507

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Payments to Union Officials

Mr Lang:

g asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he furnish a list of payments made by the Commonwealth from the 30th June, 1945, to the 1st May, 1949, to the following trade union officials: - (a) J. Healy, (b) E.Roach, (c) Eliot V. Eliot, (d) Idriss Williams, (e) Abner MacAlpine, (f) J. Cranwell, (g) A. Monk, (h) C. Schreiber, (i) E. Glasson, and (j) M. Duffy ?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– I am not aware that all of the abovenamed are trade union officials. Particulars concerning Commonwealth payments made to those who were trade union officials during the period mentioned by the honorable member will be obtained and furnished as soon as possible.

Guided Weapons Testing Range

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

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -

How many (a) Australian and British workmen and (b) displaced persons from Europe are employed on the rocket range?
What are the nationalitiesof persons in category (b), what is the nature of the work on which they are engaged, and what forms of security screening are applied to them prior to embarkation for Australia and on reaching Australia before engagement to work on the rocket range?
What is the reason for employment of displaced Europeans on this secret defence, project?
Have Australian tradesmen seeking jobs on the rocket range been told that there are no vacancies for them, and have the trades onions rejected this claim; if so, on what grounds ?

Mr Lemmon:
ALP

– The Minister for Supply and Development drew my attention to the foregoing questions as coming within the purview of my department. The answers are as follows: - 1. (a) 1,909; (b) 360.

Nationalities of persons in category (1) (b) are - Poles, Estonians, Latvian’s, Lithuanians and Yugoslavs. Their employment is mainly on general labouring with some semiskilled and a low percentage of trade classifications. Security screens prior to and after arrival are carried out by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.
At the time the displaced persons were directed to the work, it was not possible to secure sufficient Australian labourers to remain on the job for any length of time.
The present policy is to engage tradesmen from South Australian sources and tradesmen from such sources will be given employment in their trade classifications. Experience has proved that it is most uneconomical to engage labour from outside South Australia for the project. The use of the displaced persons labour has assisted in stabilizing the supply of labour, which hitherto has been experiencing a high rate of turnover.

New Guinea Timber Lease

Mr Lang:

g asked the Minister represent ing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

Will he furnish the total cost of the New Guinea timber royal commission and the fees paid to counsel assisting the Royal Commissioner ?

Mr Holloway:
ALP

– The information is not yet available but will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as it is available.

CivilAviation.

Mr Hamilton:

n asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - 1.has the Commonwealth Government given consideration to the survey of an Indian Ocean Empire air route from Western Australia to England via Cocos Islands, Diego Garcia, Seychelles, Mombasa and Malta?

If so, what actios has been taken to date?
If not, is such a survey contemplated by the Government?

Mr Drakeford:
ALP

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

The Commonwealth Government recently authorized Qantas Empire Airways to carry out a survey Bight across the Indian Ocean, from Perth to Johannesburg via Cocos Island and Mauritius. The company’s report and recommendations, together with information obtained by my department, are now being studied from technical and commercial aspects, but it is anticipated that facilities along tho route will not be available for some months after approval to operate such a service is obtained. An air service, on lines similar to that flown by Qantas Empire Airways in their survey, would provide for air service requirements between Australia and South Africa and will also provide an alternate route to the United Kingdom, while linking with the British Overseas Airways Corporation South AfricaLondonair service at Johannesburg. As the proposed Australia-South Africa service via Cocos Island and Mauritius would meet requirements as an alternative route to tho United Kingdom, the use of Diego Garcia and the Seychelles Islands is not warranted at present and. consequently no survey of these places is contemplated in the near future.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490602_reps_18_202/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 2 June 1949

OBJECTION TO INTERJECTION

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

Mr Francis:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr CALWELL:

Mr McEwen:

Mr CALWELL:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr CALWELL:

Later:

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr GULLETT:

Mr Calwell:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr Calwell:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

MR. C. F. ADERMANN, M.P

Mr ADERMANN:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr DALY:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. SYDNEY

Mr SHEEHY:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

COAL

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

AVIATION DEVELOPMENTS

Mr BEAZLEY:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND REQUISITES

Mr HAMILTON:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SONGS

Mr FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:ALP

Mr Fraser:

Mr CALWELL:

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Dame ENID LYONS:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:ALP

Mr WILLIAMS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr FALKINDER:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

DEPUTATION TO THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

Mrs BLACKBURN:BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:ALP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION

Mr HAYLEN:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

THEFTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr CHAMBERS:ALP

REPATRIATION HOSPITAL, HOBART

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

House of Representatives
2 June 1949

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

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr WILLIAMS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

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

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr CHAMBERS:
ALP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

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

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Burke

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

Mr EDMONDS:
Herbert