House of Representatives
30 August 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 601

LEGISLATION

Petition

Mr. KEARNEY presented a petition from certain electors in the State of New South Wales praying that the following programme be legislated for in the interest of the Australian people: -

Nationalization of the coal and steel industries;

Introduction of a 35-hour working week;

Regulation of the migrant intake;

Diversion of the annual expenditure on defence to peaceful purposes;

Introduction of a national shipping line;

Substantial increases in social services benefits;

Protection against evictions from homes and re-possession of articles purchased under hire purchase terms. Petition received and read.

page 601

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– In directing my question to the Treasurer I refer to the speech that he made at Haberfield, New South Wales, on 28th July last, in which he said -

As economic buoyancy returns can we expect the re-engagement of labour on the scale of dismissals? I say quite frankly I don’t believe we can - in the short term.

When did the Government arrive at this painful decision? Was it before or after the introduction of the intensified credit squeeze in November last?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I should think that the Leader of the Opposition would by now have had enough experience of public speaking and the reporting of his speeches to know how difficult it is for the press to compress into one-quarter of a newspaper column the report of a speech which occupied the best part of half an hour. Perhaps, the press may have accorded me a little more space on this occasion. The point I was making at the time was that one of the consequences of the economic policies which have been followed has undoubtedly been an improvement in efficiency in some of our factories. There has been a smaller rate of labour turnover, and higher productivity per employee. I made the point, also, that even if the output of these factories were to increase as economic conditions improved those establishments would not necessarily require labour on the same scale as they had required before. I was not seeking to imply that employment opportunities elsewhere would not grow during this time. Indeed, one of the cardinal purposes of the Budget which is now being debated is to give an additional stimulus to the economy and to promote an economic climate in which work opportunities will increase.

page 601

QUESTION

SECURITY

Mr CASH:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Will he make known to this House the contents of a letter which I understand was sent to him by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Western Australia subsequent to my asking a question in this House last Tuesday about the reported presence of Commonwealth security officers at Parliament House in Perth?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall willingly make known to the House the contents of the letter. After I had answered a question asked by the honorable member last week, the Speaker of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly wrote to me and stated that he had not made any reference to Commonwealth officers being present in Parliament House in Perth. He also sent me a copy of a question that he had been asked in the Western Australian House and the answer which he had given. Quite plainly, the Speaker had referred to State police officers. Some confusion in the press reporting introduced the word “ Commonwealth “ into the newspaper reports of what the Speaker of the Western Australian House had said.

page 601

QUESTION

MOUNT ISA RAILWAY

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the Premier of Queensland stated in the Queensland Parliament this morning that on behalf of Queensland be had protested against the terms and conditions of the proposed Mount Isa railway agreement, and that Queensland was far from satisfied with the assistance given by the Commonwealth and considered it niggardly when compared with the help given to other States? Is it a fact, also, that the Queensland Premier denied the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday that the Queensland Government had not protested against the terms of the proposed agreement?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I would have supposed that the honorable member would realize that I do not know what the Premier of Queensland said this morning.

Mr Calwell:

– Why not?

Mr MENZIES:

– I was not there, and I have now heard of it for the first time. All that I can tell the honorable member for Kennedy is that the Premier of Queensland has been in communication with me and has received a lengthy communication from me. I do not propose, before he has considered what I have said in my communication to him, to engage in a public controversy which, I am quite sure, will turn out to be unnecessary.

page 602

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact that a black ban has been placed on the construction of the new oil refinery at Hallett Cove near Adelaide? Does this mean that men who would otherwise have obtained work on this job will, because of this ban, continue to be unemployed?

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is true that the Trades and Labour Council in Adelaide has imposed a black ban on the major construction work at Hallett Cove. The strike has been called because of the suggested inadequacy of wages offered to the employees concerned. The proper course to follow, instead of seeking an increase in the wages by direct action, would be to apply to the appropriate industrial tribunal for a variation of the award. It is a great pity that in the circumstances of to-day, the Trades and Labour Council, which claims to be deeply concerned about unemployment, should place a black ban on this job, thus pre cluding men from employment there and also curtailing employment in workships throughout Adelaide. I believe the Trades and Labour Council has shown little sense of responsibility in this matter.

page 602

QUESTION

BANKING

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question. Is it a fact that the right honorable gentleman intends to grant a permit to the English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited to conduct savings bank business in its 500 branches in Australia? Is the Treasurer aware that this bank is not an Australian bank, but is registered as a company in London, with mainly overseas shareholders, and that most of the profits of the undertaking leave Australia? Will the Treasurer, when granting permits of this kind to the English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited, or any other bank, do so only on the condition that any profits made from savings bank operations remain in Australia, as the profits of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation do?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– My recollection is that the decision that was taken was consistent with decisions arrived at earlier to allow other trading banks to conduct savings bank business. However, I believe that, as to some of the points of detail raised, I should give the honorable member a considered reply, and I shall arrange for that to be done.

page 602

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Treasurer. As the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation indicates that the committee considers the averaging system applicable to incomes of primary producers for purposes of taxation to be a matter of Government policy, and thus not a matter into which it should conduct inquiries, I ask: Will the Treasurer consider allowing those whose income tax was once calculated on the averaging system, but are now assessed annually in the normal way, to revert to the averaging system, as in some cases great hardship is being experienced because of variations in overseas prices of primary products? Will he also consider increasing the upper limit of £4,000 annual income which applies in the case of those in respect of whom the averaging system is still used, because of the normal gradual decrease in money values?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– As the honorable member has indicated in the course of his question, considerations of policy are involved in this matter, and I shall examine what he has put to me. I gather that some persons who have made an election to change from the averaging system are now seeking the opportunity to reverse their earlier decisions. I can see some difficulties in making a decision to allow such persons to revert to the system that previously applied. However, as I say, I shall look into the matter. I shall also undertake to consider the other point raised by the honorable member - that, in the ‘ light of movements in the general level of costs and prices over recent years, there should be some increase of the £4,000 limit.

page 603

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Mr CLAY:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Commonwealth Government yet made any requests to the Government of New South Wales for the waiving of payment of royalties on sand to be drawn from Botany Bay and used in the proposed extensions of the 16/34 runway at KingsfordSmith Airport? If so, how much time has elapsed since the request was made? If a reply has been received, what are the terms of the reply?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– I will convey the honorable member’s question to my colleague in another place and give the honorable member an appropriate reply.

page 603

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Treasurer relates to the proposals contained in the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. The right honorable gentleman will recall that he has announced the Government’s intention to close certain loopholes which, in the past, have facilitated tax avoidance by some people. I now ask him whether he can give an assurance that, when the relevant legislation is introduced, he will put himself in a position to announce at that time the Go vernment’s decisions with respect to the committee’s proposals for giving relief to others so that zeal may be seen to be tempered by justice?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I appreciate the point which the honorable gentleman is making in his question. As always, this Government is eager to see that justice is done to all sections of the community. However, the time-table for these matters is a matter for Cabinet’s consideration. I do not anticipate that there will be legislation in this session of Parliament to deal with the committee’s recommendations. Whether it would be desirable to introduce legislation in the early part of next year or at budget time next year will require a decision of the Cabinet on policy aspects. I stress, again, that no decision has been taken on any of the other matters at this stage. Whether that will be done remains to be determined and the point raised by the honorable gentleman will not be overlooked in our considerations.

page 603

QUESTION

IMPORTS

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Trade acquainted with the proposal attributed to the Australian Primary Producers Union, that, in an attempt to nullify the effect of Britain’s possible entry into the European Common Market, the Common Market countries be given a preferential tariff for exports of manufactured goods to Australia? If so, will the Minister give an assurance that when considering this, along with the organization’s other proposals which appear quite positive in their objective of meeting a possible crisis, he will also bear in mind that a big percentage of the Australian work-force is employed in secondary industries? Further, will he give an assurance that the Government will protect those industries from further set-backs additional to those suffered recently because of the flood of imported goods?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I can give the honorable member and the country a full assurance that the Government is fully conscious of the necessity for adequate protection for Australian secondary industry as a basis for providing maximum employment in this country. The Government is certainly conscious of the fact that secondary industry is dependent to a very large extent upon imports which have to be paid for by export earnings. Therefore, there is not a conflict but a community of interest between primary and secondary industries and the Government will apply its policies with full recognition of that fact.

page 604

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether, in view of his department’s policy to extend the use of multi-coin public telephones, he can inform me whether the department has given any thought to the installation of change machines where a number of telephones are grouped together or at other strategic locations such as post offices, railway stations and airport terminals. If so, how far have the plans proceeded?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– This is a problem to “Which the department has given attention for some years past. It is recognized that Where multi-coin telephone cabinets and stamp selling machines are provided it is desirable to have machines to provide change. Inquiries have been made over several years to see whether a suitable type of machine could be obtained. Until recently, no such machine was available. However, as a result of considerable development in the production of machines of this type several machines have now been produced which could provide the necessary service. Therefore, we have recently acquired four machines for testing purposes. These are undergoing bench tests. If these tests prove to be successful the machines will be installed at various points in, I think, Melbourne, for what might be called field tests. If they are proved to be successful they will be adopted generally.

page 604

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question supplementary to that asked of him by the honorable member for Bradfield. Will the Government now also bring down legislation to close the avenues of tax avoidance in the Estate Duty Act and Gift Duty Act which have been opened up by court cases since those acts were last substantially amended?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall examine the. honorable gentleman’s suggestion. T am not able to. give him a reply off-hand.

page 604

QUESTION

MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question of the Minister for Labour and National Service concerns the present threat of a stoppage or overtime ban at Mount Isa mines arising out of negotiations on lead bonus payments. Would such industrial action affect employment in north Australia? Would an increase in lead bonus payments mean reduced funds for expansion and consequent employment as well as a reduction in exports?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s first question as to whether a strike at Mount Isa mines would lead to unemployment is undoubtedly “ Yes “. I would not like to express a quick opinion on the second question he asked because, frankly, I think that needs examination; but I see no reason to disagree with him. The honorable member may like to know, I am sure, that already negotiations are proceeding at Mount Isa between the management and the employees to see if this dispute can be settled quickly.

page 604

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I base a question of the Treasurer on a letter from Mr. Ansett to members of Parliament in which he indicates that his company is suffering trading and financial embarrassment. I should like to know what is the total liability to the Government, under guarantee, of AnsettA.N.A. What action is the Treasury taking to protect the Government against the loss of this amount? As Ansett Transport Industries Limited 5s. notes issued to lenders are now for sale on the stock exchange for 4s. 2d.-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is now giving information. I ask him to seek it, and to ask his question.

Mr CLARK:

– Can the Government take any action to protect persons from whom Ansett’s are to-day, by way of advertisement, seeking to raise money at a rate of interest of 9 per cent.?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall do what I can to obtain a detailed reply for the honorable member. I am sure that we all deplore this campaign of attack which the Opposition consistently presses against this airline organization. The people of Australia undoubtedly support the policy of having two airline organizations running in effective competition with one another in Australia, and the Australian public has been given better air service as a result of this active competition. We know that honorable members opposite will not rest until they produce a situation of government monopoly in this field. For our part, while we are determined to deal fairly with both organizations, it remains our constant policy to see that two effective organizations are maintained in operation.

page 605

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Mr BROWNE:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Repatriation relating to the new system of paying repatriation benefits by order cheque. Will he confer with the Postmaster-General with a view to enabling post offices in remote areas to cash these cheques where the recipient is known to the postmaster?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question asked by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie arises from the introduction, shortly to occur in Western Australia as it already ha9 in some States, of the system of paying repatriation benefits by order cheques produced by a punch card system. It is the same system as was introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, in his department some time ago.

Mr Ward:

– Except that recipients of social service benefits have the choice of whether to be paid by cheque or to collect their benefits at a post office.

Mr OSBORNE:

– A repatriation pensioner has the choice of receiving an order cheque or of having his pension paid every twelve weeks into a savings bank or other account.

Mr Ward:

– What about letting him collect it at a post office?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Most people have no difficulty at all in cashing those cheques. I have had some discussion with the PostmasterGeneral on this matter. A postmaster is not obliged to cash a cheque, but in country districts where the recipient is known to the ‘ postmaster and the question of identification doe’s not arise, postmasters often do cash such cheques. Alternatively, the recipient may pay the cheque into a savings bank account and then withdraw the amount of the cheque. If, as I expect is the case, the constituent of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie on whose behalf he has raised this matter is a member of a small and remote community, 1 will be very glad to consider making any special arrangements necessary in the circumstances.

page 605

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr WARD:

– My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister, in the midst of gratuitous advice given to the Australian public as to means of combating the economic stagnation caused by the Government’s policy, say that the community should go on spending in the normal way? If so, will the Prime Minister state whether he sees anything inconsistent between his advice to spend in the normal way and the deliberate act of his Government in reducing the amount of spending money in the possession of the general public? Will he, in particular, state how thousands of unemployed workers whose earnings are now nil can continue to spend in the normal way?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am bound to say, Mr. Speaker, that if that is a question I ought to re-read the Standing Orders. However, since the honorable member tenders his argument, let me say to him that if people were allowed to spend normally the position of business and, thereafter, of employment in Australia would improve immeasurably. It is to the eternal disgrace of the Opposition in this House that it has done its best to prevent people from spending the money that they have by threatening them with more and more unemployment as time goes on. This, in a disgraceful political history, is the most disgraceful thing I have known.

page 605

QUESTION

TWEED VALLEY BANANA FESTIVAL

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Because of the many calls on the right honorable gentleman’s attention and time it may have escaped his notice that a banana festival is being held this week in the unchallengeably beautiful Tweed Valley. In view of the fact that the banana, or at least the banana skin, could be the downfall of man, would he pay his homage to King Banana by sending good wishes to the organizing committee of the festival?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I will be delighted to do so on condition that the honorable member arranges for a supply of banana skins to be paid into the Opposition’s funds.

page 606

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Has the Australian Transport Advisory Council given any consideration to the findings and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety which were announced about a year ago? If the council has not considered the matter, is it the intention to do so in the early future?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– The Australian Transport Advisory Council has considered the recommendations of the Senate committee, but I would point out that many of the matters contained in those recommendations come within the powers of the States. An indication that the report was considered and that some action has been taken on it is instanced by the fact that, in accordance with a recommendation of the committee, the Australian Road Safety Council now has a new, independent chairman who has acted in that capacity to the satisfaction of the organization. I am sure that in that respect, the honorable gentleman will see quite a lot of improvement and development. The deliberations of the Senate committee were sound and conclusive and its recommendations are well worthy of consideration; but largely they are matters for the States, and accordingly they have been taken up by State Ministers.

page 606

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– My question directed to the Minister for Immigration refers to a paper called “ News from the Ukraine “ which presumably is published abroad, brought to Australia and distributed from Sydney. I have in my hand an envelope which bears the Newtown postmark. I ask the Minister: Can he indicate how the Association for Cultural Relations with Ukrainians Abroad, a Soviet organization, has come into possession of names of

Ukrainians who have come to Australia? Will the honorable gentleman give to Ukrainians living in Australia an assurance that their liberties and freedoms will not be jeopardized in any way in Australia, and that they will not be subjected to any threats or intimidation from abroad?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am sure that information such as that conveyed to honorable members by the honorable member for Moreton in his question will be of concern to a great many members of this House. I shall certainly inquire into the alleged situation that he has revealed to the chamber. As I have said from time to time during my own tenure of office - and certainly this has always been the policy of this Government - Ukranians from abroad need have no fear whatever, once they have settled in Australia, about this country being a sanctuary of refuge for those who seek to make their homes here. I do not think the honorable gentleman or any of those people for whom he speaks need have the slightest qualms at all that those who have come here, especially from Europe, and who remain here, need have any fear of intimidation whatever.

page 606

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– In the absence of the Minister for Health, I ask the Prime Minister: Has a recent announcement been made that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have abandoned production of penicillin and greatly reduced the production of insulin because of competition from imports? Is the right honorable gentleman able to say how import competition has had this effect? Is it not a fact that pressure from importers has had this result?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– As the honorable member has said, the Minister for Health is noi present. If he is in the House to-morrow morning, I suggest that the honorable member repeat his question then. If the Minister is not to be here, I will have the question conveyed to him in the meantime so that he may answer it.

page 606

EDUCATION

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Yesterday, in a reply to the honorable member for Barton I said that I would be glad to make available to the House, the terms of reference of the recently established committee of inquiry on the future of tertiary education. The following are the terms of reference: -

To consider the pattern of tertiary education in relation to the needs and resources of Australia and to make recommendations to the Australian Universities Commission on the future development of tertiary education.

The honorable member further asked whether the terms of reference would cover teacher training and technical education. The committee will no doubt direct its attention to any forms or areas of tertiary education which appear to be appropriate to the study it has undertaken.

page 607

QUESTION

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE TERRITORY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr BANDIDT:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Territories. Is the Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea functioning according to expectations? Could the Minister arrange for a delegation of native representatives from the Legislative Council to visit our national Parliament?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honorable member for Wide Bay was one of the members of the parliamentary delegation which attended the opening of the re-constituted Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I am sure that members of that Legislative Council will be very pleased to learn of his continuing interest in them. The council is, of course, the master of its own proceedings and it would not be my function to arrange for the Legislative Council to form a deputation or send a delegation to Australia. I think the procedure would be between this Parliament and the Legislative Council, which this Parliament has created. I would hope that if some visit of that kind were arranged in order to cement the close link between this Parliament and the Legislative Council, it would not be a deputation just of native members but a deputation from the council in the most comprehensive sense, for our endeavour, of course, is to make no distinction between the native members of the council and other members of the council.

page 607

QUESTION

TRAVEL VISAS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Government perturbed by the rate at which scientifically and technically qualified people have been leaving this country on first preference visas for the United States of America. Has the State Department of the United States of America temporarily frozen the first preference quota pending an agreement on the situation? Is it issuing instead temporary workers’ visas? If the Australian Government has in some way been made a party to this freezing of the preference visas quota will the right honorable gentleman take prompt action to review a practice which limits the right of Australian citizens to seek in the United States of America positions more lucrative and rewarding than they can secure, at home?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– What the honorable member puts up is news to me. I will have inquiries made into the matter right away.

page 607

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to a letter of 24th instant signed by the Secretary of the Soldier Settlement Commission of Victoria. The paragraph to which my question applies reads -

For your information the balance of land for soldier settlement purposes has now been allocated and, as the Commonwealth Government has withdrawn its financial support from the War Service Land Settlement Scheme, soldier settlement in this State has virtually ceased.

Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has withdrawn its financial support, as stated?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– When war service land settlement was planned Victoria chose to be a principal State, finding the necessary capital funds from its own resources, and the Commonwealth was to provide the living allowance for the first year and share equally with Victoria any losses. That offer has never been withdrawn by the Commonwealth. When settlement progress was unsatisfactory the Commonwealth, in 1955, agreed to make additional funds available at the rate of £1 for every £2 expended by Victoria. That was for a term of three years from 1955. In the third year the agreement was amended to provide greater assistance to Victoria, in that if Victoria spent £3,150,000 the Commonwealth would assist to a maximum of £2,000,000 a year; and that was provided. Indeed, in the second year of that generous assistance Victoria failed to spend all its sum and the Commonwealth allowed Victoria to spread the balance over two years. At that stage Victoria was tapering off its activities in war service land settlement and engaging rather in its present closer settlement plans. Victoria took that decision without reference to the Commonwealth, but did inform us that the projects in hand would probably meet all those who had applications in and that if they did not quite meet the needs it believed it could satisfy them under its closer settlement scheme.

page 608

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Repatriation. I have received representations from womenfolk working on behalf of the mothers of servicemen lost in World War II. As the Minister no doubt is aware, many of these mothers are receiving a small pension. Will he consider having the means test in relation to their pensions abolished so that they can be placed on the same footing as the widows of soldiers? May I stress that many mothers of soldiers are themselves widows?

Mr OSBORNE:
LP

– This matter is raised from time to time by ex-servicemen’s organizations. It has received consideration in the past and I have no doubt that it will be considered again at the appropriate time.

page 608

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it a fact that many authorities active in road safety matters have referred appreciatively to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety? Does the Government intend to give effect to the recommendations contained in the report concerning the activities of the Australian Road Safety Council? Has the honorable gentleman any information to supply to the House in relation to this report?

Mr OPPERMAN:
LP

– As I pointed out to the honorable member for Batman, the report of the select committee dealt extensively with matters that come within the jurisdiction of the States. As the honorable member knows, the Australian Transport Advisory Council is composed of Ministers from the various States who receive recommendations from the State road safety councils brought forward through the Australian Road Safety Council. Those matters are discussed and, if the Australian Transport Advisory Council thinks them worthy of consideration by the State authorities, the Ministers carry them back to their respective States for such consideration. Admittedly, the process is not particularly speedy. I can assure the honorable member that any worthwhile recommendations in the report of the select committee will be considered by the council and taken back to the States in that form.

There is a great desire to obtain coordination and reciprocity between the Commonwealth and the States, and ,he Australian Transport Advisory Council is using every means available to that end.

page 608

QUESTION

ULVERSTONE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware of the assurance that was given by the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Tasmania at the opening of the Ulverstone telephone exchange in 1954 that a brick front would be erected on the building if the local authorities considered that the present structure was not satisfactory? Will the Minister now consider sympathetically the numerous requests that have been made since 1954 by the Ulverstone Municipal Council, the Chamber of Commerce and other interested organizations to have a brick front erected on this telephone exchange building to bring it into harmony with the other fine public buildings which have been erected in the very progressive town of Ulverstone?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I am aware that from time to time suggestions such as the one which has been mentioned by the honorable member have been brought forward and considered. I am not aware of the present position relating to the Ulverstone telephone exchange but I shall ascertain it and inform the honorable member accordingly.

page 609

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has any effort been made to ascertain the likely effect of mechanical cane-cutting on the employment opportunities that are available on the cane fields? Is it likely that the cane-cutting work force soon may be reduced drastically as a result of the introduction of cane-cutting machines? If this is so. has the Government considered any programme of rehabilitation and re-housing with a view to avoiding the hardship which followed the introduction of mechanization into other industries?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I am not sure of the number of workers required in manual cane cutting as compared with that needed for mechanical cutting. I do not think that any great overall loss of employment is caused by the introduction of mechanical cutting because increased sales from year to year just about compensate for any loss of work opportunities. I point out, too, that it is not always easy to obtain sufficient employees to meet requirements in a particular district. However, I shall have a look at the honorable member’s question to see if any other matters are involved.

page 609

TOURIST INDUSTRY IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report of the Australian Capital Territory Committee.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- On behalf of the joint committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the committee’s report relating to the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory. This matter was referred to the committee by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) on 12th July, 1960. I move -

That the report be printed.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I have appended a dissenting report to the report which has just been presented. I agree with many of the committee’s recommendations but. for reasons stated in the report, it was necessary for me to dissociate myself from the report as presented.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 609

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.

page 609

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1961

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1959.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Opperman do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954- 1959 to remove certain inequities which can sometimes arise, in the application of the existing act, to the disadvantage of some producers of gold. As honorable members are aware, the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act provides for the payment of subsidy to gold producers. The subsidy arrangements have been in force for seven years and, on the whole, they have worked smoothly and effectively to the benefit not only of gold producers but also of the goldmining areas which depend on gold production.

For the purposes of the subsidy scheme gold producers are divided into two classes -large producers and small producers. Large producers are those whose output of gold exceeds 500 ounces a year. They may claim subsidy if their average cost of production exceeds £13 10s. per ounce. The rate of subsidy payable to such producers varies with a mine’s cost of producing gold, the maximum rate being £3 5s. per ounce. Subsidy is not, however, payable to a large producer to raise his profits above 10 per cent, of the capital used by him in the production and sale of gold. Small producers are those whose annual output of gold is 500 ounces or less. They are eligible for subsidy at a flat rate of £2 8s. per ounce. They do not have to prove their costs of production and they are not subject to a profit limitation test.

The reason for including special provisions for small producers in the subsidy legislation is that it would probably be impracticable to ask small producers to provide satisfactory figures of their costs of production in order to qualify for subsidy. Small producers would not usually keep detailed accounting records, particularly as income from gold-mining is not subject to income tax and, moreover, they would probably find it difficult to establish the existence of sufficient capital to surmount the profit limitation test. The choice of 500 ounces as the dividing line between small producers and large producers was necessarily somewhat arbitrary, but production of 500 ounces of gold would return the producer a gross income of £7,800, and it was thought not unreasonable that a producer with an income at or above that level should be required to prove his costs of production and should not have an automatic right to subsidy payments.

The principles embodied in the existing definition of a small producer for the purpose of the subsidy scheme are thus thought to be reasonable. At the same time, the sudden cut-off at 500 ounces can sometimes produce an unfair situation in that a producer with an output under that figure is entitled to a flat-rate subsidy irrespective of his costs and profits, whereas a producer with an output a little in excess of that figure may be entitled to nothing at all, depending on his costs and profits. The Government, therefore, proposes that there be included in the legislation a provision enabling a producer whose output in a year falls in the range of 501 to 1.075 ounces of gold to elect, if he so desires, to be treated as a small producer. If a producer makes that election, the rate of subsidy payable to him will be determined at the rate of £2 8s. per ounce, less Id. for each ounce by which output exceeds 500 ounces.

The proposed provision will have the effect of lessening the sharp distinction between “ small producers “ and small “ large producers “ by allowing the latter producers to become eligible to receive a flat-rate subsidy, irrespective of costs and profits, if it suits them to do so. At the same time, the amount of the flat rate subsidy will taper off and disappear at the top of the range. Some producers may find that they would be better off to be treated as large producers; so it is to be left to the discretion of the producers themselves to make the choice. Producers whose output falls in the range of 501 to 1,075 ounces in a subsidy year and who do not exercise the election as provided for in the bill will be treated as large producers, as at present, and can claim subsidy, depending on their costs and profits, up to £3 5s. per ounce under the terms of the act.

I suggest that the bill provides a reasonable method of removing the inequities which have come to notice, and I commend it to honorable members.

Debate (on motion toy Mr. Crean) adjourned, i

page 610

QUESTION

BUDGET 1961-62

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from 29th August (vide page 591), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt -

That the first item in the Estimates, under Division No. 101 - The Senate - namely, “ Salaries and allowances £34,250 “, be agreed to.

Upon which Mr. Calwell had moved by way of amendment -

That the first item be reduced by £1.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- Mr. Chairman, this Budget has been described in various ways by different sections of the Australian community. I believe that the Budget with which we have been presented this year is completely colourless and that it indicates that this Government has practically abdicated in respect of an obviously important financial policy. The Budget has been described as completely irresponsible. That is not the term chosen just by me, of course. It is the term which has been applied to this Budget by many sections of the Australian community.

The Government says, for example, that it is not concerned about farm incomes. It has shown no concern about or responsibility for ending unemployment. It offers very little assistance or encouragement to pensioners or the great bulk of Australian families who are at present existing on inadequate incomes. The Government, in this Budget, makes no attempt to end or mend the housing crisis which exists in Australia to-day. This Administration is not in the least concerned about the falling incomes of Australian business enterprises. So I believe, Sir, that there is probably a good deal of general support for the contention by various sections of the commercial community that, having regard to the current economic situation, this Budget is completely irresponsible.

Not for many years have farm incomes in Australia been at such a low ebb. Despite the fact that there is a crisis in the farming industries throughout Australia, those who represent in this Parliament - or who are supposed to represent - farming interests give very little support to honorable members on this side of the chamber who seek assistance for the farmers in their plight. At the present time, farm incomes are very little in excess of the incomes that farmers earned in the immediate post-war years, say, up to the financial year 1949-50. Last financial year, farm incomes, it is estimated, totalled £457,000,000, compared with £464,000,000 in the preceding financial year. The seriousness of the situation of the farmers to-day becomes apparent when farm incomes in the last two financial years are compared with the income received by farmers in the financial year 1949-50, when farm incomes totalled £426,000,000 - very little less than in 1960-61. When one considers the general increases of costs and prices throughout this country, it is obvious that the purchasing power of farmers is very little greater than it was in the financial year 1949-50.

Primary production in Australia is declining. This is made clear in the report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, which has just been made available to honorable members. That report demonstrates quite conclusively that primary production, particularly of dairy products, is declining year by year. This Budget, however, offers no assistance of any kind to farmers. 1 submit that the responsibility for the crisis in primary industries in Australia can be laid at the door of this Government.

What can primary producers expect from the Budget now before us? They can expect nothing at all, with the exception of the benefit that they may get from the one useful provision in the Budget, under which an additional £5,000,000 will be made available to the Commonwealth Development Bank. On that point, however, I want to have something to say, and I believe it to be extremely important. When the legislation was introduced into this Parliament to provide for the establishment of the Development Bank, the farmers of Australia were entitled to expect some financial assistance under the new system. My experience, however, has led me to believe that the farmers are the last ones who can expect assistance from the Development Bank.

Mr Forbes:

– Nonsense!

Mr BARNARD:

– I shall answer the honorable member in a few moments. Towards the end of last year 1 asked the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) a question regarding the Development Bank, and the figures that he supplied were most illuminating. They made it perfectly obvious that the Development Bank had rejected considerably more applications for assistance than it had approved. I could tell the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Forbes) of numerous cases in which farmers have applied to the bank for assistance and have been refused on the ground that they had not sufficient equity in their properties. It was my understanding that the purpose of the Development Bank was to provide finance to primary producers to enable them to extend their properties. However, various cases that have come before mv notice, and to which I would refer in detail if I had sufficient time, have shown clearly that if a farmer has been able to bring a certain amount of his land into production, and he then applies to the Development Bank for financial assistance to enable him to buy equipment and stock, his application is frequently rejected because it is considered that he has not sufficient equity in his property.

I have no hesitation in saying to this committee that people engaged in primary production who are fortunate enough to have a substantial equity in their properties, and who merely wish to improve those properties, perhaps by purchasing additional stock, can receive financial assistance from the Development Bank, irrespective of the fact that they may already have considerable capital assets. It is for this reason that I believe the bank is not doing what this Parliament originally intended it to do, that is, help to bring new properties into production. In my view the Development Bank is providing finance where it is not required. However, the one hope of the farmers, in their present depressed situation, is for some benefit from the provision of an additional £5,000,000 for the Development Bank.

Mr Duthie:

– If they do get assistance they have to pay 6 per cent, interest.

Mr BARNARD:

– As my colleague from Wilmot has pointed out, they have to pay an interest rate of 6 per cent. I suggest that unless the Development Bank is prepared to assist the younger members of our farming community by the provision of finance to enable them to establish themselves and increase their production, then it will not be carrying out the functions for which it was originally established by this Parliament.

The Government, of course, is also quite unconcerned about the plight of pensioners. A token recognition is being given in the case of some classes of pensioners. For example, the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman is to receive an increase of 10s. a week. That will, of course, simply cover’ increases in costs and prices during this financial year. Tt will still leave the amount of the pension substantially below the basic wage. This was not the case when the Chifley Government relinquished office in 1949. War widows will receive an increase in their pension payments, but the rate will still be only slightly in excess of half the basic wage. The question of the allowance to the wife of a pensioner has been discussed at length in this Parliament during Budget debates year after year, but this Government has made no change in the allowance. The - allowance for the wife of an invalid or service pensioner is still £3 10s. a fortnight, as it has been during the whole period of office of the present Government. Although the matter has been raised from year to year, the Government has remained steadfast and has refused to provide for any increase.

The Opposition regards the whole subject of pensions as a matter involving justice and humanity, and I did not think it was too much to ask this Government to consider the matter of pensions in that light. However, the great majority of pensioners will receive an increase of only 5s. a week. It is quite true that this Government has been responsible for introducing a principle which I believe was a step in the right direction. I refer to the matter of supplementary assistance. The Government obviously recognized the fact that there are far too many pensioners who have to exist on no more than their pensions, which, after amending legislation is passed, will be at the rate of £5 5s. a week. For the great majority of pensioners, this is their only income. Realizing this to be so, the Government provided for 10s. a week supplementary assistance in certain cases. I believe that when preparing the Budget the Government might have considered an extension of this principle. I am one of those in this Parliament who believe - and I have no doubt the belief is shared by many others - that there are many pensioners who, because of additional incomes received from various sources, are, at least relatively, in a reasonable financial situation. But in this case I am concerned about the great bulk of pensioners who have no income other than their pensions.

Child endowment payments remain unchanged, as they have during the whole of this Government’s term of office. I remind honorable members opposite that in the policy speech of the Australian Labour Party in 1955, and again in 1958, we recommended substantial increases of child endowment. This Government overlooks the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of large families in the Australian community who find themselves in an almost intolerable position because of increased costs and prices. As costs and prices have increased, the value of child endowment payments has been whittled away.

We should not forget, also, that in 1953 the freezing of the basic wage resulted in a complete change in the distribution of wealth in Australia. People no longer obtained the increases to which they were entitled by way of basic wage adjustments. As a result, the distribution of wealth in this country has been completely transformed. “We were told at that time - and the Government has consistently adopted that point of view - that the economy could not afford an increase in the basic wage. Automatic basic wage adjustments since 1953 would probably have cost this country about £60,000,000. According to the Government, it could not permit that amount of money to be injected into the economy. But in the same period business interests increased their profits by approximately £200,000,000! During the whole of this period the Government has refused to increase child endowment. As I have said on other occasions in this Parliament, the Government has adopted the principle of taxing the basic wage earner with children. When this Government came to power in 1949 the basic wage earner with one or more children was exempt from income tax. Under this Government he has been obliged consistently to pay income tax and there are jio income tax concessions in this Budget.

II turn now to the economy generally with particular reference to unemployment. The facts are quite simple. During the term of office of this Government, and as a result of the policies of the Government, unemployment has fluctuated substantially, tout at the end of each year the unemployment figures have always been substantially higher than for the preceding year. The /Australian population is increasing at the irate of approximately 200,000 a year, which is probably one of the highest percentage rates of population increase in the world. It has been estimated that, as a consequence of that rate of increase, we should be in a position to find at least 130,000 new positions in this country each year. The Government acknowledges that : figure. but such an increase in the number of positions available has not, in fact, occurred.

A brief study of the Monthly Bulletin of Employment Statistics for June, 1961, will show .that there were 27,000 fewer people employed in manufacturing industries than there were in June, 1960. Despite the fact that an additional number of children leaving school will be thrown on to the labour market at the end of this year, there has already been a reduction in the number of employees in industry, particularly manufacturing industries. For that information I referred to Treasury Information Bulletin No. 23 of July, 1961. This shows that between May, 1960, and May, 1961, the number of persons engaged in manufacturing industries fell by 35,900.

The same bulletin indicates that during the period that I have mentioned there was a reduction of 4.5 per cent, in the number of people employed in the production of building materials. In industries producing basic materials the reduction in employment was 3.5 per cent, and in the clothing and textile industries it was 9.4 per cent. Every one of eight different industries dealt with in this report showed a reduction in the number of people engaged in it. Manufacturing industries particularly have been dealt a severe blow by the Government’s economic measures of last November.

Various Ministers have made statements in connexion with the degree of unemployment, but no Minister has ever attempted to lay down a clear policy in regard to the high level of unemployment that now exists throughout Australia. It has been said by one or two Ministers that they did not expect the present degree of unemployment. In that respect, the Government has shifted its ground. In November, 1960, when the economic measures were introduced, the Government clearly indicated that it expected heavy unemployment. After all. if the Government had not attacked the motor industry, the building industry and allied industries its measures would not have been effective. It was clear that the Government expected unemployment. I have said before, Mr. Temporary Chairman - I believe that most members will agree with me - it is appalling that there should be unemployment in the Australian community at all. There is no necessity for unemployment in this country when there is so much to do, so little time in which to do it, and so few people to carry out the major developmental works that should be undertaken by the Government of the day.

Small businesses have been dealt a severe blow by the Government as a result of its credit restrictions. It is true that in recent years some businesses, mainly overseas interests, have been able to make enormous profits as a result of their trading activities. This has not been done by small businessmen who, as a result of the economic measures of November, 1960, have no longer been able to secure finance with which to extend their activities or even to carry on their day-to-day business. Having been dealt this blow by the Government, small businessmen will no longer feel that they can look to the Government for assistance.

The Government’s promises to private enterprise, of course, have been like many other promises which it gave when elected to the treasury bench in 1949. Almost twelve years ago the Government promised to maintain full employment. It has made no attempt to maintain full employment. The fact that 113,000 persons are registered by the various offices of the Department of Labour and National Service indicates that the Government’s policy of full employment was completely fictitious and existed only in the minds of Government supporters. It paralleled the Government’s promise to restore value to the Australian £1. a promise of which Government supporters no longer like to be reminded. In 1949 the restoration of value to the Australian £1 was a very serious problem, but the Australian £1 to-day is probably not worth half as much as it was when this Government came to power in 1949.

We all remember the famous broadcast of the Prime Minister in 1953 in which he indicated that, because of the then economic circumstances, it would be necessary to introduce an excess profits tax. No excess profits tax has, in fact, been introduced. In the Governor-General’s Speech of March. 1959. the Government indicated that a major plank of its policy in the ensuing three years would be legislation to deal with restrictive trade practices. On that occasion, my colleague, the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie), told the Parliament quite frankly that the Government had no intention of introducing legislation to deal with restrictive trade practices. In point of fact, no legislation has been intro duced to deal with these matters at all. The Government made one further promise. It promised to appoint the Constitutional Review Committee. It appointed that committee from members of both sides of the Parliament, and the committee gave very careful consideration to all the matters embraced in its terms of reference; but, as we all know, its report has now been shelved.

This Government does not recognize its responsibility to promote and maintain employment in Australia. We have now reached the condition that applied during the crisis of a past depression when it was said that if a man was unemployed it was largely his own fault. I emphasize here, especially to honorable members on the Government side, that it cannot be said that the great majority of the 113,000 persons who are unemployed in Australia to-day are not unemployed because of the situation that has been brought about by this Government. It is true that there always will be some people transferring from one kind of employment to another, but the fact remains that the great majority of the people who are unemployed to-day have been thrown out of work as a consequence of this Government’s actions.

Let me quickly refer now to the figures relating to unemployment in order to substantiate my statement a few moments ago that during the whole of this Government’s term of office there has been a great increase in unemployment in Australia. In January, 1957, there were 52,629 persons unemployed. By January, 1959, that figure had jumped to 81,901. By March, 1959, it had fallen to 69,344. By March, 1960, there was a further fall to 54,165. Although there was a substantial improvement that year, the fact is that by March, 1961, the number of unemployed increased to 81,865, and by July, 1961, the figure had increased to 113,449. Although there have been some improvements over the years, the figures clearly indicate that at the end of each year the number of unemployed has been substantially greater than at the end of the preceding year. During 1956, the average number of unemployed was 31,000. During 1957 it was 52,000. In 1958 it was 64,000, and in 1959 it was 69,000. But by the end of 1961, the average was closer to 80,000. It cannot be argued that those figures indicate economic stability in Australia. On the contrary, they indicate at once that this Government has not faced up to its responsibility to deal with the unemployment situation.

During its eleven years of office, this Government’s economic policy has been changed from year to year according to the circumstances applying at the particular time. First we had the horror Budget for 1951-52, after this Government had been in office for only two years. By that time it had discovered that the business of governing the country was no sinecure, and it then decided to introduce the horror Budget. In March, 1956, we had the little Budget which was designed to cut down spending in the community generally. In February 1960, a further change of policy was announced. In that month we saw the abolition of import controls. By November, 1960. because of the relaxation of import controls, the Government found it necessary to introduce an economic statement. Indeed, throughout the whole of its term, this Government has done nothing to develop Australia. It has often astounded me that the Government has chosen to appoint a Minister for National Development, because there has not been one major national developmental project undertaken during its term of office. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has been more concerned with disposing of the assets that were built up in this country by a Labour administration. And he has been able to dispose of them effectively, no doubt with the full support of all Government members on each occasion. I say at once that this Government has forfeited the respect of the people of Australia because it has broken every major promise that it made to them in 1949 and at various times since then.

The policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) on Tuesday of last week was a definite policy, one which can be submitted with confidence to the people of Australia. He promised to introduce a little Budget, but it will be completely different from the type of little Budgets which this Government has introduced during its period of office. Because of its policies, this Government deserves to be censured and the purpose of the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition is to declare that censure.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Peters:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- In my judgment the Budget under debate is the best and soundest Budget introduced during my four years as a member of this Parliament. Although I do not intend to analyse each of them, I have found reason to criticize some of them because I saw inflationary tendencies at times when there was a boom in the economy or because in my opinion they failed to reduce the inflationary pressure that was already obviously operating. However, I do not wish to be pedantic; it is always easy to be wise after the event. This Budget does indicate stability of fiscal policy. It indicates a policy placing emphasis on currency, wage and price stability. If those fundamentals are observed, the natural corollary will be continued business confidence, the maintenance of the inflow of foreign capital and, with all that, a very high degree of employment.

This Budget, which provides for a deficit, increases social service payments and increased capital works expenditure, and will give the mild stimulus that the economy needs; but any greater degree of impetus could lead to further inflationary results. Inflation at a time when future world competition for primary commodities will be stiffer and keener than it has been in the past can be suicidal for this country when so much depends upon its exporting industries. Already we have heard members of the Opposition complaining about the drop in farm incomes. What could bring about a quicker drop in farm incomes than increases in costs, prices and wages, all of which the Opposition advocates? This Government and all members of this Parliament should make it their duty constantly to remind the people of Australia that inflation is one of their greatest dangers. Inflation also contains a poison which demoralizes the thrifty, people with savings, people living on fixed incomes and people living on social service benefits.

Whilst I commend this Budget to the House, I feel that there are weaknesses in our national economy for which it does not provide. I suppose there has never been a Budget with which any one could wholeheartedly agree, but the person who cannot visualize some improvement in a Budget lacks both the imagination and the keenness necessary to improve the lot of Australians. He would probably be much better out of the place altogether.

I wish to occupy the committee’s time 10-day with the subject of decentralization of industry. Because that subject is allied to national security and social security and to the employment of people in country areas, I consider it to be important. Certainly it is a subject that touches me very closely. Unemployment in country areas has not been created just in the last six months. The great problem in country areas is the static, or more or less perennial, unemployment that has existed there for years. I may be a bit extreme in saying this, but I speak confidently of my own area, where there has been considerable unemployment ever since I have been in this Parliament, and before. The reason is that there is not sufficient industry in the country areas to provide employment for the young people there. However, the present Government has made it a primary objective to look after primary industries, and this outlook on the part of the Government is in itself probably doing more to bring about decentralization and give vitality to country businesses than any other medium that the Government could use.

The Government has helped in establishing stabilization schemes and organized marketing schemes, particularly in respect of the wheat, dairying, tobacco and beef industries. It has brought down legislation for the establishment of research and promotion organizations for the benefit of primary industry. This year, in that field alone, we are increasing expenditure by £5,300,000 to £4,813,000. The Department of Trade is doing a magnificent job, principally in order to help primary industry. It is establishing new trading posts around the world. It is this- year doubling its appropriation for the conduct of trade missions overseas. In the coming year it will spend £891,000 on overseas publicity. It has negotiated trading arrangements and trading agreements with different countries in order to assure access to them of our exports - basically primary products. In addition, the Government is making vast contributions to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in order to finance research designed to achieve more production, and more efficiency in production, of local agricultural products. This year the allocation to the C.S.l.R.O. is being increased by £1,000,000’ to a total of £8,106,000.

Apart from this kind of help, the Government has granted considerable taxation concessions in order to stimulate the development of primary industries. It has made additional grants and bounties available, and this year, for the first time, £13,200,000 will be paid into the wheat stabilization fund. Among its other actions to help primary industry and the economy, the Government has established the Development Bank, and I am pleased to see that a further £5,000,000 is- to be added to that bank’s capital. I think it would be a good idea if the capital of the bank were increased even further.

Although decentralization . is principally the function of the State governments, this Government can honestly claim that whenever it has brought legislation before this Parliament which affects the country people, that legislation has always had the flavour of helping country people. No doubt this has been brought about to a very great degree by the influence of the Australian Country Party. One such great legislative measure was the Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill, brought down by a former Treasurer, Sir Earle Page. In that legislation, special provision was made that 40 per cent, of the money allocated under the scheme would go directly for work on rural roads. As honorable members know, over the next five years £250,000,000 will be spent on roads, and 40 per cent, of it must be devoted to secondary and tertiary roads in the country areas.

Another factor of great assistance to country people during the term of office of this Government has been the extension of telephone services, in which the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) has played so large a part. What has helped country people more than the introduction of the extended local service area system - known as “ Elsa “ - or the carriage of mail by air at the same cost to the sender as Surface mail? In the field of aviation, the Government has made available colossal amounts for the development of country aerodromes. Special provision has also been made by the Government for the development of national television services in country areas, as well as for the extension of radio services.

Two years ago I was the cause of a bit of a stir in this chamber when I told the Minister for Labour and National Service that of the 1,000 people then unemployed on the far north coast of New South Wales, 40 per cent. - or 400 of them - were under the age of twenty. I will say that the figure is only 600 at the moment. These were boys and girls who could not find local employment. For young people at that stage of life, unemployment is bad, not only for themselves and for the district, but also for the nation as a whole. At their age, these young people should be learning a definite trade so that they will be able to fit themselves into productive occupations. Instead, they become good material for the bodgie and delinquent elements in our community to work on.

The future of the nation depends on our young people, so it is our responsibility, as the trustees of the nation, to ensure that they become useful citizens. If a person is not trained in some specialized work during his or her teens or early twenties, the inclination and the capacity to be trained are speedily reduced as time goes on. Because of the lack of industry and, therefore, of employment opportunities in the country, there has been a continual drift of young people from the rural areas all over the Commonwealth to the more industrialized areas, such as the State capitals. The great tragedy is that young people have a social injustice placed upon them in being compelled to seek employment in the cities. They have to leave their homes and so cannot have the help that they could have from their parents. They are left to earn their own livelihoods in the cities. Who in this chamber, for instance, would like to have his daughter, aged fifteen or sixteen, travel 500 miles from her home to Sydney and have to fend for herself there? That is the kind of thing that is happening to country people, and I think that the Government has an obligation to try to do something about it. The New South Wales Government certainly does not seem to want to do anything about it. Even young people who have had the benefit of courses at universities or technical colleges find inadequate job opportunities in the country. The erosion of both skilled and unskilled young people from country areas has a definitely detrimental effect on the progress of such areas, because progress comes only through having young, virile people there on the spot.

The need for some of the adult population of country areas to move to the city areas also creates a social injustice. Many married men have to leave their homes to seek employment. They have to leave their wives and children behind because they cannot obtain a house for them in the city, or for financial or other reasons. This compulsory movement of people is bad for democracy. The uprooting of their homes and the unsettling of their way of life leave room for the creation of discontent by subversive elements.

In Australia 54 per cent, of the population resides in the metropolitan areas. Within a radius of 25 miles from our various capital cities lives 57 per cent, of our population. Within a 50-mile radius of the capital cities lives 63 per cent, of our population. Within 100 miles of the capital cities lives 77.5 per cent, of our population. There is no more densely centralized population in the world than Australia’s. The latest figures available, taken from the quarterly review of the Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited, show that Australia has 54 per cent, of her population in the six major capital cities, that New Zealand has 42 per cent, in cities, West Germany 26 per cent., the United Kingdom 25 per cent., Canada 18 per cent., Italy 12 per cent., and the United States of America 12 per cent. New South Wales has probably the greatest concentration of population of any State. I have taken out figures based on the census which show the percentage increases of population in fourteen statistical regions of New South Wales during two periods - between 1947 and 1954 and between 1954 and 1960. With the concurrence of honorable members I shall incorporate these in “ Hansard “. The figures are -

These figures clearly show the percentage increase of population in the various statistical regions of New South Wales between 1947 and 1954. In the Cumberland region, which takes in the Sydney metropolitan area, there was an increase of 14 per cent, in that period. Of the fourteen regions in New South Wales, only eight had a greater percentage increase of population; but between 1954 and 1960, only one region in New South Wales had a greater percentage increase in population than did Sydney, and that was the south coast of New South Wales, including the Illawarra district and Port Kembla. All other country areas had a rate of population increase about half that of Sydney. So if the New South Wales Government wants to talk about decentralization, here is a case clearly showing that it is falling down on its job. This is an indictment of anything the New South Wales Government says about decentralization.

It is apparent that the population in the already overcrowded and congested cities is coming partly from rural areas and partly from immigration. We must try to stop this drift by establishing industries in country areas to hold employment there. There are two alternatives - to create employment through public works or to encourage the establishment of industry in country areas. Public works create employment, but the effect is only temporary. Once the work has stopped, the problem returns. The establishment of industries is the only long-range solution.

There are many constructive arguments in favour of the dispersal of industry to the country. There are equally strong reasons for avoiding further crowding of metropolitan areas. First, the development of industry in country areas gives employment opportunities and so alleviates the social hardships of rural people. Dispersal of industry and population into country areas also enables more efficient use of the tremendous amounts of capital that have already been invested in railways, roads, ports and aerodromes. If we used this capital expenditure to a greater degree, transport costs could be reduced. When one considers that 40 per cent, of the cost of all products in Australia arise from transport, surely it is evident that we could do Australia a wonderful service by helping to reduce transport costs.

The decentralization of population would also bring about increased amenities for rural people who are the very backbone of Australia. Year in and year out they provide 80 to 90 per cent, of the export earnings which are so necessary to pay for the importation of raw materials for Australian industries which, in turn, provide employment in the city areas.

The labour force in the country is much better for industrial purposes from an employment point of view. It is more reliable and more stable. In country areas to travel to work is much cheaper, quicker and more efficient. The cost and wastage of man-hours involved in getting people to work in the city areas is a big burden on the economy and must contribute tremendously to the lowering of living standards and costs. The congestion on roads, trains, buses and ferries is appalling. Extravagant expenditure of capital will be required to make transport more efficient in the cities. Already, colossal amounts are being spent on altering and widening highways to meet the overcrowding of traffic.

The provision of satisfactory water supplies to meet the needs of Sydney will need abnormal capital expenditure. If it were not for the overcrowding, this huge expenditure could be used for more productive national products such as hydroelectricity, dams, irrigation, a national roads scheme, education and the provision of ports. It is necessary to go almost 100 miles to the south now to obtain water for Sydney. Soon, the Sydney water supply authorities will have to go as far as the

Snowy Mountains scheme if the present trend is maintained. How much better it would be to use this capital expenditure on national projects such as those I have mentioned!

The development of smaller rural cities and towns leads to probably the best type of social set-up that any country could wish for. In my travels within Australia and abroad, I have found that there is no more equalitarian or classless society to be found than that in the rural areas of small holdings. I speak mainly of northern New South Wales which I know so well. In this type of society, there is patriotism, co-operation and high moral character. This is the optimum society and far surpasses any theories of Marx, Engels, or Lenin about the ideal society for the development of a nation. Instead, we are moving towards bigger capital cities, which, in themselves, produce class strata and class hatred. Communists are thus given the chance to use the workers’ unions to attack the bosses and the capitalist system. Powerful business concerns, particularly in the fields of propaganda such as radio, television and newspapers, are given the chance to dominate the thinking of the people and exercise political pressure. This monopoly control, either by the unions or by businessmen, ultimately results in the people being hurt, or leads to the retardation of national development.

At this point I would like to direct attention to the fact that it was a Country Party Minister who foresaw the inherent dangers in the probable monopoly control of television by selfish city-dominated interests and brought down some of the finest legislation seen in this chamber. I refer to the recent broadcasting and television bill which laid emphasis on country television being owned by country interests.

Local and municipal administration is more efficient in smaller country areas and less prone to corruption than it is in the large metropolitan areas. In large cities the field of local government is so vast and complex that the ratepayers are unable to exercise the same scrutiny as in the smaller cities and towns.

Decentralization also improves security. If we are to hold this country of 3,000,000 square miles, we must populate it and develop it. To have a mere hollow shell, with most of the population crowded on the coastline, is useless. It is also important that we should decentralize industry to safeguard it from atomic attack. Various governments, at different times, have seen the importance in time of war of decentralizing industry. During the Second World War, the then government did make a definite effort to establish industry in country areas, but not much has been done since then.

Russia, England and the United States of America have recognized this need. Figures recently released by the Russians show that there are only three cities in the whole of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that have a population exceeding 1,000,000. In England, since the Second World War, the authorities have managed to attract 20 per cent, of industry away from London and Birmingham into areas such as South Wales, Clydesdale and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom Government has had a definite policy to make decentralization possible. This has included the acquisition of land which is made available for industrial purposes. It has assisted in the building and leasing of factories and has made loans to industrial enterprises. It has given direct assistance to local government bodies to provide the basic services, water, power and housing to assist industry. A similar pattern has been followed in the United States of America.

In submitting some suggestions for the assistance of industrial development in country areas, 1 am not asking for direct concessions or subsidies to put industries in areas where they are not geographically economic. There has been little alternative but to develop the heavy industries where they are to-day, but I do believe that there is a big potential in rural areas for the development of small industry, and it is on this subject that I want to put forward a constructive plan which has been adopted by the United States Government.

In the U.S.A., there is a special department called the Small Business Administration. The purposes of this administration are numerous. They range from seeing that small businesses are not squeezed out by large monopolies, to ensuring that they get an equitable share of government contracts and development loans with the emphasis on giving employment. This scheme has worked very successfully in America. It was first mooted in 1948, and an act was brought down in 1953. The plan has grown rapidly and now plays an important part in the United States economy. This year, the United States Government gave approval for an increase in the revolving fund to 1,050,000,000 dollars, making a cash contribution for this year of 55,000,000 dollars. My idea would not be a body exactly the same as the American small business administration scheme. I would like to see an administration set up in this country for the sole purpose of decentralizing industry and making finance available for that purpose. Maybe we could call this scheme the decentralized small business development organization. Funds for this purpose would be made available only to areas or cities with a population of 50,000 or less. The finance needed could possibly come from the Australian Loan Council, as the States have an inherent responsibility in decentralization. Perhaps this organization could be a branch of the Commonwealth Development Bank, or alternatively the Government could set up a special organization to deal with this problem. The definition of “ a small business “ would have to be carefully worked out, but the main essential is that it should give preference to providing employment for people in country areas. Money would be provided for a business which was going to give employment to at least ten people.

In my electorate there are approximately 120 businesses which employ ten people or more. Some of these businesses have a wonderful potential, provided they can get the capital required for expansion or to modernize their plant and machinery. Businesses such as food processing, machinery construction and clothing factories have been very successful and I believe that some of them have a considerable export potential. On the north coast of New South Wales the turnover from 4,000 retail stores is approximately £200,000,000, and that fact shows that there is a demand for more locally-produced goods. When a business applied for a loan, I suggest that 50 per cent, of the money required should be found by the business concerned and that the Government could provide the other half at the same rate as bank interest. I would set a ceiling to the amount of loan at £50,000. In America the ceiling is £135,000, but I think that to begin with a ceiling of £50,000 would work successfully here. Some people might say that the Commonwealth Development Bank could fulfil the functions I have proposed, but this scheme differs from the other in that it gives emphasis to decentralization.

It will in no way create antagonism between the private banks and government banks; and local industries will have the conscientious support of the people in their districts. The function of the Development Bank is more to assist in the production of basic materials, materials for export and the overall development of Australia, whereas my scheme, the decentralized small business administration, would concentrate on rural areas and employment. Unfortunately time does not permit me to elaborate in greater detail on this subject, but I counsel honorable members of this House to study the American small business administration, because here is an idea which may bring about the decentralization of industry in country areas. In the short time available to me I have tried to demonstrate the necessity for getting some of the people out of our over-crowded cities. If the concentration of industry in our cities is to continue, as I have pointed out, only disaster can come to this country. One atom bomb or thermo-nuclear bomb dropped on Sydney in the day-time would kill 1,000,000 people and wound 500,000 people. If it were dropped at night I am informed it would kill only 500,000 people and wound 1,000,000 people. How would you look after 1,000,000 wounded people? They would be gone anyway. But I recommend this proposal to the Government. It probably needs plenty of modification, and I am only advancing it as a starting point for consideration. Somebody has to do the thinking, and if it is not the young people who come into this place with ideas, where are we going to get them from? I recommend this proposal to the House and ask that it be given consideration, because it is vital to our national, social and economic security.

Mr O’CONNOR:
Dalley

.- The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) stated that the Budget we are now discussing is the best that he has listened to over the last four years. Unlike the honorable member, I have listened to twelve Budgets presented by this Government, and I believe that that which the House is now discussing is one of the worst that has ever been presented to the Parliament. I cannot recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) ever faring as badly, in that twelve years in defence of his Budget, as was the case last Thursday night. He was quite as rhetorical as on a number of other occasions and, as usual, he was supreme in semantics, but when we examine his words we find that he poses some questions, leaves them unanswered and then takes refuge again in words. Among other things which not only he but also other members on the Government side have presented to the House from time to time is the question of who is to blame for our present position. The responsibility for what is happening in our economy to-day is that of the Government. That cannot be denied, and the Government cannot escape that responsibility.

For twelve years we have witnessed Budget after Budget being presented by this Government, each one of which contradicted the others. Each year there has been a change of policy and it is quite apparent that with this constant changing of policy in each Budget not only the Government but also its supporters have become quite indifferent to change. In his contribution to the debate the other evening, and for the first time in twelve years, the Prime Minister attempted to lay some of the responsibility for the situation in which our economy is to-day upon changing world conditions. This is a belated recognition of world conditions and their effect. Previously, the Prime Minister was not known to adopt such an attitude. He has been modest to a degree. He attempted to take for his Government all the credit for what has occurred in prosperous years but made no mention at all of the fortunate set of circumstances which followed his Government through the years, particularly the succession of good seasons that this country enjoyed. Apparently he was intent upon proving to the people of Australia that he and he alone could govern and that his

Government was responsible for the apparent prosperity of our economy. Now, however, the Prime Minister finds that certain conditions are prevailing and he makes mention of them. Among other things he stated that notwithstanding the fact that our economy is going backwards he is determined not to re-impose import controls. As I said earlier, it is quite obvious that the difficulties we are facing to-day stem from the measures that the Government introduced in November last, together with the lifting of import controls. Those two facts are inescapable, and they are the cause of our difficulties to-day.

The Prime Minister also omitted to refer to the failure of his Government to deal with the problems that were being created in our economy by the activities of hirepurchase companies. That brings me to the promise that his Government made at the last election - that, if it were returned, it would do something about bringing into operation an excess profits tax. The Prime Minister has forgotten also the promises that he made about the ambitions of his Government in the field of constitutional change. He set up an all-party committee to deal with this matter and it has since reported to the House; but the right honorable gentleman has indicated in no uncertain fashion that, so far as he is concerned, the report will not be debated by this House. It is quite obvious that when a government sets up an all-party committee comprising six members from each side of the House and it unanimously recommends constitutional changes that would be of advantage to Australia, it is very difficult for the Government to avoid implementing at least some of those recommendations. But it is obvious also that the Prime Minister is playing party politics. The future of this country is being placed in pawn as a result of the Prime Minister’s party approach to this all-important question.

From time to time honorable members on the Government side, particularly the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), have referred to fringe banking institutions. Although they have admitted that the operations of these institutions are causing grave disabilities in our economy, they have run away from the suggestion that the Government should do something to try to curb their activities. When speaking on this matter last week the Prime Minister claimed that the Government had not attempted to bring down any legislation relating to the activities of these companies because it had no legal authority to do so. With due respect to the Prime Minister, I say that this is merely a matter of opinion. Quite an amount of eminent legal opinion is available on this issue which differs from the opinions that have been expressed by the Prime Minister and the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick). After all, the Prime Minister has been proved to be wrong in the past when a matter involving legal interpretation has been raised. I remind honorable members that legislation passed by this House was found to be ultra vires the Constitution. I refer to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. The bill’s validity was questioned during the debate on it. However, the doubts that were expressed in relation to its validity made no impression upon the Prime Minister. Eventually the High Court ruled that it was ultra vires. That was one occasion when the Prime Minister’s opinion on whether a matter is constitutional or not was wrong. I understand that on another occasion this House passed legislation dealing with the dried fruits industry. On appeal to the Privy Council as to the validity of the legislation it was found that the measure was unconstitutional and it was removed from the statute-book. The case became known as the James case, and I understand that the Prime Minister was associated with it in the position of either leading or junior counsel.

On all matters of a controversial character there is and must be a division of opinion. The Government has a responsibility at least to take action to try to preserve and protect our economy. The Government has not denied that the operations of what it terms fringe banking institutions are having devastating effects upon the economy. Consequently, it should move in and protect the economy against the operations of these companies.

Honorable members have referred to the fact that the High Court itself has already defined the meaning of the word “banking “, but circumstances have changed completely since then and banking to-day is not the institution that it was when the High Court was asked previously for its opinion. Hire-purchase companies to-day have moved into fields that were the exclusive preserves of the banks. As a result of the character and operations of these companies the meaning of the word “ banking “ has been changed. For those reasons, 1 believe that the word needs redefining. Because of those factors and because this matter is so important, the Government should not hesitate to take immediate steps to bring down the appropriate legislation.

We are in rather a paradoxical situation. The Government has maintained that it can bring down, as it has done in the past, legislation to deal with the operations of private trading banks but that it cannot bring down legislation to deal with the operations of hire-purchase companies. That argument is untenable and contradictory. Such a state of affairs should not be allowed to prevail, even if there is a division of opinion among the legal men who support this Government. It is so serious that the Government should move immediately and at least allow the organizations to which I have referred the opportunity to test the legislation in the High Court if they wish to do so. After all, they are in a position to do precisely that.

The next phase of my contribution to the debate relates to overseas trade. Honorable members quite rightly have pointed out the composition of our overseas trade, but it appears to me that a very important fact has been overlooked completely. I refer to the fact that we are carrying on our overseas trade with continuing deficits. The question now arises of how long we can continue with these deficits. Because of them, the Government is financing our operations either by bringing in foreign capital or by borrowing on overseas markets to build up our overseas reserves.

On the matter of overseas trade and the inflow of foreign capital to this country, let me point out that in the last twelve years Australia has received foreign investment totalling £845,000,000 at the rate of £71,000,000 a year. This rate has been accelerated greatly in the last couple of years. In recent years we have borrowed £123,000,000 from the United States of America and Canada and not less than £440,000,000 from the United Kingdom. It is interesting to consider our overseas trade for the past three years. In 1958-59 we had a deficit of £185,000,000; in 1959- 60 a deficit of £219,000,000 and in 1960- 61 a deficit of £369,000,000. Our total deficits for the past three years amount to the astronomical figure of £773,000,000. I have pointed out how the Government has met these deficits so far, but the question arises now of how long this process can continue.

The Prime Minister made some rather scathing remarks about the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) to introduce a supplementary Budget when he becomes Prime Minister which will provide for a deficit of £100,000,000 to be used to restore the unemployed to work. However, we must ask this question: If the Prime Minister is alarmed at the idea of a deficit of £100,000,000 in a supplementary Budget, he did not evince any alarm when, about six months ago, he borrowed not less than £100,000,000 on the international market in an attempt to bolster up our overseas reserves. Apparently, when some one else proposes to do something which will require the expenditure of a similar amount, the picture is entirely different.

I want to deal now with what I consider to be a very bad attribute of this Government - its complete lack of Australianism in its approach to the administration of this country’s affairs. I believe that the position of Governor-General should have been filled by an Australian. I do not see any need for this or any other Australian government to appoint to this very important position some one from overseas. The Government appears to be hopelessly out of touch with public opinion on this matter. About eighteen months ago a Gallup poll was taken on this issue and the result indicated that no less than 70 per cent, of the Australian public favoured the appointment of an Australian to this important post. However, the Government proved impervious to the wishes of the Australian people in this matter. It still appoints to this position controversial figures from overseas.

Commenting on this subject two or three years ago, the Prime Minister gave as a reason for not appointing an Australian the need to avoid appointing a controversial figure. He was referring, of course, to the possibility of an Australian appointee having been a controversial figure in political activities in this country. But it seems a contradiction of the Prime Minister’s principles that he has, on the last two occasions, chosen for the post of Governor-General men who have been associated with politics in the United Kingdom.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! I remind the honorable gentleman that he is sailing very close to the wind. He may not reflect on the Governor-General.

Mr O’CONNOR:

– I am not reflecting on the Governor-General. I am reflecting on the Government’s attitude towards the filling of the post of Governor-General. Surely, Mr. Temporary Chairman, you will not rule that I may not discuss the Government’s attitude. I suggest that we have not reached a stage at which honorable members may not express their opinions on that aspect of this very important question. After all, that has been done down the years. I am merely talking about the Government’s policy in this matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I do not wish to interfere with the honorable member’s right to criticize the methods by which appointments are made, with particular reference to the appointment of Australians instead of persons from overseas. But the honorable gentleman may not discuss the personality of the person appointed.

Mr O’CONNOR:

– I am referring to the reasons given by the Prime Minister from time to time for his refusal to appoint Australians to this very important position. I say quite definitely that the Government is completely out of touch with Australian opinion on this issue.

The second point that I wish to make about the Government’s deplorable failure to adopt a national approach to the administration of this country’s affairs relates to our lack of a national anthem. The Australian Labour Party, when it was in office, did not hesitate to give the anthem “ Advance Australia Fair “ its proper place. On a number of occasions when an honorable member has suggested in this place that the Government take action to give this anthem proper recognition, the Prime Minister has not hesitated to reveal his disdain for the suggestion. I admit that, as a musical composition, “ Advance Australia Fair “ could be improved. But surely to goodness we ought to develop our national culture and natural characteristics. We fare very badly in a comparison with other countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations in this respect. Any one who has heard the way in which the citizens of other countries of the British Commonwealth sing their national anthems appreciates why those anthems awaken so much enthusiasm and fervour in the people of the countries concerned.

In this matter, also, the Prime Ministeis not prepared to do anything. I suggest that we have reached a stage of development at which we should be moving in matters such as this. Perhaps the susceptibilities of the Prime Minister would not be hurt if we sponsored an international competition in order to get a national anthem that would appeal not only to the Government but to all Australians. The idea of an international competition is not new. I remind honorable members that Walter Burley Griffin, an American, who won an international planning competition, was responsible for the plan in accordance with which Canberra is now being developed.

The next matter with which I wish to deal, Mr. Temporary Chairman, is the Government’s continuing practice of allowing appeals in lawsuits to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. We have reached a stage in our development at which we should discontinue this practice, as has been done by many countries of the British Commonwealth. Appeals to the Privy Council are very costly. There is a saying that all people are equal before the law, and that is perfectly true. But all people are not equal in the fight to get before the law. Consequently, litigation can be the means of breaking people, and it has broken many. For this reason, I suggest that the practice of allowing appeals to the Privy Council be reviewed and discontinued. Conversations that I have had with members of the legal profession indicate that there is a growing concern in the profession about the continuance of this practice. Lawyers have told me that recent judgments by the Privy Council have been criticized by the legal fraternity in Australia. In some instances, those judgments have cut right across principles and precedents established in Australian courts.

I have pointed out that although everybody is equal before the law, there is no equality in the fight to get before it. The practice under which appeals to the Privy Council are allowed favours those who are in the fortunate position of being able to pay. The statistics showing the numbers of taxpayers in various income groups indicate how impossible it is for Australians to engage in costly litigation. The latest report of the Commissioner of Taxation - that dated 1st June, 1960 - shows that the latest estimate df the number of taxpayers in Australia is 4,030,000. There are estimated to be 895,000 with incomes in the range from £105 to £499 a year and 1,625,000 with incomes in the range from £500 to £999 a year. In other words, more than one-third of the Australian taxpayers receive incomes of less than £20 a week. There are estimated to be 1,307,000 taxpayers with incomes in the range from £1,000 to £1,999 a year. The three groups I have mentioned comprise a total of 3,827,000 taxpayers. This leaves, in my view, 203,000 people in the country with the means to engage in costly law suits if they wish to do so. In other words, on the figures of the Commissioner of Taxation it appears that 90 per cent, of our people are incapable of engaging, or unable or unwilling to engage, in costly legal processes. I believe that the Government should do something to try to reduce the burdens that taxpayers must bear if they have to resort to litigation. The States do so, and the Commonwealth itself does so in the cases of servicemen or ex-servicemen. If the Commonwealth extends assistance to members or ex-members of the armed forces in this way - and it is quite right in doing so, in my opinion - then it should extend similar assistance to all other taxpayers.

Let me now make some reference to the shipbuilding industry. I am very disappointed to find that the subsidy to be paid for shipbuilding will be only £1,450,000, as compared with a payment of £3,000,000 last year. The subsidy for the building of merchant ships, then, is to be cut by half during the period of the next twelve months. Our shipbuilding industry is in a parlous condition. Activity in the industry is declining, and unemployment is growing. I am not going to take up time in referring to the action of the Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley) in placing orders overseas for ships for the Royal Australian Navy. I shall concentrate on the reduction in the subsidy for shipbuilding, and I point out that it can have a very serious effect upon our economy and upon our growth and development.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) referred in his speech a few nights ago to what the Opposition would do about shipbuilding if it were returned to the Government benches. The proposals that he announced are not unique. 1 believe, however, that if people interested in this matter were to inquire into what other countries do to protect their interests in regard to shipping, they would find that Australia is unique in that the Australian Government does nothing at all, and leaves the country at the mercy of private shipping interests.

A serious position has been reached with regard to our shipping services. Last Saturday “ Manoora “ finished its last run on the Australian coast, lt has been sold, I believe, to Indonesia, and it will now operate under the Indonesian flag. “ Manoora “ was the last Australian ship operating on the Australian coast. All passengers will henceforth be carried by overseas ships. This is a disgraceful state of affairs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr DEAN:
Robertson

.– First, Mr. Temporary Chairman, let me refer to one suggestion made by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. O’Connor). Perhaps the time has arrived for us to conduct an international competition for a national song, but I do not believe that he should conduct any competition for a national anthem. Indeed, Sir, we have inherited a national anthem. The styles and titles of Her Majesty the Queen show her to be Queen of the Commonwealth and Queen of Australia. The national anthem has very personal associations for most Australian people, and 1 think it would be most inappropriate to consider any change of it at the present time.

In my remarks this afternoon 1 would like to say something regarding the provisions in the Budget for stimulating the Australian economy. I would also like to give some answer to the criticisms already voiced by members of the Opposition, to offer some opinion regarding the request that Commonwealth aid should be provided for primary and secondary education, to oppose the request that the base rate pension should be connected in some way with an economic formula, and also to say something about the great difference between the objectives of this Government in the field of defence and the proposals of the socialist Opposition.

We have been accustomed, in this place, to hear honorable gentlemen opposite making representations on behalf of organized pressure groups outside the Parliament, but I have been astonished to hear them, during the last few weeks, making representations on behalf of organized groups of employers. In the past the Opposition has, quite wrongly, accused members of this Government of being representative only of employers’ organizations. In fact, of course, the Government represents all sections of the community. It has to safeguard the interests of primary producers, manufacturers and consumers, and it has to formulate legislation and provide an economic situation best suited to the interests of the majority of the people of Australia.

Listening to Opposition spokesmen in this debate, one would be led to think that the Government has deliberately taken steps to bring about economic disaster in Australia and to make itself as unpopular as possible. This curious attitude of the Opposition has had the support of some of the daily newspapers and some of the weekly journals. It seems to me that if the Government was concerned only with attracting votes, it would be unlikely to bring in, temporarily, unpopular measures in an election year. I believe, however, that the majority of Australians realize that this Government has a continuing policy, and that it will not be diverted from that policy simply because an election is in the offing. I have had this belief supported in discussions recently with representatives of a number of organizations. I shall refer to one only, as an example. The man with whom I spoke was a member of a real estate firm, so that his business had been affected temporarily by the measures taken by the Government last November. He said that he appreciated the fact that we had a government in Australia with sufficient courage to adopt the measures that it thought best for the majority of the people. There is no truth at all in the suggestion that this Government pursues policies designed to benefit only one section of the community. I remind the committee, however, that this is exactly what the socialist Opposition would do.

The honorable member for Dalley referred to Budget debates that have been heard in this chamber over the last ten years. I have listened to all the v Budget debates since 1949. The Opposition has decried each Budget brought down and has predicted doom and disaster for all Australia if the proposals contained in the various Budgets were implemented. However, the honorable gentlemen opposite have been proved false prophets. Despite all that they have said, the Menzies Government has been returned at each successive election, and the development of Australia has continued to be carried out on a sound basis.

Mr Duthie:

– It has been returned only with the help of the Democratic Labour Party and the Communists.

Mr DEAN:

– There was no Democratic Labour Party at the beginning of the period to which I am referring. During this period, the Government has taken economic measures necessary for progress and stability.

Mr Bryant:

– Stagnation!

Mr DEAN:

– I shall answer the honorable gentleman in a few moments. He is the one who has stagnated. These economic measures have been criticized by those who have not realized the need to stimulate the Australian economy. The Government is performing its duties by taking these measures. It certainly would have deserved criticism if it had shirked its responsibilities and done nothing.

I think that the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) should realize that, during the last two decades, the responsibility of governments to influence the national economy has increased. In the days before the last war, economies in what we term the Western nations were allowed to run much more freely than they do now. So, one saw the national economy graph of those countries going up slowly to a peak of prosperity where it stayed for a short time. Then there was a sudden drop into the depths of depression where the economy stayed for quite some time until it made a gradual recovery. That is the circumstance which I had in mind when I said that it was the responsibility of a government such as ours to see that these economic disasters do not happen again. It is part of the Government’s objective, and a part of its responsibility, to see that the national economic crises which I have described are ironed out so that we have long periods of prosperity and progress and so that when, for reasons beyond our control, such as overseas conditions, any recession occurs, it is controlled and does not become disastrous.

The main attack of the Opposition is based on the allegation that unemployment is greater than is warranted. I see the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) nodding in agreement. This matter has to be viewed from two angles. First, the Opposition has spoken about unemployment in an enthusiastic manner because only in an atmosphere of rising unemployment and economic recession can the honorable gentlemen opposite see any hope of winning the elections. Secondly, some of the Opposition’s senior members have said that, from time to time, we shall have to cope with the unemployment of 5 per cent, of the work force.

Mr Wentworth:

– The honorable member for Parkes said that, didn’t he?

Mr DEAN:

– Yes. The most recent figures that I have been able to obtain indicate 6.8 per cent, of unemployment in the United States, 11.1 per cent, in Canada and 2.7 per cent, in Australia. I realize that these figures are not directly comparable with those of Australia. The United States figure is derived from a sample survey and is an estimated percentage of the civilian labour force. The Canadian figure, too, is estimated from a sample survey. The relevant Australian figure is the number of people registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service expressed as a percentage of the work’ force. But give or take a few points in each case the figures are sufficient to prove my point that the measures taken by the Government have been designed to ensure that the least possible number of people are unemployed.

Australian figures compare more than favorably with the unemployment figures for countries which have a comparable standard of living to that of Australia. Our measures have prevented the number of unemployed from being as large as it would have been had effect been given to the proposals of the socialist Opposition. I believe that the Budget should be examined in conjunction with the measures taken in previous budgets and in conjunction with some subsidiary economic measures. It will be seen, then, that the Government’s policy has been a continuing one to provide economic stimulation and the right conditions for rising employment.

I should like to quote briefly some of the things for which the Budget provides: It provides for an offer to the Government of New South Wales to improve the coal handling facilities at the ports of Newcastle, Port Kembla and Balmain. Under this offer, part of the assistance to be given would take the form of a grant from the funds now held by the Joint Coal Board and the remainder would take the form of repayable advances. The Budget provides for a further allocation of funds for housing and the expenditure of £1,000,000 on roads for the cattle industry in northern parts of Australia. It provides more money for the Western Australian and South Australian railways proposals and for oil seeach. It adds £5,000,000 to the capital of the Commonwealth Development Bank. It proposes to increase age, invalid and widows’ pensions, unemployment and sickness benefits, special war pensions, general war pensions, war widows’ pensions and war service pensions. It proposes to reduce sales tax on household goods. It proposes to increase payments to the States by £31,921,000 to a total of £384,868,000.

Requests have been received from a number of school authorities such as the Teachers’ Federation, and parents’ and citi zens’ associations, for further money to be made available by the Commonwealth to the States for primary and secondary school education. I should like to remind the committee of the assistance which the Commonwealth has given to tertiary education for a number of years. There is a great difference between the requirements of the university and those of primary and secondary schools. So, a great difference is needed in the approach to their respective needs. The number of schools in each State is tremendously greater than the number of universities. There are some thousands of primary and secondary schools in New South Wales while there are only three universities and, I think, two university colleges.

The administration of schools and educational programmes is entirely a State matter. At the time of federation, the States voluntarily surrendered a number of their powers and rights to the Commonwealth, but they retained their control of the administration of education, lt is only because of the different nature of tertiary education in the universities that the Commonwealth has been able to assist the States in that phase of education. The States themselves are far better fitted to deal in detail with the numerous and various matters connected with schools. They have their responsibilities as sovereign States which I, being a federalist and not a unificationist, believe they should retain.

In no way has the Commonwealth shirked its duties in relation to education. In 1951-52 the Commonwealth made available £1,473,000 to the States as grants for universities. The amount provided for the same purpose in this Budget, ten years later, is £14,161,000. That is for tertiary education. Now look at what we are making available for primary and secondary education. I have already stated that payments to the States are to be increased to the estimated figure of £31,921,000, and included in that sum is provision for extra funds to be made available for primary and secondary schools. Under their responsibility for education, the States allocate those moneys according to certain priorities, as I have explained. I think I have made it clear, even to the honorable member, that in no way has the Commonwealth shirked its responsibility; on the contrary it has done a great deal to assist education throughout Australia. I think I have also shown that Commonwealth aid to the States for tertiary education continues to be along well-established lines.

Recently, the Prime Minister had occasion to examine the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the States, particularly with regard to education, which is an integral part of the overall arrangement which is determined at Premiers’ Conferences and Loan Council meetings. It was found that the present system is working well. The tax reimbursment grants to which I have referred, plus the Commonwealth underwriting of loan programmes, have enabled the States to make successful plans for dealing with their own education problems. They have increased their expenditure on education to a marked degree, and the percentage of their total Budget spent on education has risen, lt has been calculated that if the States continue in the next five years to increase their expenditure on education at the same rate as they did during the last five years, they will spend under that heading a little more than even the Ministers for Education estimated they would need in the statement to which we have all had reference. In a period of rapidly increasing enrolments - 1 believe the increase is of the order of some 70,000 each year - the States have maintained in primary and secondary schools the pupil-teacher ratio which existed in 1952. They have provided sufficient schoolrooms, but I know they have not been able to dispense with all the unsuitable accommodation. In the next five years, it should be possible to make up this leeway and improve the accommodation.

At the beginning of my remarks, 1 referred to the request that has been received from a number of organizations that the base-rate pension be related in some way to an economic formula. We should all remember the abolition by this Government of many of the anomalies within the means test during its years of office and the frequent increases it has made in the base rate pension. This Budget provides for a further increase. I am opposed to relating the base rate age, invalid, widows’ and other pensions to a fixed formula that is not in accord with our concept of democratic principles. No matter what our party political views may be, most of us who are democrats believe in the right of

Parliament to manage its own expenditure without being tied to any formula.

The second reason why I oppose the request is that the proposal would not be in the interests of the pensioners themselves. We know that this system has been tried before but, in principle, Commonwealth Governments have not accepted the proposition that social service benefits should be linked with the basic wage, the cost of living or any other index. That system has been tried twice and abandoned. In October, 1933, legislative provision was made for periodical adjustments to the maximum pension based on variations in the price index for food and groceries. It will be remembered that that provision was repealed in 1937. A similar provision was re-introduced in December, 1940. In that instance, adjustments to the pension were based on variations of the C series index. After several increases had been made to pensions under that provision, it became necessary in 1943, as a result of a fall in the C series index, to reduce pensions. This caused such repercussions that after two pay-days at the reduced rate the reduction was cancelled, and the pension was restored to its former rate, the restoration being made retrospective. This was done under the national security regulations and, when introducing the relevant bill, the then Attorney-General, Dr. Evatt, said this, amongst other things -

Any automatic system of pension adjustment was necessarily arbitrary. It results in early turning points; e.g. a reduction of 1 per cent, in the index in the September quarter of 1943 led to a reduction of nearly 2 per cent, in the pension rate. As the pension rate was uniform throughout Australia the automatic adjustment based on variations in the price index led to anomalies. This was illustrated by the fact that the system had required a reduction of pensions throughout Australia, whereas in some places - for example. Hobart - the price index had actually risen.

Between 1944 and December, 1949, many requests were made to the Labour Government to re-introduce a system of cost of living adjustments to the pension. That Government strongly resisted all such requests.

Similar requests continued to be made to the Liberal-Country Party Government. This Government has likewise refused and has decided to make increases at a flat rate in preference to re-introducing a system of cost of living adjustments. Both governments have made it clear that a system of cost of living adjustments is not satisfactory. This Government believes that a review of pension rates from time to time in the light of the overall financial position is a more satisfactory method of ensuring that the needs of pensioners are met in accordance with the nation’s ability to pay. As is well recognized throughout the community, the Liberal-Country Party Government has introduced many additional benefits in addition to increasing the base rate. For example, 1 remind honorable members that this Government subsidizes at the rate of £2 for £1 the provision of homes for aged persons. It also introduced the pensioner medical benefit scheme. In other words, this Government has said that more can be done with the same amount of money if it supports a scheme for providing homes for aged persons and another for free medicine and treatment than if several shillings more were added to the pension as the Government’s contribution to the cost of a house or the cost of medical and hospital bills. These are some of the main reasons why I find it necessary to object to the request that the base rate pension should be linked to an economic formula.

I hope that during the debates on the Estimates there will be opportunities for me to discuss the Government’s proposals with relation to a number of other matters, particularly with relation to Territories and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I should like to refer briefly to our financial provision for the defence of this country, our relations with our allies on defence grounds, and our part in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization and the Anzus pact. As will be seen from the Budget, it is estimated that we shall spend £202,859,000 during the coming year. This represents an increase of something like £4,000,000 on last year’s expenditure. I understand that approximately half of that increase will be absorbed in increased wages. The point I wish to make in a general way at the moment - I hope to be able to elaborate it during the debate on the Estimates - is that it is necessary for us not only to maintain the forces we have and to keep them equipped as far as possible with up-to-date equipment, especially technical equipment, but also to be able to play our part as members of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization and to take our part with the United Kingdom and New Zealand in the maintenance of strategic forces in Malaya. We know that it is the object of the socialist Opposition to withdraw Australia from Seato if they get the chance to do so, and also to withdraw our forces from the strategic reserve I have mentioned.

I wonder why it is that when the Budget and the Estimates come before the Parliament honorable gentlemen opposite attack Seato and the strategic force. They announce as part of their programme a reduction of expenditure on Australia’s defence forces, which exist solely for the defence of this country and to enable us to play our full part with our allies in defence generally. I wonder also why they always find it so necessary to jump to the defence of Russia whenever there is criticism of Russian policies. Why, on such occasions, do they have to find some fault, not only in Australia, .but also in Great Britain and the United States of America in particular, which they attack in order to offset the criticism being made in this place of Russian actions?

I hope that as a result of this debate and of what has been said on this side of the chamber the Australian people will realize more fully the great stimulus that this Budget will bring to the economy. 1 hope they will realize that the Budget will provide the right kind of atmosphere for rising employment so that we will be able to go forward with our national development, which has been so successful and for which we have great plans.

Mr KEARNEY:
Cunningham

.- I rise to give my full support to what is, in effect, a censure motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). This Budget is a failure. It does not show even a semblance of initiative, intention or design to assist the development of this country at a vital period of its history. This Budget is but another move in the yo-yo activities of the Government over the past eleven years in respect of economic policy and the development of the things that count. No previous government has stood so naked, so discredited, so abashed and indicted by the leaders of both secondary and primary industries, by the press of this country, by the Labour Opposition in this Parliament, by the wage-earners, the pensioners, the exservicemen and, above all, the unemployed, as does this Government in its eleventh year of office.

The Budget has been blasted literally to shreds by the foremost financial and manufacturing authorities in Australia and abroad, and by the Australian people generally. It has been blasted so much that even the exalted Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is hiding his political fears behind the nervous laughter which betokens defeat, while most honorable members opposite are shivering in their shoes as they contemplate their dismal election prospects later this year. Honorable members opposite may laugh if they like. It is easy to indulge in frivolity on this matter now, but the 9th December is looming very close. The breath of the public is now hot on their necks, collectively and individually. Some of them will not be here when we introduce a Labour budget in February next year.

The Budget is a critical implement of national policy. It sets the background for the pending general election; but, what is far more important, it represents an official assertion and statement of the Government’s thinking on the future of the economy. At every independent point outside the Government parties’ rooms and away from the Government benches in this House this Budget has been condemned for its total failure to provide hopes of a bright immediate future for the people at large and the national economy generally.

The Government and its leaders are notorious for their inability over a decade of control to see the “ vision splendid “, which is surely Australia’s destiny, but which, for its prompt attainment, requires a bold, continuous and realistic application of policy at the level of this Parliament. The unplanned, uncertain and haphazard economic policies propounded and forced upon the Australian community for some years past by this Government have cut the taproot of business and social confidence, to the insane degree that to-day there is no longer any confidence in this coun try or in the Government and its political actions.

The Chifley and Curtin Labour Governments set Australia striding zestfully along the broad road of progress and development. When we remember that more than 1,000,000 service men and women were returned to civil life without causing a ripple on the surface of the economy and that our manufacturing industries raced forward to absorb the services of our people plus another 1,000,000 people from overseas without an eddy of hindrance or substantial discord, we can see the difference between this Government’s policy and the policies of those Labour governments. At the time of which I am speaking, prosperity based on full employment prevailed. There is no other way to record prosperity than by the full employment of our people. The policy of prosperity for the people - the salt of our nation, those who toil, those who rear families and truly build our nation - is not and is never intended to be the policy of this Government, which exists solely to serve the interests of capitalism first, last and always. Wealth in the hands of the people, happiness in the homes of the people, higher educational levels among the children of the people - in short, power in the hands of the people, and the realization that they possess true power - is definitely not in the interests of the comparative few who control or of those who stand as lackeys, political and otherwise, and rush to serve the monopolist, the cartel and the profiteer. In short, those who place profit and power always ahead of right, truth, justice and the dignity of man are served by honorable members opposite who comprise the Liberal-Australian Country Party Government.

This Budget, which I join in condemning, must be viewed in the light of facts and practical politics. In their true application, its effects constitute an attack on the Australian standard of living. If the Budget is left as it is - representing, as I said earlier, the Government’s philosophy and thinking - the Australian standard of living as we know it is doomed. Industrial rehabilitation is not in sight. Our manufacturing development will stagnate. Primary production will have reached its zenith. Unemployment at the present high ugly level will become cemented. Our national value will be no greater than the profits which can be filched through the attacks of our own and overseas investors, motivated solely by avarice and greed for easy and immense profits. This Government will in the future, as in the past, aid and abet such forces in their rape of Australia. Because we of the Australian Labour Party clearly realize that these and other destructive factors are inherent in the realities of Australia’s precarious position, the Australian voting public is alerted to the position and to the need, above all else, to defeat this Government in order to ensure a white, not a black, Christmas and a rapid return to prosperity for the nation as quickly as the havoc now existing can be cleaned up. Labour’s federal leader - the Leader of the Opposition - scored a smash hit because of the bold, far-sighted, encouraging and, above all, most practical proposals he made in his speech on the Budget recently.

Mr Hasluck:

– That is just rubbish.

Mr KEARNEY:

– It is not rubbish. His proposals have received the plaudits of all thinking people in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has the support of most of the captains of industry, who are naturally concerned for their own benefit, but are also concerned with the development of their industries. The proposals made by Labour’s leader, amplified in detail throughout this debate by my party colleagues, have made a tremendous impression at all levels and in the bulk of the Australian press.

This is a timely period of this debate for Labour’s proposals to be repeated.

The first step in cleaning up the unholy mess into which this Government has plunged our people and our nation will be the introduction of a vital, virile, supplementary Budget in February. There will be no stay-put, no stop-and-start, no barren Budget and no horror Budget under a Labour government; neither will Labour set out a statement of economic or social difficulties which exist from time to time and let them continue, merely stating what ought to be done, as is the habit of the present Treasurer. His Budget speech was merely a resume of conditions as they exist. He indicated a problem and then turned his back on it and walked away from it. I have not heard one honorable member on the Government side do anything but just that. If it is intended to follow the same inane course during the remainder of the Budget debate, the same vacuum will exist until it closes.

Every difficulty will be remedied under a Labour government. Each problem will be identified and positive legislation will be introduced to eliminate it.

Labour members have no toleration for a policy of promises and pie in the sky. We were bom into and live in a world of reality and we are motivated by the need to place and maintain on the highest pinnacle the needs of the family, the young, the sick and the aged. I believe that we should turn immediately to the main points that have been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and re-state them in our minds because this is a practical and courageous approach. The Leader of the Opposition has submitted a platform which, highlighted in the campaign of the Labour Party that will precede the elections, will attract the interest of the Australian voters and result in the return to office of a Labour government.

The first important point in the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition was a proposal to increase the Budget deficit to £100,000,000 if necessary to help reemploy the unemployed. This Government, under the present set-up, is prepared to allow existing conditions to continue indefinitely. It has not made any definite effort to face up to this problem. Day after day in reply to questions in this chamber Ministers sitting on the front bench have turned their backs on reality. They have refused to acknowledge that there is such a thing as unemployment in Australia. They wipe it aside as though it were a horrible dream; but unemployment is only too real and it is important that any government that is in office should not hesitate to spend all that is necessary to keep the people in useful employment. A Budget deficit does not matter two figs, in one sense. What does matter is the general health of the economy and the welfare of the people and that is what will be achieved under the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition.

The second proposal of the Australian Labour Party is to restore full employment within twelve months. Those words “ full employment “ are golden words, but I have heard Ministers in this place and in another place state that a registration et 60,000 unemployed is equivalent to fu” employment. What cant, hypocrisy and humbug! What an arrantly contemptuous attitude it is to suggest to the Australian people, as members of this Government have done, that 60,000 unemployed is an ordinary condition in a country that is calling for development at all points and all levels! It is amazing that we should have elected to responsible positions in this Government persons who are prepared to suggest that 60,000 unemployed is a fair enough proposition and that such a situation can be regarded as full employment. The Labour Party will restore full employment in the proper meaning of that phrase.

Full employment is an international expression. It is a principle that has the support of governments throughout the world, and this Government is letting down the other governments of the world by its failure to maintain this principle. The reason is absolutely clear. An important ingredient of the Government’s policy of economic controls is to place pressures on the workers so that there will be ten standing outside the gates of the factory for every two working inside. It is an old trick of capitalism that has worked for decades and it is still an effective instrument in the policies of this Government. But, fortunately, to-day there are no great disorganized groups such as there were in the depression years of the 1930’s. We have an entirely different situation and outlook now and the Government must remember that.

The next point in the Labour Party’s proposals is to take immediate steps to revive the key industries of motor production and housebuilding from the present depressed conditions. When we recall that 500,000 workers in Australia obtain their wages directly or indirectly from the automotive industry, we recognize that it is highly important that that industry should be kept in a state of activity consonant with the needs of the people. But that has not been done. The foot of this Govern ment has been placed heavily on the neck of the automotive industry. As a result, great numbers of people have been cast into unemployment because of the failure to maintain active production.

The problem of the building industry is vital. If the people have not homes, they have not anything in life. The possession of a home is important to them whether they be Australian-born or immigrants. This Government has unhesitatingly maintained a policy of putting immigrants into hostels and leaving them to their own devices. The result is that there are people who have never been out of hostels and have never experienced the dignity, the satisfaction or the comfort of owning their own homes. Many of those who have moved out and gone into homes are so loaded down with debts to hire-purchase companies and financial institutions that they will never be able to free themselves of debt. They are in debt from the time they arrive in this country until they leave this world.

Any government that needlessly, coldbloodedly and deliberately prevents the construction of homes in present conditions is doing an un-Christianlike and alien act and is turning its back on the people. Such a government can never retain the dignity that should belong to an elected Australian government. Home building has virtually come to a standstill. It is vital that this problem should be taken up and that new life should be breathed into the building industry.

The next point of the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition is a proposal to make borrowing on reasonable terms easier. That applies with great force in the first instance to the man on the land. He is entitled to get financial aid at the lowest possible interest rate, but the farmer is not getting that deal under this Government’s financial policy. He is forced into the hands of money sharks and is paying through the nose. He has to pay fantastic rates of interest to buy trucks and machinery and replenish live-stock. Loans are hard to come by. The collateral security required of primary producers by financial interests has never been higher than it is now and members of the Australian

Country Party who theoretically are devoted to the needs of the primary producers have proved to be false prophets. They consistently support the Government’s policy which is diametrically opposed to the interests of the primary producers.

The Labour Party proposes that borrowing should be made easier for the man on the land, for those in industry and for the city people. Those who need finance must be able to get money at a reasonable rate of interest or we shall reach a stage of galloping inflation with absurd and unnecessary hardship imposed on the wage-earners, including breadwinners, and on society at large. There is no excuse for the financial structure ever to become subservient to restrictive controls when it comes to the internal economy. We can make money available for the construction of homes as we wish. When the Second World War broke out, we did not stop to ask whether we had the money in the bank to build an airstrip or to put up a building that was needed. The only question that faced the governments of those days was that of having the material and the skilled labour to do these things. If the answer was in the affirmative the airstrip, building, shop, house or factory was constructed automatically. That should be always and ever the approach to the organization of the private and social life of this young country, lt is because the Government is walking away from that need and truism that we have the hotch-potch situation existing to-day, similar to that during the great depression when thousands of men were standing idly by with so much useful work to be done and not able to do it because of the need of pounds, shillings and pence when finance was unavailable in a condition of false scarcity. The result was complete inactivity; and it is still continuing to-day.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) said that we should give the States the whole proceeds of the petrol tax. Of course, as a motorist, every man in this House drives a vehicle and pays petrol tax and, as the first to use the roads, he would want every pound he pays in petrol tax to be .put back into roads, because the roads generally in this country are inferior and undeveloped. We need a great subsidy for the repair of roads in order to develop our country. Whatever can be obtained from the petrol tax legitimately should be utilized in the construction and maintenance of roads. Next is the question of remitting pay-roll tax on municipal and local government activities, other than trading activities. These things should be done. These are important issues that are going to win the election for the Labour Party and defeat the Government. Next there is the need for increased expenditure in the north of Australia. Of course we should increase expenditure there. Like some members opposite, I recently had an opportunity to see part of Australia’s tropical areas. They are screaming out for a vast plan to breathe vitality and economic life into that part of the country. If that is not done, as the. Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech, we will have difficulty in justifying and retaining our control of that area.

I come now to the need to establish an overseas shipping line. Obviously we are a great maritime country, with 12,000 miles of coastline. We are bringing into this country vast quantities of goods and are selling vast quantities overseas. That is the basis of our economic existence; yet we are being held to ransom by private shipping companies and profit-making concerns which have no interest in this country and which are not loyal even to the Government for its decisions, except to the extent that it is necessary to be loyal in order to make their profits. If it suited them to-morrow not to send certain boats to this country they would not do so. They would take them away at Che snap of a finger and leave us high and dry. We had a shipping line at one time and it made a great contribution to this -country’s welfare. We can establish another line. We have ability that we did not possess in those days in the art of shipbuilding. There is no type of vessel that we require for trading purposes which could not be developed and constructed in this country, and we should be doing that.

If we propose to continue to bring to this country great numbers of people from overseas we must develop our existing industries and open new industries. This has a great bearing on the solving of the unemployment question. We cannot accept the theory that by some magic 100,000-odd people now registered as unemployed can automatically go back to their old jobs to-morrow. In the steel industry in my own electorate jobs which existed six months ago no longer exist. There has been a change in procedure and techniques; new machinery has been installed. In order to absorb the unemployed and maintain a high level of employment we must have a diversity of industry. Surely, above everything else, there is a golden opportunity for major development in shipbuilding in this country. These are practical realities and problems which are facing us and they are well worthy of consideration at every point. Unless they are considered and remedies are implemented Australians will remain hewers of wood and drawers of water for certain interests overseas. We will remain in that position so long as we are prepared to disregard our national instincts and accept a subservient role.

The present Government retained office by staging the Petrov commission. A percentage of the Australian people were foolish enough to be influenced by that inquiry, but I do not think many are of the same mind to-day. They are now wide awake to the imperfections of the Government and to the liaison that exists between the Liberal Party and the Communist Party, the way those parties tune in with each other and the sham fight they indulge in. However, for many anxiety originates in their pocketbooks, as an honorable member on this side has said, whether it is a matter of red pounds or English pounds; and, of course, honorable members opposite are without quibble or qualm in that respect.

We are sending 30,000 tons of copper concentrates from Tennant Creek and another 73,000 tons from Mount Isa out of this country. We are not processing one ounce of those concentrates. Should we not be doing what the Labour Party says it will do for the Northern Territory in this respect? Should we not establish a smelting plant at Tennant Creek or some adjacent point to process copper concentrates? Should we not demand that the little pilot plant which we saw in Townsville, which could employ 300 men and is a model smelting apparatus, should be blown up to handle the entire concentrates output of Mount Isa? Of course it should, but the Government does not intend to do that. With respect to bauxite also, we are turning dog on ourselves because of the lack of Australianism in the outlook of this Government, which is prepared to make us hewers of wood and drawers of water for overseas interests. Is it good enough merely to dig it out of our good soil and send it elsewhere to be fabricated? The Bell Bay project should be extended. The industry could be developed in north Queensland. If this Government had any honesty of purpose in respect of the development of the tropical areas of Australia it would be doing some of these things and there would be no need for me or any other member to offer criticism of this kind.

I want now to deal with the problem of unemployment. A further colliery is closing down in my electorate this week. The men have been given one month’s notice and over 200 of them will lose their employment permanently in the coal industry. Machines are being taken out of the ground and the equipment is being taken away. That mine will close. I refer to the Excelsior colliery. I come now to the Wollongong district, the centre of our great steel industry, with a capital expenditure to-day of over £10,000,000 per annum, where we have what is probably one of the greatest model steel plants in the world. Output in that centre is equal to or exceeds production elsewhere in Australia; we are approaching world standards in capacity and surpassing world standards in efficiency. Yet, at Wollongong over 2,000 people are registered as unemployed and 1,200 are on the dole. That is the true way to measure the unemployment position and get down to the hard core of the situation. The average Australian will not readily register for employment; he will live for a while on his own fat, as it were, and rely on his own initiative to obtain work.

The position has hardened now to the extent that some 61,000 people in Australia this very week-end will rely for subsistence on the dole of £6 2s. 6d. a week which the Government provides for a family and which, in its charity, it has apparently decided to raise to £7 a week. The Government expects a man to pay his honest and just debts, such as rent, and to buy food and get his children to school and clothe them. Tt does not expect the children to dodge the fare collector on the bus on the way to school, but it expects a family to compete with other people in the community on a miserable income of £6 2s. 6d.

The Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) is credited with having made a press statement designed to influence the people to spend normally. Hang it all, I am sure that some honorable members on the Government side already have tightened their belts and curtailed their expenditure, fearful that after the general elections on 9th December they will not be on the payroll. I suggest that the Attorney-General’s advice may be well taken by those honorable members.

The figures reveal the sorry picture of 61,000 people drawing the dole so that they can subsist - and I mean subsist. Those circumstances should not prevail. It is a crime against humanity. I speak with some feeling on this matter. I have in my hand the dole tickets which show my registration on the dole for three years during the great depression. They are a souvenir of the bad old days; but those ugly days are here again. It is only a question of degree and intensity. Whether one man or one thousand men are out of a job is not the issue. The loss of dignity and status, and the infliction of social and other hardships, monetary upsets and disturbances that enter a family home when unemployment exists, are a terrific burden. One must experience unemployment to comprehend the desolation of a person of dignity, outlook and intelligence who is ruthlessly cast aside like an old tin can. Some of the finest men I have ever met were on the end of a broom handle sweeping up leaves in parks during the great depression. It was the stupidity of the government of the day and the stupidity of the system which brought about that state of affairs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Wight:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired. I call the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Davis).

Mr DAVIS:
Deakin

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman-

Mr Curtin:

– Tell us how the Prime Minister keeps down to ten bottles of whisky a week!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith does not restrain himself he will find himself outside the chamber. This is the second time that I have had to call him to order.

Mr Opperman:

Mr. Temporary Chairman, I ask that the honorable member for

Kingsford-Smith be requested to withdraw the remark which he has just made. It is offensive, unwarranted, unjustified and a reflection on the Prime Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable member for KingsfordSmith has , been requested to withdraw the remark that he made. I support the Minister and request the honorable member to withdraw the remark, which is offensive.

Mr Curtin:

– I only expressed-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable member for KingsfordSmith will withdraw. No explanation is called for.

Mr Curtin:

– I only expressed-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable member will withdraw.

Mr Curtin:

– What do I have to withdraw?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

This is the last opportunity that I can possibly give the honorable member to withdraw the remark that he made.

Mr Curtin:

– In deference to you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, I will withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I insist that the honorable gentleman withdraw unreservedly.

Mr Curtin:

– It is against my principles, but I will withdraw.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m.

Mr DAVIS:
Deakin

.- Mr. Chairman, my friend, the honorable member for Cunningham (Mr. Kearney) devoted most of his speech to an attack on the Government’s record. That sort of approach has typified the speeches made by Opposition members in this Budget debate. It may be as well, now and again, to bring the discussion back to reality. I should like to remind the committee of what has happened, in the broad, over the twelve years during which this Government has been in office. If we care to look at the Government’s record now and again, we find that it is an amazing one. During the years for which the present Government has held office, the population has increased by about 30 per cent, and production overall has increased by roughly 60 per cent. Industrial production has risen about 100 per cent, and rural production something like 30 per cent. I find it extremely difficult to follow the reasoning of those who attack the Government on such a record. We may well differ on details or argue about individual matters, but we all must agree that the present Government’s overall record is unparalleled in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The honorable member for Cunningham ;also dealt at some length with unemployment, and he advanced various theories about what the Australian Labour Party would do if it were elected to office. There are on record facts as distinct from theories, and I should like to remind the committee of the words used by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his Budget Speech. He referred to the increases in unemployment and said -

The Government sees this as the most urgent feature of our present situation. We have always stood for full employment and it cannot be denied that, through our long term of office and often under difficult circumstances, we have held very close to that goal . . . We put full employment foremost now in our immediate economic plans.

Here is an important fact, Sir: This Government has maintained, throughout twelve years of office, a level of employment that has been unequalled, I think, in any other country. In considering the Government’s record, we must bear in mind two basic facts - the progress that has taken place, with the pressure that it has imposed on the economy, and the fact that, in those circumstances, this nation has developed to an amazing extent. We have absorbed a 30 per cent, increase in the work-force and we have maintained employment at a level that would have been regarded in any other age as representing continual full employment. I think we should pause now and again and look at the facts, because we must acknowledge them in formulating a logical approach to the questions that confront us. There are, of course, urgent and important questions before us.

I remind the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that our great and substantial achievements have been attained almost entirely by the use of our own resources. I doubt whether the overseas capital invested in Australia during the 1950’s exceeded 10 per cent, of the total capital investment made in that decade. So, very largely from our own resources, we have achieved a substantial rate of population increase, industrial progress and expansion generally. I think that any one who wishes to challenge the Government in general terms on its record will find it extremely difficult to marshal facts to substantiate such an attack.

We have the further fact that during the 1950’s - this is familiar to all and needs no explanation in this place - the terms of trade continuously moved against us. World forces operated against us with respect to both the goods that we sell and the goods that we buy. Initially, of course, in the decade of the 1950’s, we had the boom in wool prices, but since that boom subsided the forces operating in world trade have worked against us as a nation. Problems have, of course, arisen in this process of development and expansion which I have mentioned. Those problems are, perhaps, fundamental and far-reaching. The first of them concerns the industrial development that has been fostered, not only by this Government, but also, I grant, by the previous one. We have developed an economy which now uses about 80 per cent, of our imports to provide the materials and the capital equipment and machinery needed by the industrial machine that has been built up in Australia. Whatever we do about imports, we must accept the fact that we need a large volume of imports if we are to keep the wheels of industry turning.

Further, Sir, we all are committed to two things. We are committed to the principle of maintaining full employment. We are committed, whether or not we all acknowledge it, to a vast expansion of industry in the present decade. The mounting population and the increasing work-force, particularly the increase in the number of people in the age group from fifteen to nineteen, will force any government, regardless of its political complexion, to do what it can to expand industry, because in industry alone can that mass of people be profitably absorbed. I mention in passing, only to illustrate my argument, the likelihood that the number of people in the age group from fifteen to nineteen alone will increase by about 50 per cent, by the end of the 1960’s. This presents us with a great problem that cannot be overlooked.

We are committed, then, to an increase in total production. We are committed, because of our geographical situation and the nature of our economy, to an increase in imports in order to maintain the level of production that we ought to have. My friend, the honorable member for Cunningham, overlooked the fact that we must pay for imports. Father Christmas, in the international trade sense, if he ever existed, died long ago. So the basic requirement for this country is export trade, because from export earnings alone can we finance development. We cannot afford to halt our development. Therefore, we have two alternatives. We may increase our exports - I shall say something about that later - or we may lower our standard of living. There is no middle course. We do one thing or we do the other. Here, again, the comments made by the Treasurer in his Budget speech are interesting. Honorable members will recall that he dealt with the question of stability. Referring to the immediate problem of getting unemployed persons back to work, the Treasurer said -

This is partly a matter of short-term measures; but it is much more than that. Short-term measures are an illusion and a menace if they cut across the main objects of policy, as I have stated them. They are an illusion if they provide mere temporary relief and then peter out. They are a menace if they sow the seeds of later instability.

Now have a look at the other side of the picture. The policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), and supported, of course, by his colleagues of the Opposition, in broad can be summarized in a couple of statements that were made by the honorable member in the course of his speech. He said that he would budget for a deficit of about £100,000,000, to cover about four months of the year, and for a further £250,000,000 for the remainder of the year. Further, the Leader of the Opposition indicated - and the honorable member for Cunningham would confirm this - that he would re-enter certain fields of taxation that the Commonwealth has, in recent years, vacated. There can be no doubt that such a policy would usher in a period of increased inflation.

The facts, of course, are these: If we are to increase our exports we will have to sell our products, whether primary or secondary, in the face of fierce competition in the markets of the world, and competition, in fact, that might in some cases be described as unfair. Because of our geographical position we must meet transport costs that other nations, with whom we will be competing, do not incur.

Even assuming that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, of pumping money into the economy at the rate of £100,000,000 in a few months and about £350,000,000 in a year, were to succeed in achieving the stated objective of restoring people to employment and increasing production, what must of necessity follow if we implement it? First, we must increase our imports in order to increase our industrial production. That is established. Secondly, somewhere and somehow we must sell our products in order to pay for those imports. Yet every rise in the cost of production in this country makes it more difficult for us to sell our products overseas, whether they be primary products, on which we have depended almost entirely up to date, or secondary products, on which we must depend to an increasing extent in the future because you must spread over the whole cost structure the added costs that would be necessarily involved in the pursuit of the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, we come back to the comments made by the Treasurer, which I have already read to the committee -

Short-term measures are an illusion … If they provide mere temporary relief and then peter out. They are a menace if they sow the seeds of later instability.

I believe that proposition to be unanswerable. On the facts as we can all see them, the Treasurer’s contention cannot effectively be contradicted. I move, then, to the next aspect of the matter.

Mr Peters:

– Hear, hear!

Mr DAVIS:

– I have heard from my distinguished friend from Scullin frequent comments on the advisability of exporting, but so many of such comments that are made by honorable members opposite, particularly the honorable member for Scullin, stop at that point. It is very easy to say that the obvious solution to our problems is to export, and then to say, “ Why does not somebody else do something about it? “ That is the attitude adopted by quite a number of people in the community to-day. Of course, while we follow that line and refuse to face the largely unpalatable facts, we just cannot hope to obtain the markets that we must obtain if we are to survive.

I believe we have gone quite a distance towards the achievement of our objective. Over the years the Department of Trade has opened trade commissioners’ posts in a number of countries. We have sent trade missions from Australia to various countries in which we hope to obtain a share of the very large markets available. The groundwork has been done. As a passing comment, I would say that if we are to increase our exports to the required level, then this Parliament must be prepared to make available a great deal more money for these promotional activities than we have done in the past, accepting the old theory that money is well spent if it brings more money back. I think we must do a great deal more than we have done previously. We must improve the standard of our trade commissioners in the various countries. I believe they should be raised to the top diplomatic level. Such matters are important in the countries in which we hope to sell.

There are at least four questions that must be considered in relation to exports. The first is quality, the second is cost, the third is continuity of delivery and the fourth is conditions of sale.

Mr Peters:

– Those are not questions.

Mr DAVIS:

– My well-informed friend from Scullin will no doubt have an opportunity to make his own comments at some future time. Let me first deal with quality. I have heard honorable members on all sides of the Parliament say, and I accept their statements, that the quality of our exports in some fields is as good, and in others can be made as good, as that of similar commodities of other countries against which we will have to compete. That is simply a matter of management techniques and efficient machinery. In some cases, perhaps, it may be a matter of stepping up the research activities that we have undertaken, and perhaps it will be necessary to provide much more money for research than we have done in the past. However, it appears that the required standard of quality can be attained.

The cost aspect is quite another matter. In all but one or two spheres we can say that Australia is a high-cost country. We hear well-meaning people saying that we must increase production per employee. This, again, is a matter in which governments can plan only a small part, by the provision of adequate power and other utilities that are necessary in the process of lowering costs. More important is managerial efficiency, and that, of course, is a matter for the industries concerned, whether they be primary or secondary.

There is one other way in which the Government can assist, and here again a substantial step forward has been made. Some time ago, the Government set up the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to enable people to export to what might be called fringe areas, in which, for one reason or another, payments may not be as sure as in the traditional markets of Europe. That corporation is a going concern and is playing its part to-day.

I believe we should also look at the taxation weapon. Here, too, something has been done. Honorable members will recall that not so very long ago certain taxation incentives, designed to increase exports, were discussed in this chamber. Those incentives go some of the way, but I think that in the relatively near future this Parliament will have to take the responsibility of reducing the impact of taxation on industries which we must develop if we are to survive as a nation.

One of the main costs in this country is the cost of transport, to which I think the honorable member for Cunningham referred. The area of this country and the distances between one industrial centre and another result in transport costs looming very large in our total cost structure. Here are the things that are being done by the Government in this respect: The standardization of railway gauges will proceed further in the key areas of Australia where we can reasonably expect standardization of gauges to result in lower transport costs. The development of certain ports that are essential to industry was announced in the Budget speech. Things are moving and I believe that they will have to move faster in the not-too-distant future.

The form of transport which particularly affects our exports is shipping. The history of shipping in this country is deplorable. Around the Australian coast ship after ship has come off the run. We are one of the leading trading nations of the world. All honorable members, at one time or another, have boasted of that. But please remember that we have been one of the leading trading nations because our traditional markets in Europe have been in one area to which we have sent our exports of wool, wheat and other products and from which we have brought back the materials, machinery and know-how necessary for development. However, that situation is being influenced by the European Common Market to some extent and in all probability, it will be further influenced in that way.

Whether the United Kingdom joins the Common Market or not, we must expect developments that will affect international trade. Consequently, the happy circumstances which have existed up to the present will not exist in the future or will not exist to the same extent as they do to-day. At the moment, ships can leave Australia full - if the wharfies allow - and can come back full from the United Kingdom. But if we expand our trade in Asia and South America and the other regions that have been mentioned, somehow we will have to arrange, not only for a full ship load of cargo to go there but for the ship to come back loaded, otherwise transport costs will be doubled. The Leader of the Opposition announced the establishment of a government shipping line as part of the Opposition’s policy. As T understood the honorable member for Cunningham, he wants nationalization of industry.

Mr Haylen:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr DAVIS:

– My friend from Parkes says, “ What is wrong with that? “ lt is obvious that the Opposition’s policy is the nationalization of snipping. One of the arguments in favour of a Commonwealth line is that at the present time we spend some £200,000,000 overseas on shipping freights and that our trade balance is affected by the necessity to pay overseas shipowners to carry our cargoes. Let us look at the other side of the picture. By and large, Australian shipping costs are about twice as much as the costs of European and United Kingdom shipping.

Mr Curtin:

– Who told you that?

Mr DAVIS:

– It is easy enough to check if you have the time. If our shipping transport bill is to be twice the present figure of £200,000,000, then that additional £200,000,000 will be added to our cost structure and our prospects of exporting our goods will be practically nil. If honorable members opposite who are interjecting can disprove any statement that I have made, 1 shall be very happy because that would make our position a little easier. But the position is not easy. The position is desperate in some ways. In order to survive we must export. In order to export we must face realities. Those who, like the honorable member for Parkes, would use catch cries for political purposes and who would divert attention from the realities of the situation do this country little service. Assuming that we are to have a shipping service, the last thing that 1 want to say is this: Until we remove Communist control from the shipping unions and the Waterside Workers Federation they will hold this country to ransom. Every one in this place knows that that is the truth. Time after time, the Communists have used the Waterside Workers Federation and the Seamen’s Union of Australia for political purposes. Every hold-up on the waterfront adds to our cost structure. Any one who does not acknowledge that simply does not know the facts of life.

I am not one of those who indulge in a general condemnation of my friends opposite. 1 know that many of them hate the waterfront situation as much as I do« and are just as realistic about it as I am. On the other hand, there is a strong Communist influence in the Opposition’s organization. It is evident in the unions, particularly the key transport unions. This has been brought about with the co-operation of some who claim to be Labour leaders. These are the things we have to face. The last mentioned problem has to be tackled by strong, determined and continuous government action. I do not mean violent action, but strong continuous pressure on the minority of Communists who dominate large and influential organizations. I believe that if the Government pu: some such policy as that into effect, we could expect considerable support from the Opposition for that most worthy and essential programme.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The financial and economic facts of the Budget have been very well canvassed, particularly by honorable members on this side of the chamber who have criticized the adverse effects that it will have on the community as a whole and its lack of benefits for the majority of the people. It is not my intention to re-state those arguments. I propose to deal with a matter which is very serious to Queensland. I have been inspired by the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in yesterday’s newspapers and by his answer to a question in this chamber yesterday. I have also been inspired by what took place in the Queensland Parliament this morning. The benefits received by Queensland from this Government were virtually nil up to the time of the announcement by the Treasurer that this year £650,000 is to be made available as assistance towards financing the construction of a beef road from Normanton on the Gulf of Carpentaria to Julia Creek in north Queensland. In a statement which appeared in the press yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the Government proposed assisting with the construction of a second road. Queensland, however, looks upon all these promises and statements by responsible Ministers of this Government as being in the nature of Kathleen Mavourneens - it may not be for years and it may be never. Queenslanders are sceptical about this Government’s promise of £650,000 which is made right on the eve of an election. What about the twelve years that have just elapsed?

The second thing which this Government did for Queensland was to erect a lowpowered repeater radio station at Mount Isa which cost a mere bagatelle. Those are the only two things this Government has done in the north of Queensland over the last twelve years. We on this side are convinced that to the Government Queensland either just does not exist or is a foreign country. By its policies, and especially by the action it took on 15th November last, this Government has belted Queensland very hard indeed as is evident from the number of bankruptcies that have taken place there and by the falling off of business in the various cities. When unemployment was rampant in Queensland at the beginning of this year, this Government merely said, “ But that is only seasonal “. Within the next three or four weeks, the meatworks will close down and about 18,000 men will be unemployed. About four weeks later the sugar mills might cease crushing and another 18,000 to 20,000 men will be unemployed. What does the Government propose to do about that? All we can expect is the same old cry we heard at the end of last year and the beginning of this year - “ But that is only seasonal “. The Queensland people are fed up to the back teeth with honorable members on the Government side and with the Prime Minister who, while they talk about the great potentialities of Queensland, do nothing about developing them. All we get is talk and still more talk. I repeat, the Queensland people are fed up to the back teeth with all this platitudinous talk about great potentialities. As a Queenslander, I get very annoyed when I read these statements and when I see nothing done for the State. This Government is making a great song about the £650,000 it is providing for a beef road. Of course we want a beef road. We have squealed for years for Commonwealth assistance towards the development of roads in those thinly populated areas. We want more money for these beef roads. We want to see the production of cattle stepped up; we want to see the exports from this country stepped up, and we want to see our overseas earnings increased.

As I said earlier, my principal reason for rising to-night is to protest most vigorously against the delays which have taken place in starting with the reconstruction of the railway from Townsville to Mount Isa. The Prime Minister made much of this subject in a statement which appeared in the press yesterday. We have heard a great deal about it, and I propose to refer to that newspaper statement. Four years ago, in 1957, this Government boasted that it was most anxious to do something about increasing production in the Cloncurry district. During the whole of the four years since then, all we have heard about developing the great mineral potentialities of that area has been talk of negotiations here, negotiations there, and so on. The development of this area ought to be treated as a project of major national importance because it would make a major contribution to the development of the Commonwealth. The people of north Queensland want some definite announcement about it. So far, all we have had has been the statement that negotiations are taking place with the Queensland Government. Those negotiations commenced four years ago. Since then, the project had to be referred to the World Bank. After the World Bank refused to help, it was announced that talks were taking place between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments.

Then, Labour members in this House and in the Queensland Parliament heard whispers to the effect that the terms and conditions to be embodied in the agreement being negotiated between this Government and the Queensland Government were much more onerous than those contained in the agreements under which loans were made available to the southern States for railway construction works. This House has not been told just what the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement are. The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) and members of the Labour Party have protested strongly against any attempt by this Government to embody in any agreement with the Queensland Government terms and conditions such as interest rates which are worse than those on which money has been made available to the southern States. We have heard whispers and rumours that Queensland has just been thrown aside. Is it any wonder that the Premier of Queensland will be here to-morrow? I have been told that he will be visiting here. A crucial point has been reached in this matter and negotiations are still going on. Yesterday the Prime Minister told us here about the negotiations which are still proceeding. He also told us that he is writing a letter to the Queensland Government.

The reconstruction of the Mount Isa railway has been started. Contracts have been let for the construction of not only the railway line but also the bridges on the first section of the 242-mile stretch between Richmond and Duchess, and it is estimated that the cost will be in the vicinity of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. The Queensland Government is going it alone until such time as this Government enters into a satisfactory agreement. Is it any wonder that not only the beef men, wool-growers and mutton producers, and those interested in Mount lsa Mines Limited, but also the people of Queensland who have some interest in their country want to know what the fifteen Queensland members of the Government parties and what the four Queensland Ministers in this Government are doing in allowing this important project to be delayed for four years? In other words, the Queensland people are saying, “ We are getting a pretty raw deal “. And they are. Yesterday there appeared in the Brisbane “CourierMail “ a statement by the Prime Minister relating to the reconstruction of the TownsvilleMount Isa line. He also referred to the £41,000,000 railway project in Western Australia. I remind honorable members that this £41,000,000 is to be made available to Western Australia on the same terms and conditions as money was made available for railway construction in the southern States.

But when it comes to Queensland, that is a horse of another colour, as I shall show. 1 remind honorable members also that the Commonwealth Government is carrying 70 per cent, of the cost of the railways in the southern States and that the State governments are being required to repay only 30 per cent, of the cost. The standardized railway from Wodonga to Melbourne is not being built for developmental purposes. It is not being built in order to assist our export trade. It is being built because the Victorian Government Railways were losing lucrative passenger traffic to air and road transport. The railway authorities tried putting on a daylight express in order to recapture some of this passenger traffic, but that was a failure. Albury was proving to be a bottleneck. So in came the Victorian Government and influenced the Commonwealth in regard to the construction of this standardized line. The agreement finally reached was that 70 per cent, of the cost would be borne by the Commonwealth and IS per cent, each by New South Wales and Victoria. The Government says, “Oh, but it is all part of the standardization scheme”. That is a pretty good excuse and a pretty good cover-up, but the Government cannot get away from the fact that that standardized railway would not have been built at this time if rail passenger traffic between Melbourne and Sydney had not been falling off. New South Wales and Victoria pay only 15 per cent, each towards the cost of this work. In other words, preference was given to a construction job inspired by a falling off of passenger traffic, to the detriment of a re-construction job which would help to increase production and would help our development. The Mount Isa project, unlike the Wodonga to Melbourne project, has been dragging on for four solid years. We have not been told the terms and conditions of the agreement with Queensland, but have only heard rumours.

I did not intend to raise this matter at this juncture. I intended to wait until the agreement came before the House for ratification, but by mentioning the matter now I will be able to have two bites at the cherry. The people of Queensland want to know what the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement are. A motion of no confidence in the Queensland Government has been moved by the Labour Party Opposition in the Queensland Parliament, and one of the matters being raised in that connexion in this very rail agreement. 1 asked the Prime Minister a question about this matter to-day. This morning the leader of the Labour Party in the Queensland Parliament asked a six-point question, and a private member also asked a question, concerning the Mount Isa rail agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. The questions were prompted by a statement made by the Prime Minister, and reported in yesterday’s Brisbane “ Courier Mail “, in which the right honorable gentleman, in answer to a question as to whether the Queensland Government had protested against the proposed treatment it was to get in this matter, said “ No “. When the Premier of Queensland was castigated to-day in the Queensland Parliament on this score he denied very vigorously the assertion made by the Prime Minister. The Premier said that Queensland had protested. I have not copies of the protests sent to the Government, but I have extracts from news items published over the last four years in which have been reported protests entered by the Queensland Government against the procrastination and the attempts to fob off the Queensland Government in connexion with the financing of the Mount Isa project. All I can say is that things have come to a pretty sorry pass in this Parliament. Either the Prime Minister of Australia or the Premier of Queensland is not telling the truth. One can expect statements far away from the truth to be made in a dictatorship; but in a parliamentary democracy it has always been a cause of admiration that members of Parliament, irrespective of their political colour, always tell the truth.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr RIORDAN:

– Apparently there are many members here who do not take that seriously, and perhaps do not measure up to the standard I have mentioned. To them I say that in this respect they are exempt. When the ratification of the proposed agreement comes before the Parliament we will know what the conditions are, and we can only hope that Queensland will be treated no worse than Western Australia and Victoria have been treated by the Commonwealth.

The Western Australian plan envisages the expenditure of £41,000,000, on the same terms as those agreed upon for the Melbourne-Wodonga line - 70 per cent, of the cost found by the Commonwealth and 30 per cent, by the State. These terms are all that Queensland asks for - no more, no less. In the statement which was reported in yesterday’s “ Courier-Mail “ the Prime Minister said that the Mount Isa project was not a standardization project and was not quite the same as the Western Australian project, because the project in Western Australia, he said, was part standardization and part developmental. It is not the same. Therefore, apparently, the percentages regarding the bearing of the costs have to be reversed. It is not a bad line of mathematics that the Prime Minister follows. Good

Lord! It is true that this Government decided that the Wodonga to Melbourne line was to be part of the standardization scheme, but, according to my interpretation, by the policy of standardization it was intended not only the standardization of the lines from Brisbane round to Perth but the standardization of every line in Australia.

Thirty million pounds is to be spent on the reconstruction of the Mount lsa line with a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. So that line will, in the long run, be the last railway line in Australia ever to be standardized, if it ever is. Why? Who made the decision to leave this line at 3-ft. 6-in. when it could have been reconstructed in accordance with what ought to be the policy of this Government - the standardization of all railways in the Commonwealth? But apparently that is not the policy of the Government, because the Prime Minister has said that the difference between the Western Australian project and the Queensland project is that the Queensland line is commercially inspired. The Prime Minister said in that statement published yesterday that commercial interests will get a great deal of benefit from the Western Australian project. It is true that Mount Isa Mines Limited will be the biggest customer of the reconstructed Mount Isa line and it is also true that the new line will assist the Mary Kathleen uranium interests and will also help cattlemen to get their cattle to the coast much more quickly and under better conditions. In other words, not only Mount Isa mines, the biggest customer, but other interests, will be assisted.

As I say, there has been discrimination in the Government’s attitude to those various railway projects. The Mount Isa rail project was advanced in 19S7 by a Labour government in Queensland. That government was defeated at a succeeding election and on 1st July, 1957, the present Country Party Premier of Queensland said that he would approach the Commonwealth for financial assistance in the reconstruction of the line. The Queensland Government was fobbed off by the statement by this Government that it was a matter for the World Bank. What about local finance? Out came engineers from the World Bank. I followed those engineers in 1958 as they went along examining the project, and I did so in order to discover what they were doing. Four months later out came some more World

Bank representatives, including a financial mission headed by a Turk, Mr. Colika These men sought a great deal of information. They asked the amount of inward and outward rail freight paid by the Mount Isa mines over the previous five years, and were told that it totalled £11,000,000- more than £2,000,000 a year. That line was actually the only railway line in Queensland that was paying.

When this proposition to obtain a loan from the World Bank was under consideration, the Queensland Government decided to cover £7,000,000 itself. Although the cost was estimated at £29,000,000 I believe that the Queensland Government would be lucky to get the job done for £30,000,000. A loan of £22,000,000 was sought from the International Bank, but the proposal was scrubbed as the Commonwealth Government knew very well it would be because the representatives of 80 other nations on the International Bank would have had to approve of the loan. Speaking of this proposition, the Prime Minister said, “ We are just honest brokers “. To use a vulgar phrase, what push-up was used by the Commonwealth Government to get money from the International Bank that the Queensland Government has not been able to get?

The Queensland Government then decided that as it had been wiped off by the International Bank, it would approach the Commonwealth Government for assistance. The upshot was that it leaked out that one of the conditions was this: The International Bank wanted the chairman of Mount Isa Mines Limited, Mr. Fisher, to guarantee a certain freight tonnage for a period of 29 years. The freight charges would have covered the interest and redemption payments on the proposed loan. 1 believe that the mining company is sound to-day. I think that Mount Isa is virtually a jeweller’s shop, but, like all mining propositions, you do not know how it will turn out, particularly in 29 years. No mine could give such an undertaking. Subsequently an agreement was reached between the Queensland Government and Mount Isa Mines regarding the quantity of freight that would be sent over the railway. In 1957 when the first approach for a loan was made, the Mount Isa mine was producing 8,100 tons of ore a day. The objective was 13,000 tons of ore a day.

The Townsville Harbour Board had been advised by Mount Isa Mines that by the «nd of this year, it would be sending over the line and over the wharf 300,000 tons of copper, zinc, zinc concentrates, and other products. In addition, there would be copper to be sent to the copper refinery in Townsville. The revenue was assured, it is true, but to ask anybody for the assurance that was sought by the International Bank was plain stupid. I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Commonwealth Government ask the commercial interests in Western Australia to give an undertaking on inward and outward freights? On 8th July, 1959, the Sydney “ Daily Mirror “ said in an editorial -

The time has come for the Federal Government to think nationally about the Mr Isa-Townsville railway . . . Why did the World Bank refuse to come in with aid while it readily makes millions available to backward Asian and other countries for developmental projects? … It would be well for the Menzies Government to forget all about the World Bank and set about raising the money locally to finance the Mr IsaTownsville railway link . . . The railway is as important to the nation as the great Snowy Mountains scheme - perhaps more so and just as urgent.

So, on 28th July, the Queensland Government gave it away and bluntly said to this Government, “What are you going to do about it?” That was in July, 1959 - two years ago. An agreement is still being negotiated. The Commonwealth Government has helped New South Wales and South Australia, and, according to a statement published in the “ Sunday Mail”, of Brisbane of 2nd August, 1959, under a Cairns date-line, the Minister for Mines, Mr. Evans, in opening the Mossman Show said that the Commonwealth Government had helped New South Wales, South Australia and other States, all out of Consolidated Revenue, and added -

When we in North Queensland where development is so necessary, go to Canberra, we are just brushed away. We are told to go to the World Bank. The bank has refused unless we agree to impossible conditions, and while we have the greatest copper mine in the world, we are told we cannot get money Money is available overseas at 54 per cent. … It is the duty of the Government to approve and guarantee Queensland. If we do not get the support from the Commonwealth Government, the simple answer is that there are other interests that do not want Queensland to develop.

That statement was made by the Country Party-Liberal Minister for Mines. Let me sum up: Queensland has had a pretty shabby deal from this Government, particularly regarding this project. It has been pushed about not only in connexion with this matter, but also in relation to requests for co-operation in developing the great potentialities of Queensland that this Government talks about. Judging from the assistance that is meted out to Queensland by this Government, one would think that Queensland was a foreign country. We certainly speak a language that is unknown to many who support the Government. At least there is a spirit of unity and friendship in Queensland. The money that the Commonwealth Government proposes to provide for beef cattle roads is acceptable, but it is not enough and such grants do not come often enough. This year, the grant will be £650,000. Let me read to the committee some extracts from an editorial published in “The Courier-Mail”, of 30th August, 1961-

Queensland’s Government had to do some hard bargaining before it induced the Commonwealth Government to become its financial backer for the £30 million job of reconstructing the Mr IsaTownsville railway. Details of the agreement under which the Commonwealth is to lend the State the money it will need for the work and provision for repaying it are still being worked out . . .

But what is Queensland to make of Mr. Menzies’ offer to South Australia’s Premier (Sir Thomas Playford) of £1,325,000 of Commonwealth money for the purchase of new diesel rolling stock for his Port Pirie-Broken Hill railway? Repayment of only 30 per cent, of that expenditure over 50 years is required.

Queenslanders are waiting to be informed why South Australia has been singled out for this financial favour. No offer of a gift of new railway rolling stock has been made in Queensland by the Commonwealth.

There is no question of standard-gauge diesel locomotives here. Give us the money for the Mount Isa railway.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FOX:
Henty

.- Opening his speech last night, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) said -

The analysis of the Budget made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) would carry more weight if earlier forecasts that he had made had proved more accurate.

Surely that remark applies even more forcibly to his own leader, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who was reported in the Australian press on 15tb February as having said in Hobart the previous day - and I have not heard him say that he was misreported -

Unemployment in Australia would rise to 150,000 by the end of March.

Not only did unemployment not reach that figure by the end of March, but in the five months since then the figures have been nowhere near that total nor is it likely that unemployment will reach that figure in the foreseeable future. In saying that, I hope the Opposition does not interpret my remarks as indicating my satisfaction with the state of employment at present. I, like every member of Parliament, regret that there are persons out of employment, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) does not help to create jobs or employment by his chronically pessimistic statements. The honorable gentleman has criticized the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) for budgeting for a deficit of only £16,000,000 and has stated that if Labour wins the next election it will introduce, a supplementary Budget and increase the deficit to £100,000,000, if necessary. He went on to refer to the fact that in 1958 the then Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden, budgeted for a deficit of £110,000,000. The Leader of the Opposition said -

I support Sir Arthur Fadden’s view of 1958, that a deficit of at least £100,000,000 is necessary under present conditions.

I thought it would be interesting to see what he had to say about Sir Arthur Fadden’s action in 1958, so I turned up “ Hansard “ of 19th August, 1958, at page 502. There the honorable gentleman, speaking of Sir Arthur Fadden, said -

After nine years of mismanagement of the country’s finances, this Government has been reduced to the final extremity of resorting to the printing press. It proposes to print £110,000,000 worth of notes with which to finance the nation’s activities this financial year.

That is what he said in 1958, and probably in another three years’ time, if the honorable gentleman is still leader of the Labour Party, which will definitely still be in opposition at that time, we may find him agreeing with the action of the Treasurer in 1961, because I believe he is that far behind in his thinking. I do not suppose any Treasurer has ever brought down a Budget which has pleased every one; and I do not suppose any Treasurer ever will. I cannot imagine any Leader of the Opposition expressing approval of a Government Budget, but when a Leader of the Opposition criticizes item after item in the Budget and says that the Government must be ranked as a failure, as the honorable gentleman did, one would expect his criticisms to be based on sound foundations. But an examination of the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition shows that they cannot be substantiated. In fact, they present a distorted picture of the real position.

First, the Leader of the Opposition said that since October withdrawals from savings banks had exceeded deposits by £50,000,000. He went on to say that in each of the last eight months there has been a heavy fall in savings bank deposits. The true position is that in October, 1960, savings bank deposits had reached a peak of £1,580,800,000. They fell gradually until in May, 1961, they were down to £1,547,800,000, an actual fall of £33,000,000. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently forgot to tell the House that during the same period the amount of fixed deposits with the trading banks had increased from £376,900,000 in October to £480,800,000 in May of this year, a rise of £104,000,000, to offset the fall of £33,000,000 in savings bank deposits. The fact is that people were able to obtain a higher rate of interest for money on fixed deposit and for that reason withdrew money from the savings banks and transferred their savings to fixed deposits. The true picture is even better than that. Savings bank deposits rose by nearly £30,000,000 in June this year, and by another £17,000,000 in July, so that at the end of last month savings bank deposits stood at £1,594,600,000, or nearly £14,000,000 higher than in last October. At the same time the amount of fixed deposits at the trading banks rose by £5,500,000 in June, to £488,800,000.

While the figures for all banks for July are not available the amount of the fixed deposits with the major trading banks rose from £471,200,000 to £486,200,000, a further increase of £15,000,000. So, the amount of savings in the community increased by £138,000,000 from October until the present and did not fall by £50,000,000 as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe. My authority for these figures is the Bureau of Census and Statistics, and the figures for the end of May are contained in the May issue of the “ Monthly Review of Business Statistics “. So much for the misleading statements of the Leader of the Opposition.

When the Treasurer announced that unemployment benefits would be increased by 10s. per week for a single adult, by 15s. per week for a man and wife and by 17s. 6d. per week for a man and wife with one or more children under the age of sixteen years, the Leader of the Opposition interjected and said, “ That would not buy a feed “. 1 would like to see higher unemployment benefits paid to persons for whom employment cannot be found, but let us have a look at what Labour paid to the unemployed when it was in government. When the benefits were first introduced, in 1944, the rates fixed were £1 5s. for a single adult, £2 5s. for a man and wife and £2 10s. for a man with a wife and one or more children under the age of sixteen years. These rates were not changed until 1952. In 1945, the benefits paid to a married man with children represented 52 per cent, of the basic wage of £4 16s. When Labour went out of office in 1949, the basic wage had risen to £6 9s., and the unemployment benefits, which were unchanged, represented only 39 per cent, of the basic wage. In the meantime, of course, the basic wage has increased to £14 8s. - that is the weighted average for the six capital cities - and the increased rates of benefits announced by the Treasurer in the Budget a couple of weeks ago brought the rate for a married man with children to £7 per week, or 48.6 per cent, of the basic wage, as against 39 per cent, in Labour’s last year of office.

If we allow for the fact that married men with children also receive child endowment, it is interesting to see that in 1945 unemployment benefits plus endowment for a married man with two children represented 59 per cent, of the then basic wage. In 1948, the rate had fallen to 50.4 per cent., and in 1949, when Labour went out of office, it had fallen to 46.6 per cent. This year’s rates amount to 54 per cent, of today’s basic wage. When it is realized that Labour did not pay child endowment for the first child, the comparison shows Labour in an even worse light where the married man with one child is concerned. Even for a man, his wife and three children under sixteen years of age the new rates announced by the Treasurer represent 57.3 per cent, of the basic wage, compared with 54.3 per cent, when Labour went out of office in 1949. So, it reflects no credit whatever on the Leader of the Opposition when he says that this Government’s unemployment benefits would not buy a feed. In an endeavour to assist young couples setting up homes, the Government will reduce the rates of sales tax on furniture and household electrical items from 8 per cent, to 2i per cent., but even this does not please the Leader of the Opposition. He said this reduction was so small as to be irrelevant. He went on to say -

We believe that these commodities that the Treasurer has made the subject of reduction should be altogether free of sales tax.

He said, further -

We have fought for this year after year.

Why, then, did Labour not do anything about this when it had the chance?

The Menzies Government fixed the rate of sales tax for these items at 10 per cent, in November, 1940, and this rate continued until 30th April, 1942, when a Labour government increased it to 12i per cent. I am not quarrelling with that, because it occurred during the war years and the Government required the revenue. It reduced the rate to 10 per cent, in November, 1946, and in September, 1949, the rate was reduced further to 8-J per cent., the average reduction being less than 2 per cent. Yet, when this Government proposes to slash the rate of tax from 8^ per cent, to 2i per cent., the Opposition says this is not enough. Labour was in office for nearly four and one-half years after the war ended, and if the Opposition believes that these items should not be taxable, why did it not do something about them when it had the chance? In September, 1949, more than four years after the war ended, it reduced the rate of sales tax by lj per cent., yet members of the Opposition now criticize a reduction of nearly 6 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition said -

The Government now puts the rate at a contemptuous 2i per cent.

He said it was not high enough to raise any significant amount of revenue, but was there purely as an irritation and as a means of imposing unnecessary burdens on traders. Yet this “ contemptuous rate “ was first levied by a Labour government in 1930 and, in the eleven months from 1st August, 1930, to 30th June, 1931, it produced only £3,465,000 or an annual return of £3,754,000 over the entire range of sales tax levies out of a total Budget of a little over £80,000,000. Labour did not think the sales tax rate was contemptuous then when the amount raised was a mere drop in the bucket compared to what it would return to-day.

The Leader of the Opposition also sought to belittle the benefit of this reduction by saying that it amounts to less than 6 per cent, of the wholesale price and may be 4 per cent, of the retail price. The significant thing is that as prices are marked up on the wholesale or trade price, plus sales tax, the concession amounts to over 8 per cent, of the price on which it is calculated. I regret that not all manufacturers have yet seen fit to pass on to the people the benefits which die Government clearly intended them to have. However, quite a number of them have done so. A well-known manufacturer of electrical appliances has reduced the price of its vacuum cleaners, which sold at a little over £40, by £2 2s., and the price of its washing machines by £7.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What brand are they?

Mr FOX:

– I do not want to give the company a free plug over the air. Another has reduced the price of heating appliances that sold for £16 by £1, and a number of refrigerators have been reduced by up to £10. Admittedly, these are not large amounts, but if the manufacturers and the retailers tried to do the right thing - I believe that most of them are trying - it could result in a stimulation of sales, which will provide more employment, and at the same time materially assist young people who are furnishing their homes. The estimated cost to revenue of this concession is £11,200,000 a year. Personally, I would have preferred to see this amount of money made available for the elimination of sales tax on items of food. I still hope that the Government may be able to do something along those lines later. lt is not becoming for the Leader of the Opposition to sneer at what he calls a concession so small as to be irrelevant. It is a strange thing that when sales tax, which the Opposition described as crippling when it was imposed, is removed or reduced the concession is claimed to be of no benefit. Apparently the Opposition wants it both ways.

The Leader of the Opposition contemptuously dismissed the increases in pensions by saying that they are sufficient merely to restore the real value of the pension to where it was a year ago. Apart from the fact that this statement is not correct, because the age and invalid pension rates have been increased by 5 per cent, whereas the basic wage rose from £13 16s. to £14 8s. - an increase of 4.35 per cent. - let me remind the House that the age pensions which were paid by Labour in 1949 amounted to £2 2s. 6d. a week or only 32.9 per cent, of the then basic wage of £6 9s. Even in 1948 when the basic wage was £5 19s. it represented only 35.7 per cent, of the basic wage. To-day the age pension of £5 5s. represents 36.4 per cent, of the basic wage of £14 18s., an even higher percentage than it was last year.

During its term of office the Menzies Government has continuously eased the means test both in relation to property and income, and has introduced the supplementary pension of 10s. a week which is payable to single pensioners living alone and paying rent. It has also introduced the homes for the aged scheme. Labour has no reason to belittle this Government’s efforts in the field of social services. Unfortunately, not enough people realize these things.

The Leader of the Opposition claimed that nothing has been done about housing, and he queried the Treasurer’s sincerity by referring to war service homes. Let me remind the honorable gentleman that out of a total of a little over £400,000,000 which has been provided for war service homes since the inception of the scheme in 1919 to the present date, this Government from 1st January, 1950, to 30th June last, has provided over £347,000,000 or approximately 87 per cent, of the total allocation. In the 30 years between 1919 and 31st December, 1949, when Labour went out of office, nearly 63,000 persons had been assisted by the War Service Homes Division. But in a little over ten years since then this Government has assisted an additional 162,000 persons to obtain homes at the very low rate of interest of 3f per cent, and on deposits of as low as 5 per cent. Apparently exservicemen do not share the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the inadequacies of the scheme because, even though more than sixteen years have elapsed since the end of the Second World War, applications are still being received at the rate of 15,000 a year.

While on the subject of housing I should like to say that the Leader of the Opposition is astray again when he claims that money on first mortgage now costs nearly 8 per cent. This is an extremely misleading statement. I made a check of first mortgage rates of interest which revealed that savings banks charge from 5£ per cent, to 5i per cent., friendly societies from 5i per cent, to 6 per cent., War Service Homes Division 3J per cent., trading banks from 6i per cent, to 7 per cent., co-operative building societies from 4 per cent, to 5i per cent., building societies from 5 per cent, to 8 per cent, and insurance companies from 6 per cent, to 8 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition has taken the extreme figure and has represented that as the rate of interest which is being charged. The sources which I have quoted provide the bulk of the money that is used for housing, so the honorable gentleman again has grossly exaggerated the true position. His statement is not borne out by the facts. lt is also very interesting and revealing to remember that when referring to the Government’s increased allocation of £20,000.000 for public works the Leader of the Opposition stated that this meant that the actual expenditure per head of population showed no increase. Yet when he referred to increases in total tax collections, or increases in the number of persons registered for employment, he disregarded completely the increase in population and referred to numbers rather than to percentages.

He made some typically weird statements in relation to income tax and became tangled in his own illogicality. For example, he stated that married men should have been completely exempted from income tax. This is another case of the Leader of the Opposition advocating something which the Labour Government was not prepared to do when it was in office. Married men on the basic wage were still paying income tax when the Chifley Government went out of office in 1949. Admittedly, it was not a great deal, but it still meant a lot to a married man trying to keep a wife on £5 19s. a week, which was the amount on which tax was levied. And they paid even more a few years earlier when the basic wage was only £4 16s. a week! Although married men paid income tax in those circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition now claims that they should not be required to do so.

Another of his statements which indicates his wild plan to give away money is this -

We would give the States the whole of the proceeds of petrol tax.

Again I ask why did not Labour do that when it was in office? I went to the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and obtained information relating to petrol tax collections during the last four years of Labour’s term of office from 1945, so that it would be after the end of the war, and the last six years of this Government’s administration. It would not be fair to Labour to include the years 1945-46 and 1946- 47 because petrol tax collections in those years included customs duties levied on aviation spirit-

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– You are a noble fellow.

Mr FOX:

– I am sure the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory will be able to endorse what has been done.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I merely said that you were a noble fellow.

Mr FOX:

– Well, that is all right. I thought the honorable member was expressing approval of Labour’s policy. In 1947- 48 the amount collected from petrol tax was £16,100,000 and Labour returned to the States £6,100,000 or 38 per cent, of the collection. In 1948-49 the Government collected £17,500,000 and returned to the States by way of the Commonwealth aid roads legislation £7,100,000 or 41 per cent, of the collection. For the last six years- of the Menzies Government’s term of office the returns to the States under the Commonwealth aid roads legislation have averaged 70 per cent, a year. Compare that with the Labour Government’s 41 per cent. Yet members of the Australian Labour Party talk about returning to the States the whole of the proceeds of the petrol tax. This is just another instance of the Labour Party advocating something which it is not prepared to do. 1 think that I have already said enough to demonstrate that the criticisms of this Budget made by the Leader of the Opposition are unreasonable, illogical and entirely devoid of substance. I even have figures to prove that the honorable gentleman’s statement about the consumer price index was just as wrong as the majority of his other statements have proved to be. But I shall not have time to deal with that, because, in the time that I have left, I should like to refer to the Government’s measures to encourage the search for oil.

I am pleased to see that the Government is increasing the amount of subsidy assistance available to companies engaged in the search for oil in Australia and New Guinea. Probably, not many people have stopped to think of the amount which Australia pays for imported oil and petroleum products. Even allowing for what we pick up from the re-exporting of refined products, we are paying more than £100,000,000 a year. The figure is increasing yearly, and the companies engaged in the search for oil in Australia estimate that it will rise to at least £250,000,000 annually by 1970. When one realizes that our income from our chief export - wool - is less than £400,000,000 a year, one can see just how important it is to our national economy that we discover oil in commercial quantities in Australia.

Last year, 22 oil wells were completed in this country. In my opinion, this is merely playing with the search for oil. It is over 100 years since the world’s first commercial oil well was drilled at Titusville in Pennsylvania, and the United States of America is still the world’s chief producer of crude oil. During the ten years from 1951 to 1960, inclusive, a total of more than 497,000 holes were drilled for oil and gas in the United States. This is an average of just on 50,000 holes a year over that period of ten years. Of the total, more than 109,000, or an average of nearly 11,000 a year, were wildcat holes, and the remainder of more than 388,000 were development holes. The estimated average cost of drilling an oil well in the United States is £50,000. Many holes, of course, cost less, but some have cost as much as £1,000,000. So, in Australian currency, the Americans are still spending more than £2,000,000,000 annually in the search for oil. We must be prepared to spend money if we want to find oil. In the United States, which, as I have stated, is the world’s greatest producer of oil, only one wildcat or exploratory well in nine produces any oil at all, and only one in 44 opens up a field that is commercially profitable. Only about half of the 50,000 exploratory and development wells drilled each year find oil, and about 10 per cent, find natural gas. The remaining 40 per cent, are dry holes. So we in Australia cannot expect miracles from twenty holes a year. A total of 133 wells were drilled over 30 years before the Leduc field was found. In Alaska, two years’ work and an expenditure of more than 4,000,000 dollars ended in a dry hole.

The Government is doing the right thing by providing subsidies for companies which are searching for oil, but I do not think that there are enough companies in the field. The more companies there are searching for oil, the more holes will be drilled and the greater will be the chance of finding oil. Again, I think we have to look to the United States of America for an illustration. The important Spindletop discovery near Beaumont in Texas was made on 10th January, 1901. It is estimated that, by the end of that year, there were 585 oil companies near Beaumont. In the late 1890’s, oil was discovered in Kern County, California. Within three years, 2,400 oil companies were incorporated, and half of these actually drilled for oil. To-day, there are about 12,000 businesses engaged in the production of oil and natural gas in the United States, and there are more than 560,000 producing wells. At the end of last year, a total of 75 companies and individuals held exploration permits, licences or leases in Australia and another five permits or licences were held for Papua and New Guinea. I understand that before oil was discovered in the Sahara Desert, the French Government had voted £100,000,000 for a crash programme of oil search and had actually spent more than £30,000,000 in two years before its courage was rewarded by the discovery of several large oil fields.

We know that oil exists in the Australian continent. It has been found in a number of areas, the last discovery being made at Cabawin in Queensland only a few months ago. In view of the importance of oil to the Australian economy and to our defence, it is essential that we push on with our programme of oil search as rapidly as possible. To do this, we need to encourage more companies to engage in the search for oil. I understand that at present there are twelve drilling rigs in Australia which could cope with up to 50 wells a year - more than twice the number which were drilling last year. The member companies of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association state that there are also fourteen commercial seismic crews at present in Australia. The cost of keeping these fully employed would be £2,500,000 annually. It has been stated that these crews could uncover about 35 drilling targets a year, and the number of crews could be doubled or trebled if necessary.

The companies at present engaged in the search for oil in Australia are confident that sufficient capital can be obtained to undertake a more extensive programme, provided that investors can be assured of government backing over an extended period. They have suggested that annual grants have an obvious disadvantage, because the prospecting companies cannot plan their programmes to conform with a pre-deter mined annual amount. But, in their view, this disadvantage could be overcome by the establishment of a fund to take the place of the present annual grant. I feel that the Government should consider this proposal which has been put forward by the companies which are at present actively engaged in the search for oil in Australia. Nevertheless, I congratulate it on the measures to assist this very important industry which it has included in the Budget.

I believe that, in present circumstances, this is a very constructive budget, which is designed to restore confidence and to help reduce unemployment. It is entirely undeserving of the criticism directed at it by the Opposition. 1 oppose the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and support the Budget.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

Mr. Temporary Chairman, if the Government, in its Budget proposals, had been half as generous in its approach to the needs of its own Territories as it has been to some of the States, in respect of which the buying of votes seems to have number 1 priority, I would be congratulating the Government this evening instead of criticizing it. Hand-outs to Queensland and Western Australia for roads and railways have been the order of the day. I have no objection to hand-outs at this or any other time for developmental projects, and I state here and now that I do not disagree with the provision of funds for development in the States. I disagree only with the timing of these grants’ and with the neglect of the Commonwealth’s own Territories, which have missed out in the allocation of the available funds for developmental projects. Is it any wonder that we become suspicious of hand-outs and other allocations made in this way immediately before an election?

The Commonwealth Government has a responsibility for the Northern Territory. It is the Commonwealth’s own Territory, and the Commonwealth Government therefore is responsible for providing funds for the development of that part of Australia. No one can deny that such an area of about 500,000 square miles in the most vulnerable part of Australia needs development. Indeed, no one can deny that the Northern Territory is crying out for development. I challenge the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) to deny that the only developmental proposal for the Territory envisaged in the Budget is the expenditure of £350,000 on roads for the transport of beef cattle. But even that is not as good as it seems. If we analyse the Budget Papers, we find that this allocation is not additional to the funds normally provided for expenditure in the Northern Territory. This allocation is made at the expense of the normal expenditure on road maintenance and other services in the Territory. It is common knowledge in the Northern Territory at the present time that the vote for roads and road maintenance has actually been cut by one third. We find that this amount of £350,000 is not superimposed on moneys normally available for roads; actually part of the £350,000 will have to be used for ordinary road maintenance requirements in the Territory.

Figures provided by the Minister show that an amount of £401,000 has been provided in total for roads and building maintenance. This is a misleading figure. The figures have not previously been given by the Minister in this form. It is a bulk amount, including the amounts provided for roads and building maintenance and many other matters. Even in total the amount is only £401,000, and if we take £350,000 from it we have left only £50,000 for the normal maintenance of buildings and roads in that part of Australia. I suggest that it is not good enough. We want roads for development. We must have them. Even if we accept the proposition that an additional £350,000 is being provided, I ask the Minister to tell us how many miles of first-class road we could get for it. 1 suggest that it would not cover the cost of more than 100 miles of road.

The Minister talks about the muchpublicized road development projects for the north of Australia. It is only within the last two months that the Minister for Territories said in the Northern Territory that the Government was considering a developmental roads programme for the Northern Territory which would cost £7,250,000. He omitted to say, however, how long the Government would take to consider this proposal. Whereas we might have been led to expect to receive £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in this financial year for roads, we find that the Budget makes provision for only a little more than £300,000.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– Is not that in addition to the usual grant?

Mr NELSON:

– No, it is not. It is included in the usual grant, and we find that all we get for the normal maintenance of roads is about £50,000.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– You will find that the correct figure is £600,000.

Mr NELSON:

– Let me develop my argument in my own way.

Mr King:

– We are trying to help you.

Mr NELSON:

– You are trying to make out a case for your Government and to sidestep the issue. Turning to the first table of figures supplied by the Minister we can see the directions in which money is expended in the Northern Territory. For 1960-61 the total expenditure was of the order of £9,900,000. The estimated amount for 1961-62, the current year, is £11,900,000. On the face of it there is an increase of £2,000,000, but a reference to the second page of the notes supplied by the Minister reveals that there is an amount of £2,323,000 described as “ revotes 1962-63 “. In other words, included in the £1 1,900,000 is an amount of £2,323,000 representing money that the Government, or the Administration, was not able or willing to spend last year. In actual fact, therefore, no fresh funds have been made available, or, if any extra amount is being provided it is a very small amount.

One might even say that the figures have not been provided for the purpose of giving information or explanations concerning the Budget proposals, but merely for the purpose of concealing the true state of affairs. I intend to deal more fully, during the debate on the Estimates, with the figures that have been provided, and at this stage I shall deal with the broad developmental programme.

A further reference to page 2 of the Minister’s explanatory notes shows us that the amount for the new works programme is £3,373,000. We are given the categories of expenditure, and we find that town engineering will account for a little more than £1,000,000, schools £685,000, housing £514,000, developmental roads £401,000, native welfare £301,000, and other works £420,000. The only developmental works in this list are the roads. The other items of expenditure cover the normal servicing of towns which are growing, principally because of the increase of the number of public servants. There is expenditure on schools, to take care of an expanding population, and there is expenditure on housing and native welfare. As I say, the only developmental projects are the roads. The Government stands condemned for talking about developmental projects in Australia as a whole when it fails to develop a .territory of its own which is crying out for development.

I wish to touch now on a number of grievances that have arisen in the Northern Territory. These matters are not normally touched on in the Budget debate, but they are vital to the welfare of the people who live in this area and to the progress of Australia as a whole. First, I wish to speak about pensions. The Budget provides, of course, for an increase in pensions. The pensioners of the Northern Territory suffer special disabilities in trying to live on the meagre amount provided for them by the Government. It is well known that in respect of taxation allowance is made for the disabilities suffered by people living in the Northern Territory, and what are known as zone allowances have been granted. This shows that the Government recognizes the special needs of people living in certain remote areas of Australia. Pensioners, however, are expected to live in these remote areas on the same standard as pensioners in other parts of Australia where living conditions are easier and costs are lower.

Some time ago, but within the current year, the pensioners’ association in the Northern Territory put forward a scheme for the consideration of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton). The suggestion was that the zone principle should be extended to cover social service benefits. It seemed to me to be a most satisfactory scheme and a moderate and practical one. It is a scheme that I enunciated some years ago, but nothing was done about it at that time. On this occasion the pensioners brought the matter up directly with the Minister. Of course the Minister for Social Services would not consider it in any shape or form. It was rejected out of hand. If it had been adopted it would have proved of tremendous benefit to these people living in the north who, after all, are entitled to have their special requirements considered and catered for. These people have done pioneering work. They have opened up huge tracts of country into which other people did not dare to venture. They have suffered privation and hardship in the process. They have spent their early years and their working lives in the service of Australia, opening up the country so that progress and development might follow.

These people who are in the evening of their lives should at least have their normal wants catered for in the same manner as pensioners in .other parts of Australia. I do not agree that pensioners in other parts of Australia are receiving adequate pensions for their needs, but in these remote parts of Australia it is much more difficult to live than it is in the more populated and readily accessible parts.

The matter of education is vitally linked with the development of the north. If we want to develop the north people must go there and stay there. There must be women and families in that part of Australia. If we expect them to stay there we must provide the normal facilities of everyday life so that children may be educated and the families may have medical attention.

I want to criticize the Government for proceeding to build a high school in Darwin without air-conditioning. The construction of this building was recommended as an urgent measure some years ago by the Public Works Committee. The committee made a special point of urging the Government to provide air-conditioning in the building but, because this would cost another £50,000 or £80,000, the Government vetoed the idea.

T think it is normal practice in any pan of Australia to take into consideration the climatic conditions under which children receive their education. In very cold climates there are fireplaces or other heating appliances throughout the schools. It is only fair that in those areas of Australia in which the heat is just as severe as the cold is in other parts, provision should be made for cooling the building. Perhaps in the past plant and facilities have not been available to provide cooling, but in this modern day and age surely we can cool the school buildings in humid, hot climates so that the children can do their studies in comfort. If they study in comfort the benefit must be reflected in their attitude towards school and in the results they obtain from school. I do not know of any school in the Northern Territory, whether at Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Darwin, that has the benefit of airconditioning. This should be a normal provision. Even though provision has not been made for air-conditioning for Darwin High

School in the present Budget a supplementary estimate should be introduced to provide for it.

I want to protest, once again, against the imposition of the means test on intermediate exhibitions and leaving certificate scholarships provided by the Government. It would be interesting to know the number or scholarships provided, the number of scholarships won, and the very small number of children who have been able to avail themselves of these scholarships. The imposition of the means test has prevented families from allowing their children to go south to further their education, because of their inability to stand the additional expense involved in keeping the children at school. Where higher education is not provided - and it is not provided in the Northern Territory - exhibitions should be free of a means test and they should be substantial enough to relieve the parents of the expense of having to support the children while they take advantage of their scholarships. It is not the parent who is penalized in this respect. It is the child itself. If a child has ability the denial of higher education to it is detrimental to the advancement of the country. Although parents’ associations throughout the Northern Territory have written to the Minister for Territories and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stressing the hardship that the means test imposes on them, no action has been taken by the Government.

Another hardship that is imposed on a small but important section of the community in the north is that they are prevented from taking advantage of the provisions of the long service furlough legislation. During the war, when Darwin was evacuated, these people were directed by man-power authorities to civil occupations in other parts of Australia. They have found that the break in their service in that time has prevented them from taking advantage of long service leave provisions. These people were willing to enlist in the services, and this would have preserved their continuity of employment, but because they were directed into a civil occupation they are prevented from taking advantage of long service provisions. This position should be examined and rectified. The people who determine these things should be given discretion to allow this small but significant section of the community to take their long service leave.

Although provision has been made in the Budget for more houses to be built in theNorthern Territory, both for administration employees and for Housing Commission, purposes, the repair and maintenance of government houses is falling further behind. In the last twelve months, no funds havebeen available for this work, and some of the houses are in such a state of disrepair that it will cost more than the original cost, of the houses to put them into a serviceablestate again. Eventually, this lack of foresight and failure to make funds available for the normal repair and maintenance of buildings will cost the Australian taxpayerhundreds of thousands of pounds. These houses are in a climate that is very hard on building materials. The houses, deteriorate much more rapidly than dohouses in a temperate climate. At page 63- of his annual report, the Auditor-General, makes this comment -

The report for 1959-60 referred to the lag in the execution of repairs and maintenance to dwellings. At 30th June, 1961, the amount required to effect major repairs and maintenance recommended by the Department of Works as a result of their inspections was estimated to be in excessof £500,000.

That was the position at 30th June, 1961. As the years pass by, that figure will be multiplied, and if nothing is done it could reach the astronomical height of £1,000,000- in the very near future. And these buildings, are urgently needed to house our people.

I wish now to refer briefly to mining in> the Northern Territory. Every one will admit that any area of Australia that haswithin its boundaries mining potentialities isvery fortunate indeed. Although this asset is being actively developed in other parts of Australia, very little development is taking place in mining in the Northern Territory. The total value of production from mining there last year was in the vicinity of £5,500,000, excluding uranium at Rum. Jungle, for which the figures are not available as they are confidential. But, putting uranium production at £3,000,000 as a shrewd guess, the total mining wealth produced in the Northern Territory last year was approximately £8,000,000. That figure could be increased considerably if the Government were to implement a bold policy of mineral development. The cost of such a step would be repaid many times in increased output.

There are bauxite deposits in the Northern Territory, but unfortunately the raw bauxite is taken overseas for processing. The only benefit derived by the Northern Territory is the small amount of employment which the mechanized mining for bauxite gives. The real advantage from the production is enjoyed by countries overseas which do the processing and re-export the finished product to Australia. It is high time that we treated our own raw materials within our own boundaries so that we might enjoy maximum advantage from our production. Even if the raw material were treated at New Guinea, just across the water, it would be far better than shipping the bauxite overseas for processing in foreign countries. We know, too, that there is still room for expansion of the aluminium industry in Tasmania. Perhaps the processing works there could be extended to treat Northern Territory bauxite and in that way give greater advantage to Australia than is now enjoyed while the raw material is exported overseas for processing.

I have mentioned some of the directions in which I feel that this Budget fails. It is not too late yet for the Government to come forward with a proposal for the development of the Northern Territory. I am confident that the party which comes forward with a bold policy of development of the great open spaces of the north is the party which will receive the nation-wide acclaim of electors at the next election. Such a policy would be supported by the taxpayers of Australia who would be prepared to shoulder the financial burden the implementation of such policy would involve. If we cannot raise the necessary funds by way of taxation, then I suggest they could be raised by special loans. After all, if we can find the money necessary to finance schemes such as the Snowy Mountains scheme which will ultimately cost in the vicinity of £400,000,000 surely we can find sufficient money to finance a developmental policy that will not only benefit the economy but will also provide security for the more thickly populated areas. We have a vast open continent and we have to develop it. To the north of Australia teeming millions of people are casting hungry glances at our vast open spaces. If we do not develop them we shall forfeit all claim to them. The time has long since past when a bold policy for the development of that part of Australia should be put in train. Such a scheme would attract no adverse criticism whatever. On the contrary, it would meet with the plaudits of the people of Australia, and certainly it would mean security not only for the next generation but also generations yet unborn.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

.- One cannot help but have a feeling of sympathy for the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson), representing as he does its vast, empty areas. I can well imagine the sense of frustration he must feel because he is waiting with impatience to see development proceed more rapidly. I think we all feel like that. I know that if I were in his position I would feel very much as he does. I would offer him some comfort, however. I think he will agree that certainly the climate of public opinion in Australia is turning his way, and I think that in his lifetime he will see the beginning of real development in that area.

It must be a disappointing business being a Treasurer. During the year he goes to a lot of trouble drawing up a Budget and while he is doing so he is quite certain that when it is done the Opposition, whatever its political colour, will greet it with a howl of rage. If this Budget had been a generous and exciting one, the Opposition would have been quick to claim that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) was trying to buy votes for the next election. I am very glad to see that the Government resisted the temptation to do that. The Government took unpopular measures last November, and it would have been tragic if now, with an election looming, it had said that inflation did not matter and that our balance of payments problem was not serious. The Australian people are not fools. They would have been properly suspicious of any attempt to buy popularity in that way.

We hear it said also - the honorable member for the Northern Territory mentioned it - that although the Treasurer claims this is a developmental Budget its measures do not go far enough. Because of the work I have done in the last two years in the Northern Territory on the

Forster committee, I would know something about the need for development in that area and something about the tremendous amount of money that will be needed to carry out that development. I give way to no one in my prediction that we will get it in time. But you do not clear land with eloquence; you do it by hard work. I know, too, that the development of the undeveloped parts of Australia needs the backing of a solid economy. I also know that too large an expenditure on developmental projects at this stage would increase the inflationary pressure on the whole economy and would increase the production costs of the export industries that we hope to establish and develop in the undeveloped parts of Australia. Let us be clear on this. I think the honorable member for the Northern Territory would agree that large-scale developmental projects are not just plucked out of the air. It takes a lot of solid planning and administration to do the back room work necessary for a really solid developmental exercise. Certainly in the Northern Territory we are not yet ready to take a big forward step. We are ready to do the planning, but not yet ready to spend the money. That goes for other developmental projects that I know of around Australia. Remember, the Snowy Mountains scheme itself was preceded by a great deal of solid, careful planning. On most of the developmental projects in Australia we have not yet done that planning. There may be criticism of failure to do the planning earlier, but the point is that it has not yet been done.

Members of the Opposition - I do not include the honorable member for the Northern Territory in this, because I think he was most restrained in his criticism - and particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) have been most eloquent about their determination to develop the north. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that he would pour £60,000,000 into it at once. On what is that money to be spent? Shall we have another ground nuts scheme or another Peak Downs fiasco? The Northern Territory is littered with the bleached bones of past failures. Are we going to add another to the pile?

There is no doubt about the popularity of the cry “ Develop the north “. It is the gateway to Asia, we are told, and we are continually reminded of the teeming millions to our north. We are all a little anxious in our minds and in our consciences about this thing, and I think rightly so. We must certainly tackle the job. But how? By pouring £60,000,000 into it when we do not know whether we can in fact do the things there that we hope to do? We know that we can add 200 lb. of liveweight per acre by grazing on improved pastures, when we do not know the cost or the methods of establishing the pastures, and do not know whether we can do it profitably. Are we going to embark on a vast expansion of rice-growing when we do not yet know whether we can grow rice profitably on the area now being developed? Is the money to be spent on growing peanuts when we do not know, in our present state of knowledge, whether we can grow them profitably in the Northern Territory? Would it not be better to close the gaps in our knowledge and find out whether two men can adequately care for 200 acres of peanuts? Shall we go full steam ahead and break the heart and the bank balance of the settler by leaving him to find the answers which we ourselves could find if we went a bit slower?

Is all this development going to be achieved by building roads? No one is more aware than I am of the importance of roads in the Northern Territory. I know the argument that if we have better roads we will increase the turn-off of cattle and make the cattle stations more efficient. I congratulate the Government on its decision to remove the sales tax from road trains, which will certainly be very much appreciated in the north; but do not let us kid ourselves that all we have to do is to build roads. It is important to have something to carry on those roads. Remember, there are 200 miles of bitumen road between Katherine and Darwin and no cattle to carry on it. So do not let us think that building a road and then standing back and letting development proceed is the answer to our problem. It is a lot harder than that, and a lot slower.

I will give honorable members an example. There is continual pressure to build roads into the Channel country. Everybody knows that the Channel country, when it is good, is very good fattening country, and the argument is that we should’ build a road to get store: cattle in and another road to get them out. It is all very convincing, but let us do some simple arithmetic. I understand that there would have to be a 200-mile: road in and another 200-mile road out - 400 miles of road at £10,000 a mile, if it was bitumen road, and it- would not be much good if it was anything else. Are there enough cattle to carry on those roads to justify that expenditure? There is not much good in having roads in and out if there are no store cattle- to carry om them-. Where are the store cattle to come from? Looking at the map, we can see that the natural outlet for cattle from- the Queensland gulf country is through Townsville, where people like the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Murray) have demonstrated that they can fatten cattle on improved pastures every year, and not just one year out of every two or three years.

You may. ask, “ What about the immense reservoir of store cattle in the Northern Territory?” Well, what about it? There are 60,000 store cattle, on an average, coming out of the Northern Territory into Queensland every year, and 13,000 of them are what we call committed cattle - cattle belonging, for instance, to the Vestey organization, which would not go south to the channels even if they were hockdeep in clover. That leaves a maximum of 47,000 cattle to go to the Channel country. How can we justify putting in these roads by saying that we are going to fatten these Northern Territory cattle in the Channel’ country? If you depreciate this road at 5 per cent. - it will cost more than that in maintenance - and add the interest on capital at 5 per cent, on £4,000,000, that will impose a charge of £8 10s. a head for road cost. At 30s. per 100 miles for freight, the cost per beast will be £14 10s. in and out - and that only if the channels are good every year. If the channels were good only every other year the cost would be £25 a beast.

If we have limited resources, as I think will be admitted, would it not be better to look at this thing a bit harder in order to see whether it would be wiser to spend this money in the breeding country? I do not say that these roads should not be built in Queensland, but I do say that it might be better to spend the money on building roads- to the breeding country’ so- that we could increase the turn-off of store cattle and later have enough store cattle to justify building; roads in and out of the Channel country. I repeat that 1. give place to nobody in my determination to help develop the north.. I am well aware of the continual battle I. will nawe in front of me in this place. Foc as long, as 1 remain a member of Parliament people: will be dodging up corridors, when’ they see me coming, because they will know that I will be buttonholing them and asking them in anxious tones, “ What about the: Northern Territory? “ But. 1 am not going to subscribe to wild, development schemes, involving, the spending of £60,000,000 on doing something silly. I am well aware of the importance of a sound economy to work from. Let us have a strong solid basis from which to work steadily and consistently, and do not let us jeopardize the soundness of that base by rushing around shelling out large amounts of money to do we are not sure what.

That brings me to an examination of the economy of the country. This, I say, is important, even if only in its developmental significance. As I see it, the. Achilles heel of our economy is certainly our ability to produce enough exports to pay for the imports which a developing economy demands. In another few years we will run into other problems - the problems of lack of resources. We have such a problem now, that of the lack of oil. Later we will run into the problem of water shortages, and we will probably have to de-salt sea water. We will run into the major problem of a shortage of cheap phosphate rock, and that will really steady us down. At present our main problem is how to produce the exports to pay for our necessary imports. I often wish that there were some other way of paying for imports. I wish that the honorable member for Scullin (Mr. Peters), that self-appointed Opposition watch-dog on the economy, would bring his vast experience to bear on this problem. Perhaps there is some other way. Perhaps in 50 years’ time it will be found that this oldhallowed economic law was not really a law at all, but only a superstition, and that I was quite wrong to insist that imports can be paid for only by exports. As I say, I hope the honorable member for Scullin will devote himself to the task, and I commend the study to all Opposition members. If they can find some other way, then the road will be clear for all sorts of exciting developments. We can have higher duties and so make things more expensive for the export industries. It would not matter, I suppose, if we did not have export industries. We could all have higher wages and shorter hours and all would be well. Utopia would be here. But until they can find some other way, the Opposition should recognize the existence of this economic law and realize that it must be obeyed.

So far as I know, the only way to pay for imports is by exports. If you have a trade balance problem, as we have now and will have for a long while to come, you do one of two things: You stop imports coming in by import licensing or higher tariffs, or you increase exports. I would say that the export industries saw the end of import licensing with a sigh of immense satisfaction. We knew that import licensing was not stopping imports coming in. It had not limited the demand for goods. There was pressure to manufacture goods here and when they are made here, the manufacturers use imported plant and raw materials. One of my colleagues has said that between 70 and 80 per cent, of imports are not consumer goods but are used by industry.

We know that during import licensing, many industries sprang up which produced goods at high cost. That high cost was passed back along the line until it came to the man at the end, the exporter - who could pass it no further. So we saw the end of import licensing and the dismantling of this cumbersome structure with a sense of real relief because we felt that at least one load had been lifted from our shoulders.

When import licensing was lifted, I congratulated the Government on the courage it showed then, and said that if the balance of payments situation again became a serious problem, I hoped the Government would adopt the unpopular course of dampening down demand by imposing increased sales tax or credit restrictions rather than re-introduce this clumsy and costly import licensing system. For that reason, I warmly congratulated the Government on the action it took then, and will warmly support it in resisting pressures for the re-introduction of import licensing.

But as import licensing is not to be used and we have a trade balance problem, you hear it said, “ Why not impose higher tariffs? “ We find strong pressure building up in the community for higher tariffs. We find applications to the deputy chairmen of the Tariff Board for emergency duties, and many of the duties recommended have been disturbingly high. Many of the ordinary Tariff Board reports recommend high duties up to 100 per cent. Later, when I hope there will be a tariff debate, I propose to analyse four particular Tariff Board reports and will point out that they are far from an adequate economic assessment. In this debate, however, I will confine myself to the general position.

When there is unemployment as, unforfortunately, there is now, there is a very strong pressure for higher tariffs. The argument goes something like this: “ These goods are coming in. Why not make them here? This will provide employment for our people and meet our trade-balance problem; but to do that, we must have a tariff.” Starting an industry in Australia does not necessarily improve our trade balance. Such an industry often uses imported plant and raw material, so the trade balance does not necessarily improve. A high tariff does not necessarily improve our trade balance.

What about unemployment? I admit that any person advocating a high tariff to give employment has an almost unfair advantage in presenting his argument. He is able to point to the number of persons who will be employed in the new industry. He can bring pressure through the trade unions and the Chamber of Manufactures. As I have said, it is a difficult case to refute. But this is the important point: If the high tariff, with other high tariffs, does harm to the economy in general, the employment gained by the new industry may be gained at the expense of other industries in other parts of the country.

I admit that these things are hard to measure and hard to pin down in precise terms. I suppose the assessment you will go by is whether you believe in the existence of economic laws or not. If you do not, you will put on high duties and let the economy take its chance; but if you believe that higher costs caused by higher duties are passed on to the exporter who can pass them no further, and that this makes for greater difficulties in the exporting industries as well as for a sick economy and unemployment, then you have doubts about putting on higher duties.

It is about time we heard from the Australian Labour Party members - they are quite vocal in other directions - as to where they stand in this matter of high protection. I know that they believe in its obvious immediate benefits, but do they admit that there is a price to be paid for high protection and increased duties? If they think that this is just something that we have dreamed up or a figment of the imagination, they should say so and we would know where they stand; but if they think that the excess costs cannot be ignored but are passed on to the exporter, they should say so. Or do they think that the exporting industries can continue to absorb high costs?

If protection is to be extended to inefficient and uneconomic industries, this will impose a heavy load on the exporting industries. It is only the remarkable vigour, efficiency and natural advantages of the wheat, wool, meat and mining industries that have enabled them to carry the heavy load in the past. I hope that that vigour will continue in the future, but the natural advantages will become less important for this reason: The chief natural advantage of the wool industry, for example, is the scale of operations. The pastoralist is able to grow wool cheaply because he grows it extensively. But it is not only cheap wool that we want; we want more of it. We know that we have to increase our exports by another £250,000,000 in the next five years, and we want more wool. This extra will cost more to grow. There will be less ability to absorb the increased cost of high protection for other industries. The increase in wool production has to take place in the high rainfall zone.

We have set a world standard in what can be done in the field of production of wool in this area. But increased production will mean that land will have to be cleared and subdivided, pastures sown, superphosphate, zinc and copper added, drenching for worm carried out, and perhaps irrigation provided. Certainly, we can grow more wool, but the wool we grow by using these methods will cost more. That goes for all our farming and our mining also. In future, the ore will have to come from further down or further out, and there will be less ability on the part of the staple export industries to absorb the cost of high protection.

I am not making this plea for the export industries themselves. We can struggle through if we limit production and grow things extensively; but for the sake of the economy as a whole, for the sake of the worker in the factory and the man in the street who all depend on a developing Australia and a sound, vigorous economy, I say that in this matter of increased costs to the export industries, you have gone about as far as you can go.

Recently, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) in a speech on the European Economic Community made a telling point when he said the future economy of Australia would depend to a considerable extent on our ability, not only to export the products of primary industry but also the products of secondary industry. Certainly that is the hope we have for the future, but what hope have efficient secondary industries of getting their costs into line with overseas costs if they have to carry the load of increased cost caused by the protection of inefficient secondary industries? I am not a free trader.

The advantages of a wise protectionist policy are all around us, in our large labour force, our diversified production, our varied industrial skills and, particularly,’ in our enlarged markets for primary products. It is no accident that we export from Australia only 20 per cent, of the lamb we grow and eat the other 80 per cent. Our position compares with that of New Zealand, where the figures are the other way around. The position there is much more serious than the position we are in. It is obviously important to us to have this increased home market. In our iron and steel industry we have shown what can be done when you have a large market and enthusiastic, capable management. We can produce iron and steel as cheaply as it can be produced anywhere else in the world, so I say that there are quite obvious advantages in a wise protectionist policy. But I am opposed to the protection of uneconomic and inefficient industries, because that puts too great a load on the exporting industries and, if we cannot export, we cannot pay for the imports which are necessary to expand our secondary industries.

If we go around applying protection with a shovel to relieve unemployment we will make the position in the future worse and not better. This leads me to my final point. The time has arrived when we should press for another inquiry into the economic effects of the Australian tariff. The last inquiry was held in 1929. It was a very valuable inquiry, but a great deal has been done and a lot of things have happened since that time. For one thing there is comparatively a much smaller volume of exporting industries to absorb the costs imposed by the protection and there is a much different structure in our industrial society. We hear questions like, “ What is going to be the effect if Britain joins the European Economic Community? “ We hear questions as to what the position will be if we have to give up the preferences which we now enjoy in Britain and what the effect of that will be on our economy.

What are the economic and efficient industries which it is the policy of the Government to protect? Surely this is important. This is not an easy thing to define. Economics and efficiency do not necessarily mean the same thing; an industry may be efficient and still be uneconomic. It may have the best plant and machinery in the world, but may still be uneconomic because it may not have a large enough market or may be making something of which the design changes continually. We hear questions like, “ Are we to confine our higher protection to those industries which because of their structure have some hope in the future of being able to export? “ These are questions which I feel can only be answered not as political but as economic problems. This is an important job which should be done by a top-level committee of inquiry into our economic system. I urge the Government to reconsider its attitude on this most important question. T support the Budget and oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr BROWNE:
Kalgoorlie

.- This is a remarkable Budget for a variety of reasons, among which are these: It is first of all a reasonably normal Budget, and by that I mean it is a sort of Budget we have come to expect from a stable government. Yet the Opposition regards it as a remarkable Budget because this happens to be in an election year. The Labour Party cannot reconcile a stable, normal type of Budget with an election year - not that it has had a great amount of experience in the framing of Budgets in recent years according to the demands of the period. The Australian public has come to regard the Labour Party as a party which makes great promises at election time and says, “ We will do this and we will do that, but please give us your vote first “. Honorable members opposite subscribed to the theory, “ This is an election year; therefore there must be some promises attached to the Budget “.

The Budget is remarkable in the sense that it is a normal Budget, and the Government is to be congratulated because it has brought down a Budget which pays more regard to the needs of the economy than it does to its own need to win the next election. I think I can anticipate the remarks of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant), who, apparently, is about to interject. The Budget is remarkable in another sense in that being a normal Budget it has been brought down in a rather abnormal economic period. The period immediately preceding its introduction has not been normal, but a period remarkable for abnormality. It has been a particularly trying time economically, and all sorts of temptations must have presented themselves to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to yield to the calamity howling of the Opposition which says that something drastic is called for.

This Government has had a great amount of experience in bringing down Budgets and in managing the economic affairs of this country. It has had sufficient experience to reject the temptation to bring down something spectacular in the way of corrective measures. This Government has had plenty of experience in dealing with corrective measures, and I believe that the corrective measures brought down last November have made it possible for the Government to do away with the necessity for doing something spectacular in this election year. That is surely to the great credit of the Government. For myself - and this is usually the time for parochial dealings, if I may use that expression - I am very happy about this Budget, because never before has the electorate of Kalgoorlie fared so well. There is no unemployment in Kalgoorlie. That is my reply to the honorable member who is interjecting. Unemployment in Kalgoorlie has remained constant at a very low figure. To revert to the local issues which affect my electorate, I wish to emphasize that the announcement in relation to the gold subsidy will mean a lot to the people who are doing a great deal for the gold-mining industry.

The sales tax exemption on cattle road trains in the north will result in more efficient methods of getting cattle to market and in an increase in the overall output of cattle, which has been stated as one of the primary objects of the Government’s rural policy.

The announcement that Western Australia is to have a standard gauge railway line from Kalgoorlie to Kwinana has been the most discussed subject in Western Australia for the past week. It has brought great credit to the Government in Western Australia and great joy to Kalgoorlie.

Mr Curtin:

– Anyhow, where is Kalgoorlie?

Mr BROWNE:

– I am not here to educate members of the Opposition. The Budget has been a great comfort to me and to my electors.

Mr Freeth:

– What about the beef roads?

Mr BROWNE:

– My friend, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth), has reminded me of the Government’s proposal in relation to the provision of beef roads in the north-west. This is a matter of the utmost importance to Western Australia and to the nation. It means that instead of waiting until cattle are three, four or five years old before putting them on the road for a 1,000-mile walk to market or a railhead, these roads will enable road transport to be used to take them to market when they are eighteen months old. In addition, they will arrive at the market in first-class condition. If cattle can be turned off at eighteen months - even the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) should be able to work this one out - an increased number of cattle can be turned off every year. The output of cattle from the areas which these beef roads will serve can be doubled. This will mean a great deal not only to Western Australia but also to the Northern Territory and to the northern areas of Queensland. I think that is something for which the Government can be commended.

I should like to mention a matter to which I hope the Government will pay regard. I mentioned it during the debate on last year’s Budget but I feel so deeply about it that I believe it to be worthy of mention again. I direct the Government’s attention to the anomaly which exists in the second schedule of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act as it applies to the town of Geraldton. The schedule defines the boundaries of the zones within which certain tax concessions apply, and section 79a of the act states the reason for these zones in this way -

For the purpose of granting to residents of the prescribed area an income tax concession in recognition of the disadvantages to which they are subject because of the uncongenial climatic conditions, isolation and high cost of living in Zone A and, to a lesser extent, in Zone B, in comparison with parts of Australia not included in the prescribed area . . .

The Commissioner of Taxation has ruled - this is not mentioned explicitly in the second schedule of the act - that the town of Geraldton is excluded from Zone B although it is almost surrounded by areas which are included. I suggest that this is merely an oversight in the drafting of the schedule. No one would suggest that Geraldton has more favorable - or, as the act describes it, more congenial - climatic conditions than the area surrounding it.

Mr Hasluck:

– But it has a delightful climate.

Mr BROWNE:

– So have the areas adjoining it. Similarly, no one would suggest that the same degree of isolation - if isolation means distance from capital cities, which I suggest it does - does not apply to Geraldton as it does to the surrounding regions. But the strongest point in this case is the cost of living. Geraldton is reputed to have the highest cost of living in Australia. I do not know whether that reputation is deserved. I have never heard of the claim being investigated, but I have never heard of it being refuted. Therefore, according to the wording of the act, clearly

Geraldton qualifies for inclusion in Zone 8. However, in this case the important point is not what the act says but what it does not say. The second schedule which sets the boundaries states -

  1. . thence by the boundaries dividing the Road Districts of Perenjori Morawa Mingenew Irwin Greenough and Geraldton from the Road Districts of Yalgoo Mullewa and Upper Chapman to the western coastline.

But here is where the description fails. That line does not reach the coast. It terminates at the boundary of the municipality of Geraldton and that fact is not mentioned in the schedule. If this is a mistake - I suggest it is - it is one that could be made quite easily because if .one looks at a small-scale map of the area the line appears to reach the coast. In fact, it does not. But if it is a mistake, it should be rectified by an amendment of the schedule to include Geraldton in the zone if only for the reason that there is no justification for excluding it.

I trust that the Treasurer will have a look at this matter because clearly an anomaly exists. The act is ambiguous because it can be read two ways. The Commissioner of Taxation recently gave a ruling which, naturally enough, was against those who appealed.

I should like to say something now about the Opposition’s attitude to the Budget generally. I have already stated that this is a normal budget by which I mean that it subscribes to the country’s general economic atmosphere. Surely that is a prerequisite of any budget. The present Budget provides for a moderate deficit. At the same time, it will raise social service benefits, and it has a quite reasonable developmental content. This is altogether a reasonable budget.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) has said that in February he will budget, if he is elected to office, for what the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has pointed out would be ultimately a deficit of £250,000,000. I acknowledge that I am going over ground that has been covered before, but I think it will bear going over again. The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson), along with many other Opposition members, said: “ This should be done. That should be done. Something else should be done.” It has been estimated that the difference between the Opposition’s idea of a budget and the Government’s idea of a budget is £1,200,000,000.

Mr Ward:

– Rubbish.

Mr BROWNE:

– The figures have been computed, and £1,200,000,000 is the difference. The Opposition drags out of the air a figure of £60,000,000 as its proposed annual expenditure in the north-west of Western Australia, and it proposes all sorts of other fly-by-night schemes. But it has not said how it hopes to get the money or how it hopes to balance, not the budget which it would present for 1962-63 if it were elected to office at the next election, but succeeding budgets. The people of Australia have been listening to these statements by Opposition members ever since 1951. Ever since 1951, members of the Australian Labour Party have been saying to the people of Australia: “ We will do this. We will do that. We will do something else.” It is about time the members of that party woke up to the fact that the Australian public will not swallow that line of talk. Honorable members opposite should begin to face things realistically.

Mr Chresby:

– They think that the Australian people are gullible.

Mr BROWNE:

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), of course, thinks that they are gullible. But we on this side of the chamber do not think that. We know that the Australian people are intelligent. Look at the choice of government they have made for the last twelve years. That shows the degree of their intelligence.

This is a good Budget, Sir. I am quite sure that the Australian people, also, think so.

Progress reported.

page 661

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE BILL 1961

Assent reported.

page 661

QUESTION

ALLEGATION AGAINST MEMBER

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– by leave- I thank the House very much for this opportunity to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. At about 9.40 this evening, in another place, under parliamentary privilege, the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party said that I had been a member of the Communist Party of Australia in Victoria before 1 was transferred to Tasmania. I should like to say right at the beginning that this is a malicious, cowardly, lying accusation without a glimmer of truth in it. Not only was I not a member of the Communist Party, Mr. Speaker, but I did not even know a Communist in Victoria before 1 went to Tasmania. As soon as this accusation was made in the other place, Senator O’Byrne, a senator from Tasmania, took a point of order and said, “ Mr. President, are you going to permit an honorable senator to defame a member of another House who is not here to defend himself? “ The President of the Senate allowed the Leader of the Democratic Labour Party to continue. This was wrong.

I should like to comment, first, on the making of the allegation. The accusation made by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party, who is a senator from Tasmania, makes me wonder how low his party can get in its fanatical, hysterical and vicious war against the Australian Labour Party. None of us minds fair criticism, but criticism which sinks to this kind of defamation of members of this Parliament, whether on my side of it or on the other side, shows how low the Democratic Labour Party has sunk in ethics and morals and in everything else that is relevant to this kind of thing.

I should just like to give a little of the background in order to clear up this matter. I was in the Gippsland area of Victoria as a Methodist minister, at a town called Foster, in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943. It was there that I joined the Australian Labour Party while still a clergyman, having voted Labour since I was 21 years of age. I helped to form three Labour Party branches in that part of Gippsland during my term as minister there. Particularly, I assisted actively in the 1943 federal election campaign, even organizing the Australian Labour Party meetings in Foster for the Labour candidate.

Under the system of the Methodist Church, Victoria, and Tasmania are under the one conference. Methodist ministers all over Australia, in fact, are transferred by a stationing committee in each State from one circuit to another circuit. In

April, 1944, I was transferred to a town called Latrobe in the northern part of Tasmania. I joined the Australian Labour Party again at Devonport, there being no branch at Latrobe. In 1945, I organized the Latrobe branch of the Australian Labour Party and became its president. The next year, in March, 1946, I was elected as a delegate from that branch to the annual Australian Labour Party conference held in Hobart.

Mr Killen:

– Was the honorable member still a minister?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I was still a minister then.

Mr Killen:

– I think that is scandalous.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order! The honorable member for Moreton will remain silent.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I was the first clergyman, to my knowledge, to be a delegate to an Australian Labour Party conference, and I am proud to say so to-night, even though it annoys the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). Thank goodness the Methodist Church has a little democracy and allows its ministers to vote as they like.

Coming back to the accusation that was made about me, I think I have shown quite clearly “that it has not one glimmer of truth. I believe that it was a deliberate untruth designed to smear me in my electorate in Tasmania. Every one who listened to the broadcast heard the accusation to-night, but unfortunately I cannot reply over the air. This is simply another demonstration of the cowardly nature of the accusation made in the Senate to-night.

I believe it is about time the people of Australia realized the depths to which this Democratic Labour Party can sink in trying to destroy the Australian Labour Party and its members. This anti-Labour Party has given a frightening example to the people of Australia of the kind of hysteria that it has engendered and is continuing to arouse throughout Australia over communism. I shall leave it to my electorate in Tasmania to judge the substance of the accusation that has been made. I cannot understand how the honorable senator concerned could have accused me of being a member of the Communist Party, knowing my background as he does. It is character-assassination in the lowest form.

In conclusion, I challenge the honorable senator to say outside the Parliament what he said to-night. If he will say it when he has not the cloak of parliamentary privilege I will take legal action against him for libel and defamation. I disassociate myself entirely from the Communist ideology. I have done so in this Parliament. I have done so from the pulpit and the platform. When this honorable senator accuses me of being a Communist I can only conclude either that he is not in his right mind or that he is being deliberately and grossly malicious for purely political reasons.

I thank the House for enabling me to make this statement and to deny categorically the accusation made by the leader of the Democratic Labour Party. I leave it to the people of Australia to judge that party according to the propaganda and the tactics it is employing against the Australian Labour Party and also against any person who disagrees with it. The members of the Democratic Labour Party have reached the stage at which they accuse any one who disagrees with them of being a Communist. I believe that the Democratic Labour Party is no longer fit to be called a political party, and it should certainly not try to destroy the official Australian Labour Party and keep it out of office, by using methods such as that to which I have directed attention, and by acting as a satellite of other parties, particularly the two anti-Labour government parties of the day.

page 663

ADJOURNMENT

Business of the House - Members’ Air Transport - Service Pensions - Repatriation General Hospital, Concord - Communism.

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr COPE:
Watson

.- I should like to refer to a happening in the House last night. Most honorable members know that I was listed to speak in the Budget debate, in accordance with arrangements of the House that were made some time previously. I was aware of these arrangements about a fortnight ago, and I knew that I was listed to speak last night. As most honorable members do, I notified the branches of the Australian Labour Party in my electorate that I was to speak, and I notified a few friends and relatives. My wife was in attendance in the House last night. She expected to hear me speak, as the wives of other Ministers and members attend the House to hear their husbands speak. She sat in the House with a friend from eight o’clock last evening. I was listed to speak at 10.20 p.m., but, to my amazement, when I rose at that time the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) moved that progress be reported. This, of course, prevented me from speaking.

I was not told of any change in the arrangements. I was not given even a minute’s notice. In my six and a half years in this Parliament this is the first time I have ever seen any member refused the right to speak without at least being given some notice beforehand. The occurrence humiliated me. I subsequently went to see the assistant Whip of the Liberal Party. He told me that he was acting on instructions. Then I saw the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who told me that arrangements had been made for an adjournment debate. He said, however, “ Nothing was said about your not going on “, or words to that effect. I then saw the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), who told me of the arrangements. He said that there was to be an adjournment debate, but that I was to be the last speaker before the adjournment. Subsequently I went with the Leader of the Opposition, in company with the Opposition Whip, to see the Government Whip, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Pearce). He endorsed what the Leader of the Opposition said about the arrangements, that I was to have been the last speaker before the adjournment debate.

Could any one imagine, Mr. Speaker, that any Minister might get up in this House wanting to speak in the Budget debate, and that some other Minister would get up and move that progress be reported? Of course, one could not imagine it. But in this case the member concerned is only a back-bencher. I am not being political in this matter. I am not trying to make any political propaganda at all. I believe the back-benchers are being shabbily treated in this Parliament, and that they are not allowed to enjoy the rights to which they are entitled. Honorable members opposite may laugh, but I remind them that members of the Government parties have spoken previously along similar lines. I believe we are entitled to respect in this Parliament if we are expected to give service to our constituents. Could any one imagine a Minister’s wife - and I do not say this in any discourteous way - coming up here and sitting in the gallery and seeing her husband rising to speak but being gagged before he opened his mouth? No, one could not imagine it, but that is what happened to me, and I am led to believe that the person responsible was the Minister acting as Leader of the House, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon). I think it was a despicable act and showed no sense of fair play whatever. I was not even notified that I would not be permitted to speak. I would like to register my pretest against this display of absolute lack of feeling for the back-benchers of this Parliament.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

– I regret very much that the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) has been inconvenienced in this way, and I regret that he was not able to speak in the presence of his wife. I think, however, that I should correct him as to what the actual facts were. I happened to be acting as Leader of the House in place of the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who asked me to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) about permitting an adjournment debate in the House last night. It was agreed between the Leader of the Opposition and myself and the Treasurer that the last two speakers on the list would be eliminated.

Mr Cope:

– That is not true. Ask your Whip about it.

Mr McMAHON:

– It is not a question of asking the Whip. The Whip was not there. 1 was there when the arrangements were, in fact, made. The agreement was made that my colleague from Western Australia, who was anxious to speak, and one member of the Labour Party whose name I did not then know but who happened to be the honorable member for Watson, would not speak, so that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) could speak on a matter of urgent public importance. It was up to the Leader of the Opposition to make up his mind as to what he wanted.

Quite frankly, when the Treasurer spoke to me about the matter I said that if the Leader of the Opposition wished to make that decision, by all means we would adhere to it. It was then arranged that the Assistant Whip should advise the Opposition Whip. The Assistant Whip went across to the other side to do that but could not find the Opposition Whip and left a message in the office, I believe, of the Leader of the Opposition. The Assistant Whip nods his assent. I have not consulted the Whip about it. I have been in consultation with the Assistant Whip. Those are the facts. I regret that the honorable member for Watson feels aggrieved. I am very sorry if his feelings have been upset because, frankly, that is the last thing that I would wish to do to him. However, I think he would be very wise to check his facts because I have no doubt that if he does so his own leader will tell him of the agreement. If his leader denies it the Treasurer and I will both know how to treat him in future. But this is a matter between the honorable member for Watson and his own leader. Again, I express my regrets and I confirm that those were the facts.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The first matter to which I shall refer concerns security - the security of the members of this Parliament. Last week, 24 members had the experience of flying around for 35 minutes before they were able to land at Sydney Airport. They were in one of the old ramshackle DC6 planes which the Government agreed to have transferred to Trans-Australia Airlines in return for some very serviceable Viscounts. If Government supporters think that this was a good arrangement, I shall make a suggestion to the Government: I do not mind how frequently T.A.A. uses DC6 aircraft as long as it restricts them to Liberal members of the Parliament who supported the deal. Members of the Opposition, who would prefer to travel by more modern aircraft, would like some re-arrangement of the present position. Either the DC6 aircraft should be sent back to Anset-A.N.A. or, as I have said, their use should be restricted to supporters of the Government.

Having made that suggestion, I turn to one or two other matters which concern the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Osborne). A few nights ago, I raised in the House the case of an invalid ex-serviceman pensioner whose application for a service pension had been rejected. I had sought from the Minister information as to the degree of incapacity that had to be suffered before a person was regarded as being unemployable and eligible for the payment of a service pension. I have received a reply from the Minister at last. He has said that the eligibility of an ex-serviceman for a service pension is not based on the degree of incapacity but on whether he is permanently unemployable. In a communication dated 24th August, the Minister said -

The term “ permanently unemployable “ is defined in Section 23 of the Repatriation Act as: “ permanently incapable by reason of physical or mental disablement of being employed in a remunerative occupation in which, in the opinion of the Commission, he can reasonably be expected to obtain regular employment “.

Surely, under that definition, a person in receipt of an invalid pension, who must be at least 85 per cent, incapacitated, must be regarded as a person who could not reasonably be expected to obtain regular employment. But the application of this man has been rejected. At one time, he was in receipt of a 100 per cent, war pension and at present he is receiving an 80 per cent, war pension. For some considerable time he has been considered eligible for an invalid pension. But the Repatriation Department, on the basis of its definition, has rejected his application. I should like the Minister to explain how the Repatriation Department can argue that a man who has been declared to be at least 85 per cent, incapacitated is not regarded as permanently unemployable for the purposes of an application for a service pension.

Another matter to which I want to refer is a communication which I have received from the Minister for Repatriation dated 24th August concerning the delivery of messages to patients in the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord. An exserviceman who was a patient in ward 520 at the hospital wrote seeking my assistance in a certain matter. He did not furnish sufficient information so I asked my secretary to ring the hospital to ascertain whether he was a walking patient who could come to the telephone and give the information that was lacking in his communication. When my secretary rang the hospital she was informed that there was a rule that even walking patients were not permitted to go to the telephone to receive messages.

My secretary then requested that the inquiry be passed on to the ex-serviceman so that he could supply the information that we were seeking. I then sent a telegram to the ex-serviceman telling him what had happened so that he would let me have the information as soon as possible. I have not received a further communication from the ex-serviceman and I understand that he has now been discharged from the hospital. It is quite possible that even the telegram that was forwarded to the hospital was never delivered to him. Does any member of this Parliament believe that an ex-serviceman who asks an honorable member to handle some matter for him is not likely to furnish the information which the member required adequately to represent the case?

I asked the Minister to issue a direction that all messages, whether by telephone, letter or telegram, left at the repatriation hospital should be delivered to the person for whom they were intended. That was quite a reasonable request. To my amazement, the Minister wrote to me on the date that I have mentioned and said that he was not prepared to issue the general direction for which I had asked. It is rather strange that the Minister should take this most unusual attitude to quite an understandable request.

I have another matter concerning the Minister for Repatriation. To-day, in reply to a question, the Minister said that it was the intention of the Repatriation Department - commencing from next January, I think - to pay war pensions fortnightly by cheque or by payments into savings bank accounts at three-monthly periods. So”me war pensioners have approached me on this matter. Many of them have not savings bank accounts and they do not like the idea of having their cheques forwarded through the post. Many of these unfortunate war pensioners live in lodgings and sometimes cheques which are forwarded to them through the post are stolen. They then have great difficulty in obtaining payment. If they do eventually obtain some refund of the amount that has been stolen it is only after a considerable delay. Al! that the ex-servicemen seek is to be allowed to exercise the option that is given to age ;md invalid pensioners. That is, of being paid by cheque or of receiving their pensions at a post office. Their request is a reasonable one. If the Minister is not prepared to extend the system in the direction I have indicated, at least the Repatriation Department should accept some responsibility for refunding promptly to pensioners the amounts represented by cheques that may have been stolen. 1 hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory reply to the matters I have raised. Those matters may appear to be minor to some members of the Government parties, but they are most serious matters to the ex-servicemen concerned.

Mr WIGHT:
Lilley

.- I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) is not present in the House to-night because I want to discuss unity tickets. The Leader of the Opposition has become accustomed to dodging the issue so far as unity tickets are concerned. He is always able to find an excuse to be elsewhere when this subject is under discussion. This situation has persisted ever since the night that honorable members remember so well when the left-wing group of the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party was sitting in the Speaker’s Gallery on the other side of the House. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition lost control of himself to such a degree that he disgraced himself in front of his federal executive. Ever since that time he has tried to avoid the issue of unity tickets.

Everybody in Australia who had any particular interest in politics watched with great interest last week the drama performed here in Canberra when the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party met to discuss this problem of unity tickets. At least three of the party’s leaders admitted that unity tickets existed. Honorable members will remember that on one occasion recently I went to the table and gave into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition unity tickets, but still he refused to admit that they existed. But last week, according to newspaper reports, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), carrying out some investigations of his own, discovered that unity tickets did exist. Senator McKenna, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, demanded that action be taken by the Labour Party against the use of unity tickets. According to newspaper reports, Senator Kennelly said that the Labour Party could forget about winning the next elections unless it did something about unity tickets.

I have read in to-day’s press, under a Canberra date line that the unity ticket blitz has been started by the Victorian executive of the Australian Labour Party. I do not believe that is true. If the Labour Party is sincere, if it is not window dressing for the elections but is prepared to carry out what is laid down in its platform with regard to unity tickets, it will take some action in Queensland to cancel the endorsement of one of its Senate candidates - a man who is known throughout Queensland as “ Unity Ticket “ Arnell. I have in my hand one of the original how-to-vote cards circulated on the wharfs in Queensland. It carries the names of the same Labour Party members and Communists which appeared on similar cards in respect of the Waterside Workers Federation’s elections in 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960. This is the unity ticket used in the 1961 elections for the Waterside Workers Federation. It bears the name of “ Unity Ticket “ Arnell, Labour Party candidate for the Senate, and Mr. Phil Healy, a member of the Queensland central executive of the Labour Party.

The interesting thing about this matter is that following the rumpus in this Parliament about unity tickets, the Queensland central executive, with a view to doing a little window dressing and pretending that action was being taken to deal with anybody on unity tickets, appointed a subcommittee. That sub-committee summoned before it certain members of the Labour Party who appeared on unity tickets. Among those members were “ Unity Ticket “ Arnell and Phil Healy. Each member of the sub-committee had himself appeared on a unity ticket within twelve months of the sub-committee being appointed. How could that sub-committee find against “ Unity Ticket “ Arnell, despite the evidence to which I now propose to refer?

I have in my hand an extract from a newspaper that circulates on the waterfront and which is published by “ Unity Ticket Arnell “. On the bottom of this news-sheet this wording appears -

This is printed and published for the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, Brisbane Branch by A. Arnell, President, 471 Adelaide-street, Brisbane.

In this publication of Mr. Arnell’s, dated 3rd July, 1958, under the heading “ Unity Tickets “ the following appears: -

Many members have asked what is the position of members belonging to the Australian Labour Party being put on unity tickets for the forthcoming branch elections. On enquiry of our Q.C.E. delegate, Mr. P. Healy, I am informed that on the same question being asked at the Q.C.E. meeting it was ruled that their decision referred only to political elections and not to industrial elections.

That statement appeared in an article published by Mr. Arnell and dated 3rd July, 1958. On 6th October - only a couple of months later - Mr. Arnell went before the sub-committee. He and Mr. Healy were found to have been placed on a unity ticket without their knowledge. Yet the unity tickets had been circulated; and everybody knows that at a meeting in Macrossanstreet the order in which the name of Mr. Arnell, the Communists and other Labour Party members would appear on the unity tickets was decided. They also decided not to oppose each other. Those decisions were subsequently confirmed by the Trades Hall in Brisbane. As proof that these arrangements were made, I have in my possession a copy of a statement that was made by Jack Egerton, a member of the inner executive of the central executive of the Australian Labour Party. He said that he would never oppose for the position of president of the Trades and Labour Council Gerry Dawson, the well-known Communist. Egerton said that he always wanted to be president. These facts may be found in the minutes of the federal executive, a copy of which I have. Egerton said that he would never stand against Dawson. He said -

It is a good thing we can show such unity that all schools of thought can be represented on the executive and on the sub-committees without the necessity of holding a ballot.

Since then they have had the same old unity ticket every year with the same names appearing on it. The fact that Arnell knew he was on this unity ticket is borne out by the fact that when Healy was approached by a reporter from ‘the Brisbane “ Courier-Mail “ on the eve of the election and asked would the same unity “ticket appear for the ballot on the following day and would his name appear on it, he refused to comment. But that night, after the ballot had been taken, Mr. Healy commented all right. He said, “ I did not know that my name was on the ticket “. He was not game to say that his name was. on the ticket without his permission in case he lost votes that he was expecting to receive from members of the Labour Party, Communists and fellow-travellers who had unify.

We find now that in “Victoria a demand has been made for the Waterside Workers Federation to be disaffiliated from the Labour Party. My purpose in rising to-night is to challenge the Leader of the Opposition, who has shown courage which resembles in colour the unity ticket on which the names of two other members of the central executive of the Australian Labour Party in Queensland, Mr. Sweet and Mr. Edmunds appear, and of this last unity ticket for the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union election for members of the central executive of the Labour Party fiddled by unity ticket members. I rise to-night to challenge the Leader of the Opposition to see whether he can change the colour of his courage from that and take some action to demand that the Queensland central executive of the Australian Labour Party do something about unity tickets, as they are alleging is being done in Victoria.

If it would please the Leader of the Opposition, or his deputy, I am only too willing to make available to him an original copy of the branch news of 1st July, 1958, a copy of the minutes of the Trades and Labour Council annual meeting when the statement was made by Mr. Egerton and an original copy of the report-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) challenges the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). The Leader of the

Opposition has an engagement away from Canberra to-night which was made some time ago. It is not an unusual thing for the Leader of the Opposition, any more than it is for the Leader of the Government, to be away from Canberra on official party business from time to time. The honorable member for Lilley did not tell the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to bring this matter up to-night. The Leader of the Opposition will be in the chamber tomorrow night, and one would have thought that this matter could have waited until to-morrow night when the Leader of the Opposition could deal with it himself. lt may be that the Leader of the Opposition would give no more weight to the allegations of the honorable member for Lilley than most honorable members do. The last time the honorable member for Lilley spoke on this subject was last April, during the meeting of the federal conference of the Australian Labour Party in Canberra. On that occasion, he held up a statutory declaration. He did not read the declaration, he did not give the name or address of the declarant, nor the date of the declaration. When the Leader of the Opposition asked him to show him the statutory declaration, he refused to do so. Then, when the Leader of Opposition asked you, Mr. Speaker, to require the honorable member for Lilley to table the statutory declaration, you ruled - quite correctly - that only a Minister could be required to table a document from which he had quoted. If a Minister had made the statements which the honorable member for Lilley made last time he raised this matter in the House, the Minister could be made to table the document from which he quoted. But because a back-bencher, an irresponsible man, says it, he can never be call-d to book. These allegations are very easily made. These allegations arc made in a place where there is no way of compelling the person who makes them to stand up to or prove the allegations.

The fact that a person’s name appears on a how-to-vote card does not prove that he is a party to issuing that how-to-vote card. I will cite the experience of a man who holds and has long held a responsible office in this country - Mr. Fred Campbell, who was the president of the New South Wales

Branch of the Australian Labour Party for many years and who, for many years more than that, was secretary of the Electrical Trades Union in New South Wales. In every election in that union for years, everybody put Mr. Campbell on his ticket. He was on the tickets that were issued by members of the Communist Party, by members of the Australian Democratic Labour Party, by members of the Australian Labour Party and by members of no party at all. There are many such examples.

In union elections, many people contest many posts. They are all entitled to issue how-to-vote cards and the names of many popular incumbents, or people who cannot be defeated, are put on every how-to-vote card. The fact that a how-to-vote card is issued with a person’s name on it does not prove he is party to it. If the honorable member for Lilley was genuine in this matter he would try to get evidence that any members of the Australian Labour Party whose names are on how-to-vote cards upon which the names of members of the Communist Party also appear had in fact authorized the printing of them, had paid for the printing of them or had distributed them. But no such information is ever given. The mere allegation is so much easier to make, and it can never be disproved.

Reference was made to remarks I am reported to have made last week concerning unity tickets. The facts were these: I had heard allegations of unity tickets in the recent elections for the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union. Nobody ever gave me any evidence that there was such a unity ticket to which Labour Party members were parties. Therefore, I decided to investigate it for myself. 1 went to the Parliamentary Library here and got copies of the union journal, and there is no doubt in my mind that in that election there was a unity ticket. I brought it to the notice of the responsible people last week, and something is being done about it.

Do honorable members think that persons ought to be expelled from our party without being given an opportunity to explain how they have sponsored advertisements or allegedly written letters in those union papers? In all fairness, they are entitled to be given an opportunity to explain the position. I will be very surprised if they can explain it, but, nevertheless, in all fairness, they are entitled to have the opportunity, and they are being given it now.

The attitude of our party was made very clear at the federal executive meeting last week where the twelve members - two from each State - unanimously passed the following resolution: -

The Federal Executive is determined that the rule banning unity tickets in trade union elections will be carried out and resolves -

That any member of the Party whose name appears on a ticket for election to office in a union with members of any other political party and who, on becoming aware of it, does not forthwith publish an advertisement in a daily metropolitan newspaper immediately the ticket appears stating that he did not know of the preparation of such a ticket, and did not agree to the inclusion of his name on such a ticket, and who does not, when required, furnish a statutory declaration to the secretary of the State branch and/or to the Federal Secretary in support of any such denial shall be automatically expelled from the Party.

All States will promptly report to the Federal Executive officers action taken under this rule in every instance.

Action is now being taken under that rule by the Victorian executive on the basis of information which I gave and which no other person had seen fit to give to it. Sir, if people are genuine in this matter they will give chapter-

Mr Davis:

– Where is the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr WHITLAM:

– He is not here tonight, for reasons which I have already explained to the House. He will be here to-morrow night. The honorable member for Lilley seeks to take a cheap advantage by challenging the Leader of the Opposition in his absence when he could challenge him to-morrow night. If honorable members opposite are genuine in this matter and if they really want to help us see that no members of the Australian Labour Party associate with members of any other Labour Party, they will give us the information which will help us do that. I have found the information in one case. If any other honorable member gives me corresponding information, I will see that it is followed up. But, Sir, I want something more than allegations.

The last time the honorable member for Lilley raised this matter in this place he mentioned one man’s name - Mr. Jack

Egerton. The honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Jones) happened to be in the House and he was able to refute those allegations. What chance is there to refute allegations about a great number of named people and unnamed people when one is not given any warning-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- If ever a person rose in this chamber and spoke as a quivering mass of indecision and embarrassment, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) filled that role this evening. He started his speech in rebuttal of the argument presented by the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) by impinging upon two points. First, he referred to the honorable member for Lilley, I thought, in a manner that could hardly be described as parliamentary and in a manner that did not become the graciousness that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tries to cultivate. He tried to assume that because the honorable member for Lilley was a private member of this Parliament he had no rights in the Parliament.

Mr Whitlam:

– And he has not got any guts either. He was a coward last April, and he is now.

Mr KILLEN:

– That, of course, is palpably wrong. Any honorable member in this Parliament is entitled to rise and put his point of view. There have been honorable members on the opposite side of this House who have, by the mere fact of raising their voices, invoked the whole authority of the parliamentary system. I refer the honorable gentleman to the former honorable member for Reid, who was only a private member of the Parliament, but on one occasion when there was a gross and blatant breach of parliamentary privilege the whole parliamentary institution rose as a body to his defence. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that.

Then, Sir, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition turned and said, “ Ah! The Leader of the Opposition is absent this evening.” This is unbecoming modesty in the honorable gentleman, because hitherto he has not been reluctant to presume to be the spokesman for the Labour Party on any and every occasion when it suited him and when he thought he could secure some singular advantage. But this evening, when he is right on the spot, and on the first occasion on which he has ever risen in this House to make one or two observations - passing, pertinent or any other “ p “ you like - about the unity ticket issue, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wrings his hands in horror and despair and says, “ Oh no; my leader is not here “. I did not think that he was made of such stuff; that is all.

Then the honorable gentleman said, “ We have passed resolutions on it”. Of course they have passed resolutions. They have been passing resolutions on this matter for six years, to my knowledge. And what has been done? In 1958, when I produced a photostat copy of correspondence that had passed between the Queensland central executive of the Labour Party and members ot the Waterside Workers Federation, what did the then Leader of the Opposition say on that occasion? He said, “ I do not know. I do not know.” He used that phrase on three or four occasions. Honorable gentlemen will recall that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) said something that had some pertinacity about it on that occasion. He said, “ He did not know, he was playing a piano in a certain place “.

On this occasion am I to understand from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he and all his fellow members are resigned to the role of playing pianos on this vital issue? Then he said, “ It is only a few days since the unanimous decision of the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party was taken “. Does that, in one gasp of his voice, bring back to his side rectitude on this issue? Of course, it does not. If you look at the resolution that was passed you will see that all any person who is involved has to do is to place an advertisement in a newspaper. What sort of an advertisement? Is it to be an advertisement in the classified columns? Is he to insert an advertisement in some foreign language? Would that meet the honorable gentleman’s objections?

Then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition turned around and said that the person could produce a statutory declaration. To whom? Would he produce it to the State secretary or the State branch of the Australian Labour Party? Would that have any force?

Mr Whitlam:

– Or the federal.

Mr KILLEN:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, “ or the federal “. Am I now to understand that the various State executives of the Australian Labour Party and the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party assume to themselves the right to exercise some form of judicial power in the matter of statutory declarations?

The issue that has been put so forcibly and so clearly to this Parliament this evening by the honorable member for Lilley is beyond challenge. It can only be challenged by goodwill and clear action by the Australian Labour Party. My distinguished colleague, the honorable member for Lilley, referred to unity tickets that are already in operation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, paraphrasing the statement of his former leader, in effect said, “ I do not know “. Here is a unity ticket. Is the honorable gentleman prepared to take action on it? Is he prepared to summon the whole force and weight of the Australian Labour Party to prosecute those people who have wrongly used the names of members of the Australian Labour Party? That is the acid test that I place on the honorable gentleman to-night. One of the names that is on this ticket is none other than “Arnell”, a person who has been endorsed by the Australian Labour Party as a Senate candidate. Year after year this man’s name has appeared on unity tickets. Yet all the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does it to wring his hands and pass resolutions. I say to the honorable gentleman and to all honorable members opposite who have goodwill on this issue that the way to hell is paved with resolutions, and the way to political extinction as an effective political party is also paved with resolutions. Here is your opportunity to take action on this issue now. If you want to revive something of the spirit and character of the Australian Labour Party, then rise and accept this challenge and you will find that men and women of goodwill all over this country will support you.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr. Speaker, I have been misrepresented on three matters.

First, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) said that I-

Mr McMahon:

– Are you seeking leave?

Mr Whitlam:

– No, I do not require it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Werriwa will proceed.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, Sir, I shall. The honorable member for Moreton said that I referred to the fact that the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) was only a private member and he compared the honorable member for Lilley’s position with that of the former honorable member for Reid. The difference, I explain, Sir, is that the former honorable member for Reid himself was being stood over in the discharge of his parliamentary duties and was therefor entitled to have the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges, whereas the honorable member for Lilley has not made an imputation against the character of any member of the Parliament.

The second matter is that the member for Moreton said, in effect, that I hid behind the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) was absent. Sir, I referred to that fact because it was the Leader of the Opposition whom the honorable member for Lilley expressly challenged on this matter in his absence.

The third matter, Sir, is that the honorable member for Moreton said that I had never previously spoken on this matter of unity tickets or allegations about them. I did speak on this matter in April last, Sir, on the last occasion on which the honorable member for Lilley raised this matter in the House.

Mr Wight:

Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitiam). First of all in his speech, and then by way of interjection, he said that I had deliberately issued this challenge in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and that I had shown a cowardly attitude in doing so. I want to inform you, Sir, and the House - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will corroborate this - that outside this chamber not an hour ago I told him I was raising the issue and that I hoped that he and his leader would be present in the chamber. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not tell me that his leader was absent.

Mr Whitlam:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. Sir, I spy a stranger - the leader of the Liberal Party in the Queensland Parliament.

Mr McMahon:

– Oh, take it= easy.

Mr Whitlam:

– Well, he ought to behave himself like any ordinary person.

Mr McMahon:

– He was sitting there like any ordinary person.

Mr Whitlam:

– He was not.

Mr McMahon:

– He was behaving himself like any decent person.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will remain silent. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has risen to make a personal explanation and I ask him to confine his remarks to that, and to that alone.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight), passing me about an hour ago in the corridor, said, “ I hope you will be in the House for the adjournment debate to-night “. He did not say that he hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would be there. As I understand the etiquette of this place, if somebody is to be mentioned in the adjournment debate he is informed in time for him to be in the House then. I have ascertained from the Leader of the Opposition’s office that no message was left for him at any-time to-day or before to-day by the honorable member for Lilley.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is quite clear from to-night’s debate that the Government parties are beginning to feel the wrath of the electorate. They know that they have to do something to try to distract the public’s attention away from the real issues, which are unemployment, business and industrial insecurity and all the kinds of things which lead to communism in every country of the world. Any one who was looking at the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) when he made his speech would have observed that it took the honorable gentleman nearly four minutes to wipe the smirk from his face. So seriously did he regard the matter that he started off by smiling all over his face, and the smile, as I said, did not leave his face for nearly four minutes.

Then the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) rose in his place. But before he rose to speak, and while the honorable member for Lilley was still speaking, the honorable member for Moreton was over here laughing and chuckling as though we were talking about something that was funny. This matter of unity tickets was not a serious matter to him at all. It was just a funny joke, something that he and his colleagues could make some political capital from. When he rose to speak, however - this man from Moreton - he simulated indignation and at times even great anger. To look at him then, you would think he was seriously concerned about unity tickets, whereas the fact is, as the honorable member for Lilley disclosed, this is just an attempt to smear one of the Labour Party candidates in Queensland in the next Senate election. Honorable gentlemen opposite are not interested in smearing any of the Communists who have appeared on unity tickets. Not one word of criticism was levelled at Communists whose names appeared on this so-called unity ticket. The whole of the attack was levelled at a Labour man, as though he was the prime enemy. And which Labour man? Of all the people whose names were on this socalled unity ticket, only one was singled out for attack, and that was the Labour candidate in the next Senate election.

I have had a look at this so-called unity ticket which was thrown on to the table and from which the honorable member quoted. I imagined, listening to what he said, that I would see here an indication of Australian Labour Party support for Communists, instead of which I find a sheet of paper on which the A.L.P. is not mentioned at all. Nowhere is the A.L.P. mentioned on this piece of paper. Nowhere do any of the candidates, Labour or otherwise, mention the A.L.P. at all. I could understand it if the honorable member could produce what is called a unity ticket in which Australian Labour Party members put “ A.L.P.” alongside their names and Communists put “ Communist “ alongside their names. In that case, clearly there would be a link and clearly the Australian Labour Party would be involved. But that has not been done here.

Let me tell honorable members who talk about the right of trade unionists to vote for the candidate they consider most suitable for the job, irrespective of his politics, that they ought, before they get too deep in this exercise of logic, to look at section 171 of the act which this Government itself caused to be put on the statute-book, dealing with the rights of trade unionists to vote in that way. Section 171 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act - I leave it to the lawyers and to the public at large to interpret the meaning of it - reduced to understandable language, states that a person shall not threaten or suggest any punishment or disadvantage on account of any support or any opposition to any candidate for office in a trade union. The penalty provided is £100 or one year’s imprisonment, or both. That seems to indicate that the Government, at some stage, believed that it was entirely wrong to suggest any punishment or to threaten any action that would cause a disadvantage to any member of a trade union in order to persuade him to vote for a candidate or against a candidate.

But let us move away from that. What I want to put is this: If honorable members opposite are really concerned with defeating Communists in the trade unions, they will not succeed in that objective by attacking unity tickets. The more that the Democratic Labour Party and the Liberal Party attack unity tickets, the more they will convince workers in industry all over Australia that there is something good about unity tickets. That is what they will do, because the workers in industry do not support the D.L.P. nor do they support, in the main, the Liberal Party. The workers in industry who take an interest in their unions are the type of people who vote Labour always. If they find the D.L.P. and the Liberal Party branding candidates as being something they dislike and something they are opposed to, the workers will have a natural inclination to do the very opposite of what they are told to do, because they know from their experience that taking notice of what the Liberal Party and the D.L.P. has told them to do has only led them to disaster.

It is one thing to issue a unity ticket. Anybody can issue a ticket and say on it “ Vote for Brown “ or “ Vote for Jones “. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You cannot force people to vote for a unity ticket if they do not want to do so. The main things that make people vote for the kind of candidates that honorable members opposite are opposing are the social conditions and the economic conditions in this country, for which the Government parties are responsible. We have 113,000 people unemployed to-day and we have 150,000 people in part-time employment. That is the kind of thing that makes people vote for unity tickets. That is the kind of thing that makes people vote for Communist candidates.

If, after twelve years of Liberal administration, after twelve years of complete control of both Houses of this Parliament, the Government has to admit that communism is stronger now than ever it was, it cannot blame the Labour Party for that. If there is a Communist menace in this country to-day the Government parties are to blame for it, not the Labour Party. We have been in Opposition. I suggest that before honorable members opposite start blaming the Labour Party for the fact that trade unionists vote for Communists they should have a look at who is responsible for the conditions that put people into the state of mind that makes them want to vote for Communist candidates. What is it that made millions of people in Asia turn to communism? What has made 40 per cent, of the people of Italy vote for Communist candidates in the Italian parliamentary elections? What is it that makes people anywhere turn to communism, if it is not misery, unemployment, poverty, disease, illiteracy, and the kind of things which the system that the honorable gentlemen opposite uphold creates and makes worse and worse? Those are the things that make people turn to communism. The mere fact that somebody issues a ticket and says, “ Do this “, or “ do that “, will not make a person vote for Communists, unless there is a state of mind caused by an economic situation such as that which we have in Australia to-day.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I hope that I shall not be involved in the strictures of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) for not opposing Communism. Indeed, Sir, I find that anybody who, in this House or elsewhere, gets up and makes a genuine attempt to oppose communism, meets sneers, jeers and smears from the Opposi tion. This is something which has happened for so long and so habitually that we have become accustomed to it. We know where the Opposition stands on this matter and what it is trying to do. Whenever I hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) speaking, I find it difficult to believe my ears. Did he, a moment ago, use the phrase “ any other Labour party “ to describe the Communist Party? I think that “ Hansard “ will show that he did.

Mr Whitlam:

– I did not.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– He did, indeed, lt was only, perhaps, a slip of the tongue, or was it a lapse of the mind? I do not know. We were interested, indeed, in his heroic pose that he alone in the Labour Party had had the courage to expose unity tickets. This has been going on for many, many years. Nobody in the Labour Party has had any courage, apparently, except the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He was the only member of the Labour Party who was game to stand up. Well now, Sir, I think that this is quite unusual criticism for the deputy leader of a party to pass on his own leader and all the other members of his party. I leave it at that.

The Deputy Leader referred to an incident in this House in April. I want to recall it to the minds of honorable members. On page 790 of “Hansard”, the Deputy Leader is reported as having said -

The Labour Party does not believe in unity tickets, and you will find that every member of this Parliament who is a Labour member, every member of the federal conference of the Labour Party which is meeting in Canberra, and for whose benefit this mid-night performance - this command performance - is put on, will state the same. He will state that he is against unity tickets.

On the following day, unable to believe that this was a correct report, because it was contrary to the facts and it must have been contrary to the facts as known to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I asked him in this House whether the “ Hansard “ report was correct, and he confirmed that it was indeed correct.

Now, Sir, I put it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he is not now just a barrister trying to defend a client and perhaps not quite scrupulous as to what he says in defence of his client. He is a man holding a responsible position. He must be careful of the truth of what he says. It was not true in April that every member of the Labour executive was against unity tickets, and he knows it perfectly well. The Opposition, apparently, has two standards in this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that when people were accused by the Labour Party they were given an opportunity to defend themselves. I wonder whether this is always true of people who are accused by the Labour Party of co-operation with the Democratic Labour Party. I seem to remember a case in the Clerks Union not very long ago, in which no opportunity of defence was given. I have not the papers with me. I shall endeavour to obtain them and to produce them in the House next week to let honorable members know the details of this incident. But it is not true that the Labour Party is as lenient with the D.L.P. as it is with the Communist Party. It regards the Communist Party, apparently, as another Labour Party.

Mr Duthie:

– That is a lie.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I used the phrase that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used, perhaps inadvertently, a few moments ago. Honorable members opposite regard it, perhaps, as another Labour Party. They regard the D.L.P., which is anti-Communist, as their enemy, for the sole reason, apparently, that it is anti-Communist. Anything that is anti-Communist is believed by them to be anti-Labour.

Sneers, smears and jeers are what meet any attack on the Communist Party in this House. Evidence has been produced, not now for the first time, of unity tickets. I can recall tabling in this House some time ago a unity ticket for an election at Yallourn. It is still in the records of the House. I tabled the original unity ticket. The Labour Party refused to examine it. It does not want to see evidence. It wants to persuade people that the evidence does not exist. It is not being honest in its approach to this matter. It is putting on a show, perhaps, with the election coming. I recall the saying -

The devil was sick, the devil a saint would be; The devil was well, the devil a saint was he.

This is the attitude of the Labour Party, lt has condoned unity tickets. It has approved of them. It has tried for years to pretend that they do not exist, but just before elections, knowing that the workers really dislike the Communist Party, and fearing that they will turn against the Labour Party if they know that it associates with the Communists, members of the Labour Party come out and pretend to be against the Communists; but they do not do anything effective. If they want to do anything effective, let them act against their own pre-selected Senate candidate in Quuensland who obviously stood on a unity ticket. Is this to be investigated? Are they to act? No. This will be white-washed. I for one - I say this in all sincerity - would be only too glad for the Labour Party to cleanse itself of communism. I believe that although that would improve its electoral standing, it would be a small price for Australians to pay to get rid df the Communist influence and the Communist taint in the party. All members of the party, I know, are not Communist and all are not tainted, but it does happen to be Her Majesty’s official Opposition.

Mr JONES:
Newcastle

.- Once again to-night we have heard various fanatical supporters of the Government - the honorable members for Lilley (Mr. Wight), Moreton (Mr. Killen) and Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) - in criticism of and accusation against the Labour Party for its alleged association with the Communist Party. Once again we have heard accusations by the honorable member for Lilley about a friend of mine, Jack Egerton. We also heard similar remarks from the honorable member for Moreton. I just want to refer to some interjections that were made to-night, to put them on the official record and to give some idea of the type of individual who uses the forms of the House to attack other people. While the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) was giving a personal explanation in reply to a scurrilous and lying attack that had been made on him in another place, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) was continually interjecting. The honorable member for Wilmot was saying that he was a minister of the Methodist Church when he was a member of the Australian Labour Party, and the honorable member for Moreton interjected, “ scandalous, scandalous “, with all the hatred that only he can work up.

What is the real position of supporters of the Government? Is not the Chairman of Committees of this House, Mr. Lucock - I regretfully mention him by name - even now an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church? That is to his credit, and I do not take any credit from him. Does he not often carry out the duties of a minister in the Presbyterian Church from time to time? I point to the hatred and the onesided approach of the honorable member for Moreton when his attention is drawn to something. When the honorable member left this chamber in company with the Chairman of Committees, I drew attention to his attitude outside the House. Has he had the decency to come into the House and apologize to the honorable member for Wilmot? He has not; and that shows the despicable character of this honorable member when he uses the forms of this House. He is not fair dinkum when he rises to talk about communism as he does.

Getting down now to communism I ask supporters of the Government: What about your unity ticket with Communist China on the sale of wheat? What about your unity ticket on the sale of wool to the Communist Chinese? In the past year, over 10 per cent, of our exports to foreign countries went to Communist-controlled countries. Not one of the products exported to those countries could not be classified as a defence item. Is wool used only for peaceful purposes? Can it not be used for the manufacture of defence equipment? Is not Communist China in trouble because of the failure of its crops? This Government is helping Communist China out. The money got from them for wheat is just as bloodstained as the things of which the Government supporters complain. Supporters of the Government, and members of the Australian Country Party in particular, are prepared to accept bloodstained money from Communist China, Russia, Hungary and other places, yet they stand in this place and have the audacity to claim that they are pure and are not touched by the hands of communism.

Honorable members on the Government side are the greatest creators of communism in the world to-day. International capitalism is supported by this Government. Honorable members opposite talk about communism and fighting communism, why do they not rise and tell us what they have done to combat communism? When have they been prepared to go out and openly contest ballots against the Communist Party? Not one honorable member on the Government side can make such a claim.

That brings me to a letter I have received from Mr. John Egerton in connexion with a statement that was made by the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) on the adjournment of the House on 13th and 14th April last. The honorable member associated Mr. Egerton with unity tickets. I have been associated with John Egerton in trade union ballots for our union - the Boilmakers Society of Australia - continuously in opposition to the Communist Party in that union, and when the honorable member attacks Jack Egerton, he is barking up the wrong tree. I am 100 per cent, with Jack Egerton. Any time that he contests a ballot in the Boilmakers Society of Australia, he will get my vote. Where is the honorable member for Lilley now? Apparently, he has gone walkabout. This is what Jack Egerton had to say on this matter -

Publicity by Senator McCarthy’s deputy in Australia, Mr. Wight, is obviously designed at steering votes away from the A.L.P. in the next election; if not to the Liberal Party, at least to the D.L.P. or the Q.L.P.

His first outburst contained many inaccuracies which are also evident in the Q.L.P. and A.W.U. journals. For instance, he states there are 13 executive members of the Labour Council. Actually there are 14.

He attacks the election of Mr. Frank O’Brien as Treasurer. Mr. O’Brien has been Treasurer for over 30 years and an A.L.P. member for longer. Whilst because of his age (83) he does not attend night meetings of the Council, he regularly attends Executive meetings and other day-time activities. After such long and loyal services, Mr. O’Brien is surely entitled to some recognition.

Mr. Wight, obviously perturbed at the falling stocks of the Menzies Government, is seeking to bolster his chances of election by building support for the D.L.P. -Q.L.P. Axis.

As president of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council, I am a natural target for antiLabour propaganda. It would be well for my critics to study my history. 1949: I unsuccessfully contested the Federal Secretaryship of our union against a well known Communist- A. R. Buckley. In this election the Communist Party flooded the country with tickets supporting Buckley.

In that election I openly supported and campaigned for Jack Egerton in the Newcastle district and will do it again when required. Mr. Egerton’s letter continues -

In 19S0 I succesfully contested the secretaryship of Brisbane Branch, my opponent being a well known Communist, A. Benton. In this position I have been unopposed since 1951.

In 1958 I again opposed A. R. Buckley and was again subjected to a barrage of Communist propaganda in favour of Buckley and of course, intimating that only Groupers would support me. You will remember that the Communist Party organized a petition and also arranged a deputation to the then President of the New South Wales A.L.P., Mr. Campbell, protesting against A.L.P. interference. Charlie Jones can give you firsthand information.

The facts are that in that period when members of the Australia Labour Party got behind Jack Egerton- and other Labour members, it was Communists who went to the State president in New South Wales, Fred Campbell, protesting against our opposition to a Communist candidate. Jack Egerton’s letter continues -

In my own branch, Communists door-knocked against my candidature. At this stage, the Assistant Secretary of the Brisbane Branch, elected by secret ballot was a well-known Comunist, E. Gutteridge. In 1959 at the branch ballot he was defeated by a large majority by A.L.P. member E. Bright.

None of them is a Liberal, it will be noted. Jack Egerton continues -

I feel it is sometimes’ overlooked that membership of the Q.C.E. and the Trades and Labour Council are honorary (and honorable) positions, generally carried out with a large amount of personal sacrifice. The constant flow of criticism directed at non-Communists can only weaken their position and consequently strengthen the position of the Communists.

It is strange that Mr. Wight spends so much time attacking non-Communists instead of directing his attacks on the known Communists.

The unions are capable of and entitled to run their own affairs. Left to themselves they will solve their own problems. The great majority are loyal to the A.L.P. but resent political interferences by any political party. Under existing circumstances’ Communist Party members are elected despite their political beliefs, not because of them. Mr. Wight’s statements are assisting Communists’.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Thursday, 31 August 1961

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– I rise only to offer some assistance to the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), who pleaded for some help in this matter of unity tickets. He took strong exception to the case made by the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) with reference to a gentleman who has at present Labour endorsement in Queensland, and suggested there was no evidence whatever to indicate that this gentleman had ever appeared on a unity ticket with his knowledge or consent. I think it rather escaped the notice of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the honorable member for Lilley had quoted from a pamphlet issued by Mr. Arnell, and which is headed “ Unity Tickets “. It reads as follows: -

Many members are asking what is the position of members belonging to the A.L.P. being put on unity tickets in the forthcoming branch elections. On enquiring of our Q.C.E. delegate Mr. P. Healy I am informed that on the same question being asked at the Q.C.E. meeting it was ruled that their decision referred only to political elections and not industrial elections.

That paper was printed and published for the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and was signed by A. Arnell, president, 471 Adelaide-street, Brisbane. Yet a week later we find the Queensland Central Executive exonerating Mr. Arnell because it said that his name was put on the unity ticket without his knowledge. If the executive had said his name was on the ticket by mistake or that he was under the impression that it was illegally put there that would have been more convincing. I suggest, in a spirit of helpfulness and cooperation, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might be interested enough to follow this matter up. I doubt very much whether he will, because what we have heard to-night is not even as violent or powerful a plea as that made on 14th August, 1958, by the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Evatt. It might be interesting to compare what was said then, a few months before a general election, by the then Leader of the Opposition, with the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to-night. I will quote from “ Hansard “, of 13th August, 1958. Dr. Evatt said -

I direct the attention of the House to this decision, reached to-day by the federal executive, which is the supreme governing body of the Australian Labour movement -

That State Branches are once again informed that it is imperative for them to guard the decision of Conference on unity tickets with the utmost vigilance.

Those were powerful words, and the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) then interjected -

That is the fourth time that that has been said.

Dr. Evatt then said

Four times means we are serious in doing it. If nothing had been done you would have complained. The decision goes on -

Where evidence is placed before this Executive which reliably indicates that offences are committed and State action is not being taken, this Executive without hesitation will take the appropriate Federal action to preserve the Party’s integrity on this question.

Dr. Evatt read those words three years ago, just before a federal election. To-night we have heard almost exactly the same strong words spoken, not by the leader but by the pretender. Dr. Evatt continued -

The decision goes on -

  1. That having regard for the ideological war that is taking place in certain unions between the O.L.P. and the Communist Party, this Executive calls upon A.L.P. members to preserve the integrity of the A.L.P. against continued attacks from all anti-Labour forces.

Those are the words that were uttered by the then Leader of the Opposition. Now, a few months before an election, three powerful leaders of the Labour Party in the Parliament are going to their federal executive again and are saying strong words - stronger words, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicates, than were said in 1958. And what happens? The Victorian executive, as if to make mock of the federal executive, first of all puts on the carpet none other than Senator Kennelly, one of the people who had asked for action to be taken against those who support unity tickets. If that is not making a complete mockery of the federal executive, I would like to know what is. I direct the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the fact that if this is not just a triennial electioneering gesture we would be delighted to see some evidence of action from the Labour Party.

Mr Whitlam:

– I ask the Minister to table the document from which he has quoted.

Mr FREETH:

– I am delighted to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

– This is only a typed document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member asked the Minister to table the document, and he has done so.

Mr Whitlam:

– But this is only a typed document. Honorable members opposite have squibbed it again. Where is the printed one? Any one can type this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is that the document the Minister quoted from?

Mr FREETH:

– Yes, that is the document from which I quoted. 1 did not purport to quote from any original document.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order Mr. Speaker: I understand that the honorable member for Lilley has the original document and is willing to produce it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member has not raised a point of order.

Mr Wight:

– I said I would give it to you, but you said you did not want it.

Mr Whitlam:

– Well then, give it to me now.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is continuing to interject. I ask him to be seated. 1 call the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Osborne), who is on his feet, and ask members to pay him the respect he is entitled to receive.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– in reply - My remarks will close the debate, because I proposed the motion for the adjournment of the House. What I have to say will come as an anti-climax after the very serious matters which have been debated during the last hour. It concerns complaints by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) against a Minister’s administration. As I happen to be the Minister I prefer that the complaints be answered rather than left unanswered.

The first complaint concerns some correspondence with the honorable member for East Sydney about the varying degrees of disability or unemployability required for the service pension on medical grounds. The honorable member knows very well that I administer an act of Parliament and that my officers, who make the decisions in these matters, are governed by that act. My letter pointed out to him the definition of “ unemployability “, which was the answer to the question he asked.

His next complaint was really anticipated. It concerns difficulties which he expects will arise when the punch-card system comes into operation in New South Wales. The punch-card system has not yet been introduced in New South Wales and I understand it will not come into operation until some time next year. Every effort will be made to minimize any inconvenience to people who are not accustomed to receiving their pensions by cheque and, in accordance with my general attitude to assist the pensioner, my department will do all it can to remove any inconvenience.

The third complaint was, I think, entirely frivolous. The honorable member for East Sydney preferred to conduct his correspondence with a patient in the Concord hospital by message through the telephone rather than in the ordinary manner by letter. He was left in some doubt, because he did not receive an answer to the telephone message which he sent to his correspondent in the hospital, as to whether the message had been delivered. Instead of writing to the man to ask whether he had got the message, he preferred to ask me to investigate the matter. I said that the complaint was frivolous and I hope to demonstrate that it was. The honorable member could have written one letter to his constituent in the hospital, but instead of that he wrote to me. In accordance with the usual practice, if I had chosen to do as he asked, I would have written to the head of my department in Melbourne, who would then have written to the deputy commissioner in New South Wales. The deputy commissioner would then have consulted the superintendent or manager of the hospital, who would have made inquiries through his chain, which finally would have gone down to the constituent in the hospital. The reply would have gone back through the same channels.

I cannot calculate offhand the cost of the Public Service expenditure which would have been involved, but my answer to the honorable member for East Sydney was that if he wanted to find out whether his friend in the hospital had received his message he could write to him. To that decision I adhere.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. (Thursday).

page 678

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

St. Mary’s Filling Factory

Mr Cope:

e asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

  1. How many employees are engaged at the St. Mary’s Ammunition Filling Factory?
  2. What was the total value of production at this plant during the year 1960-61?
Mr Hulme:
Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1,031 persons.
  2. Expenditure in production for 1960-61 was £1,300,000.

Overseas Investments in Australia.

Mr Cope:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What amount of foreign capital is invested in Australia, and what amount has been contributed by each investing country?
  2. What sums were remitted overseas during each of the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 as profits accruing on the total investment?
  3. What was the amount of foreign investment in Australia during each of the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. No figures are available for the total amount of foreign capital invested in Australia, but figures are available for some components of overseas investment in companies in Australia. These components are the paid-up value of shares, debentures, etc., held by overseas individuals and companies, inter-company accounts owing by Australian subsidiaries to overseas parent or associated companies, and the book value of net assets in Australia of branches of overseas companies. The sum of these components by domicile of investor as at 30th June, 1959, the latest date for which figures are available, was as follows: -

It should be noted that this total makes no allowance for the equity of overseas investors in the reserves of Australian subsidiary companies, or for the difference between paid-up value and market value of overseas holdings in Australian companies other than subsidiaries.

  1. No figures are available for profits as such on overseas investment remitted overseas. However, statistics are published of income payable overseas and the following table gives these figures for the years requested. There are small variations from year to year but for most purposes the figures can be taken to represent amounts remitted overseas: -

These figures include interest payable overseas on public authority debt domiciled in Australia but exclude interest payable overseas on public authority debt domiciled overseas.

  1. The following table shows the identified flow of private overseas capital into Australia (including undistributed income and net investment in public authority securities domiciled in Australia) from 1956-57 to 1959-60. The comparable figure for 1960-61 is not yet available: -

Industrial Claim Against Australian Atomic Energy Commission

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that representatives of employees engaged on construction, maintenance and installation work at the Lucas Heights atomic reactor project recently submitted a claim to the Atomic Energy Commission for increased pay and a site allowance?
  2. What was the nature of the employees’ submissions?
  3. Have the claims been determined; if so, with what result?
  4. If the claims have not been determined, when can a determination be expected?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. The employees requested a “special establishment payment “ of £3 per week and provision of free bus transport. 3 and 4. The assistant secretary of the New South Wales Labour Council was informed of the Commission’s decision on 28th July, 1961.

Uranium

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. What is the business relationship between Territory Enterprises Proprietary Limited and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in respect of the production of uranium oxide at Rum Jungle?
  2. What has been the output of uranium oxide from Rum Jungle each year since its inception?
  3. To whom or where has the output been consigned and what has been the price per ton in respect of each consignment?
  4. What government expenditure has been involved in the project?
  5. What capital expenditure has been involved in the project on the company’s part and what is the percentage profit on capital?
  6. When will the current contract for the supply of uranium oxide expire and what are the prospects for the future?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Territory Enterprises Proprietary Limited manages and operates the Rum Jungle project on behalf of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
  1. The total output of Rum Jungle has been sold to the Combined Development Agency.
  2. £1,058,977. This expenditure will be completely amortized during the course of the contract.
  3. Nil. The commission pays a fixed annual fee for the company’s services.
  4. 6th January, 1963. At the conclusion of existing contracts for the supply of uranium there is likely to be a period of reduced demand. It is impossible to forecast accurately when the demand is likely to improve. There is unlikely to be any significant demand for uranium in Australia during the present decade.

Commonwealth Superannuation Fund

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What are the present assets of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund?
  2. Who are the principal borrowers from the fund showing the amount and the terms of the loan in each instance?
  3. What procedure is followed in determining how the surplus funds of the board are to be invested?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. The accumulated fund at 30th June, 1961, was £80,950,930.
  2. The investments of the fund are set out in some detail in the Finance Statement, to which I refer the honorable member. Investment in Commonwealth loans amounts to £23,300,000 or 28.8 per cent.; loans to semi-governmental and local authorities total £55,700,000 or 68.9 per cent.; and the balance amounting to £1,900,000 or 2.3 per cent, is invested in mortgages of land and loans to building societies.
  3. The duty of investing available funds is vested in the board by section 12 of the Superannuation Act. In the exercise of this statutory function the board endeavours to secure the highest possible interest yield, consistent with security of the funds and a wide spread amongst the many interested borrowers.

Commonwealth and State Financial Relations

Mr Ward:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What amount of loan money is owing by each State to the Commonwealth?
  2. What amount of interest is paid per annum in each instance?
  3. Are any of the States in arrears with their interest payments; if so, what are the details?
  4. What are the arrangements for the repayment of the borrowed capital?
  5. Are repayments up to date; if not, what are the details of the arrears in each instance?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. At 30th June, 1961, the amounts owing by the States to the Commonwealth in respect of advances from the Loan Fund totalled £392,630,000. Of this amount £378,954,000 was for advances under the Commonwealth-States housing agreements and £13,676,000 for advances under the war service land settlement agreements. The amounts in respect of each State were as follows: -
  2. Interest paid by the States in 1960-61 on the advances was as follows: -
  3. No.
  4. Advances to the States for housing and war service land settlement are repayable to the Commonwealth by equal annual instalments of principal and interest so that the whole of the advances and interest will be repaid in S3 years.
  5. Yes.

Book on Australian Defence.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Was the book on Australian defence administration, which Sir Frederick Shedden was commissioned to write prior to his retirement in 1958, ever finished; if so, are copies available to honorable members?
  2. If the book is not yet complete, can the transcript of the completed portion be made available for the information of any interested member?
Mr Townley:
LP

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

  1. The book on Australian defence by Sir Frederick Shedden has not been completed. Its scope relates to the history of policy since Federation, and the writer has been devoting his full time to this task since his retirement, without remuneration. The time taken corresponds to that of other local and overseas writers of similar types of histories.
  2. No portion of the book can be made available in advance of its publication. What has been written to date is in draft form and will remain so until the whole draft has been completed.

Bases for United States Armed Forces

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Have any United States’ bases or establishments been established or are any to be established in Australia or its Territories for the use of United States armed forces?
  2. If so, what are the terms of the agreement entered into between the two governments?
  3. In particular are these bases or establishments also to be available to Australian forces at all times, in cases of emergency, or only when United States and Australian forces are engaged in a combined operation?
  4. Is any Commonwealth expenditure involved?
  5. If these bases or establishments are to be set up, why did the Government not consult the Parliament before finalizing such an important matter?
Mr Townley:
LP

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

No bases or establishments have yet been set up in Australia or its Territories for the use of the armed forces of the United States.

As I have announced both in this House and to the press, the United States Navy is at present studying the feasibility of establishing a Naval radio communications station in Australia. The terms of any agreement between the United States, and Australia for the construction and operation’ of this station will of course be considered fully by the Government in due course if, when the United States authorities have completed their studies, they should put forward any firm proposal.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission Advisory Group

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Is the Advisory Group to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the formation of which was announced in 19SS, still in existence?
  2. How many times has it met since its formation?
  3. When did it last meet?
  4. What important recommendations has it made to the commission?
  5. How many of these recommendations were adopted?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Six times.
  3. 2nd September, 1960. 4 and 5. The Business Advisory Group does not make formal recommendations. It provides a forum in which the commission might seek the views of leaders of commerce and industry. From time to time the commission seeks assistance from individual members of the group within their specialized fields. On all occasions the commission has found members of the Group both very willing to help and very helpful in their advice.

Department of Supply

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

  1. What expenditure did his department incur in the last financial year in each State?
  2. What expenditure did his department incur on behalf of other departments in the last financial year in each State?
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Expenditure incurred by the Department of Supply in the year ended 30th June, 1961, related to Appropriations and Trust Accounts was as follows: -

The principal offices of the department were established in Victoria and New South Wales many years ago for two main reasons -

  1. The seat of government of the Commonwealth was first established in Melbourne;
  2. The factories and laboratories were established in what at that time were the two industrial States. In more recent years the activities of the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury and Woomera have resulted in substantial expenditure being incurred in South Australia.

    1. A detailed analysis is impossible as the State in which a contract is let, and in which payment is made, is not in itself an indication of the source or cost of the commodity. As examples, sugar paid for in New South Wales would principally relate to a Queensland cost of production, and steel paid for in Melbourne would principally relate to costs incurred in States other than Victoria. Merely to indicate the States in which actual payments are made is misleading.

Lung Cancer

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Has his department completed its statistical study of the incidence of lung cancer under different environment conditions in Australia?
  2. How far has the Australian College of Pathologists proceeded with its research into the influence of tobacco smoking on lung cancer?
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The statistical study is nearing completion and it is expected results will be published shortly.
  2. Commencement of the research under the aegis of the Australian College of Pathologists has been delayed by difficulty in finding a suitable worker to undertake it. Work, however, has been commenced in the Pathology Department of the University of Melbourne.

Health Committees

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

On what dates did committees appointed under the National Health and Therapeutic Substances Acts meet in the last financial year?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Committees appointed under the National Health Act and the Therapeutic Substances Act met on the following dates during the financial year 1960-61:-

Committees appointed under the National Health Act -

Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee - 4th November, 1960.

Standing Committee on Pricing Arrange ments for the Payment to Chemists for Pharmaceutical Benefits - 13th July, 1960 6th September, 1960 10th November, 1960.

Pharmaceutical Services Federal Committee of Inquiry -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Pharmaceutical Services State Committees of Inquiry -

New South Wales - 29th August, 1960 14th November, 1960 6th February, 1961.

Victoria - 5th October, 1960 7th November, 1960

Queensland - 2nd February, 1961 31st March, 1961.

South Australia -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Western Australia -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Tasmania -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Medical Services Federal Committee of Inquiry -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Medical Services State Committees of Inquiry -

New South Wales - 12th July, 1960 10th August, 1960 13th September, 1960 28th September, 1960 27th October, 1960 8th November, 1960 7th December, 1960 14th December, 1960 12th January, 1961 25th January, 1961 9th February, 1961 22nd February, 1961 9th March, 1961 29th March, 1961 13th April, 1961 26th April, 1961 11th May, 1961 31st May, 1961 8th June, 1961 28th June, 1961.

Victoria - 26th July, 1960 4th October, 1960.

Queensland - 9th September, 1960 26th October, 1960 16th November, 1960 1st December, 1960 16th December, 1960 22nd February, 1961 29th March, 1961 10th May, 1961 31st May, 1961 21st June, 1961.

South Australia - 29th July, 1960 9th December, 1960 12th May, 1961.

Western Australia - 11th July, 1960 10th October, 1960 9th November, 1960 23rd November, 1960.

Tasmania -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Hospital Benefits State Committees -

New South Wales -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Victoria - 26th July, 1960 2nd September, 1960 6th October, 1960 18th November, 1960 29th December, 1960 24th January, 1961 20th March, 1961 18th April, 1961 1st June, 1961 27th June, 1961.

Queensland -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

South Australia - 4th August, 1960 28th November, 1960 15th December, 1960 3rd January, 1961 23rd January, 1961 17th February, 1961 24th March, 1961 17th May, 1961 23rd June, 1961.

Western Australia -

Did not meet during the financial year 1960-61.

Tasmania - 12th July, 1960 18th August, 1960 17th November, 1960 16th December, 1960 4th January, 1961.

Commonwealth Health Insurance Council 15th-16th November, 1960.

Registration Committee - 4th July, 1960 15th July, 1960 1st August, 1960 5th August, 1960 18th August, 1960 7th September, 1960 20th September, 1960 30th September, 1960 13th October, 1960 20th October, 1960 28th October, 1960 11th November, 1960 14th November, 1960 29th November, 1960 14th December, 1960 9th February, 1961 24th February, 1961 8th March, 1961 30th March, 1961 12th May, 1961 9th June, 1961.

No committee appointed under the Therapeutic Substances Act met during the financial year 1960-61.

Broadcasting and Television.

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice -

When did he let the Postmaster-General know of the recommendations which the National Health and Medical Research Council made at its meetings in May and October, 1960, for the amendment of section 100 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The Postmaster-General was informed on 21st July, 1960, of the recommendation at the May, 1960, meeting.

Housing

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. How many houses have been (a) sold, and (b) let by each State housing authority under the suc cessive agreements between the Commonwealth and the States?
  2. How many applications were (a) lodged in the last financial year, and (b) outstanding at the 30th June last with each authority (i) to purchase, and (ii) to rent houses erected under the agreements?
  3. What amounts (a) were advanced in the last financial year, and (b) will be advanced in the current financial year to each State for (i) the State housing authority, (ii) building societies, and (iii) serving members of the forces?
  4. How many houses were (a) commenced, and (b) completed in the last financial year in each State in each category?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The statistics for houses completed, houses sold and houses let by the State housing authorities under the two housing agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are given in the table following: -
  1. Information concerning applications lodged with each State Housing Authority (a) in the last financial year and (b) outstanding at the 30th June last, is given below.
Notes. - Subject to the following, information relating to the number of applications for rental housing and for purchase is not generally available from the State housing authorities: - New South Wales. - The estimated dissection between rental and purchase is- Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. - Applications for rental treated as applications for purchase if applicant so desires. South Australia. - Figures shown include all applications received by South Australian Housing Trust and are not confined to Housing Agreement applications. Tasmania. - Allocations in this State are on a purchase basis except in the case of flats, and some {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Amounts (a) advanced in the last financial year and (b) to be advanced in this financial year, to each State in the various categories are - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The numbers of dwellings commenced and completed in the last financial year in each State in each category are as follows: - {: #subdebate-35-10-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what minimum deposit, over what maximum period and at what interest does each State Housing Authority sell houses built under the successive agreements between the Commonwealth and the States, and what proportion of those houses does each authority sell? , 1. On what minimum deposit, for what maximum amount, over what . maximum period and at what interest do building societies and other approved institutions in each State make loans to build or buy houses from Housing Agreement funds? {: #subdebate-35-10-s3 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The 1945 Housing Agreement. - From the inception of the 1945 Housing Agreement until 1955, houses built by the States under that agreement were sold only for cash. The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act (No. 12) of 1955 amended the 1945 agreement to permit the States to sell dwellings on the terms set out in detail in clause 4 of the Schedule attached to that act. The principal terms of sale are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. minimum deposit of 5 per cent. of the first £2,000 of the purchase price plus 10 per cent. of the remainder of the purchase price; 1. interest rate of 4½ per cent per annum; 2. maximum loan of £2,750; 3. maximum period of repayment - 45 years. In the 1961 Housing Agreement, which has not yet come into operation, it is proposed that the 1945 agreement be amended to permit the States themselves to fix the terms of sale of 1945 agreement houses according to their own separate policies. This is the position in relation to the sale of houses under the 1956 agreement. The terms offered by the State housing authorities for houses erected by them under the 1956 Housing Agreement are set out below. Under the 1945 agreement all houses were erected initially for rental, but have been available for purchase by the tenant in occupation. Under the 1956 Housing Agreement, the proportion of houses allotted for sale on completion has varied considerably between the States, current policy being as follows: - New South Wales. - Not less than 80 per cent. of dwellings allotted for sale at the outset. Other units, offered for rental, are not available for sale. Victoria. - Fifty per cent. of new dwellings in each locality are offered for sale at the outset. The remainder are for rental initially but tenants may purchase. Queensland. - The dwellings are available for sale or for rental, according to the desire of the applicant; all rented houses are available for purchase by tenant. South Australia. - Single unit houses are built for sale but double unit dwellings and flats, which form the major part of the Housing Agreement programme, are for rental only. Western Australia. - Same as Queensland. Tasmania. - All houses are intended primarily for purchase but some units are let on a rental basis, principally to elderly persons and those in indigent circumstances. Statistics of the number of houses actually sold in each State under the 1945 and 1956 Housing Agreements have been provided in the answer given to a question appearing on page 683. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Minister for National Development and the appropriate Ministers of the various States are currently negotiating separate agreements which will set limits to the terms and conditions which will apply to loans from building societies and other approved institutions from the Home Builders' Accounts set up under the housing agreement. It is understood that the actual terms and conditions being applied, or planned for application, in the various States, are as follows: - {: #subdebate-35-10-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - >For how many houses and at what total cost were rental rebates granted in each State in each of the last five financial years under the 1945 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement? {: #subdebate-35-10-s5 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer: - >Four States only operate the rental rebate scheme written into the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement of 1945. Tasmania is no longer a party to the Agreement and the South Australian Housing Trust does not apply the scheme as written into the agreement, although it does offer some rebate of rental in special cases for which no statistics are available. Under the terms of the Housing Agreement 1945 rental, rebates granted to tenants are subject to constant review at periods not exceeding six months. Statistics of rebates actually granted in the various States would therefore contain much duplication as the majority of rebates granted would in fact represent a continuation after review of an existing rebate. The following statistics show for the four States involved: - > >the number of tenants to whom rental rebates were actually being credited during the last rental period of each of the last five financial years; and > >the total cost of rental rebates granted during each of those five financial years. {:#subdebate-35-11} #### Importation of Ships {: #subdebate-35-11-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what dates in 1960-61 did importers produce to a Collector of Customs the permission of the Minister for Shipping and Transport to import ships? 1. On what dates had the Minister given his permission? 2. Of what types and tonnage were the ships and from what country were they imported? {: #subdebate-35-11-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers: -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 August 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610830_reps_23_hor32/>.