House of Representatives
27 September 1949

18th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1949

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Itr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 569

WAR WIDOWS’ PENSIONS

Petition

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present a petition from 2,762 war widows in various parts of Australia praying that sympathetic consideration he given to the financial position of widows and children of deceased Australian servicemen.

Petition received and read.

page 569

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether the information regarding the availability of petrol from Russia, which was subsequently found to be incorrect, came from any official Russian source? Can he say whether the negotiations for the supply of that petrol were conducted on a high official plane by the Soviet Government and the Australian Country party? Can he state whether any greetings were exchanged on that occasion between Comrade Stalin and Comrade Fadden?

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

– I understood from press statements that the negotiations for the supply of petrol from Russia had been conducted between a Minister of the Victorian Government and high officials of the Soviet Government.

Mr Calwell:

– Comrade Warner !

Mr DEDMAN:

– My understanding of the position is that no such negotiations took place between a Minister of the Victorian Government and any officials of the Russian Embassy in Canberra. It was suggested that such negotiations took place between the Minister concerned and Soviet officials in eastern Germany. I fail to see how those negotiations could have taken place, but nevertheless that was what was stated in the press. I am unable to say whether there is any link between the Australian Country party and the Soviet in respect of the negotiations.

page 569

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Statement by Mr. J. J. Dedman, M.P.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a reported statement by the Minister for Defence which referred to the announcement that Russia had exploded an atomic bomb and that the nations of the world were very concerned about that occurrence? The report stated that the Minister for Defence had said that he could not see what the song was all about. Was the Minister expressing the view of the Government? If so, has the Government received advice from the United Kingdom and the United States of America to support such a view, and was the Minister acting in his capacity as Minister for Defence when he made the statement? If he was acting in that capacity, does his statement mean that this atomic bomb development will not cause the Government to alter or overhaul its defence policy? If the Minister was expressing a purely personal view, will the Prime Minister relieve him of the portfolio of defence so that he will be free to express personal opinions without overseas countries interpreting them as the Government’s view, as put by its Minister for Defence ?

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

– I have not seen a report of any statement made by the Minister for Defence about the matter to which the honorable member for Wentworth has referred, but I know that if the Minister spoke about it he would have spoken with some knowledge of the subject which is generally not possessed by the average individual in the community.

Mr Harrison:

– Was the Minister expressing the Government’s opinion?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I do not know what opinion he expressed. It has been well known for years to members of the Government, and to the Minister particularly, and indeed to all the leading physicists of the world, that it was only a matter of time before any nation with the necessary technical equipment, money and staff would be able to produce an atomic bomb. That view was expressed to me by leading physicists overseas in 1945 and again in 1946. In fact one physicist went as far as to say then that it would be possible to construct an atomic bomb factory in the very near future for £20,000,000. I should be very surprised if any leading scientist in the world did not realize after the war, following the dropping of the first atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the secret of making atomic bombs was no longer a secret. Probably even before that time the secret was known to scientists in countries other than America, Britain and Canada. I do not know one leading scientist engaged in the work of research associated with either atomic bombs or the development of atomic energy who was not quite confident years ago that it was only a matter of time, perhaps only a few years, before Russia would have the secret. They knew that sooner or later, and perhaps sooner than some expected, Russia would develop the bomb, ns it has now been credited with doing. I think it is safe to say, however, that there is no question that America can make atomic bombs bigger and better than any other country will be making for some time.

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

– What about answering the question?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have no intention of relieving the Minister of any of his present duties. He is a capable Minister, and knows his job better than the honorable member knows his own.

page 570

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for the Navy supply any information with respect to the payment of prize money to naval personnel ? I have been given to understand that applications are being invited from members of the Royal Navy. What is the position of members and exmembers of the Royal Australian Navy in relation to this matter?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for the Navy · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I have not received any official information with respect to steps being taken by the Royal Navy in relation to the matter that the honora’ble member has mentioned. However, I understand that applications are being received for prize money from members and ex-members of the Royal Navy. Payment cannot be made yet because the valuation of prizes and the actual contributions to he made to the pool by theBritish Commonwealth governments concerned, on account of prizes taken by them, have not been finally settled. Assoon as those aspects are cleared up theactual sum involved will >be communicated to those governments from London. Some delay may occur in reachingfinality on those matters, but advice will be given when the final decision becomesknown. As the Prime Minister hasalready announced, the members of theRoyal Australian Navy who will participate will be those who qualified by six months sea service from the 3rd September, 1939, to the 2nd September, 1945. All members qualified will receive likeamounts regardless of rank or length of service exceeding the qualifying period.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Air say whether it is true that several Royal Navy officers and warrant officersare, at the aircraft station at Huskisson,, as well as some officers and warrant officers of the Royal Australian Navy?’ Is it true that a warrant officer of theRoyal Navy is receiving more in pay and family allowance than the commander of the station, who is an officer of the Royal Australian Navy? What is the reason for the disparity in rates of pay to the members of the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian . Navy ? Will theMinister look into the matter in order tosee that the pay of Australian officers is brought up to that of British officers?

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

– I believe that the assistance of Royal Australian Air Force officers is being given at Nowra in the initial training, at all events, of pilots of the Royal Australian Navy. Some of those officers are, I understand, stationed at Nowra. No members of the Royal Australian Air Force or the Royal Australian Navy are stationed at JervisBay at present. The honorable member has said that a warrant officer -of the Royal Navy has a higher income,, in pay and family allowances, than an officer of the Royal Australian Air Force. I do not know whether that is a fact or not, and I do not think that the honorable member could expect me to know offhand. The explanation might well be that the Royal Navy warrant officer has a larger family and therefore, with away-from-home allowances and exchange advantages, receives a larger amount of money. I know of no complaint or cause for any complaint amongst officers of the Royal Australian Air Force or the Royal Australian Navy, but I shall have inquiries made in order to ascertain the relative rates of pay. If warrant officers of the Royal Navy are receiving more than Royal Australian Air Force officers on the same duties, I shall ascertain the reason for the difference. If there is any difference, it must be on account of some special circumstance such as I have indicated, and no doubt it can be fully justified.

page 571

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister received any report from the Government of New South “Wales or the Flood Relief Committee regarding the necessity to provide additional financial relief for victims of the floods that occurred recently in the Macleay River district? Has the money that the Government has already donated been made available for the relief of persons in distress? Has any of that money been set off against the use of army personnel and equipment, including army ducks, or for police assistance in rescue work and in. the disposal of dead cattle? If so, will the right honorable gentleman make it clear to the committee that the money donated by the Australian Government should not be used for those purposes? Will he give consideration to making additional relief available from the War Damage Insurance Fund?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– At the moment I am not able to give the right honorable gentleman full particulars concerning the disposal of the money that the Australian Government made available for the relief of flood victims. About ten days ago I discussed the matter by telephone with the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, and inquired whether he had received any indication from the Flood Relief Committee that it would require further financial assistance to meet cases of distress. He told me that at that time he had not received a full report from the committee which, as honorable members are aware, consists of capable officers who have been given wide powers. However, he said that he expected to receive the committee’s full report at an early date. I have no knowledge of any suggestion that any of the money that the Government has made available to assist necessitous cases has been set off against expenditure involved in the use of army ducks or other equipment used in rescue work. I shall obtain full information upon those matters for the right honorable gentleman and also inquire further about the stage the committee has reached in its investigations. I have been advised cf many resolutions carried at public meetings held in the districts affected by the floods congratulating the committee on the splendid work that it is doing.

page 571

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

page 571

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Price of Base Metals

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister furnish the House with any information about the effect of devaluation on the price of base metals, particularly of lead? This is a matter of considerable interest to my constituents at Captain’s Flat.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Although I am not aware of the particular country to which base metals won at Captain’s Flat are exported, I understand that about half of our exports, mostly in the form of concentrates, go to the United Kingdom and the remainder to Belgium. Speaking from memory, the price of lead has been fixed in the United Kingdom at £122 5s. or £122 6s. sterling a ton, but as the price changes from time to time, that figure may not be precisely the figure that will appear in some quotations. That represents an increase of about £34 10s. a ton sterling. Because I am not aware of the clear-cut position with relation to the currency of Belgium, to which country about one-half of our exports of lead and zinc concentrates go, I am unable, at the moment, to furnish a precise figure with relation to that country. Generally speaking, however, the price paidby Belgium would be in keeping with the American figure. I hope to have precise information available within a day or two, when I shall make it available to the honorable member.

page 572

INDUSTRY

Incentive Payments

Mr.FRANCIS.- -Will the Prime Min ister inform the House “whether it is a fact that at the biennial congress of the Australian Council of Trades Unions held in Sydney last week, the Government’s plan for the introduction of incentive payments in industry was rejected? If so, in view of the right honorable gentleman’s own statement that the incentive payment system in Australian industries is desirable, and of the importance of increasing production, will the Government seek a conference with the Australian Council of Trades Unions to discuss any further plans? Will the Government also consider taking measures to enable Tank and file unionists to express their views about the introduction of incentive payments in industry?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Although I have not yet seen the minutes of the meeting of the biennial congress of the Australian Council of Trades Unions held in Sydney last week, I understand that there was a fairly equal division of opinion about this subject, and that the proposal favouring the system of incentive payments was narrowly defeated. Over the years the Minister for Labour and National Service, other Ministers, and I also have said that incentive payments would be of value in increasing production, provided that such payments were properly policed. That would be absolutely necessary because this system has been gravelyabused in the past not only in Australia but also in other parts of the world. A very thorough supervision by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court would also have to be maintained. The incentive payments system is now operating in quite a number of industries in this country, which would not be prepared to forgo it. Generally speaking, it is being firmly policed both by the Arbitration Court and by the conciliation commis sioners. The members of other unions also have been asking for it to be introduced in their industries. However, we must be patient and hope that when it can be shown that its extension to other industries would be of value to the community in general and the employees in particular it will be so extended. Although I shall be discussing this subject with officers of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, I remind the honorable member that those officers are bound by decisions that have been made at their biennial congress.

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General in relation to the position that the subject of incentive pay has taken in recent political propaganda, in which it has been placed in advertisements amongst matters that would be susceptible of direct legislation. Does placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which deals with the sole industrial power of the Commonwealth, confer upon this Parliament the power to compel any employer to grant incentive pay or to compel any union to accept schemes of incentive pay? Does the placitum confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to require conciliation commissioners or Commonwealth Arbitration Court judges to incorporate incentive pay provisions in awards ? Have State parliaments power to pass legislation to impose incentive pay schemes? Has any State under any government, regardless of political complexion, imposed incentive pay schemes?

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

– This Parliament cannot pass direct legislation to require either the employers to give incentive payments or employees or trade unions to receive them. No direct legislative power exists. The sole power of this Parliament is to set up conciliation and arbitration tribunals for the settlement of interstate disputes. Therefore, the answer to the honorable member’s first question is “ No “. In answer to the second question, it has been clearly laid down that this Parliament cannot direct either the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or arbitral bodies, like conciliation commissioners, to grant payments of such a character, any more than it can direct the court to order ;i 44-liour week or a 40-hour week. Such matters have to come by the independent award of the arbitration tribunal. Therefore, the answer to the honorable member’s second question also is “ No “. By contrast, the answer to the third question is “ Yes “. The State parliaments have jurisdiction within their own territories to make directions either to employers or to employees in such matters. In answer to the last question, whether any State parliament of any political complexion lias ever made such directions, to the hest of my knowledge no State parliament has either done so or attempted to do so. I refer the honorable member also to the statement, which the Prime Minister made in answer to an earlier question, that this matter could be dealt with by the arbitration tribunals if it were genuinely part of a dispute. In that event, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or a conciliation commissioner could deal with the important question of incentive payments and make such awards as were considered to be proper.

page 573

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen the published statement of the New South Wales Council of the Liberal party that that party, if returned at the next election, would de-socialize industry? Is the right honorable gentleman aware that one method of achieving this de-socialization, suggested at the meeting of the council, was that government undertakings not showing a profit should be declared bankrupt? Does the Prime Minister consider that this desocialization policy is a direct attack on full employment? Would not such a move result in the dismissal of at least 30,000 public servants, 60 per cent, of whom arc ex-service men and women? Would it not mean also the sacking of war pilots from Trans-Australia Airlines, and of thousands of Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme trainees now in government employment? Is de-socialization the first instalment of the Hytten plan which is based on the belief that 6 per cent, of unemployment is a safe economy for Australia? Finally, is the decision of the State council in conflict with the statement of the federal president of the party, Mr. R. G. Casey, who said at Launceston recently-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not proceed on those lines.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the statement to which the honorable member ha3 referred, and I am unable to make any comment on it in detail. However, I know that there are changed views about many things within the ranks of the Conservatives in this country. I understand that the Conservative party in Great Britain has already declared its intention not to de-nationalize a number of undertakings now under governmental control, such as the Bank of England, which the Labour party has nationalized or socialized, whatever the term may be. In fact, I believe that the Conservatives in the United Kingdom are coming to the stage of saying that while on no account would they nationalize the iron and steel industry all the other undertakings nationalized by Labour would be allowed to remain. The honorable member for Fremantle read a statement to that effect last week. I found it most amusing. If the report to which the honorable member for Parkes has referred is a true indication of the Liberal party’s policy on nationalization, it is as well that the people should know of it.

page 573

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Tennant Creek Water Supply

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question concerning the necessity for providing an adequate water supply at Tennant Creek before a new hospital is constructed there. Recently, senior medical officers from Darwin and Canberra, together with leading local citizens, visited the new hospital site which is three or four miles out of the town. I accompanied the party-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must ask his question.

Mr BLAIN:

– I ask the Minister whether a report has yet been received from the medical officers supporting the view of local residents who have stressed the undesirability of erecting a new hospital without first providing an adequate water supply. If that report has been received, will the Minister ensure that it will be read by the Minister for the Interior so that he may know that the main problem at Tennant Creek to-day is that of providing a suitable water supply for the hospital and for the township generally?

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

– I do not know whether the report has yet been received. When it comes to hand I shall endeavour to provide the honorable member with a copy of it so that he may read it for himself. I know that the Minister for Health and the Minister for the Interior have examined the whole question of water supplies for hospitals in the Northern Territory, and have plans for both Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.

page 574

QUESTION

MARX HOUSE

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the report that the Joint Coal Board has agreed to purchase Marx House for £50,000? Does this price represent a profit of £20,000 for the capitalistic Communist party? Did the Australian Government and the Government of New South Wales approve of this proposed expenditure? What was the Valuer-General’s valuation, and why was the property not obtained by compulsory resumption instead of by private treaty with the Communist party? Do the Joint Coal Board’s activities justify the occupation of a three-storied building in the centre of the city of Sydney?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not received any advice regarding the purchase of Marx House by the Joint Coal Board. It has been mentioned to me that a newspaper report had stated that the board had made an offer for the property. No property or land sales control now operates in New South Wales. Some time ago I was informed that Marx House had been offered for sale through a Sydney estate agent, at a price which was, I think, somewhat higher than that mentioned by the honorable member. The contemplated purchase of this property was not referred to me for consideration. The Joint Coal Board has certain authority under its joint State and Federal powers to purchase ot erect buildings. I shall obtain what information

I can on the subject and will furnish it to the honorable - member as early as possible.

page 574

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen the report that, at a recent press conference at San Francisco, the Australian Ambassador to the United States of America, Mr. Makin, had said -

Industrial disturbances in Australia in recent years have been negligible, and there is no heavy Communist influence in most unions.

Is that report true? If so, will the right honorable gentleman tell His Excellency about the recent coal strike, which cost this country £100,000,000 in lost production; and also about many other strikes that have occurred in recent years? Will the Prime Minister also tell him of the miners’ federation, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, and the many other unions which are Communistcontroiled-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is going beyond the bounds of a question.

Mr BEALE:

– Will the Prime Minister tell His Excellency about- these organizations so that his public statements in the United States of America will in future be in accordance with facts?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member asked a similar question some time ago.

Mr Beale:

– This is a new statement by the Australian Ambassador.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The earlier question related to almost precisely the same alleged statement.

Mr Beale:

– I did not ask it.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– An honorable member opposite asked a question about a statement that was alleged to have been made by the Australian Ambassador at Washington in regard to industrial disturbances in Australia. I shall not take up the time of the House to read a letter which the Ambassador has written in relation to this misstatement about him. I shall arrange for a reply to be prepared in answer to the honorable member’s question which will embody the

Australian Ambassador’s report on the statement made by him and on the construction that has been placed upon it.

page 575

QUESTION

USE OF TERM “ COMMONWEALTH

Dr GAHA:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– When I was in London quite recently I noticed that, as the result of the meeting in that city last November of the organization we formerly knew as the Empire Parliamentary Association, which will meet again in New Zealand in November, 1950, the word “ Commonwealth “ now possesses a new significance. Formerly it connoted the federation of Australian States, whereas now it refers to the British Empire. If any constitutional amendments are to be placed before the people at the forthcoming election, will the Prime Minister consider seeking authority from the people to replace the term “Parliament of the Commonwealth “ by “ Australian Parliament “, so that the word “ Commonwealth “ may be used only to connote the wider concept of empire?

Mr Chifley:

– The Attorney-General will answer the question.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– The honorable member for Denison, whom we are all pleased to see in the chamber once more, has drawn attention to a term that, in some applications, presents a real difficulty. The present Government has already insisted that the association of British nations shall be known as the “ British Commonwealth of Nations “, but there is no doubt that there is a tendency to refer to it by the shortened form, “ The Commonwealth,” instead of by the use of the full and correct title. As the honorable member has mentioned, the name of the former Empire Parliamentary Association has now been changed. The organization is now known as the “ Commonwealth Parliamentary Association “, and, undoubtedly, the use of the term “ Commonwealth “ in two senses lias caused confusion. However, I point out that the term “Commonwealth” is of great historical importance to this country because it was selected by the fathers of the Australian Commonwealth, and it will always, I am sure, be retained.

Mr Blain:

– There should be a caesura after the “ Common “ !

Dr EVATT:

– .Unless the honorable member who has just interjected thinks that it is too socialistic to refer to Australia as a “ Commonwealth “, the real solution of the difficulty is to insist, as the present Government has done, that the British group of nations which includes the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other nations, should always be referred to as the “British Commonwealth of Nations “.

page 575

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Immigration by stating that an avowed Communist in England, by adopting an ingenious method of inserting an advertisement in a newspaper, ultimately found his way to Western Australia as an immigrant, and that he has since endeavoured, by using similar means, to bring his brother out here. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a cable from London which appeared in the Sydney Truth last Sunday to the effect that active Communists have been sneaking into Australia during the past three years because the screening by authorities-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member knows that he is not entitled to base questions on statements which appear in newspapers. He cannot act as a deputy for a newspaper.

Mr HAMILTON:

– Is it true that active Communists have sneaked into Australia during the last three years because the screening by authorities of fare-paying migrants has not been rigid enough? Have any representations been received from Australia House to the effect that the present system of screening migrants should be tightened up so that persons with Communist and anti-British sympathies may be detected? Will the Minister inform the House whether the present procedure for screening migrants so as to protect Australia from Communists and other undesirables is really effective ?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I saw the newspaper article to which the honorable member has referred, but I do not accept press statements as necessarily being correct. We generally regard them as being highly coloured even if there .may be some truth in, or justification for the statements made in them. I do not believe that the general denunciation of our system of screening that was contained in the article, which suggested that our security is endangered, was at all justified. That some people will get through is inevitable. No matter what we do, some people get through the screen who should not get through it. We have been told about some people, after they have left England or the Continent, who are socially undesirable for political or other reasons, and we have taken steps to prevent them from landing here, and they have been returned to their own country. We have heard that some people have entered Australia whose views are certainly not those of the great majority of the Australian people. Those migrants are advocates of some form of extra-parliamentary action, which is not popular. Our set-up in London provides that through our liaison with the British Security Service, we are advised of the characters of people who are likely to come to this country. The British security organizations thus help us to protect Australia from undesirables who desire to come here from the United Kingdom. We have a similar arrangement about European countries through our screening officers. They work in conjunction with the British and Americans, who have a much bigger organization than we have. In that way, we try to protect this country. I believe that, hy and large, we succeed very well. I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of the new Australians, whether they have come from Great Britain or from Europe, are very good people. I do not think that there is justification for the wild statements that one reads occasionally in the newspapers or hears from persons who are travelling to and from England to the effect that large numbers of people are entering this country whom the Australian people would not desire to have as permanent residents.

page 576

QUESTION

BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago, the Government of Queensland made representations to the Prime Minister in which it sought Commonwealth assistance to develop the Burdekin Valley, the potential of which is almost unlimited. Will the right honorable gentleman inform me whether the Commonwealth has reached a decision upon the request? If it has not done so, will he advise me of the exact stage the negotiations have reached?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Approximately twelve months ago, the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Hanlon, suggested to me that, as the Commonwealth had joined with the Government of Western Australia in undertaking certain national developmental works, we might consider joining with the Queensland Government in developing a large irrigation scheme on the Burdekin River. I informed Mr. Hanlon, after I had conferred with my colleagues, that if he would forward copies of the proposals, the Commonwealth would follow the same procedure as it adopted when the Government of Western Australia made its request, and appoint a special committee of experts to examine the plan with a view to ascertaining whether the Commonwealth could appropriately join with the State in the work. A plan was formulated by the Co-ordinator-General of Works in Queensland, Mr. Kemp, who is a very capable officer, but further work on it was delayed’ for some time because he was busy with the Overseas Food Corporation. However, six weeks ago, Mr. Hanlon forwarded to me a number of copies of the proposals that had been prepared by his experts, and in accordance with our promise, we have appointed a special committee to discuss the whole scheme with the Queensland officials. The chairman of that committee is the Director-General of Works and Housing, Mr. Loder, and the members are an assistant secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Nette, an officer of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, Mr. Crawford, and an officer of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction, Mr. Lambert. The committee will submit a report and recommendations to the Commonwealth. If that is satisfactory, the Government proposes to see whether it is possible to reach agreement with the Queensland Government for the development of this project.

page 577

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Missing Aircraft

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Air give me any information regarding the aircraft reported yesterday to be missing from the Royal Australian Air Force station at Sale?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– I cannot give any conclusive information, but I am able to supply some particulars. Three aircraft, including the missing machine, took off at East Sale at five-minute intervals yesterday at 1430 hours for the purpose of familiarizing the trainee navigators on approaches and the local surroundings. The duration of the flights was to be two hours. The training area was bounded by Lakes Entrance, Dargo, Erica and Port Albert. The radius of the area from Sale was approximately 40 miles. The crew consisted of a captain, second pilot, a signaller and two navigation trainees. Each of the aircraft had fuel for four hours. The weather was broken cloud at 3,000 feet, with some slight showers. The missing aircraft was positively identified by one of the other two aircraft over Lakes Entrance at 1500 hours, and reliable reports have been received that the machine was seen at 1530 hours heading for Sale. It was again observed at 1610 hours over Port Albert at an estimated height of 500 feet. Immediately the missing machine became overdue, three Anson aircraft took off, and flew over the flying area until dark last evening without seeing any evidence of it. At first light this morning, four Ansons carried out a parallel track sweep over the training area. They returned to refuel, and three were then despatched to complete the unfinished part of the area. The fourth Anson was detailed to sweep the coastal areas as far as Orbost. Those aircraft are still in the air. At 1230 hours to-day, two Dakotas were despatched to search the swamp and wooded country in the south-west corner of the flying area,a report having been received that an aircraft was spotted in the Yarram-Fish Creek area. Those Dakotas are still airborne. If nothing eventuates from these searches, it is proposed to use two Lincolns to cover the mountainous region within the training area. The next of kin of each member of the crew has been informed, and I take this opportunity to express the Government’s sympathy with them in their great anxiety.

page 577

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Earlier this year the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture stated that the Government would not give a financial guarantee in respect of the 1949-50 Tasmanian apple and pear crop, but since then he has stated that the Government might give favorable consideration to so doing. Will the Minister say whether a decision will be made in the near future?

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

– At the end of last year, or in the early part of this year, the Government announced that it would not continue the apple and pear acquisition schemes in Tasmania and Western Australia. Very strong requests for the continuance of the schemes have been made by the fruit-growers of Western Australia. They have been supported by the Government of Western Australia and by the Commonwealth Minister for Works and Housing. It is possible that similar requests will be made by the fruit-growers of Tasmania. If they are, they will probably be supported by the honorable member for Franklin. The Government will make a decision at an early date. It will be announced in time to meet the marketing needs of the fruitgrowers of Western Australia and Tasmania.

page 577

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr HAYLEN:

– Will the Minister for Repatriation say whether there is any provision in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act with respect to the care and education of the children of war widows? If such a provision exists, will the Minister say what the Government has done in regard to the care and education of such children?

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

– There is a provision in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act that relates to the care and education of the children of war widows. The provision is of such a nature that the children’s education is provided for from the time that they enter a primary school until, in some instances, they leave a university. When the children of war widows reach the age of sixteen years and are no longer entitled to a pension, they may receive a special educational allowance. If they enter into apprenticeships, apprenticeship allowances are paid. The provisions of the act are such that the children of war widows are educated in a much better manner than are the children of tradesmen or persons in the middle income groups. In addition, there is an excellent organization that devotes a great deal of time and money to their care. I refer to Legacy.

Mr White:

– I rise to order. The question that has been asked by the honorable member for Parkes relates to Government assistance to the children of war widows. Legacy has nothing to do with the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Balaclava has not raised a point of order. I consider it to be more a point of interference.

Mr BARNARD:

– The care of war widows’ children by the Repatriation Department is very thorough and complete. It has received the approbation of all persons who know what is being done by the department. Legacy supplements the work of the department. I do not think that the provision that is made in the United Kingdom or in other British-speaking countries for the care and education of war widows’ children is comparable with the provision that is made for their care and education in this country.

page 578

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Temporary Chairmen of Committees - Photographs of Proceedings

Mr WHITE:

– My question is addressed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall explain it by stating that it will be seen from the notice-paper that thirteen Temporary Chairmen of Committees were appointed by the Parliament to assist in the discharge of the business of the Parliament. Six of them aremembers of the Opposition. They are Mr. Abbott, Mr. Bowden, Mr. Gullett, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Rankin and Mr. Ryan. It appears that those six honorable members have rarely been called on-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! What is the honorable gentleman’s question ?

Mr WHITE:

– It seems that the Bibical text, “For many are called but few are chosen “ has operated in reverse in relation to the Temporary Chairmen of Committees who belong to the Opposition parties. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you remember when a member of the Opposition who has been appointed as a Temporary Chairman of Committees was last called to the chair? Will you request the Clerk of the House to prepare a statement showing how many times a member of the Opposition has taken the chair in committee during the period of office of this Government?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that honorable members from ‘both sides of the House have been appointed as Temporary Chairmen of Committees to act in that capacity when called upon to do so. The Government has some responsibility in connexion with the conduct of the business in the House. There have been occasions when members of the Opposition have been called to the chair in committee.

Mr White:

– When were they?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Balaclava had’ been in the chamber on those occasions, he would have knowledge of them. Thehonorable member for Flinders has been called to the chair.

Mr White:

– Approximately two years ago.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Bendigo and othermembers of the Opposition also have been called to the chair. I do not know that the Chair is required to answer a question of this kind, but in view of the importance of the point that has been raised by the honorable member for Balaclava I have given him this explanation.

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– I inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have just been handed a copy of a letter from the Serjeant-at-Arms to the Opposition Whip, indicating that permission has been given for the Department of” Information to take certain photographs- of the House in session to-morrow morning. Has it not been the practice to consult the wishes of the House before any such permission is given ? Why has that practice been departed from in this instance?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I understand that the action that has been taken is in conformity with the practice of the House. The precedent laid down by Mr. Speaker is that photographs may be taken in the chamber, but only during question time and with the knowledge of honorable members, and I understand that that practice will be followed.

Mr Harrison:

– But surely only with the permission of honorable members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have been a member of this House for fifteen years and during that time I have never been consulted about whether I would have my photograph taken or not.

Mr Harrison:

– But the leader of your party has been so consulted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that the usual practice is being followed. If honorable members have -any objection to the taking of photographs in this particular instance, I am prepared to refer the matter to the various parties.

page 579

QUESTION

TIMBER

Dr GAHA:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs. I understand -that dunnage, which is sawn timber that is used in the stowing of cargoes that come to this country, is subject to import duty if shipping companies cause it to be unloaded from ships and placed upon wharfs in Australia.” Consequently, many of the ships that bring cargoes to this country dump huge quantities of sawn timber overboard when they are just off the Australian coast. That timber would be of great use to the people of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! What is the honorable gentleman’s q question ?

Dr GAHA:

– I consider it to be my -duty to direct attention to this matter so that it may be rectified.

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– A question similar -to that which has been asked by the hon. orable member for Denison was asked recently by the honorable member for Bourke. A comprehensive answer was supplied to her, and I understand that an undertaking was given to supply further information. I am sure that when the honorable member for Bourke has received that information, she will be delighted to communicate it to the honorable member for Denison.

page 579

QUESTION

COAL

Iron and Steel Products

Mr HARRISON:

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to recent press reports of statements, attributed to Mr. C. H. Ferrier, the president of the Metal Trades Employers’ Association, that there will be a serious shortage of galvanized iron, reinforcing rods, spun piping, cast iron basins, sinks and baths. Will the right honorable gentleman inform the House whether those statements are in accordance with fact? Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Mr. Ferrier requesting that the steel industry be given the highest priority in relation to coal supplies until the domestic market i3 fully supplied with locallyproduced iron and steel? If he has received such a request will he give an undertaking that he will direct the coal authorities to ensure that steel works receive some priority in the supply of coal? What is the approximate daily output of coal from open cuts in New South Wales? How does it compare with the production that was achieved by the troops who worked the open cuts during the recent coal strike? Has the production of coal increased as a result of the directive of the Joint Coal Board that multiple shifts shall be worked in open cuts? If so, to what degree has it increased ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Representations along the lines that have been mentioned by the honorable member for Wentwortb have been made to me by the Metal Trades Employers’ Association. Som.6 complaints have been made that exports of steel and steel products from this country have been permitted. It is true that limited quantities of those materials have been allowed to be exported to New Zealand. That country is one of our best customers in normal times, and on many occasions we have obtained from it com modities that- we have been unable to obtain elsewhere. It is also true that steel products have been exported to islands in the Pacific and to Papua and New Guinea, in respect of which Australia has some degree of responsibility. I cannot go into the full details of the allotment of steel products that have been made and permitted in respect of those places. Export of steel products to New Zealand has been announced. It has amounted to some tens of thousands of tons. The answer to one portion of the honorable member’s question is, therefore, that there is an export of various steel products to countries that badly need- them and that are closely associated with Australia in the Pacific area. With respect to the production of coal I can say that coal production in. the last three weeks, at any rate - and these are the only figures that I have seen recently - has amounted to over 280,000 tons a week which is the highest rate of production that has been achieved for some time. The Government and the Joint Coal Board are fully alive to the fact that steel production can be very greatly increased provided ample coal is available to meet the needs of the steel industry. That particular aspect of the matter is receiving every attention. The steel industry is a’ basic industry upon the production of which many other industries depend, and its production depends in turn upon it obtaining its full requirement of coal to enable it to work at its full capacity, which is about 1,750,000 tons a year. Last year it was stated that the industry was producing at only 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, of its total capacity.

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

– How does present production from open-cut mines compare with the production achieved by troops during the recent coal strike?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– When the_ honorable gentleman speaks about multiple shifts it must be remembered that one of the difficulties in the earlier stages of working open-cuts is to obtain sufficient men to do the work. When the troops worked the open-cut mines during the recent coal

Strike all the men required were put on to the job. I understand that in some instances at present multiple shifts are working very well, and as the staff is augmented and improved plant is introduced there will be a great improvement in production. It must be remembered also that the troops were working seven days a week Miners and members of the other unions associated with the working of multiple shifts work on only five days a week. I understand that in some instances there has been a reduction of the rate of production due to rains which caused flooding of open-cuts, but I was informed on Sunday morning, when I discussed the matter, that the general results have been very satisfactory and will continue to be so.

page 580

EDUCATION

Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · Corio · ALP

– by leave - The Government has decided to establish a permanent Commonwealth scholarship scheme at the university level. Three thousand scholarships will be made available annually by the Australian Government to assist able students to undertake university, technical college and certain other approved professional courses. The scheme will be known as the “ Commonwealth scholarship scheme “ and will be administered by the Universities Commission. It will cost £900,000 a year when it is fully operating. It will begin in 1951 and will replace the present Commonwealth financial assistance scheme which, to date, has assisted 5,880 able students at universities and technical colleges at a cost of £1,300,000. The Commonwealth financial assistance scheme was an interim measure designed to ensure that none of Australia’s ablest students would be deprived through lack of means, of a higher education. In general, the new scholarships will he entrance scholarships and will be of one type. Selection will be on a free, competitive examination basis in each State, and the total number of scholarships available in each year will be divided among the States on a population basis. Provision is made in the scheme, however, for the selection of special groups of students to enter particular faculties if the numbers entering in those faculties do not seem to be sufficient to meet the needs of the country.

Students who accept these scholarships will not he subject to any special obligations and will receive the same benefits as all other scholarship holders.

The winners of .scholarships will be able to apply their scholarships towards training in all first degree university courses, in most diploma courses at universities which are not post-graduate, in technical college diploma courses and in other professional courses. Winners of scholarships will be medically examined and it is hoped that medical advice will avoid any health troubles during the students’ courses.

Scholarships will be awarded entirely on merit, and all scholarships will entitle the holders to payment of tuition and other compulsory fees without any means test. In addition, scholars will be entitled to a living allowance subject to a means test. The means test, however, will be more liberal than the test that was applied under the interim scheme. The maximum living allowance will be £130 a year for a student living at home and £169 a year for a student not living at home. The maximum assistance will be payable when the adjusted family income does not exceed £300 per annum. Under the interim scheme the maximum was £250 pei’ annum. In calculating the adjusted income, an allowance of £100 will be made for the first other dependent child under the age of sixteen. Under the present scheme a deduction of only £50 is allowed. The assistance will be reduced by £3 for every £10 by which the adjusted income exceeds £300 per annum. The rate of deduction under the interim scheme was recently reduced from £5 4s. for every £10 to £4 for every £10. An important departure under the new scheme will be the provision of a limited number of “ mature age “ scholarships to make provision for able students who were unable to take higher education at the time of leaving school. Under this provision the maximum living allowance for a “ mature age “ scholarship holder will be £169 per annum. If a “mature age “ scholarship holder is married, he will receive an additional allowance of £1 4s. a week for his wife and 9s. a week for the first child under sixteen years of age. The “ mature age “ scholar who is a single man will be entitled to have an income of £1 10s. a week without affecting these allowances, and, similarly, if the scholar is married, he and his wife together will be entitled to have an income of £3 a week without affecting their allowances. I repeat that the new scholarship scheme will come into operation in 1951 and that the present interim financial assistance scheme will continue next year. I lay on the table the following paper: -

Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme - Ministerial Statement. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 581

QUESTION

BUDGET 1949-50

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from the 23rd September (vide page 566), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the first item in the Estimates under Division No. 1 - Senate - namely, “ Salaries and Allowances, £12,400 “, be agreed to.

Mr WILLIAMS:
Robertson

– When the committee reported progress on Friday I was dealing with the outstanding achievements of the Government. As further evidence of the solid progress that has been made in this country under Labour’s administration, I cite the following, statement by Mr. Staniforth Ricketson, chairman of Capel Court Investment Company, an organization that holds investments in not less than 217 companies mainly in Australia and New Zealand: -

Some Australians may perhaps overemphasize their own political and industrial troubles, but careful examination of political, financial and economic conditions in all countries will disclose, I feel, that Australia now is predominantly the best practicable field, and the one offering the most attractions, for the investment of British capital, both directly and indirectly in the stocks of existing stable and expanding companies.

Judging from that statement which the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) quoted in the last financial statement that he presented to the Parliament, it would hardly appear that the Labour Government is destroying private enterprise. When a gentleman of Mr. Ricketson’s standing in the commercial world states plainly that Australia now offers the best scope for the investment of British capital, he gives the lie direct to the claims made by honorable members opposite that the Government is not encouraging private “enterprise in this country. The question, Would you say your life is usually very happy, fairly happy, or rather unhappy ? “ was submitted at a gallup poll that was taken recently in this country and also in other, countries, including Holland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Norway and France. and 93 per cent, of Australians questioned stated that they are fairly happy whilst 53 per cent, stated that they are very happy. The reason they gave for their answers was that they are better off to-day in every way than they have ever been before. One does not find a happy people under a bad government, because the happiness of a community depends primarily upon a good government.

I shall briefly give some of the reasons why the great majority of Australians are happy under the present Government. There is no unemployment in this country. So long as the Labour Government remains in office there will be no depression in Australia. Therefore, the fear of want and the fear of the future does not exist under the present Government. Many millions of pounds are being expended in the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel and in the provision of adequate war pensions. [Quorum formed.’] Our economic position is sound. In fact, it is the envy of all other countries. Our credit overseas stands higher to-day than at any time in our history. Our overseas indebtedness and payments in respect of interest overseas have been reduced by millions of pounds annually during the term of office of this Government. Since 1938-39 deposits in savings banks have increased by £420,000,000. Direct taxes, compared with collections at the peak war period, have been reduced by £170,000,000 a year whilst indirect taxes have been removed from all basic foodstuffs and clothing and from 95 per cent, of building materials. The primary producer was never more prosperous than he is to-day because practically all primary industries have been placed on a sound economic basis and markets for their products have been ex- panded. Social services benefits and pensions have been extended to most sections of the people and, in the main, are more liberal than- those provided in any other countries. Secondary industries have been developed to a considerable degree and investments in such industries have been increased by millions of pounds. The balance-sheets of the great majority of companies in this country reveal increased profits and dividends. The Government has pressed ahead with its policy of decentralization with the result that large factories have been established in many country towns. Good prices have been obtained for our primary products mainly under contracts arranged by the Government with the United Kingdom Government. Advanced educational and technical training facilities have been provided for our young people.

Nothing like the same degree of progress could have been made under a government composed of the Opposition parties which are constantly squabbling amongst themselves. I cite, for instance, the quarrel that occurred between the Liberal party and the Australian Country party in Victoria earlier this year and which resulted in the break-up of the Liberal-Country party composite government in that State. In the course of that quarrel Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Victorian Country party, roundly abused Mr. Hollway, the Liberal Premier of that State. He referred to Mr. Hollway as “ This contemptible political ratbag “. [Quorum formed.] The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) has now called twice for a quorum because he is annoyed that any supporter of the Government should attempt to answer the lying and vicious propaganda that he and his colleagues are “ putting over “.

Mr White:

– I rise to order, Mr. Temporary Chairman. The honorable member’s remark is offensive to me, and I ask that he withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As the honorable member for Balaclava says that the statement is offensive to him, I ask the honorable member for Robertson to withdraw it.

Mr WILLIAMS:

– I withdraw it. However, some of the references that Mr.

McDonald, the leader of the Victorian Country party, has recently applied to the Liberal Premier of that State have been “ This contemptible political ratbag “, “ This king of disruptionists “, and “ This arch-disruptionist “. He has also stated that Mr. Hollway “has done more intrigue than ever Sir Albert Dunstan thought about “. Sir Albert Dunstan, another prominent member of the Victorian Country party, applied the following terms to Mr. Hollway: - “A craven cur “, “ a worm-like politician with a bloated head and shrunken back “, “ a puppet Premier “, “ an arrogant dictator “. He has also stated that Mr. Hollway has been “ the weakest Premier in the history of Victoria”.

How could the people of this country again, trust parties now sitting in Opposition with the reins of government? Honorable members opposite cannot even agree amongst themselves for two minutes. They have no worth-while leadership, and would be fighting from the time that they became the government until they were disbanded by disruption. I stress that honorable members on the Government side of the chamber are fortunate to have real leadership to which they give undivided support. Ours is a solid and united party. While Labour is in office the people of this great land will continue to be prosperous. The newspaper advertisements that have appeared recently on behalf of the Opposition are lying and vicious. After reading them it is little wonder that the people doubt the intelligence not only of members of the Opposition but also people outside of the Parliament who assist them. I remind honorable members that’ during last week-end the Liberals conducted a “ Hitler “ camp in my electorate. It was impossible to gain admittance without producing “the old. school tie “. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) would have had no difficulty in gaining admission. Although the people who attended that camp appeared to have the idea that a set of socialites could run this country, I point out that even the elements rebelled against that idea by washing the camp out. My only comment is that if those who attended the meeting benefited educationally, they needed such an uplift, as is evidenced by the following report in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald: -

page 583

QUESTION

LIBERALS’ PLANS- -DESOCIALISING INDUSTRY

The State council of the Liberal party decided last night to adopt a vigorous policy of desocialization including where practicable the selling of socialized undertakings if the party is returned to power. Mr. A. D. Bridges, M.L.C., said he objected to the words “ where practicable” in the proposal. “I am opposed to socialization in any form,” he said. “ It is no justification of socialization to say that it can run an undertaking at a profit. A great trouble with this party is that we say we favour free enterprise, but we also favour some forms of socialization. We are not going to lose any votes if we deny any adherence to any form of socialization.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr DAVIDSON:
Capricornia

– This debate has already furnished some interesting evidence of the fears which are obsessing the minds of honorable members on the Government side of the chamber. The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams) has betrayed the anxiety of the Government about the reaction of the people to its socialist policy, and to its record with relation to communism. This has become obvious and we have seen signs of a definite plan being evolved to try to offset the fears of the electors. The honorable member for Robertson endeavoured to discredit the leaders of the parties sitting in Opposition by saying that they subscribe to different policies, and he endeavoured to link up communism with the Opposition parties. This is pure “ window-dressing “ for the forthcoming general election, and arises from a definite fear that the wrath of the electors is about to be visited on the heads of the people responsible for the present state of affairs. During this debate the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) said that the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) is irresponsible. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that fair criticism offered by any person of mental calibre equal to that of the right honorable gentleman would be tolerated. Such criticism by the honorable member for Hume, however, can only be discountedas impudence and hypocrisy. As every one with even an elementary knowledge of politics in this country knows, the right honorable gentleman is not a person whose life was made easy for him. From humble beginnings he fought his way up by sheer ability and application, to the highest place in the political life in Australia. Such criticism by an honorable member who has not proved himself is indeed ironical. I point out that the right honorable gentleman’s association with country interests throughout his life-time renders him eminently fitted to occupy his present position. He applies himself assiduously to the task that he has undertaken, with little consideration for his own personal interests. Honoable members on this side of the chamber will not therefore tolerate the comments of the honorable member for Hume which were designed^ evidently, to offset the result of the right honorable gentleman’s exposure of the real intention of the Australian Labour party with relation to socialization. I contend that during the last two or three years the right honorable gentleman has given repeated indication of his capacity in matters of major policy. I refer to his announcements from time to time about the possibility and practicability of reducing taxes. On every occasion that he has pointed out that it would be possible to effect a major reduction in taxes his judgment has been pooh-poohed by Government members, although months afterwards the Government has adopted the policy that he has advocated. The right honorable gentleman pointed out quite plainly that petrol rationing could have been abolished in this country long ago. It is now found that the statements that the right honorable gentleman made and the information that he furnished concerning this burning question cannot be gainsaid by the Government. If the parties now sitting in Opposition are elected to office those statements will be proved. But if, by some mischance, the Australian Labour party should be returned to power, I have no doubt that the right honorable gentleman’s proposals to relieve the petrol position will be adopted. More than six months ago he suggested that the possibility of obtaining a dollar loan, either from the United States of America or through the International Monetary

Fund, should be investigated with a view to overcoming the present difficult position, and enabling us to obtain equipment needed for the development of this country. As honorable members are aware, the Government is now tardily beginning to think along those lines. The right honorable gentleman has indeed applied himself thoroughly to his task, and it is becoming increasingly evident that his vilification by the honorable member for Hume has been occasioned because of the fear that his exposures will adversely affect the prospects of the Australian Labour party candidates at the forthcoming general election. It is on all fours with the smear policy pursued by the Communists.

When the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) participated in this debate he attempted to show that there was a difference of opinion between the two political party leaders on this side of the chamber with relation to devaluation. He said that whilst the Leader of the Liberal party had said that devaluation was acceptable, the Leader of the Australian Country party had said that it was not acceptable. That is not a correct statement of the position. As a matter of fact in a speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), that the honorable member for Fremantle designated as a coldly analytical statement on devaluation, the right honorable gentleman dealt with the position that he saw arising under devaluation generally. It will be remembered that he mentioned, in general terms, some of the factors that could possibly discount the benefits that the British Government hoped would accrue from the devaluation of sterling. It was an address of great value to all those who heard it. The Leader of the Australian Country party followed with a speech that was typical of him. He gave a detailed dissection of the probable effects of the operation of devaluation. The speech contained much information that was of great value to all those who seek enlightenment on this subject. He pointed out, as it was his duty to point out, that although many benefits would accrue to primary producers from devaluation, there would be certain disadvantages, because much of the heavy equipment which is still badly needed in rural areas in this country would cost considerably more than it was costing at present. On that point, the honorable member for Fremantle based his suggestion that there, was no unity between the two Opposition parties on the devaluation issue; but the statement by the Leader of the Australian Country party that heavy equipment, including tractors, required by primary industries will cost more now that sterling has been devalued is quite correct. It is a plain statement of fact, and- does not represent a difference of opinion with the Leader of the Opposition. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that that is so. In my opinion the decision to devalue sterling was one that the British Parliament was quite entitled to make. It is a decision in which we are naturally interested and about which we may feel some misgivings - misgivings which we hope will prove unfounded. “We accept the decision of the British Parliament. The important factor from our point of view is that the relation between the pound sterling find the pound Australian has been maintained. This has involved, of course, a depreciation of Australian currency against the dollar. However, in accepting devaluation as being, in the main, probably advantageous to Australia, there is no line of demarcation between the Opposition parties.

There is a marked tendency amongst some honorable members opposite to disown socialism and the socialization plan that has been followed by the Government during the last two or three years. For instance, the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) cannot deny that the Labour platform definitely provides for the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange; yet in his speech a few days ago, in an attempt to “ get out from under “ he put forward the most naive suggestion that no party really expects to implement the planks of its platform. He said that Labour supporters realized fully that a referendum of the people would be required to permit the implementation of the socialistic proposals now appearing so plainly on the Labour platform. That statement, coming from one who has spoken on this matter so definitely in the past, can only be described as amusing. Not much more than a year ago, the honorable member was one of those who flatly, and emphatically, refused the demand from this side of the chamber for a referendum on the nationalization of banking. How often did Opposition members demand when the banking legislation was before the House that that proposal be placed before the people? How often did Government representatives refuse to accede to this request ? I remind the committee of the reasons given for that refusal. We on this side of the chamber were told that there was no need for a referendum on the nationalization of banking because that had been a plank of Labour’s platform for many years. Honorable members opposite said “ The people know it is there, and they have returned us to power. Therefore, we do not need to hold a. referendum. We already have a mandate “. Is that not the complete opposite of the story that is being told by the honorable member for Hume at this late hour on the eve of the elections ? In view of this obvious contradiction, I am sure that what the honorable member and his colleagues have to say to the people now will receive little credence.

