House of Representatives
27 November 1951

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1951

Mr. Speaker (Eon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2760

QUESTION

KOREA

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Oan the Prime Minister inform me whether the Australian Government hae agreed upon or stated its policy in relation to three aspects of the Korean situation - First, the ceasefire arrangement, which seems to be nearing completion-, secondly, the terms of the armistice, which may follow; and, thirdly, the possible final settlement, which will have to be approved by the United Nations? Oan the Prime Minister give the House any information about those matters either to-day, or at an early date 2

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The Australian Government is in close contact with the negotiations that are occurring and, of course, has been kept fully informed about them. The other matters about which the Leader of the Opposition has inquired do not at present lend themselves to a statement by me.

page 2760

QUESTION

AHMED FORGES

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister for Supply refers to a statement, which was allegedly made by him in Canberra last week, to the effect that Army contracts had been let to Japanese firms for the manufacture of Army clothing. Will the honorable gentleman inform me whether that statement is correct ? If it is correct, will he state whether an opportunity was first given to Australian manufacturers to supply clothing for the Army?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The statement to which the honorable member for Isaacs has referred is not correct. I made no such statement last week. No contracts for Army clothing have been let to Japanese firms. I think that, at one stage, contracts were let for khaki drill material, because we could not get it for national service trainees ‘ and other servicemen in time. Quantities were accordingly obtained from Great Britain, and, I think, speaking from memory, from the United States of America, but we could not fulfil all our needs within the required time, and, therefore, we ordered quantities of material from Japan. No contracts have been let to Japanese firms for clothing.

page 2761

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

– =-1 desire to address a question to the Postmaster-General, and I point out by way of explanation that there are thousands of mail contractors throughout Australia whose contracts have been in operation for only a couple of years, and will not expire for some time. When those contracts were signed, the contractors expected that price levels would remain stable, but they have since risen by from 20 per cent, to 50 per cent, as a result of wage increases and higher costs of oil and petrol. Is the PostmasterGeneral prepared to make any readjustment of those contract rates in order to give the contractors remuneration that is commensurate with the increases of costs which have occurred since they entered into their contracts? Their position at present is most difficult indeed.

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As the honorable member has said, many thousands of mail contractors throughout Australia are bound by the terms of existing contracts. The usual period of a contract is three years, although some are effective for longer periods. Contractors frequently have to provide sureties as a guarantee that they will discharge their contracts. The Postal Department appreciates the difficulties that have been caused by high costs, but it would not be possible to make an overall adjustment that would not have many anomalies attached to it. Therefore, the department has decided that it will release any contractor from his contract if he wishes to be released so that he may submit a fresh tender in competition. The department docs not wish contractors to be bound by terms that were, based on the conditions of a couple of years ago, which were different from those that exist to-day. Numbers of contractors have already been released.

page 2761

QUESTION

WHEAT. . , I

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is a fact that the Australian Government, has advised the Egyptian Government that shipments of Australian wheat to Egypt will be suspended until the present dispute between Egypt and Great Britain has been settled.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– No, it is certainly not a fact that the Australian Government has made any such communication to the Egyptian Government. I made inquiries as a result of a news item that was published in a newspaper to-day, and I have ascertained from the Australian Wheat Board that, because the wheat crop is lighter than usual this year and because Australia is the only exporter of sterling wheat in the world, which means that its wheat is in great demand, the board is not able to supply all orders for wheat that are offered to it. I have no doubt that any advice of inability to deliver wheat that is given to any authority in Europe or elsewhere would be related to those circumstances. Certainly it would not have anything to do with Government policy.

page 2761

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Mr PETERS:
BURKE, VICTORIA

-Is the Treasurer aware that much uneasiness has been caused in the banking and business communities in Melbourne by the appearance there of forgeries of £10 notes in considerable numbers and in a form that is sufficiently well executed to escape all but expert detection, and that this uneasiness is increasing despite the fact that the legitimate £10 note is rapidly becoming less and less valuable? Has the Commonwealth Bank made any report to the Government on these forgeries? If so, what is the nature of the report? What action is being taken to deal with the situation?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have not received any report in connexion with this matter. I shall make inquiries and ascertain what information I can supply to the honorable member.

page 2761

QUESTION

FENCING MATERIALS

Mr TRELOAR:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The question that 1 direct to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development arises from the fact that extensive bush fires throughout New South Wales and Queensland have destroyed a great deal of fencing. Many landholders are worried about their ability to replace fencing because of the lack of steel posts. They believe that the supply of locally manufactured steel posts is inadequate and they have grave doubts whether there are sufficient imported posts in the country to enable them to repair fire damage expeditiously. Will the Minister make a survey in order to ascertain whether there are sufficient posts in Australia? If the supply is not adequate, will he take action to have it improved?

Mr BEALE:
LP

– I shall refer the honorable member’s questions to the Minister for National Development and will provide him with a reply as soon as possible.

page 2762

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister give immediate consideration to the adoption by the Government of a proposal that was made recently by the honorable member for Watson for the granting, by the Government, of a special £10 ‘payment to pensioners at Christmas, in order to permit them to have a jubilee Christmas celebration? The Prime Minister is aware of the country’s debt to pioneers who are now pensioners, and I request that he tell the House, as soon as possible, that be has decided to make the suggested grant available before Christmas.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– By its recent budget and the measures under it the Government has made a very substantial increase of the payments made to pensioners. It does not propose to’ add to that in the course of .this year.

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Social Services whether there is quite a number of unemployable single and married persons for whom employment cannot be found by the Department of Labour and National Service. If this is a fact, is the condition of these people due to disease and constant illness ? Is it true that single and married persons receive £1 -5 s. and £2 5s. respectively as unemployed or sickness benefit, and that because they are not deemed to be 85 per cent, incapacitated they are ineligible to receive pensions? Will the Minister discuss with Cabinet the possibility of providing a special Christmas allowance for these people in order to enable them to enjoy Christmas dinner this year, as most other people will enjoy it?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The type of matter raised by the honorable member is always under consideration by my department. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has stated that the increase in pensions would be of greater use to pensioners than the payment to them of one sum of £10, 1 had hoped that it might be possible to do something for these people at Christmas. However, I searched through the records that were kept in respect of the eight years of Labour administration and could find no precedent for such an action.

page 2762

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr BERRY:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that the post office is to be removed from King’s Hall to allow for greater space there, space will now be available to house those artistic pieces of sculpture, the Lion and the Unicorn, which adorned the House of Commons until it was unfortunately bombed during the recent war, and which were subsequently presented to this Parliament by the Government of the United Kingdom as historic relics and as a gesture of the goodwill to Australia from the Mother Country ? For the two years that I have been a member of this Parliament those relics have been lying in the courtyard and have been shifted round repeatedly. The base of one of them has now been broken. I consider that they deserve a better fate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I undertake to place the honorable gentleman’s suggestion before the Joint House Committee.

page 2762

QUESTION

NEEDS OF EDEN-MONARO

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Postmaster-General and Minister for Civil Aviation whether he will visit the Bega valley during the course of the approaching recess. Public organizations in that area wish to make representations to him about the construction of Merimbula aerodrome, the establishment of an A class regional station at Bega, and other matters. They had anticipated making such representations at the time of the proposed debate on the problems of the butter industry between the Minister and me. However, as the Minister at present finds himself unable to proceed with the arrangements for that debate, I ask him whether he will give the people of that area an opportunity to make those representations by making a personal visit to the area in the near future when, I can assure him, he will receive a very warm welcome ?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to have had a debate at Bega on the subject of the dairying industry with such a doughty opponent as the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. Unfortunately, the Premier of New South “Wales ruined the projected debate by surrendering on the butter issue a day or two after the arrangements for the debate had been made. I advised the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that, in view of the New South Wales Government’s decision in relation to the price of butter, I did not consider it to be worth while to pursue the subject. However, I promise him that in the course of the next two years or so, probably near the time of the next general election, I shall endeavour to visit Bega and shall be very pleased while I am there to answer any questions on the subject of butter or anything else. I should like to visit the honorable member’s electorate during the recess if it were possible for me to do so, but Australia is a big country and there are many places that call for the attention of Ministers. Nevertheless. I shall give consideration to the possibility of paying his electorate a visit.

page 2763

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for Health state the benefits, if any, for which bush nursing hospitals will be eligible under the new hospital benefits scheme?

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– This matter was raised by the honorable member for McMillan and also by the Victorian Minister for Health. We. have examined the position and it is quite obvious that the terms on which the bush nursing hospitals of Victoria are conducted are such as to permit them to enjoy the full benefits of the scheme. I have so informed them and advised them to apply for approval as an insurance organization.

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Health refers to the legislation that he proposes to introduce in order to authorize the payment of an increased subsidy for hospital patients who make contributions to an insurance organization. I remind the right honorable gentleman that an industrial subscribers’ scheme was in operation on the south coast of New South Wales prior to the operation of the act, which provided for the payment for the treatment in hospital of each subscriber patient, but it ceased to exist when the subsidy was introduced. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Commonwealth will pay the increased subsidy to the Wollongong Hospital Board, and to similar authorities, if the industrial subscribers’ scheme is re-introduced?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– A special committee, which consists of the Commonwealth Actuary and a senior officer of the Department of Health, has been appointed to confer with various organizations in connexion with the health insurance scheme. If the honorable gentleman will request the organization which he has mentioned to apply to that committee for approval it will come under1 the scheme if approval is given.

page 2763

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture now in a position to state the date on which legislation will be introduced for the purpose of making refunds to those former woolgrowers affected by the Joint Organization scheme who have left the industry? Many of these people are aged and in ill health and are in urgent need of the money that is due to them.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– As I have stated several times during the last couple of weeks, it is the policy, intention and desire of the Government to repay to wool-growers who left the industry before the recent boom in wool prices their proper entitlement from the proceeds of the Joint Organization scheme. It is not possible to introduce legislation for this purpose at present because a certain case is before the High Court which may affect the entitlement of all wool-growers. As soon as the Government’s legal advisers inform it that it is proper to distribute these moneys legislation will be introduced without further delay and the payments will be made.

page 2764

QUESTION

EAN8ABD

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-r You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that some weeks ago the honorable member for Macarthur and I addressed to you certain suggestions for the more expeditious printing of Hansard. Can you inform the House whether you have made any investigations into this matter and, if you have made such investigations, what has been the result of them ? i

Mr SPEAKER:

– I discussed this matter with the Treasurer almost immediately after receiving the memorandum of the honorable member on the subject. I understand that some improvements have already taken place. One suggestion of which I heartily approve ‘ is that the reports of the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives should be published in separate volumes. The other matters that were raised are still under consideration and, in due course, a decision will be made concerning them.

page 2764

QUESTION

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

Mr CREMEAN:
HODDLE, VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for the Army still maintain that the condition of the grounds and building of Mount Martha House, Mornington, are excellent and that the stories of neglect, weed profusion and a general unkempt condition are figments of a newspaper’s imagination? How does the Minister reconcile the statement to that effect which he made over two weeks ago with the fact that a squad of servicemen have been working on the grounds of Mount Martha House during the last week, cleaning up the weeds and other refuse which he contended do not exist?

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– At no stage have 1 contended that weeds do not exist in the grounds of Mount Martha House, or anywhere else in Australia. I would have been foolish to have done so, as I have been reminded that there are some even here. I said that weeds and grass were completely cleaned out of the grounds of Mount Martha House twice a year. In accordance with past practice, and with by statement, such work is being done at present for the second time this year.

page 2764

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in the four months to the end of October Australia incurred a deficit in its trading account of about £164,000,000, and in view of the estimated deficit of £400,000,000 which will appear in the same account at the end of the financial year, does the Government intend to take any measures to stop this serious drift in our trading? If not, why not?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The important matter inquired into by .the honorable member does not lend itself to explanation in a simple answer to a question. The Government will deal with that matter publicly at the proper time.

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that Australia’s overseas balances are continuing their downward trend and are now below £500,000,000? Is it also a fact that following the sharp fall of £79,000,000 during the week ended the 14th November a further decline of £14,290,000 to £487,500,000 was recorded in the week ended the 21st November? If the answer to each of those questions is in the affirmative, what does the Treasurer propose to do to rectify this frightening situation?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– A question similar to that which the honorable member has asked was addressed earlier this afternoon to the Prime Minister. I have nothing to add to the reply that the right honorable gentleman gave to that question.

page 2764

QUESTION

GOLD

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Will the Treasurer inform the House whether all gold produced in Australia will continue to be sold to the Commonwealth Bank? On what conditions will gold be- released for the socalled free market by the Commonwealth

Bank? Will such gold be saleable only for dollars? Will the right honorable gentleman furnish a statement before the rising of the House on the proposed operation of sales of gold on the free market?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– Details about the disposal of gold are at present being worked out with the industry concerned. If I am in a position to make a statement before the House rises I shall certainly do so. However, I doubt whether the negotiations will be at a stage that will enable me to do it.

page 2765

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some time ago the Minister for Immigration announced the appointment of a committee to examine the incidence of crime among new Australians. I now ask the Minister whether that committee has yet concluded its deliberations. If it has done so will he make its report available to honorable members? Is it a fact that some new Australians who have been charged with criminal offences since their arrival in this country have admitted that “they had been convicted of crimes of violence prior to leaving their native lands? If so, will he state how this fact may be correlated, with his repeated claim that the screening of immigrants is effective? Further, will the Minister state whether Sir John Storey, the chairman of the Immigration Planning Council, laid it down as a matter of policy that former membership of the Nazi party was not a bar to the selection of a German as an approved immigrant? If this is so, will he state approximately bow many former Nazis have been granted permission by the Government to settle in Australia?

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The committee to which the honorable member has referred has not yet concluded its investigations. When it does so I hope that the report which it presents will be in a form that I can make available to honorable members. J shall ensure that as much information as can properly be made public will be made public. If any immigrants have committed crimes of violence after their arrival in Australia and have admitted the commission of similar crimes prior to their coming to this country, I assume that, because they have been here sufficiently long for those things to have happened, they were selected during the term of office of my predecessor. I do not know of any specific cases of that kind, but if the honorable member supplies me with details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall ascertain the precise circumstances. I have not available the full text of any public statement that Sir John Storey may have made about former membership of the Nazi party not necessarily being a bar to entrance to Australia. I can say only that my understanding, which I should like my ‘predecessor in office to check, is that the previous Government did not regard membership of the Nazi party as being an automatic bar to entrance to this country. I have been so advised by the head of my department. The test that this Government applies in deciding whether a person shall be selected for admission to Australia is whether that person would’ be a suitable and desirable citizen of this country.

page 2765

QUESTION

NATIONAL. SERVICE

Mr CLAREY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service, with an explanatory statement. Most awards made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court make provision for organizations to close during the Christmas period, in order to enable employees to take their annual leave and Christmas holidays, and for work to recommence in the second week in January. In view of that circumstance, I ask the Minister whether it will be possible for the call-up of national service trainees, which has been fixed for the 2nd January next year, to take place on the 9th January, a week later?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– The date for the call-up of national service trainees was fixed, not by roy department but by the service authorities. I assume that they chose that date for reasons that seemed good to them. However, I shall bring to the notice of the appropriate authorities the suggestion that has been made by the honorable member, and shall ascertain whether it can be acceded to.

page 2766

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the Government has decided to sell all ships that belong to the Commonwealth? Will the ships be sold after the Parliament has gone into recess? Are the ships worth £11,000,000, and do overseas and local shipping interests want to acquire them for £4,000,000? Are negotiations for the sale of the ships at special bargain rates proceeding on that basis?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The matters that have been referred to by the honorable member, in speculative terms, are not yet the subject of a decision by the Government. When the Government has made its decision upon those matters, or upon any of them, it will be pleased to inform the public accordingly.

page 2766

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr ANDREWS:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

– In view of the fact that the Public Service Clerical Association appears to be very disturbed at the action of the Department of Labour and National Service in requiring the submission of secret and confidential reports upon public servants, I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service, first, whether he has completed the checking of the reports of that kind that were asked for in connexion with the dismissal of 10,000 public servants ; secondly, whether he has agreed to accede to the request of the central executive of the association that the reports shall be destroyed; and thirdly, whether it is likely that there will be a. repetition of scrutiny of this kind, which is unique?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– I assure the honorable member that I have not seen any secret reports of the kind to which he has referred. I shall ascertain the result of the personal questionnaire that was circulated by the department in relation to the matter that he has raised. I assure him that the kind of questionnaire that was sent out to district officers, so far from being unique, has been used regularly and extensively in large private undertakings. I shall be prepared to make available to him, or to any other honorable member who is interested in the matter, a list of names of large private organizations that have regularly made use of this method of inquiry.

page 2766

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for the Navy aware that a serious shortage of water exists at the naval air station H.M.A.S. Albatross at Nowra? Has the Shoalhaven Shire Council cancelled a five-year contract for the supply of £100,000 worth of pipes which would have obviated that shortage? As part of the headwork and pumping station has been completed, will the Minister take steps to ensure that when the work is resumed, the naval air station shall obtain adequate supplies of water from the Shoalhaven Shire in common with residents in that district and that no Commonwealth authority shall be permitted to intervene in a way that would hold up the work ?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Air · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I was not aware that there was any shortage of water at the Nowra naval base. I shall make inquiries from the Naval Board about the matter and, if such a shortage exists, I shall ascertain what action can be taken to remedy it. With respect to supplies of the requisite pipes to the local government authority concerned, the State member for that area made representations to me some weeks ago to see whether a local government loan could be made available for that purpose. I advised him that such a matter was outside my control. I suggested that he take up the subject with the State Government with a view to the latter making the necessary representations to the Treasurer. In reply to the honorable member’s request that no other State or Commonwealth instrumentality should intervene in the matter, I have no control over Cabinet, or over the Treasurer, but when the matter comes up for consideration, I shall do my best if it should affect the Navy’s interests, to see that the necessary funds are allocated.

page 2766

QUESTION

NEWSPAPERS

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the proposed syndication of newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Parliament. In view of the fact that metropolitan daily newspapers in Australia are owned and controlled by a few wealthy organizations, nearly all of which are members of the Australian Associated

Press, and in view of the fact that syndication of such reports by that organization would result in a large measure of unemployment among journalists by permitting one reporter to supply many newspapers with the same report on highly controversial issues, will the. right honorable gentleman instruct the Attorney-General to intervene in the public interests in the present proceedings before Conciliation Commissioner Tonkin in Melbourne in an effort to ensure that the free, competitive system of news reporting shall not be supplanted by a Goebbelized system?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The terms of the question that the honorable member has asked indicate that he is intending to influence the proceedings before Conciliation Commissioner Tonkin. I do not propose to pursue him in that direction.

page 2767

QUESTION

GRAIN SORGHUM

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture indicate whether in consequence of the existing position in regard to wheat there has been any alteration in the marketing policy for grain sorghum? If no alteration of policy has been made, will the present ratio in respect of grain for export and for home consumption continue to apply?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The marketing policy relative to grain sorghum has not been altered as a result of the recent arrangement regarding wheat for stock feed, which is dependent upon the passing of legislation by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the six States. The Commonwealth must await the outcome of that action. I assure the honorable member for Darling Downs and others who are interested in grain sorghum, that when that legislation has been passed, the implications of the new policy upon the granting of permits for the export of grain sorghum will be examined. I myself have no views on that matter at the moment.

page 2767

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Mr SWARTZ:

– Is the Treasurer aware of the great difficulties that are being experienced by local government bodies in raising loan funds for works programmes? As a member of the Loan Council, will the right honorable gentleman indicate what proposals were made at the last meeting of the Loan Council to deal with this problem, which no doubt would have been anticipated at the time of that meeting? As a great deal of confusion exists regarding the responsibilities of the Australian Government in this matter, will the Treasurer make an early statement to the House to indicate the exact relationship of the Commonwealth and the States regarding local government finance Such a statement will clarify the position.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I intend to ask for the leave of the House at an appropriate time this afternoon in order to make a statement on loan requirements, the general financial position of local government and other authorities, and the relationship of such organizations with the Loan Council.

Later:

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– by leave - A good deal has been said in this House lately about the difficulties which are being experienced by various semigovernmental authorities and local government authorities of the States in raising loan moneys for works and other purposes. In one way or another, the Commonwealth is being blamed for those difficulties, and therefore, I wish to make a brief statement on the position. From the statements which have been made on the subject in Parliament and elsewhere, I judge that the facts are not so well known as they should be, and there seems to be .a lot of misunderstanding about who is actually responsible for the finances of the local authorities.

As I have pointed out recently on another matter, the Australian Loan Council, not this Government, controls the raising of loan moneys by Commonwealth and State governments for civil purposes. The Loan Council is a constitutional body, which comprises representatives of the States and the Commonwealth. The Loan Council decides that a certain amount of money is to be borrowed and determines the conditions as to rate of interest and terms. The Com- monwealth, acting as the instrument of the Loan Council, endeavours to raise the money in its own name and then distributes the actual proceeds to the several Governments in accordance with the programmes approved by the Loan Council.

The present issue, however, relates to borrowings, not by or for State governments as such, but for various public authorities within the States, such as municipal and shire councils, county councils, water and sewerage boards, electricity undertakings and so on. Those bodies are formed under State laws, and responsibility for them rests entirely with the States concerned. In some cases, State governments have given those bodies the power to borrow, with or without a State or government guarantee, and the bodies concerned seek to raise loans on their own account, either by public issues or from private sources.

Borrowings by semi-governmental bodies are not subject to the Financial Agreement, and, consequently, the Loan Council has no legal authority in regard to them. However, by a voluntary arrangement which was made some years ago, the Premiers of all the States agreed to submit the programmes of those bodies each year to the Loan Council. That arrangement is known as a gentleman’s agreement, and covers those semigovernmental bodies, constituted under Commonwealth or State legislation, which propose to borrow in the aggregate 4’100,000 or more in any one year. Under this gentleman’s- agreement, the borrowing programme of each body is submitted to the Loan Council by the Premier of the State concerned. When the programme is approved, each loan which it is proposed to raise thereunder is placed before the Loan Council for its approval of the rate of interest, and the terms.

With regard to proposals for borrowing by semi-governmental bodies and local government authorities of less than £100,000 in any one year it has been the practice since the war years for the Loan Council to be informed, through the CoordinatorGeneral of Works and the Premiers, of the total amount of such proposed borrowing in each State, and for the approval of the Loan Council of the aggregate programmes to be obtained.

However, it should be clearly understood that neither the Loan Council nor the Commonwealth has the power or the responsibility to arrange the raising of loans for semi-governmental bodies and local government authorities. To some extent, of course, State governments borrow money for local or other authorities, and include the amounts required for that purpose in their own governmental programmes. Whether a State does so, or whether it allows authorities within its jurisdiction to seek their own loan finance is entirely a matter for itself to determine. In practice, the policies of State governments in this regard vary widely. In South Australia and Western Australia, for example, there is comparatively little borrowing by semi-governmental or local authorities on their own account. In New South Wales and Victoria, semi-governmental borrowing programmes have reached huge totals.

It is, I think, correct to say that one reason why, in the past, semigovernmental and local authorities in some States have been given borrowing ‘powers, and have been permitted and even encouraged by the State authorities to raise their own loan moneys is that it was desired to keep their finances outside the purview of the Loan Council, and to increase the overall borrowing for public works in the States.

At the meeting of the Loan Council last August, the programmes of semigovernmental bodies which were submitted under the gentleman’s agreement by four States - New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania - totalled £81,634,000. After the Loan Council had decided to reduce the programmes of State governments by 25 per cent., each of the four Premiers concerned undertook to use his best endeavours to ensure that the principle of a 25 per cent, reduction would be observed with regard to those semi-governmental borrowing proposals. That undertaking it may be noted, referred to the total proposed borrowing for the respective States. It did not necessarily apply to individual proposals within the programmes. The Co-ordinator-General of Works also informed the Loan Council of programmes for borrowings by local authorities and others of amounts less than £100,000 which, in total, amounted to £13,S90,000. Of that amount, £12,317,000 was for authorities in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. The Loan Council approved those programmes as a whole, without alteration.

Let me now try to re-state the position so that there may be no shadow of doubt about it. With regard to the governmental programmes which the Loan Council reduced from £300,000,000 to £225,000,000, the Commonwealth agreed that, to the extent that loan raisings during the year fell short of £225,000,000, it would arrange finance for the balance out of its own resources. With regard to the programmes of the semigovernmental bodies and local authorities, the raising of the moneys which are required is wholly the responsibility of the States and those authorities.

If some semi-governmental and local authorities are now finding it difficult to raise loans, it is, I suggest, fundamentally for the same reasons that governments themselves are finding it difficult to secure the loan moneys they would like to have. That is because the demand for capital for ‘public investment, taken with the competing demands for capital for private investment, has risen above the amount which the market will yield. I point out that this year, the approved borrowing programmes for governments and semi-governmental and local authorities, even after the reductions which have been made by the Loan Council, total £321,000.000. ‘which is £86,000,000 more than actual borrowings last year and £179,000,000 more than borrowings in 1949-50. Obviously, a limit had to be reached at one time or another.

The steep rise in borrowings bv semi.governmental and local authorities during recent years has played no small part in swelling the total demand for loan moneys. Actual raisings by such bodies are estimated to have been as follows: -

We are told now that these bodies have extensive forward commitments on contracts and similar obligations which were entered some time ago. If that is so, it surely reveals an extraordinary state of affairs. It means, in plain words, that those authorities went ahead to let contracts and place orders for long periods into the future without knowing whether they could, or could not, be financed when the accounts had to be met. It means also that the State governments, under whose administration those bodies come, allowed them to enter into those commitments without doing anything to cover their position. The State governments allowed those authorities to do so in spite of clear indications and strong and specific warnings from the Commonwealth that it was becoming increasingly difficult to meet the ever-increasing demand for loan money. Now that these bodies are encountering difficulties, they are trying to pass the responsibility to the Commonwealth.

It is another form of the same criticism to say that the present difficulties are due to the credit policy of the Commonwealth. This, of course, could mean any one of several things. It could mean, for example, that the Commonwealth is preventing banks or insurance companies or private people from lending to local authorities. In that case, it is certainly untrue. The Commonwealth does not control lending by insurance companies, superannuation boards and the like, and the private trading banks are permitted Under the advance policy instructions issued by the Commonwealth Bank to lend to local authorities for all usual purposes. It might, again, be taken to imply that the Commonwealth Bank has been cutting down an its lending to these bodies. There, again, it is certainly untrue. The Commonwealth Savings Bank has always invested a portion of its funds in loans to local authorities, and the Governor of the bank has informed me that the activities of the Savings Bank Department in this respect have not in any way diminished. In fact, in the current financial year, that department is making such loans at a greater rate than ever before. The bank, however, has obligations to other classes of customers, including home builders, and finds it impossible to meet the demands of all these bodies which now find that, at a time when their loan requirements have been heavily increased, some of their main sources of supply have temporarily vanished.

Yet again, it might be intended to mean that the Commonwealth is refusing to call upon central bank credit to finance loan programmes. In that case, it certainly is true and, what is quite as much to the point, it is going to remain true. There have been strong suggestions from a number of sources that the Commonwealth should resort to such a policy. The Government, however, looks upon that policy as a short-cut to disaster and refuses to countenance it in any circumstances. In repeating by way of conclusion that the responsibility in this matter belongs to the State governments concerned, I point out that there will be available this year for spending by the State governments and semi-governmental and local authorities the full amount of the borrowing programmes approved by the Loan Council, which is ?225,000,000, together with the money that will be raised by the semi-governmental and local authorities themselves. In total, that is certain to amount to very considerably more than was available to them in 1950-51. The problem for the State governments and their instrumentalities is essentially that of making these funds go around.

page 2770

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

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

– I lay on the table the following paper : -

Sugar - Protocol relating to the International Sugar Agreement (signed in London, 3Lst August, 1951).

This protocol has been signed in London by representatives of the governments of the Union of South Africa, Commonwealth of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Hayti, Republic of the United States of. Indonesia, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, United States of America and the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. This protocol is similar to that which was signed on the 31st August, 1950, and extends the International Sugar Agreement, which initially operated for five years from the 1st September, 1937, for a further period of one year to the 31st August, 1952. The protocol provides that certain articles of the original agreement, particularly those which relate to export quotas, shall be inoperative. An important feature of the protocol is that countries which sign it agree that revision of the original agree ment is necessary, and should be undertaken as soon as the time appears opportune. The original agreement is to be taken as the starting point in any discussions of such revision. Discussions have been taking place in recent months between representatives of countries interested regarding the terms of a new agreement and further meetings are scheduled for the near future.

page 2770

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

States Grants Bill 1951.

States Grunts (Administration of Controls Reimbursement) Bill 1951.

States Grants (Special Financial Assistance) Bil] (So. 2) 1951.

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1951.

page 2770

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Formal Motion fob ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron). - I have received from the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent ‘public importance, namely : -

The injury being suffered by the people of Australia, especially workers on small wages and those on small fixed incomes, as a result of the Government’s refusal to do anything to honour its election promise to “put value back into the ?1 “. to arrest the ever-increasing cost of living, to prevent the making of excessive profits by imposing an excess profits tax. by limiting dividends, by fixing a ceiling price for shares, by preventing the watering of capital by the issue of bonus shares, and by its refusal to take the essential steps for the re-introduction of Commonwealth price control or to co-operate with the State governments in making control of prices by the States more effective.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion supported ?

Eight honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr Gullett:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the statement of the definite matter of urgent public importance on which the motion is based is scarcely designed to comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 4S states -

A motion “ That the House do now adjourn “ for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance . . .

Lt is clear that the statement on which the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has based his motion cannot be so described. It is not a definite matter of urgent public importance; it is a positive essay. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to consider the matter. The statement begins with these words -

The injury being suffered by the people of Australia-

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Gullett:

– I am in no hurry, but I am most reluctant to take up the time of the honorable member for East Sydney. The statement continues - especially workers on small wages and those on small fixed incomes, as a result of the Government’s refusal to do anything to honour its election promise to “ put value back into the £1 “-

That is certainly a definite matter of urgent public importance. But the statement continues - to prevent the making of excessive profits by imposing an excess profits tax-

Surely that, too, is a matter of definite public importance! The statement continues - by limiting dividends., by fixing a ceiling price for shares., by preventing the watering of capital by the issue of bonus shares, and by its refusal to take the essential steps for the reintroduction of Commonwealth price control. . . .

That, in itself, is not only a definite matter, but also a most important matter, and it seems to me to be far beyond the intention of the Standing Order that it should be lumped together with other matters of equal public importance. 1 believe, further, that weight is lent to my argument by the fact that only recently the House has concluded a very lengthy debate on the Government’s financial measures. I believe in short, that we have in this formal motion for the adjournment of the House a deliberate attempt to discuss financial measures as a whole which, I believe, the House will be very ill advised to agree to, because it would completely circumvent the purpose of this particular privilege, which is the right of a private honorable member, to discuss a particular and definite matter of urgent public importance. If we were to allow any honorable member to rise in his place and, by this subterfuge, enter into a discussion of the whole field of financial measures we should defeat the specific purpose of the Standing Orders. I shall be very interested to hear your views on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The honorable member for East Sydney last week unsuccessfully submitted a motion which was designed to lead to a discussion of certain definite matters of urgent public importance, but bo then proceeded to discuss other matters.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member for Henty is entitled to state his case on a point of order, as is every other honorable member.

Mr Gullett:

– If his motion last week was in relation to a definite matter of urgent public importance, then his motion this week should have been on another matter. Instead, we find that everything referred to in his notification last week is also contained in his present notification, plus other definite matters. I submit that his submission covers far too much ground and should not be allowed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have examined the letter of the honorable member for East Sydney and by allowing him to proceed I have ruled his motion to be in order. So far as I am personally concerned, as Speaker, I have no knowledge of the debate that has taken place in committee, and it is in committee that the financial measures have been discussed. These matters have not previously been before me, except that last week there was an attempt to move for the formal adjournment of the House, and the honorable member for East Sydney started to make a speech on the matter. To my mind the core of this question i3 the first sentence of the motion, and the other matters mentioned are the reasons why the honorable gentleman wishes to discuss the circumstances that he has outlined. The other matters are included in -

The injury being suffered by the people of Australia, especially workers on small wages and those on fixed incomes, . . .

The injury, according to the honorable member is being suffered as a result of certain things. I might point out that the House always has these matters under its own control. I point out further, for the benefit of some honorable gentlemen that the procedure in the House of Commons in connexion with such motions is that if the motion is not supported by 40 members, the House itself decides whether the debate may take place. If the honorable member for Henty objects to my ruling, and that is virtually what he is d’oing-

Mr Gullett:

– I merely asked your opinion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must have assented to this matter before I put it to the House, because unless I had done so I would not have put it to the House. As I have put it to the House, the proper course for the honorable member for Henty to pursue would be to move that my ruling be disagreed with. Does he propose to do so?

Mr Gullett:

– I do not.

Mr WARD:

– The gravest charge that can be made against any government is that it has made extravagant election promises which it has no intention^ of redeeming. One of the election promises made by the Government on a. number of occasions was that it intended to reverse the order of things and put value back into the £1. Of course, it has now become rather inconvenient for the Government to admit having made that promise, and therefore it is attempting to deny it. The

Prime Minister (Mr., Menzies), in replying to a question directed to him by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), denied ever having made the promise, so I shall make a brief reference to the statement he actually made in his policy-speech during the 1940 general election campaign. He said -

Perhaps our greatest charge against the financial and economic policy of the present socialist Government is that whilst it has paid a good deal of attention to increasing the volume and circulation of money it has largely neglected the problem of what and how much that money will buy. The greatest task, therefore, is to get value back into the fi, that is, to get prices down.

The Prime Minister admitted that that was the greatest task that confronted, hi? Government. If he fails in that greatest task - and the Government has failed in it - then his Government deserves the gravest condemnation of the people. The Prime Minister cannot argue that the Government lacks power to act in relation to inflation and high prices, because he and his party published n number of election advertisements in which they referred to the Chifley Government’s “ fake excuses for high prices exposed by actual facts “. One advertisement stated -

The Federal Labour Government is entirely to blame for the present extortionate cost of living and for the fact that prices have steadily increased since the Chifley Government “ controlled “ them. No faked excuse will convince Australia to the contrary.

This Government possesses all the powers that the Chifley Government possessed when it went out of office in 1949. So I say to the Government that the public will not be satisfied with any fake excuses on its part for its failure to honour it.= election promises. If the House wishes further evidence of whether the promises were actually made, I refer it to an answer to a question that was given by the Minister for Trade and Custom.0 (Senator O’sullivan) in the Sena.te-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman is definitely out of order in attempting to discuss anything that has taken place in the Senate during this session.

Mr WARD:

– Very well, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has said that the Al problem facing Australia is inflation and that defence is secondary. “What has the Government done about inflation? I have some relevant figures on that matter. In 1949, the cost of living was certainly increasing, because at that time the Commonwealth had lost the power to control prices. Price rose in that year by 9.3 per cent. In 1950, when this antiLabour Government was in office, the cost of living rose by 12 per cent. This year it is estimated that the cost of living will increase by 20 per cent., and I believe that that estimate will be exceeded. For the first time in the history of this country unfortunate Australian citizens are obliged to secure their Christmas dinners on a time-payment basis. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question to-day, spoke about the increase of pensions that the Government had given to invalid and age pensioners, and he said that the Government did not propose to do anything more this year in that direction. I venture the opinion that the Government will not do anything more for these people next year either, although the paltry increase of 10s. that it has already given did not compensate them for the rise in the cost of living that had taken place since their pensions had previously been increased. The position in this country is desperate. What does the Government propose to do? It proposes to close this Parliament up at the end of this week for some months, so that no effective protests can be made on our situation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman is out of order in discussing, under this motion, the question of when the session will end.

Mr WARD:

– Because of the limited time available to me I can deal only with some of the items that have increased in price since the last basic wage increase. 1 shall start with bread. The cost of a 2-lb. loaf of bread to-day is 10½d., and the majority of people, as I have said, depend largely on such staple items of food. It is expected that early in the new year the price of a 2-lb. loaf will rise to ls. because of the increased cost of freights in certain of the wheat-growing States and of other increasing costs. The Australian

Baker which is the trade journal of bread manufacturers, says -

A loaf of bread may cost 2s. Gd. within a year.

Yet the Government claims that it is coping with the internal situation. Honorable members opposite claimed that the Chifley £1 had less than its face value. To-day the Menzies £1 is worth less than 8s. and is rapidly decreasing in value.

Now, let us examine the position in respect to other foodstuffs. The Government has accorded relief to a section of the wheat-growers, but not on the basis that the wheat-growers are not getting the cost of production, because the cost of production is guaranteed to them as a result of the figure determined upon by a committee established for that purpose. It has given them relief on another ground. It has told the farmers that, because they may obtain 16s. Id. a bushel for wheat sold overseas under the International Wheat, Agreement, every consumer in Australia ought to pay the same price, whether or not it is reasonable and fair and regardless of the effect that such a price will have on the cost of living. As a result of the proposal to increase the cost of stock feed wheat from 7s. lOd. to 16s. Id. a bushel, milk will rise from 2d. to 2-Jcl. a gallon. According to figures which I have obtained from the office of the Commonwealth ‘Statistician, for every ls. increase in the price of stock feed wheat, the price of eggs will rise by Id. a dozen. The price of these staple items is rising beyond the reach of the people. Large sections of the lower paid workers and those on small fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are facing a state of starvation. Honorable members must know of instances of such cases in their own electorates.

In this meat-producing country the best steak now costs from 6s. to 7s. per lb. I will not guarantee the correctness of these figures because I secured them on Friday and the cost of living increases every day. On Friday, the best chops cost from 4s. 6d. to 5s. per lb. Tomatoes were 3s. per lb., beans 3s. 6d. per lb., and peas 3s. per lb. The price of groceries has risen proportionately. According to the Sunday Telegraph, the price of a i-lb. packet of Kraft cheese has risen to ls. 10d., an increase of 5£d. a packet. As honorable members know, the price of butter has risen from 2a. 2d. per lb. to 3s. lid. per lb. The price of first-quality tea is fixed at 3s. lid. per lb. and the price of secondquality tea at 3s. 7d. ‘-per lb., but it is not possible to buy second-quality tea. The only tea that it is possible to buy is classed as “ first quality “. Apples were selling in Sydney on Friday at ls. 3d. each. The Government has prided itself on its scheme to improve the health of the people, yet because of high prices children are being denied an adequate supply of fruit. The costs of recreation have also increased considerably. A few days after the last basic wage increase was announced on the 4th November to be exact, it was stated in the Sunday Telegraph that -

Price increases last week added at least 25s. to the average ‘family budget.

That statement was made in a newspaper which supports the Government. Economists and experts such as the honorable professor for Warringah (Mr. Bland) have admitted that the basic wage will increase by from fi to fi 10s. in the next quarter. How can the Government permit of these sittings of the Parliament to terminate without doing, anything to relieve the desperate position of the people? In New Zealand, where the same problem exists, the cost of living has been decreased by removing duties on certain commodities. Why has this Government not introduced prices control. During the course of the policyspeech which he made in 1946 the Prime Minister said, in regard to prices control

We shall unhesitatingly maintain it as a means of preventing inflation during the period in which production is inadequate to meet the demand for goods.

Production has not met demand. Did the Government continue the system of prices control? Did not the Government supporters, when speaking on the referendum proposals that were put forward in 1948, advise the people to return this power to the States? The Prime Minister continued -

Let me. speaking for the Government which introduced price control, give the lie direct to those whisperers who tell you that a

Liberal victory will mean an upward leap in prices. We stand for controlled prices. No promises will be made recklessly by the Liberal party. We ]1*we carefully and soberly studied Australia’s problems. What we promise we shall perform.

Later, after having assisted in bringing about the defeat of the referendum proposals of 194S, the Prime Minister said -

The Government is actively co-operating with the States in the maintenance of price control.

At the conference of State Ministers in charge of prices which was held in Canberra in November of 1950 and which the Prime Minister attended it was proposed by the State Ministers that the Commonwealth should delegate a senior Minister to attend conferences of State Ministers in charge of prices control. The Prime Minister said that the Commonwealth could not agree to the proposal. Later, in this House, the Prime Minister said that the Government, intended that a high-ranking officer should maintain liaison with such State Ministers. The Government has not arranged for anybody to fulfil that function and the States have pressed the Commonwealth to assume control of prices.

In order to illustrate the extent to which excess profits have been made in this country I have selected a few instances at random from the newspapers. The profit of the British Standard Machinery Company Limited in 1949 was £37.700. In 1951 it was £101,500, an increase of 170 per cent, in two years. That profit was made after deducting the sum of £96,800 for taxation purposes. That was an increase of £52,600 on the preceding year and after provision had been made for a cash reserve of £75,000. Commercial and manufacturing undertakings have made such huge profits that their great problem is to hide the fact from the public. Grocery and General Merchants Limited made a net profit of £177,000 last year, an increase of £66.000 over the preceding year. That profit was made after deducting £105,000 for taxation, an increase of £59,000 in the corresponding amount for the previous year and after placing to reserve £50,000, and to cash reserves £27,000. A similar story can be told in relation to Tecnico Limited. Standard Cars Limited made a net profit of £550,000, an increase of more than £54i,000 over the preceding year after £692,800 had been set aside for taxation purposes, an increase of £197,000 on the corresponding figure for the preceding year. The company also put aside £132,000 in order to meet stock fluctuations. It held £752,300 as a cash reserve and the company’s report stated that, after making provision for all those reserves, its ordinary dividend had been maintained at the rate of 60 per cent. The net profit made by Robert Reid-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

– The motion before the House is completely futile and has not one iota of merit. It is merely a piece of blatant political propaganda which is designed to mislead unthinking people. As the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) pointed out in stating his point of order, the budget debate which lasted for six long and weary weeks and on which about 112 different speakers-

Mr SPEAKER:

– ‘Order ! The Minister cannot, at this stage, discuss the affairs of the committee of the whole House.

Mr TOWNLEY:

– Hundreds of speakers in the-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not aware of the remarks of those honorable members. They were not made before me.

Mr TOWNLEY:

– The matters that were raised by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) have been discussed repeatedly on many other occasions in this chamber. Speaker after speaker has gone over the same ground. The honorable member for East Sydney had ample opportunity during the past few weeks to bring these matters before the House, but not until the House is almost ready to rise has he seen fit to draw attention to them. Instead of engaging in a general tirade against the Government. he should have confined his remarks to the motion that is actually before the House.

The honorable member’s submission can be divided into two or three very simple sections. I shall deal logically and sensibly with each section, and endeavour to dissipate the illogical and unreasonable atmosphere engendered by the honorable member for East Sydney. He has said that injury is being suffered by the people of Australia, especially those on small wages and those on small fixed incomes. I shall deal first with his averment that injury is being suffered by the people of Australia. There appears to be no doubt about how the ‘people are suffering. In fact I have before me figures that indicate the extent of their suffering. Last year the people, in their suffering, drank 173,000,000 gallons of beer, or 50 gallons for every man in Australia. The honorable member quoted all sorts of figures from Sydney newspapers except those which related to Sydney beer. He should have quoted the figures for Sydney beer, because his figures for Sydney food prices are just as bad as Sydney beer. The suffering people also drank 2,900,000 gallons of spirits. How they do suffer. They drank 14,000,000 gallons of wine and smoked 20,000,000 lb. of cigarettes. It is worth noting that in 1939 they smoked only 7,000,000 lb. of cigarettes.

Undoubtedly, as the honorable member says, the price of meat has increased ; nevertheless the people now have plenty of refrigerators in which to keep their meat. Last year this suffering community bought 207,000 refrigerators and before the war there were only 30,000 in use. This suffering community also bought 12S,000 motor cars during the last financial year. If all the motor cars had been available that the people wanted to buy one would not have been able to drive along the roads. This great spending spree reached such extravagant proportions that one would have expected that the people would have become bankrupt. But that is certainly not the case, as an inspection of the figures relating to savings bank deposits will show. I am not now talking of the big trading banks about which the honorable member for East Sydney says so much. I am talking of savings banks, the people’s banks. Savings bank deposits have now reached the staggering sum of £800,000,000. Therefore, it seems that the community is not suffering nearly as much as the honorable member for East Sydney would have us believe they are.

The next section of the honorable member’s submission relates that workers on small wages are suffering. I wish that the honorable member had indicated who those people are, because according to the figures available to me, while the basic wage is £10 a week, at present the average wage of men employed in Australia is £13 a week. Goods have risen in price, but so also have wages. More significant is the fact that real wages have risen. Although the cost of living lias increased, real wages have increased since 1939 by more than 7 per cent. The figures that I have been quoting have been supplied to mc by the Commonwealth Statistician.

The next section of the honorable member’s submission refers to people on fixed incomes, and there may be some substance in his claims in this connexion. Among those people may be found pensioners, people drawing superannuation payments and those thrifty souls who have saved a few pounds for their old age. Even if we freely admit that that section of the community is feeling the burden of rising costs more than any other, the question arises “ What has the Government done about it? “ The honorable member for East Sydney said that, it had done nothing. Let us briefly review some of this Government’s legislation to see how it has reacted on the people concerned. Consider first the people who draw Commonwealth superannuation payments. This Government has twice given them cost-of-living adjustments. We also raised the income tax limits so that if a person has a small income or is drawing a pension he will not have to pay income tax unless he is earning more than £234 a year. The income limit in the case of a married couple is £468 a year. This Government eased the means test so that age and invalid pensioners could earn, without losing any of their pensions, 30s. a week instead of 20s. a week. We raised the property limits from £500 to £1,000 and we raised the statutory exemption limits of surrender value of insurance policies held by such people.

Consider now war widows. There is no more deserving group in the country than these women. Let us ascertain: what this Government has done for them and compare it with what the Government of which the honorable member for East Sydney was a senior Minister, did for them. When this Government assumed office the war widows were being paid £3 a week. To-day they get £5 2s. a week. The allowance for their children, which was lis. 6d. a week under the Labour Government, is now 22s. a week. Their domestic allowance was increased to- £1 12s. a week, and educational benefits may be awarded to the children of these widows up to the value of £3 5s. a week. Under the Labour Government, no war widow on a pension could obtain a war service home. To-day war widows withone or more children are eligible for these houses. Totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen received’ £5 6s. a week under the Labour Government and to-day they get £8 15s. a week, plus other benefits.

Let us deal now with age and invalid’ pensioners. The honorable member forEast Sydney referred scornfully to tbeincreases given to these people by theGovernment. He scoffed at the 7s. 6d. a week increase that we provided last year and the 10s. a week that wehave provided this year. In this little black book of mine I have a record of what has been done in this regard by previous Labour governments. Although the honorable member for East Sydney criticized this Government for granting increases of 7s. 6d. and 10s.. a week, a Labour government, of which he was a member, granted an increase of 6d. a week. Six times Labour governments increased these pensions by 6d. a week, and once a Labour govern- - ment made a reduction of 6d. a. week. In . the light of those factshonorable members will be able to evaluatethe criticisms of these five and ten cent philanthropists. We have increased theage and invalid pension rate £rom £2 2s. 6d. to £3 a week. We have given the pensioners free medical service and free medicine; we have increased the allowance for a wife; and we have widened the property provisions, and increased the value of social services in general until we are now paying out for social services more than 10 per cent, of the annual national income.

We have increased the allowable earn.ings of blind people from £5 17s. lOd. a week to £10, granted tuberculosis allowances up to £8 5s. a week and provided free life-saving drugs to the people to such an extent that one-third of all the medicines now prescribed by doctors are paid for by the Government. Only those people who have been attacked by serious illness know what a benefit that is. To ease the burden of rising prices, we have subsidized all sorts of foodstuffs. Since this Government assumed office it has paid more than £30,000,000 to keep down the price of butter,’ £14,000,000 to keep down the price of tea, £2,000,000 in wheat subsidy to keep down the price of bread and £30,000,000 to keep down the price of clothes. Approximately £4,000,000 is to be paid to keep down the price of stock-feed and eggs. The Government, recognizing the needs of the people in the face of rising prices, is subsidizing foodstuffs to an amount of almost £100,000,000.

The Government’s policy for combating the scourge of inflation has been stated often. It contains five elements. The first is that we should increase production. In that connexion, honorable members will recall that the Government negotiated a 100,000,000-dollar loan of which 29,000,000 dollars has been expended upon the purchase of agricultural equipment to produce more food, 20,000,000 dollars upon the purchase of heavy earthmoving equipment to clear the land, 26,000,000 dollars upon the purchase of plant for the generation of electricity, and 15,000j000 dollars upon the purchase of locomotives and other means of transport. The second element, of the Government’s policy for combating inflation is. the implementation of a selective immigration scheme under which immigrants can be employed in ways that will be most useful to this country. The Go vernment has taken positive action to achieve greater production by encouraging the importation from overseas of necessary goods and commodities. The list is impressive. It includes 685,000 tons of steel, 375,000,000 super, feet of timber and £S6,000,000 worth of machinery. The Government has also been successful in increasing the production of coal, upon which the production of so many other things depends. In order to reduce the inflationary pressure caused by too much money chasing too few goods, the Government is allowing large quantities of goods from overseas to enter the Australian market. During the current year, £900,000,000 worth of goods will be brought into this country for that purpose. Other anti-inflationary measures are the restriction of credit facilities, the re-institution of capital issues control, and a bank credit policy designed to divert capital from non-essential channels into channels in which it will be of the greatest benefit to the community.

The honorable member for East Sydney and other honorable gentlemen opposite constantly ignore the fact that, since this Government assumed office, there has been a tremendous change in world affairs and also in the domestic affairs of this country. In the middle of last year, we became involved in war. We have Air Force units in Malaya, and Navy, Army and Air Force units in Korea. The international position has forced us to increase our expenditure upon defence. When the Labour party was in power during the last war, it was able to make use of the National Security Act. At that time, there was a body of nearly 1,000,000 men and women in this country in the services who worked for very long hours at very low rates of pay. Labour governments had authority to fix prices and to peg wages, and they did so. Powers of that kind are denied to this Government, which finds itself in a most anomalous position. We presented a budget that was designed to reduce the inflationary trend. Shortly afterwards, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court made an award which threw an additional £160,000,000 into the economy-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I second the motion. I want to make it perfectly clear that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), in submitting his case, spoke on behalf of the Opposition, which has carefully considered the proposals that he has made. The Minister for Social Service (Mr. Townley) began his reply to the Opposition’s case by making an attack upon the honorable member for East Sydney. He described the honorable gentleman’s proposals as political humbug. Although he said that he would introduce into the debate an element of calm reasoning, he did not try to answer the Opposition’s case. That case rests upon an undertaking that was given by the present Government parties during the 1949 general election campaign to put value back into the £1. Everybody in Australia now associates that phrase with the Government. Honorable members on this side of the House have quoted press advertisement after press advertisement in which that promise was made. An unconditional undertaking was given by the Government to reduce the cost of living and thus increase the internal value of the £1. Does the Minister say that that promise has been kept?

Mr Townley:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) should read what the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said-

Dr EVATT:

– It has been read. I shall not repeat it. T

Mr Townley:

– The Prime Minister said that that was the Government’s greatest task, and he was right.

Dr EVATT:

– That is not the interpretation that I place upon the advertisements that were published by the Government parties, as a result of which the Minister and other honorable gentlemen opposite were elected. The promise was clear, unequivocal and unconditional. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has referred on other occasions to the advertisements that appeared in women’s journals. That promise w as made, and it has been broken. There can be no answer to that part of the Opposition’s case. The honorable member for East Sydney has cited facts and figures that show the enormous increase that has occurred in the cost of living. The Minister has admitted that the cost of living lias increased. He has said that the Government has increased pensions, but he knows perfectly well that those increases will not offset the increased cost of living.

What is to be done? The honorable member for East Sydney has made positive proposals. He has suggested, for instance, that legislation should be introduced to deal with excessive profits. Does anybody suppose that profiteering has nothing to do with the .increased cost of living? The honorable member for East Sydney has cited half a dozen instances of organizations that are making colossal profits. It cannot be said that those organizations are charging fair prices for their goods when their profits are so excessive. When the Prime Minister returned to this country from England in. August last year, he made a broadcast in which he said that the problem of inflation had to be dealt with firmly, and that one of the methods that would be adopted to deal with it was the imposition of an excess profits tax. What has happened since then? The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), when he was asked about the matter during the budget debate of last year, said that we should have to wait and see what the Government decided to do. The new year came, but no firm announcement was made by the Government. Now, fifteen or sixteen months after the definite statement by the Prime Minister, we have learned from the Government that the proposal to impose an excess profits tax has been abandoned.

The Opposition does not say that any one of the proposals that it has advanced would of itself constitute a remedy for inflation, but it does say that the onus is upon the Government to explain to the people of Australia the positive action that it proposes to take to deal with the economic crisis with which we are faced, and which may result in tragedy and disaster. The honorable member .for East Sydney made a positive suggestion when he referred to the necessity to reintroduce Commonwealth prices control. The Opposition does not say that Commonwealth prices control of itself would immediately solve the problem of inflation. We know that it would not do so. But we say that a firm grip of the situation must be taken. I do not know of any situation in our history that was more ominous than is the present situation. The Government has secured the passage of legislation that will increase prices. That will be the inevitable effect of increases of indirect taxes. The purpose of those increases is to increase prices. Although the Government declared during two general election campaigns that it would reduce the cost of living, it is causing the cost of living to increase by increasing indirect taxation. A Government pledged to educe the cost of living has increased sales tax by £117,000,000. The Opposition’s case in this matter can be summed up in a few propositions with most of which, I believe, the Government will agree. The first of them is that there should be effective prices control on an Australia-wide basis. The Opposition claims that in an emergency period like the present, when conditions are similar to those that existed during war-time, and, in some instances, are actually worse, prices control by the Commonwealth is necessary.

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

– What about wage-pegging?

Dr EVATT:

– Only the arbitration authorities can increase wages either at the base, or in respect of marginal levels ; but that limitation does not apply to the control of profits or of prices. The fact is that the Parliament through the Government, is continuing to subsidize the administration of prices control by the States. Therefore, the Parliament upholds the principle of prices control. The point at issue is whether the Commonwealth or the States should exercise that control. According to the States themselves, and according to public opinion, the States have failed to control prices. The States have done their best in that respect, but conditions have arisen under which goods naturally flow to the State in which the highest prices are charged for them. The PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony), when replying to a question without notice this afternoon, referred to the controversy that occurred over the retail price of butter.

What happened in that instance? Two of the States, Queensland and New South Wales, thought that the proposed price was excessive. The merits of that argument do not concern us in this matter: but at that time a situation arose in which butter went to the States where the price of that commodity was highest.

The only way in which such a situation can be dealt with effectively is by the method that the Commonwealth adopted during the war,_ which was fixation of prices on an Australia-wide basis. Under such conditions there would be no flow of goods to a particular State because prices in it were higher than those for similar goods in other States. The Government should adopt that method. The States wish to give such power to the Commonwealth. I believe that they

Would give complete power to the Commonwealth to deal with the economic emergency that now threatens the community. The Government is pledged to reduce prices, but it is increasing the prices of all goods in respect of which excise duty or sales tax is levied. That is an impossible position. I believe that in the present emergency the States would give to the National Parliament for the period of the emergency all the necessary powers to pass economic regulations, including regulations in respect of prices fixation. The position to-day is that, whilst inflation is increasing in some directions, the Government, at the same time, is causing hardship to certain sections of the community by restricting credit. The honorable member for East Sydney referred to those sections of the community. As the Minister has admitted, persons on fixed incomes are suffering the greatest hardship.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Bowden

– Order! the right honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr KEKWICK:
Bass

.- Undeniably, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has introduced this discussion as a party political stunt. Characteristically, he treated the House to his usual diatribe, but he made no constructive suggestions. He set out to be destructive and deliberately misquoted the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made in his policy speech during the general election campaign in 1949. The Prime Minister made no promise in the statement to which the honorable member for East Sydney referred. The actual words that the right honorable gentleman used on that occasion were as follows : -

The greatest task, therefore, is to get value back into the £1, that is to get prices down. . . High prices are not a cause; they aic a result of an abundance of spending money and an insufficient supply of things to buy. A production policy, which I have already discussed, is therefore of the essence of price control.

That quotation, which accurately described the condition of affairs that existed at that time, refutes the distortions of the honorable member for East Sydney. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) made great play upon the fact that prices have increased. “Wages also have increased, but the right honorit bic gentleman avoided mentioning that fact. As the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) pointed out, the purchasing power of wages has increased by 7 per cent, over 1949. As rising costs of raw material and labour contribute to rising prices members of the . Opposition would do well to persuade some of the leading trade unions to allow their members to give a greater output per man-hour. The go-slow policy of some trade unions is one of the biggest contributing factors to high prices and the high cost of the distribution of manufactured goods. Shipping has been deliberately held up to such a degree that to-day, on the average, ships spend two-thirds of their time in port. Consequently, freights are at exorbitant levels. The great trade unions in this country should face that problem. Unfortunately, the extreme left wing of the Labour party has done nothing to encourage them to act in that direction. The Labour party enjoys the sympathy of the trade unions but it has done nothing constructive in that respect. Indeed, everything that it has done has accentuated shortages and aggravated inflationary trends.

Various factors contribute to inflation. I mention, first, the low ra.te of output per man-hour. That is responsible for the present shortage of essential goods.

Secondly, wages have increased with the result that the purchasing power of the community has increased. . Those two factors have combined to cause inflation. However, inflation is not confined to Australia; it is world wide. There has been a movement throughout the world to reduce working hours. As the result of the Attlee Socialist Government’s administration prices and taxes are much higher in Great Britain than they are in Australia. If blame for the present inflationary conditions is to be laid- at tho door of any government, ‘it must be laid, fairly and squarely at that of theChifley Government, whose socialist policy did more than anything else toreduce production. That Government was so obsessed with its policy of full employment that it converted the Public Service into a gigantic octopus. It established new departments and, at the same time, overstaffed existing departments. The Public Service as a whole was thrown out of balance. The Chifley Government placed such stress upon the development of secondary industries that it deprived primary industries of essential man-power. We are now feeling the effects of that policy.

In the limited time at my disposal’ I propose to supplement the figures that the Minister presented in order to refute the argument of the honorable member for East Sydney that Australians to-day are having a terrific struggle in order to make ends meet. I shall deal first with non-essential industries and activities. Whereas in 193S-39 the income from State lotteries was “£4,500,000, revenue from that source increased to £7,300,000 in 1945-46 and to £11,750,000 last year. Totalisator investments in 1938-39 amounted to £6,916,000; in 1945-46 to £21,178,000; and in 1949-50 to £26,182,000. The consumption of beer in 1938-39 was 90,000,000 gallons but thi. figure in 1950-51 was 173,000,000 gallons. I mention those matters in order to show that the expenditure upon nonessentialsincreased substantially during the last twelve years. The statistics prove that there is surplus spending power in the community, and that prices are not outstripping wages. The production of confectionery in 1938-39 totalled 101,600,000 lb.; in 1945-46, it totalled 123,600,000 lb. and in 1950-51. it totalled 147,600,000 1b.

Opposition members made a great song during the budget debate about what they described as the action of the Government in “ taking candy from the kids “. Therefore, I shall refer to the vexed question of ice-cream. The production of that item in 1938-39 was 4,260,000 gallons. In 1945-46 it had increased to 10,700,000 gallons, and in 1950-51 to 17,190,000 gallons. All these figures disprove the contention that has been advanced by the Opposition that we live in hard times. Everybody knows that prices have increased, but the fact remains that the purchasing power of the people also has increased. If it had not increased, they could not afford to buy ever-increasing quantities of non-essential goods.

I shall now refer to more stable matters. The national income in 1938 was £713,000,000. By 1950-51, it had risen to £2,900,000,000. The average weekly wage for the whole of the Commonwealth in 1945-46 was £6.48 a man, yet in 1950-51 it was £10.9 a man. Does any Opposition member suggest that any person in Australia to-day is not receiving considerably more than the basic wage? We know that such is not the case. I refer to another important matter. The average weekly hours of labour in respect of males, excluding overtime, were 44.56 in September, 1939. By September, 1945, the average had fallen to 43.59 hours and in June, 1951 to 39.96 hours a week. Those figures prove my contention that hours, and production per capita have decreased, while wages have increased. The present inflationary conditions are due to those factors. The honorable member for East Sydney referred to the high prices of goods and services in Sydney. I merely suggest to him that such conditions are due to the administration of the McGirr Labour Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr. Rosevear) put -

That the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Kekwick) be granted an extension of time.

The motion having been declared negatived, and a division having been called for,

Mr Kekwick:

– I do not desire an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I see very little point in the House proceeding to divide if the honorable member for Bass will not use an extension of time if it be granted to him.

Mr Rosevear:

– The Opposition does not ask for a division.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My ears must be deceiving me sadly this afternoon if no honorable member called for a division.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- Mr. Speaker-

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

– I rise to order. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a difference of opinion exists in connexion with a ruling that you gave recently. You ruled that an. honorable member when he moved the closure during debate on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House, should move “ That the question be not now put”. I suggest, that you discuss that matter with the Standing Orders Committee before you put such a ruling into practice. If you agree to my submission, I move -

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Standing Orders Committee will meet to-morrow morning.

Mr Rosevear:

– I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to explain the position for the information of honorable members. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison), who is supposed to be in charge of the House, has submitted to you a proposition that is tantamount to saying to you, “ If you give a certain ruling, I shall not take certain action “. I consider that such a proposition, coming as it does from the Vice-President of the Executive Council, is outrageous. I ask for a” clarification of the position.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A clarification from me, or from the Vice-President of the Executive Council?

Air. Rosevear. - From the VicePresident of the Executive Council.

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

– I suggested to Mr. Speaker that he confer with the Standing Orders Committee upon a certain ruling that he gave recently.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Standing Orders Committee will meet to-morrow at 9.30 a.m. I understand that honorable members on both sides of the chamber wish to have this matter discussed, and, therefore, I place myself in the hands of the House, where I belong. If the House wishes a procedure that has been in operation for years to continue, that is all right with me; but I shall maintain before the Standing Orders Committee - and I hope that my suggestion will be adopted - that the House should not divide on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House.

Mr Daly:

– Do you rule, Mr. Speaker, that there is no motion before the Chair?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no question before the Chair.

Mr Daly:

– Then may I ask you sir, to explain why you have accepted the motion “ That the question be now put “ ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a matter for the House to determine. If the honorable gentleman wishes me to give a ruling on the position, I inform him that no motion has been moved and seconded, and, therefore, no motion has been proposed to the House.

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

– I have already moved, “ That the question be now put “. I understand that such a motion must be put without debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the question ?

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

– I have moved, “ That the question be now put “.

Mr Bryson:

– I rise to order. I point out that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) submitted the motion, “ That the House do now adjourn “, and that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) began his speech with the words, “ I second the motion “. Therefore, I submit that a motion was proposed, and seconded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under Standing Order 4S, a motion “ That the House do now adjourn” for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance does not require a seconder, but must be supported by eight honorable members rising in their places to indicate their approval of the proposed discussion. That standing order does not occur in the section of the Standing Orders that deals with motions. Notice of intention to submit a motion must be openly given in the House on the day before it is to be proposed, or, with the unanimous consent of the House, may be proposed immediately. I am familiar with the procedure. We shall be in rather difficult waters in steering our course until the Standing Orders Committee has reached a decision on the matter; but I must rule that since I have occupied the chair, no question has been proposed from it on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House.

Mr Ward:

– I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the position. Let us suppose that you accept the motion, “ That the question be now put “, and it is carried. What question Will then be put to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When the motion for the closure was carried in the past, the only question put, in accordance with the custom that had grown up in this House, was, “ That the House do now adjourn “. But the purpose of Mr. Speaker informing the House that he has received from an honorable member a letter intimating his desire to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance is, not to secure the adjournment of the House, but to provide an opportunity for a discussion. A few moments ago, I referred to Standing Order 48. T now point out that the next standing order states -

No other Motion for tho adjournment of the House shall be moved on the same day. except by a Minister.

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order, I submit that this debate must proceed until it has been in progress for two hours - the maximum period that is allotted to a debate on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House. As

Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is no question before the Chair, I contend that no question can be put. Therefore, the only course for the Chair to follow is to allow the debate to continue until it is interrupted through effluxion of time, under Standing Order 92.

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

– I rise to order. You, Mr. Speaker, have agreed to my suggestion that you discuss with the Standing Orders Committee your ruling in relation to this matter. In those circumstances, I submit that you automatically revert to the practice that has long been followed in this House. I therefore suggest that you put the question, “ That the question be now put “.

Mr Calwell:

– What is the motion?

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

– I have moved, “ That the question be now put “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Very well. I put to the House the question -

That the question- whatever it be, be now put.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) said “ Aye “ and must vote accordingly.

Mr Calwell:

– Have you, Mr. Speaker, put the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. Do honorable members wish to divide?

Opposition Members. - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I point out that the honorable member for Melbourne called “Aye” very definitely. I expect him to vote with the “ Ayes “.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order.Will you, Mr. Speaker, clarify the position in order that honorable members may know exactly what the motion is on which they will have to vote?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that matter.

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

– The honorable member for Melbourne has left the chamber.

Mr Mulcahy:

– I rise to order. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you said, “ I put the motion, but do not know what it is “ ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not say that.

Mr Mulcahy:

– I do not know what the motion is, either.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 42

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

That the House do now adjourn.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 43

NOES: 51

Majority . .8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2784

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1951

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to make provision for the grant of financial assistance to the States in connexion with universities.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Menzies and Mr. Eric J. Harrison do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Reading

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill, on the face of it, is somewhat complex, but the matters with which it deals can be put into a fairly brief compass. In order to assist the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), who will be the leading speaker for the Opposition in the ensuing debate, I have supplied to him detailed notes on each of the clauses so that he will have the opportunity to give careful consideration to the bill.

The States are primarily responsible for education in general and for the universities in particular, but for some years the Commonwealth has found that it has been necessary for it to have relations with the States in respect of the universities in regard to two matters. First, of course, it has made provision for grants for the purpose of assisting research. Secondly, since the war, under the Commonwealth Reconstruction. Training Scheme, it has paid substantial sums to the States for the universities. Those amounts were paid, not as a part of a general scheme for the assistance of university education as such, but as a part of a repatriation programme that was instituted, very properly, by the preceding Government and. has been carried out over a period of years.

Under that programme, payments have been made, in effect to the universities, of decreasing sums because the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme will not go on forever and the number of those affected by it is diminishing. Figures may be of some interest in this connexion. In 1950, the Government paid approximately £450,000 to the universities under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. In 1951, under the same scheme, it will pay about £300,00U. Therefore, as honorable members can see, this form of financial assistance must ultimately come to an end. In those circumstances, the- present Government has had before it the great problem of university finances.

Each university in Australia is in large measure a State university because it has had to depend to an increasing degree upon grants from its State Parliament. This Government came to the conclusion that, if it were to determine an effective policy for the assistance of universities, it should institute an inquiry in order to discover the true financial position of the universities; that, having before it recommendations from a committee, it would be in a position to determine what grant, if any, should be made by the Commonwealth and whether the money should be made available, subject to appropriate conditions, to the State Governments or direct to the universities. Therefore, in March, 1950, it appointed a committee to report on the finances of the universities. The committee consisted of Professor Mills, the Director of the Commonwealth Office of Education as chairman, Professor Sir Douglas Copland, and Mr. H. J. Goodes, of the Treasury. The terms of reference given to the committee were as follows : -

  1. To examine and report upon the finances of the universities having regard to their facilities for teaching and research, including stall, buildings and equipment.
  2. To examine and report upon the requirements of the universities in relation to the work at present undertaken and to the need for their future development.
  3. To make recommendations as to whether any, and if so what, action should be taken toy the Commonwealth to assist universities.

Subsequent to the establishment of those terms of reference, another question, minor in a quantitative sense, arose with respect to the residential colleges of the universities and I gave a supplementary direction to the committee that it should pay attention to the position of residen-

[90

tial colleges as a part of its consideration of the universities problem generally. A very complete preliminary report which contained a fairly good conspectus of the universities’ financial position was received later in 1950. That, however, was not the final report. Following the receipt of that report the Australian Government gave consideration to it, and formulated propositions, which it sent to the six State Premiers, concerning the universities themselves and, in the case of New South Wales, the new University of Technology. Naturally, as honorable members will understand, it took some time to have those proposals considered by the States, but ultimately they were agreed to. In anticipation of approval by this Parliament we have been, in fact, paying sums to the States in respect of the universities so that in a sense this bill will ratify what has been done and will make provision for the future.

The problem of the universities is, of course, one of immense importance. All honorable members will agree that the encouragement of higher education in Australia is a matter of first rate national importance and, beyond question, the universities, like other educational institutions, have been feeling over a term of years the pressure of the times. University costs have risen very steeply since 1939. I venture to offer as my own opinion that for many years the salaries that were paid by universities to men of distinction who occupied various chairs and lectureships, were grossly inadequate and entirely unreasonable when one considers the very high and rare qualities that we expect from men who occupy such posts. Enrolments in universities have, in many instances, doubled, if not quadrupled, since before the war.

It has been an interesting feature of Australian life that since the war the number of young men and women anxious to avail themselves of university training has increased beyond all anticipation. Naturally that fact has put a great strain on universities, both in terms of capital resources and in terms of providing the necessary teaching facilities ; because, as honorable members are well aware, although it is not generally realized by the public, the fees paid in respect of students at universities are a mere fraction of the overall costs of providing facilities that a university ought to provide. At the same time as these things have been going on, the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme subsidies have, of necessity, been declining very sharply, with the result that the universities have found themselves running seriously into deficit. We have not thought it a part of our duty, and I do not think that anybody in the House would suppose that it is a part of our duty, to provide the whole of the additional financial resources that are needed by the universities. The universities are not to be converted into Commonwealth universities. It is of great importance that they should retain their individuality and their local character and quality. Therefore we have conditioned this new departure accordingly - because it is a new, almost a revolutionary, departure for the Commonwealth, which has neither power nor responsibility, if I may put it in that way, in the educational field, to’ say that irrespective of repatriation or any other matter with respect to which it has constitutional power to legislate, it will make grants to the States to assist those universities to be kept effectively operating and profitably developing.

In effect, the construction of the proposal is to make grants which fall into certain categories. In the first place there is the basic grant for the universities and the residential colleges. Honorable members will be able to follow this proposition more clearly if they refer to the schedule. In the first column of the schedule they will find the names of the universities and colleges affected. In the second column they will see figures which total £351,500. That represents the total amount of the grant for the second half of 1950, and, in effect, retrospectively validates what we have done. The Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme subsidies and other payments for research, and so on, which were due from us in that period would have been something like £100,000 less than that figure, so we have increased the amount for the second half of the calendar year 1950. The third column contains figures which total £803,000, which is the basic grant from the Commonwealth to the States for the universities and residential colleges for each of the three calendar years 1951, 1952, and 1953. I speak of calendar years because the universities work in calendar years. Then we provide for certain conditions, to which I shall refer in a moment, in relation to the ‘basic grant.

We then provide for second level grants, which honorable members will see in the fifth column of the schedule, which total £300,000. These second level grants are to be paid on conditions similar to those on which the sum of £803,000 is to be paid. The only point that I wish to make at the moment is that, assuming that the payments from the States and the other revenues of the universities between them satisfy the overall condition, there is provision here for a total grant of up to £1,103,000 a year for each of the three years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

I shall state that in somewhat greater detail. Let me put it in this way : The Commonwealth will make an initial grant, which will be the basic grant, of £803,000 a year for each of the calendar years to which I have referred. The allocation of that total amount among the various universities has been calculated according to the number of fulltimestudents, with an adjustment to make allowance for smaller universities. For example, it was well established by the committee, and I think the point is not in dispute, that the cost per student is greater in smaller universities, such as the University of Tasmania, than in a largeuniversity. Some allowance has been madefor that fact in allocatig the total sum. The basic grants are to be available for expenditure only on current activities and not for capital expenditure. We do not profess to be dealing in this bill with thecapital expenditure problem of the universities, but we are seeking to bring their revenue position into a healthy condition.

Honorable members will have observed that capital expenditure is defined in thebill. It is defined in what I consider tobe a sensible way, that is, as meaningexpenditure on the erection of a new building, and expenditure exceeding £500 on the alteration of an existing building or for the purchase of, or otherwise in connexion with, a single item of equipment. Items of under £500 will be considered not to be capital items for the purposes of the bill. Before the grant will become payable in relation to a university, that university must receive in fees and State grants either three times the Commonwealth basic grant, or the notional amount of State grants plus the fees which it would require to balance its budget for 1950, whichever is the greater. That may seem a little clouded, but the reason for it was that, when this matter was originally discussed on the basis of the report and we had our proposals before the States, we considered it necessary to provide that if we made a payment the university’s budget should at least be brought into balance, and that therefore the States should provide an amount which, with the fees collected by the university, would balance the university’s budget. Then, in order to provide a sound working formula for the future, we agreed to pay £1 for each £3 that was received by the university by way of State grants and fees. That means that Ave are finding a quarter of the total sum.

Of the total basic grant of £S03,000 an amount of £25,000 is to bo applied to the residential colleges. In addition to that basic grant the Commonwealth will pay £1 for every £3 by which the amount of State grants plus fees received by a university exceeds the qualifying amount for the basic grant. That means that if the universities, by means of State grants plus fees collected, put up £2,335,000 they will be entitled to receive from the Commonwealth £803,000, or one-third of that amount of £2,335,000. For every £3 over and above that £2,409,000 that the State grants plus fees produces we shall find another £1 with a maximum or ceiling on that item - the second level grant- of £300,000. So, in the result, we shall find £803,000 plus £300,000 in each of the three years, on the basis that the State grants plus university fees, &c, produce £2,335,000 plus £900,000. So we provide £1 against £3 provided by all those other sources, up to the maximum amount of £1,103,000. 1 hope that I have made that clear to honorable members because, like all figures of that kind, these are somewhat complicated.

Again, the second leve*l grants are to be available for expenditure on current activities only subject to the same definition of capital -expenditure. For the last six months of the year 1950, in addition to the three years for which we are making this provision, the Commonwealth is making separate grants to a total of £351,500, the amount that I referred to earlier in my remarks, and this amount is also to be apportioned among the universities on the same basis as will be applied to the basic grant. All that adds up to a very substantial provision which is being made, as honorable members will realize, in a field for which we have not in the past accepted any measure of financial responsibility that was not attached to the performance of some Commonwealth function like repatriation. This is not attached to any such condition. This means that, even if all Commonwealth .Reconstruction Training Scheme obligations fade away, we are establishing for the future in favour of the universities, through the medium of a grant, this provision which amounts, as I have said, to a possible, and, I hope, probable amount in excess of £1,000,000 in each of the three years in question. It is not the desire of the Government to interfere in the internal management of the universities nor to attach conditions to the use of these moneys which would interfere with the traditional liberty of the universities to determine the courses of instructions that they wish to pursue or the character of the research that they wish to undertake. The Government has acknowledged the principle of academic freedom but has recognized that, having regard to the changing balance of financial power and authority from time to time, unless the Commonwealth is prepared to assist these great seats of learning they will inevitably fall on such hard times and be subject to such heavy pressure that they will have to restrict their activities.

The bill may appear to be rather complex in its drafting, but I have been assured by the draftsman that the complexity was inevitable because of the fact that the bill deals partly with a period that lias gone by, partly with a period that is current, and partly with a period that is still two years ahead. Consequently, having regard to our negotiations with the States, it was essential that a distinction should be made between the basic grant and the conditions that will attach to it, and the second level grant and the conditions that will attach to it in future. It gives me a feeling of very great pleasure and satisfaction to introduce this bill on behalf of the Government, and I am certain that it will enjoy the unanimous support of honorable members.

Dr Evatt:

– Could the Prime Minister provide for honorable members information as to the actual effect of the proposed grants in respect of this year and the next two years? I should like to know the amount of the grant that will be made on the basis of the fees and State grants at present received by the universities.

Mr MENZIES:

– If the right honorable member will give me a note concerning information of that kind that he may desire to have, I shall endeavour to have it provided.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 2788

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st November (vide page 2405), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Opposition is not satisfied with the case that the Government has presented in support of the re-establishment of the long dormant Public Accounts Committee. As the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) mentioned in his second-reading speech, a public accounts committee existed from 1913 to 1932. During the depression its activities were suspended. The first suggestion for their suspension was made by the late Sir Archdale Parkhill. On’ the 2Sth July, 1931, during the debate on the Estimates, that gentleman made the following statement: -

For the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, £1,709 and for the Joint

Committee on Public Accounts, £1,401. Thesecommittees are entirely unnecessary at thepresent time and their operations should hesuspended.

If honorable members opposite intend to argue that the Public Accounts Committee should never have been abolished, they should bear in mind that those who entertained political beliefs similar totheir own were responsible for the suspension of its activities. On the same date as Sir Archdale Parkhill made the statement .that I have just quoted, the thenPrime Minister, Mr. .Scullin, said that his Government was considering reducing the number of members serving on the committee. On the 13th October, 1931, Mr. Scullin introduced a bill to reduce thesize of the committee. The bill had a stormy passage in the tory-dominated Senate of the period. A series of amendments was proposed, one of which provided that two members of the committee should be appointed by the Senate and fiveby the House of Representatives. The bill lapsed with the dissolution of the Twelfth Parliament in the following month. TheLyons Government, which was returned to office with the election of the Thirteenth Parliament, was an unlucky government for Australia. The committee has never been re-established. A number of Treasurer’s could have sponsored its reestablishment had they considered that the circumstances merited such action. Thosewho could have moved for its reestablishment include the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), Mr. Spender and the late Mr.’ J. B. Chifley. The late Mr. Chifley was the Treasurer of this country for a record period of eight years, but he certainly did not wish to have the committee re-established. I am sure that if he werealive he would not take kindly to the proposal before the House. Since 1932 therehas been no support for any suggestion from any quarter for the re-establishment of the Public Accounts Committee. TheGovernment said quite recently that it intended to re-establish the committee. I have no doubt that it made that decision because of pressure by the honorablemember for Warringah (Mr. Bland) and others of its supporters.

It is proposed that the duties of the new committee shall include those of the previous Public Accounts Committee and that the committee shall also be required to examine each statement and report transmitted to the Parliament by the Auditor-General in pursuance of the Audit Act. This proposal, if implemented, will result in the Gilbertian situation that when the manner in which the money voted by the Parliament has been expended has been examined by the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee will examine the Auditor-General and pass judgment on whether he had acted rightly or not. If the Auditor-General had not to be examined, that is to say, if the terms of reference of the proposed committee were the same as those contained in the original act, ten months would pass before the committee could examine the expenditure in respect of the financial year then current. Ten months after the horse had bolted the committee would close the gate. The expenditure of Commonwealth funds should not be examined in that way.

There is a difference between the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee. The Public Works Committee is authorized to examine every project referred to it before any expenditure is incurred, before plans are finally accepted, and certainly before any contracts are let. But according to the Treasurer’s secondreading speech, the proposed Public Accounts Committee will examine the record of the receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth and report to both Houses of the Parliament any items in those accounts or any circumstances connected with them to which the committee considers that attention should be directed. Such action may or may not be effective. Under the bill, £5,000 is to be appropriated for the work of the committee. That money might be well spent but it is possible that the people would not receive any value for it. Some of the duties of the previous Public Accounts Committee, as stated by the Treasurer, were -

  1. to inquire into and report upon any question in connexion with the public accounts which are referred to it by either House of Parliament.
  2. Any other duties assigned to the com mittee by joint standing orders approved by both Houses of Parliament.

To my knowledge, in the nineteen years that the previous committee existed the Parliament did not refer to it any matter that was before the Parliament at the time of reference. I am certain that no bill designed to appropriate money was ever examined by the committee before the appropriation was made: If the proposed committee were to report on matters before appropriations were made it would serve some useful purpose. Its functions would then approximate those of the appropriation committees of the Congress of the United States of America. But there will never be any deeds to match the words contained in this bill. The suggestion that matters might be referred to the committee for report by joint standing orders of both houses, is pointless. It took nearly 50 years for the Parliament to frame permanent standing orders, so I cannot see any likelihood of specialjointstanding orders being devised for the purpose of referring matters to this committee.

The Opposition is critical of the proposal that the committee shall consist of ten members - three senators and seven members of the House of Representatives. Why has the Government selected this even number? Why did it not propose an odd number of members ?

Mr Wheeler:

– The honorable member should be careful. His party was tricked on a previous occasion in relation to numbers in the Senate.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes. But the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler) will observe a repetition of history within the next couple of years. The Opposition objects to the Government having a majority of representatives of the Senate and a majority of representatives of this House on the proposed committee. As I said earlier when the Senate considered a similar bill introduced by Mr.Scullin in 1932 it amended it to provide that the committee should have two representatives of the Senate - one from each side of the chamber - and five representatives of this House. The tory-dominated Senate of the day proposed that the Government should have a majority of one on the committee. This Government has proposed that it shall have a majority of two.

Mr Hulme:

– What has that to do with this hill?

Mr CALWELL:

– It may have little or nothing, or a lot, to do with it. Perhaps the honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme) is trying to run away from the ghosts of the past. The Senate of the period to which I have referred was not very keen on the establishment of a Public Account0 Committee and the honorable member of the Twelfth Parliament who suggested its abolition was the then honorable member for Warringah, a predecessor of the honorable member for Warringah who now wishes to revive it. Opposition members believe that if the committee is to be restored after its twenty years of hibernation the House of Commons practicein regard to the chairmanship of such a committee should be followed. The chairman of the committee should be a member of the Opposition. The British Act of .1861 provides that representation of the political parties on the . Public Accounts Committee shall be in proportion to their strength in the House of Commons; but by convention, the chairman is always a member of the Opposition. He guides the committee in its work. On this subject, I refer honorable members to volume 3, No. 3 of Parliamentary Affairs, the journal of the Hansard Society. At page 450 of this volume, under the heading “ Parliamentary Control of the Public Accounts - II.”, there is an article by Basil Chubb, Lecturer in Political Science, Trinity College, University of Dublin. We say that if the. Government wishes to have the co-operation of the Opposition on this matter it must pay due regard to the views that we express in relation to our membership on the committee. We desire that the chairman shall .be drawn from the Opposition, and that the members of the committee shall be selected in equal numbers from the Opposition party and from the Government parties.

Mr Hulme:

– What would the honorable member do if he were in power? Would he appoint a chairman from the Opposition ?

Mr CALWELL:

– To be perfectly frank, if I were the Treasurer I should get rid of the committee. Open confession is good for the soul. Therefore I say that I know that no Treasurer would want this committee, and I have a shrewd idea that the present Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) does not want it; although that may be a matter for debate. If we are to have a committee, it should be a worthwhile body and not one that will conduct the equivalent of a postmortem. It should not be a smother-up committee. I have an idea that if the membership of this committee allows for a government majority of two as well as a government chairman, nothing will come to light that will be of any value to the taxpayers. I think that the chairman of the committee would, as the chairman of another committee is said to have done, respond to pressure. I refer to Mr. Aubrey Abbott, who was once chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He drew up a report of which the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, did not approve, consequently the committee did not present it. Whether that story be partially or wholly true, it indicates the evil of having a member of the government parties as chairman of a Public Accounts Committee. A government party chairman must respond to pressure. I have not the slightest doubt that this proposed Public Accounts Committee will divide on party lines as does every other committee of the Parliament. Therefore its deliberations are not likely to be of much value.

Mr Hulme:

– That is not true.

Mr CALWELL:

– It is generally true. There may have been one occasion on which it did not happen, but that exception proves the rule.

This Government is dying rapidly. Rigor mortis is about to set in, and I do not know why, at this late stage of its existence, it should wish to have a Public Accounts Committee to inquire into its financial affairs, when such a committee will not possibly be able to present a report until after the next general election. Honorable members on the Government side can whistle as loudly as they like in order to keep up their courage, but we of the Opposition have been reading some recent Gallup poll reports and we have taken fresh courage. If this proposal had been brought forward in the early days of the Nineteenth Parliament there might have been something in it, but now it is being advanced merely because of the discontent of Government backbenchers. This is not an honest attempt to set up a Public Accounts Committee to investigate the financial affairs of the nation ; it is a sop to the cerberus from Warringah. That gentleman, with his wide knowledge of public administration, and after a long and distinguished career at the University of Sydney, is believed by the Government competent to extricate it from time to time from some of its difficulties; and its difficulties are increasing. I am always prepared to follow in the footsteps of a good man, and I am certain that the late Mr. Chifley, who did not wish to have a Public Accounts Committee when he was Prime Minister, would not wish to have it now.

The next moves are up to the Government. We shall consider our attitude to the proposed committee when we have ascertained the nature of the Government’s reaction to the criticism that we have offered to its proposals and the manner in which it receives the suggestions we have advanced. I repeat that our two suggestions are, first, that the chairmanship of the committee shall go to the Opposition, and secondly, that the Opposition shall have at least the same number of members on the committee as the Government has, or, better still, a majority of members. If there is to be any value at all in the committee’s deliberations, the Opposition must be in a position to obtain the information it seeks, and the chairman should therefore come from its ranks. Such a chairman would not be bluffed by the Treasurer, and would not allow himself to be subjected to any pressure by any member of the Government. If the Government thinks that by reviving the Public Accounts Committee of twenty years ago it will do anything worthwhile for the taxpayers, then I tell the taxpayers, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they are likely to be gravely disappointed.

Mr BLAND:
Warringah

.- This measure is the fulfilment of a pro mise made in the Governor-General’s Speech. Therefore, there is no warrant for the suggestion that this proposal corned from any source than the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and his colleagues, who drafted the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. This measure is precisely the opposite of wha.t the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has suggested. It is a measure to enhance the authority of the Parliament, and any measure that contributes to the authority of the Parliament and enables it to exercise control over the public purse should not be spurned as has this one by the honorable member for Melbourne. I was dismayed to hear such a speech from a man who had worked with me on the Standing Committee on Broadcasting in a way that I regarded as entirely satisfactory. The speech that he made on this measure to-day stamps him as a person who is concerned not with the prestige of the Parliament, but merely with party intransigence. That any person should lend himself to such an attitude causes my mind to become dismayed. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, of course, but God forbid that it should bc its duty to oppose everything, whether or not it makes for the welfare of the nation and the enhancement of the prestige of the Parliament. If the Opposition is to oppose measures such as this, then we all might as well give up the pretence of believing in the institution of Parliament. This measure will not merely enhance the prestige of the Parliament, it is also an administrative device which will close certain gaps in the efficient working of our financial measures. It will restore -to the Parliament some of the powers that the institution has discarded.

It is easy to sneer at the fact that a similar committee was disbanded in 1932 but there is no justification for sneering at the Government that took such action. Every detached student agrees that the Lyons Government re-established standards in a parliament that had lost all standards. That Public Accounts Committee was disbanded for a reason that is frequently advanced when economies are to be made. The reason was that expenditure had to be reduced. Nevertheless, I think that a mistake was made at that time. lt is not only honorable members on this side of the House who are concerned about the authority of the Parliament. Let me cite the opinion of the late E. G. Theodore, which was given in 1929, just when the depression referred to by the honorable member for Melbourne had begun to develop. The late Mr. E. G. Theodore said -

Though I do not suggest that Ministers wish to (lodge criticism, nevertheless in this Parliament we have got away from the very healthy practice of parliamentary control of the public purse. Without this control the power and the authority nf the elected chu inner disappears, or at all events is seriously curtailed .

That may be found at page 16 of the last report of the Joint Select Committee on Public Accounts, published in 1932. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, said hi reply to Mr. Theodore -

I am extremely glad that this question has been raised. The subject is one which this Parliament, must face. We must try to get a butter system of conducting, not only our financial discussions, but our parliamentary business generally .

I suggest that those are opinions which cannot be lightly spurned. They are opinions to which the Opposition cannot be indifferent. It is folly for the honorable member for Melbourne, in the light of the actions of members of the Government iri which he was a Minister to demand that this committee shall be constructed on the lines of the English parliamentary public accounts committee!” It is intended that this committee shall be given more power than the English parliamentray committee has, except in so far as the English committee works according to tradition and therefore does a number of things not contemplated in this legislation. This Parliament has as yet no traditions to guide it in the manner in which a Public Accounts Committee should operate. I had hoped that the honorable member for Melbourne would have helped to develop them. I might almost call ir impudence on his part to ask on behalf of his party for a majority of the members of this committee, and the chairmanship as- well, and then to say that if he were the next Treasurer he would abolish the whole thing. I must stigmatize that as being indicative of the hypocricy of the honorable member for Melbourne and symptomatic of the general attitude of the Opposition. Indeed, I believe it to be symptomatic of the tendencies that have been developing for some time in the Opposition.

The honorable member for Melbourne spoke about the late Mr. Chifley. He said that Mr. Chifley had said that he saw no reason why we should have a Public Accounts Committee. It is quite characteristic of the late Mr. Chifley that he should have said that. He did not want parliamentary control of the public purse, he wanted Labour control of it. He did not want parliamentary government, he wanted Labour government. He denied the substance of parliamentary government when he bowed his head to take the yoke of the external organization which told him how he was to act in this Parliament. Such an attitude must inevitably effect the destruction of parliamentary government. Thi* measure will enhance the power of the Parliament. I want to think of myself as being one of those who believe that the Parliament should be supreme. T want to be a parliament man and not a party man. If I were to become a member of this committee, I should try not to consider how certain actions would affect my party; I should consider how they would enhance the prestige of the Parliament and restore to it some of the powers that it once had but has lost through actions and attitudes such as those of the honorable member . for Melbourne.

We have good reason to refuse the requests of the honorable member for Melbourne. I worked with him on the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, which was introduced by the first Menzies Government. This Government also attempted to set up a standing committee on foreign affairs, and now it has introduced a measure to set up a Public Accounts Committee. That is how we on this side of the House feel about parliamentary prestige. The honorable member for Melbourne has indicated quite clearly how the Opposition feels about it. When the Broadcasting Committee of which Senator Gibson was chairman, conducted its business, it acted as a House or Library committee would have acted. When the honorable member for Melbourne became chairman, he acted in a similar manner. Although the committee had previously acted on non party lines, as soon as the honorable member for Melbourne was elevated to ministerial rank and the committee got into the hands of his successor its decisions degenerated into a replica, of those made according to party divisions in this! House. It completely lost significance as an institution for the enhancing of parliamentary government, .l t was no longer a committee that worked upon the basis of a parliamentary approach to problems. It relied entirely upon a party approach. I suppose it was for that reason that the present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony) refused to reconstitute the committee. I regret that that decision was made, because T should have liked the committee to continue in operation. That experience has shown what we. may expect from the members of the Opposition. That is why we cannot concede the claims of the honorable member for Melbourne. I had hoped that the honorable member for Melbourne would not be quite so intransigent as he was, and that he would say, in effect. “ Weshall give this committee n fling, and sec what we can da”. Then the committee might have looked forward to the commendation of the faithful steward, and we might have been able to commend it in the words which, through the ages, have made music in the ears of industrious and trustworthy officials -

Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things:

We might even have been able to make the committee function in the way in which the English parliamentary public accounts committee has functioned. If the Opposition adopts a policy of sabotaging the work of the committee and of refusing to collaborate with the Government in the matter, it will do a disservice not only to itself but also to the Parliament.

The Government is not compelled to establish this committee. If it acted in accordance only with its own interests, probably it would not establish the committee, which will be a far mure potent instrument than the honorable, member foi’ Melbourne has suggested. The Auditor-General, in his report for 1947-48, recommended to the Government of which the honorable gentleman was a member, that it was desirable that the Public Accounts Committee should be reconstituted, because of the volume of public expenditure. He thought that such a committee was necessary to enable a serious gap that had developed in our financial system to. be closed. The purpose of the proposed committee is to give to the Parliament an opportunity to discover whether there is any truth in the allegation that the resources of this country are being dissipated because there is no adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the methods that are adopted to give effect to- the wishes of the Parliament. The honorable member for Melbourne has said that the committee will he able to conduct only post-mortem examination.?. He spoke of it as though it will be able to conduct an inquiry only al: ;> stage when the investigation will be of no value.

The Auditor-General is the only protection in this connexion that the Parliament has at the present time. He is the Parliament’s own officer, yet, as far as I know, his criticisms have never been made a subject for discussion in the Parliament. They have been referred to from time to time in budget debates, but the Parliament has never allotted time for a special debate on them. When the Auditor-General took it upon himself to criticize some of the things that were done, and, in so doing, went almost into the realm of policy, members of the Labour party roared their annoyance at him for having dared to direct the attention of the Parliament to matters to which he considered it to be his duty to direct attention. The policy has always been to stifle the criticisms of the Auditor-General. We have seldom paid the slightest attention to- them. Can any one imagine a body of shareholders in a private company appointing a hoard of directors and then not listening to a report upon how that board had conducted the affairs of the company? That is what we have done.

The establishment of this committee will enable us to discover what the Public Service or the Government has been doing, with the public accounts and to decide whether what has been done is what the Parliament wanted to be done and whether the results are those that the Parliament expected. The establishment of the committee will not be an attack upon the integrity or the ability of either the Public Service or thu Government. The Public Service has two tasks. . It has to devise methods by which the policy of the Government can be implemented, and then it has to ensure that the results will justify those methods. But it is always so busy performing the first of those tasks that it has no time to devote to the second task and to consider whether things have been done properly. That is the reason why I have constantly advocated the appointment of an authority external to the Public Service to appraise what is being done.

The Auditor-General is an officer of the Parliament. He reports to the Parliament upon what is being done. The Public Accounts Committee would be required to consider what the AuditorGeneral had said, and to examine the accounts in order to determine whether or not they were satisfactory. Then it would consider whether what the Government had set out to do had been done as well as it ought to have been done, and whether the country was getting value for its expenditure. During the budget debate 112 honorable members spoke. How many of them did so with any intention to ensure that £1,000,000,000 of public money should be expended to the best advantage? I should say that 90 per cent, of the members who spoke in that debate advocated that more money should be expended. They were eager, not that economy and efficiency of administration should be achieved, but that more money should be expended. For decades,- members of Parliament have been actuated by a desire to spend money rather than to save it. They spend the people’s money, of which they are trustees, but they act not as trustees but as spendthrifts. All the time their concern is, not, whether better results can be achieved from the expenditure of public money, but whether more money can be expended. During a budget debate, we talk in terms of policy and are not concerned with methods. The Public Accounts Committee will be an instrument for ensuring that the Parliament shall be able to consider not only policy but also methods, and to ascertain whether satisfactory means of implementing a policy have been adopted. The committee will be required to examine accounts after they have been passed by the Auditor-General. It is true that in the normal course of events it will be conducting a post mortem examination of the accounts for the preceding year, but it will be able to obtain, as it were, a preview of the accounts for the current year.

I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne that it would be well if we went further than the establishment of a Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps one of the results of the establishment of this committee will be the establishment of an Estimates com-mitte-e. If the honorable member for Melbourne wants the Parliament to have a voice in incurring expenditure at its inception, let him agree to the establishment of an Estimates committee. But he will not do so, because he does not believe in the Parliament having any control of things that really matter. He wants only a facade of parliamentary control.

There is no need for me to explain the procedure that is adopted by the English parliamentary public accounts committee, because the whole story is set out on page 55 of a book entitled Parliamentary Supply Procedure, published by the English Treasury. The honorable member for Melbourne talked about the chairman of that committee being a member of the Opposition and an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a member of the committee also. The honorable gentleman failed to inform the House thai the task of that committee is not merely to report to the Parliament upon what is being done. Its decisions become a body of administrative case law, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses as a means for ensuring that government departments shall toe the line and do their job in the manner in which the Treasury wishes it to be done. After th-j findings of the committee have been debated in Parliament, the Treasury prepares minutes for circulation to other government departments, upon which they must act. The committee is the authority that determines the form, content, accuracy and integrity of public accounts. Without the approval of the Public Accounts Commmittee no alteration can be made of the form in which public accounts are presented.

The honorable gentleman omitted to mention another important fact. Our proposed committee will hold public meetings. It will also be able to send for any papers that it desires to examine and to do all kinds of things that the British committee does only incidentally. The British committee doe’s not meet in public. I have had the good fortune to attend some of its meetings, but I have done so not as a representative of the public but as a guest. At meetings of the British committee, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and two Treasury officials are present throughout. If this committee is established, I hope the Auditor-General will be present at its meetings because his accounts will be dealt with, but I should like Treasury officials to be present also. I had experience of the New South Wales Public Accounts Committee, but it is a body which does not amount to much! The British committee is an entirely different proposition.

This bill attempts to take up the threads that were cut in 1932. I regret very much that those threads were cut, because the report of the Public Accounts Committee for .1932, the year in which Mr. Percy Coleman was chairman contained a series of criticisms of the character of our public accounts and the method of presenting them, that have not yet been answered in the Parliament. The new committee should examine that report and ascertain the degree to which those criticisms still hold good and, to the degree which they do, decide what should be done. That would constitute a foundation upon which we could build the traditions and practices of the new Public Accounts Committee.

I conclude as I began. This committee will be a means of enhancing the prestige of the Parliament. It will not make matters easier for the Government. If the Treasurer wanted an easier time, he would not agree to the establishment of the committee, because it will make all kinds of demands upon him. Probably departmental officers will find that it will be much more exacting in its demands than are the Public Works Committee, the House Committee, or the Library Committee. The establishment of the committee will enable us to do what both Mr. Theodore and Lord Bruce have said it is essential to do. It will enable us to restore the prestige of the Parliament and enhance its authority over the executive and the bureaucracy. I express my appreciation of the Government’s action in introducing this measure. As I have said, the establishment of the committee will enable the Parliament to regain some of the. prestige that has been lost. If I have any ambition as a member of the Parliament, it is to be classed among those who call themselves the Parliament’s men and who have renounced all thought of being intransigent party men.

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

.- The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland) has paid lip-service to the view that, we all should be, not party men but. the Parliament’s men, but the honorable gentleman has been a party man every time the Government parties have cracked the whip in this House. His view is that, in order to uphold the authority of the Parliament, we should give our complete support to this bill. We take the opposite view. If the honorable gentleman were honest in his view, he would say that every amendment that the Opposition has submitted merited the fullest consideration by the Government. If the Government had accepted those ademndments, gome of them would have made bad bills good and. good bills better. However, the honorable member for Warringah, despite his protestations, continues to adhere to the party line, which is that good resides in the Government alone and that no good at all can come from the Opposition. Yet, he said that the Opposition was opposed to this measure because it approached it on party lines.

Tie Opposition believes that, as a result of.the.:enlargement of the Parliament, the committee system must necessarily be expanded.. - Consequently, members of the Opposition , :wish that system to be developed on a basis that will bp. truly representative of the Parliament and will –ensure; that it shall work effectively. “We do: not: want- a system under which parliamentary committees will merely pander to -the Government, cover up its mistakes ‘ -or merely make recommendations that; will suit its purpose. T 11 a t is the reason for the suggestions that my colleagues –have made in this debate. The -honorable- member for Warringah said that -the Government wishes the ‘ ‘ Oppostion to co-operate with it in the’’ operation of the committee system, but the Government has not produced ‘evidence of its sincerity in that respect. ‘ I am informed that in 1941, the ‘second Menzies Government refused to set ‘.up an all-party committee to deal with repatriation problems when the party ‘in- Opposition to-day requested it to do so. Subsequently, when that Government;, was defeated, to the eternal good of the country, a Labour government 3ct up. an. all-party- committee for that (purpose arid that committee presented valuable recommendations to the Parliament. .

Mr Calwell:

– Labour tried to establish that- committee as a statutory committee’.

Mr TOM BURKE:

– That is so; but supporters of the present Government, who were then in Opposition, refused to co-operate with that Labour government in that matter. I assume that that is why no statutory committee exists to-day to ‘deal with repatriation problems. I also1 point out that members of the present Government parties served on the Social Security Committee, but because th’ey could ‘not get their way they walked out of that committee-

Mr Bland:

– That is .not true !

Mr TOM BURKE:

– It is true. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) - was a member of that committee and’ he ! and his’ colleagues in the Liberal party’ refused -to continue to serve as members of it.

Mr Calwell:

– Sir Frederick Stewart was another Liberal member who walked out of that committee.

Mr TOM BURKE:

– That is so. I also recall that members of the Australian Country party refused to serve on the Broadcasting Committee after that committee, which was composed of members of all parties in the Parliament, had been operating for many years. Despite that action on the part of members of the Australian Country party, members of the Liberal party continued to serve on the committee. However, this Government has refused to re-establish the Broadcasting Committee, and by failing to do so it continues to ignore the law because that committee was established in accordance with the terms of the Broadcasting Act. The honorable member for Warringah has not made any protest on that account in the Parliament or, apparently, in the Government party room. The Government is afraid to re-establish the Broadcasting Committee because it fears that such a body might be too critical of the administration of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony). We say to the Government, “ Give to us an earnest of your sincerity. Follow the procedure for which provision has already been made and give tolerant consideration to suggestions that are advanced by the Opposition “. The committee system would then be enabled to work and would restore what the honorable member for Warringah has described as parliamentary control of various aspects of administration. However, the Government says, in effect, “ This is our view. We shall not tolerate amendments, or brook objections, by the Opposition. We shall turn a deaf ear to every suggestion that the Opposition makes “. It will not win co-operation from the Opposition if it continues to administer in such an atmosphere. But the honorable member for Warringah, the parliament man, makes an attack upon the Opposition because it has the temerity to suggest amendments that would enable the committee system to work more effectively. Members of the Opposition are willing to work with the Government, but the Government has not given any indication of willingness to work with the

Opposition. To every amendment that the Opposition has proposed since the Government assumed office, the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has adamantly said, “ No “ ; and the Government party whips have moved the gag. I have no doubt that similar action will be taken on this occasion. Recently, the Government proposed to establish a foreign affairs committee, but the terms of the proposal differed from those that the Government espoused twelve months ago when it first suggested that such a committee should be established. When the Opposition moved an amendment to implement the proposal in accordance with the original intention, which would have upheld the supremacy of the Parliament over the Executive in the operation of such a committee, honorable members opposite, including the honorable member for Warringah, voted against it.

Motion (by Mr. Swartz) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 44

Majority . . 13

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That is not the business of the Chair, nor is it the business of the honorable member for Perth.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message) :

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for a Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.4 to 8 p.m.

page 2798

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1951

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That, on and after the fourth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, in lieu of the rate imposed by the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1949, the rate ofthe charge in respect of the employment of waterside workers be Four pence for every man-hour of employment.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. Townley do prepareand bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The funds that are needed for the discharge of the functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board are provided by a charge that is imposed on employers of waterside labour under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1949. The proceeds of the charge are credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, in accordance with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949, equivalent amounts are paid to the board. The charge was originally fixed at 4½d. a manhour of employment of waterside workers, but that rate resulted in an excessive accumulation of funds. In October, 1949, the rate was reduced to 2½d. a man-hour, which was designed to produce an annual deficit in the board’s financial accounts and so reduce the accumulated funds over the ensuing few years. The principal items of expenditure of the board are for attendance money, the operation of waterside cafeterias, the transport of waterside workers, administrative expenses and the provision of amenities on the waterfront. Steeply rising costs have caused the board’s funds to be reduced more quickly than was anticipated in 1949.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the charge to 4d. a man-hour of employment on and from the 4th December next. The higher charge, although still lower than the original rate, is expected to provide sufficient revenue for the board to meet its expenditure on the current scale, and retain a comparatively small reserve of working capital to meet unforeseen requirements. The total revenue from the stevedoring industry charge for the financial year 1950-51 was £420,000. It was estimated that the collections for the financial year 1951-52 at the present rate of 2½d. a man-hour of employment would yield £435,000. It is estimated that, if that rate be increased to 4d. a man-hour on and from the 4th December, 1951, a further £130,000 will be gained during the balance of the financial year, making the total yield for this year £565,000. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 2798

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th September (vide page 159), on motion by Mr. Townley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) stated in his secondreading speech that this bill has two objectives. The first is to give to ex-servicemen, who fought in Korea and Malaya, rights under the War Service Homes Act equal to those enjoyed by ex-servicemen of World War I. and World War II. The second purpose is to liberalize the provisions of the War Service Homes Act in order that ex-servicemen may finance the construction of dwellings more easily than is possible at present as a result of the inflationary conditions. The bill provides that the maximum loan that may be granted for the erection of a house shall be increased from £2,000 to £2,750. However, such loans will be subject to certain conditions. They will be granted only when the War Service Homes Division calls tenders for the construction of a house, or approves the builder who has been selected by the ex-serviceman. However, the present maximum amount of £2,000 will not be. increased if the ex-serviceman wishes to buy a house, even though it may not have been occupied, or may have been occupied by the owner for - some years. I fail to see how the Government can justify such discrimination between those two classes of house acquirement.

An infinitely worse situation exists in another respect. Many ex-servicemen have been purchasing, over a number of years, the houses that they occupy. For that purpose, they have obtained advances from banks, or from trustee companies, which hold the mortgages in respect of those properties. A strange position will arise if this bill becomes law, because the Minister will have authority to determine that, in future, such agreements or arrangements may not be made and the mortgages will not be discharged.

Mr Townley:

– That provision will be applicable only in respect of old properties.

Mr POLLARD:

– I realize that the Minister is placed in a most difficult position. He informed the House, in his second-reading speech, that the present practice under which mortgages are discharged by the War Service Homes Division will be discontinued. A few moments ago, he stated, by way of interjection, that such a policy will be applicable only to old properties. What is an old house? A dwelling that was erected only five years ago might be old because the construction was slip-shod. Yet a house that was built 50 years ago may, because it was soundly constructed, be a worthwhile proposition for purchase. The Minister’s statement in his second-reading speech was unequivocal. The bill shows clearly that he will have authority not only- to instruct the Director of War Service Homes to prevent the discharge of mortgages on existing properties, but also to deprive him of the right to advance loans to finance the purchase of certain properties.

The whole situation is most peculiar. The Minister ostensibly believes that this bill will enable men who- fought in Korea and Malaya to finance the purchase of dwellings under the War Service Homes Act. But what are the facts? The exservicemen’s position has become most difficult during the last few years as a result of inflation, due to such factors as higher wages, the increased cost of building materials, shorter working hours, and the failure of the Government to put back value into the £1 and to stabilize the prices of building materials. A loan of £2,000 is completely inadequate in the present inflationary conditions to enable an ex-serviceman to negotiate the purchase of a house. On that point, I am in agreement with the Minister. The honorable gentleman proposes to increase the maximum loan to £2,750, provided the War Service Homes Division constructs the house, or approves the builder. But the maximum amount that may be advanced in respect of an existing house that ha3 been selected by an exserviceman is to remain at £2,000. The War Service Homes Division may not be able to engage a contractor to build a house for an ex-serviceman, and that unfortunate person, in desperation, may seek to purchase a soundlyconstructed dwelling. He will not be eligible to receive the higher advance of £2,750.

Mr Bowden:

– - Sez you !

Mr POLLARD:

– I think that I can read the bill intelligently, and that I understand the Minister’s second-reading speech. It is the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden), who interjected, “ Sez you “, who is in ignorance of the provisions of the bill. I remind him that the Minister, when he introduced the bill, made the following statement: -

For the purchase of existing properties the maximum loan will remain at the present amount of £2,000.

The maximum loan will be £2,750 if the house is constructed by or under the supervision of the War Service Homes Division. Let us examine those two strange sets of circumstances. Of the 75,500 dwellings that have been provided since the inception of the scheme, 33,000 are new houses that have been built, and 42,500 existing properties that have been purchased, or the mortgages on which have been discharged. Thirty-five thousand of them were built for the division or for the purchasers under approved privately arranged contracts, but 42,000 of them represented purchases of existing properties and discharges of mortgages. Since

  1. 945, 11,576 houses have been built under the war service homes scheme, but 26,344 houses have been acquired by the purchase of existing properties and the discharge of mortgages. The number of existing houses purchased by applicants is steadily increasing because of the inability of the division and applicants to find contractors who will build new houses. The situation continued to deteriorate in 1950-51. Only 26 per cent, of the transactions financed by the division during that period related to the construction of houses. The remainder were for purchases of existing properties and discharges of mortgages.

Every body appreciates the good intentions of the Minister, but the hand of the Treasury is evident in the terms of this bill. The Minister said in his second - reading speech that the Government did not wish to encourage the practice of buying existing houses because it tended to reduce the rate of construction of new houses. I agree that we should foster the practice of building new houses under the supervision of the War Service Homes Division because every house built in that way adds to the total of new buildings erected in Australia. But an additional responsibility devolves upon this Government. Because of the unchecked spiral of rising prices, more and more ex-servicemen are being obliged to obtain houses by purchasing existing properties and discharging mortgage’s. The Government should use every mean-! at its disposal to help them. Its only consideration should be the soundness, architecturally and in other respect–, of each proposition. T arn sure that, upon mature reflection, the Government, parties in this chamber, who claim that 7V> per cent. of their members are ex-servicemen, will not attempt to defend the bill in its present form. To-day, six years after the cessation of hostilities in World War

  1. , the number of applications for financial assistance under the war service homes scheme is steadily increasing. The Government proposes to help applicants by increasing the permissible amount of loans to £2,750 for commission built houses. But, at the same time, it deliberately plans to place obstacles in the way of the ex-serviceman by restricting financial assistance for the purchase of existing buildings and by discontinuing the discharge of mortgagee, which, at the present rate, represent 7-t per cent, of the total number of war service homes transactions. The principal act now provides that the amount of deposit required from any applicant shall vary, according to the total amount of expenditure involved, from 5 per cent., to 10 per cent, -.it the maximum level of £2,000. Furthermore, the Director of War Service Homes is vested with discretion to fix a lower rate of deposit. But this hill will establish a flat rate of 10 per cent, for any amount above £2,000. The division is faced with almost insuperable difficulties. In the first three months of 1950-51 it was able to have 482 houses commenced by contract but, as a result of rising costs, it was able to arrange for only 302 contracts during the final quarter of the year. The position deteriorated so rapidly that it was able to arrange for only 5,000 contracts instead of the anticipated total of 6,000 during the full period of twelve months.
Mr Townley:

– That is why the Government decided to increase the maximum amount of loan.

Mr POLLARD:

– I heartily support that provision, but the figures that I have cited have nothing to do with the permissible amount of loan. They illustrate the difficulty that arises from the inability of the War Service Homes Division and of applicants to arrange contracts for the building of new houses. That situation, which is becoming worse every day, forces many applicants to purchase existing properties. We shall thrash out this matter clause by clause in the committee stage. The Minister is probably aware that the Opposition has already drafted amendments for the purpose of improving the bill and making it more workable. The purpose of one of these is to make the maximum permissible amount of loan available for the purchase of existing properties as well as for thu construction of new houses. We also propose that the division shall have the right to discharge mortgager. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) has shown a great deal of foresight, in suggesting an amendment: of a kind that has never previously been contemplated. The honorable gentleman lias in mind the interests of ex-servicemen who have heavy family responsibilities and the amendment that he has foreshadowed is designed to provide that the amount of a loan made available to an applicant with more than five dependants may be increased by £200 for each member of the family after the first five.

Twenty-three thousand applicants are already on the waiting list and, according to the latest report of the division, about 50 per cent, of these are persisting applicants who are desperately in need of homes. Therefore, instead of providing only for the financial assistance of those who can arrange to have new houses built, we should endeavour to provide for the acquisition of houses by all possible means, including the purchase of existing properties. The only qualifications that should apply should be safeguarding provisions in relation to constructional details, and to the soundness and general suitability of buildings. My criticism of the bill is neither captious, partisan nor unfair. I am eager to help the Minister to make the best possible provision for the needs of homeless ex-servicemen. 1 point out. that members of the Opposition are not the only members of the community who are dissatisfied with the terms of the bill. I refer the Minister to statements that were made in the Small Homes Service of the Melbourne Age on the 13th November. The service is provided by the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects and. on the date to which I have referred, it contained the following passage: -

Thousands of ex-servicemen who thought they could escape the delays of building through War Service Homes Division arc finding that Governmental red tape is not so easily avoided.

They escaped one snare to be tripped by another.

The Wai- Service Homes Division has always offered excellent terms to the exserviceman homebuilder. Under a proposed amendment to the act they will be even better - on paper.

The catch always was the delays.

Sometimes the delays were before the loan was approved. One client of ours reports a wait of Hi months recently. Sometimes the worst delays were in progress payments to builders. .1hese are never inclined to heighten a builder’s enthusiasm for any job.

In repeating these old stories, no criticism of the War Service Homes Division or its officers in Melbourne is intended. It is not news to tell of the delays. People who had to work with the division accepted them as part of post-war building conditions.

One architect who got to know the ropes and could nurse an application through the right channels at exactly the right times, claims he could get an approval in sixweeks.

The division itself was not to blame. Undoubtedly it has been tied up in turn by red tape from on high.

But the terms, when they arrived, were generous, and so thousands of ex-servicemen adopted the idea of building immediately by private finance in the hope of switching the mortgage to War Service Homes Division when the building was finished.

That is the point that T made.

Mr Townley:

– They still can.

Mr POLLARD:

– Do you admit the words-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable gentleman will address me.

Mr POLLARD:

– The Minister said in his second-reading speech that the intention of the Government, and no doubt of himself, was to confer on the Minister power to stop the practice of discharging mortgages. Here are his exact words -

The practice of discharging mortagages will lie discontinued.

If the Minister examines clause 8 he will find that it provides that the Director of War Service Homes may do certain things subject to the “ directions “ of the Minister in relation to matters of general policy. Such a provision has never before been embodied in war service homes legislation. The Minister, under this provision, will only have to be told that the Treasury considers that too much money is being expended on war service homes, and, whilst perfectly willing to approve the discharge of mortgages on a generous basis, he will have to fall in with the desires of the Treasury. The article from which I was reading a few moments ago continued -

Now the proposed amendment to the net provides that no more existing mortgages arc to he taken over. Thousands will lie tripped up if the amendment is passed. They will be left holding private mortgages on much harder terms than they can afford.

Mr Townley:

– Completely untrue.

Mr POLLARD:

– I would say that it is partly incorrect, as the bill will not make it mandatory for the Minister to discontinue mortgages, but will give to him the power to do so. In effect, it will give to the Minister a power that has never before been, given, in the history of war service homes legislation in Australia, to interfere with the prerogatives that were formerly exercised by the Director of War Service Homes.

Mr Townley:

– There was no need for that power before.

Mr POLLARD:

– When I point to the power that is to be given to him to interfere with the prerogatives of the director, the Minister says that there was no need for that power previously. Now, when the division is failing to build enough houses and with an everincreasing number of ex-servicemen buying houses, he says by implication that it is necessary to have the power to discontinue the practice of the division discharging mortgages. The article stated -

The division always has the prerogative of refusing to take over the mortgage on any house which has not been built to the required standard.

The Minister is taking power under this measure to destroy the prerogative of the division when he feels so inclined, the article continued -

The purpose of the amendment is not clear.

The article then referred to delays and to red tape and went on to say this about the bill-

If it is passed there will be a moral obligation on the Government to speed up the department’s workings.

I am not critical of the War Service Homes Division and the work that it has done. Taken ‘ generally, it has done a magnificent job in Australia and any failure to provide for exservicemen has generally been due to governments. In depression times it was the failure of governments to make finance available to the then commission, and at present it is the failure of the Government to halt rising prices and to the complete inability of the division to get contractors to operate within the allowable financial limits provided in war service homes legislation.

The position in relation to war service homes is desperate, as I know because I have investigated in my electorate certain cases of houses having been badly finished by the contractors. I understand that a tenant or buyer has a year in which to lodge complaints and point out faults. I made personal investigations of some war service homes at Sunshine, in my electorate, and in one case climbed into the attic, and I can say that the tenant in that case was certainly within his rights in requesting that the division have the house completed according to the specifications on which the construction of it had been undertaken. But the division finds it difficult to get contractors to finish their jobs properly, and is also finding it difficult to obtain new contractors for new jobs, and so is forced into the position of being unable to adjust complaints by tenants. It was not until. I approached the former Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Casey) that I was able to obtain satisfaction for that ex-serviceman and his house was put into proper shape. Some of the windows would not close because the woodwork was made of ramee pine, which warps badly. Plaster had cracked, and whilst the house was structurally sound the finishing work on it was a disgrace. The sill over the sink was about 3 inches out, and there was not one door that fitted at the top. It was not until great pressure had been brought to bear, which it should not have been necessary to exercise, that the job was finished properly. The contractors who build such houses finish a job, get progress payments, and go off to other jobs, and it is most difficult to get them to come back and finish the previous job properly. Shortage of labour and rising prices, particularly at Sunshine, in my electorate, mean that the division is not able to have badly finished houses attended to.

I find myself in the unfortunate position of not being able to congratulate the Minister on a bill which everybody’ hoped would assist ex-servicemen both of the last war and of the Korean campaign. 1. hope that the Minister will accept the amendments that the “Opposition intends to move, that some honorable members opposite will support them and that the outcome will be that the intention which I think the Minister had, of facilitating the occupancy of homes by ex-servicemen, will ultimately be achieved.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- War service homes legislation should be entirely above party politics. I did not intend to make reference to the remarks of the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), but they have been so misleading and partisan that, in the interests of ex1servicemen generally, I consider myself obliged to refer to his inaccuracies. Before doing so, I wish to remind the House of the general purposes of war service homes legislation. The War Service Homes Act was passed in 1918 and was a recognition of the fact that men who had left their homes and their country to fight in foreign lands for the defence of Australia had thereby missed opportunities that were available to other people to build houses for their own occupancy. The act was passed with the avowed object of removing any financial embarrassment to exservicemen who desired to acquire their own homes, and, since it was passed, has been of tremendous assistance to exservicemen. Altogether 75,000 ex-service men have been provided with homes through the medium of this act. Of that number 33,000 were buyers of houses newly built, and 42,500 purchased houses. The honorable member for Lalor suggested that the Government had fallen down on its job. What utter humbug! 1 point out that in 1948-49, which was the last completed year of a Labour government, 6,084 houses were either purchased or built. Last year, under the Menzies Government, the houses either built or purchased numbered 15,165. That figure is nearly three times as large as the 194S-49 figure. In 1948-49 an amount of £8,566,000 was expended on war service homes. Last year, under this Government, the figure was £25,000,000. Under this bill that record figure of £25,000,000 is to be increased to £27,000,000. So, since this Government, came into office its annual expenditure on housing for ex-serv icemen has been more than three times as much as was expended in any year of Labour rule.

Mr Curtin:

– How much does it buy?

Mr WILSON:

– I have pointed out. that 15,165 houses were provided last year as against 6,000 in the previous Government’s last year of office. The measure deals with four kinds of assistance to ex-servicemen. First of all there is a form of assistance in relation to group building, which covers cases in which the War Service Homes Division buys an area of land, subivides it, builds a. number of houses, and sells them upon completion to ex-servicemen, advancing finance for the purchase of them. The second kind of assistance is in relation to the individual home-building scheme, under which the ex-serviceman is entitled to build on his own account, with his own achitect or without an architect, and the War Service Homes Division will finance him in the building of it. The third kind of finance is in relation to the purchase of existing properties. The fourth kind of assistance formerly provided under the act was the discharge of existing mortgages. If, for example, an ex-serviceman had a. mortgage at a rate of interest that he considered to be too high, he could have it taken over by the division. It is in relation to that last category that the only major alteration to the act is made by the bill.

The first amending clause in the bill is a recognition of the fact that building costs have increased over the last five or six years. Because of that increase the Government has seen the wisdom of increasing the maximum amount of loan available to ex-servicemen. The bill provides that in cases of houses built by the War Service Homes Division or by ex-servicemen under the supervision of the division, the maximum advance shall be £2,750 instead of the amount of £2,000 that operated under the previous Government. I emphasize that fact, because I am sure that a number of ex-servicemen will be otherwise misled by the statement of the honorable member for Lalor that the maximum advance was to be £2,700. That is not correct. The amount is £2,750. The next vital amending clause recognizes the great debt of gratitude that we owe to men who to-day are fighting in Korea and Malaya. There are as many men - not all Australians - fighting in Korea at present as fought in the battle of Alamein. At the present time, the men who are carrying the flag of Australia’ have not had an opportunity to acquire houses through the “War Services Homes Division. The bill before the House will make it possible for them to obtain houses.

Another proposed amendment of great importance to ex-servicemen will reduce the deposit required on a war service home. Under this amendment the proposed deposit is 5 per cent, of the first £2,000 of a loan and 10 per cent, of the balance. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) had the audacity to criticize this amendment. I remind the honorable member that while the Labour Government was in office an exserviceman could obtain an advance of only £2,000 and a deposit of £200 was required. Under this bill an exserviceman will be able to obtain a loan of £2,750 and a deposit of only £175 will be required. In other words, this Government proposes to provide for each ex-serviceman £750 more than the Labour Government provided for him and to make that amount available on a deposit that will be £25 less than that required by the Labour Government. Yet the honorable member for Lalor has stated his intention to move an amendment to this provision in the bill.

Another of the proposals before the House affords me even greater pleasure than I derived from any of the amendments to which I have referred because it makes possible the fulfilment of a sacred duty of every honorable member. Thy honorable member for Boothby (Mr. McLeay has continually referred in this House to the treatment of the widows of men who have made the supreme sacrifice. Up to the present time, owing to the operation of section 28 of the War Service Homes Act, a war widow has not been eligible for a loan unless she has had income apart from her pension. Section 2S, which has been in operation ever since the principal act was passed, provides that the Director of War Service Monies may, at his discretion, refuse to enter into a contract for the sale of any land, or land and dwelling house, or to make an advance to an eligible person, unless he is satisfied that that person has reasonable prospects of carrying out the terms of the contract of sale or advance. Acting under the provisions of that section, the Director of War Service Homes and the Deputy Directors have considered that if a widow had no income but her pension she had not the ability to make the repayments required under the war service homes scheme. So when a widowhas told the War Service Homes Division that she has no income outside he pension, she has been told that it is of no use for her to proceed with her application because she has not the ability to pay the necessary instalments. The honorable member for Boothby has continually directed attention to this anomaly and he must feel extraordinarily proud to know that, under this bill, that barrier will be removed. The Government has increased war pensions by a greater amount than that by which they have ever increased before. A war widow with two children now receives £7 14s. 6d. a week and a war widow with one child receives £6 14s. 6d. a week. Consequently, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) has directed that the Director shall now consider a widow with one or more children eligible for a loan and shall accept a deposit of £50. This amendment will greatly improve the act.

The honorable member for Lalor stated that during the last financial year only 26 per cent, of all moneys advanced by the War Service Homes Division were used for the construction of new houses. The purpose of this amendment is to make more money available for new construction. For war service homes this years, £27,000,000 is available. That is £2,000,000 more than was available last year, and more than three times as much as has been expended for this purpose in any year in which Labour was in office. The Minister has given consideration to the manner in which this £27,000,000 could be expended in order to do a maximum amount of good for exservicemen. He asked, “Who of these people, are the most important? Is ir more important that within the limits of the money available a serviceman should build on his own behalf or that he should bc able to save a. little interest by paying off a mortgage on a bouse of which he has been in possession for the last ten year3 ? ‘’ The answer was obvious. The man who is more entitled to assistance is the man who is building for himself. The Minister is to be admired for having recognized the facts. This is an inflationary period in which certain checks ha ve to be put on the economy and certain limits placed on the amounts available to ex-servicemen by way of loans. The Minister has considered how, within that limit, the maximum number of exservicemen could be provided with the maximum benefit. He has decided that it is much more important for an ex-serviceman to obtain a house than for another exserviceman to save a little interest on a house that he already possesses.

That class of ex-serviceman who has the courage, initiative and enterprise to build on his own behalf deserves to bo assisted more than any other. Those men have not, sat back and asked when somebody is going to do something for them. They have decided to have their financees or wives assist them to make cement bricks, put down foundations and build on Saturdays and Sundays. Having built their houses in that way they have requested the War Service Homes Division (.o take over their financial liability.

Mr Andrews:

– Where do they obtain the money to build the house in the first place?

Mr WILSON:

– Any trading bank will provide the finance. If honorable members will come to my electorate, I will show them hundreds of men of initiative, courage and enterprise. At Enfield Heights and Northfield, men and their wives make cement bricks, lay foundations and proceed, to build their homes every Saturday afternoon and Sunday. These men and women exhibit the real pioneering spirit of this country. They do not wait for others to act for them. They are providing homes for themselves. Our ancestors came to this country when there were no buildings, roads or schools here. They pitched their tents, quarried limestone and sandstone, hewed timber, and built houses that are standing to-day. I admire those young men who arc building their own homes more than any other section of ex-servicemen. Last year 500 houses were built in South Australia by ex-servicemen without any architect or contractor. They used their own labour and the labour of their friends.

I heartily congratulate the Minister on the tremendous volume of research that he undertook before he introduced this bill. It was a very difficult bill to construct and I consider that he arrived at a most satisfactory solution of the problems that confronted him.

Reverting to the subject of those exservicemen who are building houses for themselves, I remind the honorable member for Darebin (Mr. Andrews) that, the War Service Homes Division will provide progress payments for such people as each section of the house is completed. Any trading bank will also make such advances provided that the War Service Homes Division will finance the purchase of the dwelling upon completion, I offer my whole-hearted congratulations to the Minister for having introduced a bill that will be of inestimable value to ex-servicemen. In case there has been any misunderstanding, I wish all ex-servicemen to understand that it is still open to them to obtain a loan of up to £2,000 to pay off a mortgage, on a house that they are erecting. That is a facility of which ex-servicemen should avail themselves. I hope that subsequent speakers on the Opposition side of the House will not draw red herrings across the path but will deal with this bill on a non-party basis and will make known to ex-servicemen the great facilities that the bill will make available to them.

Mr ANDREWS:
Darebin

.- After having heard the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) address himself to this subject, one could have no doubt that he appreciates both the legislation and the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley). He certainly expressed his appreciation in full measure, and I am sure that the Minister must feel very pleased. He dwelt for a long time upon the grand old pioneers, which happens to be a good sentimental subject, and their method of procuring homes for themselves. He also traversed the ancient history of house building in this country, However, I suggest that he forgot to mention a number of things. In the days of the pioneers there were no impediments to people building their own houses, such as modern building regulations. Those regulations are of the very greatest significance to those who are not building tradesmen but wish to build their own houses. There may be a few classes of people such as carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, and the like who can band together and build houses for themselves, but the vast majority of the people are limited in the knowledge that they have, not only of building but also of building regulations. Therefore, a large part of the speech of the honorable member for Sturt loses its significance.

Our war service homes legislation was originally designed to achieve two important objectives. The first was to help ex-servicemen of modest means to procure homes, and the second was to make some contribution to the great number of houses required in the community. Much capital has been made available by the War Service Homes Division. Last year about £25,000,000 was made available for the benefit of exservicemen. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) claimed that the Wai’ Service Homes Division has financed 11.6 per cent, of all the new houses that have been built recently in Australia, and that more houses have been provided by that organization than by any other housing authority in the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that that is quite true. But the War Service Homes Division is now experiencing serious difficulties, the greatest of which is caused by the fact that since 1949 only about 11,500 houses have been built, whilst about 36,500 houses have been procured or mortgages on houses have been discharged. Last year the position further deteriorated because only 26 per cent, of the houses procured by the War Service Homes Division were new houses and 74 per cent, were existing houses or houses upon which mortgages were discharged. The Minister said that that was not a very satisfactory contribution to the shortage of new houses in this country.

The remedy suggested under this legislation is completely new to the War Service Homes Division. It is that the division will no longer discharge mortgages. It is necessary to decide now which of the objectives that I mentioned in my opening remarks is the more important: Whether it is more important to ensure that ex-servicemen shall be provided with houses, or whether the War Service Homes Division shall build new houses and thus contribute more substantially to the provisions of the number of houses that we require. Without trying to be over sentimental, I submit that any man who has offered his life for his country has a very strong claim to be provided by one means or another with a home as soon as he needs it. At present, when houses are offered for sale at auction in any city of the Commonwealth most of them seem to he secured by foreigners or new Australians who have lived in. the country for only a few years. I suggest that no ex-serviceman would not take an old house in preference to a new one except for the simple reason that he wishes to get a roof over his head and establish himself and his family as a separate entity in the community. Perish the thought that any ex-serviceman may suffer as a result of such a provision in the bill now before the House.

According to the information given to us by the War Service Homes Division applications continue to be made to tha division for assistance at the rate of 2,000 a month. What are the prospects of those 2,000 people, as well as the backlog of applicants, being accommodated within a reasonable time? As the honorable member for Lalor’ (Mr. - Pollard) emphasized there are long and tiresome periods of waiting which are certainly not caused by any neglect in the division. I have had occasion to call on the War Service Homes Division from time to time, and have always received very courteous attention from its officers. They have tried to the best of their ability to help individual cases to which I have directed their attention. However, the fact is that long delays occur before ex-servicemen can be accommodated by the War Service Homes Division. Those delays lead me to the conclusion that the division is very much under-staffed. A method that is now being privately adopted by ex-servicemen to get houses more quickly is to buy a house through a co-operative building society and then make application to have the mortgage taken over- by the War Service Homes Division. I hope that the Government can continue to take over such financial responsibility to the full amount allowable under the legislation, which is £2,750.

Mr Townley:

– There is no intention to change the practice of discharging mortgages on new homes to the maximum of £2,000.

Mr ANDREWS:

– I am glad to have that assurance because I thought that there was a prospect of the practice being changed. Moreover, there has been much apprehension about the matter among exservicemen. That practice may be of advantage to the division because it may give to it an opportunity to overtake the lag in its house construction. Because of loan restrictions on co-operative building societies and of the inadequacy of the War Service Homes Division allowance of £2,250, perhaps contractors will now bc more eager to do work for the division than they have been hitherto. Perhaps that, will have a good effect on the number of houses which the division will be able to complete in the future. “

  1. have been associated, as a director, with three co-operative housing societies in my own electorate. When those societies first commenced operations the majority of people seeking loans to build houses submitted” plans for houses of from twelve to thirteen squares. Since building costs have so greatly increased there has been a tendency to reduce the size of the houses to nine and ten squares. I believe that the War Service Homes Division might be able still further to overtake the lag in construction by reducing the size of its houses. If the sizes were reduced more houses could be built. I believe that the cost per square is about £250. Thus a cottage of ten squares costs about £2,500, to which must be added. the inflated cost of the land. The smaller size would not bc a great disability. In fact people could provide additional accommodation by building, a sleep-out separate from the house which could be sold after the family had grown up. If that were done there would be some advantage in the present tendency towards small buildings. I agree with the provision in the legislation that money shall not be made available for houses of an old type to any greater degree than is absolutely necessary. Buildings of older types that have been bought in the past, even on behalf of the War Service Homes Division, have not been satisfactory. If the maximum advance were granted in respect of such buildings, thereis not the slightest doubt that, because of the conditions that prevail to-day, within a short time the maximum advance would become the minimum purchase price. Then either ex-servicemen or the division would be acquiring property that was almost worn out, simply in order to meet the exigencies of the moment.

I believe that, generally speaking, the. War Service Homes Division has tried to do a good job for ex-servicemen. I do not intend to criticize the division when I suggest that the Minister should consider whether or not it is adequately staffed.. Many persons have complained to me of irksome delays to which they have been subjected. I believe that the officers of the division are fully qualified and competent. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the cause of the delay must be lack of staff., Now that the Minister has given an assurance that mortgages in respect of houses built under co-operative housing schemes will be taken over by the War Service Homes Division, much of the criticism that 1 had intended to offer has disappeared. I am sure that what the Minister has said will give great satisfaction to ex-servicemen who have secured houses under such schemes. They have been able to obtain houses of types that are most readily available, and now will have the advantage of lower rates of interest upon their mortgages.

Mr WHEELER:
Mitchell

.- The honorable member for Darebin (Mr. Andrews), before he proceeded to make a very useful contribution to the debate, followed the traditional course of a member of the Opposition by trying to probe the weaknesses of the measure before the House. It ill becomes any honorable, gentleman opposite to criticize the record of this Government in this connexion, because it is much better than is that of the

Labour party. It may interest the honorable member for Darebin to know that of the 75,515 houses that have been constructed under this scheme since its inception in 1919, 25,46S, or approximately one-third, have been made available by this Government during the last two years. That is no mean achievement. In terms of money, of the £S6,000,0C0 that has been made available for expenditure upon war service homes since 1919, £41,000,000 has been provided by this Government during the last two years. The best that Labour could do in a year was to make 6,084 war service homes available, but in 1950-51 this Government made 15,165 available. It is estimated that 18,000 houses will be provided under the scheme this year. I suggest to the honorable member for Darebin that the achievements of this Government in this connexion will withstand any criticism. The honorable gentleman devoted some time to the matter of squares. I assure him that, at any rate during the last two years, the War Service Homes Division has gone to a great deal of trouble to design houses of between nine and eleven squares in which the greatest possible area of living space will be a variable.

It has been truly said that we do not value things that are dear to us until we are in danger of losing them. Personal liberty is an intangible thing that is sometimes regarded lightly. We do not think much about it until we are in danger of losing it. Then we take positive action to safeguard it. I was interested to hear the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) refer to-day to the time when the Labour party will again form the Government of this country. Let me remind the honorable gentleman that in 1949, and again in 1951, the people of Australia, having experienced eight years of socialism, believed that their political freedom was being threatened, and consequently took action to protect it. Tb.ey are not likely to forget that their political freedom was threatened. If the honorable member for Melbourne thinks that the day is near when the Labour party will .again be in power in the Commonwealth, he should think again. Before Labour can regain the. treasury bench, it will have to present to the people a more united front than it presents now. Action to defend personal and political liberty can be taken promptly, but when a threat to our national liberty arises, action to defend that liberty is not taken precipitately, because inevitably such action would result in war.

Twice since 1914 Australians have answered a call to defend their country. We have placed reliance upon the rather impractical method of, for the most part, calling for volunteers for the armed forces. Twice within my memory the nation has told men who volunteered for service in the armed forces that when they returned from defending our cause overseas, they would not be forgotten, and that the nation would express its gratitude to them in some tangible form. It is well that the nation should honour its obligations to those men, one of which is to provide houses for them. No thought is more consistently in the mind of a serviceman, especially if he be serving overseas, than his return to “civvy street” and the security of his own home. In war-time, the number of marriages increases. War seems to spur backward suitors into making their decisions and accentuates the desire to perpetuate the race. Consequently, there are many war-time marriages, and when the war ends those couples require houses. The need is urgent, because upon the provision of houses depends to a large degree the happiness and survival of many hurried war-time marriages. In that connexion, the Commonwealth has an obligation to ex-servicemen.

The problem of providing houses for ex-servicemen has been tackled by both the Commonwealth and the States. It is interesting to compare the methods that have been adopted. The Commonwealth, through the War Service Homes Division, has approached the problem from the personal angle. Its object is that the ex-serviceman shall escape from the regimentation to which he was subjected during his war service, and shall be provided with a house of his own design, in which he can take pride of ownership and which will become his own. property after a .period of years. The New South Wales State Housing Commission has not approached the problem from the personal angle. It believes that it is under an obligation only to build houses that will provide shelter for individuals. This impersonal approach has resulted in the construction of monotonous rows of houses that look alike.

Both the Commonwealth and the State authorities have encountered many difficulties. The difficulty of obtaining adequate finance is ever present. Shortages of labour and materials have to be overcome. The War Service Homes Divi sion has adopted the reasonable and practical attitude that it will start only as many houses as it can complete, and no more, no matter how great may be the demand. The demand for houses is greater now than it has been for many years, but the division proposes to build only as many houses as can be built with the finance, labour and materials that are available to it. The failure of other instrumentalities to adhere to that principle has forced building costs to rise sky high. It is extremely wasteful for huge quantities of building materials to be tied up in uncompleted houses that cannot be occupied because one or two essential materials are not available. In New South Wales, quite frequently one sees a row of houses that cannot be completed owing to the lack of some essential material. The War Service Homes Division is to be complimented upon its policy of not proceeding with the erection of houses until it is sure that they can be completed within a reasonable time.

The New South Wales State Housing Commission has a mania for land grabbing. By resumption and threatened resumption, it appears to be intent upon gaining control of all suitable sites in the cities and outer suburban areas df the State. It has resumed so much land that 1 doubt whether it will be able to use the whole of it within 50 years. Two serious results flow from that policy. It establishes an artificial market- in home sites. Many people who wish to buy building blocks are forced to pay prices that are so high that they will be a financial millstone round their necks for the rest of their lives. The policy of the State government of grabbing homebuilding sites in districts where the provision of public utilities has become an urgent necessity has become a vexed problem with local government bodies who lack the requisite finance to provide such facilities. Honorable members, of course, are aware that State authorities are not liable to pay rates on land which they acquire for the building of houses until the houses are actually tenanted. Consequently, local government bodies are deprived of revenue in respect of large areas of valuable land. If such land were privately owned, those authorities would be able to derive sufficient revenue from it in rates to enable them to provide public facilities in the areas concerned.

Recently, the New South Wales Government announced that it would make a demand - that was the term used - upon the Commonwealth for financial assistance for its housing” commission. I do not know what the reaction of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) will be to such demands; but if they were served upon me I should know what my answer would be. First, I should suggest that State housing commissions might emulate the example of the War Service Homes Division by refraining from tying up money in the purchase of land that they will hot be able to utilize for some years to come. Secondly, I should suggest that those bodies should sell some of the houses that they have already completed to the tenants that occupy them. Fortunately, the War Service Homes Division has no worries in its dealings as a landlord with its tenants, because it enables purchasers to finance the construction of war service homes and such loans become self-supporting investments. State housing commissions should emulate that example. In their case, the relationship between landlord and tenant, which is rarely a happy one, gives rise to many problems. I realize that under the Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement, the States cannot dispose of houses constructed under that agreement except at cost or valuation.

That agreement should be amended to enable the States to sell such houses at a fair present-day valuation on the condition that the proceeds from such sales shall be re-invested in the construction of additional houses. Such an arrangement would be deflationary in character and, at the same time, would provide the additional capital that the States require to expand their housing programmes. It would be much preferable to the present arrangement under which the States are always approaching the Commonwealth for more -finance for housing projects. Normally the policy of the New South Wales Housing Commission is to sell its houses to tenants who desire to purchase them, but in actual practice that policy is not being implemented. Obstacles are invariably raised to prevent such action from being taken. One cannot help thinking that the real obstacle is the Socialist principle of government ownership, the idea being that the State should be the one big landlord in the community. That idea conforms to the dictum that brought approbrium upon the head of Mr. Dedman, the late but, I hope, not lamented Minister for Defence in the Chifley Government, who said that home owners were a lot of “ little capitalists “, Fundamentally, home ownership is anathema to a large section of the Labour party.

Shortage of materials is the greatest obstacle at present to the building of houses, and the War Service Homes Division has not escaped that worry. Indeed, that authority enjoys a less privileged position in that respect than the State housing authorities enjoy. The latter bodies, by virtue of arrangements that they are able to make with industry generally, either officially or unofficially, enjoy the great advantage of being able to obtain supplies of building materials and they frequently avail themselves of it to the detriment of private house builders. Nobody experiences the anguish of gathering materials from suppliers here and there to the same degree as the private builder does. Indeed, he is obliged to spend half his time chasing materials. It is unfair that the private builders should be placed at such a disadvantage. Many of them are going out of business. Some of them have suggested that a public stocktaking in respect of State housing centres, such as that at Villawood, would reveal that the State is adopting a dog in the manger attitude in respect of the distribution of building materials.

In addition to the serious lack of materials, which is hampering the activi- ties of all house builders, including the War Service Homes Division, one cannot ignore the clumsy and highly inefficient efforts of the New South Wales Government to socialize the production of building materials. It is time that State governments handed over such production completely to private enterprise. It is significant that Mr. Cahill, the Minister for Works in New South Wales, recently announced with a great flourish of trumpets that the State brickworks, after they had been in operation for four years, had made a profit of £35,000 last year. He failed to point out that that undertaking did not pay income tax or land tax which, if paid, would reduce that profit to less than £20,000. He also failed to point out that its operations are financed by loans from the State Government, by which it is charged interest at the rate of only 2 per cent, per annum. That concession represents an annual subsidy of approximately £9,000 from Consolidated Revenue. In addition, if is not liable to pay local government rates whilst, at the same time, it sells its bricks at its own price to various government departments. In view of those facts, it is a matter for wonder that the undertaking does not make a huge profit. The reason for its failure to do so is that it is operated inefficiently.

On previous occasions I have directed attention to the operations of the State brick and tile works which are situated at Blacktown in my electorate. At those works, an effort is being made to prove the extrusion process. The works were originally estimated to cost £100,000, but it is now estimated by the State AuditorGeneral that they will cost £660,000. For that outlay only a limited quantity of tiles and bricks will be produced. When I first directed attention to the mismanagement of those works, the cry of the State Socialist government was, “ Give us more time “. The State government has since had sufficient time to prove whether or not the extrusion process is practical. The fact remains that that has not been done. That process has not been adopted by private enterprise. The main reason for the shortage of bricks and tiles is that for some years past, State works have absorbed manpower and materials that could have been better utilized by private enterprise. Even if the works at Blacktown are developed into an efficient producing unit - I hope that it will be so developed - the community cannot afford such a costly experiment at a time when we are desperately in need of materials. Those works have absorbed materials that would have been sufficient for the erection of several hundreds of houses. It is useless for a State government to complain of lack of financial assistance from the Commonwealth when it engages in such extravagant undertakings.

The shortage of cement in several States is impeding the construction of houses. I doubt whether available supplies of materials are being allocated on a proper basis. For instance I should like to know what proportion of the output of cement in New South Wales is being set apart for schemes such as the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. I do not question the value of that scheme, but when cement is in such short supply, we must consider the necessity to allocate available man-power and materials to the best possible advantage of the community as a whole. So long as the shortages of food and housing continue, long-range projects should be closely re-examined. In spite of the optimistic forecast that has been made with respect to the Snowy Mountains scheme I doubt whether we shall derive any real benefit from it within the next decade. In order to make the best possible use of available money, manpower and materials the Government should weigh the requirements of such schemes against those of .the community as a whole with a view to seeing whether additional supplies cannot be diverted to housing programmes.

Despite the disadvantages that arise from the lack of materials and man-power, the War Service Homes Division has an enviable record of achievement. Naturally, its activities are limited. For instance, it is not able to make available as much finance as it would like to be able to provide for applicants for houses. Nevertheless, its activities, under present conditions, reflect credit upon its officers and upon the Minister in charge of its operations. I regret that when the Government recently despatched a fact finding mission overseas to investigate prefabricated houses, a representative of the War Service Homes Division was not included in its personnel, because the experience that he would have gained in the course of its investigation would have been of great advantage to the division. The Government of New Zealand has undertaken extensive housing programmes. The Government should send a small fact finding mission to that dominion to investigate the methods of construction that are being applied there. One does not need to be over-patriotic to support the Government’s efforts to provide houses foi- ex-servicemen whom the nation farewelled on their way to the field of battle, with certain promises which, it was emphasized, would be honoured upon their return. It is as a result of the efforts of those men that we, in time of peace, are able to talk of houses and of their construction. Therefore, it- is fitting that we should use every endeavour to provide dwellings for ex-servicemen. Many of them are disillusioned, and broken in health. Some have suffered physical injury, whilst others have suffered from war neurosis. The best form of rehabilitation that we can offer to them is to provide them with houses, because the home is one of the best tonics for ensuring good health. It behoves us to ensure that we shall not fail in our obligation to those men.

Mr BIRD:
Batman

.- After having listened attentively to the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler), I .should like to vouchsafe the opinion that be devoted three-quarters of the time that was allotted to him to confusing this bill with other issues. He gave to it his blessing for a couple of minutes at the commencement and again at the conclusion of his speech, but devoted the rest of his time exclusively to a resume of the activities of the New South Wales Housing Commission, and of various authorities in that State that deal with building materials, and he included, for good measure, some remarks about the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. The value of his contribution to the debate was seriously impaired because he did not deal with the subject-matter of the bill.

There is a general agreement throughout the community that the War Service Homes Division has rendered signal service for the purposes for which it was constituted, namely, to provide exservicemen of moderate means with houses. The original act was passed in 1919 and, in the intervening years, various anomalies have been discovered in its provisions, and amending legislation has been passed in order to rectify them. The latest report of the Director of “War Service Homes provides tangible evidence of the fact that the scheme, by and large, has been a boon to ex-servicemen. In such circumstances, it behoves every honorable member to give serious thought to any proposals that are made for the amendment of the act, because, generally, speaking, it has functioned most satisfactorily.

The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), in his second-reading speech, expressed some concern about the degree of assistance that has been granted to ex-servicemen to enable them to purchase existing properties. He pointed out - correctly in my opinion - that the assistance given to them during the last two years has increased considerably compared with that given in previous years. I do not understand why such a matter should cause the Minister concern, because sound reasons may be advanced to explain why increasing numbers of ex-servicemen have sought financial assistance from the War Service Homes Division during the last two or three years in order that they might purchase existing properties. In the main, that demand has been caused by the relaxation of controls that were imposed during the last war on the sale of properties, and also by the construction of houses by ex-servicemen themselves. Such men, after their dwellings have been built, have asked the War Service Homes Division to grant loans on the buildings, which are classified under the act as existing properties, even though they may have been completed only two or three weeks previously.

An ex-serviceman buys an existing property because he wishes to obtain a house for himself and his family as quickly as possible. When he considers all the hazards and vicissitudes that are experienced by a person who wishes to buy a house at the present time, his natural impulse is to purchase an existing property if one is procurable. Existing houses are procurable to-day only in the face of fierce competition. Most of the existing properties that are placed on the market to-day are purchased by new Australians. The honorable member fo: Darebin (Mr. Andrews), whose electorate adjoins that of Batman, has made an authoritative reference to that aspect. New Australians are prepared to “ go to the limit” in their eagerness to buy houses, with the result that an exserviceman who purchases a dwelling is extremely fortunate. I suggest that the Government should reconsider its policy not to increase the present limit of £2,000 that may be advanced as a loan for the purchase of an existing property, because such a decision will definitely place the ex-serviceman at a distinct disadvantage compared with other persons who are prepared to “ go to the limit “ in order to obtain houses.

A person who wishes to buy a dwelling to-day must be prepared to pay the existing market value. It is futile to say that a particular house is not worth more than a certain amount. A house is worth what the vendor can obtain for it. Throughout the community, the value of existing properties as well as that of new properties has soared, and there is uo reason why the purchaser of a new dwelling should have the advantage of being able to borrow from the War Service Homes Division an amount of £2,750. whilst the purchaser of an existing property may not he granted a loan exceeding £2,000.

I have stated that an ex-serviceman who wishes to purchase an existing property encounters fierce competition, but that is not his only difficulty. Unfortunately, some real estate agents bar become reluctant in recent years to have any business dealings with ex-servicemen who wish to purchase existing properties with the assistance of the War Service Homes Division. I have been informed on a number of occasions that some real estate agents adopt a reluctant attitude immediately prospective purchasers state that they intend to obtain a loan from the division. Those estate agents have placed all kinds of imaginary difficulties in th,?. way of the prospective purchasers, and more often than not, ex-servicemen have gone away disillusioned and disappointed, because they have not been able to buy the properties. 1 realize that when an ex-serviceman is negotiating for the purchase of a property, some time must elapse before the War Service Homes Division is able to complete the details of the valuation and settlement. Some real estate agents look for quick sales, and do not encourage ex-servicemen to purchase houses, because they fear that they cannot make a rapid turnover. Certain real estate agents are definitely working to the detriment of the interests of ex-servicemen. The War Service Homes Division, if it can speed up valuations and settlements, may allay the doubts that exist in the minds of many exservicemen about the intentions of some estate agents.

A few weeks ago the Minister for Social Services informed the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) in reply to a. question that the War Service Homes Division required about a. month in which to complete the valuation of an existing property and the details of the settlement. I believe, on the basis of facts that have been brought to my notice, that the Minister has been misinformed, because a period of between four months and six months often elapses before an ex-serviceman is able to complete the purchase of an existing property.

I have referred to the reluctance that is shown by some real estate agents to have any business dealings with the War Service Homes Division. I also point out that there is a distinct and evergrowing reluctance on the part of some contractors to tender for the erection of war service homes. A variety of reasons has been offered by builders to explain their lack of interest in that kind of work. Whether or not those reasons are genuine, the ex-servicemen suffer. I hope that every endeavour will be made to offer inducements to contractors to tender for that all-important work. It is of no use to deplore the fact that the number of dwellings that are being erected by the War Service Homes Division is dwindling, and allow the matter to rest there. We should ascertain the reasons for such a position.

One reason is that contractors are not interested in tendering for contracts that are offered by the War Service Homes Division, and, possibly, their attitude is justified. The division exercises much stricter supervision over the erection of war service homes than was the case after World War I. I recall that I saw m the electorate of Batman a number of war service homes in the course of erection in the period 1919 to 1923, and they were widely ridiculed because they were regarded as jerry-built. Doubtless the War Service Homes Division, having benefited from the mistakes that were made in the past, now, with perfect justification, exercises a much stricter form of supervision over the construction of such houses. I hope that its supervision does not become strict to the degree that reputable builders ask, “ Why should we tender for contracts to erect war service homes, when we are subjected to all sorts of pin-pricking by departmental inspectors? “. I have been informed by a most reputable builder that more frequently than should be the case, contractors have had to wait for unnecessarily long periods for departmental inspectors to examine the progress of the work. Such delays mean that the houses take longer to complete, and the financial returns to the contractors are correspondingly diminished. I hope that the War Service Homes Division will attempt to overcome such difficulties.

I realize that it is easier to state problems than to suggest ways in which they can be solved, but I suggest that the position may be improved if the division is able to complete more expeditiously than is the case at the present time the valuations and settlements in respect of existing properties. Perhaps the present staff should be increased in order to cope with that work. I also suggest that the division should not be unduly harsh towards reputable builders by demanding this, that, and the other thing in the observance of building regulations, and should not expect them to wait for unnecessarily long periods for inspectors to examine buildings that are in the course of construction.

I now propose to make a few comments upon the provision for the discontinuance of the practice of taking over existing mortgages. One sentence that occurred in the Minister’s second-reading speech came like a bolt from the blue to many deserving persons. I refer to the following passage : -

The practice of discharging mortgages will be discontinued.

No reason was given for that cardinal change of policy. It is true that proposed section 20 (S.) states -

Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may, upon application in writing, make an advance to an eligible person on the prescribed security. . . .

I direct attention to the words “ to the directions of the Minister “. So far as I am able to ascertain from the statements of the Minister, the directions that he will give will be in accordance with his statement that the practice of discharging mortgages will be discontinued. We are bound to believe that the policy of the Minister will be to eliminate the practice of discharging mortgages. I have not been able to discover any reason for such an amazing amendment. Perhaps certain persons have embarked upon a “ racket “ in the purchase of houses, and the Minister wishes to frustrate them, but action taken in that respect should not penalize ex-servicemen who seek to have a mortgage discharged. In view of the urgent national need to provide houses foi1 the people, it is difficult to understand why the Government should make a decision that will accentuate the present position. The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson), in an ineffectual attempt to bolster the Government’s weak case in this matter, said that the man who should be helped is the man who is building his own house, and tried to show that the man who builds his own cottage has nothing to fear from this proposal But, according to the Minister, the practice of discharging mortgages will be discontinued. I have received letters from twenty ex-servicemen who express anxiety about the Minister’s intention. One correspondent, whose views represent the general trend of thought on that matter, wrote -

In my particular case I built my own house with bank finance after being advised by the War Service Homes that they would take over the mortgage when I had finished the job. This way I could start with building as soon as I was ready, as the War Service Homes sometimes took up to nine months or more with paper work, &c, before the job could bc started with their finance from the start.

That man is a builder by occupation. The organization that works constantly to protect ex-servicemen is also very perturbed. The State president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in Victoria Mr. N. D. Wilson, was reported in the Melbourne Age recently to have said that, if the Government would not drop its proposal, it should at least hold it over until all ex-servicemen now building houses had completed the work, had it valued by the war service homes authorities and had the mortgage transferred. He went on to say-

The injustice is in the fact that exservicemen were more or less encouraged officially to take out short-term loans with banks and building societies and get on with their building projects.

This was done on the expectation of transferring the debt to the War Service Homes Division on completion of the building. Exservicemen who did this were able to have their homes completed much more quickly than if the building was done through the War Service Homes Department.

The anxiety of individuals who have written to honorable members is shared by the league, which is the official mouthpiece of ex-servicemen throughout Australia. The attitude of these men is understandable. Many of them, eager to push ahead with the building of their own houses, arranged with banks and other organizations to obtain financial assistance in the belief that the War Service Homes Division would eventually take over their mortgages. They had been told by officials of the division that it would do so. Many of the loans that have been obtained from private banks are on short terms, and they will be a source of great embarrassment to the borrowers unless the Government arranges for the War Service Homes Division to take them over. The Minister’s statement must have put an end to the high hopes of many men who had planned to obtain short-term loans for the purpose of starting to build their own houses. If the Minister lives up to the words of his speech, these exservicemen will be forced to forgo privileges that were deliberately extended to them after “World War II.

The statistics on this subject .are of considerable interest. In 1948-49, the War Service Homes Division discharged 939 mortgages for applicants. The number rose in 1949-50 .to 1,570, and in 1950-51 to 2,483. During the first three months of the current financial year, the division discharged mortgages on 943 houses. Thus, about one of every six ex-servicemen who obtain houses with the aid of the War Service Homes Division takes advantage of this system. That is a substantial proportion, and it will be regrettable if the Government discontinues the practice. The system has worked satisfactorily and has brought happiness to many thousands of exservicemen. Australians are badly in need of houses to-day and any policy that reacts to the disadvantage of persons who want to obtain houses should be discouraged. The reason why men seek to transfer mortgages to the War Service Homes Division is readily understandable. Interest is charged by the division at the rate of 3J per cent., whereas the interest rate for other loans varies from 3$ to 44 per cent. Thus, over a period of 30 years, a considerable financial saving is effected if a purchaser succeeds in having his mortgage discharged by the War Service Homes Division. Many ex-servicemen obtained private loans in their eagerness to go ahead quickly with the construction of houses. They wanted to reduce the delay that normally results from dealing directly with the War Service Homes Division from the outset. I . do not criticize the division on account of such delays because it suffers from many disabilities. However, it would not be reasonable to expect ex-servicemen to cool their beels for months while they wait to have the preliminary arrangements completed when they can shorten the process considerably by obtaining a private loan in the first instance.

What benefit will result from the Government’s proposal ? The . Minister made no attempt to give any explanation in his second-reading speech, and the two Government supporters who have since spoken have not made the slightest attempt to justify the extraordinary change of policy. Ex-servicemen who have obtained private loans for building purposes have merely stolen a march on time. They have obtained essential building materials in advance of price rises, which occur every month under present conditions. Had they waited for eight or nine months in order to obtain the help of the War Service Homes Division, they would have been involved in a great deal of additional expenditure. By using their initiative they saved amounts of as much as £400 and, in fact, they per: formed a service to the community. This amazing policy that has been announced by the Minister will restrict house ownership to those who have sufficient financial backing to withstand the onslaught of rising costs, delays and builders’ rackets.

Another matter that requires attention arises from the payment of interest on amounts that are advanced for the purpose of making progress payments to builders. Prior to World War II., such interest charges were of little significance because in those days a house could be built in twelve or fourteen weeks. However, under present conditions, a builder may take as long as two years to complete a house. At that rate, interest charges on progress payments assume large proportions and impose a distinct handicap on many ex-servicemen.

I hope that the Government will decide not to proceed with its revolutionary proposal to discontinue the discharge of mortgages, which has already caused a great deal of heart-burning and anxiety amongst ex-servicemen. I appreciate the difficulties that confront the Government, but I cannot understand this extraordinary proposal. I congratulate the Government upon its decision to increase the permissible amount of loans to £2,750. My sole comment on that provision is that it should have been introduced twelve months ago, when the members of the Opposition suggested the change. Why on earth the Government is not prepared to increase loans for the purchase of existing properties from £2,000 to £2,’75Q is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it has a good reason for having made such a decision. If so, I shall be interested to hear it at the earliest opportunity. I. repeat that 1 deeply regret its decision to jettison the system for the discharge of mortgages, which has worked satisfactorily in the past. I hope that it will be able to provide an explanation that will satisfy everybody concerned, but I gravely doubt its ability to satisfy anybody on that issue.

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

.- Before proceeding to discuss the bill in detail, we should consider the real purposes of the War Service Homes Act as it stands at present. Its chief purpose is to enable houses to be provided for ex-servicemen as a form of reward for the service that they gave for their country and also to enable them to make up for the opportunities that they lost when they were overseas during war-time and were unable either to acquire houses or to make effective plans for the building of houses. If we examine the bill we find that there are three main ways in which an eligible applicant can obtain a house with the assistance of the War Service Homes Division. First, he can have a house built by the division or arrange to have a house built by a contractor with the approval of the division. By using that method, he is entitled to obtain from the division a loan of £2,750. Secondly, he can purchase an existing house, for which purpose he can obtain from the division a loan of £2,000. The third method has given rise to some misunderstanding. It is unfortunate for the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) that he devoted at least one-half of his speech to complaints about an alleged injustice that the Government has not even contemplated. The honorable member may not be altogether at. fault for his misunderstanding of the bill. However, I say very clearly that the intention of the Government in this bill is that an ex-serviceman shall be able to build a house by obtaining financial assistance from a trading bank or some other source and that, uPon completion of the house, he shall be able to have the mortgage taken over by the War Service Homes Division. The only change of policy will be that, in future, the War Service Homes Division will require to be given advance notice of a man’s intention to follow that procedure.

Under the terms of this bill, the Minister will have far greater discretionary powers than he has at present. That provision is commendable, because it will tend to make the legislation flexible and will enable the Minister to apply it more humanely than is possible now. One new effect is that which will prevent the owner of a house who has lived in it for some time and has mortgaged it, from transferring the mortgage to the War Service Homes Division, except in exceptional circumstances. This proposal does not conflict with the principle that underlies the act. The main object of the act is to provide houses for ex-servicemen, not to give financial easement to men who already own houses. Perhaps this change will give rise to occasional anomalies in the future. However, we all know that th( War Service Homes Division has been exceptionally generous in its treatment of ex-servicemen who have fallen into distressed circumstances, and therefore have been unable to maintain normal repayments. We know that the division is exceptionally good in that respect. We know that the widows-

Mr Mulcahy:

– An anti-Labour Government evicted hundreds of them in the depression.

Mr McCOLM:

– That is absolute nonsense. The point that I am making is that in cases in which an ex-serviceman who has mortgaged his house has died, the division has been generous to the widow, in many instances allowing her to pay a nominal rent of ls. a week. Anomalies in regard to such assistance may, unfortunately, occur in the future under the Government’s present policy, and we might find the widow of an exserviceman who was not able to transfer his mortgage to the division, in rather difficult financial circumstances and possibly in a position where she might have to sell her home. I suggest to the Minister that in future special consideration be given to cases of that kind so as to alleviate the suffering of the widows of ex-servicemen who were unable before their deaths to transfer mortgages to the division. I consider that with careful thought the possibility of such an anomaly can be removed.

The policy of the Government of including war widows within the future scope of war service homes legislation is splendid, and a great deal of the credit for it must go not only to the Minister himself but also to the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. McLeay), who has been pressing for that provision for a considerable time. We all know that there are bound to be shortcomings in almost any large undertaking and in almost any government department. In recent years the division has taken steps to rectify shortcomings that have been brought to its notice, but there are still some matters which it finds very difficult to rectify. There is, for instance, not only a shortage of building materials which makes building extremely difficult but also a shortage of trained technical staff such as valuers aud conveyancers. That leads to some delay in the conveyancing negotiations. We all know that the average person who buys a house through a trading bank can probably have the deal concluded in about ten or fourteen days. I suggest to the Minister that, if it be possible to do do, an approach be made to some of the trading banks to see whether it would be possible to obtain the use of their staffs, naturally on the basis of a suitable payment for the service, to expedite purchase negotiations. The position in respect of the speed of such negotiations is improving, but there have been cases in which vendors have been so irked by delays in negotiations over the purchase of war service homes that they have withdrawn the houses from sale and ex-servicemen have lost the opportunity to buy them. It would be of inestimable advantage to exservicemen to have such negotiations expedited.

I turn now to a point that was raised by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard). He stated that in the past only 20 per cent, of war services homes had been built through the War Service Homes Division, and that 74 per cent, had been purchased. Does he not consider that it is a good thing to encourage the building of new homes, in the interest not only of ex-servicemen but also of the community generally ? I also ask him why such a comparatively small percentage of the total has been built. Apart from the shortage of materials and labour one of the main reasons during the last few years has been that an advance of £2,000 was not sufficient to finance the building of a house, and many ex-servicemen have thus been prevented from building the houses for themselves. The maximum advance is to be raised to £2,750 under this bill, and so an ex-serviceman will have more chance of building for himself. I venture to suggest that by virtue alone of the higher advance, the percentage of houses built in the next few years will increase. That provision will lead to an increase of the proportion of new houses and so will be of considerable value to Australia from a long-term stand-point.

The honorable member for Darebin (Mr. Andrews) made what I consider to be an unfortunate reference to the number of new Australians who are buying houses because they have the necessary finance, and are so depriving exservicemen of the opportunity to buy them. I believe that one of the most important things that the Australian people have to bear in mind is the relationship of old Australians to new Australians. Men who have fought for Australia in the past, and who in many instances will fight for it again if that should become necessary, deserve the opportunity to own the houses in which they live. However, I point out to the House that the future of our country lies to a large degree in the hands of the very new Australians to whom we often refer slightingly. From them will come the extra population that is needed to keep Australia Australian. I now make a plea that we be more forthright and willing in our efforts to help them to become assimilated. Let us use every opportunity, not to “ take a crack “ at them, but to offer to help them to make their children Australians not only in name, but also in heart, as quickly as possible.

The honorable member for Lalor foreshadowed some amendments that the Opposition will submit at the committee stage. I have a fair idea of what those arn end ments will be, but I am more concerned about the motive behind them. Will the honorable member for Lalor, or whoever moves them, be motivated by a real desire to be of assistance to exservicemen, or will he be playing at party politics? I venture to suggest that, to judge from some of the experiences that we have had in this chamber during the present session, the motive will possibly be more party-political than otherwise. The levity displayed by the honorable member for Lalor, and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) and- the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) are sufficient to make us query the sincerity of their motives. If their motives are not sincere, then they are shameful. I should also like honorable members to bear in mind that the Minister has the full support of the considerable number of ex-servicemen on this side of the House who form the Government’s exservicemen’s committee. They are not men who are without a real thought for their fellow ex-servicemen.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- Government supporters who have Spoken on this measure seem to fear,1 for some reason or other, the amendments that the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) has intimated will be moved at the committee stage. The honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler) suggested that honorable members on this side of the House should not criticize the measure. I believe that criticism of it should be welcomed by the Government, especially if such criticism may lead to an improvement of the bill. The honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) has suggested that the amendments will be used for purely party political purposes. The fact is that honorable members opposite are opposed to the amendments even before they have heard them.- I wonder whether the report that we read in the Sydney Morning Herald last week, to the effect that the Government intended to change its views on the matters that were dealt with in the Minister’s second-reading speech, was correct.

Mr Townley:

– It was quite untrue.

Mr GALVIN:

– It may have been quite untrue. I regret it if it, was, because I had hoped that the position would be clarified and that that clarification would assist ex-servicemen more that will the present provisions of the bill. We welcome the improvements to the act that are being made by the measure, and I am sure that the Minister has tried to do everything possible to make it suite the needs of ex-servicemen. Of course, he is only one member of a party, and he probably would not get his own way in everything.

The Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech that .assistance to ex-servicemen under the measure is to be in four main groups - group building, which involves the purchase of land and its development and preparation; individual home building; the purchase of existing properties: and the discharge of mortgages. The maximum advance in relation to the first two kinds of assistance is to be raised to £2,750. The maximum advance in relation to existing property is to remain at £2,000, but there seems to be some confusion about what is to be clased as existing property, and I believe that we can be forgiven if we are making a mistake on this issue. As I read the bill - and evidently a spokesman for the War Service Homes Division in South Australia is of like mind - it will allow only £2,000 to be made available for the financing of houses built in South Australia by the South Australian Housing Trust. That trust has done magnificent work in building houses in South Australia. Last year it built approximately 800 houses and the purchase of nearly 600 of these was financed by the War Service House Division. If the men who purchased those houses had had to wait for the operation of the group scheme of the War Service Homes Division in order to erect them they would have waited for many years. These homes are soundly constructed of clay bricks and cement blocks. They are constructed so well that the Commonwealth Bank will advance the full purchase price to intending purchasers and the housing trust price is accepted as a valuation by that bank.

Ex-servicemen obtain finance from the War Service Homes Division in order to purchase these houses after they have been completed. People in South Australia are worried at the possibility that they may be classed as existing houses under the bill and that £2,000 will he the maximum amount that will be made available by the War Service Homes Division for their purchase. According to the newspapers a spokesman for the War Service Homes Division has made a statement to that effect. It has been reported that the Premier of South Australia has asked the Prime Minister to review the proposal so that the purchase of these houses by ex-servicemen may be financed to the amount of £2,750 by the War Service Homes Division. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. If the Government intends that loans of £2,750 shall be made available for the purchase of these houses that fact should be clearly stated in the bill. In my electorate 600 houses are being built for people who will be affected by this provision in the bill.

I consider that the purchase of existing houses, even if they have not been newly constructed, should be financed to the amount of £2,750. Existing houses may be of better construction than new houses built with the materials that are available at present. The Director has full power to refuse a loan if he believes that an advance is not justified. If an ex-serviceman applied for a loan in order to finance the purchase of an existing property it’ could be refused by the “Director if he considered that the price asked for the house was too high.

As the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) stated, the Minister for .Social Services (Mr. Townley) dropped a bombshell during the course of his secondreading speech when he said that the practice of discharging mortgages was to “be discontinued. Honorable members opposite have said that Opposition members are “ barking up the wrong tree “ by raising this matter. We must be forgiven if we are doing that in view of the unqualified statement that was made by the Minister. We ask that the Minister’s statement bc qualified. It is possible that the amendment which the

Opposition will move in committee will provide a means of rectifying this matter. Honorable members opposite will then have an opportunity to show how sincere they are when they say that this matter should be settled on a non-party basis, f hope that the Minister will rectify the position, not only because of the pressure that has been exerted on him in his own party but also because of a realization of the necessity which Opposition members have shown to exist, for an adjustment of the position. One gentleman in my electorate arranged finance for the purchase of a house through a trading bank because the amount available to him through the War Service Homes Division was not sufficient. He obtained the finance from the bank on the understanding that when the house had been completed lie would arrange with the War Service Homes Division to take over the mortgage. I hope that the Government will enable the division to discharge that mortgage for this man and that the position will be clearly defined so that the doubts which now exist will be completely removed.

The Opposition applauds and wholeheartedly supports the Government’s proposal in connexion with ex-servicemen who are participating in the Korean and Malayan disturbances. The War Service Homes Division has a good record. In my State the officers of the division have gone out of their way in order to assist ex-servicemen. I urge the Government to make it possible for exservicemen to purchase houses erected by the South Australian Housing Trust on small deposits. These are produced on a large scale and their prices range from £2,100 to £2,450 but these are gradually increasing because of ‘rising costs. If it be the intention of the Government to enable the War Service Homes Division to take over mortgages on new property I urge the Minister to make that intention clear in the bill. I urge the Government also to permit the division to discharge mortgages on all houses, whether they be new or previously occupied, provided that the .purchase price is reasonable. The purpose of this act, primarily, is to make houses available for ex-servicemen whether they be new houses or previously occupied houses. I ask the Government not to proceed with a bill that will deprive ex-servicemen of the opportunity to have mortgages transferred to the division.

Mr Curtin:

– The Government is not sincere.

Mr GALVIN:

– 1 believe that the Government will have the wisdom to do justice to these men. It is probable that some misunderstanding has occurred in connexion with the bill. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the full amount of £2,750 is not to be made available for the purchase of existing houses. However, the Opposition asks that that amount be made available to all intending purchasers, If honorable members opposite were sincere in stating that this issue should be dealt with on non-party lines, they will support the amendment that will be moved at the committee stage by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard).

Mr WIGHT:
Lilley

.- The honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) was correct in stating that the purpose of this bill is to provide exservicemen with homes. That is the whole purpose of the War Service Homes Act. But I consider it to be necessary that honorable members should examine the circumstances that exist to-day. There are three principal methods by which the act assists ex-servicemen to acquire their own houses. In the first instance, the ex-serviceman, with the assistance of an advance from the War Service Homes Division, is enabled to complete his own dwelling with the assistance of War Service Homes Division architects and contractors. Alternatively, he may select his own architect and his own builder and may receive the necessary financial assistance from the War Service Homes Division for the construction of the dwelling. Two other methods are provided. The first is by transfer of mortgages on existing properties, and the second is by purchase of an existing dwelling. I am sure that the Minister, when be replies to the debate, will make clear the position regarding mortgages. He will inform the House that transfers can still be made under the terms of this bill in cases of new mortgages. However, I join with the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) in suggesting that since, as the honorable member for Kingston has said, this bill is to provide ex-servicemen with homes, it is not designed to provide further assistance to ex-servicemen who already have homes,, except in cases of extreme urgency or of an exceptional nature, when the Minister will still have a certain prerogative to give consideration to them.

Mr Curtin:

– Why that proviso?

Mr WIGHT:

– If the honorable member knew anything about this matter, he would not have made such a stupid interjection. The most important duty of the War Service Homes Division is to build homes for ex-servicemen. During last year the War Service Homes Division, dealt with 2,000 applications a month. If any one believes that that state of affairs suggests that the advancesbeing made to ex-servicemen ar-i insufficient, I ask him to explainwhy. If the War Service Homes Division Ls dealing with 2,000 applications amonth, and that has strained to the limits the capacity of that organization, how can it be suggested that insufficient money is being advanced to exservicemen who want to build homes? The individual advance of £2,000 has been and still is sufficient to meet all the requirements of ex-servicemen. This is evidenced by the increasing numbers of application* with which the ‘ organization is now contending.

It has now been considered necessary to give a further impetus to the building of dwellings. Two methods have been adopted to attain that objective.

Mr Curtin:

Mr. Curtin interjecting.

Mr WIGHT:

– T wish that ape would keep quiet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member will withdraw that remark, which was quite unnecessary.

Mr WIGHT:

– I withdraw and ask the honorable member for Watson to keep quiet. If he does so he may learn something. An impetus is to be given to the erection of homes in two ways. The first way is by increasing the maximum advance from £2,000 to £2,750 and the second is by decreasing the amount required as a deposit from ex-servicemen. Previously, in order to obtain an advance of £2,000 it was necessary foi” an exserviceman to find a deposit of £200. It is provided in the measure now before the House that henceforth it will be necessary for him to find only £175 to obtain an advance of £2,750 for the erection of > dwelling. Statistics have not proved that this increase is absolutely necessary, but it has been designed to give an impetus to the home-building project of this Government.

One honorable member opposite quoted a statement made on behalf of the Returned Servicemen’s League. I suggest that he refer to the minutes of the annual congress of the league which was held a few mouths ago. If he should do that he would discover that this matter was debated then, and that a Queensland delegate pointed out that £2,000 was an adequate advance.

Mr Curtin:

– That is not right.

Mr WIGHT:

– It certainly is right, and that delegate’s recommendation was carried at the meeting. Mr. Harburg said that there was a limit to the debt which ex-servicemen should be asked to pay. It must be remembered that all advances made by the Government must be repaid. On many occasions the War Service Homes Division has valued a property at a certain figure and because the interested ex-serviceman has been so house-hungry he has paid an additional sum to the vendor on the black market. I consider that £2,000 is an adequate advance for the purchase of an existing dwelling, and a reference to applications made by ex-servicemen may well verify that. All my points have been amply illustrated, and honorable members opposite have only been displaying their hyprocrisy in keeping up a running fire of interjections while I have been speaking. It should be remembered that they are followers of a political party that was responsible for appointing a conscientious objector as Minister for the Army, and which has used every endeavour to embarrass ex-servicemen. That party endeavours to use for party political purposes legislation which affects ex-servicemen.

I shall now deal with a matter which is not included in the bill. I have brought forward in this House previously the possibility of introducing into exservicemen’s homes schemes a provision whereby on the death of an ex-serviceman, as a result of his war service, his home shall be transferred to his widow, and all further commitments shall be cancelled. I have put forward a scheme that I consider to he actuarially sound, and I enlarged upon it on two occasions when I spoke on the motion for the adjournment of the House. I pointed out that there bad been a reserve fund of about £440,000 obtained from insurance paid by ex-servicemen home purchasers which could be used to finance the scheme. I had the honour of introducing this scheme at a meeting of a branch of the Returned Servicemen’s League. It was put before the previous Government, and the then Minister for Repatriation gave it his consideration and referred it to the late Mr. Chifley, who was then Treasurer. Nothing has since been heard of it. Again it came before the Returned Servicemen’s League, and by that time it had become what they termed a “ hardy annual “. The- Director of the War Service Homes Division was approached about this matter by the ex-servicemen’s committee of this House, and he explained that a new policy had been adopted and instead of insurance moneys being placed into a reserve fund a rebate was made to the participants of the scheme. The report of the War Service Homes Division for last year indicated that the amount of the rebate was equivalent of 50 per cent, of the total contribution. If, instead of making that rebate, the Director of the War Service Homes Division could hold that sum in a fund, so that upon the death of ex-servicemen who owned war service homes there would be sufficient money to enable the homes to be transferred to the widows free of further charges and at no additional cost to the public it would be a fine thing. Of course, that would be done only if the ex-serviceman died from injuries or diseases contracted while on war service. I know that this scheme does not meet with the approval of the Director of the Wa.r Service Homes Division who at first said that it was not actuarially sound. When it was pointed out that it had been proved to be actuarially sound he said that it may have been so some time ago but that it was not 11OW so. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation to analyse the statistics of the War Service Homes Division. If he does so, he will find that at the present time 15,165 new -participants have entered into the insurance contribution scheme. A further analysis of the figures will indicate that only a small percentage of the participants died from war causes. The scheme is worthy of further consideration by the Minister and I urge that it be given further thought.

A reference to the records of the War Service Homes Division is well worth the time it takes. Since the inception of the scheme in 1919 it has cost £86,000,000. During the last two years this Government has contributed’ £41,000,000 of that total, which is almost .half the amount that has been expended since 1919. That alone indicates very clearly to the Opposition, to the people and particularly to’ the ex-servicemen that this Government is sincerely endeavouring to do everything in its power for the ex-servicemen.

Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat

.- The Opposition supports this bill as far as it goes, but it is sincere in putting forward its amendments and in asking for clarification of the measure. The statement made by a number of my colleagues that the Minister’s speech was confusing, can be very simply proved to be true by a. letter which I recently received from a young man. He writes -

My house, of which I have paid £!)00 of my own and £1,450 being obtained from the Commercial Bank on mortgage, has been ready for occupation for six weeks now, and since then my papers have been held in abeyance by the War Service pending the hearing of the .proposed amendments. All the time I am waiting for the mortgage to be discharged, the bank is charging me 4J per cent., as also is the builder charging me 4-J per cent, for the balance, being the difference between the monies already given him and the total sum (which is £2,850).

You can imagine the state of my mind when 1 think of the proposed amendments being carried, or really what is in fact a change of mind and denial of the rights of men and women who were so willing to serve their country in its dire time of need.

He states that he had served in the Royal Australian Air Force for six years. The letter continues -

Surely these people (or that person) responsible realizes the horrible situation that all we people are placed in and can show some sort of sympathy. It is much akin to laying bait by false promises and, having got the prey in position for the kill, dally around playing it.

Motion (by Mr. Gullett) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 44

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Expenditure above £5,000 to be approved by Minister).

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The committee is entitled to know why it is considered necessary to authorize the director to expend sums of up to £5,000 without being required to seek ministerial approval of the expenditure. At present, he is authorized to expend £2,000 without ministerial approval. Is the proposed alteration due to the depreciation of the value of money since this Government came into office?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

– The object of the Government in proposing that the sum should be increased from £2,000 to £5,000 is to facilitate the work of the division. The limit of £2,000 is too low. The director has constantly to ask for ministerial approval of expenditure in respect of which it is not really necessary that he should seek approval. Having regard to the fact that last year the director expended £25,000,000, it is ridiculous to compel him to seek the approval of the Minister for the expenditure of sums in excess of £2,000.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Total cost of dwelling house).

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- This clause seeks to repeal section 18 of the principal act, which provides that the maximum advance for the purchase or erection of a dwelling house shall be £2,000. I ask the Minister to explain why it is proposed that that section shall be repealed. If amendments that will be moved later by the Opposition are accepted, the maximum advance will be increased from £2,000 to £2,750.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

– To facilitate drafting, it is proposed that section 18 of the principal act be repealed and replaced by proposed new sub-section 4 of section 19.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

Section nineteen of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting paragraphs (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section (3.) and inserting in their stead the following paragraphs : - “ (a) where the purchase money does not exceed Two thousand pounds, the Director shall, subject to paragraph (c) of this sub-section, require a deposit of five per centum of the purchase money; “ (b) where the purchase money exceeds Two thousand pounds, the Director shall, subject to paragraph (e) of this subsection and without prejudice to the next succeeding subsection, require a deposit of five per centum of the first Two thousand pounds of the purchase money and ten per centum of the amount by which the purchase money exceeds Two thousand pounds; “;

by inserting after sub-section (3.) the following sub-section: - “ (4.) Notwithstanding the provisions of the last preceding subsection -

where the Director sells a dwelling-house, together with the land on which it is erected, to an eligible person, the Director shall require a deposit of not less than the amount (if any) by which the purchase money exceeds -

in the case of a dwellinghouse erected by the Director in pur suauce of the last preceding Part - Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds; or

in the case of a dwellinghome inquired by the Director in pursuance of the last preceding Part - Two thousand pounds; and

where the Director sells a dwelling-house, together with the land on which it is erected, to two or more persons jointly under subsection (1a.) of this section, the Director shall require a deposit of not less than the amount (if any) by which the purchase money exceeds -

in the case of a dwellinghouse erected by the Director in pursuance of the last preceding Part - an amount calculated at the rate of Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds for each purchaser ; and

ii ) in the case of a dwellinghouse acquired by the Director in pursuance of the last preceding Part - an amount calculated at the rate of Two thousand pounds for each purchaser.”.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

– I move -

That paragraph (a) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - “ (a) by omitting paragraphs(a). (b) and (c) of sub-section (3.) and inserting in their stead the following paragraph: -

the Director shall, subject to paragraph (e) of this sub-section, require a deposit of five per centum of the purchase money; ‘ ; “.

The intention of the Opposition in moving this amendment is that the director shall not be authorized to require a deposit of 10 per cent. of the amount by which an advance exceeds £2,000.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

.- This clause makes provision for a new basis for the calculation of deposits. The present procedure is rather involved, and gives rise to difficulties. The act provides that in respect of loans up to £1,750 a deposit of 5 per cent. shall be paid, and that, under a sliding scale, the deposit shall be increased by 1 per cent. for every £50 by which the loan exceeds £1,750, up to a maximum of £2,000. I point out for the benefit of honorable gentlemen opposite that the maximum of £2,000 was fixed by a Labour government, as also was the scale of deposits. The present position is that upon a loan of £2,000 a deposit of £200 must be paid. It is proposed that in future the deposit shall be only £100. Under this clause, the deposit on the maximum loan of £2,750 will be £175. When the Labour party was in power, it determined that a deposit of £200 should be paid upon a loan of £2,000. This Government proposes that in future borrowers shall pay a deposit of £100 upon such loans. And in respect of a loan of £2,750, he will pay a deposit of only £175. Thus, whilst he will receive £750 more he will pay £25 less than he did when the Opposition was in Government. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) said that at one stage in the process of borrowing to build a home, ex-servicemen are to be charged 10 per cent. deposit, yet he tried to argue that applicants for war service homes will have to pay less in deposit than was payable when the deposit was fixed on the 5 per cent. basis. I cannot follow the Minister’s argument. He has not advanced any real reason why the sliding scale should be departed from, particularly when the experience of successive Ministers has proved that method to be most practical. Now a clear cut increase of the proportion of deposit is to be made. I cannot see that the alteration will achieve any useful purpose. One of my constituents, who has written to me on behalf of a number of ex-servicemen, has emphasized that not only time but also money is of the essence of the contract.If the proportion of the deposit is to be increased, such action will be a disservice to applicants for war service homes. The Opposition has proposed this amendment after full consideration of the matter by a committee that it appointed with a view to helping the Minister to deal effectively with the complex problem of providing war service homes.

One reason why things have become higgledy-piggledy in this respect is that the War Service Homes Division has been treated as a plaything of party politics.

The division, because of its special significance to ex-servicemen, should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Repatriation Department. However, it has been switched from Minister to Minister. Now it is being treated as an adjunct to the extensive portfolio of Social Services. The proposals embodied in the measure will adversely affect the interests of ex-servicemen. The only benefit that they derive from this service is that it enables them eventually to obtain a cheap home. They are prepared to accept the time lag, the hazards of administration and other frustrating factors so long as they know that finally they will be able to obtain a cheap home that will be properly constructed under the supervision of the division’s architects and inspectors. Ex-servicemen will wait for as long as they can possibly wait in order to get a war service home. The deposit payable in respect of such a home is relatively small and purchasers enjoy the protection of the Government which adheres to a decided policy and code in this matter. The deposit becomes relatively high when the loan reaches a certain figure. That is what we are trying to avoid. At the same time, however, the value of money has diminished, and for that fact the Government cannot completely escape blame.In those circumstances, the deposit of 5 per cent. should be retained. If it is necessary to increase the amount of the maximum loan the deposit in respect of the additional accommodation should be determined on a sliding scale. I cannot see that the increase of the deposit to 10 per cent. will serve any useful purpose. On the contrary, it will frustrate ex-servicemen in their efforts to obtain war service homes.

Motion (by Mr Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided.

AYES: 54

NOES: 44

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be left out (Mr. Pollard’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 54

NOES: 44

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- I move -

That paragraph (c) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - “(c) by inserting after sub-section (3.) the following sub-sections : - (4. ) Notwithstanding the provisions of the last preceding subsection -

where the Director sells a dwelling-house, together with the land on which it is erected, to an eligible person, the Director shall require a deposit of not less than the amount (if any) by which the purchase money exceeds -

Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds ; or

where more than four persons are dependent upon the eligible person - an amount calculated by adding to Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds a sum of Two hundred pounds for each person in excess of four ao dependent; and

where the Director sells a dwelling-house, together with the land on which it is erected, to two or more persons jointly under subsection (1a.) of this section, the Directorshall require a deposit of not less than the amount (if any) by which the purchase money exceeds an amount calculated at the rate of Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds for each purchaser. (5.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, a person shall not be deemed to be dependent upon an eligible person unless that person is the spouse, child or parent of, and is wholly or partly maintained by, that eligible person.’.”.

At the outset, let me explain that this clause amends section 19 of the principal act, which deals specifically with the loans that may be advanced by the War Service Homes Division, and the deposits that may be required thereon. The amendments to section 19, which are embodied in this bill, are long and complicated. The section itself is also complicated, and the amendment which I have submitted on behalf of the Opposition is probably no less complicated. One purpose I have in moving the amendment is to ensure that all ex-servicemen who desire to purchase houses, whether they be dwellings that have been erected under the supervision of the War Service Homes Division, or existing properties, will be eligible to receive a loan of £2,750. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) stated in his second-reading speech that the present maximum of £2,000 would not be increased to £2,750 to enable an ex-serviceman to purchase an existing property. Another purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the deposit will not exceed the- specific amounts which arc referred to therein.

I point out to honorable members that section 19 of the principal act, as amended by this bill, specifically tampers with section 19 (3.)(e), which reads as follows : -

in a case to which paragraph (6) or (o) of this sub-section applies, the Director may, in special circumstances accept a deposit of less than the amount which would, but for this sub-paragraph, he required.

Proposed section 19 (3.) (b) reads as follows : -

Section 1!1 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from paragraph (c) of that sub-section the words “ in a case to which paragraph (6) or (c) of this sub-section applies” and inserting in their stead the words “ subject to the next succeeding sub-section”: and . . .

I do not desire to be dogmatic*, but I consider that the effect of the a m end ment incorporated in the bill will be to eliminate the right, which is now possessed by the director, to exercise a discretionary power to decide whether he should charge the specific deposit of 5 per cent, to an ex-serviceman -in certain circumstances. Apparently the Minister considers that the director should not have that discretionary power. T may be wrong, but I believe that I have correctly interpreted the position. However, I ask the Minister to clarify it.

The amendment which I have moved also includes a. provision which has been suggested by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) to meet a case in which there may be one, two, three or four dependants in addition to the husband, wife and two children. It should be obvious, even to a Government supporter who has unfairly criticized the attitude of the Opposition on this matter, that in such a case, the maximum loan will not provide adequately for those additional dependants. Therefore the director should bc authorized to increase the amount which is made available by £200 for each additional dependant. My amendment also embodies a safeguard to the proposal to advance an additional £200 for each additional dependant in excess of four. I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he finds that it is not convenient to embody it in the bill at this stage, perhaps the requisite action to do so can be taken in the Senate. I particularly want him to explain whether the discretionary power of the director in relation to deposits is to be abolished.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

– I assure the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) that the bill does not deprive the director of his discretionary power. The amendment, which the honorable gentleman has submitted, will, if it is adopted, necessitate the provision of at least an additional £10,000,000, and it is difficult to see how, in the middle of a financial year, such an enormous sum can be provided for that single purpose.

Proposed section 1.9 (4.) replaces section 18 of the principal act, which is repealed by clause 5 of the bill. The increase of the amount of the loan that may be advanced to an ex-serviceman is necessary in order to enable building to proceed at a reasonable rate, and thereby meet the requirements of those persons who are in a position to undertake the responsibility of home ownership but who are not able to lodge large deposits. The increase has become necessary for various reasons. I should like to refer briefly to the monthly instalment rate, which becomes affected by every increase of the loan. The monthly instalment on a loan of £2,210 is £10 lis. Id., the weekly equivalent of which is £2 8s. 9d. Bates, insurance and the like amount to an additional 10s. a week. It is considered that unless an applicant is in a position to lodge any amount which is required for the bigger home that can be provided for the maximum of £2,750, he is not in a position to undertake the obligation of purchasing it. While the purchase prices of existing properties have also increased, the fact remains that, despite such increases, assistance has been given in respect of 11,143 existing proper1 ties during the financial year 1950-51. ‘”’ 2828 War Service [ REPRESENTATIVES.] Homes Bill 1951.

Mr Pollard:

– Why did not the Government make that matter clear to the men before they went to the war?

Mr TOWNLEY:

– The best that the Labour Government could do in 1949 was to provide 6,000 homes of all sorts. In a single year, the present Government has given assistance in respect of 11,143 existing properties.

Motion (by Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. ( The Chairman - Mr. C.F. Adermann.)

AYES: 54

NOES: 41

Majority . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be left out (Mr. Pollard’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C.F. Adermann.)

AYES: 54

NOES: 43

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 -

Section twenty of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) all the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of paragraph (a) and inserting in their stead the following words: - “ (1.) Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may, upon application in writing, make an advance to an eligible person on the prescribed security, for the purpose of enabling him -

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- This clause will deprive the Director of the War Service Homes Division of certain rights and will place in the hands of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) complete power over the future welfare of the war service homes scheme. During my secondreading speech, I pointed out that the termination of the practice of discharging mortgages would severely militate against the welfare of applicants for war service homes. The clause is as follows : -

Section twenty of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) all the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of paragraph (a) and inserting in their stead the following words: - “ (1.) Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may, upon application in writing, make an advance to an eligible person on the prescribed security, for the purpose of enabling him -

to erect a dwelling-house on a holding of the applicant; “.

In order that honorable members may fully appreciate its significance, I point out that section 20 of the act provides - (1.) Subject to this Act, the Director may, upon application in writing, make an advance to any eligible person on the prescribed security, for the purpose of enabling him -

  1. to erect a dwelling-house on land owned by him, or of which he is the lessee under a Crown leasehold in perpetuity from a State;
  2. to purchase land and erect thereon a dwelling-house;
  3. to purchase a dwelling-house, together with the land on which it is erected;
  4. to complete a partially erected dwell ing-house owned by him;
  5. to enlarge a dwelling-house owned by him; or
  6. to discharge any mortgage, charge, or encumbrance already existing on his holding.

The point at issue arises from paragraph (f). As the act now stands, the power to discharge any mortgage is vested entirely in the director. The Government proposes that the director shall be permitted to make advances for any of the purposes specified in the paragraphs subject to the direction of the Minister on matters of general policy. Therefore, the director may say, “We ought to discharge the mortgage on the house that Brown has purchased “, but the Minister will have the right to say, “ Cabinet has decided that it is bad policy to discharge existing mortgages “, or alternatively, “ Cabinet has decided that it is bad policy to finance the purchase of a house that has been built by a contractor on his own initiative “. That is how the damage may be done. The Minister for Social Services stated definitely in his secondreading speech that the power would be used for the purposes of restricting purchases of existing properties and of discontinuing the discharge of mortgages. That policy, if it is pursued, will throw all the funds of the war service homes scheme entirely into the business of financing houses that are erected on behalf of the division or on behalf of an applicant with the approval of the division.

Expenditure on war service homes last year amounted to £25,000,000. Proposed expenditure this year is £27,000,000. But only 26 per cent. of the houses that were financed under the scheme last year were built, in effect, for the division. The remainder were houses that had been selected by the applicants and which the division either purchased or cleared of mortgages. Therefore, the discontinuance of the discharge of mortgages and the restriction on the purchasing of existing houses will not enable the division to get more contractors to build new houses and thus increase the 26 per cent. rate of new house construction under the scheme. There is no hope of that.

Mr Townley:

– Yes, there is.

Mr POLLARD:

– No, there is not. The putting to an end of the practice of financing houses that have been built by contractors on their own initiative and later offered to ex-servicemen for purchase under the war service homes scheme will not enable the War Service Homes Division to get one more contractor. Discontinuance of the discharge of mortgages will not provide any additional contractors to build new war service homes. The rate of construction of new houses under the scheme will not be increased and the final result will probably be that only 26 per cent, of the proposed total expenditure of £27,000,000 will be expended in fact. I see the hand of the Treasury in this proposal which will be in line with the restricted credit policy of the Government. J.t will also be in line with the restrictions that it is placing on any and every public activity to-day. No consideration or preference is shown to the unfortunate ex-servicemen who have been waiting foi- a home for a period of up to’ six years, from whom the 2,000 applications a. month are being received. I admit, that normally I am and have always been a supporter of the principle of the exercise of final ministerial authority, but when a Minister blandly states that advances on mortgages on war service homes arc to he discontinued I feel differently about that principle. The bill will leave the maximum advance for the purchase of an existing house at £2,000. How can anybody in there days buy a home for £2,000? The impossibility of doing so is illustrated by the fact that the maximum amount of advance to be made by the commission under this measure is to be £2,750. When the Minister admits these things we can see exactly where we are drifting, and bow detrimentally this bill will affect unfortunate ex-servicemen and their families who are not yet installed in homes of their own. For that reason, I move -

That all words after “ ‘by omitting “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “paragraph (n) of sub-section (1) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph : -

a ) to erect a dwelling-house on a holding of the applicant;

Wednesday, 28 November, 1951.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

.- The honorable member for Lalor (Mr.

Pollard) has voiced strong criticism which might have been sound if it were true. I consider that it is time that I made the policy of the Government in relation to the proposal concerning the discharge of existing mortgages quite clear, because undoubtedly most of the Opposition comment in relation to it is based on ill-founded articles in newspapers. I could quote such articles. The honorable member for Lalor himself quoted one. I accept some measure of blame myself for not being more specific in my second- reading speech, when I spoke of the purchase of existing properties and concluded a paragraph by saying-

The practice of discharging mortgages will bo discontinued.

Obviously that statement was meant to apply to existing properties. The policy of the Government with regard to the discharge of mortgages is clear. Where a man -has borrowed money for the purposes of building a new home, and has sought short-term accommodation for that purpose, the division will, as always, take that kind of loan over. Where a man is half-way through paying a mortgage the balance will be accepted by the division. Nobody will be left out on a limb. The kind of assistance that we propose to discontinue, is the discharge of mortgages on old properties, but no ex-serviceman who has obtained short-term accommodation in the belief that it would in the end be taken over by the division, will be disappointed. We shall take over such mortgages, but there is one stipulation that we make, which is that an arrangement must be made with the division before the applicant can expect to receive his money on the completed home. Obviously a man cannot just demand £2,000 without us knowing anything about it. I think that it is quite reasonable to require that the man concerned make some prior arrangement with the division. So that there shall be no misunderstanding on the matter, I shall repeat the reasons for the amendment contained in this clause. The amendment is necessary to enable the discontinuance of assistance of a particular type when the necessity arises, or the re-introduction of assistance of that type without seeking an amendment to the act on each occasion. The proposal at present is to discontinue assistance for the discharge of mortgages on other than new homes, except where the division has already entered into a commitment. Homes which are under construction, or which will be completed when the bill becomes law, will be regarded as a commitment if the applicant can supply evidence that the building was undertaken in the expectation that a loan would be provided under the act when the home was completed. In future, where an applicant proposes to build with finance obtained from a source other than the War Service Homes Division, assistance will be given to discharge a mortgage on the home provided the applicant lodges an application before building is commenced, and the application is found to be satisfactory. These applicants will be dealt with an a priority basis, having regard to funds available.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -

That the words proposed tobe left out (Mr. Pollard’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairm an - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 9

In division:

Conversation being audible,

AYES

NOES

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! If the audible conversation does not cease I shall name those responsible and they can take the consequences. The kicking of desks is disorderly. I have seen one or two members doing that and I shall name one of them shortly. I am not going to permit this chamber to be made a place for larrikinism.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9-

Section twenty-one of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following subsections: - “ (1.) The amount of the advance which may be made to an eligible person under this Part is the amount (not exceeding ninety per centum of the total value of the property in respect of which the advance is made) which the Director considers necessary in order to give effect to the purpose for which the advance is made, but no such advance shall exceed -

in the case of an advance made for a purpose specified in paragraph (a), (b), (d) or (e) of sub-section (1.) of section twenty of this Act - Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds; or

in any other case - Two thousand pounds. “ ( 1a. ) Where an advance is made under sub-section (2.) of section twenty of this Act to two or more persons jointly, the amount of the advance may exceed Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds or Two thousand pounds, as the case may be, but shall not exceed the sum of the amounts which could have been advanced if anadvance had been made to each of those persons separately.”.

Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat

. -I move -

That proposed sub-sections (1.) and (1a. ) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-sections: - “ (1.) The amount of the advance which may be made to an eligible person under this Part is the amount (not exceeding ninety per centum of the total value of the property in respect of which the advance is made) which the Director considers necessary in order to give effect to the purpose for which the advance is made, but no such advance shall exceed - (a.) Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds; or

  1. where more than four persons are dependent upon the eligible person - an amount calculated by adding to Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds a sum of Two hundred pounds for each person in excess of four so dependent. “ (1a. ) For the purposes of the last pre ceding sub-section, a person shall not be deemed to be dependent upon an eligible person unless that person is the spouse, child or parent of, and is wholly or partly maintained by, that eligible person. “ (1b.) Where an advance is made under sub-section (2.) of section twenty of this Act totwo or more persons jointly, the amount of the advance may exceed Two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds, but shall not exceed the sum of the amounts which could have been advanced if an advance had been made to each of those persons separately.”.

It will be seen that the proposed amendment is a counterpart of an amendment proposed earlier by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard). It is based on an accurate observation of the present state of affairs in the community. Now, twelve years after the outbreak of the last war, most ex-servicemen have returned to their civil occupations and have families of three or four children. Some of them may wish to have more. Therefore, it was considered-

Conversation being audible,

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I can hardly hear the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua).

Mr JOSHUA:

– It is considered by Opposition members that these people should receive special consideration.

Under the principal act they are only permitted to obtain one war service home. Therefore, it is necessary for them to build a home that will provide them permanently with adequate accommodation. It is impossible to purchase land and build a house for £2,750 plus a deposit of £175. A house built for that sum might accommodate a man and his wife and two or three children, but it would not be sufficient for a larger family. A man with a large family may have an extra £200 which, if this amendment became law, would enable him to build an additional room for the extra children in his family. I think that honorable members will agree that the parents of most people are left to fend for themselves in later life. It is necessary sometimes for a son or daughter to provide a home for a father who has lost his wife, or widowed mother. That circumstance often imposes an additional responsibility on a soldier, and this amendment would afford such a man some relief and be of great benefit to him and the old people.

The passing of the amendment would not involve expenditure of a great deal of money but it would assist a few families in almost every town in Australia. I cannot understand or agree with the contention of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) that it would cost about £10,000,000 to give effect to my amendment. About £27,000,000 is to be spent from revenue and about £4,000,000 from loan funds this financial year in order to give effect to the provisions of the principal act. The Government should be prepared to make additional money available either from loan funds or from revenue for war service homes. The ex-serviceman with a growing family needs a war service home. The easy terms of the loans granted by the War Service Homes Division are particularly attractive to him and represent his one opportunity to own his own home. If the Government is sincere in professing that it wishes to assist ex-servicemen to obtain homes it would take advantage of this opportunity to do so. If it cannot accept this amendment now it should agree to introduce a similar provision at a future date. Sot only would the passing of this amendment enable old people to live with their sons and daughters for reasons that I have mentioned but, by enabling them to leave their present home3, that accommodation would be made available to other young people. All this could be achieved for the expenditure of very little extra money. Honorable members of all parties agree that the War Service Homes Act should be used to provide homes for exservicemen, but its operation has been limited by the action of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden). The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson), speaking of the proposal to allocate £27,000,000 for the building of war service homes, said that the Government had tackled the problem in a determined fashion. The Treasurer, he said, had asked himself, “ How can I help these people to get homes ? “ I do not believe that that was his attitude. In my opinion, he realized that not enough money was being made available, and the question he asked himself was, “ Whom can we cut out ? “ In fact, by restricting negotiations on private mortgages, a considerable number were cut out. Honorable members opposite have had a good deal to say on the theme that more war service homes have been built under the present Government than were built under the Labour Government. Every one knows that when the servicemen were discharged, their first idea was to use their deferred pay and their savings, as well as the savings of their wives, to provide homes for themselves. However, because there was a scarcity of materials and labour, they were told to wait, and in the meantime to put their money into Government bonds. They were told to wait until they received their war gratuity which, it was said, would be more useful to them in five years’ time. That is why not so many homes were built immediately after the war. Then, when building began on a considerable scale, prices had increased so much that a loan of £2,000 was not enough.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the sub-sections proposed to be left out (Mr.. Joshua’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 -

Section thirty-six of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (1c.) the words “, notwithstanding that the cost to the Director is thereby increased to more than Two thousand pounds “.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

– I move -

That all words after “ is amended “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs: - “ - (a) by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the words ‘the Director may’, the words with the approval of the Minister,’ ; and

by omitting from paragraph (a.) of sub-section (1c.) the words’, notwithstanding that the cost to the Director is thereby increased to more than. Two thousand pounds’.”.

This bill has been designed to improve the conditions of ex-servicemen in regard to housing. Whenever honorable members on this side of the House have endeavoured to speak during this debate they have been gagged-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect on decisions of the committee.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Despite what you say, Mr. Chairman, I believe that there should be an element of humanitarianism, even in Standing Orders, to prevent 123 honorable members of this chamber from being jackbooted out of parliamentary discussion. This Government should haul down the Union Jack and raise the fascist emblem in its place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member cannot proceed along those lines.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Then I shall return to an analysis of clause 11. The purpose of my amendment is to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful things that happened under the rale of a previous non-Labour government. I refer to the eviction of ex-servicemen from their homes during the depression. The Director of War Service Homes was empowered to make wholesale evictions and the evicted ex-servicemen wore given no recourse to the courts. The whole ugly story may be found in Hansard of that period. This sincerely expressed amendment is designed toensure that such evictions shall not again take place. History has recorded this black episode to the eternal discredit of a government of the same political colour as the present Government. Therefore, the Opposition believes that some safeguards are necessary in this measure. The director should not be given the intolerable responsibility of ejecting ex-servicemen and sending their families and themselves to live in “ Happy Valleys “. The director should not have to do the dirty work of the Minister. We suggest that if depression conditions again arise - which to some minds appears to be inevitable - the Minister shall have to stand in this chamber and accept the responsibility of turning exservicemen out of their homes.

Mr McMahon:

– Then why did not the Labour party amend the principal act along the lines suggested by the honorable member eight years ago?

Mr HAYLEN:

– Because we were confident that we would never evict an ex-serviceman. No Labour government has ever evicted an ex-serviceman from his home. The National and Liberal Government which came before the last LabourGovernment evicted hundreds. Therefore, the interjection of the Minister is unworthy and stupid, and shows that he does not know what he is talking about. We press this amendment and hope that if it is carried it will prevent any recurrence of the disgraceful evictions of the past. The bill at present places the responsibility for eviction on a high public servant, but the Opposition suggests that the responsibility is too great for any public servant to carry and that it should lie upon the Minister.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 50

NOES: 40

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Haylen’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 43

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2836

BILLS RETURNED FROM. THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment : -

Broadcasting Bill 1951.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1951.

page 2836

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Department of Civil Aviation purposes -

Clove, South Australia.

Defence purposes -

Smithfield, South Australia.

Wallangarra, New South Wales.

Postal purposes -

Alford, South Australia.

Bordertown, South Australia.

Mallala, South Australia.

Parramatta North, New South Wales.

National Fitness Act - Commonwealth Council for National Fitness -Report for 1950.

Papua and New Guinea Act - Ordinance - 1951 - No. 41 - Superannuation (Papua and New Guinea) (No. 2).

Public Service Act - AppointmentsDepartment -

Civil Aviation - R. R. Shaw.

National Development - C. Bursill, P. E. Playford.

Supply- J. D. Heinrich.

Sugar Agreement Act - Twentieth Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1951.

House adjourned at 12.59 a.m. (Wednesday).

page 2837

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Boy Scouts Association.

Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme.

Passports

Mr Mulcahy:

y asked the Minister for immigration, upon notice -

  1. What are the names of Australian citizens whose passports have been cancelled for defying the limitation placed upon their travel to countries behind the Iron Curtain?
  2. Is Elliot V. Elliott, secretary of the Seamen’s Union, known as the head of the maritime section of the World Federation of Trade Unions and organizer of the Communist conspiracy to hold up shipping in the event of war with Russia?
  3. Has the Minister sanctioned Mr. Elliott’s departure for a conference to be held in the Soviet sector of Berlin to further the conspiracy ?
Mr Holt:
LP

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

  1. A total of nineteen persons who visited Iron Curtain countries, notwithstanding that their passports were not valid for such countries, have had their passports cancelled upon their return to Australia. It has not been the practice to publish the names of persons against whom the department takes action. The honorable member will be provided an opportunity of perusing the list of names, ifhe so wishes. 2.It is understood that Mr. Elliottis president of the Administrative Bureau of the Trade Union Internationale of Seamen and Dockers (a department of the World Federation of Trade Unions).
  2. No. The passport held by Mr. Elliott was issued by the previous Government in 1949. It is valid for five years and for travel to all countries except India, the latter country being excluded in conformity with a request by the Indian authorities that no facilities for travel to India should be granted to Communists. Mr. Elliott can therefore proceed abroad on the passport issued by the previous Government.

Deportations

Mr Mulcahy:

y asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. How many persons have been ordered to be deported between the19th December, 1949, and the 24th September, 1951, for reasons other than those given in his answer to a question on notice asked by the honorable member for Lang on the 17th October last?
  2. How many of the orders have been put into effect?
  3. What are the nationalities of the persons affected by such deportation orders?
Mr Holt:
LP

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

  1. Seven hundred deportation orders werp issued during the period the 19th December. 1949. and the 24th September, 1951, for reasons other than those given in my answer to a question on notice asked by the honorable member for Lang on the 17th October last. In the great majority of cases (615 outof 700), the deportation orders were issued in respect of persons who entered the Commonwealth illegally, mainly as deserters from overseas ships. For the information of the honorable member, I may explain that the greatly increasing number of desertions in Australia caused serious concern as they upset sailing schedules, slowed up theflow of migrants to this country and impeded the shipment of goods of which Australia was in short supply or which other countries urgently needed. In the circumstances, my predecessor, the Honorable A. A. Calwell, decided that action should be taken under the Immigration Act for the deportation of deserters. That policyhas been continued by the present Government. The action taken is to issue deportation orders against all deserters located and to detain them for a period of one month in order to afford the appropriate shipping company an opportunity to arrange the deserters’ re-engagement as seamen on departing overseas vessels. The adoption of this policy has been influenced by strong representations from the United Kingdom and Dutch authorities, overseas shipping interests and the British Seamen’s Union. The remaining deportation orders were issued against persons who entered illegally but who had become public charges for health reasons or who failed to comply with the conditions under which they were admitted.
  2. Three hundred and fifty-nine orders lune been put into effect. The balance not put into effect (341.) consists chiefly (270 or 79 per cent.) of seamen for whom shipping companies have been unable to arrange re-engagement on overseas vessels within the period of one month’s detention mentioned above. As regards the smaller number of unenforced deportation orders relating to migrants who became public charges, or who refused to comply with the conditions of their admission, these are in various stages of being processed - some are awaiting formal approval for re-admission to their countries of origin, while others are medically unfit for travel at this stage.
  3. The nationalities of the persons who were named in the deportation orders are shown by the following table: -

NATIONALITIES OF PERSONS NAMED IN DEPORTATION ORDERS.

(Period 19th December, 1949, to 24th September, 1951.)

Broadcasting

Mr Fairhall:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

l asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What is the maximum permissible effective power input allowed under departmental regulations for amateur radio transmitters in (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand, (c) Canada,

    1. United Kingdom and (e) United States of America?

  2. Within what frequency limits at various points in the frequency spectrum below 30 megacycles may amateur experimental radio transmitters be operated under current authorizations by the communicationsauthorities of these countries?

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) A maximum of 100 watts direct current anode power input is authorized for use by amateur wireless stations in Australia. (b) New Zealand amateur stations are also authorized to use a maximum of 100 watts.

  1. In Canada a maximum aerial power of 500 watts is permitted, (d) The United Kingdom allows 150 watts (direct current anode power input. (e) A maximum of one kilowatt (direct current anode power input) is permitted in the United States of America. 2. (a) The following frequency bands below 30 megacycles are authorized for use by Australian amateur wireless stations, namely: - 3.5 to 3.8 megacycles, 7 to 7.2 megacycles, 14 to 14.4 megacycles, 26.96 to 27.23 megacycles, and 28 to 30 megacycles. (b) In New Zealand the band 1.9 to 1.92 megacycles is reserved for use by the Radio Emergency Corps only. The bands 3.5 to 3.96 megacycles, 7 to 7.3 megacycles, 14 to 14.4 megacycles, and 28 to 29.7 megacycles are available for general amateur use. (c) In Canada the bands1.8 to 1.825 megacycles, 1.875 to 1.925 megacycles, 1.975 to 2 megacycles, 3.5 to 4 megacycles. 7 to 7.3 megacycles, 14 to 14.4 megacycles, 26.958 to 27.282 megacycles and 28 to 29.7 megacycles are authorized for use by these stations, (d) The United Kingdom permits amateur stations to use the bands 1.715 to 2 megacycles,3.5 to 3.635 megacycles, 3,685 to 3.8 megacycles, 7 to 7.3 megacycles, 14 to 14.4 megacycles and28 to 30 megacycles, (e) The bands 1.8 to 2 megacycles, 3.5 to 4 megacycles, 7 to 7.3 megacycles. 14 to 14.4 megacycles, 26.96 to 27.23 megacycles and 28 to 29.7 megacycles are authorized for use by amateur stations in the United States of America.

Postal Department

Mr Berry:

y asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is the West End post office, Brisbane, publicly or privately owned?
  2. If privately owned, who is the present owner ?
  3. Who was the original owner?
  4. What government was in power when per mission was given for its erection?
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. The leased post office premises at West End, Brisbane, are owned by Mr. Salvatore Zappala, Abbotsford-road, Main Junction, Brisbane.

  1. The building was erected in May, 1042, by Mr. Zappala to meet the expanding need for postal services. An agreement to lease that portion of the premises required by the department was entered into with Mr. Zappala prior to the erection of the building.
  2. The Labour Government was in office at this time.
Mr Kekwick:

k asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What was the total strength of clerical staff (Melbourne administration) on engineering work, including costing sections and cleri cal assistants, as compared with the strength of the operative staff as at the 1st October, 1948, and 1st January, 1951, respectively?
  2. Is it a fact that an engineer clerk receives more salary than a supervising technician, grade 7, who is in charge of a large exchange and staff?
  3. If so, will he give favorable consideration to reviewing the gradings in order that they shall conform to the amount of responsibility undertaken ?
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. The totals of clerical and operative staffs employed in the Engineering Branch of the Postal Department in Victoria at the 1st October, 1948, and the 1st January, 1051, respectively, were -

The increase in clerical staff has been due in part to the normal development of the Engineering Branch and in part to organizational changes approved by the Public Service Board designed to strengthen the engineering planning and supervision and to relieve professional and technical officers of all possible clerical work. An additional load has also been placed on Engineering Branch clerical staffs by procurement activities necessary under present conditions to maintain essential supplies.

  1. A supervising technician, Grade 7, receives as high a salary as the highest classified divisional engineers clerks and more than some others. A divisional engineer’s clerk in the metropolitan, area is classified with a present actual salary range of £722 to £866, £794 to £914 or £866 to £962, according to the division to which attached. A divisional engineer’s clerk in a country area is classified with a present actual salary of £962 to £1,058. The existing actual salary of a supervising technician, Grade 7, is £1,058 per annum.
  2. The salaries of both clerical and technician staffs are fixed by either the Public Service Board and the existing salaries for members of the department’s technical staff were fixed after discussions attendedby representatives of the relative employee organization.

Telephone Services

Mr Kekwick:

k asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What was the number of staff employedin the telephone section (Melbourne administration) in the following categories on the 1st January, 1948, and the 1st October, 1951, respectively: - (a) telephone section as a whole, (b) priority section, (c) traffic officers,, (d) supervisors, (e) monitors?

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The staffing figures requested are as follow : -

Since 1948 the department has strengthened ite supervisory staff and provided monitors and supervisors at smaller exchanges than was previously the practice. Because of the rapid staff turnover which is typical of industry generally it has been necessary also to increase substantially the number of supervisors employed on the training of new staff. These factors have naturally affected the rate of staff growth in categories (c), (d) and (e).

Defence Preparations Act

Mr Fitzgerald:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many regulations have been gazetted under the Defence Preparations Act, and in respect of what matters?
  2. Is it intended to gazette regulations in the near future; if so, for what purposes?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. The only regulations so far gazetted under the Defence Preparations Act are the Defence Preparations (Capital Issues) Regulations No. 84 of 1951.
  2. I have stated on several occasions that the Government will only issue regulations under the Defence Preparations Act when it is not practicable to achieve the necessary results through voluntary co-operation. I shall not attempt to forecast whether any additional regulations will be needed.

Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr.Ward asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Were the expenses of Mr. Paul McGuire, who acompanied the Prime Minister to the Conference of the British Commonwealth Prime Ministers held in London in January of this year, met by the Commonwealth?

If so, what was the cost to the Commonwealth of Mr. McGuire’s trip overseas?

What were the names of the other persons who accompanied the Prime Minister to this conference?

What were the particular functions and duties performed by these persons and by Mr. McGuire?

Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. £945.
  3. The officials who accompaniedme to the conference were : -

Sir Frederick Shedden, Secretary, Department of Defence.

Mr. A. S. Watt, Secretary, Department of External Affairs.

Mr. E. J. Bunting, Assistant Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department.

Mr. J. R. Willoughby, Personal Assistant.

Miss E. Wilkinson.

I was also accompanied by my wife and daughter, the latter of whom went at my own expense. 4. (a) Sir Frederick Shedden, Mr. Watt and Mr. Bunting attended the conference as advisers. Mr. Willoughby and Miss Wilkinson attended as members of my personal staff.

  1. Mr. McGuire, though not a member of the official delegation to the conference, was present in London in order to be available for consultation should the need arise. In fact he was consulted by me during the conference.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 7th November, the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) asked the following question : -

Is the Prime Minister aware of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization practice of employing students, who are engaged in the biochemistry course at the Sydney University, in a temporary capacity during the lengthy Christmas university vacation, thereby giving such students practical experience in laboratories which would not otherwise be available to them ? Does the right honorable gentleman know that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is being forced to deny such students the opportunity of gaining experience and rendering useful service this coming Christmas vacation because the Government has denied the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization the funds necessary to permit of biochemistry students being so engaged? Will the Prime Minister undertake to have this matter reviewed immediately with the object of providing an avenue through -which practical experience may be gained by students? That would also ensure that those who may graduate next year would not seek employment having only text-book knowledge.

The various divisions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization appoint students from time to time to work during university or technical college vacations. Such appointments are usually mutually advantageous to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the students. It has been necessary for the. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to curtail its expenditure in some directions and, in most cases, fewer students will be employed during the long vacation than previously. Tho number of biochemistry students employed has always been small, usually only two or three, and this year about the same Dumber will be employed.

Bail Transport.

Mr Anthony:
CP

y. - On the 14th Novem ber, the honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Bruce) asked a question concerning the standardization of railway gauges in Australia. The Minister for Shipping and Tranpsort has supplied the following information : -

The Government has been forced to take a realistic view of initiating major works at a time when defence preparations are already overtaxing the available resources of manpower and materials available for the construction of works of urgent national importance.

However, the fact is stressed that certain workers are at present actually proceeding in South Australia under the terms of the Sailway Standardization (South Australia) Agreement Act No. 83 passed in 1949, and further, that works are in hand concerning the provision of a standard gauge railway link between the Leigh Creek coal-field in South Australia and Port Augusta under the terms of Act No. 75 of 1950. Negotiations have also taken place with the New South Wales Government with a view to acquisition and conversion lo standard gauge of the Silverton Tramways between Broken Hill and Cockburn on the South Australian border.

Dollar Loan.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 15’th November the honorable member for Melbourne Porta (Mr. Crean) asked tho following question : -

I direct to the Prime Minister a question concerning the loan negotiated by Australia with tho International Bank of 100,000,000 dollars at the 30th June. Only 9,000,000 dollars of that loan has been drawn. Australia was apparently committed to pay f per ‘cent. interest on the amount undrawn. Would the Prime Minister at an early date furnish the House with information about how much of the loan has been drawn and how the amount drawn has been expended?

I now inform the honorable member as follows: -

Up to 8th November, 1951, the latest date for which information is available, drawings, against the 100,000,000 dollar loan account opened for Australia by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development totalled 26,200,000 dollars. Under the loan procedures, Australia initially provides the dollars required to pa.y_ for the goods licensed for importation against the loan. Schedules of payments made for such goods, together with supporting documentation, are submitted to the International Bank from time to time and form the basis of drawings against the loan account. Licences have been granted to importers up to the full amount of the 100,000,000 dollars and the goods have been ordered. The; will bo continuing to arrive in Australia up to the end of 1952. The table below shows the broad allocation of the 100,000,000 dollars over the various categories of goods to be imported under the loan and also the value of actual imports of loan-financed goods reported up to the .9th November, 1951.

Public Libraries

Mr Griffiths:

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Does the Government approve of public libraries being established in the principal cities of the Commonwealth?
  2. If so, does the Government propose to assist financially public library undertakings, either now or in the future?
  3. Will the Government consider amending existing law to provide for donations to public libraries being allowed as deductions in taxation assessments, similar to donations to universities?
  4. If the Government is not prepared to assist in establishing public libraries, will he state how educational advantages are to be obtained by the people?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. The Government recognizes the need for public libraries in the principle cities of the Commonwealth. 2.. The Government will continue, as it has done in the past, to assist financially .public: libraries in its own territories. The maintenance of public libraries in the States is, of course, a matter for the State and/or local Government concerned and local public effort.
  2. This matter has been referred to the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation for examination and report,
  3. See answer to question 2.

Bank Advances.

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– In reply to a question asked by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Minogue) , on the 25th October, I desire to say that the Government has given no directions to the Commonwealth Bank in respect of loans required by persons who wish to purchase their own homes. I have been informed that, because of decreased activity by other financial institutions in making loans for housing, the bank’s General Banking Division has for some time been experiencing a greatly increased volume of applications for this purpose. The division is unable to satisfy this large demand in full, having regard to the resources available to it for meeting overdraft requirements for farming and business activities as well as for bousing.

Coal.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 21st Novemberthe honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) asked whether the Commonwealth had received a recent proposal from the Queensland State Government concerning the development of the Blair Athol arid Collinsville coal-fields. The development of both these areas, with the object -of increasing coal production, has engaged the attention of the Commonwealth ‘Government for some time. A further proposal to develop the Blair Athol coal-field was received recently from the Queensland Government.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 November 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1951/19511127_reps_20_215/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant