View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
14 September 1949

18^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- NATURALIZATION
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- WAR NEUROSIS
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- BRISBANE GENERAL POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- TIMBER
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- DEPORTATIONS
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
SOCIAL SERVICES
- Maternity Allowance - Explanatory Booklet
QUESTION
- DOLLAR DEFICITS
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- AGRICULTURAL LOANS
QUESTION
- ROYAL VISIT TO AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- GALVANIZED WIRE AND WIRE NETTING
QUESTION
- LABELLING OF TEXTILES
QUESTION
- SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME
MOTION OF CENSURE
- Petrol
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Conciliation Commissioners
- Australian Capital Territory
- United Nations
- Appointments
- Royal Australian Air Force: Vampire Jet Fighters
- Textiles
- Commonwealth Litigation : Costs
- Liquid Fuel
- Telegraph Poles
- Commonwealth Boards
- Commonwealth Funds: Audit

– It is true that a perusal of the New South Wales newspapers by my press secretaries has disclosed that most of them did not publish the results of the Queensland by-elections. I understand that the reason why the results were not published is because they were unpalatable to certain sections of the press. In one instance a Labour candidate gained a very much larger vote than the Labour party had polled on a previous occasion, and in another instance a Labour candidate won by a substantial majority, despite the fact that he had contested a seat which had been held by a distinguished gentleman for twenty years. Why unpalatable facts of this kind are not published in certain sections of the press is easy to understand.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Information read a recent prediction made by the. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party, after their tour of Queensland, in which they expressed optimism about their prospects in the forthcoming genera] election? Will the Minister for Information convey to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party the results, including the figures, of voting in the two by-elections for the .State Parliament recently held in Queensland ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I shall be happy to do so.

Mr CONELAN:

– As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, two by-elections were held in Queensland on Saturday last. Members of the Liberal party were betting even money on the results, and that party distributed 20,000 dodgers which bore the following words : -

If you oppose the reintroduction of petrol rationing and renewed Canberra control, then vote Liberal.

Having regard to the great success achieved by Labour candidates in those elections, do you not think it farcical that the time of this House should be taken up to-day in discussing a motion of censure on the Government for its handling of the petrol situation?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not know whether the honorable member intends his question to be in the nature of a point of order. The matter raised by him is not one for the Chair to decide. The people of Queensland have apparently given their decision on it.

page 182

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

page 184

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– “With reference to the case of Mrs. Pauline Lee Tong, the 31-year-old daughter of two Australianborn Chinese, who was born in Hong Kong, but reared and educated in Australia, will the Minister for Immigration say whether he signed a letter dated the 28th June, 1949, addressed from the office of the Minister for Immigration, Parliament House, Canberra, to the honorable member for Lilley? In that letter did, he state that approval could not be given to Mrs. Tong and her two children to remain in Australia indefinitely? Did the Minister specifically state -

I have granted authority for the certificate nf exemption issued in favour of Mrs. Lee Tong and her children to be extended up to the 30th June, 1!)50, on the understanding that this extension is to he regarded as final, and that her bondsmen will complete arrangements for her departure before that date.

Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR A. Calwell,

Minister for Immigration.

Did the Minister mean what was written in that letter ? If not, what did he mean ?

Mr White:

– He does not know what he means.

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– Unlike the honorable member for Balaclava, I do mean what I say. I have never let anybody be under any misunderstanding about what I have thought as Minister for Immigration concerning any matter. I sent a letter, a copy of which was given to a newspaper in Brisbane by a member of the Liberal party, because certain members of that party and of the Communist party are attempting to break down our White Australia policy and are using this particular case to make a breach in the traditional policy of this nation. The truth of the matter is that this lady did not tell the truth about herself when she came here. She described herself as a widow. Had she been a widow much more sympathetic consideration would have been given to her case than could be given when it was ascertained that she had a husband living in Hong Kong or somewhere else. Incidentally, I have a shrewd idea that her purpose in telling me that she was a widow was to get authority to stay here indefinitely and to make representations later to enable her husband to be brought here. If I had given her a promise that she could stay here indefinitely, then I would have been asked later on about her husband, whose whereabouts had only just been discovered ‘. We discovered that she bad1 a husband either in Hong Kong or somewhere else, and because she did not tell the truth we were a little careful about the way we handled her application - and I am still exercising care about the way I handle the case.

page 184

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Immigration inform me whether the Australian Government or the Department of Immigration has made any arrangements with State governments or any other authorities or persons to bring to this country British migrants who have not been nominated? Has such an arrangement been made with the Government of South Australia, and if so, can the Minister give the House some information about the matter?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– One of the four classes of persons who have been given a high priority in migration consists of persons who can be covered by what are known as group nominations, which are forwarded to the State authority in the State concerned by a State government, a State government instrumentality, an employer or a group of employers. Group nominations cover a number of persons whose names may not be known here at the time the nomination is made. For instance, a group nomination may be submitted for a certain number of migrants of a particular class, and the authority that makes the nomination guarantees to provide the necessary accommodation for those persons. The Department of Immigration at Canberra, on receiving a group nomination from a State authority, forwards it to London, and persons who can meet the requirements of the nominator in Australia are then selected. To that degree, we are helping to bring persons to Australia who are un-nominated in the sense that no accommodation is provided for them by relatives or friends. In reference to the general matter of bringing to Australia from Britain persons who have neither accommodation nor employment awaiting them., I said in the policy statement which I made to the House last week that the Commonwealth i3 now discussing with the State governments the provision of hostels for un-nominated British migrants. When I was in Sydney yesterday, I had a discussion with the Premier of New South Wales, as the senior Premier, on that particular matter. I hope at a later stage to be able to report some progress to the House.

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Immigration arises out of one that I addressed to him during the last sessional period. On that occasion, I drew his attention to the fact that official organs of the Communist party and journals of trade unions, key officials of which were Communists, were conducting a sustained campaign to suggest that migrants from Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia and Poland had been deathcamp guards under Hitler, and I asked the Minister whether it would be possible for the Commonwealth Parliament, under its powers with respect to aliens, to pass legislation to make it an offence to foster against foreigners who come to this country anti-Semitic or other campaigns that were based on untruths. I now ask the Minister whether he has conferred with the Attorney-General on this matter. If he has done so, will he inform me of the result?

Mr CALWELL:

– I have not yet discussed with the Attorney-General the matter which the honorable member for Fremantle has raised. The AttorneyGeneral returned to Australia after the last sessional period had concluded, and he has since been busily engaged with other matters. However, I promise that I shall discuss the honorable member’s question with my colleague during the next few days, and if the honorable gentleman will repeat this question later, I may be able to give him some information about the powers that the Commonwealth may constitutionally exercise in order to stop this dreadful campaign of misrepresentation and calumny against very good people whose only anxiety is to be left alone in order that they may do a good job for the country which they have adopted and in which they wish to spend the rest of their lives.

page 185

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

AlR-conditioning.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Before the debate on the censure motion commences, I should like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ascertain whether the air-conditioning plant is functioning, because the atmosphere in the part of the chamber in which I am sitting is about 20 degrees lower than it usually is, and, possibly, it may become worse as the day passes?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I do not know whether the right honorable gentleman is serious in asking the question, but I shall have inquiries made into the functioning of the air-conditioning plant.

page 185

SOCIAL SERVICES

Maternity Allowance - Explanatory Booklet

Me. GEORGE LAWSON.- I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services by stating that last week I was approached by a recently arrived British migrant, who asked whether a mother who gave birth to a child in Australia, but who had not the necessary twelve months residential qualification, would be entitled to the maternity allowance. As other honorable members may receive similar inquiries, I should be glad if the Minister would inform the House of any provision that has been made to meet such a circumstance.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The Social Services Consolidation Act 1948 makes it mandatory that the mother of a child born in Australia must have the twelve months residential qualification in order to be eligible for the maternity allowance. However, both the Minister and the Government recently recognized the necessity for flexibility in this matter, and accordingly the act was amended by the insertion of a section which empowered the Director-General of Social Services to consider all such cases on their merits. Provided that he is convinced of the mother’s intention to remain permanently in Australia, he can, and does, authorize the payment of the maternity allowance in such instances.

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services,- relates to the social services explanatory booklet, about which I have asked two or three questions previously in this House. The demand in my electorate and the electorates of other honorable members for copies of this publication is very heavy. Can the Minister say whether the Minister for Social Services has yet decided whether a copy of this great publication is to be posted to every household in Australia ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I am as anxious as is the honorable member for Martin that this valuable booklet shall be distributed throughout Australia. I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Social Services, who is greatly taken with the idea. He has told me that if it were not for the fact that he does not wish to impose too great a burden upon the Government Printer, he would accede immediately to the suggestion that has been made. He is still considering the matter.

page 186

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

WASHINGTON Conference.

Mr CONELAN:

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether press statements made about the result of the conference on the dollar situation held yesterday in the United States of America, between representatives of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Canada, mean that there will be an alleviation of the position in relation to the British dollar pool ? If so, will Australia be considered in that connexion?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– It would be quite impossible for me to go over all of the details with relation to the statement on the conference to which the honorable member has referred, and doubtless discus^sions on certain aspects of the matter are still proceeding. However, as far as I can see at present, there will not be any immediate easing of the short-term dollar position. It is hoped, however, that the statement means that the drain on the gold and dollar reserves of the United Kingdom will be stopped, and that there will be an improvement in dollar earnings because of increased exports from the United Kingdom to the United States of America as a result of the easing of customs tariffs and the purchase by the United States of America of additional goods from the sterling area. It would also appear that the statement means that on the long-term plan there will be an easing of the position, and that there will be an increased flow of trade from Great Britain into the hard currency or dollar areas. Whilst I am unable to give the honorable gentleman detailed information at this stage, 1 can say that at least the drain on gold and dollar reserves will be stopped, and it is hoped’ that ultimately there will be some alleviation of the position.

page 186

QUESTION

COAL

Mr SHEEHY:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel by stating that I have been advised that gas was again rationed in Adelaide during last week-end. Will the Minister inform tie House whether he can direct the Joint Coal Board to ensure that betterquality gas coal .shall be made available to South Australia ? If SO, will he do so ?

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

– I cannot answer the question immediately. I shall confer with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and supply the honorable gentleman later with the information for which he has asked.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service seen an article in the Brisbane Daily Telegraph, under the heading “ CallideCoal Haulers Sit and Wait for Pay “, in which it is pointed out that 60 truck drivers are waiting in Gladstone for their money which has been owing to them for three weeks? The drivers, according to the article, are employed by Messrs. Thiess Brothers), contractors. In- view of the argent need for coal by industry in Queensland and other States, will the Minister immediately investigate the dispute between the truck drivers and Messrs.

Thiess Brothers so that the hauling of coal may be resumed without further delay?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The matter which the honorable member has raised has not been brought to my notice or, as far as I am aware, to the notice of the Arbitration Court or of the Conciliation Commissioners. I shall make inquiries to ascertain, whether it is a fact that men have been standing by for their pay for three weeks. If that be true, we must try to find some way to correct the position.

page 187

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL LOANS

Mr McLEOD:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr LEMMON:
ALP

– I have not seen the report to which the honorable member has referred, but I have received correspondence from several large contractors in the United States of America who have not only inquired about engineering undertakings associated with the Snowy Mountains scheme but have also offered to send out personnel to examine any phase of this great construction project and to submit tenders for certain portions of the work. I have also received1 similar inquiries from contractors in Great Britain. Recently, I had a communication from the Chairman of the British Board of Trade, Mr. Wilson, in which he intimated that he is most anxious that British contractors -shall be given an opportunity to undertake portions of the scheme. It is the intention of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority to endeavour to interest contractors in sterling areas, particularly in the United Kingdom, who have successfully undertaken very large hydroel er.tr iciity projects in the north of Scotland’. Such contractors have the skill and “know-how” required for carrying out portion,?! of the Snowy Mountains scheme. The Government intends to interest those contractors in this project and, if possible, to have them undertake part of the construction work.

page 188

MOTION OF CENSURE

Petrol

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the- Notice of

Motion - Censure Motion - taking precedence of all other business until disposed of.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I move -

That, in the opinion of this House, the present shortage of petrol supplies in Australia, which is increasingly affecting vital production and transport, is to a substantial extent duo to the policy and inaction of the Government, and that the Government in consequence deserves the censure of this House.

This problem of petrol supplies to Australia and of ‘petrol distribution in Australia is exciting a very great deal of public interest all over the continent, and one of the things that is really badly needed - and it is one of the reasons for this debate - i3 that there should be a clear concentration of the public mind upon the real facts, and’ upon the factors that count in regard to it. During the last few weeks a very considerable attempt has been made in certain quarters to place responsibility for petrol shortages on State governments and State administrations, and that is, of course, completely wrong, as I believe I shall be able to show without any difficulty. The real problem is one for this Parliament and for the Administration of the Commonwealth. In my remarks I shall not attempt to cover all the ground. That would not be possible or reasonable in. one speech. My colleagues on this side of the House will, I trust, deal very thoroughly with particular aspects of this matter. I know that they will, and I say “ I trust “ only because I do riot know how much time they will be granted to put their case. I shall endeavour, first, to do a little clearing of the ground on this subject. If we ure to consider the petrol problem fairly, we must first distinguish clearly and definitely between the position of the Commonwealth and that of the States in relation to petrol supplies. Their positions are, of course, entirely different, notwithstanding the confusion that has been created in the public mind in the way that I have described. The Commonwealth of Australia has control of imports into Australia. It therefore has control over the total volume of petrol, or, indeed, of any other commodity, that comes into this country. The Commonwealth has control of finance. It is the Government that is charged with the responsibility of dealing with Australia’s national and international financial problems. Insofar as petrol is related to dollars, petrol is the problem in Australia of the Commonwealth, and not of any State. The Commonwealth has control of imports and also the control of the relevant finance. It controls international trade. Its control of each of those matters is, for all .practical purposes, exclusive, as members of the Government must agree. The States cannot deal with imports. If all the State governments of Australia got together to-morrow, they could not increase by even one gallon the volume of imports of petrol or any petroleum product. That is a matter for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has the power and the responsibility to determine how much petrol is to be allowed, to corns into Australia, and from what source or ‘sources it shall come.

If the supply of petrol is seriously inadequate to meet public demands, as we are now told it is, there arises at once the problem of distributing the reduced amount. Whether the petrol is to be distributed by ;i rationing process of one kind or another, or in some other way, the problem of distribution arises only when the total supply coming into Australia is seriously inadequate to meet public demand. But the point I wish to emphasize is that the problem of distribution and rationing is a secondary problem.. The primary problem is total supply, and total supply is under the control of the Commonwealth and no other authority.

I think that it is not inappropriate for me at this stage to put a question fairly and squarely to the Government on this matter. Did this Government think that its power over rationing, acquired during the war and exercised under the defence powers, was interminable? Did it believe that it held that power permanently? Obviously the Government could not have thought so. . I am sure that the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) will agree with me when I say that rationing by the Commonwealth stood on exactly the same foundation as prices control by the Commonwealth. Each was a product of the defence powers. Consequently, the Commonwealth could scarcely have thought that, whilst its power over prices was so temporary that a referendum had to be held on the subject, its power over petrol rationing was so permanent that no question of its validity could arise. Quite plainly, the Commonwealth knew that for all practical purposes its .power over petrol rationing would not last any longer than its power over prices. What did the Commonwealth do to retain power over the rationing of petrol ? I am sorry to occupy the time of honorable members in this way, but it is most desirable that we should analyse this problem quite clearly, and rid our minds of some of the confusion that has existed in the past. What did the Commonwealth do to retain its power over rationing, which arose originally out of Commonwealth import controls and commodity shortages, and out of no other real factor?

I remind the House that, in the course of the last five years, indeed, of the last seven years which has been the lifetime of the present Government, repeated attempts have been made to alter the Constitution of the Commonwealth to extend the powers of the Australian Government. In 1942, two proposals were put before the people. One of them had a brief appearance in this chamber. It was put forward by the Attorney-General. It was as broad as it was long, as honorable members will recollect very well. Then there was then a convention of representatives of the States, and of all political parties. The first proposal disappeared, and another arose instantly and was discussed at a convention. That second proposal with certain changes became the foundation of the 1944 referendum. What did the Commonwealth ask for in 1944? We must not forget that the war was on, and that petrol rationing and prices control were in existence. What powers did the Australian Government seek in 1944 ? The answer is that, having regard to this problem amongst others, it asked the people to give it power over two things. That is rather understating the position because, in fact, the Government asked for power over fourteen matters as we will all remember, but in particular it sought powers over two matters. One was the production and distribution of goods, and the other was the organized marketing of commodities. I daresay that one or other, or both, of those powers would have covered petrol rationing. I should think that the “ distribution of goods “ would cover the distribution of petrol, and that the “ organized marketing of commodities” - a very wide term - would also cover the rationing of petrol. So, between those two items, ‘ the Australian Government, in 1944, asked foi power over this matter which, I repeat, is subsidiary, the primary one being total supply. The Commonwealth asked for those powers for five years after the end of the war. It imposed a time limit. The proposals went to the people and were rejected. Another referendum was held in. 1946, and the remarkable feature of that referendum was that the same Government again asked for power over “ organized marketing “, but substituted “ of primary products “ for “ of commodities “. In other words, it had dropped the idea of getting power over the organized marketing of petrol, which could hardly be described in that setting as a primary product. To put the matter in another way, the 1946 referendum proposals indicated that the Government had apparently dropped all idea of asking for power over rationing, although at that time the war had ended and the importation of petrol into Australia was still limited. That referendum was defeated. Another referendum was held in 1948. I recall that one with some interest, because I have had the experience, and I am sure some other honorable members have had it too, of ardent Labour supporters at various meetings pointing the finger and saying, “ Yes. there is all this trouble about petrol ; why did you people oppose our last referendum?” An attempt is being made to create the impression that the last referendum had something to do with this petrol problem.

Mr Conelan:

– The right honorable gentleman told the people of the States that he could control these matters very much better.

Mr MENZIES:

– I find that my ever reliable ally, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan), comes in. Obviously he is labouring under some misapprehension on the matter. I realize that he is a little heated because I gather from a question that he asked earlier in this sitting that some Labour man had his majority reduced by only 50 per cent, on Saturday last.

Mr Conelan:

– Another had his majority increased by 300 per cent.

Mr MENZIES:

– I was referring to the misapprehension, which is carefully cultivated in some quarters, that the last referendum in Australia had something to do with petrol. Therefore, it is necessary to remind the House and the country that at the 1948 referendum the Government was careful not to ask for any power over rationing. It asked for one power and for one power only. Et asked for permanent power over rents and prices, including charges. Not a word was said about rationing. That was the result, I have no doubt, of the exercise of deliberate judgment on the part of the Government. It said nothing about rationing. It merely asked for power over rents and prices, including charges. That referendum, of course, was defeated.

I have rehearsed that brief history because it is well to remind every one concerned that although to-day the Government is endeavouring to fasten some responsibility on every one else for the petrol problem, when it had the chance to ask the people of Australia to give it power over the rationing of petrol, it went a long distance out of its way to avoid doing so. Not a word was said about petrol rationing in the referendums of 1946 or 194S. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion to be reached is that the Commonwealth was content to relinquish its rationing powers in favour of the States, although the States had no control over imports and would, if necessary, have to ration upon a basis of total supply already determined for them by the Commonwealth. In these circumstances attempts are now being made by the Government - we heard the echo of one of them here in the last ten minutes - to convey the impression that petrol supplies are a State responsibility, or to blame the Opposition parties for the defeat of a referendum from which rationing was carefully omitted. These attempts are not only false but also almost unbelievably shabby.

None of us in this House, except those who have access to all the figures available to the Government and to all the communications that have passed between governments, is in full possession of all the facts dealing with dollars or with our financial commitments. 1 suppose that it would be agreed around the House that there has been a dollar shortage since the war. Indeed, I notice that on two occasions in two conferences the Prime Minister has said, whether humorously or not I do not profess to know, that the last time when dollars were in good supply in Australia was during the war when the American soldiers were spending them here. I take it that the right honorable gentleman did not make that remark entirely light-heartedly. I assume for the purpose of discussion that there has been a dollar shortage in Australia since the war. I am concerned now only with the period since the war. After all, it is of no use to go too far back on these matters. If the case in regard to dollars is as I have just put it, when did the Government decide that petrol would be short and would continue to be short for years to come ? If it came to that conclusion years ago, and has remained of that opinion right through the period since the war ended, why did it carefully refrain from seeking to control rationing at a time when it was asking the people to allow it to control prices? Why did the Government refrain from asking for such a power if it believed that petrol must be rationed and that the power to ration it must be exercised ? If, on the other hand, the Government came to the conclusion only recently that petrol would be short, what new facts have arisen which create the emergency? The Government can take its choice between these two things. It literally cannot have it both ways on that matter.

There is another factor that has deprived the development of primary industry of priority, and I ‘believe that there is a growing disposition in Australia to realize how true this is. The socialists have been completely preoccupied with nationalizing industry, not only here but also in Great Britain. That preoccupation tends to impair the morale of competitive industry generally. Apparently the Attorney-General dissents from that proposition, but it is of no use for the right honorable gentleman to suggest sotto voce that one is not to criticize what happens in Great Britain. I say that in considering problems such as the one which we are now discussing we are acting in mutual arrangement with Great Britain. If there is a shortage of refinery capacity in the sterling area that shortage concerns Great Britain and Australia; and I make no bones whatever about saying that in Great Britain, as in Australia, the socialist preoccupation with nationalization has had a deterrent effect upon productive industry generally.

The next point that 1 make- is that our approach to- the dollar problem.’ ha>s been- negative: It has- involved some idea of saving by imposing restrictions, not by earning dollars by expansion’ and drive and the- reduction- of costs-. I must confess’ that I was astonished myself to read that erne- of the major- terms- of the arrangement made in the United1 States of America the other day contemplated1 a real’ attempt to get costs1 of production down- to a competitve level1. Why it should need an international agreement to. produce- an understanding of that truth I dd not- know. Our approach to the- dollar- problem has; been much too negative; I aim not going to elaborate that criticism; because I know that at least one of my colleagues will have something to- say about it. However, I was very interested to hear the Prime Minister himself make the following- statement last week: -

Restriction: of imports . . . cam of itself, contribute nothing to the- solution of the dollar problem, which requires a positive effort to lift levels of trade rather than to reduce them.

– Honorable members opposite should not run away from this issue. That attitude towards the people of the United Kingdom is evident among members of the Opposition. and, indeed, in other countries. There is a suggestion that the United Kingdom has not done so well as other countries have done in making an economic recovery since the war. But that view has been contradicted by men who are competent to know. One such man above all others is Mr. Paul Hoffman, the administrator of the European recovery programme. No one in this country or any other country is likely to take the word of a member of the Opposition here against that of the man who is administering Marshall aid. Is anybody here prepared to take the word of a member of the Opposition against the statistics that appear in a recent issue of the Economist! That paper is not partisan in the sense that it supports the Labour party, yet the figures that it has published show, as Mr. Paul Hoffman and Mr. Williams, the adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of America, have stated, that England’s effort since the war, despite the destruction of property and heavy losses in other respects, is better than that of any other country which-

Mr McBride:

– Which is receiving Marshall aid.

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Spender:

– “What is wrong with that?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– To buy crude oil in the Persian Gulf, take it to Stettin and then inland to the refineries, and then send it again to Stettin for shipment to Australia would appear to be a strange kind of commercial transaction.

Mr Spender:

– It is only a question of what we pay for it.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I can give information about costs. After Ampol had made its application for a licence to import petrol from Poland and the licence had been issued, I received a telegram from London. I remind the House that it was said that the vendors were waiting and that the option would expire if permission to import were not given within, so to speak, five minutes. The telegram reads as follows : -

Polish petrol. Stevinson Hardy and Co., London Associates of Ausn. Motorists’ Petrol Co., approached Trade Commissioner to-day and advised that Centrala Produktow Nafto wych were having difficulty in obtaining Polish export licence for this particular shipment of petrol. They requested support in making representations to the Polish Government.

Mr McEwen:

– The Poles must have a Labour government.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I ask the House to listen to this lovely passage -

At the same time they asked that this information be treated confidentially, as they did not wish to embarrass their Australian associates, who are most perturbed at this development. Would appreciate instructions.

The tankers were supposed to be ready in Stettin, waiting to come here. We sent a telegram to the Australian High Commissioner in London telling him to instruct the company to make proper application to the Australian Government. That application was made yesterday. Ordinarily this transaction would have been negotiated in the normal course of business, but politics has been brought into it. I should not be concerned with cables of this kind if I were dealing with people who play the game. As I have said before in this House, if people are not prepared to fight under the Marquess of Queensberry’s rules, I have some knowledge of the other rules. Despite all this fuss about Polish petrol, all that can be done about it is now for the Australian Government to go to the Polish Government-

Mr Beale:

– Why not?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am not arguing about that. I have already sent a telegram to find out what has caused the trouble at the Polish end. It is not as simple a matter to obtain this Polish petrol as was imagined.

Another charge was made regarding Russian petrol. It was stated that an application had been made to import Russian petrol, and had been refused. Up to a few hours ago no application had ever been made for the importation of Russian petrol. It has been stated that somebody penetrated the Soviet zone of Germany and consulted with the Soviet Military Commission. Those are the fellows who blockaded Berlin and starved the population, so we are not likely to meet with much success there. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the Government had not made inquiries regarding non-dollar sources of petrol. The fact is that we have made inquiries regarding such petrol all around the world’. I do not ask honorable members to take my word alone regarding the difficulty of obtaining petrol from behind the Iron Curtain. That has been, and can be, proved by certain extracts. I shall not go into that aspect at great length, but shall quote one extract, from the Petroleum Press Service. I could, if I chose, quote a number of other extracts, all of which confirm the information with which the Government has been supplied to the effect that petroleum was not readily available from behind the Iron Curtain. The extract from the Petroleum Press Service reads -

The trade agreements concluded or negotiated with Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Egypt and other countries, stipulating the delivery of petroleum products by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have so far either not been followed up, or the quantities involved have been comparatively small. In Britain only one cargo of petrol has arrived from Russia since the members of the Petroleum Board resumed their direct supplies to this country a year ago. Even such exports as have to be made to dependent countries behind, the Iron Curtain, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, are only enough to meet their minimum essential needs .

I merely quote that extract to the House, although I do not suppose a great deal of attention should be given to press statements. The fact of the matter is that we were informed that Australia would probably be able to obtain from behind the Iron Curtain only odd lots of petrol. Odd lots are no good to us. All the big American oil companies are distributing their petrol in accordance with the wishes of, and after consultation with, the United Kingdom Government. They bitterly resent the suggestions that have been made that they have not played the game. I believe that they have played the game. The decision as to where, how,’ and to whom their petrol supplies will flow, is, as I have said, made after consultation with the United Kingdom Government, for the purpose of keeping what the oil companies themselves describe as “ the delicate balance “ of essential supplies to the countries in the sterling area and to other countries in whose welfare the United Kingdom is vitally interested. Does anybody doubt that had it not been for what the United States has achieved in Europe by means of Marshall aid, and what the United Kingdom hasdone in Europe with sterling credits, the whole of Europe would now be under Communist control? Everybody knows that the only means by which Communist control of all Europe has been averted has been the action of the United Kingdom, working in conjunction with the United States. I have shown that the statements about the petrol position to which I have referred have been proved to be complete fabrications. I only desire to add that I have verified with the oil companies every statement I have made about the dollar components in petrol. I am not asking the House to take my word alone. Figures supplied by the oil companies confirm my statements.

I turn now to the aspect of petrol consumption. In June last the withdrawal from stocks, and perhaps even the sale, of petrol, was 45 per cent, above what it was when rationing was in operation. It was apparent even to the oil companies that that drain could not be sustained, and’ therefore the companies agreed amongthemselves to try to curtail supplies of petrol in some way so that that huge drain, could be avoided. They agreed to makesome sort of rationing arrangements. My attention has been drawn to a press statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot believe for one moment that he ever intended it to mean what it apparently means. He said -

The whole matter rente in the hands of the Federal Government. It has already rationed petrol to the States.

I do not think that the right honorable gentleman meant that statement to refer to the rationing of petrol supplies to individual States, but that is the meaning that his statement would appear to have. If that is the meaning intended then the statement is entirely misleading. The Australian Government has imposed no rationing as between the States. It is perfectly true that during the period of petrol rationing each State received a quota of supplies. That is not the case at present, because the Australian Government now has no control over the allocation of petrol to different States. That matter rests entirely with the petrol companies themselves. Honorable members opposite said that there would be no increase of the consumption of petrol if rationing were abolished. . I shall cite figures that will show the falsity of that view. After allowing 5,250,000 gallons for usage occasioned by the recent coal strike, the average sales of petrol over a period of three months following the cessation of rationing increased by 21 per cent.

Mr Anthony:

– Petrol consumers were panicked by all the talk about Australia’s inability to buy sufficient petrol.

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That increase of sales occurred even although during those three months the companies themselves were endeavouring to ration supplies in some way. That answer to the contention that consumption would not increase with the cessation of rationing 5,s provided by the companies themselves, not by the Government.

Mr Anthony:

– It is not an answer, because everybody was thrown into a panic.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) persists in interrupting I shall deal with him in the only way available to the Chair.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The answer is supplied in the figures given, not by me, but by checks of bonded stocks, and of sales and usage. The fact is that honorable members opposite do not desire to recognize the truth when they see it. Everything that I have said this evening is the complete truth. The statistical information that I have given is absolutely correct.

Now I turn to the matter of the State Premiers. All this badgering about petrol has gone on amongst members of the Opposition. I should be surprised if they have much genuine information on this subject. The Government supplied the Premiers of the States with complete and confidential information about the petrol position. T have not spoken to them since the conference. The Government has not attempted to badger them. We placed the facts before the Premiers, and I told them that the Commonwealth has lost the power to ensure an equitable distribution of petrol. We fear that unless provision is made for the equitable distribution of available sup plies many essential users will not be able to get the petrol they need, particularly at harvest time, and that conditions could become chaotic. In effect, I said to the Premiers: “We ask you to consider this matter, not on political grounds. We know that rationing is not popular, but we have a public duty to perform in the interests of the people generally, and particularly of those to whom petrol is essential in their business, and for the carrying on of the trade and commerce of the country. If there is any fear of a shortage of petrol we believe that the States should either introduce their own rationing system, for which the Commonwealth would pay, or they should refer the necessary power to the Commonwealth, which would operate a rationing scheme “.

The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction will discuss the subject of refineries. That is another matter, I merely point out here that the Government of the United Kingdom is proposing to expend £120,000,000 on the erection of refineries. From that expenditure Australia as well as the United Kingdom will benefit. I put it to the Premiers that they should consider what was best for the country rather than what was politically expedient, and I believe that the Premiers did, in fact, look at the matter in that way. Of course, I do not pretend to he able to read their minds. They had a conference among themselves, and the decision they came to is a matter for themselves alone. However, I believe that all the Premiers were fully convinced by the information that I placed before them, and that they all recognized that if there was only a limited quantity of petrol available - a fact for which the Commonwealth accepts responsibility because of the dollar position - the only way to ensure its equitable distribution was to introduce a rationing system. Mr. McGirr, Mr. McLarty, Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Playford and Mr. Fagan all said that they were prepared to accept some form of rationing, and to introduce the necessary legislation. I have not mentioned the matter to them since. I understand that there are difficulties in Victoria, other than those associated with petrol. One does not go around patting one’s opponents on the back. Some of them have said hard things about me, but I believe that Mr. Hollway had a full appreciation of the position.

If the States refer the necessary power to the Commonwealth, we will introduce a rationing system, and honorable members opposite can shout about it as much as they like. The Government owes a duty to the country, the welf are of which is our first consideration. We are not going to try to browbeat the States. I have stated facts, not suppositions. In the last six months, the sterling area, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, has been in a perilous economic position. I was very hurt by the fact that some members of this Howse should have completely disregarded that position.

Mr Hamilton:

– The Prime Minister told us that we were entering the golden age.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That ha3 nothing to do with it. Let us remember that the head of the British Commonwealth of Nations, Great Britain, and with it Australia, have been very close to drastic economic difficulties. At the recent conference in Washington, Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Bevin were able to convince the Americans - though some of them did not want a great deal of convincing - that it would not be wise to let Britain totter to economic ruin. We in Australia should remember that the United Kingdom. is our best customer. Therefore, apart from sentiment, and apart from any recognition of the debt of gratitude we owe Great Britain, we should do what we can to maintain the economic stability of that country. And yet some of us are kicking up a fuss because we are asked to suffer some of the things that Great Britain has been suffering. We should have unlimited petrol! We should have an unlimited number of American motor cars, while Britain is on the verge of economic ruin because of its depleted dollar reserve ! That is what some people have been advocating. I hope that some benefit will derive from the talks at Washington. We are merely trying to help a country that has helped us. Our economic welfare largely depends on that of Britain which, as I have said, is our best customer. I should be failing in my duty as Leader of the Government if I hesitated to advocate the reintroduction of petrol rationing, regardless of what political odium may attach to that course. Some time ago, it was agreed that there should be a 25 per cent, cut in dollar expenditure by countries of the British Commonwealth. In Australia, 97 per cent, of our people arc of British stock, and yet some of us here are grizzling because we are asked to help the people of Britain. But Ceylon, whose people are not of British stock, and which earns far more in dollars than it spends, is prepared to cut its dollar expenditure by 25 per cent. In India, whose people also are not of British stock, Mr. Nehru and his colleagues have an appreciation of Great Britain’s need which has been sadly lacking among some honorable members opposite. That remark is not true of all members of the Opposition parties. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition has a full appreciation of the position. However, certain interests are driving him along. Whatever the political difficulties might be, we on this side make no apology for the fact that we are prepared, to accept this responsibility so that we can help those who help us.

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

– It is indeed regrettable to have been the recipient of the opening remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) in his speech on this very important matter. The right honorable gentleman must be made to appreciate that he is not the only citizen in this country who conscientiously desires to discharge his public duty as he sees it. I have persisted in the attitude I have adopted towards petrol rationing and the Government’s policy in this matter because I conscientiously believe - and my belief has been strengthened by the effluxion of time - that the Government either has been misled or has failed to consider the problem in the best interests of motor users in Australia. The right honorable gentleman can sound a personal note as much as he likes and talk about chasing tin hares and being a receptacle for all sorts of “furphies”, but in the course of my remarks I shall produce some live hares of an electric nature which I believe he will not be able to evade as he has evaded’ the real substance of the motion now before the House.

Without doubt, the two most important aspects of the petrol problem are : First, is an adequate supply of oil necessary to Australia’s economy and development ? ; and, secondly, is oil available to us? The first question was answered effectively by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). Every student of the problem as well as every honorable member must appreciate that Australia’s economic progress depends upon an ample supply of petroleum products. Without such supplies our productive capacity would be kept at a minimum, our post-war recovery retarded and our future as a nation imperilled. Indeed, our defence strategy and security as a whole would be jeopardized. In this matter I have endeavoured to survey Australia’s position in comparison with that of other nations and I have come to the conclusion that adequacy of petrol supplies is more vital to Australia, having regard to the peculiar circumstances in which this nation finds itself, than it is to any other nation. Australia is sparsely populated and much of it still undeveloped, but we have a responsibility as one of the great primary producing countries of the world to help to save the starving peoples of not only the United Kingdom, but also other countries which were devastated in the recent war. Members of the Opposition parties stand second to none in their support of the United Kingdom. This is not a newfound love with us, if it is with honorable members opposite. It is sheer hypocrisy for supporters of the Government to talk as they talk to-day about their desire to help the great United Kingdom. If they look back through the pages of Hansard they can ascertain what they have really done in that direction over the years. They have opposed every action taken by previous governments for the purpose of co-operating fully with the United Kingdom in its defence obligations and needs. On that point I emphasize, if emphasis be really necessary, that members of the Opposition parties do not require to be lectured by the Prime Minister concerning our duty to help the people of the United Kingdom.

Motor cars, utility trucks and tractors are integral parts of our national pro- ductive system. Only by providing adequate supplies of petroleum products can we keep the wheels of transport moving in this country and thus maintain maximum production in our great primary industries for whose products the United Kingdom and other countries are clamouring at the present time. The second question on which the Prime Minister is at variance with me is : Are petroleum products available to us to-day? Because of its importance I shall deal with the answer to that question at some length. If petrol rationing is re-introduced in Australia, the only person who will be responsible for such action will be the Prime Minister. The re-introduction of petrol rationing will be due solely to his policy of using Commonwealth laws, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to restrict the importation of petrol and thereby force the hands of the various State governments by a system of Commonwealth rationing at the source of supply. This restrictive policy is supported by the Australian Labour party because in typical socialistic fashion that party always places restriction before freedom and reduction before production and always endeavours to maintain the greatest possible degree of control over the individual citizen. The Prime Minister has dealt with the petrol problem in a manner that leads one to only one conclusion. He wants petrol rationing solely for rationing’s sake; he does not want to relax his policy of control over the individual. That attitude is consistent with the socialist’s policy of subservience to the Government. The right honorable gentleman has exerted all his efforts to find a means by which petrol rationing can be re-introduced in this country rather than remove the need for the re-introduction of petrol rationing. One has only to recall what happened on the day on which the High Court announced its judgment declaring the Commonwealth’s petrol ration regulations to be invalid. The ink on that judgment was not dry before the Prime Minister stampeded and announced that chaotic conditions would result and that the responsibility for avoiding such conditions was cast on the States; and ever since he has been determined to see his prophecy come true.

I repeat that the Government has not lifted a finger or made one solitary effort to remove the need for petrol rationing. On the contrary, it has exerted all its efforts with a view to creating reasons for the re-introduction of rationing. The Government expends nearly £200,000 a year on the maintenance of its commercial intelligence service overseas. It has trade commissioners in many countries as well as ambassadors, ministers and consular representatives at most of the important centres overseas, but I challenge the Prime Minister to produce any evidence whatever that those government instrumentalities were even approached on the matter’ or were capable, on their own initiative, of finding alternative sources of supplies of petrol in order to avoid the need to re-introduce petrol rationing. It was left to an independent oil company, which is controlled exclusively by Australian enterprise, and consists of 5,000 Australian shareholders, to seek other sources of supplies in an endeavour to prevent Australian citizens from being harassed in their efforts to develop this country.

I come now to the availability of petrol supplies, recognizing, of course, the fact that petrol is essential to maximum production in this country. On the evidence that is available, certain facts relating to the petrol position cannot be denied by any reasonably informed person. First, there is a world surplus of oil. In fact, to-day there is an oil war between the major international petroleum companies. Within recent hours a reduction of 75 cents a barrel for American oil has been announced. The world’s oil resources are now placed at a higher figure than ever before. The latest figures show that known global crude oil resources increased in 1948 by 4,890,000,000 barrels or 6.6 per cent. During the ten years 1939 to 1948, 25,000,000,000 barrels of crude petroleum were produced, yet the estimated proved oil resources grew during that period from 34,000,000,000 barrels to 78,000,000,000 barrels, a net gain of 129 per cent. If the oil that has been taken from the ground is added, the gross increment in reserves has not been far short of the startling figure of 70,000,000,000 barrels.

Let us turn now to movements in the sterling area. It is from that area, of course, that Australia can most advantageously obtain its oil supplies. In 1948, there was a substantial surplus of sterling oil. Production amounted to 64,000,000 tons, and the total British Commonwealth consumption was only 45,000,000 tons. Only about 330,000 tons, or a mere fraction of that surplus, would be required annually to abolish rationing permanently in this .country, even on the most pessimistic consumption estimates given by the Prime Minister. Let us consider the position that the Government has allowed to develop in this country. During the last session of this Parliament a petrol freezing measure was passed ostensibly because it was necessary to build up emergency stocks in this country. In spite of the plentiful supply of oil throughout the world, and the surplus of sterling area oil to which I have referred, the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) admitted in this House on the 1st July that stocks of motor spirit held at the seaboard in Australia in 1948 were, at one stage, less than one month’s rationed consumption, and that the average held throughout the year had been only enough to meet Australia’s demands for five and a half weeks.

I turn my attention now to the lifting of petrol rationing by European countries. The Prime Minister, either intentionally or otherwise, but obviously only halfinformed, misled the House on this subject, which has a most important bearing on the petrol problem. Obviously, it is most desirable from all points of view that we should obtain as much sterling oil as possible. The information in my possession is authentic and is available to any one. It shows clearly that several European countries have removed restrictions on the use of petrol, although the Australian Government has refused to follow suit. There is no restriction upon the consumption of motor spirit in France in spite of what the Prime Minister has said. The right honorable gentleman was merely playing with words when he took the Leader of the Opposition to task for having said that France received only crude oil from the sterling area. I leave that matter there for -the present, but J shall refer again to hath France .and Italy as I proceed. I repeat tha.t there is n.o restriction .on the consumption of motor spirit in France. A similar position exists in Belgium, Luxemberg, Switzerland,, Portugal, Turkey and, since February of this year, Finland… There is no rationing in ‘the strict sense pf the word in Holland .or in the .Scandinavian .countries with the exception ,of .Sweden. In Denmark, a special unrationed holiday period pf one month is .allowed) an-d a similar period of , thr.ee weeks is allowed in Norway at the choice pf the motoristPetrol is officially seated to be unrationed in Poland and Roumania and, since April, it has been unrationed in H,unga-ry. The .only Marshall aid countries in which rationing still operat.es a,re Britain, Iceland, and Haly. Restrictions in Italy are slight and cannot be compared with those operating here. The British ration is .approximately the same as in Australia. Apparently, no special .consideration is given to the vast distances over which motor vehicles h.a-ye to travel in this country. Most pf the unrationed petrol consumed in the countries that I have mentioned is undoubtedly sterling in .origin and, any wide awake government, knowing -those facts, would naturally inquire into the possibility pf pb.ta-in.ing the diversion to this country .pf some of .the available supplies. Particularly in view .of the statement on .defence stocks made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction the Australian Government, which is responsible for the sa.fe.ty and economic well-being of this country should have investigated fully all possible avenues pf supply. Increasing consumption of sterling oil and other non-dollar oil by European Marshall aid countries is apparent from figures that I shall give to the House. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister say that had it npt been for the United States pf America the Marshall aid countries would now be under .Communist control. Let us see to what extent British oil companies have increased their sales to those countries. In 1947, oil sold to European Marshall aid countries iota-lied 19,500,000 tons In the fiscal year 1948-49, that figure increased to 2’6,.8O0,p66 tons. The esti- ma.te for the current fiscal year is 3,0,90.0,00.0 tons. The increase ,bv.er the last three years, ther.ef.ore, has been ap.proxjmat.eiy 50 per cent. Yet, the people .of Australia are expected to believe that it is net possible to send $.0 this country the mere trickle of S.0,00.0.,000 gallons annually which is required .to ensure adequate .supplies. I turn now to the Middle Eas’.t .sterling oil share of European tra.de. In 1938, 24 per cent, of Middle East sterling oil went to Europe. In 1947 the figure was 32 per cent. In 1949 it rose ,to 47 per cent, .and the .estimate for the .current financial year is 54 per cent. Whore and how has Australia participated in this increased availability of sterling oil? We are asked to believe tha.t petrol rationing is the only means by which equitable .distribution of petrol can b.e .achieved in this undeveloped nation. British oil interests have captured, and .are still capturing, foreign markets for British oil. An oil war is being waged between the big oil companies. Current British and American petrol journals highlight the fact that in their endeavours to save dollar currency continental .and Marshall aid countries .are buying sterling oil from Britain’s increasing sterling production. In addition, three other important countries - Egypt, .Sweden and Argentina - have recently switched to British oil Conditions in Norway indicate that that country, too, may be forced to rely on sterling oil because of its dollar situation. Does the Minister who will follow me in this debate know, and if so will he admit that sterling oil is going into China? Where are we getting sufficient sterling oil to make up even the pessimistic ration proposed by the Prime Minister? We have npt taken .advantage of these supplies in order to safeguard the economy of this country. Great Britain is committed to supply to Argentina £29,000,000 worth of petroleum “products during the first year of operation of the Anglo-Argentine agreement. These products will be supplied .by British oil-producing companies and wi.ll .comprise lj.800,000 tons of crude oi), 3,7.50,000 tons of fuel oil-which is refined o.il - and 250,000 tops pf other petroleum by-products. Under a trade agreement completed between Britain and

Brazil on the 3rd August last, Britain has undertaken to supply Brazil with £7,4S6,000 sterling worth of petroleum and petroleum products. What will be the dollar component of the products covered by these two agreements which in the aggregate will be worth approximately £36,500,000 to Great Britain? We are aware that Great Britain must obtain foodstuffs quickly, and that in order to do so it must depend on Argentina and be willing to make concessions in return. It is regrettable that Australia cannot obtain even a trickle of sterling oil to develop its productive capacity when at the same time its greatest competitor in the meat markets of the world is made the recipient of large quantities of sterling oil which, after being refined, will undoubtedly be resold. The Prime Minister has said that the contract with Argentina covered the supply of only 100,000 tons of petrol. Even if his statement is correct E remind him that that is equal to 30,000,000 gallons, a quantity which would go a long way towards relieving the petrol position in Australia. How are we to expand production in Australia in order to meet our commitments to the United Kingdom, unless we obtain sufficient petrol to meet our needs? Sterling oil trade agreements have also been concluded by the United Kingdom with Denmark, which is our greatest competitor in dairy products. As the result of the petrol shortage our dairying capacity must remain static. Our dairy-farmers are to be deprived of the requisite petrol to enable them to expand their activities so that they may be able to take advantage of desirable and promising markets. Sterling oil trade agreements have also been concluded by the United Kingdom with Sweden, India, and Israel. The Prime Minister has admitted that Britain has supplied quantities of crude oil to our former enemy, Italy. Indeed, the right honorable gentleman took the Leader of the Opposition to task for mentioning that fact, saying that after all it was crude oil, not refined oil. The supply of that oil places Italy in an ‘advantageous position. The Italians have established refining capacity and are selling refined oil to India and other countries. Nothing has been, done to obtain oil from Italy as a means of obviating dollar expenditure on petrol. I doubt whether the Government even knew of the existence of such an arrangement until it had been mentioned in this House. At present these continental and Marshall aid countries, in many of which petrol is unrationed, enjoy the advantages of dollar saving while Australia suffers the disadvantage of having to pay for its petrol in dollars and at the same time have its supplies of petrol rationed through the Chifley Government’s control of imports. Last month, the chairman of the British Automobile Association, Canon Hassard-Short, referring to the British Government’s explanation that rationing must continue for economic reasons, said very pertinently -

We should like to know how it is that other European countries which were conquered and overrun by the Germans are able to abolish petrol rationing and we m-e not.

Could not a similar question be asked by Australians with regard to the Australian position? When the European recovery plan was evolved it became clear that, on a long-term basis, increased refinery capacity would be necessary to avoid a heavy drain on the dollar or foreign exchange requirements of the importing countries. The provision of such increased capacity was a basic requirement. Britain has planned to increase its refinery capacity from 3,000,000 tons to 20,000,000 tons annually. Marshall aid Europe and associated Middle East oil production areas increased their refinery capacity from 70,000,000 tons in 1947 to 92,000,000 tons in 1949, and plan to increase capacity to 137,000,000 tons by 1952. What requests were made by the Chifley Government during the progress of that phase of long-term dollar planning, or since, to assure dollar conservation for Australia in the light of the warnings that were obvious from these facts? In the light of that information, all documented and authenticated despite what the Prime Minister may say about it, Australians are asked to accept the British position on faith alone without being supplied with sufficient facts on which to judge the case for themselves. One could not advantageously enlarge upon what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when he pointed out that honorable members had not been entrusted with the information that the Government must have in its possession so as to enable them to arrive at a sound decision in relation to petrol rationing. We are expected to follow the Government blindly, and the people are obliged to accept the decisions that are forced upon them by the Government. The Prime Minister told the Premiers that the total net cost of oil to the sterling area was well in excess of 400,000,000 dollars, or £100,000,000 sterling, annually. Subsequently the London Economist, which the Prime Minister cited as a non-partisan journal this afternoon, proved that the real cost of petrol and other oil products purchased from United States companies was only about 160,000,000 dollars a year. The balance, of well over 240,000,000 dollars, was split up into non-recurring capital items, such as refinery equipment, and current operating expenses at British exploited oil-fields outside the sterling area. Even when faced with this proof, the Prime Minister reiterated in the Parliament that the drain on the dollar pool in respect of petrol was well over 400,000,000 dollars a year at a very conservative estimate. When the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) challenged his statement by interjection, the right honorable gentleman admitted that the cost of petrol was only £42,000,000 a year and that the balance was made up of “ incidentals “ .associated with petrol.

Mr Dedman:

– That is not so.

Mr FADDEN:

– It is recorded in Hansard. What is the good of saying that the Prime Minister did not admit it? The Minister denies everything.

Mr Dedman:

– That is not in Hansard.

Mr FADDEN:

– I will bet that it is. Returning again to the figures stated in the Economist, I point out that the amount of 160.000,000 dollars is not a net figure, as no reduction has been made for the re-export of coal at a profit in foreign exchange, which has been made possible by the substitution of oil for coal as a fuel in the United Kingdom. What has the socialist Government of the United Kingdom done in order to boost its nationalized coal industry? It has carried out & campaign for the conversion of industry to fuel oil consump tion. The latest United Kingdom Hansard that I have received shows that 1,300 industrial undertakings have been converted, to use oil instead of coal, thus making it possible for Britain to export coal to Sweden and other countries and earn about £1 15s. 4d. a ton in exchange advantage. Much of the refinery equipment needed by the sterling area might bc supplied through the Marshall aid plan. When assembled it would be a future dollar-earning, or at least a dollarsaving item.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) from concluding his speech without interruption.

Mr FADDEN:

– I thank the Prime Minister for the generosity that he has extended to me in moving the motion that lias just been agreed to by the House. Before the suspension of the sitting I mentioned the Prime Minister’s admission that the cost of petrol itself was only £42,000,000 a year, and that the “incidentals “ associated with it made up the balance. That admission is to be found in Hansard of the 7th July last, at page 21SS. I also pointed out that even then 160,000,000 dollars is not a net figure, because no reduction is made for the re-export of coal at a profit in foreign exchange, which is made possible by the substitution of fuel oil for coal in the United Kingdom. The socialist Attlee Government’s policy has been to make the maximum possible .use of fuel oil, which it imports in order to relieve the demand on British coal, so that more British coal can be exported in order, no doubt, to boost the nationalized coal industry.

The United Kingdom imports of motor spirit alone from dollar sources, including aviation spirit, but excluding other oil products, are officially stated to have amounted in 1948 to only £stg.l6,000,000 f.o.b. My authority for that statement is the. authoritative journal which the Prime Minister himself quoted this afternoon, Petroleum Press Service, London, and the statement is contained in the issue of May, 1949. That is the figure for refined petrol, and it is surprisingly small when compared with the total dollar expenditure for all petroleum products, including the heavier oils similar to those supplied to Argentina and to Brazil. Furthermore, the London Petroleum Times of the 28th January, 1949, published a table of total United Kingdom imports of crude oil and refined . products for the calendar year 1948 from the various countries of consignment. Those imports were calculated from the preliminary official data published in the Trade and Navigation Accounts of the United Kingdom. They were preliminary figures only, but are sufficiently accurate to enable broad conclusions to be drawn. They show that the United States itself consigned only 551,000,000 gallons of crude oil and refined products to the United Kingdom in 1948, or 11.8 per cent, of total imports, the cost in sterling being £26,293,011, or just over 100,000,000 dollars. In the previous year, 1947, the United States supplied the United Kingdom with 25.7 per cent, of total imports, so that in one year the percentage supplied by America has declined to less than half.

Those figures, however, apply to the expenditure side only. They give only the gloomy half of the picture. The income side, which is far brighter, has not been given to the Parliament by the Prime Minister. He alone knows whether it has been given to him by Sir Stafford Cripps. From an exhaustive survey of British White Papers, I have calculated that receipts for petroleum sales by British companies will be in the vicinity of £170,000,000 net for the calendar year 1949. The British budget statement that was presented in April of this year emphasized the high hopes placed by the British Government in oil companies as earners of foreign exchange. Net invisible income, which includes the overseas earnings of British oil companies, was provisionally estimated at £100,000,000 in 1948, in contrast with a net deficit of £190,000,000 in 1947. Consequently, my provisional estimate for 1949 should not be very far astray. In any case, it must be admitted that Great Britain is making substantial inroads into world oil markets with considerable resultant profits. Dollar expenditure on oil is naturally closely related to Britain’s entry into world oil trade. Petrol rationing in Australia is also very closely related to it. All members of the Parliament are vitally interested in Great Britain’s economic recovery, and it may be that sales of sterling oil, or even oil with a dollar component, to other countries are a considerable factor in assisting that objective. If that is so, then let us have the full particulars of British oil trade and collateral advantages, so that we can form our own judgment in Australia of the necessity or otherwise for these trade manipulations to Australia’s disadvantage.

If Australia is being called upon to make more and more sacrifices to bolster up British economy, let us be treated with the frankness that is necessary between partners who, from sentiment as well as from economic necessity, are determined to revive a run-down business. Many thinking people consider that the British socialists have no practical plans for getting out of their troubles. If that view is wrong, the British and Australian Governments should dispel it by frank facts and detailed figures. Otherwise, Australia must be prepared to stand up to the British socialists. We must push on with our own development as a great nation, instead of slipping back into the position of the old colonial days by paying tribute to a bankrupt socialist economy in England. The situation must worsen if the Australian people meekly accept the dictates of Sir .Stafford Cripps, without having the factual basis to check his judgment to discover where we are heading for.

This afternoon the Prime Minister quoted the opinions of various people in a comparison of the rate of recovery of the United Kingdom with other countries that have received Marshall aid. He told us to give those comparisons a reply, and to ponder over them. I quote now the statement recently made by no less an authority than Mr. Winston Churchill.

Mr Conelan:

– A tory.

Mr FADDEN:

– No one can ever accuse Winston Churchill of being anything but completely British. He said -

Every account which reaches us from Europe shows how more rapid in many ways has been the recovery of all the European countries than it has been here at home.

Some of these countries were our enemies and were forced to surrender unconditionally after being sheltered in war. Others have been defeated and overrun and held down for five years by foreign invaders.

But there is not one outside the iron curtain behind which socialism and communism prevail, which has not managed to get its life going in an active and civilized manner in many ways better than we have done under our Socalist Government with its mania for regulation and restriction.

Mr. Churchill is an eminent world figure, and even his greatest enemy must admit the outstanding value of his efforts towards saving the civilized world during the last war. I have read to the House Mr. Churchill’s appreciation of the position of the countries of Western Europe that are in receipt of Marshall aid compared with the plight of the United Kingdom under socialism.

As the Australian Government evidently is prepared to adopt a completely negative attitude towards increasing bur petrol supplies, the Opposition will suggest ways and means that may be explored to avert rationing in this country. I have already given the House authentic figures about the position in the countries of Western Europe that aTe in receipt of Marshall aid and in other countries, notably our former enemy, Italy. We in Australia are at a disadvantage compared with them. However, I leave aside that aspect, and even omit from consideration for the moment the wisdom of using every possible effort, as the Government should have done, to obtain at least a portion of the unrationed supplies of petrol from those countries in order to relieve the petrol situation in Australia. I shall now produce indisputable evidence, which is available to every honorable member, in order to show that petrol rationing can be averted, to the advantage of this country. Sterling tankers should be employed as far as possible to replace dollar tankers on the Australian run. My information is that approximately one-half of Australia’s imports of petroleum products arrive here in dollar tankers. If sterling tankers were used in preference to dollar tankers, the saving in freight, according to my advice, would be about 8,000,000 dollars a year. That amount would be sufficient to purchase, even if we were forced to purchase, 70,000,000 gallons of dollar petrol annually. At present, sterling tankers aggregating 100,000 tons are laid up. That figure includes five vessels each of which exceeds 8,000 tons dead weight which normally carry crude and dirty oils. I also understand that a considerable quantity of Panamanian tanker tonnage is laid up. The owners, in most instances, are willing to accept sterling in payment for freight. Although it may not be practicable to replace all the dollar tankers used in the Australian trade, a substantial saving of dollars, and a consequent increase of imports of petrol, should result from a thorough exploration of my suggestion.

An immediate investigation should also be made with a view to increasing refinery capacity in Australia. The Prime Minister has admitted that sterling crude oil is readily available to us. However, it is useless to import crude oil unless we have the necessary refining capacity. According to an official review of the Australian petroleum industry by the Department of Post-war Reconstruction, dated August, 1949, approximately 16 per cent, of Australia’s requirements of refined petrol are provided by local refineries. The review also states that the output of the Australian petroleum industry from refineries is currently at the rate of 649,000 tons a year. This output is the result of using only 75 per cent, of the present refining capacity. Although it is a common practice to keep the output at about 85 per cent, of the capacity of the refineries, this figure may be exceeded in times of shortage or emergency. Therefore, by increasing the present output of Australian refineries to full capacity, as it is the responsibility of the Government to do, between 15,000,000 and 20,000,000 additional gallons of motor spirit could be refined each year in Australia. Combined with supplies obtained by other methods, that quantity would go far towards overcoming the need for petrol rationing in this country. I suggest that, because of the importance of this matter, the Government should give first priority to means for steppingup the capacity of refineries already operating in Australia. As I have stated, the output at present is only 75 per cent, of the capacity of the refineries. One of the companies which is already engaged in refining operations iii Australia is Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, in which, the Australian. Government has .a contrpiling interest,

I sis© suggest that available European sources of refined petrol, which may be purchased for sterling, should be more fully explored immediately. An independent Australian company, Australian Motorists Petrol Company Limited, .commonly known as Ampol, has paved the way for this method of ‘relieving petrol rationing in Australia. Obviously, if sufficient petrol from those sources is available and if the Government is prepared to issue an import licensee to cover them, the rationing of petrol in Australia, can be averted. One licence has already been granted to Ampol to import .3,500,00,0 gallons of Polish petrol.

Mr Conelan:

– Will the company get that petrol?

Mr FADDEN:

– I shall deal in a moment with the reason why Ampol has not obtained the petrol, and I shall also refer to the scurvy treatment given to it by the Government in connexion with the matter. I understand Ampol was asked whether it would be prepared to market substantial quantities of Roumanian petrol in Australia. Negotiations are now under way as to quality, specification and price, and it is probable that substantial quantities will shortly be offered for firm shipment. An approach has also been made to sell petrol to Ampol through a Dutch source, for shipment to Australia. Here again, negotiations are in progress as to quality and price, but cargo load quantities are available from this source. Further, from two separate sources in London, firm cargoes of motor benzol have been offered to Ampol for shipment to Australia from a Russian port in the Black Sea, near the Turkish border. Negotiations are still in train with regard to these cargoes.

A licence to import Polish petrol has already been granted to Ampol by the Australian Governmnent. The London agents have advised that the necessary Polish export licence is in process of being issued to the Polish Government agency, which is the seller of the petrol. Advice has also been received from the

London .agents that .additional cargoes from, the same port and supplier will also be available. The whole of the suppliers pf petrol fr.pm all the sources which I have listed are prepared to accept non-convertible sterling for supplies. It would be impossible for these suppliers to obtain dollars for the petrol under the arrangements being negotiated. If an independent Australian petrol company, with its limited international resources, can unearth sterling petrol from more than one European country, why has not the Government been able to do at least as well with all of the facilities available to i t ? Failure to locate sources of European petrol offering for payment in sterling proves that the Australian Government has been guilty of gross negligence and of a callous disregard for the rights of Australian citizens, and, indeed, of the future defence and prosperity of this country.

By an agreement signed in New York on the 3rd June, 1948, the Australian Government agreed to supply the Government pf Poland with £A.250,000 worth of Australian wool as a free gift, and to pay the cost of procurement, storage, transport and shipping to the port of entry into Poland. That adequately combats the sneers of Government members with relation to Russian petrol. On the 29th June, an agreement was concluded in London to supply the Hungarian Government with wool worth £A.150,000, while on the 5th July a further agreement was concluded to provide Italy with £A.250,000 worth of Australian wool. In July, also, agreements were made to provide Austria and Yugoslavia each with £A.150,000 worth of wool. These are all free gifts of Australian wool that has been grown by rationed Australian primary producers, who are supposed to accept meekly, and without protest, the Prime Minister’s ultimatum with relation to petrol rationing. According to an official statement, for the nine months ended March, 1949, Russia purchased £A.11,375,000 worth of Australian wool. Why should we not p.ow take advantage of the petrol offered by some of these countries for export to Australia? We are not depriving other sterling areas of petrol, and we could purchase it with our overseas balances of which we have about £380,000,000 lying idle in England. What arrangements have been made for Russia to liquidate its wool debt to us of over £11,000,000? Are we to be supplied with goods, including petrol, in exchange, or will our idle London balances be augmented? Great Britain signed the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement in Moscow on the 27th December, 1947. Under that agreement the Soviet receives locomotives, rolling stock, excavators, caterpillars, cranes, generating equipment, and even oil purifying equipment, in return for grain. On the 13th April, 1949, it was announced in London that the negotiations were proceeding for a one-year trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Russia, but details of commodities were not mentioned, and are not available. These agreements surely provide the pattern for Australia. If we are selling Australian wool to Russia, and if we are giving wool free to her satellites, why should we not negotiate for petrol from Russian-controlled territories in exchange, and, indeed, approach these countries to facilitate the granting of necessary European export licences? In reply to the Prime Minister’s disclosure this afternoon of what he said was a confidential cablegram from London to the effect that Ampol had applied to the Australian Government to lend its aid to facilitate the issue of the requisite export licences, I point out that the right honorable gentleman accepted that as a weakness and a change of front. The definite responsibility of the Prime Minister and the Government is to facilitate these requirements on a government basis. If this Australian company cannot get the Australian Government to assist it in connexion with the requirement of export licences from Poland, to what other source can it apply? Instead of Government members sneering and jeering at the request, the Government should have exerted expeditiously every possible effort to assist the company to obtain the export licences.

I come now to another alternative. If it were necessary it could be implemented, although assuredly it is not necessary, in view of the evidence of availability of extra petrol. I challenge the Government to announce what it has done to exert its influence and discharge its responsibility to Australia in this regard. There should be a round-table conference with other Commonwealth countries to secure a more equitable re-allocation of dominion quotas. What is the position in relation to so-called reciprocal trade, sentiment, and British Empire preference? Irrespective of the Marshall aid position in Europe, what is the position in relation to Australia and its sister dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations? The figures issued by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the accuracy of which has never been denied, indicate that the Australian motorist gets the lowest quota per vehicle of any British Commonwealth country. Canada uses 726 gallons, India 664, and South Africa 612 gallons a vehicle each year, which is more than twice the Australian quota on which the Australian consumers are asked to maintain the activities of this nation. This anomaly is unfair to Australia, and it should, and could have been rectified long ago. Apart altogether from availability, this is decided evidence against the necessity for petrol rationing in Australia.

The construction of a new, complete, modern refinery should be commenced immediately in Australia by Australian oil companies, and every assistance and encouragement should be extended to that project by the Australian Government. The official post-war reconstruction report, to which I have already referred, states that the case for undertaking such a project in this country as soon as possible is definitely considered to be strong. Such a refinery should be fully equipped to produce all commercial oil fractions, and to meet the most up-to-date specifications and utilize the gases by means of modern synthetic processes. It should have an annual throughput of not less than 500,000 tons, or about 150,000,000 gallons a year. On the basis of costs in the United States of America this would necessitate an expenditure of about £A.6,000,000. Even from a defence point of view alone the expenditure of so large a sum in dollars could be fully justified. Great Britain is spending millions of dollars on refinery equipment for use in that country. I have already described what other European countries that are in receipt of Marshall aid are doing. In 1948 the United Kingdom Government -authorized the oil industry to embark on an extensive programme to establish oil refineries in the United Kingdom capable of handling 20,000,000 tons of oil a year. That Government has also interested itself in the provision of refining plant in other countries in the soft currency area. Under Marshall aid, European refinery capacity has almost doubled since the war, as shown by the following figures : -

Italy has increased its refinery capacity in two years from 3,000,000 tons a year to 5,300,000 tons a year and is planning for a capacity of 10,000,000 tons a year by 1952. If Australia cannot obtain sufficient dollars from the dollar pool to establish a modern refinery here, we should immediately negotiate a dollar loan for the purpose from one of the international financial authorities of which we are a member. Such a refinery in Australia, using the modern cracking process, would supply us with high octane aviation fuel, refined petrol, kerosene, fuel oils, bitumen and lubricating oil. If the search for flow oil in Papua and in Australia itself happens to meet with success, we should be prepared with a refinery of a capacity sufficient to utilize the crudes that will then become available. Even if no flow oil is found here, we shall be able to obtain sufficient crudes from the islands adjacent to our north-west coast to keep such a refinery working at full capacity. The official post-war reconstruction review admits that sufficient supplies of crude oil are available in the sterling area. The Prime Minister also admitted in this House on the 7th July and has done so again to-day.

Recently it has been indicated in many English and American petroleum trade journals that the amount previously authorized under Marshall aid to provide for petroleum refineries in Europe is to be substantially reduced. Mexico is considered by many people not to be a progressive nation, but the Mexican Govern ment has seen the possibility of obtaining some of this divertible refinery equipment and has applied for 100,000,000 dollars’ worth of refinery plant. Articles in current journals indicate that a loan for this purpose will be granted through the Export-Import Bank. Has the Chifley Government watched this overseas development with the same interest and concern for the Australian people as that with which the Mexican Government has watched it on behalf of the Mexican people? Has it thought of applying for a share of this refinery equipment, or has it given any consideration to the matter whatever? The Dominican Republic is a small part-island in the “West Indies. Its area is approximately 19,000 square miles, and its annual budget is only £14,000,000.. The Government of the Dominican Republic has announced that an oil refinery is to be built there at an estimated cost of 15,000,000 dollars. The capital is to be provided jointly by Dominicans and foreign investors living in the republic. Evidently the Government of that relatively small and poor territory has displayed a greater concern for its people in a modern world than the Australian Government has done for our people.

I consider that I have submitted a most detailed case for the permanent abolition of petrol rationing which should convince every member of this House, every member of the State parliaments and every Australian citizen that the restrictions upon petrol imports that have been imposed by the Prime Minister, and the consequent rationing of supplies, are unreasonable and unnecessary. It is owing only to the obstructionist policy of the right honorable gentleman that the States have been put into the difficult position in which they now find themselves. They should never have been stampeded into accepting a responsibility, or any part of it, that assuredly is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. He is the head of the Australian Government, and he alone will be to blame for either emptying the bowsers or stopping the people from getting the supplies that they need without coupons. The facts and figures that I have presented show beyond all doubt that there is no ground whatever for the re-introduction of petrol rationing, even accepting the Prime Minister’s pessimistic forecast of future petrol consumption, -which he conveniently but unwisely bases upon abnormal conditions. If the right honorable gentleman can do no better than he has done, he should give way to a government that will have something positive to offer in exchange for his negative, stagnant policy of obstruction. He has no hope to offer in a world brimming with surplus oil.

Britain is supplying oil to European countries, which have been able to abolish rationing, but the Australian motorist has been left out in the cold. British oil companies are capturing world markets. Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Sweden and Norway can buy British oil, but Australia cannot get enough. Canada, India and South Africa have double our petrol quota per motorist, but our Government will not fight for a better quota. We know that British oil companies arc making profits by selling elsewhere oil . that could come here, but nobody has told us how large those profits are. The British oil companies know that the Australian market can be picked up at any time because the amount of oil that it absorbs is, comparatively speaking, only a trickle. Consequently, they are concentrating on the more favorable markets from their point of view, and that is to the disadvantage of undeveloped Australia. Dollar tankers come to Australia, while sterling tankers are idle. Other countries can obtain modern refining equipment, but Australia is left out on a limb, and in fact is not even using the refining capacity that is available to it. The Australian Government has not lifted a finger to get available non-dollar supplies of petrol. It has adopted obstructionist tactics against those who have refused to accept its defeatist policy and have bestirred themselves to improve our position. The Government has left its run too late, and is now blaming every one else for its own shortcomings. Petrol is available. Those who seek it will find it if they have the will to do so and are encouraged and assisted by this Government to take the necessary steps.

I support the motion of censure that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I say that every honorable member who votes against it, in face of” the facts that have been presented, will vote in favour of petrol rationing, to the detriment of Australian petrol consumersand of the nation as a whole.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for PostwarReconstruction · Corio · ALP

– I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) to less advantage than I heard him in this House this afternoon. The right honorable gentleman made very heavy weather of his attack upon the Government. He was followed by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was absent from the chamber during most of the time that the Leader of the Australian Country party was speaking.

Mr Menzies:

– That is quite untrue.

Mr Holt:

– Where is the Prime Minister now?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Leader of the Australian Country party was heard almost without interruption. There is only one way in which the Chair can deal with honorable members who disregard its rulings. I shall take that action against any honorable member who persists in interrupting the Minister.

Mr DEDMAN:

– Had the Leader of the Opposition -been here, I am sure that he would have blushed with shame at the vicious attack that was made by the Leader of the Australian Country party upon the people and the Government of the United Kingdom.

I am allowed to speak in this debate for only 35 minutes. There are a number of matters with which I wish to deal, but I feel that I cannot begin to do so until I have dealt with some of the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party. The Leader of the Opposition wasted a good deal of time in dealing with the referendums that have been initiated by this Government to obtain greater powers for the Parliament. There is only one fact that emerges from a consideration of those referendums.

Mr McEwen:

Mr. McEwen interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) that I shall name him if he continues to interject.

Mr DEDMAN:

– In 1944, this Government asked the people, by referendum, to. grant powers that would- have enabled it, had they been granted, to control the distribution of materials and goods: in short supply. Had that referendum been carried this Government would have continued1 to ration petrol in the interests of the people. On the occasion of that referendum the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party both requested the people of this country to vote against the granting of that additional power to the Australian Government.

Opposition MEMBERS - Hear, hear!

Mr DEDMAN:

– There is no question about responsibility in this matter. The Australian Government makes it quite clear that in the best interests of the people of this country, considering the position that we are in to-day, it stands for a renewal of petrol rationing within Australia, because, the only alternative to petrol rationing will be an inequitable distribution of the limited supplies available. The leaders of the Opposition parties who have both spoken in this debate issued a joint statement to the press late last week in which the following words were used: -

We believe that the Chifley Government is open to very grave criticism for its policy and actions, but State governments, with no power over imports, and therefore no responsibility for their character or volume, must accept the position which Mr. Chifley creates , . .

We agree, under the circumstances forced upon the States, with the attitude of South Australia, and believe that all States should, under protest, adopt the same course.

In other words, they said that even if it is the fault of the Australian Government that petrol rationing is made necessary, the one thing that the States can do at the present time is to agree to its reintroduction. That is what the Liberal party and the Australian Country party have said in the joint statement that was made last week before the launching of this censure motion. But what attitude did those parties take during the campaigns in connexion with two State parlia mentary by-elections held in Queensland last week-end? They gave the electors eligible to vote in. those by-elections, opposite advice to that contained in the statement that they issued to the press last week. The two parties issued a statement to the electors in the Queensland by-elections. which contained these words. -

If you oppose the re-introduction of petrol rationing and renewed Canberra control, vote Liberal.

Petrol from Poland - Copy of Cablegram, dated 0th September, 1949, from the Australian High Commissioner’s Office, London.

The cable reads as follows: -

Polish petrol. Stevinson Hardy and Co., London, associates of Australian Motorists Petrol Co., approached Trade Commissioner to-day, and advised that Centrala Produktov Naftowych were having difficulty in obtaining Polish export licence for this particular shipment of petrol. They requested support in making representations to the Polish Government. At the same time they asked that this information be treated confidentially as they did not wish to embarrass their Australian associates who are most perturbed at this development. Would appreciate instructions as to whether you would wish an approach to be made to the Polish Government representative.

It is clear, therefore, that the Leader of the Australian Country party made a statement which has no backing whatsoever. I shall be very much surprised if Ampol or any other company, even with all the assistance which the Government is prepared to give provided the petrol can be paid for in currency other than dollars, can get petrol from Poland, Roumania or Russia, or from anywhere else behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr Lang:

– Will the Minister table the reply to that cablegram?

Mr DEDMAN:

– The reply is not here, so I cannot table it. The speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party consisted very largely in an attack against the United Kingdom and British Commonwealth countries generally. He said that the petrol ration in Australia was less .per vehicle than in any other part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. He cited figures which were supposed to have been given to him, as I understand it, by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. I do not know whether the figures relating to other British Commonwealth countries were correct, but those relating to Australia and New Zealand certainly were not.

Mr Fadden:

– I did not cite any figures for New Zealand.

Mr DEDMAN:

– The right honorable gentleman’s remarks were based, so he said, on a statement issued by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, and I repeat that the figures relating to Australia and New Zealand were wrong. According to official figures received from New Zealand, the petrol ration there is slightly below what the Australian ration used to be. Thus, once again, the Leader of the Australian Country party has made an incorrect statement. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government was endeavouring to peg the quantity of petrol consumed in Australia at a time when a great number of new vehicles was entering Australia from the United Kingdom. Thus, he said, whilst the number of vehicles on the road was increasing all the time, the total amount of petrol available was pegged, so that the amount per vehicle was decreasing. I interjected to say that the statement was incorrect. Last year, petrol consumption in Australia amounted to 415,000,000 gallons. The figure fixed for this year is 440,000,000 gallons, the quantity having been increased to allow for the greater number of motor vehicles in use. Therefore, the statement of the Leader of the Opposition was misleading and incorrect.

The quantity of petrol which can be imported is governed by the dollar position. That matter was discussed at the conference of British Commonwealth Ministers in London which began nine weeks ago to-day. The conference was called because of the catastrophic decline of the gold and dollar reserves in the sterling area. It was agreed by all those who had examined the figures, including the representatives of the United States of America, that the gold and dollar reserves should not be allowed to fall below £500,000,000. They were held at that figure up to the end of the first quarter of this year, but between then and the 30th June, they fell to £406,000,000.

Mr Lang:

– What was the cause?

Mr DEDMAN:

– It was due very largely to a decline in exports from British Commonwealth countries to the dollar area. There was a decline in sales of wool by Australia to the United States of America, and a decline in sales of rubber and tin, as well as of manufactured commodities, including motor vehicles, by the United Kingdom to the United States of America. According to calculations made by Sir .Stafford Cripps when we were in London, three-quarters of the decline in the gold and dollar reserves was due to a decline in exports from the United Kingdom and British Commonwealth countries. I feel certain that his calculations were correct, because I had all the figures before me. During the .period the conference was in session in London, the reserves fell from £406,000,000 to £385,000,000, and if the decline continued at the same rate, reserves would be entirely exhausted within twelve months. Members of the Opposition do not seem to realize how calamitous it would be for the United Kingdom, for the British Commonwealth of Nations, and for men and women all over the world if the dollar and gold reserves in the sterling area entirely dried up, as they would have done within twelve months if no action, had been taken. Let us have a look at what that would have meant. It would have meant a. calamity for every country concerned. It would have meant that the people of the United Kingdom and of Australia would have had to live within their dollar income. When I make it clear that last year we expended 70,000,000 dollars moN than we earned the people will be able to understand how much suffering and confusion would have been caused to our economy, to what degree our economy would have disintegrated and to what degree unemployment would have risen had we been obliged to reduce our dollar expenditure last year by that amount. A cut of that magnitude in our dollar expenditure would have involved many of our great industries. I refer first to the motor body building industry in South Australia, One of the fairly big items in dollar expenditure is motor caj- chassis imported from dollar countries. It is true that we are importing many motor vehicles from the United Kingdom, but they are in the lighter classes. The heavier vehicles and chassis required for medium weight trucks are imported from dollar areas. Our transport system requires those vehicles. In order to maintain full employment in South. Australia it is necessary for the time being to continue the importation of motor car chassis, but if we had reduced our dollar expenditure to the degree I have indicated we would have had to reduce those imports by at least 60 per cent. In addition we would have had to reduce imports of tractors for primary producers. Spare parts for motor vehicles, trucks and farm machinery would also have had to be drastically reduced. It is almost impossible to estimate the consequence of a cut of the magnitude which would have been necessary had the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area been exhausted. Yet members of the Opposition parties suggest that we ought not to have followed the course of action that we took at the London conference. I have said sufficient to show that such action was essential in order to arrest the decline in gold and dollar reserves in London. After considering all the factors all the representatives at that conference agreed that certain recommendations should be made to their respective governments. That decision, which was unanimous, was madeby representatives of a number of countries which cannot be said to be controlled by either Labour or socialist governments.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party in their joint statement on this matter made it clear that they were attacking the people of the United Kingdom because those people had elected a socialist government. Incidentally, the people of the United Kingdom are entitled to elect whatever kind of government they like, and having elected a Labour government - whether it is a socialist government I shall not say - it can at least be said that the people of the United Kingdom have up to date shown complete confidence in that Government because it has not lost one of the 34 by-elections that have been held in Great Britain since it assumed office. If that Government is good enough for the people of the United Kingdom neither the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party nor anybody else in this country has a right to criticize them for electing the government. However, honorable members opposite have shown themselves in their true colours. They arelining up with the enemies of the United Kingdom because the very attitude they are taking up on this matter is the attitude that has been taken up by certain vested interests in the United States of America which are bitter enemies of the United Kingdom. Every honorable member has r heard of the Hearst press, and has read statements published in sections of the-

American press in criticism, of the United Kingdom. In fact, when European aid was under discussion in the United States Congress not long ago, one member of that assembly actually moved that such aid should be given to the United Kingdom only upon the condition that the United Kingdom Government did not go any further with its nationalization proposals. That is the antithesis of democracy. No representative of the United States of America is entitled to lay down conditions under which the United Kingdom Government shall conduct itself. The whole of this attack by members of the Opposition parties is, in fact, an attack upon the Labour Government of the United Kingdom.

I have said that all representatives at the London conference agreed that action must be taken immediately to arrest the decline in the gold and dollar reserves in the sterling areas. In attacking the decisions of that conference honorable members opposite apparently believe that they are attacking socialist governments. As a matter of fact, the majority of representatives at that conference did not represent socialist governments. The recommendation to reduce expenditure on imports from, dollar areas by 25 per cent, was unanimous. As the Prime Minister “has pointed out, that recommendation was supported by the representative of Ceylon, which has not a Labour government and which in fact earns more dollars than it actually expends. The recommendation was also subscribed to by South Africa, the government of which is not of a type that can be called either socialist or Labour. Incidentally, the representative of South Africa made it clear that he would recommend to his Government that it should take steps to restrict the consumption of petroleum products in that country. In fact, the representatives of each of the British Commonwealth countries promised to make certain that steps would be taken to restrict the consumption of petroleum products in their respective countries. The representatives of Canada which, technically, is not within the sterling area, and the representatives of Southern Rhodesia, Pakistan and India also agreed to that recommendation. As & matter of fact, the representatives of

Labour governments at that conference were in a minority, there being only three of them. They were the representatives of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. I repeat that all representatives at the conference agreed to the recommendations to reduce expenditure on imports from dollar areas. All of the governments concerned went into great detail in their investigations of the amount of dollars that would be available to them for expenditure next year. They took into account the amount of dollars that would be available to the United Kingdom under the Marshall aid plan. For the benefit of the Leader of the Australian Country party who has implied that the United Kingdom is not giving a fair deal to Australia in this matter, I point out that the plain fact is that if the United Kingdom had not gone into debt by borrowing to the extent of 3,700,000,000 dollars from the United States of America and 1,200,000,000 dollars from Canada and by drawing upon the International Monetary Fund to the extent of 300,000,000 dollars, Australia would not have been able to expend anything like the amount of dollars that it has expended during the last two years. Therefore, so far from the United Kingdom having given us an unfair deal it has treated Australia and other British Commonwealth countries very generously. The fact is that we have been expending dollars we could not afford simply because the United Kingdom was going into debt to the United States of America, Canada and the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, the case advanced by the Opposition parties completely falls to the ground. If there is any foundation for this motion at all, the Opposition party leaders should have shown just how Australia could save dollars. The dollars available to us are limited. Our resources consist of the dollars that we ourselves can earn, plus the dollars that we can obtain from the sterling area dollar reserve. The degree to which we can draw upon that reserve is declining, and if the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party had had their way, that source would have been exhausted long ago. Having decided upon the total number of dollars that we can expend in a particular year, that expenditure has to be allocated over a large number of essential imports. If honorable members opposite believe that the allocation of dollars for petrol should be increased, then they should suggest how dollar expenditure in other directions could be reduced. Are we to curtail the importation of motor chassis for instance, and thus create unemployment, particularly in the motor body industry in South Australia? The astute Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, knows that any curtailment of the importation of motor chassis would create serious unemployment in South Australia, and so he is supporting the re-introduction of petrol rationing.

The Opposition has failed to substantiate its criticism of the Government. On the contrary it has made out a good case for the re-introduction of petrol rationing. We all know, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition was forced to adopt his present attitude to this matter because his colleague, the Leader of the Australian Country party has taken a certain stand in this House. The Leader of the Opposition has had to so conduct himself as to create an impression of unity of purpose between the two Opposition parties which in fact does not exist. The Government is doing all that it can do to earn more dollars. It is making the best use of the dollar funds that are available to this country. It is assisting the United Kingdom by curtailing dollar expenditure to the limit so that the Mother Country may have sufficient dollars for its own rehabilitation, and to continue to play the part in Europe that it has played so successfully in the past, in maintaining a strong bulwark against the advance of communism.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Menzies:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) in the opening sentences of his speech, said that I had been absent from the chamber during the bulk of the speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). That statement was, of course, made on a set policy. It is not true. The Leader of the Australian

Country party addressed this House for 73 minutes, and it is some reflection on the Minister that he failed to observe that for 45 minutes of that period, I was sitting in the corner of the Opposition, front bench which is the place that I usually occupy when another honorablemember is at the table. For the remainder of the time, I heard the Leader of theAustralian Country party from the roped-off corner of the chamber, except for fourteen minutes, during which I was compelled to be absent on other matters. I have taken the trouble to check up the times with the clerk. Therefore, the statement that I was not in the chamber for the bulk of the speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party is completely untrue. I had the advantage of hearing practically the whole of that speech - an advantage which the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) did not enjoy either in relation to the speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party or that of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- Having heard the blather of words from the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), I do not wonder that no concrete proposal has been advanced by the Government to deal with the problem of petrol. Petrol is the life-blood of Australia. This is a country of wide horizons and long distances, and I should have thought that this debate would draw from the Government side some worthwhile proposal or at least some hope for the morrow, but neither has been forthcoming. The Government is a government of alibis. Whenever it is in trouble it blames factors for which it cannot be held responsible. On this occasion the dollars shortage is blamed. However, when the rains fall from heaven, and the harvests are bountiful, we are led to believe that the credit is due not to the Almighty who sends the rains, but to the Labour party. In other words, when things are right, the credit goes to the Labour party, but when things are wrong, the fault always lies with something else. When we send a man such as the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction to international conferences, it is little wonder that Australia’s voice is not heard because, in truth, he does not speak with the voice of Australia. It is time that we in this chamber said quite plainly that our obligation is to Australia, and to Australia is the obligation that I shall discharge to-night. Let us put this problem in clear perspective because it has been made most complex by the thousands of millions of dollars that have been thrown around the chamber. To the people, the problem is simple enough. Although four years have elapsed since the war ended, there is still insufficient petrol in this country. Let us review the facts. The world is producing more petrol than the world needs. That cannot be disputed. Australia is one of the few countries which export more than they import, and thus enjoy a. favorable balance of trade. Australia is producing the very commodities of which the world is in great need, yet the Australian Government is unable to suggest any means by which we can marry our production capacity to sufficient of the world’s over supply of petrol to sustain a sound economy. I think that a few words should be said about the petrol problem itself without burdening the people of this country with too many figures. I do not expect, of course, that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction will take any notice of what anybody on this side of the chamber says, but it is well that the people of this country should know the facts. Some time ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), speaking in this House, estimated the cost of abandoning petrol rationing in Australia at 17,000,000 dollars which, reduced to terms of Australian currency, is something less than £6,000,000. That is the issue - a mere £6,000,000 when, throughout the world to-day, Marshall aid is being spoken of in terms of more than £2,000,000,000 ! The Marshall aid allocation to Great Britain this year is approximately £300,000,000. The actual cost of abandoning petrol rationing in Australia, as I have said, would be less than £6,000,000, yet this Government is incapable of measuring up to that problem. Petrol has h greater significance to Australia than it has to most other countries. The Prime Minister, in a speech which I hope shortly to prove was most unfortunate, made a footling comparison of the Australian petrol ration with that operating in Great Britain. He said that the

British motorist was able to do only 90 miles a month compared with 160 miles for the Australian motorist. He might have mentioned the vast distances that motor vehicles have to cover in this country, and the pressing need of Australian primary producers for motor transport to haul their commodities over hundreds of miles. In that respect, the economies of the two countries are entirely different. I say that, in terms of criticism not of what has been done in Great Britain but of our Prime Minister. Not until recently did the right honorable gentleman confess that restrictions do not solve any problem. I should have thought that that was obvious to any one years ago. Only recently, the Prime Minister, always throe years behind those who deal with and think about this matter, agreed that restrictions will not solve any problem. For three years this problem has been confronting us, but nothing has been done about it. Now, we are told that perhaps in 1952 everything might be all right. Indeed, for all the right honorable gentleman knows, it may well be three or ten years after 195:? before everything is all right. This is a problem that can be expressed in simple terms. The world is producing so much petrol that more is available than the world needs. This country - I am speaking about Australia and we should not be confused by what is taking place in Afganistan or Colombia - produces goods which the world needs, yet we are told that we cannot obtain £6,000,000 worth of petrol through the ingenuity of leading Ministers in the Government-

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable gentleman was not told that.

Mr SPENDER:

– We were told that. Restrictions are the very philosophy of socialism. Socialists believe that they can create by destroying. To-day Australia’s wealth is being destroyed and its productivity restricted because neither imagination nor intelligence is displayed by the Government in the solution of our problems. Let me deal with the problem a little more closely. It has confronted us for three years. The Government asks, “ What can we do about it?” To-night the Prime Minister said four or five times over that there are only two ways in which the problem can be solved - by earning more dollars or buying more dollars. The right honorable gentleman did not suggest how we should earn more dollars and he said that we cannot buy more dollars. That is the philosophy which is advanced by the Prime Minister of this country. I shall suggest to him some ways in which this problem can bc met. Our representatives should really represent Australia rather than pretend to represent Australia. For years past we have heard of international free trade and the removal of trade barriers, yet the very thing which the Government is doing is to impose more and more trade barriers. This Government pretends to stand for Australia, burt every action it takes is against Australia’s interests. If this problem had been put to the people they at least might have supplied the solution. Surely we could have said when Marshall aid was being discussed, “ We as a country produce the wool, the wheat and the meat for which the world is clamouring. All we ask is that because we participate in the re-adjustment of Europe and supply the things without which Europe cannot >e resuscitated, we should be given something in return, not necessarily the equivalent of what we supply, but that which is- necessary to enable us to .maintain our economy so that in turn we can produce more, and thus make the problem of European recovery more easy of solution.” Would it have required the exercise of great brain power to formulate such a demand ? Time and again our Ministers have gone overseas; we have representatives in all parts of the world; but what advantage has Australia derived ? We hear a great deal ,a.bout the declaration of human rights and that sort of thing. What we are concerned about is how are Australia’s interests to be served by building up vast sterling balances in Great Britain which we cannot use ? We should strive to get something- better than great balances in return for our goods. The Prime Minister did not deal with what has occurred during the last three years. He spoke constantly of the shortage of dollars, and said, “We cannot do anything about it:” The right honorable gentleman wants to get control of this country by imposing petrol rationing for another three years-

Mr Calwell:

– Rubbish !

– Obviously it has not. done so. When the public was told for the first time that there was a chance for Australia to get petrol from Poland, the Scottish Minister, whom listeners have probably identified1 by his burr-

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Sheehy).- Order!

Mr SPENDER:

– Well, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. What did the Minister say when that statement was made to the public? He said that it was a lie, that it was quite false, and that if Mr. Warner was not speaking from his abysmal ignorance he would know how silly it was. That is why I know that the Government has done nothing. The Prime Minister said that he would make inquiries about the proposal to import Polish petrol. If the Government had already made inquiries, why did he want to make more inquiries? The truth is that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and others like him are trying to fool the public into believing that the Government has not been inactive in this matter. That is a good example of the morals of public life as exemplified by the Labour party. The point I want to make is clear enough. When the Prime Minister spoke, in the course of the debate, he revealed exactly the same lack of scrapie as did the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction, because he quoted from a cable that was confidential in order to incommode those who were criticizing the Government. The right honorable gentleman did not care that he was disclosing confidential information. Although the cable was asked to be treated confidentially, that request was utterly disregarded. When the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction mentioned ‘ the cable, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) interjected and asked, “ Where is your reply ? “ “ Oh,” said the Minister, in effect, “ I did not bring it to school”. He did not bring it into the chamber! Why did he not bring it into the chamber? I venture to say that the last thing the Government wants is that Polish petro] should be brought into this country, so that it cannot be said that the Government failed to exert itself, as was its bounden duty, I should imagine that it is doing its utmost to sprag any such attempts.

There will be occasion during the budget debate to make certain observations on the dollar problem generally. For my part, all I want to say now is that at no time has this Government made any positive attempt to solve the petrol problem. It has not encouraged1 the investment of American capital here; on the contrary, it has rebuffed any such proposals. Not so long ago the Prime Minister said that he was not desirous of having too much American capital invested in Australia. Indeed, he refused one particular application to invest a sum equivalent to more than £1,000,000 on the ground that if the undertaking concerned successfully established itself m this country its operation would involve the remission of dollars to the United States of America. What a short-sighted policy for a Prime Minister to entertain! To-day, a different policy is being adopted. The new policy has been forced upon the Labour Administrations of Australia and Great Britain by criticism from the non-Labour political parties. Time and again in this Parliament members of the Opposition have told the Government : “ One of the ways in which you will solve your problem is to encourage the investment of American capital in the sterling area,” What has the Government done to attract American capital to this country? It has done its utmost to prevent the investment of American capital in Australia. Indeed, it has combated the investment of United States capital by its dollar taxation provisions, in contrast with the concessions that it has extended to Great Britain. The only reason why we are deficient in dollars is that we have an adverse balance against us in the United States of America.

So it is that this Government stands condemned on all counts. It is a government of too little, too late. The attitude that it has displayed in this matter of petrol shortage is similar to that which it displayed during the recent coal strike. It took seven or eight weeks for the Government to do what the Opposition suggested it should do in the first week of the strike. And sooner or later the Government will be compelled to follow the course advocated by the Opposition in this matter, because that course is the only rational solution of the problem. I support the motion of censure.

Mr Dedman:

– I ask leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Sheehy ).-r-Does the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction consider that he has been misrepresented’ by the remarks of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) ?

Mr Dedman:

– Yes. The honorable member for Warringah stated just now, and the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) said earlier, that for ulterior motives I withheld from the House a reply to a cable that was quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley).

– I call the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke).

Mr Lang:

– I rise to order. The House is governed by the rules of the House of Commons, which provide that the member who first rises and catches the Speaker’s eye shall be called. I have risen at every stage in this debate. I rose immediately after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) had spoken, again after the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) had spoken and again after the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). I then went and put my name down at the Speaker’s chair, and there was no other name there. I have consistently risen, but I have been refused a call, and I raise the point of order that I am now entitled to the call in preference to the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke) whom you have just called.

Mr Burke:

– I rise to order.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! It is the practice of the occupants of the Chair to call honorable members as it sees them. I know nothing of the earlier attempts of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) to rise in his place. When the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) had concluded his speech I saw the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Burke), and I gave him the call.

Mr BURKE:
Perth

.- The censure motion before the House must surely be the weakest ever moved in this assembly. It seeks to censure the Government on the handling of the petrol situation. The motion reads -

That, in the opinion of this House, the present shortage of petrol supplies in Australia, which is increasingly affecting vital production and transport, is to a substantial extent due to the policy and inaction of the Government, and that the Government in consequence deserves the censure of this House.

No evidence has been brought forward to prove that that is the case. No evidence has been submitted to show that petrol supplies can be obtained outside the sterling area. It is true that statements have been made from time to time that petrol can be obtained. In fact, the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) suggested that petrol was flowing like water throughout the world. Of course, the Opposition is wholly disingenuous in this matter, and its allegations are entirely unsupported by the facts of the present situation. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) truly said that petrol is the life-blood of Australia to-day. In fact, it is the life-blood of all modern communities in peace as well as in war. For that reason it is doubly true that if the total supplies of petrol to this country have to be limited some form of rationing must necessarily be introduced. Since petrol is the life-blood of the country, it follows that the continued distribution of petrol without rationing at a time when we are confronted by a serious shortage, would definitely have the effect of starving the Australian community by creating dislocation and chaos in all forms of production. The honorable member for Warringah went on to say that our first obligation is to Australia. That is undoubtedly true. Our first obligation is to Australia, but our obligation to ourselves involves us in obligations throughout the world. We are also under an obligation to Great Britain, not for sentimental reasons at all, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) truly said to-day, hut because of the cold hard facts of the present situation. We do not earn sufficient dollars to buy all the petrol and other dollar products that we need. For that reason we have to go to the centre of the sterling area, the British Isles, to obtain the extra dollars that we require. Honorable members opposite appear to suggest that we have some actual or legal right to obtain the dollars that we require. We have no such legal right. By sheer force of circumstances Great Britain might be forced to deny dollars to us. Indeed, by its own deliberate action Great Britain ‘could deny dollars to us. We ‘have no right that could not “be alienated if the United Kingdom sought to obtain more dollars for itself or was unable to obtain dollars. Custom and practice throughout the years have Jed us to believe that “we can obtain all the dollars that we ‘require by holding out balances in London. However, the fact cannot be too strongly stressed -that we have no legal claim or automatic right to demand from the United Kingdom the dollars that we need . That means, therefore, that our obliga- tion to Australia - ‘the very obligation to which the honorable member for Warringah has .referred - demands that *e join with ‘Great Britain in an attack upon this very real dollar problem.

The honorable gentleman also told us that Australia -should receive something in return for all that it is giving. We are building up sterling balances abroad, and because of that, he suggests that we should obtain dollar goods. However, nearly every country in the world - certainly all the countries in the sterling area with the exception of a few like Ceylon - has the same dollar problem. I stated on a previous occasion, and I repeat it this evening, that the dollar problem is not a recent development. Indeed, it has existed for many years, and was met in the pre-war period only by the enormous volume of American tourist traffic and a growing volume of American investments abroad. The American tourist traffic was a real source of benefit to the countries in which the dollars were expended. However, American investments abroad were not such a material advantage as is generally believed to-day. Shortly after World War I-, American investments abroad made a substantial contribution to the improvement of conditions in all the countries of Europe, ‘but when a financial and economic depression developed and it appeared likely that the countries to which the loans had been granted or in which the investments had been made were not able to meet the interest payments or repay the capital, the American investments were withdrawn. On that account, the deteriorating economic situa-tion in the countries concerned Was greatly accentuated. Consequently, an increase ‘tff American investments overseas is no’t the real -answer to ‘the present dollar problem. Indeed., American investments ‘in the past have aggravated, not cured, -the situation. That might be repeated at a future date, should a financial ‘and economic depression develop.

The honorable member for Warringah claimed ‘that he .possessed an easy solution of the dollar problem. He declared that an increased production of gold would solve our dollar problem overnight. What the honorable gentleman forgets is that gold mines are a wasting asset. The gold is continually petering out, and cannot always be mined profitably. Such a situation now exists in the Australian gold -mining industry. After having ‘been worked for a long period, many mines are petering out, and that factor is probably one of the major causes of the decline of gold production to-day. lt is true, of course, that high costs in the industry generally have had a marked effect upon the production of gold. However, another fact is inescapable. The United States of America is the only final buyer of gold in the world, and it refuses to pay more than the amount fixed in dollars for an ounce of fine gold. It is true, in theory, that the price is fixed by the International Monetary Fund, to which the United States of America is a large contributor, but whether that fund existed or not, America, as the only buyer of gold in unlimited quantities, would still be the nation that would determine the price of gold. The American nation, and not necessarily the International Monetary Fund, has expressly stated that it will not buy gold from countries which subsidize the production of the precious metal. That is the first answer to the claim that the increased production of gold will solve our dollar problem overnight.

However, there is a second answer, and, in my opinion, it is an even more vital one. I refer to the manpower situation in this country. Even if the gold were iri the earth, We could not greatly increase the production without also increasing the man-power engaged iti it. Every industry urgently requires man-power In order to obtain additional gold with which to purchase more e dollars, we should need to divert man-power from Other essential industries. Such a policy would not be to the advantage of food-producing industries, and certainly would not alleviate the hunger and famine that still exist in many countries. The honorable member for Warringah said that he would gladly give away our sterling balances in London for the goods that we need. He meant, of course, that he would gladly exchange our sterling balances in London for all the dollar goods that we need. What is the position? Even if we were to give away every penny of our sterling balances in London, we should still be unable to buy more dollars from the general pool for the simple reason that additional dollars are not available to countries which desire to convert their sterling balances into the hard currency. The honorable member for Warringah said that the Government had done too little, too late. Actually, the Government’s policy has been ahead of the situation on every occasion. The Government sought, by referendum, to obtain power to continue prices control, because it realized that the authority which it derived from the defence power under the Constitution was disappearing. The Government also sought to obtain power to continue rationing, because it knew that its authority in that respect would be tested in the post-war period. The Government was denied those powers. The people believed that the Commonwealth’s authority would continue until conditions returned to normal. Instead of being guilty of the charge of “ too little, too late “, the Government has been ahead of public opinion in these matters. Too late, the people realized that the Government’s approach to the problems was the correct one.

Mr Turnbull:

– Can the honorable member prove that?

Mr BURKE:

– The growing feeling in the States to-day indicates that my assessment of the position is strictly accurate. Liberal governments and Labour governments are willing to refer to the Commonwealth power to continue petrol rationing. Is that not evidence of the truth of my words? The Liberal governments of Western Australia and South Australia, which are content to refer to the National Parliament power to continue petrol rationing, clamoured loudly a few years ago for the return to the States of various powers that the Commonwealth had exercised during the war. Their slogan was, “ No more power to the Federal Labour Government “. Petrol is only one aspect of the larger dollar problem, which has been thoroughly analysed by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman). Honorable members opposite state that Australia should seek more dollars from, the pool for the purchase of additional petrol to meet its domestic requirements. This demand is an example of the factors that have caused the whole dollar problem. The vast loan that the United States of America granted to Great Britain after World War II. was a most worthy effort on the part of the American people. However, the granting of the loan was contingent upon a condition which, in my view, has brought about the existing situation and defeated, in a large measure, the whole purpose of the loan. That condition required the United Kingdom Government to agree to convert sterling into dollars twelve months after the granting of the loan. That caused a run upon British sterling, and resulted in the present drastic dollar situation. Immediately that twelve months ended the countries throughout the world that were selling commodities to Great Britain demanded convertibility of sterling to dollars, and there was an enormous drain on the accumulated dollars in the pool. That loss has never been recovered. In less measure the Opposition claims that we should get more dollars, thus causing a greater strain upon Great Britain’s sterling reserve pool. As honorable members know, Great Britain is suffering hardships greater than any that exist in Australia to-day. The speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party was most unworthy. The right honorable gentleman referred in most disparaging terms to the British Government and the British people. He quite clearly stated his position. It is abundantly clear that whatever views favorable to the people of Great Britain he expressed in bygone years were solely due to the fact that a tory administration had ruled the British nation for many years. Apparently it only takes a change in the British Government from

Liberal to Labour to make the right honorable gentleman, and, I am sorry to say, some of hi3 supporters, anti-British in their outlook. The right honorable gentleman has said that Great Britain is capturing the markets of the world. Is that a terrible thing to do? That is the claim that is made by the industrial magnates of the United States of America, particularly the financiers of “Wall-street, because Great Britain has sold sterling petrol to countries which otherwise would have needed dollars to pay for it. His speech did nothing to advance his case, and was most unworthy, having regard to the hardships through which the British people have gone, both during and since the war period. The right honorable gentleman mentioned that Great Britain had supplied petrol to countries throughout the world. The sources of petrol are well known, and the spheres of influence into which they fall can very easily be decided. Broadly speaking, there are three main sources from which petrol can be obtained at present, according to geographical groupings. First, there is the American source, which demands dollars for all petrol supplied. Secondly, there are the British interests in the oil-fields throughout the world. The petrol situation, of course, from the time that use was first made of oil, has been a most mixed one in the industrial history of the world. “We still cannot decide to what degree other interests are involved and dollar commitments are concerned in connexion with supplies of British petrol that might come to this country. It is certainly true that even in British petrol there is some dollar content, as the Prime Minister has said. Thirdly, there is the Russian source, embracing countries within the Russian sphere of influence. It is interesting to hear honorable members opposite suggest that petrol rationing is unnecessary in this country because of supplies that are available from behind the Iron Curtain. Although in the past they have argued long and loudly against any association with countries coming within the Russian sphere of influence, to-day they suggest that we should in fact, use all of the available supply, and enter an unrationed period, relying on the thought that we might obtain sufficient supplies of petrol from Russian zones or Russian spheres of influence to carry us through.

Mr Calwell:

– Ban the “ Corns “, but buy their petrol!

Mr BURKE:

– Although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has suggested that the Communists should be banned in this country, Mr. “Warner, Minister for Housing in Victoria, expressed his opposition to that view very forcibly. He said that he did not believe that the banning of the Communist party would achieve any useful purpose. I understand, however, that he is the head of a group which seeks to obtain Russian petrol. This interesting situation has been brought to my mind by the interjection of the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell). However, as I have said, we know these three main spheres of petrol supplies through the world. It is idle to suggest that in holes and corners throughout the world there are tucked away vast stores of petrol to be had by this country for the asking. The simple fact is that every nation that has petrol to-day, with the possible exception of the United States of America, can sell it readily to buyers throughout the world. That is not wholly true of crude petroleum and crude petrol. It is certainly true that, except for the dollar problem, every gallon of petrol raised and refined could be sold to ready buyers throughout the world. That explains the British situation, and particularly the British deal with Argentina. Great Britain requires a vast amount of goods that are not available from countries that are allied to Great Britain in the sterling bloc. A considerable quantity must come from the United States of America. For the purchase of goods from other countries; however, particularly the Latin American countries, oil is quite useful Great Britain was able .to obtain vast quantities of meat and other goods from Argentina because it had petrol to offer in exchange. Had that petrol not been available Great Britain would have had to pay out dollars that it sorely needs for a variety of other commodities from the hard currency areas. The Leader of the Australian Country party himself delivered a smashing blow to the case that he presented. He pointed out that the bulk of the petrol coming to Australia to-day is brought in American tankers, and although wo are buying sterling petrol, a vast amount of dollar expenditure is incurred for tanker space. That as true of the present situation. Any increase of the quantity of petrol brought here would involve additional dollar commitments. In any case, even if we were able to buy more petrol from British suppliers and bring it to Australia in British tankers, Great Britain would still be committed to sell large quantities to consumer countries throughout the world. That would involve* the Mother Country obtaining petrol from dollar sources in order to honour commitments. No matter how the situation were juggled, any increase of petrol supplies to this country would result in additional dollar commitments. Let us consider the application of petrol rationing in the various countries of the British Commonwealth. They have all had problems, such as problems of distance, to which the honorable member for Warringah referred. The most striking example that can be brought home to us is the spectacle of what happened in our sister dominion of New Zealand. That country had a period of unrationed petrol, when, shortly after the war, it abolished petrol rationing. The dollar situation was then not so acute as it is to-day. However, the people of that country could not get through successfully during that period of unrationed supply. People who could afford to buy, and were “ in the know “, were able to get petrol, whilst others were not able to obtain supplies vitally required. The Government of New Zealand then somersaulted, which is one of the most difficult things for a government to do. It reimposed petrol rationing and, I presume, reintroduced a coupon system. That demonstrates conclusively that petrol rationing is still necessary in the Dominions. It would be necessary here, even if we were not assured, as we undoubtedly are, that we cannot obtain additional supplies of petrol without drawing upon the sterling area dollar pool. That pool is diminishing at an alarming rate. Petrol is still rationed in Great Britain although, as I have already pointed out, the Government of

Great Britain has a perfect right to say, if it so desires, “We can get sufficient dollars from the dollar pool to meet all of out essential requirements “. Great Britain needs petrol for transport and other industrial purposes equally as much as we need it in Australia, but, owing to the stringency of the dollar situation, it is unable to abolish petrol rationing. We are equally unable to do so. Even if none of the facts of the present situation had been made available to us, I believe that the acute shortage of dollars that now exists throughout the world and will continue to exist for some years to come would make us very careful about taking steps to abolish petrol rationing in this country, if we had power to retain it, owing to the additional dollar expenditure that the abolition of rationing might involve.

A conference between representatives of Great Britain, the United States of America and Canada has just concluded at which various means of alleviating the present acute dollar shortage were considered. The United States of America has made some very generous concessions. I believe that it has been forced to do so. I do not mean that it has made the concessions against its will, but that it has done so because it realizes that Great Britain is a very fine customer of the United States of America and a major world power that may collapse, with disastrous consequences to the rest of the world, if aid is not extended to it. The United States of America has made some vital concessions, to which large sections of the American people are bitterly opposed. It has made them partly because it realizes that Britain has done a great deal for the world in recent years, but mainly, I believe, because it understands, first, that Britain constitutes a market for American goods that is of vital importance to the United States of America; secondly, that Britain is important as a bastion against the rising tide of communism ; and thirdly, that Britain is a factor of vital importance in preventing the outbreak of a third world war. I believe that the United States of America has made concessions because of those three factors. Let us leave aside questions of sentiment, to which the honorable member for Warringah referred scathingly.

Because Britain is very important to us as a market for our goods, because its position in the defence systems of the world affords a guarantee against a third world war, and because it is a bastion against the rising tide of communism in Europe, Australia cannot do less for it than the United States of America has done. Petrol rationing in Australia was irksome and inconvenient, but it did not impose a great hardship upon the Australian people. “When petrol rationing was in force here, persons who needed petrol for vital purposes were always assured of supplies that would be ample for their needs. It is true that, under rationing there was some black marketing, but if petrol remains unrationed there will be a much more extensive black market than existed previously. The Prime Minister, in his handling of this situation, as in his handling of so many others, has given a lead which honorable members on both sides of the House might well follow. It is in the interests of Britain and of Australia that we should ration petrol here again. “We can do it without imposing great hardships upon our people. The Prime Minister has said that the Commonwealth is prepared, if the States will refer the necessary powers to it, to conduct the rationing of petrol itself and to accept the odium that is associated with any restrictive measure in this country. He has also said that, if the State governments desire to conduct the rationing of petrol themselves in collaboration, the Commonwealth will provide the funds necessary to enable rationing to be reintroduced.

I believe that this motion is not only useless but also harmful. It has not been justified by argument, and cannot be so justified. It is a disservice to the interests of this country and of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- The people of Australia are crying out for petrol, but all that the Government apologists have offered are excuses, alibis, and petrol rationing, which must adversely affect the efficiency of our essential services. Some honorable gentlemen opposite, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), have indulged in unworthy abuse of members of the Opposition, and have attacked their patriotism and attachment to Great Britain. It does not lie in the mouth of any member of the Government to gibe at members of the Opposition in this connexion. The suggestion that honorable members on this side of the House have not a keen appreciation of the hardships from which the people of Great Britain are suffering and that they are unwilling to aid them because of the existence of a socialist Government in that country, has been proved to be absolutely false. Approximately two years ago I submitted a proposal that the Australian Government should give to the people of Great Britain £25,000,000 worth of food free of charge. It will be remembered that I was prevented from proceeding with it for several months. Finally, the Government brought down a measure which provided’ that a gift of £25,000,000 worth of frozen credits should be made to the British Government. The gift to Britain of frozen credits was like giving ice to a man who was frozen and hungry. Honorable members on this side of the House were prepared to give the man a feed of good meat. If my proposal had been adopted, Great Britain would, have saved some dollars, because it would not have needed to buy so much food as it has bought from Argentina and other countries. “We should, thereby, have been enabled to acquire the petrol that we need1 at the present time.

Mr Thompson:

– It would not have given Great Britain any more food than we have sent to it.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– We could have sent to Great Britain much more food than we have in fact sent. The way in which food production in Australia has been sabotaged during the last seven or eight years and the effect of that sabotage upon our exports of food to Great Britain is a disgraceful and indelible blot upon the record of the Government and the people of Australia.

The Prime Minister presented a pitiable spectacle in this House to-day. The right honorable gentleman has been asked to provide £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to enable us to import sufficient petrol to avoid the necessity for petrol rationing. Although the Labour party has been, assuring us for many years that a Labour government would insulate Australia against economic shocks from outside, we find that to-day the Government is unable to find that amount of money. In order to avoid the necessity for petrol rationing in Australia we need to import an extra one-twentieth of 1 per cent, of the present annual world production of petrol, which is estimated to be 400,000,000 tons. Australia uses approximately 2,000,000 tons of petrol a year. An increase of that quantity by approximately 15 per cent, would enable us to be absolutely certain that we need not ration petrol. It is pitiable when the Prime Minister of this great country, at a time when the value of Australian exports is greater than it ever has been, has to say that we cannot find a miserable £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to buy the small extra quantity of petrol that we need. Figures that I obtained recently from the Department of Trade and Customs reveal that we were importing approximately 400,000,000 gallons of petrol a year, the cost in sterling being £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. Therefore, the extra 15 per cent, that we need in order to avoid rationing would not cost us more than £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 Australian.

The Prime Minister read a cable in which it was suggested that it would be necessary for the Australian Government to give some support to a company that desires to import Polish petrol. The right honorable gentleman apparently considered that that was a matter for grave reproach. That is a strange attitude on the part of the head of the Government, whose fetish for many years has been government-to-government trading. The right honorable gentleman apparently desires that system of trading to be kept in existence almost forever, because recent contracts entered into by the Government have been for terms of five, six and fifteen years. Notwithstanding that, when the right honorable gentleman is asked to take some governmental action that might result in the avoidance of petrol rationing in Australia, he looks upon it as something to be regarded with suspicion. The rationing of petrol proposed by the Chifley Government is a direct negation of its trading policy as expressed in the legislation that it has brought down to the Parliament. That policy has always been said to be based< upon freeing world trade. On this excuse of freeing world trade it justified Australia’s membership of the International Trade Organization and the passage of the legislation that was associated with that membership. On this ground also the Government justified the abolition of substantial Empire preferences, but in practice we have found that there has been no freeing of trade; instead, there has been a continuing curtailment of trade with import restrictions and rationing of goods that are essential to Australian production. Therefore I say that there are five main reasons why the Government should be censured for attempting to ration petrol. The first is that rationing is unnecessary during the existing conditions of world expansion of oil production. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) has pointed out how world production of oil has been steadily growing. There would not be much difficulty in obtaining the wherewithal to buy dollar or sterling petrol if production in this country had not been sabotaged during the last four or five years while this Government stood by like Saul at the stoning of Stephen, holding the cloak, while the miners sabotaged production. The second reason is that the policy of rationing petrol in Australia must damage British trade and impede Britain’s recovery. The sale of motor vehicles by Britain to Australia has increased to a great degree and this year it is expected that Britain will sell to us £24,000,000 worth of motor vehicles, including cars and tractors. Nearly all the tractors are being sold to the farmers of Australia with a definite undertaking that the Government will ensure that the farmers will obtain an ample supply of petrol to enable the tractors to be fully worked. The third reason is that the rationing of petrol would seriously damage Australian production, prevent our own recovery and limit our capacity to assist Britain. If it limits our capacity to produce, damage will ;be done to the British people in two ways. The first will be that we shall be able to send less of our products to Britain; the second will be that as we are selling our products to Great Britain at a lower price than to any other country in the world, that country’s dollar position will be worsened if it has to buy such products elsewhere because of a fall in Australian production. Petrol rationing, by limiting essential services, will lower our production and our opportunities to expand our overseas trade. That in turn would help to retard the recovery of the whole world. If the Government succeeds in having petrol rationed it will be found that rationing will defeat itself, because every time that petrol has been rationed it has been found that a black market has grown. Rationing feeds the black market. The Vick report in Great Britain estimated that there were 36,000,000 gallons of petrol a month on the black market; but when a test was made by issuing red-coloured petrol to commercial and essential users, it was found that the petrol black market accounted for, not 36,000,000 gallons, but 1.14,000,000 gallons a month. Those were the official figures given in the British Parliament. Therefore the members of the Government cannot just go on talking airy nothings and making abusive speeches. The Government must explain why, while a world expansion of petrol production is taking place, it has not made provision to meet all the petrol contingencies of Australia. It must also explain why petrol shortages occur and why, now that the High Court of Australia has declared its rationing powers invalid, it suddenly finds itself in its present mess and must call on the States to give it aid. Petrol rationing would be a most serious step for the Government to take, because petrol is as universally the raw material of primary industry as electricity is of secondary industry. A year ago the Prime Minister made a statement in which he said that 90 per cent, of the petrol used in Australia was used for essential purposes. I believe that that is absolutely true. A moment’s reflection shows that the countryman, especially the remote countryman, cannot move without petrol. He cannot get his produce to market or bring fertilizer to his farm unless he has petrol. The use of petrol has doubled the number of stands of timber that can be commercially used at the present time in Australia, because lorries can now go to places many miles from timber mills and bring ‘back timber. That makes an extraordinary difference to the number of houses that we can build in this country. To-day road transport plays an important part in every phase of national and domestic activities. The importance of road transport was emphasized during the recent coal strike, because I am convinced that the Communists would have won completely if we had not been able to mobilize road transport and thereby mitigate, to some degree, the hardships of the people by enabling them to obtain some of the essentials and amenities of life. Homes could not be built without the use of road transport. Most homes are now built away from railway lines, and the material for their construction must be carried to the site by means of road transport. For the construction of an average brick house, up to 150 tons of material has to be carried to the site by road transport. Sometimes timber used in house construction is carried by road transport several times during its movement from the stand, of timber to the home site. In fact, we have found that many new undertakings that have been situated far from rail transport, can be kept going and the employees taken to and from work only by the use of road transport. During the last few years there has been a revolution in our education system. Hundreds of thousands of children are now able to attend bigger schools than was formerly possible, and are thereby given a better chance in life, because of the use of road transport to carry them to and from school. Now it is suggested that we should re-introduce petrol rationing, with the result that bus services for children would have to be restricted, fewer homes would be built and factory production would be reduced. Certain classes of goods such as refrigerators, gas stoves, &c, are not easily transported by rail. For them road transport is the most suitable. The use of fertilizer is necessary to increase agricultural production, and approximately 1,000,000 tons of fertilizer are carried annually by road transport. For the most part, milk and cream are also transported by road. It cannot be denied that petrol is indispensable to our economy. The total world consumption of petrol is about 400,000,000 tons, of which Australia uses approximately 2,000,000 tons, or half of 1 per cent. We need only another 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 gallons, or onetwentieth of 1 per cent, of total world production, in order to make rationing unnecessary in Australia. The Prime Minister has just introduced a budget for more than £500,000,000. Our exports this year are expected to total £550,000,000, leaving a surplus over imports of £140,000,000. Yet, the Prime Minister says that he cannot find money to pay for the extra petrol needed to make rationing unnecessary. When the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) suggested that petrol might be obtained from Poland, the Prime Minister replied that :the Government wanted some guarantee before it could rely on that source of supply, but in regard to other commodities he is continually dealing on a government-to-government basis. Australia is finding hundreds of thousands of pounds, and, I suppose, millions of dollars, to buy iron and steel from Belgium, which is a hard currency country. We have got into our present unfortunate position regarding petrol partly because of our remoteness from London and New York, and partly because Australia’s consumption of petrol is relatively insignficant. I am sorry that the late High Commissioner in London, Mr. Beasley, died recently, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work. We all deeply regret his death. Were he alive, he could vouch for the truth of what I am about to say. During the war, Australia got into almost the same difficulties regarding petrol as we are in to-day. In 1941-42, we found that, although we were rationing ourselves in Australia, the big oil companies were following the ration down in their allocations to Australia. One of the things I was asked to do when I went to London was to obtain, if possible, a better allocation of petrol. I discussed the matter with the authorities in Great Britain, and also in the United States of America, and found that, because our requirements were relatively insignficant at that time about 250,000,000 gallons a year, little attempt was made to meet our needs. Tankers were made available to carry petrol to South Africa and other countries, when we were unable to obtain essential supplies.

We have been told that there are not enough dollars available to pay for all the petrol we need, but we should consider what is happening in other Empire countries. In Canada, the consumption of petrol per vehicle is 726 gallons a year. It is true that Canada is a dollar country, but I have no doubt that if the matter were put to the Canadian authorities they would be prepared to allow Australia to have some of the petrol which is now received by Canada. In India, petrol consumption amounts to 664 gallons a vehicle, in South Africa to 612 gallons, and in New Zealand to 385 gallons. Therefore, we should do as the Leader of the Australian Country party suggests: we should approach the other Empire countries with .a view to obtaining their assistance in this matter during the present time of stress. In 1941, at my insistence, we were able to obtain from the Netherlands East Indies all the petrol we needed before the Japanese struck. Tankers were made available, and we were able to draw our supplies from the East Indies until those territories were over-run by the Japanese. It is the irony of fate that the Prime Minister should be telling us now that we cannot get petrol because of currency difficulties when, for many years past, he and his colleagues have been saying that it is only necessary to rig the financial situation in a certain way in order to get everything in the world we want. Now, for lack of a few million dollars, Australia has to do without an essential commodity. Australia is in a terrible position in this respect, but its present situation need not be permanent. We could earn more dollars if we were placed in the position to produce more. Not only could we produce more wool and food, but we could also produce more gold. Before the war, the production of gold was higher by £6,000,000 than it is to-day. Recently, one of the Sydney Sunday newspapers published the following article under the heading, “ This crazy dollar setup “ : -

Our industrial development is being retarded, and our primary production hamstrung because of blind adherence to Britain’s socialistic financial policy. The fetish of cutting dollar imports has been carried to extremes. Because we cannot get the machinery and the raw materials for development of secondary industries and to step up production in primary industries, a state of stagnation is being reached. The future of Australia is oi primary importance to Australians, and not the success or otherwise of socialistic experiments and pipe dreams in England. It is time a halt was called to the negative approach to the so-called dollar crisis.

Englishmen - Australians too - have been told, as each crisis in dollars is reached, that the only solution is more cuts in dollar imports. Then, still further cuts in dollar imports, and so on, ad infinitum..

At last, even the Prime Minister has rebelled, and in his budget speech last week he said that the Government was considering raising a dollar loan, and trying to produce more so as to earn more dollars. We shall have to do something very quickly, or we shall have petrol rationing on us again. This should not be necessary, when we consider three aspects of our economy. The first is that Australia’s purchases from Britain are helping Britain materially, partcularly in the disposal of petrol-using vehicles. Secondly, Australian production is making a tremendous contribution to the dollar pool. Thirdly, ample supplies of petrol are indispensible to greater production in Australia, production which is necessary in order to feed Britain, and to ease Britain’s dollar position. Therefore, we should have a clear picture of the use that is made of petrol in Australia and of its value to Great Britain’s export position. We must do so in order to study rationing and the dollar position in their proper perspective. From the 31st December, 1939, to the 31st December, 1948, the total registrations of motor cars and taxis in Australia increased by 70,000 vehicles, or 12.1 per cent., whilst in the same period the total registrations of commercial vehicles and buses increased from 229,000 to 389,000, or an increase of 70 per cent. During the same period imports of commercial vehicles, trucks, vans and buses from Great Britain increased from 20 per cent, to 60 per cent, of our total imports, whilst imports of cars from Great Britain increased from 39 per cent, to 80 per cent, of our total imports of cars. This trend is becoming increasingly pronounced. Most of the motor vehicles in use in Australia to-day are not used for luxury purposes. The figures I have given show that the greatest increase has been in commercial vehicles. Incidentally, that increase has been most marked during the last few years because most vehicles previously in use in this country were worn out during the war. Whilst the number of tractors and other heavy gear vehicles imported from Great Britain in 1948 was 5,758, the number imported during the first six months of this year was 7,036. In 194S, the number of new cars imported from Great Britain was 60,000 whereas in the first six months of the cur-rent; year 40,000 new cars have been imported from that country - a rate of 80,000 a year. The Australian Government offered a special inducement toencourage the importation of British, tractors by promising ample petrol supplies for use in such vehicles. If petrol’ is rationed this profitable outlet for theexport of vehicles will undoubtedly be; lost to Great Britain. The amount of money necessary to obtain the additional dollar petrol in order to obviate rationing and to supply new vehicles expected to arrive would not be more than £A.2,000,000 for next year. Surely, it is treachery to Great Britain to jeopardize the maintenance of Britain’s exports of motor vehicles worth £24,000,000 a year to this country in order to effect that saving. In any event, should such a saving in dollars become imperative, why should it not be effected in respect of luxury items rather than items, which, like petrol, are indispensable to production, particularly the producton of foodstuffs and raw materials. It is said that we cannot use the cruder forms of petrol because we have not refineries in this country. What is the reason for that lack ? Two years after World War I., the Government of which I was a member established the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. The Government has a major holding in that organization, which is associated with the Anglo-Persian group, and I should think that at a pinch it could obtain a few million gallons of petrol.

As I have said, an adequate supply of petrol is essential to the maintenance of Australian production. Indeed, any increase of that production will help Great Britain considerably to meet its dollar problem. The Australian Government has failed to take a very important factor into account in its approach to this problem. I refer to the fact that we supply to Great Britain many primary products at must lower cost than that which Great Britain pays for similar products which it obtains from other countries. For instance, it is obtaining butter from Australia at 6d. per lb. less than it pays for butter which it imports from Denmark, whilst it is being supplied by Australia with meat at 4d. per lb. less than it buys meat from Argentina. In fact, Great Britain can get meat from Argentina only by providing 5,000,000 tons of fuel oil as part payment. In addition, Australia’s contribution in wool to the dollar pool in the sterling area is nearly double South Africa’s contribution in gold. Last year, Australia’s wool clip was worth £240,000,000, of which approximately £A. 200,000,000 was exported. In addition, much of the £40,000,000 worth of wool which was used in manufacture in this country was exported and thus helped our dollar position. At the same time, we exported wheat valued at £60,000,000 and lead and zinc exports were worth £20,000,000. All these commodities can be used to assist Great Britain’s general position by helping to reduce its dollar imports. The Government should be encouraging the production of these items to the maximum. I warn it that should petrol rationing be re-introduced in this country, the production of those commodities will inevitably decline. I venture to say that one of the biggest factors in the decline of the dairying industry was the miserable petrol ration allowed to dairy-farmers during the recent war. In many instances, owing to the absence of the dairyman’s family on active service or on other war work, he and his wife found themselves unable on their meagre petrol ration to leave their farm for years at a time. The result is that to-day many dairy farmers have abandoned their holdings after experiencing four years of penal servitude in the bush during the war. Stimulation of production depends essentially upon efficient petrol transport. The meagre amount of dollars necessary to obviate the re-introduction of petrol rationing could easily be saved if the Government did not sabotage production in other spheres. For instance, it has stood idly by for years while coal reserves have been whittled away. The loss of 2,500,000 tons of coal due to industrial disputes has forced us to import thousands of tons of iron and steel and many other building materials which could have been made much more cheaply in Australia. We have been importing wire netting from the United States of America at a cost six times greater than that at which it can be produced in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The right honorable gentleman has exhausted his time.

Dr. Evatt having been called,

Mr Lang:

– I rise to order. I direct the attention of the Chair to the “ General Rule for Conduct of Business”, which provides thai; -

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by Sessional or other Orders, resort shall be had to the rules, forms, and practice of the Commons House of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland in force at the time of the adoption of these orders, which shall be followed as far as they can be applied to the proceedings of the House of Kep r esentatives.

The Standing Orders later provide that the member first rising shall be called. I have risen at every opportunity to-day, but I have not been called. I am strongly of the view that the Chair should not confine the call to members of the Government and Opposition parties. All members elected by the people have a right to be heard in this chamber. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that earlier to-day I asked you whether there was a list of speakers so that I could be sure of receiving the call. I did not see any names there. I appreciate that Ministers have preference over private members in receiving a call, but several private members have already spoken, and I consider that I have been unfairly and unjustly dealt with by the Chair. I understand that the gag will be applied immediately after the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has spoken-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is not entitled to make a speech on this matter.

Mr Lang:

– Very well. I am raising this point now because everybody in the House knows that the gag will be applied after the Attorney-General speaks. I have my rights and I want you to protect them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member has stated his point fully. He claims to have been overlooked by the Chair. I remind him that the “ General Rule for Conduct of Business “ does not apply in contingencies covered by the Standing Orders. Standing Order 255 states -

When two or more Members rise together to speak the Speaker shall call upon the Member who, in his opinion, first rose in his place; but it shall be in order to move, that any Member whohas risen “ be now heard,” or “ do nowspeak.”

The Chair has called honorable members in the order in which they have risen in the House. The honorable member for Reid did speak to me, and I told him that the name of the honorable member for Perth had been noted. The honorable member for Reid asked me to note his name, which I have done. I informed him that the procedure was to give Ministers precedence over private members, and he said that he did not expect to receive the call while Ministers wished to speak. I repeat that I have called honorable members in the order in which they have risen. The Attorney-General now has the call.

Motion (by Mr. Lang) put -

That the honorable member for Reid be now heard.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– Honorable members must agree that the debate has shown first that the problem of the importation and rationing of petrol is merely incidental to the general dollar problem and also that even the dollar problem is not a purely Australian problem. Thirdly, the dollar problem affecting us in Australia is essentially a British Commonwealth problem, and has been treated as such by this Government and by every member of the British Commonwealth. If these points are made good, they will show clearly that the actions of the Government throughout warrant not the censure but the endorsement of the House.

I shall deal with the first point relating to the importation and the rationing of petrol. It is perfectly clear that it is not a question, as has been suggested by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) in regard to the production of gold, of simply looking around to find some sources of production which may be increased. The degree to which production is increased in this country is immaterial unless dollars can be obtained for the resultant output. Therefore, the suggestion of the honorable member for Warringah that this problem would be solved at once by a mere increase of the production of gold in Australia, irrespective of all the other circumstances - the dollar problem generally and the British Commonwealth position - has no substance whatever. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) said, among other things, that the Government has adopted this policy because of the preference it has for rationing petrol. He said that the Government wanted to ration” petrol simply to enable it to control’ the people of this country. That statement is absurd, as well as completely incorrect. What government would! wish to ration’ petrol if supplies were freely available? Petrol rationing is difficult to administer. It was undertaken in time of war’ because’ of the overriding interests of the’ nation at that period. Therefore, the question is not one of rationing at all. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has stated the position with absolute frankness and fairness. He said that if Australia as a part of the British Commonwealth is to tackle the’ dollar problem causing a restriction upon imports, petrol rationing must automatically follow. If the importation of petrol must be limited by the availability of dollars to Australia, then the decision must be either petrol rationing or uncontrolled sales in circumstances which would result in only a few people getting supplies, and the ordinary member of the community being denied a fair share. The problem,- as the motion suggests, relates,- not to a policy of rationing of petrol, but to the bringing of petrol into this country.

I submit that the following facts have been established in connexion with what I might call the Australian dollar deficit. The facts are incontrovertible, clear and undisputed. . First,, we do not sell, enough goods to Canada and the United States of America to cover the goods and services that we want to buy from those countries.

Mr Abbott:

– Does the right honorable gentleman believe in bilateralism ?

Dr EVATT:

– No; we want a broader approach. These facts must be understood and appreciated in their entirety before a proper conclusion can be drawn. Secondly) throughout the twenty years between the two world wars, we had a deficit with the United States of America and Canada, even taking into account the exports of gold to the United States of America. Thirdly, only in the exceptional years of the second world war, when the American forces, were here, and we were receiving American lend-lease aid, did we show a1 surplus. Fourthly, Australia’s dollar deficit fluctuates widely from year to year. Earnings vary widely because of fluctuations in the volume and value of wool’ export’s to the United States.

It is not correct to say, as the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) said, that wool is everywhere worth dollars. It is not. It is worth what it brings in the relevant currency of the buyer. American demand for Australian wool has fallen. There has been a good deal of unemployment in the United States of America and there has been a consequent decline in the sale of wool to that country. Wool cannot produce dollars as and where the seller of the wool wishes.

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

– Many countries have shipped wool to the United States of America after buying it from us.

Dr EVATT:

– What the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has said, is true; but it is irrelevant and quite .beside the point.- It is true that some profiteering took place in respect of Australian wool,- but as was pointed out by the Prime Minister during his mission to the United Kingdom last year, that has been checked. Having mentioned these four points, I should like to state shortly the Australian trade deficits in certain key areas after allowing for sales of gold. In the period from 1936-37 to 1938-39, the three years immediately preceding the outbreak of World War II., Australia had a deficit of 36,000,000 dollars in its trade with Canada and the United States of America. In 1946-47 the dollar deficit amounted to 54,000,000 dollars and in the following year it was 164,000,000 dollars. The latest available figures show that in 1948-49 there was an estimated deficit of 72,000,000 dollars. It must be clear to the House and it will be clear to the people that if Australia had said, “ We are hot interested in any other country. We look upon this matter purely from an isolationist point of view “, we should have had in the last three years an aggregate deficit of 2-90,000,000 dollars, or an average deficit of more than 90,000,000 dollars in each of the three years. If Australia were segregated from the British Commonwealth we could not obtain any dollars with which to meet such a situation as confronts us at present. That is why dollar deficits are financed by converting into dollars surplus sterling earned from trading with other parts of the world. Before the war the United Kingdom could convert as much sterling into dollars as was required by Australia. Because of the general dollar shortage, that is now impossible. The limited dollar resources of the sterling area are held in a sterling area dollar pool. But for that fact Australia’s position would be hopeless. It is not merely a question of sentiment - although sentiment does play its part - but as the Prime Minister has indicated a matter of hard fact. The policy of the present United Kingdom Government has been criticized by many speakers on the Opposition side of the House. That government, however, continues to meet all our dollar requests on the one reasonable condition that we co-operate with the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth in conserving dollars. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruc (Mr. Dedman) recently visited Great Britain and an agreement was made between all members of the British Commonwealth in relation to the conservation of dollars for the mutual advantage of the whole of the Commonwealth and the sterling area. The whole of- the problem comes back to this question: Are we going to stick to that agreement or are we going to repudiate it? That is the essence of the problem. Repudiation, apart from being completely alien to our policy, would be completely futile and would not put us in a better position at all. It was agreed at the London conference that Australia would take action to achieve results comparable to those to be achieved by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has announced that the 1949-50 dollar imports are to be cut to 75 per cent, of the 1948-49 level. The Australian Government has reduced allocations for dollar import licences for the September quarter of this year by the maximum amount possible without causing severe disruption to Australian industry. There has not been disruption. There was a large volume of temporary unemployment during the coal strike, but that has been reduced to an infinitesimal figure, which should be disregarded, as was indicated by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) in the statement that he made to the House last week. Now, we again have full employment.

That, in the opinion of this House, the present shortage of petrol supplies in Australia, which is increasingly affecting vital production and transport, is to a substantial extent due to the policy and inaction of the Government, and that the Government in consequence deserves the censure of this House.

Not a single fact has been brought forward to show that that is the case. On the contrary, the Prime Minister has shown that the fact that we are able to get petrol, notwithstanding our tremendous dollar deficit in this country, is due to British Commonwealth co-operation. In that co-operation the Prime Minister has given a lead to every member of the British Commonwealth. It is because of that policy that we are getting petrol to-day, and it is because of the success of that policy that the Government proposes to continue to follow it. I oppose the motion.

Motion (by Mr. Scully) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 25

Majority.. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 189), be agreed to.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 35

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 243

PAPERS

The following papers were presented:

Commonwealth Public Service Act - A ppointments - Department -

Commerce and Agriculture - J. A. Zwar. Defence - G. J. Stephenson.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes -

Prahran East, Victoria.

Northern Territory - Report on Administration for 1947-48.

Postmaster-General’s Department - Thirtyeighth Annual Report, for year 1947-48.

House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

page 243

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Postal Charges.

Conciliation Commissioners

Mr Hamilton:

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that under section 11 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1947 it is the responsibility of the Chief Judge to assign particular industries to conciliation commissioners so that, so faras practicable, they may deal with disputes in those industries?
If so, did the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General confer with the Chief Judge before the appointment of Messrs. Tonkin and Hall, Conciliation Commissioners?
How many conciliation commissioners have been appointed since the 1947 amending act came into operation on the 10th October, 1947?
How many judges of the court previously performed the work now being done by the conciliation commissioners?
What industries have been assigned to each conciliation commissioner?
What is the number of sitting days of each conciliation commissioner since the 1st June, 1949?

Dr.Evatt. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2.Conciliation commissioners are appointed by the Governor-General, and the Chief Judge assigns to such commissioners particular industries or groups of industries.

Eighteen conciliation commissioners have either been appointed or re-appointed since the amending act of 1947 came into operation. Of these, six held the office of conciliation commissioner under the act prior to its amendment.
The work now being done by conciliation commissioners was previously performed by four judges, six conciliation commissioners, certain local industrial boards, and many boards of reference.
The information is contained in the attached schedule.
The information is being obtained and will be supplied to the honorable member.

The industries assigned to conciliation commissioners are as follows: -

Mooney, G. A., Chief Commissioner -

Metal trades (including agricultural implement and oven and stove ) ; motor body ; aircraft.

Stewart, M. M. -

Railways salaried officers (including professional officers).

Knight, H. -

Merchant Service Guild; marine engineers; marine stewards, marine cooks; seamen; marine radio employees.

Findlay, G. A. -

Clothing trades, textile (including knitting section); felt hatting; group of industries within the Australian Capital Territory.

Wallis, A. R. -

Banks, insurance officers; trustee officers; municipal officers; health inspectors; clerks; journalists; shipping clerks; architects, engineers, surveyors and draftsmen employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies; professional engineers employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies; mathematicians, statisticians, biometricians, computers, actuaries, physicists, geophysicists, astronomers, geographers, meteorologists, metrologists, radiologists, radio-physicists, radio engineers, chemists, chemical engineers, biochemists, pharmacists, metallurgists, metallurgical engineers, biologists, zoologists, botanists, bacteriologists, entomologists, pathologists, medical scientists, physicians, surgeons, dental scientists, dentists, optometrists, oculists, physiotherapists, dietitians, veterinary scientists, agricultural scientists, agronomists, agristologists, forestry scientists, geneticists, social scientists, hospital almoners, anthropologists, ethnologists, archaeologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, geologists, mineralogists, petrologists, assayors, employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies.

Austin, L. P. -

So much of the railways industry or group of industries as comprises locomotive enginemen, engine drivers and firemen, metal trades employees (including ironworkers assistants); so much of the tramways industry or group of industries in the State of New South Wales as comprises other than traffic employees.

Galvin, J. M. -

The railways industry or group of industries (excluding so much thereof as comprises locomotive enginemen, engine drivers and firemen, metal trades employees, ironworkers assistants salaried or professional officers and so much of the traffic section of the New South Wales Government Railways industry or group of industries as is the subject of the assignment hereunder made to Conciliation Commissioner Vivian Gerald Hall).

Morrison, D. V. -

Liquor trades; brewery employees; food preserving; manufacturing grocers; confectioners; flour millers; tobacco.

Dwyer, J. V. -

Timber; furniture trades; shipwrights; ship carpenters; coopers; paper manufacture.

Buckland, G. H. -

Rubberworkers ; glue and gelatine workers ; artificial fertilizers; saddlery and leather goods; rope and cordage; boot trades.

Portus, J. H. -

Printing industry (including newspapers) ; Northern Territory; storemen and packers; airways salaried officers (clerical, professional, technical and administrative officers). Executive or administrative officers employed by wool selling brokers.

Blakeley, A. -

Theatrical employees; musicians, actors; broadcasting technicians; radio telegraphists (other than marine) ; hospital employees; architects; engineers, sur veyors and draftsmen except those employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies; professional engineers except those employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies;mathematicians, statisticians,biometricians, computers, actuaries, physicists, geophysicists, astronomers geographers, meteorologists, metrologists, radiologists, radio-physicists, radio engineers, communication engineers, electronic engineers, chemists, chemical engineers, biochemists, pharmacists, metallurgists metallurgical engineers, biologists, zoologists, botanists, bacteriologists, entomologists, pathologists, medical scientists, physicians, surgeons, dental scientists, dentists, optometrists, oculists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, dietitians, veterinary scientists, agricultural scientists, agronomists, agristologists, forestry scientists, geneticists, social scientists, hospital almoners, anthropologists, ethnologists, archaeologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, geologists, mineralogists, petrologists, assayors, except those employed by municipal or shire councils or other local government bodies.

Kelly, F. D. -

Tanning; wool and basil workers (fellmongery) ; meat industry; shop assistants.

Blackburn, A. S. -

Road transport workers (including mobile crane) ; glass workers, gas employees, tramways.

Donovan, J. R. -

Australian Workers Union (pastoral), hops, construction, mining, fruit-growing, rice, flax, dairying, harvesting; wool classing; municipal employees.

Hall, V. G. -

So much of the traffic section of the New South Wales Government Railways industry or group of industries as is included in Part III. of the interim award made on 24th February, 1947, concerning whose wages hours and conditions of employment the New South Wales Industrial Board (whose appointment is cancelled at this date) had commenced the hearing of claims in connexion with the disputesNos. 380 of 1946 and 1 of 1947 but excluding from this assignment the hearing and determination of all claims in connexion with the said dispute relating to allowances for night or shift work.

Australian Capital Territory

Mr Francis:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

s asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Will he prepare a statement setting out all available information in relation to the following items and services in Canberra, showing their comparison with similar items or services in the States: -

home building - construction costs per square and for an average twobedroom house, not including cost of land;

production costs of ordinary homebuilding bricks;

cost of other building materials, such as timber, roofing tiles, flooring, guttering, piping, &c. ;

the annual cost of running the Canberra omnibus service, the annual revenue from such service and the loss, if any, sustained during the financial year 1947-48;

the annual cost per mile for the maintenance of roadways within the Australian Capital Territory in comparison with that of municipal and district road boards;

the cost per unit of electricity supplied to householders;

the cost-of-living index;

the over-all estimated annual cost to the Federal Government of maintaining the City of Canberra; and

the population of Canberra?

Mr Johnson:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Contract prices per square of twobedroom brick houses, March quarter, 1949 -

Costs of ordinary home-building bricks in the various capital cities are as follows: -

Prices of basic material, quarter ended 31st March, 1949 -

The cost of running the Canberra omni bus service for the financial year ended the 30th June, 1948, was £76,374. The revenue was £50,228, with a loss of £26,146. The approximate figures for the financial year

The cost of maintaining roads within the Australian Capital Territory during the financial year ended the 30th June, 1949, was as follows: -

Information as to comparative costs of road maintenance by municipal and district roads boards is not available. if) Electricity is purchased in bulk from the New South Wales State southern electricity supply at approximately .6d. per unit. The cost of distribution and annual charge for interest and depreciation is approximately 2d. per unit. Electricity is supplied to householders at the rate of 4d. per unit for basic units and ljd. per unit for all units in excess of the basic units.

Cost-of living index. “C” series. Baseweighted average six capital cities 1923-1927 = 1,000. For quarter ended 31st March, 194!)-

Average sis capital cities - 1,364.

The over-all cost to the Federal Government of maintaining the City of Canberra for the financial year 1947-48 was £1.045.181. The cost for the financial year ended ‘ the 30th June, 1949, is £1,24.0,131. This does not include expenditure on capital works and services.
Estimated population of Canberra as at the 30th June, 1948 - 1S.788 persons.

United Nations

Mr Lang:

g asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Will he furnish a list of delegates who have attended international conferences convened by the United Nations or its auxiliary organizations, together with a statement of the cost to the Commonwealth for each delegate?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

Since the United Nations Conference on International Organization was held in San Francisco in April, 1945, Australia has been represented at approximately 220 conferences and meetings convened by the United Nations or its specialized agencies. It is not practicable to prepare a comprehensive list of delegates, representatives and advisers who have attended these conferences, nor is it practicable to furnish a return showing the cost to the Commonwealth for each delegate or even each conference. Costs in some cases are borne by the international organization concerned. In many others in which overseas representatives attended the conferences costs are included in costs of permanent missions overseas. However, an indication of the cost to the Commonwealth of representation on such international conferences can be gathered from the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, where the cost of representation on the United Nations, and the cost of contributions to and representation on the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International

Labour Organization, World Trade and Employment Conferences, and International Labour Conferences, are set out. The estimates of the Department of Health will show the expenditure of the World Health Organization, and the estimates of the Department of Civil Aviation the expenditure on the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Attorney-General’s Department :

Appointments

Mr Harrison:

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Were seven vacancies for legal officers,. Grade 2, in the office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, notified in’ the Commonwealth Gazette of the 3rd February last ?
Have these positions been filled; if not,, for what reason?
How many applications were received in respect of the above from - (a) permanent officers employed in or attached to the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Sydney; (6) other permanent Commonwealth officers; (c) temporary officers attached to the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office; and (d) other persons?
Was consideration given to the appointment of non-permanent officers if their qualifications and experience exceeded those of permanent officer applicants?
Were any persons interviewed for the positions as the result of representations made on .their behalf; if so, how many?
Docs the Public Service Act permit of such vacancies being filled by other than permanent Commonwealth officers: if not, will (lie act be amended to effect this provision?
Wore eleven vacancies in the same office notified in 1946; if so, were they filled, and how many appointments were made from outside the Public Service?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

Yes.
1. These positions have not been filled. Selections have been made however and appointments will be notified in the Gazette in the near future. 3. (o) 3; (6) 20; (c) 8; (d) 81.
2. Consideration has been given to the claims of applicants who are not permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service bearing in mind the provisions of section 47 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act and the preference provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act.
3. Those candidates who were not known personally to the recommending authority but who appeared to have satisfactory qualifications were interviewed, but in no case was an interview granted as a result of representations on a candidate’s behalf.
4. Yes. Section 47 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act provides - 47.-v-(l.) If at any time in any special case it appears expedient or desirable in the public interest to appoint to a Division other than the Fourth Division some person who is not in the Commonwealth Service, and who is not eligible under the conditions otherwise prescribed for admission to the Commonwealth Service, the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Board after the Board has obtained a report from the Permanent Head, appoint such person accordingly without examination and, if the GovernorGeneral thinks fit, without probation. (2.) No such appointment shall be made until the Board has certified that in its opinion there is no officer available in the Commonwealth Service who is as capable of filling the position to which it is proposed that the appointment shall be made. A copy of every recommendation, report, and certificate under this section shall, within fourteen days after the making of the appointment, be laid before both Houses of the Parliament, if the Parliament is then sitting, or if not, then within seven days of the next meeting of the Parliament.
5. Yes. Eleven vacancies in the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Sydney, were advertised on 4th April, 1946. All eleven positions were filled by permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Royal Australian Air Force: Vampire Jet Fighters

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for Air, upon notice -

How manyVampire jet fighter aircraft are at present attached to the Royal Australian Air Force for immediate operational use?
What action has the Government taken to supply this type of aircraft to the Air Force?
Is the Vampire jet fighter produced in Australia ? If so, what is. the monthly rate of production?
Has the Government been informed that the Vampire jet fighter is no longer considered a front-line fighter, and that the Royal Air FoTce has replaced it with the Meteor and the Royal Canadian Air Force with the latest American types?
To ensure the existence and readiness of a modern fleet of fighter-aircraft for the Commonwealth, will the Government use portion of its credit balance in London to purchase for Australiaan adequate number of the latest British fighter planes; if not, why not?

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

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

Three Vampire jet fighters are on the strength of Royal Australian Air Force Fighter Wing. 2 and 3. In September, 1946, the Government placed orders with De Haviland Aircraft Company, Sydney, for the local manufacture nf Vampire aircraft, and with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation for the supply of Nene engines. The first Vampire produced in Australia will be delivered this week. For security reasons, details of the numbers ordered and of the rate of production cannot be given.
No. According to information available, the British Air Ministry considers the Vampire to be one of the best aircraft for its purposes in the world at the present time, and actual production in the United Kingdom is at present being concentrated on that type. New and improved aircraft of various types are, however, being developed for the Royal Air Force.
According to latest official advices, no jet fighter aircraft superior to the Vampire is at present available for procurement from the United Kingdom. It is appropriate to here add that the policy of the Australian Government provides for the manufacture in Australia where possible of the most modern types of aircraft to ensure the Royal Australian Air Force being maintained as an uptodate and efficient fighting force, and effect has been and will continue to be given to that policy.

Textiles

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as alleged by a Sydney textile firm that the Australian textile trade is threatened unless the Commonwealth Government stems the flood of questionable imports ?
What types and quantities of textile goods were imported into Australia during the past twelve months from (a) sterling area countries, and (b) dollar area countries?
Will he investigate whether (a) tariff agreements have been contravened, and (b) textile goods could be supplied more cheaply and in better quality if tariff protection were extended ?

Mr Pollard:
ALP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information: -

No cases of questionable imports of textiles have been brought to my notice. Australian manufacturers have been concerned about the volume of imports over the last year, particularly of knitted underwear, hosiery and knitted piece goods. Because of these representations the following matters havebeen referred to the Tariff Board: -

What rates of duty should be imposed on goods covered by tariff items - 105 (aa) (2), knitted or lockstitched piece goods except when wholly of wool. 1 1 5, socks and stockings for human attire. 110 (b) (1), underwear being knitted apparel or apparel made from knitted or lockstitched piece goods.

Excluding bags, sacks, cordage, twines, yarns, gloves, trimmings and carpets the major textile imports during 1048-49, by value, were as follows: -

Quantity figures are not readily available at present. The Commonwealth Statistician is now preparing final figures for the year and quantities should be available within a week or two. 3. (a) No tariff agreements have been contravened; and (6) this angle will be considered by the Tariff Board during its investigations.

Commonwealth Litigation : Costs

Mr Lang:

g asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

Will he have prepared a statement showing the total amount of fees paid by the Government for each financial year from 1944-45 to date to the following: - W. B. Dovey, K.C; J. W. Shand, K.C; J. D. Holmes, K.C; H. Alderman, K.C.; and E. S. Miller, K.C?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

– The information is being obtained and will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as it is available.

Cotton.

Mr Pollard:
ALP

d. - On the 7th September, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked the following question: -

Can the Tariff Board report on raw cotton he investigated by the Government without further delay and a decision regarding a guaranteed price for cotton expedited?

The Minister for Trade and Customs has now supplied the following information : -

The Tariff Board has not yet furnished its report. It will be given consideration by the Government as soon as it is received.

Mr Francis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What has Seen done by the Federal Government in the last three years to encourage production in and the development of the Australian cotton industry?
Did the Tariff Board, on the 30th May, finish its inquiry into the protection of the industry?
Has the Government yet received the Board’s recommendations, if so, when will they be submitted to Parliament?
What are the reasons for the drop in production from 17,471 bales in the 1933-34 harvest to an estimated 800 bales this year, according to a recent issue of a Brisbane newspaper?
Is it a fact that Australia is spending more than £1,000,000 worth of dollars on the importation of raw cotton this year?
Will the Government give consideration to the position of the local industry with a view to increasing the guaranteed price of cotton over a period of years to ensure stability and increase production?

Mr Pollard:
ALP

d. - The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : -

In 1946, under the Raw Cotton Bounty Act, the Government made provision for a guaranteed net return to cotton-growers of 15d. per lb. of raw cotton of grades higher than the grade known as “ strict good ordinary “ after taking into account proceeds from the sale of all by-products. The bounty operates until 3lst December, 1951. At present, no bounty is being paid because Australian cotton-growers are receiving the equivalent of the high world price for their product and consequently they are receiving a greater net return than 15d. per lb.
The public inquiry by the Tariff Board was completed on the 30th May, but the board’s examination of the matter did not necessarily conclude on that date.
No.
The Tariff Board’s report will no doubt cover the reasons for the decline in production of raw cotton.
No. Australia is not allocating any dollars for the purchase of raw cotton.
The matter will receive consideration when the Tariff Board submits its report.

Liquid Fuel

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, upon notice -

How many gallons of (a) aviation spirit, (6) petrol, (o) power kerosene, (ti) lighting kerosene, and (e) fuel oil are contained in one ton of 2,240 lb,?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The Minister for Shipping and Fuel has supplied the following information : -

The conversion factors for the various petroleum products vary according to the specific gravity of the products. For customs purposes each cargo is assessed in accordance with analysis made by the Commonwealth Analyst on” the arrival of the cargo. In order to ascertain approximate round figures, the following conversion factors are generally used: -

Aviation spirit - 310 gallons to ton. Motor spirit - 300 gallons to ton. Power kerosene - 280 gallons to ton. Lighting kerosene - 280 gallons to ton. Fuel oil - 250 gallons to ton.

Telegraph Poles

Mr Falkinder:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

r asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the department is now using 2-i-in. and 3-in. galvanized piping for telegraph poles in country areas in Tasmania?
Is it a fact that the department is using 8 to 10 gauge galvanized wire in large quantities for jury stays to support the galvanized pipe telegraph poles?
In view of the acute shortage throughout the Commonwealth of galvanized piping and galvanized wire and the urgent needs of primary producers for these articles, what justification has his department for using such short supply materials for jobs where other materials not in short supply could be used?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

The Postmaster-General’s Department in Tasmania has used some limited quantities of galvanized tubular steel poles of dimensions similar to those mentioned. These are manufactured for the department at the works of Messrs. Stewart and Lloyd, Newcastle, who also make iron pipe. The quantities received by the department over recent years have been relatively small and would not have any appreciable effect on the availability of iron pipe for other purposes. Normally, because of the general unsuitability of Tasmanian timber for use as poles, it is very desirable to use a high proportion of steel poles in that State, but due to the present difficult supply position, the use of steel .poles is now very limited and it has been necessary to use a high proportion of wood poles. The proportion of all classes of steel poles, including galvanized pipe poles, at present represents less than 20 per cent, of the total quantities used.
Because of the shortage of normal steel stranded stay wire, it has been necessary to use small quantities of short lengths of 8 to 10 gauge galvanized wire for staying purposes. The quantity so used has been negligible in relation to the total consumption, and the use of the wire in this manner has obviated delay to the provision of service.
The need to take into account the overall supply position in the use of material such as galvanized .piping and steel wire is appreciated. However, the department is facing a most serious problem in the provision of outstanding applications for subscribers’ services including services to primary producers. The material supply position is most difficult and it is essential for the department to take advantage of all possible sources of supply of such material.

Commonwealth Boards

Mr Ryan:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

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

What salary and allowance are paid to the chairman of each of the following boards:. -

The Australian Dairy Produce Export

Control Board, (6) The Australian Wheat Board, (c) The Australian Meat Board, and

the Australian Egg Board?

Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

The salary and allowance paid to the chairman of each of the following boards are: -

A fee of £5 5s. a day whilst attending meetings of the board or the executive committee of the hoard. 2. A fee of £4 4s. a day whilst engaged on such business of the board as the board determines provided that this allowance is not payable on any day on which a fee is payable for attendance at board or committee meetings. 3. Travelling allowance at the rate of £2 2s. a day which is not payable on any day on which a fee is received.

A salary of £2,000 per annum. 2. Travelling allowance at the rate of £2 2s. a day.

A salary of £1,600 per annum. 2. Travelling allowance at the rate of £2 2s. a day.

A salary of £1,350 per annum.

Travelling allowance at the rate of £2 2s. a day.

Commonwealth Funds: Audit

Mr Fadden:

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

What account or accounts, fund or funds, special or otherwise, have been established or have existed since the 7th October, 1941, to date in: (i) the Security Branch; (ii) the Crown Solicitor’s Branch; (iii) the Commonwealth Investigation Branch; and (iv) any other branch of his department from which (a) the Auditor-General has not been allowed to audit the disbursements in detail and/or to which there is no Auditor-General’s certificate in detail, and/or (b) receipts for money disbursed are not either (i) kept, and/or (ii) demanded from recipients of moneys therefrom, and/or (c) the disbursements were audited by a special auditor and not in the ordinary way by the AuditorGeneral?
What amounts of public money have been (a) paid into, and (b) disbursed from each of the above accounts or funds, seriatim, which have been kept secret from the AuditorGeneral or his officers in the manner mentioned in paragraph (1) (a), paragraph (1) (6) and paragraph (1) (c) respectively?
What are the names, if any, of all accounts mentioned in (1)(a), (1) (b) and (1) (c) respectively?
Have moneys from any of the abovementioned accounts and/or funds been used either directly or through any Commonwealth instrumentality or otherwise to control, police and/or investigate communism or communistic activities, and/or any persons, matters or things associated in any way whatsoever with the Communist party of Australia?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

– The answers to the right honorable gentleman’s questions are as follows : - 1 to 4. The questions now asked by the right honorable member are in identical terms with questions previously asked by him, and answered in the House by the then Acting Attorney-General on the 7th August, 194.6. The answers given in 1946 were as follow: -

Three funds of the category referred to by the right honorable member have been in existence during the whole or portion of the period since the 7th October, 1941, namely -

Security Service Special Fund, established in March,1942, and closed on the 31st December, 1945;

Australian Democratic Front Fund, established in 1940 by the then Attorney-General (the right honorable member for North Sydney) and closed in 1942 after its operations had been the subject of a royal commission ; (iii)Investigation Branch Special Fund, established over 30 years ago and still in existence.

As to (i), during its existence, £8,662 11s. 4d. was paid out of the Security Service Special Fund. These moneys were expended in securing information in all States on matters affecting the security of the Commonwealth, including subversive activities.

As to (ii), during its existence, £4,963 6s.1d. was paid out of the Australian Democratic Front Fund which was ordered to be closed by the present AttorneyGeneral as soon as he knew of the purposes for which the moneys were being used.

As to (iii), when the present Government took office, £646 was standing to the credit of the Fund and £9,000 has since been paid into the Fund and £9,185 has been expended. Since the Government took office payments out of this Fund have been made as follow: -

Portion of these moneys has been used in investigating subversive activities in all States.

This Government takes no responsibility for the manner in which the moneys made available through the Australian Democratic Fund were expended but the disbursements from the Security Service Special Fund were, and the disbursements from the Investigation Branch Special Fund are, at all times subject to audit by the Chief Audit Inspector.

Since 1-948, the only change in the funds referred to .has arisen from the establishment in 1949 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization with Mr. Justice Reed as Director-General. Having regard to the wide discretion of the .Director-General, who does not act under Ministerial direction, the manner in which the funds provided by Parliament for the purposes of security are disbursed by the Director-General ensures satisfactory accounting and auditing. Broadly Breaking the system is modelled upon the practice in the United Kingdom, and has the express approval of the Auditor-General of (he Commonwealth.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

T.– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. As stated in my reply to a question without notice asked on 7th September, 1949, by the honorable member for Fawkner, the investigation of Marx House, Sydney, was made for the specific purpose of obtaining evidence of suspected offences under the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1D49. The other matters referred to by the honorable member fall within the responsibility of the

Director-General of Security, -who acta in his own discretion and not on ministerial direction. It is not in the interest of security to give information as to the knowledge opinion or actions of the Director-General.

COMMUNISM

Mr Francis:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

What information has the Government of Communist party propaganda activities in Australian Army camps T
Has Army Intelligence furnished the Government with reports on the interrogation by two officers of Communist agents who, dressed in khaki uniforms, had distributed Communist pamphlets in camps in the Ingleburn district?
What action has the Government taken to .prevent Communists from (a) gaining access to military camps and establishments, and (6) indoctrinating or otherwise influencingservice personnel by the distribution of subversive propaganda!

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

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

The Government has received no information regarding Communist : party propaganda activities in Australian Army camps.
No, but exhaustive inquiries have failed to establish that this alleged incident has any basis of truth.
Security precautions have been taken, and no unauthorized person is allowed access to military camps and establishments.

Mr Francis:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon- notice -

What information has the Government of moves by the Queensland branch of the Communist party to hide party flies and documents in case of a raid in Brisbane similar to the raid made on Communist party head-quarters in Sydney? 2, As the Queensland move will, ultimately, facilitate Communist preparations to organize the movement on an underground and illegal basis, why did the Government not order a simultaneous investigation of major Communist party’ offices in all capital cities when the raid on Marx House, Sydney, was first planned?

Mr HARRISON:

N asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Will he furnish a reply to the question asked without notice on the 10th June, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the organization of Communist “ strong-arm “ or “ commando “ units to protect Communist leaders in Australia?

Dr Evatt:
ALP

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

Under the charter issued to the DirectorGenera] of Security, the matters referred to by the honorable member arc within the responsibility of the Director-General, and jit. is not in the interest of security to disclose the information available to him or his opinions and actions. The honorable member may rest assured that the internal security of Australia is being fully and amply provided for.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490914_reps_18_204/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives14 September 1949

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr HADLEY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:ALP

Mr CONELAN:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr LAZZARINI:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr MULCAHY:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:

QUESTION

WAR NEUROSIS

Mr SHEEHY:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr BURKE:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

BRISBANE GENERAL POST OFFICE

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

TIMBER

Mrs BLACKBURN:BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARNARD:ALP

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr White:

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr THOMPSON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Sir EARLE PAGE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

SOCIAL SERVICES

Maternity Allowance - Explanatory Booklet

Mr HOLLOWAY:ALP

Mr DALY:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

Mr CONELAN:

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

COAL

Mr SHEEHY:

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

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:

Mr HOLLOWAY:ALP

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL LOANS

Mr McLEOD:WANNON, VICTORIA

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

House of Representatives
14 September 1949

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Mr HADLEY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BURKE:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

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

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr McLEOD:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

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

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr LEMMON:
ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Burke

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

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