The approach to this matter by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) was more subtle. He too claimed that a referendum would be necessary before the Government could proceed with its socialization plans, but that is merely an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the electors. Then the honorable member lumped together certain essential services of a type that are fostered by all governments, regardless of their political complexion. He referred, for instance, to the provision of adequate town water supplies, hydro-electric schemes to provide cheap power and light throughout the country, stabilized markets, guaranteed prices, and education. He placed all these services in the same category as certain socialistic schemes, such as free medicine, government airlines and government shipping lines. Here we saw the subtlety of his argument. Relying on the universal acceptance by the electors of the essential services to which I have referred, he said, in effect, “ If that is socialism, I am all for it”. He hoped that the really socialistic measures that he had added at the end of his list would be regarded as being under the same umbrella cover. Of course, the provision of essential services by local governing authorities and governmentsponsored bodies is not socialism. Nor is the provision of stabilized markets and guaranteed prices socialism, because in the operation of these instrumentalities, the people most vitally concerned have the right to determine what they will do, and how they will do it. Who will argue that under a scheme for the organized marketing of primary products the growers have not the right to decide what crops they will grow and what quantities they will -grow! Will any one suggest that an -organized marketing scheme means that a farmer cannot own his land, because that is what socialism means ? This vital difference must be stated clearly and emphatically so that people will not be misled by these shrewd attempts to mislead them. Under the instrumentalities which the honorable member for Wilmot attempted to suggest were pure socialism, lae individual retains his unfettered right to determine how he shall live. That is the right we are fighting for. The type of socialism that we are fighting is that which the honorable member for Hume embraced some time ago. On the 29th September, 1943, he said that by a decree of the Commonwealth, all land, whether alienated or not, should be taken out of the control of the States and placed under the control of the Commonwealth Parliament and that the Commonwealth Parliament should assume supreme control of all land and all other national resources, including money. That is the type of socialism we are fighting - not the provision of stabilized prices for primary products. The same kind of socialism was referred to in 1948 by the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) who claimed that the Government should acquire and put into production all land held idle f or speculation, and that similar action should be taken with all workshops, mines, and anything else needed for the essential service of the people, which was not being fully used. That is what we are fighting. We are fighting the kind of socialism that is supported by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), who said some time ago at Ballarat that the Labour party had a master plan for total socialization. There is a vast difference between that plan and the inference that some honorable members opposite draw from the policy of the Opposition parties, and I am glad to be able to devote some of my time to making that difference plain. It must be remembered that the kind of socialization that I have just instanced is that to which all honorable members opposite are pledged. No amount of camouflage can blind the people to that fact. In introducing the budget the Treasurer referred to the important subject of international trade and payments. He referred to the crisis through which the sterling areas are at present passing as the result of the lack of balance between the dollar and sterling, to the effect of that crisis on the United Kingdom and ako on Australia, and to the attempts that have been made by the United States of America, through loans and Marshall aid, to assist in the solution of the problems that have arisen. These matters were discussed at the recent conference in London at which Australia was represented by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman). The Treasurer made what appeared to me to be a very significant statement when he said -

It will be clear that, apart from longer term considerations, the issues being discussed in Washington have a critical present importance. Further restriction of imports, whilst necessary to check the fall in gold and dollar reserves, obviously cannot be carried beyond certain limits without causing grave dislocation to industries and standards of living in the countries concerned. In any case, it can of itself contribute nothing to the solution of the dollar problem which requires a positive effort to lift levels nf trade rather than to reduce them.

When I read that statement, with which I am completely in accord, it seemed that at least there would be some reason to hope that the policy of inaction and despair which the Government had pursued for so long would give way to positive action. It was interesting to learn that the Treasurer himself had agreed that the restriction of imports could not be carried beyond certain limits without causing grave dislocation of industries and standards of living. Surely those limits were reached long ago in Australia. The right honorable gentleman also agreed that the solution of the dollar problem required a positive effort to lift levels of trade. Let us examine for a moment the factors that have given rise to this position. The war smashed, the economy of the sterling areas and built up the economy of the dollar areas. Following the war, the sterling areas were faced with a difficult task of i rehabilitation which demanded, first, that the sterling areas should import food and raw materials from the dollar areas, and, secondly, that they should be able to export to the dollar areas to pay for those imports. Success depended on the ultimate Ability of the sterling areas to increase their exports until they more than balanced imports. The method which prevailed before the war, by which the sterling areas balanced adverse trade balances with the dollar areas by relying on sterling investments in the dollar areas, had gone. Sterling investments in the dollar areas had been liquidated for the purpose of carrying on the war. Therefore, something had to be done to bring about a favorable trade balance. The United States, realizing the almost impossible task that confronted the sterling areas, helped them considerably with loans and with Marshall aid. Britain, itself, made a mighty effort to overcome the position. But in spite of that we are still facing the same problem which largely remains unsolved. Let us consider the Australian position for it is to the Australian position that we must apply ourselves if we are to help materially to overcome these difficulties. We now claim to be one of the major nations of the world and it is our duty to make a positive rather than a negative contribution to this problem. What role are we to play? That question has faced us for the last two or three years. Are we to play a passive, a negative or a waiting role, or are we to justify our claims to recognition as a major nation by making a positive contribution? It must be realized that because of the character of our main exports and because of our partial development we cannot hope to play a major part as a direct dollar earner. There are, however, certain avenues open to us for indirectly assisting the sterling areas. First, we must build up our internal economy rapidly so that our drain on the dollar position will be lessened and our markets improved. Secondly, we must build up our exports, particularly of food, to the sterling areas so that their drain on the dollar areas will be lessened. Immediately we apply ourselves to that problem it becomes evident that if we are to make a positive contribution, we shall need a large quantity of capital equipment to develop our productive capacity. The need for increased production has been, canvassed in this Parliament from time to time. During this debate the question whether there has or has not been an in, crease of production in recent years under the administration of this Government, has been very keenly contested. Statistics have been quoted by honorable members on both sides of the chamber to show on the one hand that production has greatly increased, and on the other hand to prove-, that there has been no increase of production. Whether or not our production has increased, if we are to extricate ourselves from the difficulties that now confront us we shall have to increase production very materially above its present level. In order to do so we shall have to import capital equipment which will impose a drain on the dollar pool. Faced with the choice of taking a bold step involving an initial drain on the dollar pool, or of paring our commitments to the bone, hoping that the United Kingdom would be able eventually to recover and that we would then be able to climb on the band waggon, the Government chose a negative policy with the result that we are now no more capable of making a, positive contribution than wc were three years ago. I have referred to the hope engendered by the Treasurer’s statement that restriction of itself could contribute nothing to the solution of the dollar prob-lem. That hope was very short-lived; because the right honorable gentleman, went on to say -

Thu Government has decided to adopt the recommendations of the London conference and, as already announced, has reduced allocations of licences in the September quarter for imports of goods from the dollar area. The. aim is to reduce dollar expenditure on imports, to 75 per cent, of the 1948 level a3 quickly- et possible. This means that there will have to be a substantial reduction in dollar expenditure by government departments as well as cuts in practically all the major categories of commercial dollar imports. Dollar imports were already severely restricted in 1948.

I invite honorable members to compare those two statements. The Treasurer has said that restriction of imports obviously could not be carried beyond certain limits, and that in any case a policy of restriction of itself could contribute nothing to the solution of the dollar problem. The right honorable gentleman said that we needed to make a positive effort to lift the levels of trade.- Then he went on to announce that imports, which had already been restricted in 1948, were to be restricted by an additional 25 per cent. Was that the positive effort which the right honorable gentleman had in mind? Is it not time that we took some bold, positive action to overcome our difficulties by our own efforts ? It is idle for us to sit fearfully, doing nothing, hoping that as the result of our inaction and the effort of the United1 Kingdom, that nation will recover eventually, and will carry Australia with it. The present policy of slashing our imports must have the effect of reducing our capacity to export goods to dollar areas as well as to sterling areas.

I propose now to review very briefly certain proposals that have been made for the development of this country. If those proposals were implemented they would certainly increase our capacity to export to both dollar and sterling areas. Take, for example, beef. Within the last fortnight the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture stated, in reply to a question that I had asked him, that the Government hoped by the 1st October to make an .announcement of a big meat deal with Great Britain, but that in the meantime the details of the deal would he kept secret. However, because of a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), on his return from Great Britain, we know that the Government proposes to negotiate a 15-year contract with Great Britain. That contract provides that the export of meat to that country shall be increased to 400,000 tons annually. That is a fine conception, which will commend itself to all honorable members. At the same time, we must realize that the production of such a huge quantity of meat will involve a tremendous effort on the part of our graziers. In recent years the export of meat to Great Britain has not exceeded more than 100,000 tons, and if the conditions with which the industry has to contend at present are not improved, the output of meat is more likely to decrease than to increase. Recently I heard a responsible man prophesy that unless action was taken to overcome the difficulties that at present confront primary producers, we shall be faced with the possibility of having to import meat within the next ten years. In the light of present conditions, therefore, a fourfold increase of our meat export is a most formidable undertaking, and whilst the grazing industry must attempt to carry out that task, the responsibility for providing proper assistance to primary producers devolves upon the Government. It has already announced certain plans to expand the production of meat. Those plans are chiefly concerned with the development of certain roads in the Northern Territory, and the provision of means of ingress and egress to the channel country in western Queensland. The construction of roads is undoubtedly necessary, but I point out that, of itself, the construction of roads will not produce one additional head of stock. Before the roads are constructed we must be assured that there is good reason to believe that the number of stock will be increased. I emphasize that the important thing is to increase our stock. Whilst I agree with the Government that the Northern Territory and the channel country of Queensland must ultimately be developed, I am convinced that we should seek some more rapid means of increasing our pastoral products. Vast areas of Australia which are at present being used for pastoral purposes are not carrying anything like the number of stock of which they are capable. It may surprise honorable members to know that more than one-third of the cattle in Queensland are located within 150 miles of Rockhampton. There is no immediate need to open up new grazing areas in central Queensland. By increasing the carrying capacity of existing grazing areas in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia our export of meat can be considerably increased. The carrying capacity of those areas can be substantially increased by the subdivision of large properties, the provision of adequate water facilities, the growing of fodder crops and by other means that are at present denied to primary producers because of the shortage of agricultural machinery. Is it realized generally that many cattle properties have not a proper boundary fence, much less fences between their subdivisions, and that it is absolutely impossible to obtain fencing wire? If graziers have to continue to permit their cattle to roam at will over their properties through lack of fences, there cannot be proper rotation of pastures, and the stock must suffer in consequence. Therefore, an adequate supply of fencing wire must be available ; but if graziers have to depend on Australian production of tractors, wire, .and other essentials, many years will elapse before they can obtain sufficient of them. For one thing, at least ten years will have elapsed before sufficient tractors will have become available under present import restrictions to fulfil the current demand. I repeat that the Government must adopt a bold, positive policy to overcome the difficulties caused by dollar deficits, and that the present administration’s policy of reducing still further the inadequate supply of dollar goods will not assist us.

Another matter that is of considerable importance is the supply of an adequate quantity of petrol, which is the life blood of primary industry. Australian primary producers have been starved of this life Wood for too long. The difficulties caused by the shortage of petrol, and suggestions that rationing should be reintroduced, and that petrol might be obtained from sterling areas, have been the subject of considerable debate in this chamber and I do not propose to pursue those suggestions any further at the moment. I content myself with pointing out now that invaluable assistance could be given not only to Australia but to the entire sterling area by establishing and extending refineries. That would, of course, involve the expenditure of many dollars. This is a matter in which we must move quickly. The Prime Minister has already assured honorable mem bers that ample supplies of crude oil are available in Australia. There is considerable promise of the discovery of flow oil in Central Queensland and New Guinea. After a long period of scout boring around Rolleston in Central Queensland a company has announced its intention to commence deep boring, and I understand that favorable indications of the presence of flow oil in New Guinea also have been observed. But suppose that a substantial quantity of flow oil was discovered in Central Queensland or in New Guinea to-morrow, would we bc any better off? Undoubtedly we should benefit ultimately, but in the meantime the lack of refining machinery, due to the policy of the present Government, would prevent us from taking advantage of the presence of oil in this country. That is another indication of the need for a positive effort by the Government to find a way out of the financial difficulties that confront us. Since the Prime Minister has stated that ample supplies of crude oil are available, why does not the Government invoke the defence powers, which it has shown itself so prone to use for party political purposes, to embark upon the refining of oil ? If petrol could be produced in this country in sufficient quantities in the near future our defence forces would be relieved1 permanently of their dependence on imported petrol. In addition, our industries would be released from dependence on dollar countries for petrol. That would be a major contribution to the solution of our present problems. But that is not likely to be achieved by a further reduction of imports. There are other industries from which we may learn a lesson. For example, the cotton industry, if developed, would materially assist the position. Let us not forget that in 1934 Australia produced 17,500 bales of cotton, and that the average annual production before the outbreak of war was 12,000 bales. But the estimated production this year is only 800 bales. That decline is due entirely to the unremunerative price, which will not permit the growers to compete for labour, and makes returns from other industries far more attractive. Therefore, many primary producers who grew cotton years ago no longer do so. Cotton-growing in the areas in which it has been tried stinks in the nostrils of the producers. They have “ had “ it. Only by a major effort will this industry be rejuvenated. Yet the market for cotton in Australia is almost unlimited. Australian spinners take from 70,000 to 80,000 bales annually, and, in addition, we import in the form of cotton piece goods the equivalent of another 200,000 bales. Thus Australia requires nearly 300,000 bales of cotton annually, but our estimated production for this year is only 800 bales. Is it not evident that cotton-growing is unique among our primary industries, because an almost unlimited home market is available? Another consideration which should influence the Government is that a large proportion of our imported cotton comes from the dollar area. Would not the solution of the dollar problem have been materially assisted if the Government had made a major effort two years ago to lift the cotton industry from the doldrums into which it had sunk? The redevelopment of the industry requires irrigation works, and as that subject is principally a responsibility of the State, t shall not discuss it, but the Commonwealth can assist in several ways. For example, the industry requires a guaranteed price, and the adoption of mechanical harvesting methods. Has the Commonwealth rendered that assistance? What has been our experience? An application which the cotton industry made eighteen months ago for an increased price has not yet been decided. The price which was being paid for imported cotton was such that the Government should not have had any hesitation in saying, “ We shall guarantee the industry at least the price which the country is paying to import cotton “. If necessary, the Government could have made a further investigation to ascertain whether an additional payment could be made to the industry. At the very least, the price that was being paid for imported cotton should also have been paid to Australian growers, but in spite of renewed applications from time to time, the Government has not made up its mind about the matter. The explanation, I understand, is that the application has been submitted to the Tariff Board, which is making a lengthy investigation of the position. In the circumstances, a long’ inquiry was entirely unnecessary, and the degree of relief which I have suggested should, have been given to the industry. Had that policy been adopted, it is possible that, by now, the industry would have commenced to redevelop and make a major contribution to the Empire dollar pool.

A similar criticism can be levelled against the Government for its action regarding the importation of mechanical harvesters. Probably the fact is not generally known that, in an attempt to reduce costs in the industry, the cotton board sent an official to the United States of America between twelve and eighteen months ago to negotiate for the purchase of the latest harvesting machine. He obtained a permit to import the machine, and for the requisite shipping space to be reserved. Then, as the result of a change of government policy, that official discovered at the last minute that the import licence had been cancelled. It was months before the matter could be raised again, and a year’s valuable experience that would otherwise have been gained with the operation of the machinery was lost. Had the Government shown foresight, the industry could have been developed, and the increased production would have assisted to solve the dollar problem. But this Government has completely missed that opportunity.

The Government has also failed to take advantage of the possibilities of the grain sorghum industry. Although the farmers of Queensland and New South Wales can produce all the grain sorghum that is required to fulfil Great Britain’s needs, those primary producers cannot obtain the necessary tractors and agricultural machinery for the purpose. The simple explanation is that the purchase of the machinery would entail the expenditure of dollars, and the Government is not prepared to issue the necessary import licences. The Treasurer has forecast in his budget speech that our expenditure on imports from the dollar area will be reduced by 25 per cent, of the expenditure in 1948. Where is this “ positive action “ that the right honorable gentleman has mentioned as being necessary to resolve our difficulties? T note thai the Treasurer made the following statement in his budget speech about the possibility of Australia obtaining a dollar loan: -

Australia must -play its full part in avoiding a further drain- on the limited gold and dollar reserves of the United Kingdom and the Government is examining the possibilities of non-owing as a means to provide additional dollars. The Government recognizes that this course may present difficulties. Generally, it has been averse to increasing the long-term dollar commitments of Australia. There are various possible sources of dollar borrowing, and the matter will be decided in tha light of all the circumstances.

Had the Government been alive to the circumstances it would have explored the possibility of a dollar loan at least two years ago. Australia is not “ playing its full part in avoiding a further drain on the limited gold and dollar reserves of the United Kingdom “. All that we are doing is to decide to reduce our expenditure on imports from the dollar area by 25 per cent, of the expenditure in 1948. The fact that we are in that position is a complete condemnation of the policy that has been adopted throughout by the Government, and we can derive no hope whatever from the Treasurer’s statement that the policy in relation to dollar borrowing will be decided “ in the light of all the circumstances “. Surely all the circumstances have been evident for sufficiently long to convince even the Government that it should take action in the matter.

In conclusion, I point out again that the necessity for dollar borrowing is a matter to which the leader of the Australian Country party drew attention more than six months ago. Had his advice been followed, we should now be in a far better position than we are. Within the last few days, the relation between sterling and the dollar has been altered, and that change must affect any action which we take -to negotiate a dollar loan. As the Leader of the Australian Country party has also pointed out, there is still open to Australia the possibility of using its rights and privileges in the International Monetary Fund. By that means, we could acquire the dollars necessary to enable us to operate Australian industries on a scale that would permit us to export our products to the dollar and the sterling areas in a way that would constitute a positive contribution to the solution of our dollar difficulties.

Mr Fuller:

– I claim that I have been misrepresented by the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Davidson).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! Does the honorable gentleman desire to make a personal explanation ?

Mr FULLER:

– Yes. I claim that J have been misrepresented. The honorable member for Capricornia read a passage from a speech which I made in this chamber on the 29th September, 1943. What I actually said, as reference to the Ilansard report in volume 176 at page 178 shows, was as follows: -

By a decree of the Commonwealth, all land, whether aliens ted or not, should be taken out of the control of the States and placed under thu control of the National Parliament to be held in trust for the people on one title only - perpetual lease. Already thousands of acres have been resumed for defence purposes. Why should nut all the b.nd be resumed in the interests of national security? The duy of large holdings has definitely passed. Unless we ourselves are prepared to subdivide the large holdings mid decentralize our population, some foreign power will assuredly do those things for ns. When resuming large holdings, the Government should exempt those used for the breeding of stud stock. Rather than enforce disintegration by extra taxation-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! Will the honorable member indicate how he has been misrepresented?

Mr Fuller:

– The honorable member for Capricornia read only a portion of those remarks, and, therefore, I claim that I have been definitely misrepresented.

Mr Fadden:

– Did not the honorable member sign a pledge that he would always advocate and support a policy of socialization?

Mr FULLER:

– Our political opponents adopt the practice of reading only a part of a statement that has been made by a member of the Labour party. I claim that I have been misrepresented by not only the honorable member for Capricornia, but also the press of the country, because they have not quoted my complete statement.

Mr O’CONNOR:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The committee is now discussing the third and final budget introduced during the life of the Eighteenth Parliament of the Commonwealth. Significance is attached to this budget by the fact that, in a few months’ time, the composition of the Nineteenth Parliament will be determined. Because this is, in effect, an election budget, the Government might have been pardoned if it had sacrificed the substantial for the spectacular, but I believe that the budget before the House cun be rightly described as a very good one. The storm that is blowing up on the international horizon due to monetary developments reminds us that Australia is not immune to the influence of international economic disturbances. Bearing that fact in mind, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has made it clear in his budget that, while the economic honeymoon is not necessarily over, it has at least been interrupted.

The budget discloses that last year the Government finished with a credit balance of £6,000,000. If that result had been achieved by a non-Labour government, it would have been hailed as a mark of statesmanship. Honorable members opposite, and the newspapers are always saying that one of the marks of statesmanship and good government is a balanced budget. Since the end of the war, this Government, under the leadership of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), has balanced the budget twice, while last year it finished with a surplus of £6,000,000. The present ‘budget shows that if existing trends in prices continue, we shall finish next financial year with a deficit of £37,000,000. The budget provides for an increase of £20,000,000 for social services. ‘ It also contains a reference to the Government’s intention to give £10,000,000 to Great Britain, making a total of £45,000,000. These gifts are a token of our appreciation of what the British people have undergone, and of the difficulties that are still confronting them. “While Australia is giving this measure of direct assistance to Britain, it is also helping indirectly. Our gift of £45,000,000 will make it possible for Britain to send additional goods to that value to dollar areas where they will earn 135,000,000 dollars ; or, if the goods are not sent to dollar areas, they can be sent to Europe, where the nations are as much dependent on sterling credits for their rehabilitation as upon Marshall aid. Provision is made in the budget for £53,000,000 to be expended on capital works and services, the amount to be spread over postal and telephone- services, civil aviation and other works of a national character. Tax remissions dating from the 1st July of this year represent a saving to the people of £36,500,000.

During his speech on the budget, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), in characteristic style, donned political jack-boots, lashed out savagely and indiscriminately at the Government, dropped a few punches below the belt, and ended hy sermonizing about the lack of morality among Government supporters. The honorable member’s contribution to the debate abounded in absurdities. He suggested that dollar revenue could be increased by stimulating gold production. He pointed out that the production of gold had declined in Australia, and he was disposed to blame the Government for this. He concealed the fact that gold production had declined all over the world, and he thereby attempted to mislead honorable members. In Australia, gold production has declined from 41,000,000 fine oz. in 1940 to 26,000,000 fine oz. at the present time. What the honorable member omitted to say was that, during the period from 1938 to 1948, gold production throughout the world had declined by 25 per cent. It can truthfully be said that the gold-mining industry in Australia has received very favorable treatment from the Government. It enjoys privileges to-day never previously enjoyed. Gold production has declined in Australia for the same reasons as it has declined everywhere else and the fault does not lie with the Government.

The honorable member also implied that the Government was responsible for the devaluation of the pound in Australia, and he was also disposed to blame the British Government for what has happened. Those who make statements of that kind are merely playing politics. In my opinion, whatever government was in power would have had to follow the same course as this Government has done. I do not propose to analyse the various causes leading up to devaluation, of to attempt prophecies, but I believe that while devaluation may bring some immediate benefits, they will not continue. Under devaluation, British goods will be cheaper in dollar countries, and goods from dollar countries will be dearer in the sterling area, so that the tendency will be for sterling goods to flood the dollar area. I cannot imagine that any country in the dollar area will allow that condition to be maintained, and I think that eventually the dollar will return to the position in the economic world that it occupied prior to devaluation. Devaluation means, in effect, that sterling goods may now enter dollar countries cheaper than previously and that dollar goods will enter sterling areas dearer than previously. One of the benefits will be that the primary producers of Australia will gain considerably. Another will be that the gold industry of Australia will receive a considerable impetus. The value of gold jumped by almost 50 per cent, as the result of devaluation. Although that will be of some benefit to Australia internally, from a national point of view as well as from the point of view of the economic welfare of Western Australia, it will not mean, in the final analysis, that we shall earn more dollars. That i3 due to the fact that, as the result of devaluation, production of gold in Australia will have to be increased by at least 50 per cent, in order to enable us to earn the same amount of dollar income annually as we gained from our previous gold production. The Opposition has attacked not only the Australian Government but also the United Kingdom Government during this debate for the part that they allegedly played in bringing about devaluation. My own opinion is that devaluation originated in the minds of the Americans. They have teen talking of devaluation for six or nine months, not just for the past month, and throughout that period the United Kingdom Government and its spokesmen repudiated the idea of any such process being brought about. I believe that as the result of American pressure, fostered by the views of United States Treasury officials, the United Kingdom Government eventually had no alternative to accepting the idea of devaluation. The decision was practically forced upon it. No Australian Government, whatever its political background might have been, could have failed to accept that decision. Those people who criticize this Government for having devalued the currency forget that over twenty countries throughout the world have been compelled to accept the same condition of affairs.

Some rather remarkable claims have been made by members of the Opposition both inside and outside this Parliament. Throughout the past twelve months they have attacked the Government on the subject of the reduction of taxes. They have told the people that, if returned to power, they will reduce taxes, extend child endowment to the first child in every family, and abolish the means test.

Mr Duthie:

– They have not said when, though.

Mr O’CONNOR:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– That is true. However, they have made that promise to the people. Contrasting it with their attitude in this chamber, I can describe it only as sheer political dishonesty. First they say that taxes should be reduced. Then they say that child endowment should be extended to the first child in every family immediately. That extension of the social services would impose an increased burden of £25,000,000 a year upon the Commonwealth. They ignore that fact, and they have been particularly careful not to point out the possible effect of the extension upon the basic wage. That wage is computed upon the basis of the needs of a man, his wife and one child. If any government extended child endowment to the first child of every family, the employers’ associations and federations throughout Australia would immediately apply to the Arbitration Court for a review of the basic wage. The abolition of the means test promised by honorable members opposite would involve additional costs of approximately £51,000,000 a year. Thus, on the one hand they suggest that taxes should be reduced, whilst on the other hand, they propose extensions of social services that would cost an additional amount of £71,000,000. How could they honour their promises?

Honorable members on this side of the chamber have been criticized’ almost ad infinitum by members of the Opposition on. the ground that we lack political morality. At least one can say honestly in favour of this Government that it has at no time attempted to conceal facts from the people or to sacrifice the national interest for the sake of expediency. There is a saying that familiarity breeds contempt, and I have no doubt that people who listen to the debates that are broadcast from this chamber have become all too familiar with thecatch-cries of “ socialism “ and “ communism “ with which members of the Opposition greet every measure, whether it be of a major or minor character, that this Government introduces. I believe that people, hearing those cries ad nauseam, have become a little contemptuous as a result of their constant repetition. In the circumstances, it is wise to direct the attention of the people to the political drama that is at present being enacted in Victoria. Thanks to our so-called free press, people outside Victoria scarcely know what is happening in that State. One of the main characters in that drama is Mr. A. G. Warner, who is Minister of Housing in the Hollway Government. I mention Mr. Warner because he figured prominently in an episode concerning petrol rationing not long ago. He did not hesitate to say that it was possible to bring petrol from Russia into Australia. His claim was flatly and convincingly denied’. I have no doubt that the Premier of Victoria returned from the conference of State Premiers on petrol rationing, satisfied in his own mind that the policy that the Australian Government was attempting to pursue was the correct and honest one. However, because of the pressure that was exerted inside his party by individuals such as Mr. Warner, he had to ride out the storm. It is well that Mr. Warner’s position should be placed on record. He is the managing director of Electronic Industries Limited. That is a parent company with thirteen subsidiaries, of which seven are wholly owned and three half-owned by Mr. Warner. Of the remainder, he owns 30 per cent. of the capital of the first,92½ per cent. of the capital of the second, and 88 per cent. of the capital of the third. The capital of Electronic Industries Limited has swollen from £600,000 to an amount of £3,000,000.

Mr White:

– I rise to order. May I ask, Mr. Temporary Chairman, without criticizing what the honorable member has said, whether he is in order in discussing the private affairs of a Minister of another government? I do not think that he is in order in doing so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Honorable members are permitted to make their speeches in their own way. I see nothing wrong with the way in which the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. O’Connor) is making his speech.

Mr O’CONNOR:

– I am not dealing with the private affairs of anybody. I am discussing the public affairs of Mr. Warner, and am taking my facts from the Melbourne Stoch Exchange Official Record. This is what that publication has reported about Mr. Warner -

Main trading interests are in the radio industry, the parent company operating through the following group of subsidiaries: -

Universal Guarantee Pty. Ltd.: Wholly owned.

Neutrodyne Pty. Ltd.: 30% of paid capital.

Radio Corporation Pty. Ltd.: Owns ali but 8½%.

Eclipse Radio Ptv. Ltd.: Wholly owned.

Homecrafts Pty. Ltd. : Owns all but 12% .

National Radio Corporation Ltd.: Wholly owned.

Electronic Industries Imports Proprietary Ltd.: Wholly owned.

Halstead Distributors Pty. Ltd.: Wholly owned.

B.E.P. Acceptance Corporation Pty. Ltd. : Wholly owned.

Homecrafts (Ballarat) Pty. Ltd.: Half owned.

R. Lucke Pty. Ltd.: Wholly owned.

General Dry Batteries (A/sia) Pty. Ltd.: Half owned.

Pye (A/sia) Pty. Ltd.: Half owned.

Mr Harrison:

– That sounds like the record of a very successful business man.

Mr O’CONNOR:

– If that is the opinion of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), it is not shared by some members of the Liberal party in Victoria. During the debate on the Victorian budget, Mr. F. L. Edmunds, a member of the Liberal party who represents the Hawthorn electorate in the Victorian Parliament, made some remarks about Mr. Warner. He said -

When I reflect on the reputation in the community of certain members of the GovernmentI am rather pleased to incur their censure.

When .some commercial Napoleon seeks to protect his own business interests and to assist his business associate through politics. I say that just as the National Federation and the United Australia party were dragged down by wealthy, foolish people, so the Liberal and Country party is in danger of going the same way, and at a more rapid rate because of the increased tempo of social discontent over the past twenty years.

On the question of hoarding of building materials, Mr. Warner is bound to represent that I aru mad or bad or both.

However, I prefer the considered calculation id mcn who have spent their lives in building to the misleading statements of a man who knows nothing about building, except building :i doubtful business reputation.

The curtain has been drawn down on the sordid drama that is being enacted in Victoria, but I have thought it right to let the people of Australia know what has been occurring there.

We are constantly told by honorable gentlemen opposite that what is most important in a community is the ability to make profits. They surround profits with almost an atmosphere of sanctity.

Ti) their opinion, if a man has made a profit he is of necessity a success and a parson who fulfils all the requirements of a gentleman. Honorable members opposite have, stated that private enterprise in Australia is being strangled by tin’s Government, and that private industries ave going to the wall. I have compiled a. list which shows that during recent years the reserves and undisclosed profits of thirteen companies that I have chosen haphazardly have increased considerably. In 1945 the reserves and undisclosed profits of Mcilraith McEacharn Limited were £352,151, and in June, 1949, they were £676,334. During that period they increased by £323,183. In 1938 the reserves and undisclosed profits of W. R. Carpenter and Company Limited were £210,375, and in 1947 they were £330,375, an increase of £120,000. ‘in 1938, the reserves and undisclosed profits of David Jones Limited amounted to approximately £750,000, and in June, 1949, the figure was approximately £1,400,000. Between 1948 and 1949 they increased by approximately £650,000. In 1945 the reserves and undisclosed profits of Myer Emporium Limited were £1,050,174, and in 1948 they amounted to £1.276,155. Between 1945 and 1948 they increased by £225,981. In 1938 the reserves of Dunlop Rubber (Australasia) Limited stood at £568,336, and by June, 1949, they had increased to £1,519,247. In 1939 the general reserve of the Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Co. was £629,021, and in 1947, it was £1,422,685, representing an increase of £793,664. In 1937 the reserves and undisclosed profits of the British Tobacco Company (Australia) Limited amounted to £597,474, and in 1948 they were £785,433. The value of the reserves and undisclosed profits of Peters Delicacy Company Limited in 1938 was approximately £277,000, and by June, 1940, it had increased by approximately £2..’ 1.000. In 1938 the reserves of the Herald and Weekly Times Limited amounted to £380,000. In 1949 the figure was £1,486,765. Newspapers and radio stations must be very profitable undertakings. Between 1939 and 1947 the value of the reserves of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and its subsidiaries increased from approximately £4,900,000 to approximately £7,281,000. ‘ Between 1938 and 1949, the value of the reserves and undisclosed profits of Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited increased from £250,000 to £1,146,000. In 1945 the reserves of Hume Steel Limited were approximately £243,000 and in 194S, appoximately £366,000. Between 193S and 1949, the reserves of Pelaco Limited increased from £2,500 to £82,000. The figures that I have cited relate to reserves and undisclosed profits, but there is another important factor in company affairs, the value of which cannot be ascertained. It is inner reserves. The records of Australian companies show that they have prospered during the last ten years to such a degree that it is absurd for honorable gentlemen opposite to argue that private enterprise in this country is being hamstrung by the Government. If the persons who are associated with private enterprise thought that during the next ten years they could do what they have done during the last ten years they would look forward to that period with a great deal of confidence and satisfaction. Yet the people of this country are told time and time again by honorable members opposite that this is a socialist government dominated by Communists whose only idea is to destroy the home and private enterprise. The figures that I have given to the House prove conclusively that in the last decade private industry has prospered. It would have been almost impossible for the reverse to have happened, in view of the conditions of full employment that have been operating in Australia, as well as of the increased industrial activity that has resulted from the war. We have heard a great deal about the sacrifices that have been made by private enterprise. One story we never hear about is the growth in the number of millionaires during the last war. They are not heroes who are unsung, but people who are unmentionable. The last war was not different from other wars in the way in which it made millionaires as well as heroes. But the heroes made their mark in a different sphere from that in which the millionaires made theirs. I consider that the budget, as I have already said, is a sober document which brings to our minds not only the facts of international happenings, but also the fact that we cannot dissociate ourselves from such happenings. I put it to the committee and to the people of this country that this budget shows that the Chifley Government has preferred the substantial to the spectacular when it could have been excused for doing otherwise. Although it is facing an election in a few months’ time the Government has, as always, put national interests first instead of making a more spectacular approach as it could have done. The

Rational interest and the well-being of the community have always been the paramount interest of this Government. This being the last occasion upon which a budget will be debated in this Eighteenth Parliament, it is appropriate to recall that the Prime Minister went to the people three years ago and said to them during the general election campaign, “ I shall not make any special promises-. I shall not attempt to buy or influence your votes by specious promises, but I do promise that taxation will be reviewed from time to time, and that if the circumstances are such that it is possible to make concessions, those concessions will be made “. I consider that the Prime Minister has kept that promise. The nature of the budget and the manner in which it has been presented are a vindication, not only of the policy of the Government, but also of the policy that the Prime Minister has pursued, and a vindication of him as a member of this Parliament, as an individual, and as a person who has worthily upheld the best traditions of this country.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Wakefield

.- I was very sorry to hear the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. O’Connor) engage in the practice of character assassination which is very common among honorable members on the Government side. He is usually a gentleman who puts forward his views in a very moderate and concise fashion, and he started off in that manner this afternoon. He had not proceeded very far, however, before he adopted the old practice, common among his predecessors and his present colleagues on that side of the chamber, of trying to raise some bogy and’ to tell us about some dreadful crime that had been committed by members of the Opposition. So we heard a very lengthy explanation concerning a Minister in the Victorian Government, whom I do not know personally but whose great crime apparently is that he is a successful businessman. The fact that the honorable member quoted some other person’s opinion of that

Minister leaves me, and I am sure will leave the country, very cold’, because we know that at the moment there is a little heat being generated in Victorian politics and I have no doubt that certain people are saying things for which they may be sorry in the not very distant future. In any event, I am at a loss to understand what the honorable gentleman’s remarks in that connexion have to do with the budget. The honorable gentleman later made some extraordinary observations in respect of currency devaluation. He said-, as he was perfectly entitled to say, that in his opinion devaluation was an unwise step. Then he had the temerity to suggest that it was a step taken by the Prime Minister of Australia and by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, not willingly, but under duress. He did not go on to explain just what duress the Prime Minister of Australia was under, but he did allow us to understand that the British Prime Minister was under the duress of American influence. A similar statement had already been made in this chamber by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), who has an aptitude for making some very extraordinary statements. The Minister said that devaluation was undertaken because of pressure by America. That statement has been repeated to-day by the honorable member for West Sydney, although the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself has said that the decision to devaluate the pound sterling was taken by the British Government without any influence having been exercised by any outside interests. I am prepared to accept the word of the Prime Minister of Great Britain on the subject of whether duress or influence was exerted on Britain.

The honorable member went on to talk about the extraordinary profits that had been made by private enterprise, and he suggested that such profits were the result of this Government’s administration. In my opinion only a very poor business would have been unable to make profits in the inflationary conditions that have existed since the end of the war. When the honorable member quoted the reserves of various companies he forgot to tell the committee and the people of the country that those reserves, in view of the purposes for which reserves are accumulated, are worth only about half as much as they would have been worth in 1938. In other words, the cost of the requirements for which reserves are usually accumulated’ has risen to such a degree under this Government’s administration that the £1 is worth approximately only 10s. Let me refer the committee to the profits made by a company in which this Government has a vital interest, because that company’s profits seem to outdo the profits of any of the companies that were so “ haphazardly “ chosen by the honorable member for West Sydney as examples. 1 refer to the profits of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, a company in which the Australian Government has a majority holding and which sells a very vital commodity to the people of this country. That commodity, petrol, has been under the most rigid price control and’ has also been rigidly rationed. As a result of that fact, the use of petrol has increased by considerably less than 50 per cent, since the beginning of the last war.

Yet the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited in the year 1938-39, when there were no restrictions regarding the price or sale of petrol, made a profit of £65,762. Its profit decreased to £13,396 in 1940-41 and to £15,000 in 1941-42. However, thanks to the. beneficence of Labour governments the company’s profit began to soar, in spite of the fact that petro] rationing was the order of the day, until in 1945-46 it made a profit of approximately £224,000 and a profit of approximately £245,000 in 1946-47. In view of the fact that the Government holds a controlling interest in the company it could have curtailed those profits. However, the Government, apparently, took the view that all was well so long as the company was bringing in increasing revenue.

The budget now before the Parliament is the ninth that has been presented by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley). I have read with very great interest each budget that the right honorable gentleman has presented. Obviously, he has given a great deal of study to financial and economic matters. I notice that whilst statements that he makes on other occasions, such as when he is answering questions, are usually not very clear, he invariably expresses his views perfectly clearly in his budget speeches. He understands precisely all of the implications of the statements that he makes in a budget speech. Therefore, we need have no misapprehension that he has not clearly expressed his mind in this speech which contains some statements with which I find no reason to disagree. For instance, I agree with its second paragraph which reads -

In 1 948-49, for the second time since the war ended, it was possible to balance the Commonwealth budget.

Of course, the right honorable gentleman takes full credit for that fact. The honorable member for West Sydney, who has just resumed his seat, also evinced considerable pride in the fact that a Labour government had balanced its budget. I admit that such an achievement by a Labour government is unusual in the history of this country; but i’ would be a tragedy if the Government, in view of the buoyancy of its present revenues, could not produce a surplus. Whilst all of us recognize the difficulties that confront the United Kingdom Government, that government has been able to produce a surplus of considerable magnitude for its last financial year. Its surplus amounted to approximately £759,000,000, before certain allocations were made which reduced that figure to approximately £300,000,000. Furthermore, the British Government has budgeted for a surplus in the current financial year. Contrast that fact with the doleful deficit for which the Treasurer is now budgeting. I repeat that there is not great merit in the fact that the Government balanced its budget last financial year. However, in view of the present buoyancy of the Government’s revenues, I am prepared to accept certain principles that the Treasurer has adopted in administering the affairs of the nation. For instance, in his budget speech, he says -

All expenditure, excluding advances to the States for housing, was met from revenue, and, in addition, several sums were set aside in the National Welfare Fund and the War Gratuity Reserve.

I agree entirely with that action. However, as the Treasurer has suggested in a succession of budget speeches, it may be that one of the reasons for the maintenance of high taxes has in fact been to drain off purchasing power from the community in order to combat inflationary trends in this country. I am not so sure that the Government has expended its surplus revenues in ways that would have that effect. If that is really the Government’s objective, there is no merit in its action in diverting such a great proportion of its total revenues to capital expenditure. As the Government has expended its revenues almost as soon as it has collected them, that expenditure has not drawn off purchasing power from the community. Furthermore, governments are not the best mediums of expenditure. I approve of the Treasurer’s decision in respect of taxation to extend for a further two years, that is, to the 30th June, 1952, the present initial depreciation deduction of 20 per cent, of the cost of plant and machinery, and, at the same time, to give to companies and other taxpayers a right to elect to deduct initial depreciation of 40 per cent, in lieu of the present 20 per cent, on plant and machinery acquired or installed after the 30th June last. That provision which has now been brought into line with that operating in Great Britain, is a wise concession and will encourage the reequipment of industries. It represents a very desirable alteration of the taxation law. However, I do not approve of other features of the budget.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr McBRIDE:

– In this budget the Treasurer has given emphasis to the inflationary pressure that still exist6 in this country by providing for an increase in governmental expenditure. Over the years he has not only underestimated revenue, but has also underestimated expenditure. For the financial year 1948-49 the right honorable gentleman estimated that revenue would total £492,842,000. The actual revenue received amounted to £535,048,301. Although estimated expenditure for that year was £509,542,000 actual expenditure was £554,377,372. In the budget now being debated it is estimated that revenue during the year 1949-50 will be £532,000,000, which is slightly less than the amount that was received during the financial year 1948-49. It is estimated that expenditure for 1949-50 will be £567,000,000. I am convinced that expenditure will not be less than that estimate because expenditure during the last financial year was over £535,000,000. The increase in expenditure this year will therefore be at least £32,000,000. Surely that is a very disturbing feature, which proves that the inflationary influence is still very great in this country, and that the Treasurer is following the spiral. Although there is nothing very flambuoyant in the budget, it has been carefully prepared so as to indicate the. future policy of the Australian Labour party. Whilst the Treasurer admits quite frankly that there will be increased expenditure in 1949-50. he tries to divert attention from this aspect by emphasizing the benefits that this Government is providing for the people. Great stress has been laid on the social services provided by this Government. The people of Australia, in common with those of all other countries, are now demanding more by way of social services than ever before. However, T think that it is wrong to assess the value of those benefits by referring to the amount of money that has been extracted from the taxpayers of this country for the purpose. Never before have the people of Australia received so little value for the £A.l. Although the amount of the age pension has been increased from 21s. a week in 1940 to 42s. a week to-day, the recipients are not receiving twice the value that they previously received. Even if we accept the opinion of economists that £1 is to-day worth only 12s., there has not been a very great increase of the purchasing power of the amount of the pension. I believe that increases of the rates of pensions are fully justified because of the ever-decreasing value of money that has occurred during the administration of the present Labour Government.

Great emphasis has been placed, also, on the matter of employment. It has been stated that employment has been increased by the engagement of an additional 750,000 people during the present administration. However, when we endeavour to assess what this means in terms of goods and services to the people of Australia we are confronted by a very sorry picture indeed. Although there has been a big increase in the number of people employed, there has not been a corresponding increase in production. Even on the most generous assessment, production has not been increased by more than 15 per cent. Indeed, a number of authorities have estimated that the increase of production has been much lower than 15 per cent. Furthermore, the increased production is not in keeping with the increase of population. Despite all of the social services benefits now payable, our experience down the years, and of the equipment and skill that was acquired during the war period, the manufacturing output of this country has not been advanced one iota. I consider that that is the most disastrous feature of this Government’s administration.

The social services provisions included in the budget are what may be termed the sugar coating of the economic pill. The objective of this Government has been very carefully concealed. While all these good things have been mentioned - and perhaps some that are not so good - the real objective of this Government has been carefully concealed. It is well known that before honorable members on the Government side of the chamber were elected to the Parliament, certain demands were made of them, because the policy of the Australian Labour party is the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Every member of the Australian Labour party is committed to that objective. Australian Labour party candidates must sign a pledge that they will strive to further that objective at all times. Although that fact was concealed from the people as a whole for a long time, it has leaked out during the last few years. I venture to suggest that even now many people do not realize the importance of, and the real facts underlying that objective. On the subject of communism the great mass of people of this country has only one mind. They will not support either the philosophy or the activity of Communists. That has been shown from time to time when Communists have sought election to the Parliament. On most occasions, they have lost their deposits. However, few people realize that the objective of communism and that of socialism are precisely the same - a totalitarian, allpowerful state, and the destruction of the freedom of the people. The Communists are brutally frank and say that they aim to achieve their objective by revolution - bloody revolution if necessary - whereas the socialists attempt to appear respectable by saying that they will go only as far in their programme as the people are willing to allow them to go. In other words, they will go only as far as the people give them a mandate to go. They hope in this way to calm the fears of the community. How false they are can be seen from a study of happenings during the past two or three years. I shall give one glaring example. In 1945, the Parliament passed a banking act which was designed to give the Government complete power over private banking activities in this country. Having placed that measure on the statute-book, the Prime Minister announced that the Government then had all the power that it required to deal with the private banks.

Honorable members will recall that the banking issue was not raised at the 1946 election. Indeed, it was hardly mentioned, if at all.

Mr Williams:

– We mentioned it.

Mr McBRIDE:

– Government supporters stated emphatically in this House that the 1945 banking legislation gave them all the power that they wanted over the trading activities of the private banks of this country. However, after the 1946 elections, at which Labour’s policy had been accepted, just because the High Court decided ^ against the Government on one single provision of the 1945 act - a provision not connected with the activities of the trading banks as such, but with the freedom of clients to select their own banking , institution - the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), in a fit of pique or fury, announced that the Government would nationalize the private banks. I emphasize that the High Court’s decision did not destroy the Government’s power over financial policy generally, or over the trading activities of the private banks. The remarkable feature of the right honorable gentleman’s announcement was that it was made without prior consultation either with Cabinet or with members of his party. As soon as the announcement was made however, there was a widespread upsurge of opposition throughout the Commonwealth. From every section of the community, Labour and Liberal alike, came protests against this dictatorial proposal. Clearly, the people of Australia were against the move. They had not given a mandate to the Government to nationalize the banks. Now where are these constitutionalists? Where are these Labour supporters who will only go as far as the people will allow them to go? When the Australian people, by petitions to Parliament, by protests in the press and over the air, and by every other means at their disposal, raised the strongest possible opposition to the Government’s proposal, did the Prime Minister say, “ We shall not do this until the opinion of the people has been , obtained “ ? Did he say, “ We shall take a referendum “, or “We shall wait until after the election”? No, he continued his dictatorial attitude, and pushed the proposal through this Parliament. Knowing that, at some future date, the people of this country would have an opportunity to express their judgment on the nationalization legislation, the Prime Minister and hia colleagues said cynically, “ You cannot unscramble the eggs “. In other words, they believed that once the private banking institutions of this country had beer! destroyed, they could not be reconstituted. That was the action of these democrats. That was the action of these constitutional socialists. It is about time that the people of this country realized that they are no more constitutional than are the Communists. They will go just as far as it suits them to go, and as soon as they get an opportunity they will resort to direct action.

Although the Government has been defeated so far on the banking issue, the people of this country should not he misled. The High Court has ruled against the Government and the Privy Council has upheld the High Court’s Tilling. Government spokesmen are endeavouring to lull the people of this country into a false sense of security by saying, “ We have not the power to socialize anything “ ; but what are the facts? The truth is that the Government i.? now in the process of achieving socialization. Defeated in its attempts to nationalize the private banks by legislation, what course is it adopting to-day? Within the last six months an edict has gone forth on the policy that is to be followed’ by the private banks in respect of advances. The 1945 legislation is still on i.he statute-book with the exception of the one provision which was disallowed by the High Court.

Mr Edmonds:

– There has been an election since 1945.

Mr McBRIDE:

– Yes, and banking was not mentioned during the election campaign. Under the edict that has gone forth to the private banks from the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank advances may be made only in accordance with certain terms. Already, of course, the private banks have been required to lodge a certain percentage of their surplus funds - I understand that the present aggregate total is approximately £400,000,000 - in a special account with the Commonwealth Bank. In recent years, the Commonwealth Bank has made a drive for business in competition with the private banks. Throughout the years of material shortages, while the people of Australia have been crying out for homes, I have never heard of the Commonwealth Bank being unable to open a new branch because of lack of accommodation. Apparently if the required accommodation does not exist, there is no difficulty in getting materials and man-power to erect new premises. Yet, in spite of all these disadvantages under which the private banks have operated, the people have shown in ho uncertain way that they do not want banking operations in this country to be confined to the Commonwealth Bank. The drive to expand the business of the Commonwealth Bank has met with almost complete failure. The people have refused to abandon their affection for the private trading banks. In 1945, 6.5 per cent, of banking business relating to loans, advances,, and the discounting of bills of exchange, was done by the Commonwealth Bank, whilst the private trading banks did 93.5 per cent, of the business. In the following year, the Commonwealth Bank’s share had increased to 7.6 per cent, and that of the private trading banks had fallen to 92.4 per cent. In September, 1947, the Commonwealth Bank’s proportion had receded to 6.4 per cent., but it increased’ again in September, 1948, to 7.2 per cent. Then there was a startling rise. The edict had gone forth. The restrictions that applied to the private trading banks apparently did not apply to Commonwealth Bank. During the earlier years the fluctuations were of a minor order, but between September, 1948, and April, 1949, a brief period of six months, the percentage rose from 7.2 to 13. In other words it nearly doubled. Thus, we see the technique of this Government’s attack on the private banking interests. If it cannot constitutionally nationalize the banks, it can, and will, strangle them by the application of this process. The people of this country who undoubtedly favour the maintenance of the private banking system must realize that willy-nilly this Government intends either to nationalize the private banks or wipe them out of existence.

The same practice is being followed with other enterprises in which this Govrnment has engaged. Let us consider for a moment what has happened in connexion with the airline services. The Government first proposed to nationalize the private airlines, but the High Court held that it had no constitutional power to do so. The Government then established its own airline, notwithstanding that at that time dollars and petrol were scarce. Has any honorable member heard of one instance in which Trans-Australia Airlines has been restricted in any way, either in the purchase of aircraft or in the use of petrol, as the result of the dollar shortage? Yet when a private company, Guinea Airways Limited, sought permission to operate a subsidiary service in South Australia, it was not permitted to do so on the ground that sufficient petrol was not available. The shortage of dollars did not prevent Trans-Australia Airlines from recently purchasing new aircraft in the United States of America. While Trans-Australia Airlines is expanding its air fleet it is making huge losses, which are probably very much higher than the published accounts have disclosed. This is the technique of the Government and of the party which supports it. Honorable members opposite have tried to convince the people that the Government is inhibited by the restrictions contained in the Constitution, but they keep their objective clearly in mind and ruthlessly apply this process of strangulation. It is of no use for them to attempt to disguise the fact that the sole objective of the Australian Labour party is the socialization of industry, production, distribution and exchange. Attempts have been made by some moderate members of the party to have this objective watered down, but on every occasion they have been defeated. At each of the eighteen conferences of the party the objective has remained unchallenged. There has been no question of watering it down. Successive conferences have set out in clear terms who are to be the next victims to fall to the axe of socialism.

Mr Fuller:

– The honorable member does not understand anything of the objective of the Australian Labour party.

Mr McBRIDE:

– The people will understand it very fully before long. The eighteenth triennial conference of the Australian Labour party decided that six activities should immediately come within the ambit of the party’s socialization policy. The first of these was to be hanking, credit and insurance. The second was to be monopolies. That; subject covered a very wide field. What constitutes a monopoly is to be decided by the Government.

Mr Francis:

– Most of the existing monopolies are Government monopolies.

Mr McBRIDE:

– That is so, and those which most ruthlessly exploit the people are the Government monopolies. For example, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited quadrupled its profits during the period when petrol rationing was in operation. Under the beneficient influence of this Government, it was able to increase its profits year after year. The third activity listed for socialization was to be shipping. We have already on the statute-book a bill authorizing the establishment of a Commonwealth shipping line. In this field we shall probably see a repetition of the state of affairs that exists in relation to air transport. The fourth activity was to he public health. The Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) has already told the doctors in no uncertain terms that it is the Government’s objective to nationalize medicine. The fifth activity marked out for nationalization was radio services. The Government has already laid its hands on the broadcasting services of Australia. Finally, the conference decided that sugar refining should be socialized. The Government has coated the bitter pill which it proposes to administer to that industry, by recently increasing the price of sugar by 1/2 d. per lb. The people should realize that the only difference between socialism and communism is that the former takes a little longer to achieve its objectives than does the latter. Staunch Labour men have admitted that socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Some well-known adherents of the party have written books dealing with its aims and objectives. I am reminded of the biblical quotation, “ Oh, that mine adversary had written a book ! “ Mr.

Gallagher, the turbulent member of the British Parliament from the Clyde, in his book, The Case for Communism, wrote -

Our first step is, of course, to get a government composed of men and women in dead earnest about building socialism in Britain. Such a government would direct its whole power to an attack on the stronghold of capitalism . . . And what will this lead to? It will result eventually in a Communist Britain, for which socialism is the period of preparation.

The British Minister for Food, Mr. Strachey, who is not liberal in his views about the food requirements of the British people–

Mr Archie CAMERON:

– The Minister for Starvation!

Mr McBRIDE:

- Mr. Strachey wrote a book entitled, Theory and Practice of Socialism,, which contains this passage -

It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is. accordingly, proposed to establish socialism, which can be put in the place of our decaying capitalism. Hence, ‘Communists work foi socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.

Statements of that kind by responsible members of the Labour party constitute irrefutable evidence of the truth of my assertion that the Australian Labour party and the Communists have a good deal in common. Although the Australian Labour party has endeavoured to convince the people that it has divorced itself entirely from the Communist party,. I remind honorable members that not long ago it worked in complete accord with the Communists. Honorable members will recall that during the 1944 referendum campaign the Government sought the consent of the people to the granting of fourteen additional powei’9 to the Commonwealth. Some of them were mere window dressing proposals, but others would have given the government of the day extraordinary powers. At that time the Australian Labour party appointed campaign committees in each State and it was glad to accept the support and assistance of the Communist party. The New South Wales’ campaign committee, which was headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), included wellknown Communists such as Tom Wright, Norman Jeffrey and H. P. Sharp. It is futile for honorable members opposite to endeavour to convince the people that this Government has no truck with the Communists. Of course, the objectives of both parties are precisely the same, and the socialists realize- that socialism is merely a transitional stage in the change from capitalism to communism. It is as well, therefore, that the people of Australia should realize, in spite of all the fair words and the sugar-coating over the pill, that socialism means eventually , communism in this country.

Mr LANGTRY:
Riverina

.- I have listened with great interest to the speeches of honorable members in this debate and particularly to those of members of the Opposition. I must congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) on the very fine address which he delivered on the devaluation policy, which must have been an education to all honorable members, At the same time it was noticeable that the right honorable gentleman said hardly one word about the budget itself. His utterances contrasted strangely with those of the members of his own party and of the Australian Country party. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), who was the first member of the Opposition to take part in the debate, attacked the budget. If any statement could be more opposed to the facts of the present situation than his, I should be interested to hear it. The word “ democracy “ has been invoked by members of the Opposition on every conceivable occasion during the last five years to support the attitude they have adopted, and they have accused the Government of all kinds of undemocratic conduct. My interpretation of democracy agrees with the age-old conception of democracy being the greatest good for the greatest number. We do not want a privileged few to enjoy affluence while the many go in want. I am particularly concerned with the primary producers, who are the backbone of the country and contribute substantially to the welfare of people in other parts of the world. The present Government has contributed substantially -.to improving the lot of the workers of Australia, and particularly the primary producers, by its social services policy.

That is only right, because no individual and no nation can become wealthy without the efforts of the working class, who create the wealth of any country. Nevertheless, it is an unfortunate fact that even to-day some individuals endeavour to establish monopolies to exploit the workers.

Because the budget proposals introduced by the Prime Minister and Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) aim at improving the lot of the workers by reducing taxes, I say that he is to be complimented. Taxes on all incomes have been reduced substantially, and even a wealth man who receives an income of £15,000 still has £6,000 left after he has paid his income tax. What more does any man need? After all, hundreds of thousands of unfortunate men have to live on only a fraction of that income. The Prime Minister is a great humanitarian. Like the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), he has received recognition not only in this country, but also abroad as one of the greatest men the world has produced. Strangely enough it is only in this Parliament that one hears any criticism of these right honorable gentlemen. They have to enter this chamber to hear themselves condemned ! Why are they criticized? Members of the Opposition accuse them of being socialistic and undemocratic. But what are the right honorable gentlemen really trying to do ? They are trying to avoid war, to establish peace in the world and to provide a fairer deal for all. The attitude that members of the Opposition adopt when referring to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, reminds me of Bobby Burns’s immortal observation -

Man’s inhumanity to man Makes countless- thousands mourn.

What a reflection on human nature is contained in those words! The leaders of the present Government have striven to redress the consequences of “ man’s inhumanity to man “. The budget that we are now discussing is evidence of that.

The proposals in the budget are a worthy attempt to establish the equality of man, at least in this country, and to give the underdog a chance. Yet it has been bitterly criticized by the Opposition, which has accused the Government of -being socialist. Of course, that propaganda is not new.

The “ socialistic tiger “ was paraded when I was a boy. We were warned to beware of it, and told that it would make the poor even poorer, and, in fact, devour the world. However, as the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) pointed out last week, if our present prosperity is due to socialism, then at the forthcoming election the electors will undoubtedly say, “Let us have more socialism”. Although the arguments against socialism went out with elastic-sided boots and bowyangs, during the last eight years we have heard nothing but criticism of the Government’s alleged socialist tendencies. In fact, all the ills of the country have been ascribed to socialism, including the rabbit pest. Let me assure members of the Opposition now that there is no doubt that at the next election the Government will be returned with a greater majority than it had even after the election in 1943. Does any honorable -member opposite think that any fair-minded man or woman has any serious criticism to make of the Government? The Opposition in its attacks upon the Government has never uttered any constructive criticism, and after all, the present Government has not only talked about prosperity, but it has also d-one a. great deal to bring about that condition.

Never in the history of Australia has any section of the community enjoyed so much prosperity and real security as it does at present. Why? Because Labour has the interests of Australians at heart. It has endeavoured to afford social security to every man and woman from the cradle to the grave. Members of the Australian Country party complain that credit should not be given to the Government for the prosperity that is at present enjoyed by the primary producers of this country. I emphatically disagree with that contention. Let me recall the dark days of the depression when the primary producers needed assistance to save their farms and their homes. The anti-Labour Government of that time, the Australian Country party and the banks all refused to help them. Deputation after deputation visited Canberra, .Sydney and Melbourne to intercede with the anti-Labour government of that time for the right of farmers to continue on their properties so that they could pay their way. We all remember the paltry assistance which the coalition. anti-Labour administration gave to thefarmers then. What utter hypocrisy it is for members of the Australian Country party to contend now that Labour is not concerned about the primary producersContrast the position of farmers at that time with their present prosperity under Labour. During Labour’s regime they have received, not thousands, ‘but hundreds of thousands of pounds annually in subsidies and bounties. Yet, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen),. the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull), and the honorable member forBendigo (Mr. Rankin), who, like myself,, represent primary producers and should know all about these matters, have theaudacity to assert that primary producershave been badly treated by Labour. It is a wonder that their words do not choke them! The primary producers realize,, from bitter experience, that it is results,, not words, that really count. Hundredsof people have approached me in my electorate, and said, “ It was bad luck for us, Joe, that the Labour Government was not in office during the depression”. Thousands of former primary producers would still be on their properties if the LabourGovernment had been in power in theearly 1930’s. Thousands of primary producers would not be on the land to-day if the Labour party had not come into officein 1941.

I recall the old saying that £1,000- when you want it is worth £10,000 when you do not want it. Primary producersare enjoying to-day a degree of prosperity that was unknown to them in the past. They have dischargedtheir indebtedness and they have that satisfactory feeling which only security and financial independence can give. They are expanding their properties and increasing production. How different is their prosperous condition to-day compared with their plight during the depression when an anti-Labour government was in office ! I am convinced that if theOpposition parties were in power to-day,. Australia would not be enjoying its present condition of prosperity. TheOpposition parties like to keep theprimary producers down. Their record proves it. Instead of endeavouring to improve the conditions of the people in the past, honorable members opposite said, “ Now you are down, and we shall keep you down”. Because anti-Labour governments refused to assist the primary producers, thousands of them were forced’ to seek other jobs.

Honorable members opposite complain about the drift of the (population from the rural areas to the large cities. The Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) has said that Australians have not made the most of the opportunities that have been offering to develop this country. Honorable members opposite should1 examine the reasons why our national development has not come up to their expectations. One of the principal causes is that during the financial and economic depression in the early 1930’s, when an anti-Labour government was in power, approximately 33 per cent, of the people of New South Wales were unemployed. That was an appalling waste of manpower. Why did not the government of the day plan the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme, undertake the standardization of railway gauges, and engage in slum clearance? Had those works been commenced, Australia would not have had an unemployment problem in those years, but it was not the policy of the Opposition parties to provide employment for the people. They favoured a condition, not of prosperity, but of poverty. Fortunately for Australia, the Labour party returned to the treasury bench in October, 1941, when the freedom-loving peoples of the world were facing their darkest hour. While engaged upon a magnificent war effort, the Labour Government overcame many obstacles in the domestic sphere, and introduced its excellent social services programme. The primary producers had good’ cause to remember the wise administration of the previous Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully), who, despite three of the worst droughts in our history, substantially improved their lot. Credit is due to the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) for the fortunate position in which primary producers are placed’ to-day.

I shall cite some facts which honorable members opposite should carefully study. I have not compiled them. They are the views of other men in responsible positions. Members of the Australian Country party have shed crocodile tears over the plight of the man on the land. They are hypocrites. They have accused the Labour Government of being callously indifferent towards the primary producers, and they completely disregard the fact that the man on the land is more prosperous to-day than he has ever been. During the financial depression when an anti-Labour government was in office, the price of wheat was as low as ls. 3d. a bushel. Obviously, the man on the land is in an infinitely better position to-day with the Labour Government in office. Those are not suppositions. In the past, when primary producers sought assistance from anti-Labour governments, their pleas fell on deaf ears. The man on the land deserves every consideration in difficult times, because he is the foundation of Australia’s wealth. Our stabilized economy to-day is due wholly and solely to his efforts. When I make that statement, I do not minimize the importance of the hundreds of thousands of persons engaged in secondary production. They are the consumers. Each of us is like a link in a chain. It would be futile for me to grow large quantities of wheat or for the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod) to produce large quantities of wool if there were not a market for those commodities. Members of the Australian Country party promise the people the sun, the moon and the earth if they are returned to the treasury bench. However, the people remember the bitter experiences that they have suffered when anti-Labour governments have been in office. The biggest obstacle which, the Opposition parties have to surmount is their previous record of maladministration, and that would be repented if ever they were returned to office. The primary producers are the people who swing an election against a political party, and their attitude to the Australian Country party may be summarized as “never again”. They will not trust a political party that has let them down so badly in the past. Honorable members will recall the saying, “If a man takes you down once, shame on him. If he takes you down twice, shame on you for giving him the opportunity “.

The primary producers do not propose to be placed in the same category as the man who was taken down twice. They will not vote for the Australian Country party at the forthcoming election.

I have not directed those remarks against the Liberal party. People know that members of the Liberal party stand for vested interests, the banking monopoly, the shipping monopoly and other monopolies which are the enemies of the man on the land. Those monopolies kept the primary producers down for long dark years. In. the words of President Lincoln -

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

The Liberal party will not fool a majority of the people again.

I shall not deal with the various subjects that have been so ably discussed by previous speakers on this side of the chamber. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) delivered a most eloquent address when he replied to the Leader of the Australian Country party. The honorable gentleman proved beyond doubt that the Government’s financial policy and attitude towards petrol rationing were completely justified. The Leader of the Australian Country party -merely juggled with figures. I should not say that he misquoted them, but he is an accountant and a past-master at using figures. I do not profess to be an authority on accountancy, but I am able to appreciate fully an exposition of sound common sense. The honorable member for Fremantle made such a speech, and gave the lie direct to some of the statements by the Leader of the Australian Country party. The honorable member for’ “Wilmot also made a notable contribution to the debate, and I congratulate the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) on his review of the Government’s social services legislation. That thought prompts me to compare the plight of the poorer people, under an anti-Labour government, with their present condition. Despite heavy post-war commitments, the La’bour Government has increased social services expenditure from £16,000,000 to £88,000,000 in the space of a few years. What a magnificent tribute that is to the

Government’s concern for the welfare of the less fortunate members of the community.

Honorable members opposite have criticized what they describe as the Government’s socialist policy. I endorse the remarks of the honorable member for Wilmot who said, in effect, “ If socialism will give security to the mothers, widows and pensioners, give us some socialism as quickly as possible and make it as much as you can”. I make no apology for that statement. The Minister for Postwar Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) also made an excellent speech. Honorablemembers opposite have accused the Government of insincerity when it refers to its plans for settling ex-servicemen on the land. This matter must he approached with some caution if mistakes that were made after World War I. are not to be repeated. It is futile to settle exservicemen on the land if they have no prospect of success. I consider that an exserviceman who is fortunate enough to draw a block of land in a ballot is set for life. Speaking from memory, I believe that the Government has settled ex-servicemen on 5,000,000 acres of the 7,000,000 acres of land that have been acquired. How. then, can honorable members opposite be sincere when they criticize the Government’s land settlement policy? Why have not more servicemen been put on the land ? The reason is that the big land-owners are asking more for the land than it is worth. After the first world war, many soldier settlers had a bitter experience. They had risked their lives in defence of their country, hut on their return they were put on land under conditions which made success impossible. The fault lay with the governments that were supported by honorable members opposite. The land was too dear, and no enterprise, whether it he a business or a farm, can pay if it is over-capitalized. If the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land has been slow the fault lies with the land monopolists. As a matter of fact, land monopolists and the banks have a good deal in common. They are all prepared to get as much as they can at the expense of the people. In some instances the development of propositions for the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land has been delayed because of a difference of opinion between the State government concerned and the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction about the proper value of the land.

We all know that the prices for wool and wheat cannot remain at their present level, but they will remain payable for :a considerable while yet, thanks to the wise administration of this Labour Government, which has entered into longterm agreements for the sale of our products. When the Labour Government came into power, the primary producers were down and out. Wheat was selling at ls. 3d. a bushel. The growers asked the government of the day for .a payable price, but it was refused them. The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) brought in what he called a stabilization plan, but it was not a plan at all. He proposed to guarantee the growers 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.bv out of which they would have to pay ls. a bushel for “handling charges, &c, leaving only 2s, lOd. If the wheat fetched more than the guaranteed price, 50 per cent, of the excess was to go to the fund and 50 per cent, to the grower. Now, when wheat is selling for as much as 15s. a bushel, only half the amount by which the price exceeds the guaranteed price may be paid into the fund. As a matter of fact, under the present plan, the amount held back for the fund has never exceeded’ 2s. 2d. a bushel. Everything received in excess of that goes to the grower. Let us note the contrast between the present plan and the one proposed by honorable members opposite when they formed the government. Members of the Australian Country party claim to represent the primary producers, but actually they represent the big commercial interests which have always exploited the primary producers. I do not want to talk about ii former member for Riverina. He was certainly no friend of the primary producers, and in that respect he is closely followed by the honorable member for Indi. They are very evenly matched, like the race-horses, Carbon Copy and Comic Court and I hardly know which of them to put my money on. The persons I have just named are both enemies of the primary producers. When this Government put forward a wheat stabili zation plan, and gave the growers an opportunity to vote on it, the honorablemember for Indi stumped the countryside in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales urging the farmers to vote against it. Notwithstanding his efforts, however, the wheat-growers rejected his advice, and approved of the plan by a majority of 13,000 votes. When the international wheat agreement was under discussion in this chamber, members of the Australian Country party did everything they could to pa-event its ratification, except to vote against it. When it came to a vote they were with us, although we did not care whether they supported us or not. Of course, they knew in their hearts that the growers would accept the agreement.

During the depression, the Scullin Government had a majority in the House of Representatives, but the anti-Labour parties had a majority in the Senate. The Government introduced a .bill to authorize the Commonwealth Bank to raise a paltry £18,000,000 by what was known as a fiduciary mote issue. The money was to be devoted to the relief of unemployment and to helping wheat-growers to pay their debts. The bill was thrown out by the Senate, Opposition speakers claiming that if the plan were put into operation it would lead to inflation. Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) tells us that developmental works in Australia might be delayed for lack of labour or of materials, but never again will they be delayed for lack of money. A works programme to cost £640,000,000 has been planned, yet honorable members opposite tell us that this is a budget of no hope. Could anything be further from the truth? The Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lemmon) has put a great deal of time and energy into planning the Snowy Mountains water conservation and electric power scheme. Water conservation is the most neglected industry in Australia. The Snowy Mountains scheme has been talked of for 70 years, but it was left for a Labour government to make a beginning. Water conservation is of the utmost importance te Australia. I do not need to go to Queensland to consider the Burdekin River scheme in order to realize how important such projects are. I can speak from 50 years experience in connexion with the Barrigun irrigation scheme on the Murrumbidgee. We had been trying to raise money for that scheme for 50 years, but every man was taken off the project about ten years ago because the policies pursued by the Bavin and Stevens Governments had deprived the State of financial resources. Fancy having no money to pay men for the development of one of the richest tracts of country in Australia ! I do not think that there is as much as 100 acres of bad land between Corowa and Deniliquin. Yet I have seen thousands of sheep dying there and have had to cart fodder to stock in times of drought while millions of gallons of water flowed into the sea daily. Anti-Labour governments were responsible for the neglect of that area, yet honorable members opposite to-day ask why the country has not been developed and populated. Why is Australia undeveloped and unproductive, as the Leader of the Australian Country party complains? Because, during the depression, the private banks wanted to keep the people poor. Petition after petition was presented to this Parliament by members of the Australian Country party asking the Government not to give the Commonwealth Bank power to use the national credit in the interests of the people, but those appeals were unheeded.

I make no apology for my attitude towards the nationalization of credit. I make my views clear not only to honorable members in this chamber, but also to the electors of Riverina whom I represent. What would have happened to us in World War I. except for the work of the Commonwealth Bank? That institution financed the operations of the primary producers’ pools when the private trading banks refused to do so. The private banks put farmers off their land during the depression because they wanted their pound of flesh. World War II. created bank credits for millions of pounds. Can any honorable member opposite tell me of a private bank that lost money during the depression? The hanks put people off the land, bought their properties cheaply, and sold them at greatly enhanced prices. This Government is giving the primary producers the opportunity to secure fair returns for their labours, and its banking policy is designed to prevent tragedies such as those that occurred during the depression. I do not care whether honorable members opposite describe it as “ socialization “, “ nationalization “, “ control of the national credit “ or anything else. By whatever name it is known, that policy will provide security for the people, and that is the only thing that matters. The banks were contemptible enough to take the assets of a crippled “ digger “ in order to satisfy their demand for interest payments. Yet honorable members opposite tell us that the banking institutions are honorable! Under the system by which they operate, Jack Smith can deposit £100 with a bank and the bank can lend £1,000 to Tom Brown, and charge him interest at the rate of 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or 8 per cent, per annum for money that exists only as a book entry. In other words Brown can be made to pay interest on £900 that is not in existence. What a deliberate lie it is to say that banks lend only on other people’s deposits! Thousands of farmers paid interest on hook debts for years and were impoverished in the process, but honorable members opposite urge them to oppose nationalization of the banking system, under which the Commonwealth Bank would have control of the wealth of Australia. Why should not the people have control of the nation’s wealth ? Who is more entitled than the community to own the wealth of Australia? Who created that wealth? Honorable members opposite know that the people, .not the private banks, did so. Australia would not be worth a “ bumper “ to-day hut for the people who live here. They have created the nation’s wealth, yet they have been paying interest to the private banks so that those institutions have reaped the reward which rightly belongs to the people.

This Government has reduced interest charges by 20 per cent., despite all the resistance to its efforts by honorable members opposite. That provides magnificent evidence of the sincerity of this Government which it has made a remarkable contribution to the economic security of the primary producers. I remind honorable members of the evidence that was given to the royal commission that was appointed by an antiLabour Government to inquire into conditions in the wool and wheat industries. We, the primary producers, were in debt to the amount of almost £300,000,000 in those days. The late Mr. Ernie Field, who by no stretch of imagination could be called a Labour man, stated in sworn evidence that the interest charges on every bushel of wheat produced amounted to ls. 3d. That was as much as we were paid for a bushel of wheat at one stage during the depression. Sometimes I received less. I sold some of my wheat for ls. a bushel. Some I could not sell at all. In spite of the history of extortion of the private banks, honorable members opposite persist in their appeals to the Government to leave the private banks alone because they are “ the backbone of Australia “. They caused the downfall of Australia, in my opinion, in the dark days of the depression. Never did they wipe off a debt, although the community did so. Had it not been for the moratorium and farmers’ debt adjustment legislation, hundreds of thousands of farmers who managed to hold on to their properties through the lean years would have been forced out of production and would not have been able to enjoy the measure of independence that they have to-day. I agree with what the honorable member for Wannon has said. I was among those who suffered but managed to hold on to their land. My motor car was jacked up in my shed and my telephone was disconnected because I could not afford to pay the registration fee for the car or my telephone charges. That was not because I did not work. I was not afraid to work.

Men worked from daylight to dark every day of the year but went broke while the Australian Country party held the balance of power in the Government that was in office. What did the members of that party do for the primary producers then? They allowed farmers to go bankrupt by the thousand. Twentyfive thousand people went off their properties in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. The Minister for Works and

Housing can speak for Western Australia, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the honorable member for Wannon can speak for Victoria, and I can speak for south-western New South Wales. Like the honorable member for Wannon, I just succeeded in surviving as a farmer. But I owe no thanks to the so-called Australian Country party for my survival. It would have let me go off the land with the thousands of broken-hearted men and women, and their homeless children, who were left to make their way in the world as best they could after giving some of the best years of their lives in the interests of the nation as primary producers. Members of the Australian Country party now ask the people to return them and their political allies to power so that they can have another chance to control the destiny of Australia. “ Give us one more chance. We will put you on your feet “, they promise the people. This Government has put the people on their feet, and it will keep them on their feet by pursuing its enlightened policy. The anti-Labour parties had their chance and they failed miserably. They failed in war, they failed in peace, and they failed during the depression.

How can honorable members opposite stand before the people now and honestly say that they can carry on the government of Australia ? They could not carry on the government successfully either before the war began or during the war. The late Mr. John Curtin had to take over the reins of office during the darkest days of World War II. when, as the honorable member for Warringah said, one Japanese division could have walked through Australia. Notwithstanding that admission of ‘the ineffectiveness of the defence preparations of an antiLabour government, honorable members opposite now claim that this Government has made inadequate arrangements for defence. When the anti-Labour parties were in power before the war, even the birds in the bush were whistling warnings that war was approaching and that we must get ready. Australia was bombed at Derby, Darwin and Broome. One of our cities was almost wiped off the map, and hundreds of people were killed. But honorable members opposite say that a Labour government is not to foe trusted to defend the country! If a Labour government cannot be trusted, God help Australia. We had no chance under ah anti-Labour administration previously, and we would have no chance under an anti-Labour government in the future.

I had prepared notes for my speech, but I have not used them. The facts are sufficient, and I shall not bother with smooth talk. If I should ever make a misstatement in this chamber, I shall apologize for it. I mean every word that I have said. I have no punches to pull and no apologies to make. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister this Government has brought Australia from the lowest rung of the economic ladder to the highest. Every class in the community enjoys prosperity to-day and has a guarantee of security in the future. Great plans have been made for the development of the nation. We have the Snowy Mountains scheme for New South Wales and Victoria, the Burdekin River scheme in Queensland and a vast programme for the development of the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Those projects were being talked about when I was a boy, hut it was left to a Labour government to undertake them.

I pay a compliment to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell). For as long as I can remember the cry in Australia has been “ Populate or perish “. That cry has come not only from people like myself, but also from statesmen. I do not profess to be a statesman; I am just a plain farmer. The Minister for Immigration is bringing us immigrants from all over the world. I do not suggest that the honorable gentleman is infallible. I do not know of any man or woman who has not made mistakes in business or other transactions. Nobody can suggest, however, that the Minister has made deliberate mistakes. He has done his best, and in my opinion he has done a magnificent job. It has evoked compliments even from the Leader of the Opposition, who is, I will admit, broadminded in many respects.

We are here to-day, but we may be gone to-morrow. We have a responsibility to the rising generation - the babies in the cradle and the unborn babies. We must safeguard their future. I wish that there were more men in Australia like the Prime Minister and indeed all other members of the Labour party. We have tried to make this country more prosperous and secure. The great Australian Labour party is working and has always worked for the security of all classes of the Australian people. We are trying to give them a decent standard of living from the cradle to the grave. We have done our best for them. When the anti-Labour parties were in office, our workers were down and out and on the dole, there was no money to develop the country, no water for irrigation and the enemy was round our coasts. We were on the verge of losing Australia, and had it not been for the efforts of the great Australian Labour party we should have lost it. But for the efforts of the late John Curtin and the Ministers in the Curtin Government, together with the assistance that we received from the United States of America, we should have been lost. The Labour party has lifted not only the primary producers of Australia but also all other classes of the community from the lowest to the highest rung of the ladder. It is the intention of the Government, by means of this budget, to give the Australian people further security and to develop the productive capacity of this great land of the Southern Cross, which is an ornament to the world. It has been left to this Government to evolve plans for the future.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

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

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The committee has listened to three-quarters of an hour of verbosity from the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Langtry) on the occasion of the most important post-war budget debate in which the Parliament has engaged. I pay a tribute to the fluency of the honorable gentleman, but I think it will be admitted that he has spoken about almost everything except the subject under discussion - that is, the budget. He has given us a rehash of the troubles of the depression years and has indulged in the customary diatribe about how the Labour party has saved the country. According to the honorable gentleman the high prices that are now being received for Australian wool and wheat are due to the efforts of this Government, but the failure to settle a single soldier settler in the Northern Territory, which is the exclusive property of the Commonwealth, is the fault of the Opposition, so the honorable gentleman says! Bless my soul, we cannot persuade the Government even to accept amendments to the bills ! The honorable gentleman has indulged in drivel. It was pleasant to listen to him, but it must be recognized that his speech was sheer drivel.

He has told a most harrowing story of the depression years, when the price of wheat was low, but he has conveniently omitted to mention that when the price of wheat was at its lowest level a Labour government, the Scullin Administration, was in power. Although the honorable gentleman has argued that the low price of wheat during tie period of office of the Menzies Government was the fault of that Government, he has not suggested that the low price of wheat during the regime of the Scullin Government was the fault of that Government. The honorable member might well have devoted his remarks to a great Australian primary industry that is in jeopardy to-day. I refer to the canned fruit industry, which is located principally in the Riverina and Indi electorates. He might well have referred to the fact that, although an increase of the price of sugar bas been announced recently, no authoritative statement has been made regarding whether the payment to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee is to be continued. It is that payment that stabilizes one of the most important industries in the Riverina. The electors of Griffith and Leeton would have been very interested to hear the honorable gentleman express his views upon the question of continuance of the payment to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee.

Mr Pollard:

– It has been agreed to.

Mr McEWEN:

– If it has, the decision should have been announced. If my criticism of the honorable member for Riverina has served to wrench from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) an admission that that payment will be made, it has served its purpose.

I propose to address myself to the budget. The tabulation of figures that is before the committee at the present time carries within it the story of the collection from the Australian people of more than £500,000,000 and of the expenditure of more than £500,000,000. It is quite impossible in the course of an address to the committee to make a detailed analysis of the budget in a form that would be understandable to those who are listening to the broadcast of our proceedings. As a matter of fact it is too exhaustive a series of documents to permit a detailed analysis within the Parliament itself. On basic principles the budget of a nation is comparable to the budget of a household - that is to say, there is a certain amount of income which is to be spent in a certain manner. The present budget is the story of what money the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), will collect, from whom he will collect it and how he will spend it. Remember, this is another budget of the “ golden age “ that the Treasurer announced some time ago Australia was on the point of entering. The Treasurer has presented this budget in an atmosphere of unprecedented prosperity, which the honorable member for Riverina has just painted for us in such vivid colouring. It is certainly a budget which could be described in Hollywood terms as’ “gigantic, stupendous and colossal “. It covers an expenditure” of more than £540,000,000, but it also provides for a deficit of £35,000,000. That is a point which the Australian people must thoroughly realize - that this golden age “ budget is a deficit budget, and that the deficit is not one of a few shillings or .pounds, but of no less than £35,000,000. The Treasurer presented the budget to the Parliament some weeks ago. Since then sterling and many other eur.rencies have been devalued with direct and’ indirect effects on the Australian budgetary position. I should, like to know whether the Treasurer knew, when he was preparing his budget for submission to the Parliament, that sterling was to be devalued. I have not the slightest doubt that he did know. The fact that the Treasurer originally prepared the budget before the devaluation of sterling and of the Australian pound, means that we are now called upon to discuss a financial statement that is completely unreal and out of date. In view of that fact, the budget ought to be withdrawn and recast in the light of the new circumstances that now exist. I do not expect that that will be done. On the contrary, I expect that the Treasurer, with his usual contempt of the institution of Parliament, will rest on this document which has been made so completely out of date by devaluation.

An examination of the detailed figures contained in the budget shows the hopeless and inextricable mixture of items of capital expenditure with items of current expenditure, making it impossible for us to discuss them on a realistic basis. It is a confusing budget, and I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, it was designed to confuse. It is like previous budgets submitted by the Treasurer which have proved, towards the end of each financial year, to be unreal documents. 1 have not the slightest doubt that when it is viewed in retrospect at the end of this financial year this document also will prove to be unreal. Two years ago the Government had to write £43,000,000 out of the budget in order to balance its finances. It did that by making a gift of £25,000,000 to Britain and by expending £18,000,000 from income for a purpose for which the budget had provided for expenditure from loan moneys. That is why I say that I have no doubt that we shall find that the figures before us will not be borne out by the eventualities of the coming year. However, there are some intelligible facts that will be of interest to the average Australian to be drawn from this document. After all, the average Australian man or woman ls not so much concerned with attempting to understand a complicated budgetary document dealing with the expenditure of more than £540,000,000 as he or she is concerned with attempting to understand what the budget will mean to people’s pockets the next week, and what it will mean in the next year to the businesses in which they are engaged. The Treasurer provided us with some figures that will be. interesting to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers especially those who are heads of families. With the budget he has circulated to all honorable members a (able showing the amount of tax that will be paid on various taxable incomes by various grades of taxpayers. The table only goes so far as to show the tax rate in respect of a taxpayer with dependent wife and one dependent child, although no doubt tables that go further than that would be available upon request. When the Labour Government came to power it altered the form of income tax assessments affecting the married taxpayer and the taxpayer with dependent children from what was known as the deduction system to the rebate system. I shall not compare those two systems now because that subject has been debated here before, but I shall quote to the committee some figures from the Treasurer’s own table. The table shows that a taxpayer with a wife and a child who earns £300 a year will pay £12 3s. less in taxes every year than will a single man with the same income. In short, under the rebate system introduced by the Labour Government a married taxpayer will be conceded £12 3s. a year towards maintaining his wife and child. Not many people now receive an income of only £300 a year, so I shall refer to figures given in the table in respect of an income of £350 a year, which is nearer to the present basic wage. This Labour Government allows a taxpayer with an income of £350 a year the sum of £13 14s. a year with which to keep a wife and one child ; but when I follow out the tables to the “ tall poppies “ I find that the taxpayer with an income of £15,000 a year is allowed, according to the Treasurer’s tables, the sum of £90 a year with which to keep a wife and one child. I invite honorable members opposite to explain to the average worker why it allows him, a taxpayer with an income of £6 a week the sum of only £12 3s. a year to keep a wife and one child, whilst, at the same time, it allows a taxpayer with an income of £15,000 a year the sum of £90 a year with which to keep a wife and child. This budget has been described as a “ people’s budget “. What people? Is it a budget for the worker with an income of £6 a week or the taxpayer with an income of £15,000 a year? Honorable members opposite cannot give an answer in the Government’s favour to that question because I have taken the figures that

I have cited from the tables supplied by the Treasurer. Those tables show that persons in the lower income groups pay comparatively small tax. However, Labour has devised an ingenious method of dividing what used to be called income tax under two headings and calling half of the tax income tax and the other half social services contribution. That device enables Labour supporters, as the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Thompson) did in the course of his speech, to cite as the amount of income tax paid, figures which exclude social services contributions.

Mr Thompson:

– The figures that I cited included both income tax and social services contribution.

Mr McEWEN:

– If the honorable member for Hindmarsh has another look at the figures he cited he will find that my statement is correct. In any event, social services contribution is regarded as income tax by the taxpayer. The Government claims that this budget is a people’s budget, and points to it as evidence that under Labour the masses of the people are not heavily taxed. However, there are other ways of killing a dog than by choking it with butter. Let us look at another trick that the Government has pulled out of the bag. In addition to direct taxes, the family man will pay a considerable amount in indirect taxes. On the Treasurer’s own figures, every man, woman and child in Australia will pay, on an average, tax amounting to £19 15s. 1/2 d. during the current financial year. That, of course, is the Treasurer’s estimate, but his estimates are never borne out. For instance, in 1947-48 he estimated that in indirect taxes every man, woman and child would pay £17 3s. 10d., but, in fact, the tax paid per capita during that year amounted to £19 13s. 6 1/2 d., whilst the Treasurer estimated that in 1948-49 every man woman and child would pay £19 12s. 8-id. in tax, whereas, in fact, the tax paid in that year was £21 3s. 8 3/4 d. per capita. Therefore, I do not seriously accept the estimate of £19 15s. per capita in respect of the current financial year. Bearing in mind the inflationary effects of devaluation, I have not the slightest doubt the rate of indirect tax that will be paid by Australians during the current financial year will not be less than £22 per capita.

Mr Thompson:

– Some will pay a lot more than others.

Mr McEWEN:

– The honorable member for Hindmarsh has had a bright idea ; he should go to the top of the class. However, apart from what is generally known as indirect taxes every man, woman and child in this country will make an additional contribution which I consider to be in the category of indirect taxes. I refer to that portion of the pay-roll tax that forms a component of the cost of living.

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– Did not the Government of which the honorable member was a member introduce the pay-roll tax?

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes ; it introduced the tax in the middle of the recent war, but not during a so-called golden age.

Mr Pollard:

– That Government introduced the pay-roll tax in 1938. Why does the honorable member lie about the matter ?

Mr McEWEN:

– The Minister forCommerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) does not know what he is talking about ; but that is not unusual. When he does know what he is talking about he lies about the subject as he lied about the agreement to sell wheat to the Government of New Zealand. Consequently, does it matter whether he lies through inadvertence, or deliberately? Including the proportion of pay-roll tax that is a component of the cost of living, an impost of at least £24 in indirect tax will be placed upon each person in Australia. That is what the Treasury will collect in primage duty, customs duty, sales tax and other indirect taxes. Certainly, the taxpayer will not pay that impost directly. The trader will pay the indirect tax and in the final selling price of an article will load a profit based on a cost inclusive of tax. The Prices Commissioner who functioned under the present Government approved that practice. The Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) may look at me rather bleakly, but he was a member of the Cabinet when the Prices Commissioner approved of the practice of traders loading their profit upon a price inclusive of the indirect tax payable on commodities. Those write-ups of profit will increase indirect taxes payable by each consumer to at least £36. Honorable members can calculate for themselves how much that impost will work out at per capita in respect of the wageearning population. The figures that I have cited I have extracted from the budget which the committee is now debating. Those figures show clearly that every head of a family in this country whether he earns the basic wage or enjoys a higher income will be loaded with an indirect impost varying from £50 to £100 during the current financial year. That is what the budget means to the average man and woman in this country; and when it is examined from that aspect, it is not an abstract, incomprehensible document. In this so-called golden age a Labour Government has presented a budget under which every head of a family will pay not so many shillings extra a week, according to his income range, hut from £1 to £2 a week in indirect taxes including the impost represented in the profit imposed by traders in passing on indirect taxes. I contend that this is merely another example of the Labour Government treating the people as a lot of “ suckers “. When I visited the Royal Agricultural Show in Melbourne the other day I was reminded of my younger days when it was customary for confidence men to fleece the public attending shows. However, the confidence men could learn a few tricks from the people who prepare the Commonwealth budgets. If ever a budget was designed to deceive the people it is the one now being debated. A budget necessarily hinges on the total national income. It shows how much revenue the Government expects to receive, from whom that money will be collected, and how it is proposed to expend the revenue. Of course, we well know that according to how the people like what the Government is doing they can return it to office, or change it at the general election. That is still the prerogative of the Australian people and we shall abide by the umpire’s decision. We must all bear clearly in mind that, at the proper time, the Australian people can choose the Government that it wants, one that will divide up the national income as the people desire it to he divided. But the people are not likely to choose a government that proposes to divide up more national income than exists. The size of the sections into which an orange can he cut depends on the size of the orange. That is why the Opposition attaches so much importance to the volume of production in this country. Should our national income diminish seriously, no Government could make good the deficiency. The position is analogous to a group of children dividing a hag of lollies. If there are five children in the group and fifteen lollies in the bag, no one child can have more than three lollies if the distribution is to be equitable. Therefore we should see that there is a volume of production sufficient to maintain a good Australian standard of life.

This is a budget of vast .figures. It is true that in this year of grace there is a very big orange to be divided; in fact, there will be about £540,000,000 worth of orange to be cut up. But did Labour create this hig orange? Let us consider where this money comes from. It must be remembered that all that can be divided is the proceeds from the sale of the physical goods that are produced. I have sought unsuccessfully to obtain from various government departments the most recent figures with relation to the value of production in Australia last year. However, I understand that the export value of wool, wheat, lead, zinc, dairy products, meat, poultry products, and fruit for the year 1947-48 was £284,431,000, whilst the probable value of exports during the financial year just concluded will be about £239,000,000. It is therefore safe to assume that the value of last year’s production of these principal basic primary products exceeded £300,000,000. That is why we have a big budget. But if wool realized 100d. per lb. at auction, and wheat £1 a bushel in the open market, could Labour claim the credit?

Mr Ward:

– What is the honorable member trying to prove ?

Mr McEWEN:

– I am endeavouring to prove something that could be uncomfortable for the Minister.

Mr Ward:

– I am not afraid of anything that the honorable member may prove.

Mr McEWEN:

– I should not stick my head out too far if I were the Minister.

Mr Ward:

– The honorable member should not fear; I am quite capable of handling any assertion that he may make.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am glad that no other honorable member on the Government side of the chamber has attempted r,o divert my thoughts on this subject. The high prices at present being obtained for our primary products may be regarded as a windfall. This budget is the outcome of the receipt of high prices for our products plus the aftermath of the great injection of credit into the economy of this country, rendered necessary in the conduct of the war. We are in this fortunate position because vast sums of money have come to us not because of our own planning but just as accidentally as riches come to the winner of a lottery. I stress that the high prices being obtained for our primary products are just as unorganized so far as the Government or the Opposition is concerned, as is the winning of a lottery. This budget appears to have been conceived in the expectation that we shall win a lottery every year during the remainder of our lives. Of course, we might. Normally, however, life is not like that. Honorable members on this side of the chamber believe that we should get down to the real issues and plan for substantially increased production. We should not found the prosperity of this country upon fortuitous high prices, but upon real production and real trade. When Labour came to office it inherited a trade structure which had been carefully and patiently established over the years by non-Labour governments, on a foundation of Empire trade and reciprocity, preference in the British market for the sale of our primary products, and an assured market in this country for British goods.

Mr Ward:

– There were also 250,000 persons unemployed in this country.

Mr McEWEN:

– The basic soundness of our economy was that we had assured markets for our primary products, whilst the people who bought them from us were assured of preference in their sales to us. There followed a series of trade agreements mutually advantageous to ourselves and countries with which we negotiated. All that has been turned up by the Labour party, of which this larrikin interjecting Minister, who is never rebuked, is a member.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! The honorable member must refer to Ministers by their proper titles.

Mr McEWEN:

– I repeat, all that has been turned up by this Government.

Mr Dedman:

– That is quite untrue.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) should be an authority on truthfulness, heaven knows! On this side, we regard him as the greatest authority in this House on untruthfulness. By going to Geneva, Havana, and elsewhere, and signing away the heritage that has been carefully built up ‘in this country for generations, he has left us without assured markets, so that to-day, we have no trade preferences. We have no right to preference in British markets, or in those of any other country, nor has the United Kingdom any right to preference in other countries. In due course, when Japan and Germany join the International Trade Organization as that great internationalist, the Australian Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), intends that they should do, we shall find that those countries also will be entitled to sell their goods in the Australian market on the same basis as British goods. We shall have no advantage in the United Kingdom, or in any other country. This is the most devastating blow that has ever been dealt to the ultimate security of the Australian economy, and it has been dealt by a Labour Government. It is all very well to have this bright and beautiful idealism when wool is bringing 10Od. per lb. and wheat could bring £1 a bushel or more if the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture was not selling it for less; but when the cold blast of world competition hits us, and we find that we have given away our markets - “ given “ is the word because we are getting absolutely nothing in return - it will be very hard to sustain the standard of living that this country claims to be the right of its people. I am not going to say that all this will lead to another depression and widespread unemployment. Our society is not static. It is an evolving society. All of us have learned a lesson. Whatever government may be in office there will never again be, I am sure, hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this country. The Labour Government has its plans. It has announced what it intends to do to safeguard Australia .against unemployment. One of its plans is to standardize the railway gauges, but, so far, that project has only been an election-time story. It was part of Labour’s policy at the last elections, but. what has been done about it since? The Government also has in mind, wc are told, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme, a vast road construction programme, and afforestation schemes. It is said that £50,000,000 will be expended in the Northern Territory. That is Labour’s guarantee against unemployment in this country. If there is no better guarantee, let us have Labour’s plans, hut I say that those plans are rendered necessary only because honorable members opposite know in their hearts that they have undermined the Australian economy. What of the Australian workers who will be compelled to accept Labour’s formula for avoiding unemployment? What of the man who may lose his job _ at Darlinghurst, only to be told, “ There is no need for you to be unemployed. We are building a reservoir on the Ord River in the Kimberleys. You can go up there with a few thousand others and carry out that work”. And what of the Carlton worker who, upon losing his employment, is told that there is a job for him at Hay, Oodnadatta, or somewhere else in the remote regions of the Commonwealth? Australian workmen and their wives will be the greatest sufferers if the undermining of our economy by a Labour government makes it necessary to disperse our working population in that manner. The Australian people should realize that this easy formula which Labour propounds will not be so easy when it is put into effect, and families are broken up. In Russia, forced labour camps are called concentration camps. In Germany, they were called slave camps. In Australia, of course, we shall have a better and brighter name. For instance, we are told that workers do not pay income tax: they pay a “ social service contribution . We have “ new Australians “, not “ immigrants “. We can expect, therefore, a brighter name for the fellow who has to go to a camp in the Northern Territory ; but whatever label the camp may bear, as far as the worker is concerned, it will only be a. place that he has to go to because Labour has made a mess of things.

Mr Menzies:

– They will probably call him an “in-patient”.

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes. Labour has no serious thoughts on life apart from gaining votes and rewarding its faithful supporters. In that respect, also, Labour follows closely the pattern laid1 down by the Communists. The “ corns “ want, above all, to destroy arbitration in this country. The Labour party, of course, will not destroy arbitration. Perish the thought ! It will uphold arbitration ; and so the maritime industries which used to function under the Arbitration Court have been removed from that court and placed under the Maritime Industries Commission, a member of which, by the grace of the Labour Government, is Mr. Elliott, a notorious Communist. Yet, honorable members opposite would have us believe that they would not touch the Communists with a 40-foot pole. The Communist-controlled waterside workers, under Mr. Healy, wanted to get away from the Arbitration Court. Labour, of course, would not remove them from the jurisdiction of the court. Perish the thought! But it did. It established the Stevedoring Industry Commission and appointed to it, by proclamation, the openly confessed Communists Messrs. Healy and Roach. The coal-miners wanted to get away from the Arbitration Court, so they were taken away from it and placed under the control of a public servant, Mr. Gallagher, who is appointed for a term of seven years. One after another industries have been removed from the control of the Arbitration Court proper and put under the control of a , group of people called conciliation commissioners. Mr. Findlay, a ministerial car driver only a few years ago, is now a conciliation commissioner in receipt of £1,500 a year. Mr. Blakeley, a former Labour Minister, has been rewarded for his good service to the party by being appointed a conciliation commissioner. Mr. Donovan, who was a private secretary to a Minister, is also a conciliation commissioner.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN” (Mr Sheehy:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

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

– I am astonished that an honorable member with the intellectual attainments of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) should devote the major part of his speech to a repetition of the tactics which his party and its ally, the Liberal party, have indulged in by means of advertisements published in the daily press of Australia during the last few weeks and which will be continued up to the day of the general election. Let us examine some of the concluding statements made by the honorable member for Indi, particularly his reference to the possibility that free men and women of this country will be drafted to labour camps and transferred to employment in the remote portions of Australia under the plan proposed by the Labour Government to cushion the effect of a depression or a recession. The honorable member has postulated that men will be transferred to the Northern Territory and other remote parts of Australia to engage in public works for which vast sums of money are being set aside by this Government. Only a little while before that he complained that the Government had not settled a solitary ex-serviceman on the land in the Northern Territory. Let me reply to that complaint by saying that more favorable locations for soldier settlement purposes are available in other areas of the Commonwealth. How, in the opinion of the honorable member, was this country originally developed? Was it developed under a conscript system? Were the remote areas of Victoria, the Mallee and the Wimmera, developed by men who were conscripted and transferred there by tory governments? If a fall in the prices of our products in overseas countries should result in a diminution of the national income, it will be possible, under the well-laid plans of the Government, to induce men and women to go to the Northern Territory and to the northern parts of Australia of their own free will. They will be employed under good conditions and will have at their disposal all the mechanical aids that science can devise. They will be provided with all the amenities that the pioneers deserve and should enjoy in a country which has the potential wealth of Australia? That honorable member has sought to convey the impression that the transference of men to the Northern Territory, to the Kimberleys, is the be-all and end-all of the employment plan. When 100 settlers or workers go to the Northern Territory employment is immediately found for ten times that number in the industries of our cities. In these days men do not go to the Northern Territory and other remote areas of the Commonwealth with picks and shovels carrying swags and billy-cans as they did during the depression years when this country was administered by governments of a different political complexion from that of the present Government and, as a consequence, was largely controlled by the private banking institutions. Men will go to the northern areas of Australia equipped with the most modern plant that civilization can provide. They will be provided with earth-moving equipment and with modern amenities, including refrigerators and an efficient and effective water supply. The provision of such equipment will keep in employment in our factories, foundries and coal mines all over Australia, vast numbers of people who would otherwise be thrown out of employment. By uttering all this nonsense about transferring men by force to remote parts of the Commonwealth the honorable member does himself little credit. He has merely tried to confuse the people about Labour’s plans for cushioning the effect of a recession. We all know of the conditions that were forced upon the workers of this country during the depression of the ‘thirties. I regret to say that in Victoria camps were established for the unemployed who were given the magnificent allowance of 6s. a week because the Legislative Council refused to grant sufficient appropriations to allow the Labour government of the day to give the unemployed a better deal. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) well knows what took place in those days. Three years after World War

I., many of our ex-servicemen were unemployed or engaged in part time relief work with municipal authorities. The attempts of the honorable member for Indi to instil fear in the minds of the electors in this way are not far removed from the filthy tactics practised by the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden). It is time that the attention of the people was directed to these tactics. As an example I quote from the Ballarat Courier of the 12th September a report headed “Fadden warns against returning Labour “. The report reads -

The High Court of Australia would replace the Privy Council as the final jurisdiction in all Australian cases, if the Labour Government were returned at the next elections, the Leader of the Country party, Mr. Fadden, said to-night.

Mr. Fadden, who was addressing a public meeting at King’s Cross, said that this was written into the Labour party Constitution, to which all Labour party members were pledged, in September, 1948.

He said that this action would be followed by “packing’’ the High Court of Australia with politically corrupt judges.

Mr Fadden:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr POLLARD:

– Those statements were reported in the Ballarat Courier of the 12th September, but only now does the right honorable gentleman seek to repudiate them.

Mr Fadden:

– My attention was not previously drawn to the report. I did not say the words that have been attributed to me.

Mr POLLARD:

– Can we take it, then, that the right honorable gentleman does not believe that the Labour party would pack the High Court with politically corrupt judges?

Mr Fadden:

– According to some of the statements that have been made by a senior Minister of the Government, the Labour Government would pack the High Court.

Mr POLLARD:

– Why did not the right honorable gentleman repudiate the statement attributed to him in the Ballarat Courier?

Mr Fadden:

– I did not see it.

Mr POLLARD:

– On the 10th September, the Ballarat Courier published. an advertisement inserted by the Ballarat branch of the Australian Constitutional League. The advertisement is surmounted by a torch and a book with the caption “ Preserving our right to freedom “. It reads -

page 618

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

page 618

NOW LET THE PEOPLE ACT

The struggle for freedom can only be settled at the next election. The Government seeks possession not control of the people’s savings. It is the responsibility of the Nation to see that this does not occur.

Who but the Australian Government has over controlled the savings of the people? The Australian Government possessed the people’s savings when the right honorable gentleman was Treasurer. In that capacity he launched several loan campaigns, and later supported similar campaigns launched by Labour administrations, when he exhorted people to invest their money in national loans. He must realize, therefore, that the moment a person invests his money in a national loan, or deposits money in a savings account or in a rural bank account, the money passes completely into the control of the organization with which he deposits it.

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– If it is sound practise for national institutions to control depositors’ funds for the purposes of their investments, then there can be no doubt of the soundness of all governmental bodies retaining complete control of funds invested with them. I remember that in 1931, during the depression, the StateSavings Bank of Victoria nominally held £29,000,000 of depositors’ money. In fact, the bank did not hold that money at all because it had lent it to the State government and local government bodies and other instrumentalities which had, in turn, advanced the money to people to build homes. If all the banks’ depositors had sought collectively to withdraw their money from the bank they could not have collected a single shilling.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– But the depositors had a legal guarantee from the bank.

Mr POLLARD:

– That guarantee was not worth the paper on which it was printed. The suggestion made by members of the Opposition, in their attempt to stampede the people, that if Labour is returned to office at the forthcoming election it will seize the funds which people have invested in loans and in savings bank deposits is utter nonsense. In fact, money held by governments or their instrumentalities as trustees for the people is far safer than money invested in private institutions, because, after all, governments are at least responsible, through their parliaments, to the people. Directors of private banks, however, are responsible to no one except their shareholders. The tragic history nf the bank smash of 1894-96, when thousands of reputable citizens lost their life’s savings, is ample proof of that. Therefore, the allegations made by the honorable member for Indi and other members of the Opposition that the Government will appropriate the investments of people in loans and savings hank accounts are nothing more than f ear propaganda intended to stampede the people into rejecting Labour at the forthcoming election. Incidentally, I have not heard one word from the Opposition in the Parliament, nor have I seen any statement in the press, of the policy that it proposes to implement if returned to power at the next elections, apart from the declaration made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) that if the Opposition parties are returned to power a board will be re-established to control the Commonwealth Bank. That assurance may tickle the ears of some people, but I do not think that it will appeal to the great mass of the Australian public.

The honorable member for Indi also indulged in some propagandist statements concerning the International Trade Organization and the negotiations which took place at Geneva and Havana. The honorable member suggested that the welfare of Australian primary producers was seriously jeopardized by Australia’s participation in the agreement. Leaving aside for a moment any discussion of the merits of the International Trade Agreement, and of the nature of the discussions which preceded it, I remind the honorable gentleman that the two great men who were responsible for the proposal that an organization should be created to regulate international trade were not Labour men. When Mr. Churchill and the late President Roosevelt met in mid-Atlantic and gave expression to the four freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want - they pledged themselves to promote freer trade between the nations of the world when the war ended. Trade barriers were to be lowered and reciprocal trade treaties were to be encouraged, always leaving the right of self determination to individual nations. The International Trade Organization had its genesis in that decision. For that organization to function successfully it was necessary for the United .States of America, which was the conveningauthority, and the United Kingdom,, which was a participating authority, toforgo many advantages that they enjoyed! in .world trade, including many of tie” rights that the United Kingdom enjoyed under the Ottawa Agreement. Throughout the discussions which occurred at Geneva and Havana, where Australia was very ably represented under the leadership of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), our representatives, while adhering to the principles enunciated by Churchill and Roosevelt, adequately safeguarded the rights of Australian primary producers. Members of the present Government deserve more praise than criticism for their participation in the International Trade Organization. Furthermore, should the Government be defeated at the forthcoming elections and the honorable member for Indi become Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, I prophesy now that I shall have the pleasure of witnessing him introduce a number of measures to give effect to the international trade agreements.

Mr McEwen:

– Because the Government has tied the country hand and foot by international trade agreements.

Mr POLLARD:

– I remind the honorable member for Indi that when he was; a member of a previous administration hegave away certain valuable concessions which Australia enjoyed in the sale- of. wheat.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– That is not true..

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member would try to wriggle out of anything. Whilst he may be right in emphasizing that the prevailing prosperity of this country is not completely due to the present Government’s administration, the fact remains that Labour is entitled to full credit for ensuring that the prosperity at present enjoyed in this country is distributed as equitably as it is possible. The honorable member also referred to the need for increased production. Every one agrees that we need to increase our production, and I remind him that no previous administration has provided greater incentives to the people, particularly the primary producers, to do so. Consider for a moment the dairying industry. For the first time in the history of this country, the welfare of the dairy-farmer and his employees is protected by stabilization. During the next five years they are assured of an adequate return for their labours. Those engaged in the production of meat also have the benefit of a long-term agreement that will afford security to them in the event of any sudden decline of prices overseas. Whatever may be said about the future of the price for wool, which is at present very high, at least credit cannot be denied to Labour because a Labour administration helped to create the joint organization which has so successfully handled the disposal of Australia’s wool clip and the sale of the carry-over of surplus war-time wool clips. At the outbreak of the war in 1939, the government of which the honorable gentleman was a member consented to the sale of the whole of Australia’s wool clip for the total period of the war at 13½d. per lb., which was substantially below the cost of production.

Mr McEwen:

– I was not a member of that Government.

Mr POLLARD:

– Well, the honorable member was a supporter of that Government.

Mr McEwen:

– The Minister has changed his ground.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Indi is an old campaigner, who endeavours to put speakers off the track by constantly interjecting. When he and other members of the Opposition are disciplined by Mr. Deputy Speaker, they take their suspension from the chamber in very bad spirit. They even submit a motion of want of confidence in Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, have been named and suspended for constantly interjecting, but I was never so despicable as not to take my medicine. I was not a member of a political party which spent half a day complaining about the treatment that it had received at the hands of Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr McEwen:

– The honorable member is being diverted from his speech.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! The Minister is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr POLLARD:

– I was about to remark that the agreement which the Opposition made with the United Kingdom Government embodied a provision to the effect that in May of each year the price could be subject to review at the request of either of the two parties. Two Mays passed, and although the wool was being sold at less than the cost of production, the government of the day did not ask the United Kingdom to review the agreement.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That was about the time of Dunkirk.

Mr POLLARD:

– The government of the day did not ask the United Kingdom Government to review the price. The moment the Labour Government came into office, it made a request to the United Kingdom Government for an increase of the price, and its representations in the matter were successful. That is not the end of the story. The agreement incorporated another provision to the effect that at the end of the war any profits made by the United Kingdom from the sale of the wool to other countries would be divided equally between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That provision was in the original agreement.

Mr POLLARD:

– That is correct. At the end of the war, the Labour Government found that the United Kingdom Government had a profit of £20,000,000 from the sale of Australian wool to other countries. We were entitled to an amount of £10,000,000. We found, in addition, that the United Kingdom Government had on hand an accumulation of unsold Australian wool totalling approximately 7,000,000 bales. Had the United Kingdom placed that accumulation on the world’s markets, as it was quite entitled to do, wool prices for that vear, and perhaps the following year, would have crashed to a figure that would have driven Australian WOOl.growers nlf the land. The late Mr. Murphy, who was then Secretary of the ]>; Department of Commerce and Agriculture, under instructions from the ( ur tin Government, played a leading part in negotiations that ultimately resulted in the Australian Government purchasing a half share in the accumulated stockpile of approximately 7,000,000 bales of wool. Under legislation which this Government introduced, a subsidiary company to the Joint Wool Organization was established to handle the selling of Australia’s share of that stockpile, which this Government bought with the taxpayers’ money for £40,000,000. It risked the money so invested in that particular transaction.

Mr McBride:

– It was not like the risk that the Government took with the New Zealand wheat agreement.

Mr POLLARD:

– That problem, which has been the subject of seemingly endless discussion in this House, has been dead and buried, in the view of the electors, since 1946. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McBride) has again produced the corpse and thrown it into the debating ring, but no one is interested in it except himself. I was about to say, when I was interrupted, that the Australian Government did not invest the wool-growers’ money, but bought straight out a half share in the accumulated stockpile of wool owned by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Will the Minister answer a question?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member for Barker must cease interjecting. I warn him. for the last time.

Mr POLLARD:

– The Australian Wool Realization Commission, which is the authority set up in Australia to dispose of this wool, has, over the years since the stockpile was purchased, carried out its work in a highly efficient manner in co-operation with and in co-ordinating its work with the joint organization; so much so that practically the whole of the Australian carry-over wool has been sold, due largely to the effective feeding of the wool on to the market in an orderly manner. Wool prices have been sustained at a figure higher, possibly, than would otherwise have been the case, and, at the moment, there is in cash as Australia’s share of the profits from those operations approximately £43,000,000. There are, in addition, at current values, approximately £22,000,000 worth of wool still on hand, approximately £2,500,000 in a contributory fund built up in connexion with the administration of the scheme, and other assets valued at approximately £4,000,000. But the Australian Government, although it had no moral or legal obligation-

Mr McDonald:

– Did the Minister say morals?

Mr POLLARD:

– I said no moral obligation. The honorable member may be a better judge of morals than I am. Although the Australian Government had no legal or other obligation to enact legislation to provide for the distribution of those profits, it introduced a bill which provided for the ultimate distribution of the profits on these huge transactions to the wool-growers of this country. The bill contained a proviso to the effect that an interim dividend might be paid when the financial position warranted it. Every wool-grower in this country is glad to know to-day that as the result of the Labour Government’s vision and its initiation of, and participation in, this scheme, there will be paid a sum of £25,000,000 prior to the 30th November next at the rate of 6i per cent, on the total appraised value of all participating wool-growers’ wools. That, in itself, is an indication of good sound government, and a realization of the fact that the welfare of this country and of its people is largely built up on the welfare and security of the man on the land.

The honorable member for Indi stressed most strongly the need for an increased volume of production, and he discounted the fact that to-day our prosperity was judged largely by its money value; hut I am able to say that not only are money values higher to-day in respect of production, but also the volume of production is substantially higher in this country than it was before the war. As that expression of opinion will bc contested, I shall read the report of ah address by the Vice-Chancellor of the National University, Professor Copland, to the Canberra branch of the Economic Society. The report appeared in the Age on the 5th April last. I do not know Professor Copland’s political views, but I should not say that he is a Labour man. The report is as follows : -

Real output ]«r man in Australia has not fallen, but has increased by probably 12.5 per cent, since before the war.

Recurrent shortages and interruptions to production had given the impression that output per nian had fallen.

However, full employment and increased capital equipment in use should have given a higher output than had been achieved.

Further, increased output occurred largely in non-essential industries and output of basic industries had fallen far short of urgent demand and of long-term conditions of national prosperity.

Everybody knows that there is a catch, and it is this: because of the increased purchasing power of the people there has developed a great demand for what may be called semi-luxury goods. This “demand has drawn labour away from the heavy industries where production is so much needed. In some measure the Labour Government may be blamed for this occurrence, because its policy has resulted in a more equitable distribution of wealth among the people, leading to an increased demand for luxury and semi-luxury goods. It is sometimes said that the worker’s extra income is of no use to him, but, increased incomes have resulted in a higher overall demand for such things as confectionery, ice cream, .beer and tobacco. When antiLabour governments were in power, the kiddies could not afford ice cream or chocolate, and it was not an uncommon thing to go into an hotel and see only one man drinking a solitary pot. Now, the workers can have many pots of beer if they are interested in it. More women are smoking now than ever before, and men and women between them are smoking more tobacco than has ever before been consumed in this country. All this is an indication of prosperity under the Labour Government. The honorable member for Indi cited taxation figures, but I think he must have taken the figures that applied to the war period, or certainly not later than 1946.

Mr McEwen:

– I cited figures from the documents tabled in this chamber with the budget.

Mr POLLARD:

– I propose to restate some of the figures relating to taxation paid by a man with a dependent wife and one child, in order to show that this taxpayer is better off now than he ever was before. If his income is £350 a year, he will pay in income tax and social services contributions after the 1st July of this year only £4 3s. In Victoria, in 1941, under a tory government, “that taxpayer would have paid in State and Commonwealth tax no less than £22 5s. In Queensland, he would have paid £27 6s., in South Australia £29 8s., in Western Australia £21 3s. and in Tasmania £28 ls. The honorable member tried to divert attention from the relief taxpayers had obtained by throwing in some “ dead pig “ about the amount of rebate allowed the taxpayer in respect of his wife. His submissions even on that point are arguable. The honorable member then went on to refer to the taxpayer with an income of £15,000 a year. According to the report of the Commissioner of Taxation, there are only five persons in Australia with incomes between £15,000 and £20,000 derived from personal exertion. Their total incomes amount to £81,577, on which they pay £69,423 in tax. If the party to which the honorable member for Indi belongs were in power, those taxpayers would pay no more than half that amount. There are only eight persons in Australia who receive incomes of between £15,000 and £20,000 derived solely from property. Their taxable incomes total £136,000, on which they pay £107,000. When the honorable member for Indi was a member of the previous government, such persons would have been required to pay less than half of that amount. To-day, a taxpayer receiving an income of £800, if he has a wife and dependent child, pays £62 9s. in income tax and social services contribution. In 1941, in Victoria, he would have paid State and Federal taxes amounting to £139. Under the present Government, a man on an income of £5,000 a year, pays £2,009 in tax, but in 1941, in Victoria, he would have paid £3,237, State and Commonwealth tax combined.

Thb honorably member spoke about indirect taxation, but the fact is that there has always been indirect taxation. Previous governments levied taxes on beer, tobacco, spirits, tea, &c. During the war, the present Government increased the rate of tax, and it remains fairly heavy, but what the honorable member did not point out was that if we were to reduce the rate of indirect tax, income tax would have to be increased, and the new burden might weigh more heavily upon the family man than does the present indirect tax on beer, tobacco, &c.

When the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) was speaking last week, he declared that primary production had declined. He spoke either from ignorance, or from a desire to misrepresent the position. For instance, he said that the production of sugar had declined from 800,000 tons to 600,000 tons. But, according to the official organ published by the sugar producers themselves, sugar production in Queensland and New South Wales last year amounted to 910,000 tons. The honorable member also said that the production of butter had declined since before the war. The honorable member was deliberately trying to misrepresent the position. What are the facts? It is true that the rate of production of butter has decreased slightly since last year and is not as great as we should like it to be. But what are the counterbalancing influences? The honorable member made no reference to the tremendous increase of cheese production or, more important still as far as the nutritional standards of the people are concerned, to the increased consumption of whole milk. We cannot produce as much butter as we should like to have if the quantity of whole milk used by children and others increases considerably. Since 1939 the milk consumption of Sydney and Newcastle alone has increased by 26,000,000 gallons per annum. That volume would yield 1.3,000,000 lb. of butter fat. The honorable member for Indi will not challenge that. Allowing roughly 2,000 lb. to the ton, that quantity of butter fat would provide approximately 6,000 tons of butter. Thus, the increased consumption of milk in Sydney and Newcastle accounts for 6,000 tons of butter annually. That figure would be doubled if we took into consideration the increased consumption of milk in Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Launceston, Ballarat, Bendigo and other cities. That explains why butter production has not reached the high level that it would otherwise have reached.

I was rather disgusted to hear the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) refer rather contemptuously to Australia’s association with the United Nations. Had Australia become associated with the United Nations through the activities of a Minister for External Affairs in an anti-Labour government, and in response to the promotion of an ideal conceived in the minds of Churchill and Booseve.lt, I have no doubt that the honorable member would have praised it as a great association. The honorable member reflected unwarrantably upon the activities of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). Other honorable members opposite made derogatory remarks about the efforts of this Government to help the people of the United Kingdom. They asked, “Why not send more food instead of making a gift of £4.5,000,000 to the United Kingdom? It is only an entry in a book “. The fact is that the gift of £45,000,000 has reduced our claim against goods produced in the United Kingdom and has thus given that country the opportunity to sell goods worth that amount in dollar and other areas. Therefore it has assisted Great Britain in its dollar struggles.

Mr White:

– I did not mention that subject.

Mr POLLARD:

– I made no accusation against the honorable member for Balaclava. The gift was criticized by other honorable members opposite. Not a word of approbation of the Government for its persistence with butter rationing in spite of strong protests from the dairying industry and other selfish interests was uttered by honorable members opposite. Not a word of approbation of the Government for its adherence to cream rationing was spoken by them. Yet the rationing of butter and cream has enabled us to provide 25,000 tons of butter annually for the hard-pressed people of the United Kingdom. Honorable members opposite have expressed no disgusttit the fact that the authority of the Government to continue the ban on the sale of cream has been challenged in the High Court of Australia on two occasions.

Mr McEwen:

– But Trans-Australia Airlines issues cream free on its aircraft.

Mr POLLARD:

– I throw the lie back in the honorable gentleman’s teeth. The honorable member is so contemptible that he knowingly tells that untruth in this chamber. He knows that the “ cream “ that is issued by the Trans-Australia Airlines aviation service is a mock-cream, 22,000,000 gallons of which is sold every week in the City of Melbourne alone and which is manufactured in Newcastle from coco-nut oil and other products.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Sheehy:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr McEwen:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented. The Minister for Commerce and1 Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), in referring to me, used these words-

Mr Barnard:

– The honorable member cannot take it.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable member called mc a liar, but I would not be bothered with him.

Mr McEwen:

– The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was threatened with being named. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, referring to me, said, “ The honorable gentleman knows what he says to be utterly false “. I claim that I have been misrepresented by the Minister because he used those words in referring to a statement that 1 made about the possible transference of men to work in remote parts of Australia. I made the statement cn the authority of a reported statement by the Prime Minister at a conference of trade unions in the Sydney Town Hall on thi 16th and 17th October, 1948.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Government members interjecting,

Mr McEwen:

– You cannot let it getout, can you?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member may make his personal explanation.

Mr Scully:

– He is not entitled to make a second-reading speech.

Mr McEwen:

– I nva defending myself.

Mr Pollard:

– I rise to order. The honorable gentleman is about to read a reported statement by the Prime Minister. That statement said, in effect, that in certain circumstances whole communities probably would be in a position where transfers would be effected. In effect, if the mines at Captain’s Elat were to be shut down to-morrow-

Mr McEwen:

– “What is the Minister’s point of order?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I want to make the situation perfectly clear. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) has claimed that he has been misrepresented. He may state the point on which he has been misrepresented, but he must not engage in debate.

Mr McEwen:

– 1 do not desire to debate the issue. I am relying on you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, to give me an opportunity to defend myself against an accusation that I knowingly uttered a falsehood. That is all that I desire to do. The subject of the charge made against mc by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture was a statement that I made thu men might he transferred’ to remote parts of Australia. That statement arose from a declaration made by the Prime Minister at a conference of trade unions, at which he said -

Ivo guarantee can be given to anybody that they can stay put in a particular industry. It is realized that there will have to be transfers of workers and, in many cases, transfers of whole communities to other forms of work. I am quite certain that everybody will not be able to stay at home. I am not going to fool any one in that regard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable gentleman cannot continue quoting that statement. He can say how he has been misrepresented, but he is not at liberty to quote a statement.

Mr McEwen:

– Well, I have quoted it.

Mr Pollard:

– I rise to order. The honorable member has made an explanation in which I claim that he has deliberately misrepresented the Prime Minister because he has quoted a statement-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I rise to order. The Minister is not entitled to make a personal explanation for the Prime Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I inform the Minister that that is not a point of order.

Progress reported.

page 625

ADJOURNMENT

Canberra: Telephone Service

Motion (by Mr. Pollard) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– Recently I asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether ho was aware that the only list available in Canberra of new and altered telephone numbers that had been allotted as the result of the erection of a new telephone exchange, was one that had been published by the Canberra branch of the Australian Labour party. I asked, further, whether if. was forbidden for unauthorized persons to be given confidential information concerning silent telephone numbers, and whether the Postmaster-General was aware that a confidential list of new telephone numbers, including silent numbers, had been secured irregularly by a member of the Canberra branch of the Australian Labour party. In reply, the Minister stated that there was not the slightest truth in anything that I had said. I do not blame the honorable gentleman for having defended the PostmasterGeneral, and indeed it may be to his credit that he did so; but I must point out that in his reply he resorted to the technique that is usually adopted by Ministers when they are dealing with a matter that is likely to embarrass the Government.

I shall take advantage of the motion that is now before the Chair to place this matter in its proper perspective, to attempt to convince the Minister that the points that I have raised are of some substance, and to suggest to him that he should request the Postmaster-General to institute inquiries so that the matter may be adjusted. In the Canberra Times of the 3rd September, 1949, an article was published under the heading -

page 625

CANBERRA DENIED INFORMATION ON NEW PHONE NUMBERS

It reads as follows: -

The failure of the Postmaster-General’s Department to issue supplementary lists showing new and altered telephone numbers arising from the introduction of the new mobile exchange on the north side of the riverhas resulted in confusion . . .

The official attitude up to yesterday was that no lists of changed numbers will be available before the new telephone directory is issued in January . . .

The Secretary of the Canberra Chamber of Commerce (Mr. Rowe) said yesterday that the Council of the Chamber had discussed the matter and had requested the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to publish the informationand also to supply a supplementary list of new subscribers in all suburbs. “ I have been informed by the telephone officer (Mr. Jamieson) that he is unable to furnish me with a list, but that he will make inquiries from the Superintendent of Telephones immediately to ascertain if a list can be obtained”, he said.

On the 6th September, the following article appeared in the Canberra Times -

page 625

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL RELEASES NEW TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Despite extreme difficulty subscribers had in obtaining calls at the week-end the PostmasterGeneral’s Department will not issue an interim directory for the use of the general public. However, three copies have been authorized by the district superintendent of telephones (Mr. P. W. Ferris) for the Canberra Chamber of Commerce, the Canberra Times, and the Canberra Branch of the Australian Labour party.

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

– The Labour party in Canberra has been given an advantage over other bodies that wished to obtain a list of the new telephone numbers. On the 2nd September, when the telephone officer refused to supply the list for public information, a copy of the list, including details of silent telephone numbers, was in the possession of a member of the Canberra branch of the Australian Labour party. The Minister knows that the Postmaster-General’s Department has the right to refuse to supply details of silent telephones even to the police and that the highest secrecy is observed in regard to them. Doubtless the irregularity in connexion with silent numbers will be investigated and the Minister will subsequently make a statement to the House about it. The member of the Canberra branch of the Australian Labour party to whom I have referred is a temporary public servant and the press secretary to the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna). He is Mr. J. R. Fraser, a Labour candidate at the recent election for the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council.

Mr Calwell:

– And a successful candidate.

Mr HARRISON:

– I do not wonder at that. If a Labour party candidate who is closely associated with a Minister of this Government can have the “ inside running” by being supplied with information that he has no right to possess-

Mr Calwell:

– What does the honorable gentleman mean by that?

Mr HARRISON:

– I am referring to information concerning telephone numbers, and particularly silent telephone numbers. The information was published in a leaflet that is headed as follows : -

With the compliments of the A.C.T. Branch of the Austn. Labour party.

At the foot of the leaflet appears the following information : -

Your Labour candidates in the forthcoming elections are -

Sept. 17:

Advisory Council: J. R. Fraser,O. W. Bourke, F. A. Somes.

Hospital Board: A. D. Fraser, M.H.R., L. F. Crisp, C. A. Donnelly, K. J. Doran, and R. J. W. Holt.

That leaflet was published in September. It is obvious that Mr. Fraser had some inside knowledge regarding the date of the forthcoming general election, because the leaflet concludes with these words -

Dec. 10:

Federal Elections: S. R- Rhodes.

The fact that a Labour party candidate, who is the press secretary to a Minister can obtain a list of telephone numbers, including silent numbers, before it has been issued officially, and publish the information in a leaflet that is distributed to the people with the compliments of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labour party, shows how far this Government is prepared to exploit government departments in order to give Labour party candidates an unfair advantage over the candidates of other parties. It is prepared to act in a way that is detrimental to telephone subscribers and others who have a right to information regarding telephone numbers in order to give preference to a person who carries the banner of the Labour party. That is the technique of members of this Government. Recently there was published at the public expense a copy of certain broadcasts that had been made by Ministers.

Mr Chifley:

– That is quite untrue.

Mr HARRISON:

– I accept the Prime Minister’s statement.

Mr Calwell:

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) should apologize for what he has said.

Mr HARRISON:

– Let me remind the Minister who has asked me to apologize that a little while ago a sum of money from the post-war education fund was used for the Australian Labour party propaganda purposes.

Mr Calwell:

– Five years ago.

Mr HARRISON:

– The fact that it. was done five years ago does not make the offence less grave.

Mr Calwell:

– It was not an offence.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Government was prepared five years ago to use money from the post-war education fund for Labour party propaganda purposes. Recently it was prepared to allow the press secretary to a Minister irregularly to obtain information regarding telephone numbers, including silent numbers. It is prepared, even in the Australian Capital Territory, to exploit government departments in order to give an advantage to a political candidate who carries the Labour banner.

To sum up, on the day when the telephone officer refused to issue lists for public information an Australian Labour party official was in possession of the only official list in this capital city. The list was used by the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labour party to print and issue a leaflet as preelection propaganda. It was only after repeated requests had been made by interested persons that, several days later, copies of the list were made available to the local newspaper and the. business community. I have made that explanation because the Minister, when I asked him to have this matter investigated, said that there was not a scintilla of truth in any of the statements that. I had made. I consider that I have proved beyond all doubt that this is a case which shows that the whole of the departments are thrown wide open to those who have the right, through their occupancy of official positions in this Parliament as press secretaries, to obtain some prior information and to use it, as this particular individual did, to benefit themselves in an election campaign on behalf of the Labour party.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information and Minister for Immigration · Melbourne · ALP

– I do not think that the House has ever before listened to such a miserable collection of misrepresentations and distortions of fact as has come from the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison). Recently the honorable gentleman asked me a question, in answer to which I told him all that I knew about the matter. I told him that there were difficulties in securing a print of the telephone numbers for the new North Canberra automatic telephone exchange. I also told him that everybody had been treated fairly in the matter. I told him that the Canberra Times had been supplied with a list of the new numbers and had published that list. The burden of his complaint tonight is that the postal officials did not supply a type-written copy of the list to everybody who came along to the post office to ask for one. It was physically impossible for the postmaster to supply a list to everybody in the district, but he acted very fairly and properly. But the honorable member for Wentworth has twisted the facts, and with his sinister mind has read something into what was honestly done, so as to besmirch the reputation of a very good public servant in this Parliament who is also a very good citizen of Canberra. He stated that Mr. J. R. Fraser, the official concerned, obtained an unfair advantage over other candidates and exploited it to his benefit in the election campaign that took place in the Australian Capital Territory recently. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party ran candidates in that election and the Liberal party did not, because it was not game to test its standing among the residents of Canberra.

Mr Haylen:

– That is signficant.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course it is. The answers to questions that the honorable member asked recently remain substantially the same rs I gave him then, but I have received a telegram from the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) dealing with the pertinent aspects of the situation. The following are the facts, which I hope the honorable gentleman will note so that he will not repeat his offence again. The telegram reads -

All subscribers whose telephone services were transferred from the Canberra exchange to the North Canberra exchange were advised by letter on the 5th August of the proposed change-over on Saturday, the 3rd September, and they were reminded by telephone just prior to the cut over.

That was done to enable them to notify their friends and business associates of the new numbers. The telegram continues -

A list of the changed numbers was forwarded on the 5th September to the Chamber of Commerce, Canberra, the Australian Labour part3’, Canberra, and the Canberra Times, as well as to all subscribers with large private branch exchange switchboards.

What could be fairer than that? The list was supplied to the Chamber of Commerce which represents the business interests of the community, and to the Australian Labour party, which represents the workers of Canberra. The Canberra Times was also supplied with a list which it could, and did in fact, publish, for the benefit of the community generally. Then the postmaster in Canberra went to the trouble of. supplying the list to all subscribers “ with large private exchange switchboards “. I repeat that phrase. The telegram continues -

It is forbidden for unauthorized persons to be given confidential information concerning silent lines.

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

– But private persons obtained such information.

Mr CALWELL:

– The telegram continues -

Unfortunately due to inadvertence the telephone numbers of two subscribers with silent lines were included in the list.

That number was not large enough to sway the result of an election, as has been meanly insinuated by the honorable member for Wentworth. The telegram also gives some information which is essential to a discussion of this matter. It continues -

Immediately tin’s fact was discovered on Tuesday, the 6th September–

That was the next day - the telephone numbers of the silent lines concerned were altered.

So there was no advantage. If there was an advantage in respect of two silent lines, it lasted for less than 24 hours. Yet the honorable member for Wentworth has suggested that one of the Labour party candidates in the election, who was successful, as the Labour party candidates generally were, had done a contemptible thing. This is the honorable gentleman who rises continually in this House and talks about the besmirching of the reputations of people outside the Parliament who have no right of reply. We saw him in that role last week, when he came to the assistance of one of the mental adolescents of his party who talked about the Dobson affair. The telegram continues -

There was no irregular leakage of official information to the Australian Labour party or any other organization except the inclusion in the list of the telephone numbers of two silent lines.

That is the true story. The honorable member has made a tremendous fuss about this matter in the hope that the press will print his statements as part of the electioneering campaign now opening. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. O’Connor) has told me that, in the new electorate of Martin, the Liberal party has been able to obtain telephone lines and is advertising the numbers of those lines. Those are new lines and the Liberal party has had them for at least a fortnight. A lot of people in Sydney and the other capital cities require telephone lines for business purposes, but the Liberal party has obtained for itself as many lines as it can get. Those people who are conducting the campaign in regard to bank nationalization have also been able to get a lot of telephone lines. Perhaps the honorable gentleman would like an investigation to be conducted to discover how many of these lines are being used for political propaganda when they ought to be at the disposal of business people. We heard that kind of talk the other night from the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale). The Liberal party has a huge slush fund, and is trying to get all the advantages that money can buy to help it to win the coming election.

The other day the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) and the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser) made personal explanations to this House, in which they said that they bad not voted in 1929 to destroy the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but that they had voted to transfer its powers to the State courts. Labour members of this Parliament in 1929 charged the Bruce-Page Government with the intention to abolish the Commonwealth Arbitration Court so as to lower wages and worsen conditions. That was indignantly denied by those two honorable gentlemen. They, with the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), and the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) are the four surviving members in (his Parliament of those who attempted that outrageous act of injustice to the working class. I have in my hand a copy of a speech made by Viscount Bruce to the annual general meeting of Finance Corporation for Industry Limited, held at Aldermanbury, London, on the 21st July, 1949. The report of the speech appeared in het LondonTimes of the 22nd July last and I shall put it on record so that the people of Australia will know just what was intended then by Mr. Bruce, as Prime Minister of Australia, when he tried to abolish the Com- monwealth Arbitration Court, and what Viscount Bruce is trying to do in Britain to-day-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does the Minister vouch for the accuracy of the report ?

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, because I have the extract from the London Times in my possession. The report states -

Is not the position in Britain to-day exactly the same as the one we faced in Australia in 1929? … By 1929 Australia, as a result -of many years of prosperity, had built her social services to a more advanced state than any country in the world. With the onset of the economic depression is was clear that expenditure had to be cut. It was equally clear that the only method of effecting thu necessary reductions was by curtailment of the social services . . . Politicians, however, were not prepared to face this issue, nor had the country realized that our social development had outstripped our income. When I attempted to obtain the powers required to weather the coming storm I was defeated in Parliament and subsequently in the country . . .

Thus, Viscount Bruce told the truth about what was attempted in this country in 1929, and it is idle for honorable members opposite who voted in favour of the abolition of the Federal Arbitration Court or are trying to explain away that attempt ever since, to protest that they just wanted to transfer the arbitration power from the Federal Arbitration -Court to the State arbitration courts. They wanted to get rid of the Federal Arbitration Court in order to slash the wages of the working classes. That Ls what they are after to-day. I shall have more to say on this subject during the debate on the budget.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I take this opportunity to seek information from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) with relation to butter exports. I understand that .under the contracts that were entered into between the Australian Government and the United Kingdom Government with regard to the export of butter, the United Kingdom Government purchased the whole of Australia’s exports with the exception of a small quantity of 500 tons which might be sold, subject to the veto of the Australian Government, in different parts of the world. As I understand the position, that provision has not been strictly adhered to. Whether it has been as the result of some arrangement made between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government whereby the terms of the agreements were modified, I do not know, but it is apparent from the official figures with relation to the exports of butter from the United Kingdom for several years past that quantities considerably in excess of 500 tons have been sent to parts of the world which normally are not supplied by the United Kingdom Government. I could quite understand circumstances arising in which the United Kingdom Government might ask the Australian Dairy Board to arrange for the transfer of some of its supplies to other parts of the world on that Government’s account; but it would appear that considerable quantities of Australian butter totalling thousands of tons have been sold on the world’s markets within the last three, or four, years at extremely high prices and, indeed, in some instances, at fantastic prices. I should like the Minister to inform me of the terms of the agreements, whether any variations of those terms were arranged between the two governments, whether the Australian Government knowingly, or unknowingly, permitted exports of Australian butter to other parts of the world outside the terms of those agreements, whether such exports were made under arrangement with the United Kingdom Government, and whether the Australian Government was aware of the prices at which that butter was sold in other parts of the world. T should also like to know whether the Australian dairyman, or certain Australian manufacturers, or any other persons got from the British Government what is commonly known as a “ rake-off “ in respect of those sales. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this matter.

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

– in reply - The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) is somewhat astray in the figures that he has cited. The contract which the Australian Government signed last year with the United Kingdom Government allowed for the sale of butter by Australian butter interests.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I am not speaking of the contract in respect of last year, but of contracts entered into since the end of the recent war.

Mr POLLARD:

– If I remember correctly, we had the right under last year’s contract to sell 3,000 tons of butter outside the United Kingdom contract, and under the contract for the current year that quantity has been increased to 3,500 tons. I am not certain what quantity was provided for under the contract in respect of the year before last.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It was 500 tons.

Mr POLLARD:

– That figure may be correct. Does the honorable member’s complaint relate to the contract in respect of that year or the contract for the current year?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It is in respect o f contracts for previous years. I want to know what quantities of butter were actually sold in excess of 500 tons, whether those sales were made with the knowledge of both the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government and whether those governments consented to the price at which that butter was sold.

Mr POLLARD:

-I shall be glad to obtain that information for the honorable member.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 630

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Australian Broadcasting Act - Order - Political broadcasts (Federal elections).

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Interior - A. T. Munro, I. D. Robinson.

Repatriation - T. M. Gilbert, E. J. Haberfield.

House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

page 630

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Coal

Mr Rankin:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

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

  1. What quantity of coal was produced by the Army during the coal strike in New South Wales?
  2. What was the production cost a ton?
  3. What is the cost a ton of coal produced by miners?
Mr Dedman:
ALP

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

  1. 100,685 tons.
  2. I have no information as to the production cost referred to.
  3. The production cost a ton at each open cut varies as a result of the prevailing conditions, such as the nature of the overburden, and its depth in relation to the thickness of the seam (or seams). The type of plant in use is also an important factor. It is not possible, therefore, to give the overall cost a ton of coal produced from open cuts.

Re-establishment : Reconstruction Training Scheme.

Mr Holt:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

t asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

What industrial organizations, if any, have applied a policy of refusing ex-servicemen trained under the reconstruction training scheme and/or migrant personnel, admission to their membership?

Mr Holloway:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

I am not aware of any industrial organizations having applied a policy of refusing to admit to membership ex-servicemen trained under the reconstruction training scheme or migrant personnel, provided they are otherwise qualified for membership. If the honorable member has a specific case in mind and supplies me with the facts I will investigate same.

Dairying

Mr McEwen:

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

  1. Is it a fact that a further conference of State Prices Ministers will be held shortly to consider the recommendation of the Joint Dairy Industry Advisory Committee that there should be an increase in the price of butter based on demonstrated increases in the cost of production?
  2. If so, when is it proposed that this conference shall take place?
  3. Will he give an assurance that all information required by the State Prices Ministers will be released to them in order to assist them in reaching a decision?
  4. In the event of rejection of State Prices Ministers, cither in whole or in part, of the recommended increase, will he give an assurance that the promise given to dairy-farmers will be honoured and that the whole of the recommended increase will be made good to them out of Consolidated Revenue?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. As far as I am aware it is not the intention of the State Prices Ministers to hold any further conference to consider the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Committee. However, at the conclusion of the recent Premiers Conference, the right honorable the Prime Minister arranged with the Premiers that officers of the four State prices administrations would confer with officers of my department regarding the findings of the committee.
  2. This conference was held last month.
  3. All information sought by the State prices officials was made available by my department.
  4. The decision of the State Price Ministers in regard to the recommendations of the Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Committee has not yet been notified to the Commonwealth Government. I have noticed recent press reports to the effect that the respective State Prices Ministers have accepted a recommendation from the State Prices Commissioners that the price of butter should not be increased. When an official decision of the State Prices Ministers is received by the Commonwealth Government, the position will be examined in the light of that decision and a statement will be made in duc course.

Commonwealth Bank: Acquisition of Property

Mr White:

e asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What city properties have been acquired by the Federal Government and the Commonwealth Bank in Melbourne by purchase since the Labour administration took office, and are still held?
  2. For what purposes were they acquired, and at what price?
  3. What Melbourne city properties are held by the Federal Government and the Commonwealth Bank, on lease, and at what rental and for what purpose?
Mr Johnson:
Minister for the Interior · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1, 2 and 3. Information with regard to property occupied by Commonwealth departments located in Melbourne is being obtained. lt will, however, take some time to prepare. My department has no knowledge of properties purchased or leased by the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr Ryan:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

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

What is the landed cost (including duty) in Australia per ton of chicory imported from the following countries: - (a) United Kingdom; (&) Belgium; and (c) France?

page 631

CHICORY

Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

The landed duty-paid cost of chicory from the United Kingdom is not available, but the average f.o.b. value plus duty of more recent importations was: - Chicory, raw and kilndried, £84 2s. 6d. a ton. No importations of chicory from Belgium or France have been recorded during the thirteen months ended July, 1949.

Typewriters

Mr White:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the number of typewriters to be imported into Australia, under licence granted by the Government, from Sweden and Italy, greatly exceeds the number imported from the United Kingdom?

    1. Is it a fact that supplies of typewriters are freely available from United Kingdom sources?
    2. Why is it that more typewriters are coming into this country from Sweden than from the United Kingdom itself?
    3. Is it a fact that the Government has issued, or will shortly issue, import licences for Russian typewriters or typewriters from the Russian-controlled zone of Europe?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. The number of typewriters imported from the United Kingdom during the six months ended the 30th June, 1949, was greater than the number approved for importation from Sweden but less than the number approved for importation from Italy in the same period. Sweden and Italy are regarded as easy currency countries and licences are issued freely on these countries subject to production of evidence of availability. Typewriters of United Kingdom origin are not subject to licensing control and there is no restriction on the quantity of machines merchants may import from the United Kingdom.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to Nos. 1 and 2.
  4. Licences have been issued for typewriters from the Russian zone of Germany, but not from Russia.

Steel

Mr Hamilton:

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

  1. What was the total quantity of steel imported into Australia during the past twelve months ?
  2. From what countries was the steel imported ?
  3. What was the quantity involved in each instance?
  4. What was the value (a) a ton, and (2>) of the total importations in each instance?
  5. What would be the corresponding cost of Australia steel?
  6. What was the percentage decrease in Australian production of steel in the past twelve months compared with the preceding year?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. Total quantity of steel imported during the past twelve months in unwrought shapes, viz.: - Ingots, bars, rods, plates, sheets, &c, was -

2, 3 and 4. See tables below showing details in respect of various shapes of steel included in No. 1 above.

  1. Import values are not recorded according to qualities of steel, therefore corresponding costs of Australian steels cannot be quoted.
  2. The preliminary estimated decrease in production during the year 1948-49, compared with 1947-48, is 13.3 per cent.

Butter

Mr Rankin:

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

  1. Is it a fact that officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture and/or other Commonwealth authorities in London have reported that British supplies of butter from the continent are increasing ?
  2. If so, what are the countries supplying butter to the United Kingdom and what are the quantities involved?
  3. What was the quantity of butter exported from Australia to the United Kingdom in each year since 1938?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

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

  1. I am .not aware of any report by officers of my department or other Commonwealth authorities in London advising that the British supplies of butter from the continent are increasing. However, statistics of imports of butter into the United Kingdom from the continent since the cessation of hostilities in Europe show that British imports from this source are increasing.
  2. The following figures have been extracted from the trade statistics of the United Kingdom : -

3.-

Broadcasting

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to broadcasts made in October and November, 1948, by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, the Minister for Immigration, the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister state (a) the date of each broadcast; (6) the radio stations which broadcast the speech in each instance; (c) the duration of each broadcast; (d) who met the cost of each broadcast, and (e) what was thu amount involved in each instance?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The broadcasts referred to were delivered over various commercial stations. The cost was met by the Federal Parliamentary Labour party.

Mabins Research Stations

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, upon notice -

With reference to the announcement in the twenty-second annual report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research that it is anticipated that two small field marine stations will be provided by the Queensland Government during the coming year to facilitate the Fisheries Division’s research work, one at Dunwich, Stradbroke Island, and the other on Thursday Island, where pearl-shell studies will lie conducted, will he furnish the fullest particulars of these two new stations and the nature of the work they will be undertaking?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

The research station at Dunwich (Stradbroke Island) provided by the Queensland Government through its Department of Harbours and Marine, will consist of a dwelling and a laboratory building. The dwelling has been completed, but the laboratory will not bc ready for use before December. When it is completed the physiology and biology departments of the Queensland University propose to locate advanced students there. The main laboratory will be occupied by a research officer nf the Division of Fisheries, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and his technical assistant. His research programme will be concentrated particularly on oyster cultivation experiments in Moreton Bay. Oyster farmers in that’ area have depended on the natural growth of oysters, but experiments will be made to see whether these beds can be regenerated in the light of the research done by officers of the Division of Fisheries in New South Wales and using cultivation methods developed in places such as George’s River and Port Stephens, New South Wales. A study will also be made of the biology of sea mullet and of other fishery problems such as the breeding and age of maturity of sand crabs and the effect of staking on fish stocks. The research station at Thursday Island, provided by the Queensland Government, consists of living quarters, a laboratory, aquarium tanks, and a salt water storage tank. The living quarters have been completed and the laboratory should be completed early next year. At the request of the Queensland Government, the research work to be undertaken consists of a study of the life history of pearl shell, as an introduction to experiments .in pearl shell culture similar to that used by the Japanese. It is intended that the officer in charge of the Thursday Island station will concentrate particularly on the culture of pearl shell, but at the same time experiments will be made using the techniques developed by the Japanese to produce culture pearls.

Petrol.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 15th September, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) asked me a question regarding the use of aviation fuel by Mr. Russell, M.L.A., of Queensland, and Mr. Casey, president of the Liberal party. I have now had inquiries made and have found that during the period rationing of aviation spirit was in operation, a ration was granted to Mr. C. W. Russell, of Queensland, in respect of two aircraft, and’ to Mr. R. G. Casey, of Victoria, in respect, of one aircraft. Mr. Russell was allocated a basic ration for one aircraft sufficient for 5.4 flying hours per month and for the other aircraft the basic ration plus a pastoral allowance. Mr. Casey was f ranted the basic ration representing 5.4 ying hours per month. As stated by me in my oral reply to the honorable member, the rations were granted in accordance with the decision to provide a ration for all persons owning an aircraft and who were consumers of aviation spirit at the time of the introduction of rationing. The question of whether an aeroplane is used for political tours has no bearing on the matter.

Immigration.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

l. - On the 20th September, the honorable member for Calare(Mr. Howse) asked the following question: -

Is the Minister for Immigration in a position to advise me how many non-British migrants have come to Australia since the end of the war? Can he indicate what percentage of non-British migrants has been allocated toprimary industries? In view of the urgent, requirements of the people of Great Britain and the vital necessity for Australian primary production to be greatly increased, will the Minister say whether the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the allocation of increasing numbers of new Australians toprimary industries?

In my verbal reply, I promised thehonorable member that I would have a full report prepared for him. I now wishto furnish the following details: -

The honorable member’s question refers to the number of non-British migrants who havebeen placed in rural employment. I presume, therefore, he means new settlers arriving hereunder our agreement with the International’ Refugee Organization, as these form the majority of arrivals over whom any measureof control is exercised as to the type of employment to be followed, (a) The number of non-British settlers who have arrived under this scheme to date, including arrivals in the past fortnight, ia 55,479, which comprise men, women and children. The number of males of employable age included in this figure is approximately 29,530 of whom 28,000 have already been placed in employment. (6) The percentage of these who have been allocated to rural employment, including the timber industry and re-afforestation, is 16 per cent., or approximately 4,500 men. (c) It is the policy oi my Department of Immigration to allocate aB much labour to the primary industries as those industries are capable of absorbing. In fact, special efforts have been and are still toeing made by the Commonwealth Employment Service, through whose agency new settlers are placed in employment, to ‘bring before the primary producer the availability of such labour. It hae been found that the major limiting factor to the provision of adequate labour to rural industries is, in many instances, the absence of suitable accommodation where the job is located. This difficulty is more evident when attempts ‘ are made to place family groups. Those engaged in .primary production may rest assured that any application for rural labour, in cases where accommodation can be provided, will be given a high priority.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 September 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1949/19490927_reps_18_204/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant