Senate
10 April 1946

17th Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 17th Parliament
  3. 1946

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1239

QUESTION

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the importance of the early rehabilitation of the gold-mining industry in this country, especially for the provision of urgently required dollar credits overseas, will the Vice-President of the. Executive Council ascertain from tie” Allied “Works Council, which formerly was administered by him, the reason for the failure to return to the gold-fields, in various parts of the Commonwealth, the machinery impressed for war purposes ? If it is considered that the return of this equipment would be uneconomic, will early steps be taken to replace the machinery?

Senator COLLINGS:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I shall endeavour to obtain the information sought by the honorable senator.

page 1240

QUESTION

NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the overcrowded condition of this building, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior if any steps have been taken by the Government to plan a new Parliament House ? Ifso, when will members of Parliament have an opportunity to examine the plans?

Senator COLLINGS:
ALP

-I assure the honorable senator that no steps are likely to be taken in the near future to build a new Parliament House in the National Capital. Our first task is to provide houses for the people, and the Government will dothat withall possible speed.

page 1240

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– In the House of Representatives yesterday the Prime Minister made the followingstatement in answer to a question: -

AsI have previously stated, Ministers speak, not on behalf of the Government,but to express their own personal views. The views of the Governmentare expressed by theLeader of the Government, no matter fromwhat party he comes. I made that clear before and I repeat it now.

In view of that statement, I should like to know from the Acting Leader of the Senate whether we are to consider ministerial statements made in this chamber as official pronouncements, or merely expressions of personal opinions?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I, and other Ministers in this chamber, accept full responsibility for all statements that we make. On matters of policy, however, the Prime Minister speaks for the Governmen t.

page 1240

TRANSPORT

MEMBERSOFPARLIAMENT.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

-by leave - On the 13th March, Senator James McLachlan complained in this chamber about transport arrangements for members of Parliament between Melbourne and Adelaide. The following reply to the honorable senator’s complaint hasbeen received from the Commonwealth Railways Department: -

It is understood that Senator McLachlan’s complaint refers particularly to the journey from Melbourne to Adelaide. Sleeping berth bookings for that journey are limited to seven days in advance and each day there are long queues waiting at the booking offices, long before the offices open, to book sleeping berths. It is impossible to satisfy the demand, and every day intending passengers who require sleeping berths,and have made application well inadvance, areunable to secure accommodation.

The shortage of coal prevents the running ofadditional trains to Adelaide and until this canbe done, the congestion, with its resulting inconvenience to passengers, will continue.

The difficulty confronting federal members who desire to travel to Adelaide from Canberra, particularly when at short noticethe sittingsfor the week endon Thursday, as it is understood happened on the occasion which gave rise to Senator McLachlan’s complaint, was brought under the notice of the commissioner by Senator Collings, Vice-President of the Executive, Council, on behalf of the Minister forthe Interior, on the 22nd March, 1946.

Representations were at once made to the Victorian Railways authorities, and they have agreed to place four berths on the7 p.m. express for Adelaide every Friday and Saturday, commencing on Saturday next, the6th instant, at the disposal of this office, for emergency travel by federal members. The berths will be held until 12 noon on the Friday and Saturday respectively, after which berths not required willbe releasedfor public booking. This arrangementapplies only when Parliament is sitting.

It is desired to emphasize that this special reservation is to cover emergency travel, and members should continue to make application for rail accommodation through the transport officers and officer in charge, Federal Members Rooms, as long aheadas practicable.

Senator LECKIE:

-Iask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether it is the policy of the Government to provide motorcars to transport civil servants from the Canberra railway station to their homes, whilst members of Parliament are relegated to a rattling old bus ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am sure that the honorable senator will appreciate that there is a substantial difference between transporting departmental officials from the railway station to destinations in various parts of Canberra, and carrying members of Parliament to the one or two hostels in which they reside to ParliamentHouse.I am not in a position to deal with the honorable senator’s reflection upon the bus used for this purpose, butI know that transport vehicles in Canberra are taxed to their utmost. The Department of the Interior is endeavouring to purchase a number of buses abroad, andexpects to get some shortly. Then, perhaps, the faulty vehicle to which the honorable senator has referred in such eloquent language will be retired from service and a better one substituted.

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister explain why members of the Public Service are conveyed in motor cars from the railway station to their homes, whilst members of Parliament have to travel to their hotels bybus?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The question has already been answered. armed forces.

Discharges -leave.

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that discharged Army personnel are compelled to accept pay in lieu of accrued leave, or a portion of such leave?
  2. If so, does this mean that the soldier is ineligible for medical attention and hospitali- zation because of such a ruling?
  3. Is it a fact that the soldier so discharged is not entitled to unemployment benefits if unemployed on the grounds that the soldier is on official leave?
  4. If so, does it seem right that the Social Services Department should consider a soldier asbeing on leave for the full period of his accrued leave, whereas the Army Department, when considering medical treatment for a disability not due to war service, recognizes only that portion of such leave for which payment in lieu is not made?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Yes; except in certain special cases, the member is discharged from the Army on the day he marches out of the Discharge Depot, and is granted pay in lieu of the leave for which he is eligible. This removes the member from Army control at the earliest possible date with the right to resume his civilian occupation immediately if he so desires.
  2. Yes; the responsibility of the Army towards the member ceases at midnight of the day upon which he is discharged. Consequently the Army is under no obligation to provide medical treatment to the member in respect of any injuries he may receive after midnight of the day upon which he is discharged. If, however, the medical condition of the member deteriorates at any time after discharge, and such deterioration is a result of the member’s war service, medical attention would be available to him through the Repatriation Commission.
  3. No; but the member would not be entitled to. unemployment benefit for any period during which he was on re-establishment leave. In all such cases it would be in the best interests of the member to apply for the more liberal re-employment allowance payable under the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945.
  4. See answer to question’s.

page 1241

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Senator BRAND:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice - 1.Is it a fact that widespread dissatisfaction with the unitemized deductions from their pay exists amongst prisoners of war repatriated from Germany?

  1. If so, will the Government appoint a committee representing the Treasury. Department of the Army, and Prisoners of War Association to inquire into the validity of the alleged excessive amounts of these deductions?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers.: -

  1. The Army authorities have no knowledge of widespread dissatisfaction amongst prisoners of war repatriated from Germany with regard to adjustment of their pay accounts. In accordance with Military Financial Regulations, a prisoner of war is credited with full pay and allowances during his captivity. Normally pay issued under the Geneva Convention by the German authorities would be debited to the officer concerned. However, in December, 1944, the Government decided after consideration of a report submitted by a committee representative of the service departments and the Treasury, that convention pay received from German authorities by Australian officer prisoners of war would be charged against their home accounts only up to a maximum of 3s. 4d. per day for period in captivity and that debit for advances of convention pay exceeding this amount would be waived. The policy adopted by the United Kingdom Government was all that all convention pay advanced by German authorities was charged to the Pay Accounts of the British officers concerned.
  2. The nature of the isolated complaints which have been made against the adjustments do not warrant the appointment of further committee.

page 1241

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SOCIAL SERVICES) BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders he suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- Would the carrying of this motion suspend the standing order requiring 21 days’ notice to be given to each honorable senator before a Call of the Senate is made for the consideration of bills providing for amendments of the Constitution?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– No.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

. -I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to alter the Constitution so that this Parliament can continue to provide directly for promoting social security in Australia. This is in no sense a party bill. Ever since federation, it has been assumed by successive governments and parliaments that the National Parliament could expend for any allAustralian purpose the money that it raises. Under the Constitution as it stands, thelegal foundations for even the most urgent modern social service legislation were doubtful and insecure. The High Court’s decision last year in the Pharmaceutical Benefits case has shown that these doubts were only too well founded. The object of this bill is to place Australian social service legislation on a sound legal footing. Not only in Australia but throughout the world, there has been a marked development, in the present generation, in the realization that it is the community’s duty to provide for its members benefits of a social service character. When the Constitution was adopted in 1900, the idea even of invalid and old-age pensions was new. But the framers of the Constitution recognized that such a matter could be dealt with more satisfactorily on an Australia-wide basis than by piecemeal and varied action on the part of separate States. This is just as true of other social services, such as, for example, child endowment, widows’ pensions or medical benefits, which , we realize to-day must be provided. Indeed, the argument for action by this Parliament is much stronger to-day. Half a century of living together as a nation has made it repugnant to Australians that the measure of their social security should depend on the accident of their residence in one State or. another.

I remind the Senate and the country what provision the Constitution, as it stands, makes for social service legislation which can be passed by the National Parliament. The Commonwealth has power under section 51 to make laws for “invalid and old-age pensions”, and it also has power in relation to “ insurance, other than State insurance “. Any other social service payments made by the Commonwealth must rest on some other foundation. The only one available is the power implied by section 81, to appropriate money by law, from the Consolidated Revenue, for the purposes of the Commonwealth. For many years there have been two schools of legal thought on the meaning, in this section, of the words “ the purposes of the Commonwealth “. The wider view was that any purpose for which the Parliament chose to make an appropriation of money thereby became a “ purpose of the Commonwealth”. On thisview, there were no limits to the purposes for which the Parliament could authorize the expenditure of money. Another, and narrower, view was that “ the purposes of the Commonwealth “ in section 81 must be purposes indicated elsewhere in the Constitution as coming within the Commonwealth’s legislative executive and judicial powers. The Parliament, asI have said, has consistently acted on the wider view of its appropriation power. Until recently, the High Court had not been called upon to pronounce formally on the validity of this practice, although the matter was discussed by the court in 1935.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 provides for certain pharmaceutical bene- . fits, payable out of the trust account established under the National Welfare Fund Act 1943. The moneys which form this fund are derived from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The High Court, with one dissentient, held that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 was beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, and therefore invalid. Without going into technical details of the reasons given by the various justices, it may be stated that a majority of the court clearly rejected what I have called (he wide view of the meaning of the words “ the purposes of the Commonwealth “ in section 81 of the Constitution. This decision throws serious doubt on the validity of a number of acts on the Commonwealth statute-book, including several acts that provide for what are commonly referred to as “ social services “.

In considering the effect upon other Commonwealth acts of the principles laid down by the High Court in the Pharmaceutical Benefits case, the Government obtained opinions from Sir Robert Garran, K.C., of Canberra; from Mr. Maughan, K.C., and Mr. Barwick, K.C., of Sydney and from Mr. Ham, K.C. and Dr. Coppel, K.C., of Melbourne. With the consent of the Senate I shall incorporate in Hansard the following tabular statement analysing the opinions given by those counsel : -

After considering these legal ‘ opinions and those furnished by its own advisers, the Government has decided that the only amendment to the Constitution which is urgently necessary as a result of the High Court’s decision is an amendment to authorize the continuance of acts providing benefits in the nature of social services, and to authorize the Parliament in the future to confer benefits of a similar character.. That is the object of the present bill. I emphasize that the measure does not seek to extend the appropriation power in any other respect. The proposed alteration embodied in the bill is therefore limited to benefits of a social service character and, in the main, to benefits of a type provided for by legislation already on the statute-book, such as pharmaceutical benefits. The exceptions, or partial, exceptions, are medical and dental services benefits. Medical services had, in some measure, been provided for by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act itself, and dental services are so closely . analogous _ to1 medical services that the Government considers that it would be illogical to enable the Parliament to provide for the one and not for the other. The power to grant “ family allowances “ is probably wide enough to cover some of the other powers enumerated in the proposed paragraph, but it is intended to cover also analogous benefits which may fall outside the precise wording of those other powers.

Provision is made in the bill to forbid the making of any law which would impose any form of civil conscription in relation to the medical or dental profession. It would not, therefore, be possible in pursuance of any law purporting to be made under the proposed new power to conscript either doctors or dentists who might be engaged in the carrying out of duties related to medical or dental services.

It may be said that the Comonwealth should, under the Constitution, as it stands, make provision for social service benefits by conditional grants of money to the States. But the Government is strongly of the opinion that the effective and harmonious administration of such benefits is best ensured by a Commonwealthwide administrative organization, and that the Commonwealth should have the power to carry out directly, and in its own way, the social services schemes on which the Parliament decides. The proposed powers will not deprive the States of power to make laws on the same subject-matters, so long as those laws are not inconsistent with Commonwealth law. As I have already shown, the constitutional alteration proposed by this bill is absolutely necessary if even the existing Commonwealth social service measures are to be continued, let alone extended.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 1244

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ORGANIZED MARKETING OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS) BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales-

Minister for Supply and Shipping) [3.30].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to alter the Constitution so that this National Parliament can deal effectively with what has become one of Australia’s most urgent national problems - the organized marketing of primary products. It has done so during the war. Many primary producers are apprehensive of the future if the Parliament cannot continue to do so during the years of peace, and particularly during the difficult years that lie immediately ahead. In particular, I instance organizations of growers of wheat, barley and potatoes. During the war, under the defence power, the responsibility for organizing the marketing of primary products has fallen squarely upon the Commonwealth. Despite the war-time dislocation of markets, the results have been highly beneficial to the producers. As long ago as 1944, it was estimated that the mortgages and bank overdrafts owed by primary producers had been reduced by over £60,000,000 since the war began. I refer also to the figures quoted in the Parliament recently by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) which showed that at various income levels the income of primary producers had increased greatly during the war years. He quoted the following table: -

Australia’s war-time marketing experience clearly shows the great advantage to primary producers of enabling a single national authority to lay down a plan for the marketing of primary products. The long history of Australian attempts to organize the marketing of primary products goes back at least twenty years before the war. The general object has always been to bring about price stability in the primary industries, to assist them to bear the heavy burdens of climatic uncertainty and world competition, and to ensure for primary producers a reasonable standard of living and adequate economic security. The methods used have included “pooling”, compulsory or voluntary ; “ orderly marketing” by means of zoning, quotas and the like; and arrangements to ensure better grading, packing, advertising, and so forth. With the exception of the war years, attempts by this Parliament to give effective assistance to primary producers by organizing the marketing of primary products have encountered two constitutional difficulties. One is the fact that whilst the Parliament may make laws with respect only to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States, it may not make laws with respect to trade and commerce within a single State. The second difficulty is the requirement, laid down in section 92 of the Constitution, that trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States shall be “ absolutely free “. The present bill is designed to obviate both these difficulties. In the first place, the new paragraph which the bill proposes to add to the list of legislative subjects in section 51 of the Constitution will cover intra-state as, well as interstate and oversea transactions. No effective plan can be worked out for the organized marketing of primary products which, does not embrace all three types of transactions. In the second place,’ the new sub-section which the bill proposes to add at the end of section 51 will release from the requirements of section 92 any laws made for the organized marketing of primary products.

Section 92 has been the subject of judicial consideration in the High Courton many occasions, and also in the Privy Council. The enact effect, of “the decisions U exceedingly difficult to state. On many occasions, the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has explained his view that section 92 does not altogether prohibit organized marketing. Some marketing schemes have been upheld, notwithstanding section 92, on the ground that they were directed, not to the mere restriction of interstate commercial transactions, but to the achievement of such objectives as the preservation of standards of purity and quality, and the maintenance of supplies for consumers. Each marketing scheme has to be examined in the light of its own particular facts and circumstances. On the other hand, to leave section 92 untouched is necessarily to expose all plans for the organized marketing of commodities to the possibility of being declared invalid by the court. Our experience with marketing legislation in the years between the two wars has shown how important it i$ that those responsible for the welfare of the primary industries should be in a position to formulate their plans with the certainty that they will not be upset on constitutional grounds. Two decisions given by the High Court last year with regard to the effect of section 92, though not directly related to marketing legislation, have further illustrated the difficulty of advising what is, and what is not, permitted under that section. This Parliament, and the Government of the day, thought in 1936 that marketing legislation ought not to be subject to section 92, and proposed a constitution alteration with that object in view. Subsequent decisions have shown that section 92 does not make all marketing plans impossible. But the section does make all marketing plans to some degree uncertain. The position, -in fact, is still one of such doubt that action should certainly be taken now to clear it up for the future. This is one of the objects of the present measure.

The” bill does not extend to the organized marketing of all commodities, it is confined to primary products. . This is the field in which the need for extending the power of the National Parliament is greatest and most urgent. The future of Australia’s primary industries constitutes a special’ problem of such vital importance to the whole community that the existence of national power to protect them is essential. The expression “ primary products “ is not a technical term, with a fixed legal meaning. But the phrase is in such general use that there will seldom be any doubt whether or not a particular commodity belongsto the category of “ primary products “. In the ordinary popular sense, “ primary products “ is understood to include not only the immediate products of such occupations as the agricultural, dairying and pastoral industries, but also certain processed goods derived directly from those products. All Australians, for instance, would immediately recognize butter, cheese, flour and dried fruits as “primary products”, though not. cakes or bread. However, the bill contains a definition of “ primary products “ which should aid in ascertaining the meaning of this expression. There may, of course, be border-line cases. But there are dangers in attempting to define in advance the categories of constitutional power. The exceptional cases, if they arise, cansafely be left for decision by the court. If this Parliament is endowed with the power now sought, it will be able to deal effectively with a problem which transcends State boundaries. The marketing of primary products has ramifications which are Australiawide, and the national interest demands that the Commonwealth should be free to take measures to regulate marketing in a manner that will serve not only the interests of producers but also those of the people of Australia as a whole.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 1246

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT) BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a. first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move-

That thebillbe now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to alter the Constitution so that this Parliament will be able, like the legislature of every State in Australia, to regulate, either directly or indirectly, the terms and conditions of employment in industry. The intention is to fill a gap which has been recognized by governments of all parties as one of the greatest anomalies in our constitutional system. But in proposing to give this essential power to the National Parliament, the bill also imposes a restriction, in order that Australians may never be made subject in time of peace to that most unpopular of war-time necessities, industrial conscription. During the war years, the industrialization of Australia has made unprecedented strides. Old industries expanded, new industries were set up. Australia became for the first time an exporter of secondary products. A major problem of the peace will be to maintain and even increase this high level of industrial production. Our hopes of providing full employment depend on it. So do our hopes of attracting and maintaining a larger population.

During the war years, the defence power of the Commonwealth enabled this Parliament, and, under its authority, the Government, not only to improve and extend the existing machinery for conciliation and arbitration but also to deal directly, as occasion required, with almost every phase of the terms and conditions of employment. Wages, hours, holidays and working conditions were’ regulated, in some cases for industry generally, in others for particular classes such as seamen, or women. These wider national powers have been exercised with marked success. That is shown by the great expansion of industrial production that has taken place. We cannot secure and sustain increased production unless we can secure terms and conditions upon which employers and employees alike are willing to work. Broadly, this is what the war-time national powers achieved. What will be the position when the defence power has shrunk to its normal peace-time scope? Under the present constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in time of peace, this Parliament has no direct power to regu- late terms and conditions of industrial employment in general. Under section 51. paragraph (xxxv.), it can maintain, and of course modify and improve, the existing machinery for conciliation and arbitration, but only in relation to interstate disputes. It could perhaps directly regulate the terms and conditions of employment of those engaged in interstate commerce - that is, if they could effectively be isolated and defined as a distinct class. But that is all. It is insufficient.

The new power which the bill proposes to give to this Parliament will not in any way abrogate or curtail the existing industrial powers given by section 51, paragraph (xxxv.). The new power, however, will supplement the present conciliation and arbitration power in two vital respects. First, as I have already said, the existing powers of industrial regulation are indirect. It is an extraordinary anomaly that although this Parliament has exclusive authority over such matters as customs and excise, it cannot take direct responsibility for regulating wages and hours and industrial conditions, which are in actual practice linked inseparably with tariff questions. The problem of ensuring that employees get their proper share of the benefits of a protective tariff system has always existed in Australia. The bill would enable this Parliament to deal with it effectively. Industry is entering a phase in which new conceptions of living standards, of welfare and of leisure must be worked out. Under Commonwealth leadership during the. war, Australia has made striking progress in many of these directions. National leadership will , be necessary if this progress is to be maintained under the different conditions prevailing in time of peace. It is another extraordinary fact that only through processes originating in industrial disputes can there be any fixation under Commonwealth authority, in time of peace, of wages, hours and conditions of employment. The bill would enable Australia to lay aside the confused and technical system of regulating industrial relations under the present Constitution. The peace-time powers of the Commonwealth are insufficient to enable the Australian Parliament to tackle on a national basis the problem of fixing standard working conditions in such a national industry as coal-mining, which is the life blood of the industries of this country. The same must be said of industrial conditions in other basic industries. Since World War II. began, Australia has made important advances in organizing industrial peace. Exaggerated attention is often given to the industrial disputes that have taken place. It has been said before in this Parliament that despite the unprecedented strain which the waging of total war placed upon industry, industrial relations have been incomparably better in World War II. than they were in World War I. I do not suggest for a moment that the wartime expedients in industrial regulation are the last word on the subject. I do however, suggest that the problem of improving industrial relations in Australia cannot be tackled radically or fundamentally so long as the present Constitution stands.

The proposed new power, if agreed to, will enable the Parliament to make laws with respect to terms and conditions in ind ustry but shall not be exercised so as to authorize “ any form of industrial conscription “. In Australia, this phrase originated in the National Security Act 1939, which imposed exactly the same restriction in that respect as this bill contains. In view of the desperate position in which the British Commonwealth found itself in 1940, this prohibition was in effect repealed. By virtue of the amending National Security Act of 1940, the man-power system was established, under which men and women were directed into the service of specific employers, and were prevented from leaving their employment. Under the present bill, such a system would not be possible in time of peace.

The most important aspect of this measure, however, is its positive powers. It will enable this Parliament to fix standard hours in any industry - though not in occupations that are not industrial in character - in accordance with the distinction drawn by the decisions of the High Court under section 51 (xxxv.). It will enable this Parliament to fix the basic wage, in accordance with the requirements of the present day. It will enable this Parliament to continue the important work formerly carried out by the Women’s Employment Board. The National Parliament will thus be in a position to deal effectively with one of the great industrial’ problems that have grown out of war conditions, namely., the entry into industry of many thousands of women workers. In short, the bill will enable this Parliament to discharge all the normal responsibilities of Government in an advanced industrial democracy.

Senator McLeay:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

[3.52]. - Before proceeding with my second-reading speech on this bill* I ask leave for the Senate to regard this bill and the two bills that have preceded it as cognate measures which may be discussed together during this debate.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:

– It is the usual practice for bills of a cognate character to be debated together. In the absence of any objection, that course will be followed on this occasion.

Senator McLEAY:

– Honorable .senators generally have listened with great interest to the second-reading speeches made by the Acting Leader of the Senate (Senator Ashley) on these three important bills. Great publicity has already been given to the speeches made in .the House of Representatives on the important matters covered by these measures and many of us will profit from what has been said there. It is interesting to note in passing that two important amendments which were made during the passage of the bills through the House of. Representatives were proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in that chamber (Mr. Menzies). Those of us who have had an opportunity to read his secondreading speech on these measures cannot but fail to be im pressed by his vast knowledge of constitutional problems. I regret that the Government has not seen fit to allow the questions raised in these bills to be submitted to the people on .a non-party basis. It has been rumoured - and I do not believe that the Minister will deny the accuracy of such rumours - that even the Labour caucus itself could not agree on the methods by which the proposed alterations of the Constitution were to be put to the Parliament, or even upon the subject-matter of the bills. For many years the Liberal party has ‘advocated the holding of elective conventions on non-party lines in order to give to these important and. far-reaching problems the consideration that they deserve. When dealing with measures of .this kind we should remind ourselves that under the Constitution the Senate is intended to be not only a house of review but also the States’ house, in order to watch the interests of the States, particularly the less financial and undeveloped States, .such as Tasmania, South Australia, and. Western Australia. On previous occasions, I have expressed regret that the Senate is not functioning to-day as the framers of the Constitution intended it to function. In that respect, .all parties have been .at fault. However, with the development of present-day unionism, when unionists have become political, organizations outside the Parliament now dictate the policy of the Labour Government, with the result that in this chamber we have what might be described as “ canned politics Such a development is to he regretted. Since I was elected to this chamber, I cannot recall one instance in which a Labour senator has had the courage toexpress his own views, or to cast a vote contrary to decisions made in .caucus. I recall tha-t in the House of Representatives the late Mr. Maurice Blackburn, a distinguished Australian, when he was the member for Bourke, had the courage to voice his own views; and we remember the fate which he suffered at the hands of his party. I also recall an occasion when Senator Lamp said that he would be prepared to support an amendment which I had moved in order to exempt the deferred, pay of service personnel from income tax. But when the division on that amendment was taken, we found that the caucus had cracked its whip over the honorable senator, and he was bound hand, foot and mouth.. I deplore that approach by honorable senators opposite to matterscoming before the .Senate, and believe that honorable senators on this side will be simply wasting their time if they propose amendments to the bill how before us, because caucus has bound and gagged honorable senators opposite so far as these measures are concerned. I long for the day - and it will come - when the government of the day will be obliged torecognize that it cannot be controlled by outside influences, and that it must govern. and’ not be obliged under threats to apply a policy of appeasement towards outside interests. Honorable senators opposite should take the opportunity to change that state of affairs, by discussing these measures on their merits

I remind the- Senate that up to date eleven referenda have been held, embracing nineteen proposals for alterations of the Constitution and two Prescribed Questions; and of those the people rejected eighteen and agreed to only three.

Senator Ashley:

– How many of them were submitted by the United Australia party governments?

Senator McLEAY:

– Several of them were submitted by United Australia party governments, and the defeat of some of them was due to the fact that the proposals were submitted on party lines. 1 recall that in respect of the marketing proposals submitted at the referendum in 1937, the Labour party voted against an amendment which did not go nearly “so far as the proposal now made by the Government. With the permission of the Senate I shall incorporate in Hansard the following details of these referendums. So far, eleven referendums have been held, embracing nineteen Constitution alterations and two prescribed questions. Of these, three have been successful, and eighteen unsuccessful. They are as follows: -

The- Liberal party supports the federal system. It stands for federation, and is opposed- to unification. As a representative of South Australia, which is one of the less financial States, I regret very much that during the war period^ when this Government possessed complete power in respect of such matters under the Commonwealth’s defence power,

Ministers almost daily rode roughshod over State departments and instrumentalities. Obviously, that experience can be taken as a sample of what the Commonwealth will do should it be granted the powers sought under these measures. A study of our legislative history shows that some of the most important and beneficial legislation was enacted by the Bruce-Page Government. In its legislation affecting the relations between the Commonwealth and the ‘ States, that Government faithfully preserved the ideal’s of federation to a greater degree than has been the case in any other period in the history of this Parliament. I do not propose to deal with all legislation coming within that category, but shall refer briefly to two acts. Under the Federal Aid Roads Act the original Federal Aid Roads scheme began on the 1st July, 1926, and was designed to cover a period of ten years. It provided for the distribution’ of £2,000,000 a year among the States on the basis of approximately three-fifths , of population and two-fifths on area, with a special concession to Tasmania, which received a flat rate of 5 per cent. The States were required to contribute between them £1,500,000 or 15s. for every £1 contributed by the Commonwealth. The purpose of the grant was the construction or reconstruction of main trunk and arterial roads. No provision was made for maintenance - later, a troublesome point. A further provision was that the States should, on any loan moneys they used for their contributions, pay into a sinking fund at the rate of 8 per cent. In 1931, the agreement was altered and its term extended to the 31st December, 1936. Instead of £2,000,000 being paid by the Commonwealth to the States each year, a payment was made at the rate of 2d. a gallon of customs duty and 1-Jd. a gallon of excise duty on certain petroleum products. At the same time, the contributions of the States of 15s. in the £1 were abolished. It was then specified that the grant would also bo available for maintenance of “ any road “. In December, 1936, the agreement was extended a further six months so that it operated for eleven years, during which time payments made totalled £24,1S7,000. The Federal Aid Roads and Works Act was designed to cover >a period of ten years from the 1st July. 1937. The grants were continued on the basis of the original bill, but increased to 3d. a gallon customs duty and 2d. a gallon excise. The Commonwealth paid an extra £600,000. Of this amount £50,000 was. reserved for maintenance ‘of Commonwealth roads.

I also draw attention to the history of the Financial Agreement Act which was passed by the Bruce-Page Government in 192S. By the agreement, the Commonwealth Government, took over States debts amounting to £672,000,000. The annual interest contribution of the Commonwealth was £7,584,912, for a period of 58 years, ‘ when the debts would be paid off. The Commonwealth also contracted to contribute 2s. 6d. to a sinking fund of 7s. 6d. for the whole of the past debts of the States. That, contribution amounted to £801,000 per annum and continued for 58 years. In addition, the Commonwealth contributed 5s. to a sinking fund of 10s. for new loans raised on behalf of or by the States and increased the rate of interest paid on the valuation of the’ transferred properties from 3$ per cent, to 5 per cent. The agreement replaced a per capita payment, of 25s. per head to the States regardless, of needs or requirements. Mr.. Bruce said that there less populous States. Under the per capita system was unjust, as it benefited the richest States and was detrimental to the less populous States. Under the per capita system, the State which least ‘requires assistance receives a continually increasing amount. Any State basing its case on the receipt of the per capita payment for twenty years and comparing what it would thus have received with its position under this agreement was building on an unsound and unstable foundation. Under the agreement, the stability of the finances of the States was assured for 5S years. Without it, they would not know where they were. The (agreement also provided for the establishment of a loan council on which all States were to be represented. The object of the council was to ensure co-ordination in the borrowing of governmental and public authorities, and a proper mobilization of the credit of the Australian people. By the agreement, the ‘Commonwealth was to be the common borrower. The alteration to the Constitution was necessary because the Commonwealth could not take over the whole of the debts of the States if there was any possibility of any State at any -time withdrawing from the arrangement. The Constitution had to he altered to secure the permanency of the arrangement. The agreement meant the consolidation and mobilization of the credit of Australia.

In addition to those two act;., I recall the arrangement made by the Australian Dried Fruits Association in respect of which complementary legislation was enacted by both States and the Commonwealth in order to establish a scheme for the orderly marketing of dried fruits. That scheme proved most successful. However, the Privy Council, in the James case, declared that legislation to be ultra vires section 92 of the Constitution. Subsequently, the Lyons Government submitted a proposal at a referendum to overcome that constitutional difficulty, but the people rejected it. However, it is interesting to note that in spite of that decision by the people, the Dried “Fruits Association, under a gentleman’s agreement, has since carried on that marketing scheme. We know that if the States are prepared to refer power to the Commonwealth, the latter can do all that is necessary for the purpose of establishing schemes for the orderly marketing of primary products. I suggest that the Government should seek a reference of powers by the States rather than proceed with its present proposal for an alteration of the Constitution as is proposed in one of the measures now before the Senate. Experience in ministerial office enables one to appreciate the various problems which arise with respect to the orderly marketing of primary products in this country. I need only mention that the distance from Perth to Brisbane is as great as that from London to Moscow or Cairo in order to show” that agricultural problems in Queensland, for instance, differ entirely from problems arising in Western Australia. I am convinced as the result of my experience as a Minister in these matters that problems arising in respect of roads and the marketing of agricultural products, and similar problems can be more efficiently handled by the States than by an administration centralized at Canberra. That observation applies also to the administration of housing schemes. I am glad to note that the Government, after dilly-dallying for months and setting up a special department, has now decided practically to hand over housing to the .States. -It has entered into agreements with the States on. that subject, and under complementary legislation ‘by the States and the Commonwealth a working arrangement had been devised. The more one examines these problems in a practical way, the more one becomes convinced that the best way to govern this country is in a truly ‘federal spirit, with the States looking after those problems which they are best suited to attend to and the Commonwealth concentrating more and more on great national problems. There has been too great a tendency in this Parliament to fiddle with minor matters which can be satisfactorily handled by the States. We have allowed too much party politics to enter into consideration of many matters, and in that respect I do not blame one party more than another.

Clause 2 of the Constitution Alteration (Social Services) Bill reads -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by inserting after paragraph (xxiii. ) the following paragraph: - “ (xxiii. a.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, .pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to .students and. family allowances: “.

I find myself in a most awkward position in relation to this proposed alteration of the Constitution, and I criticize the Government most severely for again presenting to the Parliament and to the people of this country, referendum proposals dealing with so many important subjects, and including in the middle of them, certain matters which are offensive to the Liberal party of Australia, and, I hope, to the great majority of the people of this country. I am sure that all members of this Parliament support the payment of such social service benefits as child endowment, maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, Ace. In fact, governments of which we on this side of the chamber were members or supporters were responsible for the introduction of some of our most important social service legislation. . However, when one finds that it is proposed to give to the Commonwealth Parliament power to nationalize dental and medical services, and also pharmaceutical businesses, one is justified in claiming that a certain amount of political chicanery is being resortedto by the Government in an endeavour to further its own ends. An attempt was made in the House of Representatives to have the Constitution Alteration (Social Services) Bill divided into two measures, but caucus had cracked the whip, and the Government was adament. I am confident that every State Government would give to the Commonwealth Parliament upon request, power to legislate in respect of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, and unemployment’ allowances, and I regret that even at the recent Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers this question was not even raised. There is only one Liberal party government in office in Australia to-day, and that is in South Australia. Both Houses of the South Australian. Parliament have agreed to refer to the Commonwealth Parliament for five years, power to legislate in respect of the social services that I have mentioned. It is mere humbug to put these questions to the people by referendum when the Government, is fully aware that States would voluntarily surrender the powers to the Commonwealth Parliament, temporarily at least.

I was interested to hear the remarks of the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) in regard to the increased income of primary ‘ producers, when moving the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Organized Marketing of Primary Products) Bill. The burden of the Minister’s argument was that the increase had been brought about because a Labour government had been in power and had had authority to legislate in respect of organized marketing during the war years. It is apparent, of course, that one of the outstanding reasons for the increase of incomes, is the fact that since 1939 the prices of primary products have risen enormously. For instance, the figures relating to that portion of our primary products that is exported, show that the return to the farmers has increased substantially. There has been an extraordinary demand for everything that can be produced on the land. That is why incomes have risen to the degree mentioned by the Minister..

There is another matter that might be given consideration when making a comparison of the present-day incomes of primary producers with those obtaining before the war. I refer to the fact that owing to inflated costs caused by the war, money to-day has not the same purchasing power as it had in 1939. The Minister’s contention that primary producer’s incomes had increased because a Labour government has been in office is entirely inaccurate.

The object of the Constitution Alteration (Organized Marketing of Primary Products) Bill is to give to the Commonwealth Parliament power to carry out organized marketing schemes, by inserting after section 57 (i) of the Constitution the following paragraph : - (i.A. ) Organized Marketing of primary products :

I said earlier that the Lyons Government had attempted to secure by means of a referendum an amendment of section 92 of the Constitution. The object of that alteration was to enable the Commonwealth Parliament to inaugurate and administer marketing schemes such as that then in operation in the dried fruits industry. The power sought at that referendum was small compared with the powers that are to be sought under these measures. If an affirmative vote be recorded in regard to power to organize the marketing of primary products, the Commonwealth Government will be able to introduce legislation to deal, not only with organized interstate marketing, but also intra-state marketing. I know of nothing more likely to destroy the power of the States than by conferring upon whatever Commonwealth. Government happens to be in power, authority to control intrastate marketing. I propose therefore to vote against the measure relating to organized marketing and I am confident that the people of Australia too will reject it.

It is interesting to note the attitude of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) when these matters were considered at a recent convention. The comments of the right honorable gentleman on the ticklish section 92 are worthy of repetition. Honorable senators will recall that at the 1944 referendum, fourteen proposed alterations of the Constitution were submitted to the people in one question, but that there was no mention of section 92. At that time a clever cartoon published by a very well known Australian newspaper indicated that what the Curtin Government wanted was not fourteen points of power but fourteen pounds of courage, and that criticism holds good to-day. Speaking in the House of “Representatives on 15th March, 1944 - Hansard Volume 177, page 1376 - the Attorney-General said, referring to the effect of section 92 of the Constitution -

  1. . At the Convention, I had to make up my mind whether a Commonwealth marketing power which would remain subject to section !)2 would be serviceable to the people in the immediate reconstruction period. I thought it would be and .still think so . . .

T .emphasize the concluding words : “ I thought it would be and still think so “. In his notes on the proposed fourteen powers, and the three safeguards,, the A Attorney-General said -

I sympathize with those who have expressed the wish that this power should not lie subject to section 92. I admit that what I. have said above is based on a trend of interpretation. But I think that, just because the Commonwealth must always be dealing with marketing on an Australian-wide scale, the case for Commonwealth laws is stronger than that for State laws, which must always take State boundaries as their limiting factor. I think the power is workable as it stands.

I direct attention to. the concluding words of that paragraph, “ I think the power is workable as it stands “. The Attorney-General continued -

I point out further that any attempt to free the Commonwealth from the restraints of section 02 would bc a substantial departure fi07n the understanding reached with the States at the Convention as to the scope of the new powers . . .

In view of these statements I am, at a loss to understand the Government’s reason for bringing forward the far-reaching proposals now before the Senate.

I come now to the Constitution Alteration (Industrial Employment) Bill, which provides in clause 2 -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by inserting ‘after paragraph ‘ (xxxiv.) the following paragraph: - “ (xxxiv.a. ) Terms and conditions of employment in industry, but not so as to authorize any .form of industrial conscription :”.

For the Government to have the audacity to say that Parliament and not the Arbitration Court should fix hours, wages and conditions ‘ of employment is monstrous. Moreover, it would be a physical impossibility. Any proposal to remove control of hours, wages and conditions of employment from the Arbitration Court and to place it in the hands of politicians in Canberra is fraught with great political danger. “We are all aware of what happened on the coal-fields and in other industries during the war. All that occurred during the term of office of a government which if not completely controlled by the trade unions, is at least greatly influenced by them. If this power were granted to the Commonwealth it would not be long before every section of the community was pestering the life out of members of Parliament and threatening them -with reprisals at the next elections if the terms and conditions which they specified were not adhered to. Whilst we have sufficient sense to allow control of industrial matters to rest with the Arbitration Court, and the other special tribunals set up for that purpose, all sections of the community will.get a much better deal in the long run than they would if industrial conditions were made a political shuttle-cock. I enter the most emphatic protest against the proposal. It is well known to honorable senators that in the less populous States, many people work under State awards, and that there is greater peace, harmony and co-operation in industry in those States than in the States where large industries are carried on with the employees working under Commonwealth awards.

I shall cite a few facts to indicate theweakkneed attitude of the Government, which, to a marked degree, has shown fear of the political repercussions that might follow strong action. That statement is supported by men who have had the courage to say what was right. Timeand again I have stated that some Cabinet Ministers have prevented the laws of the land from taking their proper course,, because of their fears of political repercussions. We have had experience of that during the war period. The present Labour Government has had all the powers it requires, but has it been prepared to take action? Has it not preferred to adopt a policy of appeasement? Because of political pressure from the-

Australian Labour party executive, tie Government is being bludgeoned into supporting a 40-hour week and an increase of the basic wage. I do not say that the workers are not entitled to an increased wage, but I hold that the correct authority, under the present system of government, to make a decision in those matters is not the Labour caucus, or the Liberal party at Canberra, but the Arbitration Courts of Australia. When the courts give their decisions, the government of the day, irrespective of its political views, should stand’ behind them. But instead of present Ministers doing that, some of them try to influence the courts by suggestions which are not altogether worthy. Under the heading “Union’s G-o-slow Fines Held Illegal “, the following paragraph appeared in the Canberra Times of the loth March : -

In a, reserved judgment to-day, the Arbitration’ Court said that union executives should refrain from issuing orders that decent men found impossible to obey, if they expected their decisions to be observed.

The judgment criticized the go-slow policy of the Federated Boilermakers’ Association.

Fines of £10, imposed on four men by their union for exceeding the daily quota of 171 rivets per man, were ruled to be illegal.

The Prime Minister deplores the fact that the cost of ship construction in Australia is £68 a ton, whilst the same work is done on the Clyde . for £34 a ton. The Government knows that a “go-slow” policy, is adopted, but no action is taken by it. If the power sought in this .bill were granted to the Parliament, and the Labour Government at Canberra had power to fix wages and determine conditions in industry, the life of Ministers of the Crown would not be worth living, and the economy of the country would he severely tested in standing’ up to the strain that would be imposed on it. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, of the 5th May, 1945, reported that Judge O’Mara, of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, had said that it would be futile for him to order striking Balmain ironworkers back to work. The report continued -

It is not likely the 2,000 strikers will resume work if they have already disobeyed an order made by the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. Morrison), he said.

I can only make an order for these men to resume if the Commonwealth is prepared to prosecute under the National Security Regulations.

We have had experience of the official attitude of Ministers in matters of this kind, yet the people are to be asked to grant to this Parliament increased powers, so that wages and hours of employment may be fixed by the Government. Another press paragraph, dated the 23rd February, 1946, reads as follows: -

Soothsayers who shed crocodile tears over employer-employee relations and publicly call on employers and employees for greater cooperation, should try their hand at this one, says the Metal Trades Journal.

In Victoria, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, by resolution of its members has imposed a ban on systematic overtime in the engineering industry and shop stewards have been instructed to inform the various managements that members of the union will refuse to work overtime. Thus employers have been denied the right to have overtime worked in their establishments without any consideration being given to the shortage of skilled labour, the limitation of plant and the urgency of work on hand.

If the employer attempts to disregard such edicts and rely upon his rights under constituted law he will be immediately met with a threat of having the whole of his plant stopped.

What more scathing comments could be read than those which have appeared in the report of the Commonwealth Board of Inquiry into the coal-mining industry? The Coal Commissioner, who was appointed by the Government, has had a wider experience of the industry than any other legal man in this country. What does he say. in connexion with the problems of the industry? The major conclusions set out in the . report are -

An almost complete lack of discipline among mine workers has played a very big part in increasing costs, decreasing output.

Communist intrigue has been an additional cause of unrest and loss of production.

By working to capacity, utilizing mechanization to the full (if the existing State law were relaxed ) , and working open cuts, production could be increased from just over 11,000,000 to .14,500,000 tons a. year.

The coal industry cannot operate efficiently while individual employees or small groups can bring about unjustifiable stoppages with impunity.

The steeply rising costs of workers’ compensation constitute a burden that sections, at least, of the coal industry cannot carry; and these costs are, in part, due to trickery by claimants for compensation.

The holding of compulsory secret ballots to determine whether or not strikes should be called or, if in progress, continued, is urged, and emphasis is placed, on the fact that although penalties against strikes and lockouts exist, governments have failed to enforce them.

That is a reference to the present Government, which asks this Parliament to pass a bill requesting the people to grant powers to the Commonwealth legislature and to take the fixation of industrial conditions out of the hands of the courts. If that were done, this country would soon be in the throes of one of the worst industrial upheavals in our history. The report continues - ‘,

Lack of support by governments for their tribunals is stated by the report to be “ the most paralysing defect “ in the arbitration system. “ The time has arrived “, it is stated, “ when a note of realism should be struck in order to dissipate the cloud of maudlin sentimentality that is everlastingly spread over the industry, with very bad effect.”

Proposals for nationalization of coalmines, control of distribution by the Commonwealth, profit-sharing, and control over industry, as recommended in the Foot and Reid reports to the British Government, are among those examined in the Davidson report, and rejected, either on the grounds of impracticability, or of their failure to overcome the basic troubles in the industry, or both.

The Government has promised not to nationalize doctors, dentists and chemists, but its promises are not worth much. The companies engaged in the conduct of the airlines were promised by the Commonwealth that nationalization of the interstate services would not be put into effect during the war period, but we know what happened in that matter. There is no better guide for the future than the experience of the past. This Government has demonstrated to the people how it handles industrial problems. When the question embodied in this measure is referred, to the people I am confident that they will refuse to hand over to a Labour government at Canberra the task of fixing terms and conditions of employment in industry. They will not be prepared to perpetuate the muddle, inconvenience and loss which have occurred in the last six years, despite the fact that the Government has been clothed with all the power that it could possibly need.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grant) adjourned.

page 1255

WAK SERVICE HOMES BILL 1946

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 9th April (vide page 1154), on motion by SenatorCollings -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– When I obtained leave to continue my remarks last night I was referring to a report in the Melbourne Age of an address by the Reverend H. L. Hawkins at a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon, at Wesley Church, Melbourne, in which he said that exservicemen were being badly treated, particularly in regard to housing. He complained of black marketing in homes, flats and other dwellings,’ and in support of his complaint he cited numbers of instances of houses being sold at far above pegged prices. It is abundantly clear that many people in the community, both buyers and sellers of property, are adopting practices which they would not countenance in normal circumstances. Honorable senators will appreciate the desperate plight of a married serviceman, whose wife and family have been living with relatives, “who is unable on his return to Australia to satisfy his natural desire to have a home of his own. The conditions to which the speaker at Wesley Church referred are i«;t confined to Sydney, but exist in every capital city of the Commonwealth. It is well known that properties are changing hands at prices far in excess of the amount at which sales could legally be effected. This bill makes provision for ex-servicemen, to obtain homes. Some minor amendments to extend the scope of the- principal act to cover persons other than those to whom the existing legislation applies are contemplated. The major change is, however, the proposed increase from £950 to £1,250 of the amount which the War Service Homes Commission may advance in respect of a war service home. That provision is clear evidence that the Government realizes that building costs have risen since 1939. In no more striking way could it proclaim the fact .that it would be impossible to-day to build, for £950 a house which could have beenerected for that sum before the war. What is the ex.pl lanation of the increased cost of building 1 We are told that wages have been, pegged, and that the prices of building materials have been controlled. It is difficult to point to any one specific reason for the increase, but the fact remains that houses do cost more to-day than in 1939. The men who are now returning from active service and are seeking homes were told that their economic condition would not be worse on their return than when they* enlisted; but they come back to find that prices generally have increased, and that houses, if obtainable at all, cost a great deal more than in 1939. Unfortunately, it is not at all certain that the peak in building costs- has yet been reached. Many of those who are seeking homes were prisoners of war, whose health’ has been affected by their imprisonment, and whose earning capacity has accordingly beenreduced. No organic troubles may exist, but they are still suffering the effects of Japanese brutality. These men are entitled to fair treatment. Even the increase of the maximum grant is of itself an added burden, on them.; they will have to make interest, and sinking fund payments on the difference between £950 and £1,2-50. That will make inroads on their savings, deferred pay, and gratuity money. In many instances, the whole of the amount to- the credit of a serviceman will be absorbed by extra costs.. The exserviceman who buys or builds a new home at the prices ruling to-day is at a disadvantage compared with the man who was able to buy at the pegged price a home erected in pre-war days. In my opinion, the Government should meet the situation which has arisen by making a grant of 20 per cent, of the capital cost of homes purchased by ex-servicemen. That would be some measure of compensation for losses incurred by them through circumstances outside their .control. T regret that, there is no other way to assist these men than by moving that the bill be withdrawn for further consideration of the point that I have raised. I could not move an amendment in committee to increase the appropriation, and so I intimate now that I intend to move that the bill be withdrawn and re-drafted. I appreciate the position of those who entered into contracts for the purchase of war service homes after the termination of the war of 1914-18. The homes should have been revalued.. They have had to maintain throughout the years, principal and interest payments beyond the ambit of their gradually reducing incomes. After having paid off two-third’s of the cost of their homes-, many of them, finding that they could go into the open market and get better accommodation at a- lower cost, forfeited .their equity in their war service home and made arrangements- to buy or rent others more suitable to their reduced’ incomes. The principle involved in the proposal which I have- put forward is not new; it has already been adopted’ in the legislation governing the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land. Recognizing that land to-day is selling at inflated prices and that farm machinery and1 equipment are sold1 at inflated values, the Government has provided loans amounting, I believe, up to. £1,000, to approved applicants who desire to take up farming. Why should the Government discriminate between the purchaser of a war service home and an ex-serviceman who goes on the land? Who can- say that during the next five years, values generally will not decline? Values of properties of all kinds to-day are extraordinarily ‘ inflated because of abnormal demands. This is true also of farming properties, because of the huge demand for primary products to meet the lag of production during the war yea-rs, and to swell our exportable surplus in order to contribute to the needs of the starving, people of overseas countries. Prices must, in the very nature of things, remain high for some time. Whatever may be said with regard to the fixation, of wages. every one knows, that wage rates fixed to-day represent only the minimum that may be paid. Very many workers who are- entitled only to the basic wage are receiving double that wage. This state of affairs, will continue as- long as competition for labour continues. To-day there is an abundance of work to be done but. insufficient labour to meet demands. But this state of affairs cannot be continued indefinitely. It would be delightful’ if we. had reached the new era when we may have all we want; but history has a knack of repeating itself, and when the world gets back on to an even keel wages and prices, will inevitably fall. When that will come about is problematical; but as surely as night follow? day the time will come when the cost of house construction and the values of properties generally will fall very steeply. Having regard to that, why should the Government pass on to ex-servicemen additional costs resulting from the conditions brought about by the ,war, additional costs which will have to be .borne by them and their children in the years to come? Surely the Government recognizes its obligations to the men who have served this country so well during the war and who now deserve the best that we, can spare them of the fruits, of victory. I therefore move. -

That all the words after the word “ That “ bq left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words.: - “ the bill Be withdrawn and redrafted to include a provision For the making of a grant to any applicant seeking assistance under the Act equal to 20 per centum of the capital cost of. the land and the dwelling-house thereon-this provision not to apply to any dwelling-house constructed or acquired prior to the third day of September. 1939.”.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.^1 second the amendment. The concession proposed by Senator Herbert Hays will tend to counteract the advantage gained by people who stayed at. home during the waa-, who were able, during the early part of the war, before costs began to rise, to acquire a dwelling-house at values ruling in 1939. The ex-servicemen had no such opportunity, and has now to set about acquiring a home at a time when building costs, although extremely high, will possibly rise still higher in the next two or three years. Those who stayed at home were able to increase their savings-bank deposits very considerably during the war years. It is true that ex-servicemen’s war gratuity may be utilized as part payment of a deposit of a house in special eases. The prospective war service home dweller, however, expected to utilize that money for the furnishing of a room or two in his new home. The war gratuity is in the nature of a gift to the exserviceman by a grateful nation and should be treated as such. Those who did not serve in the fighting forces were able to save from their wages, including’ war loadings, possibly twice as much as the average amount pf war gratuity paid to ex-servicemen. It has been estimated that the approximate cost, of making the provision sought by Senator Herbert Hays would be £7,000,000, over a period of years, Subscriptions, to the Security Loan are lagging, but if it were announced that £7,000,000 of the loan would be set aside for the purpose of establishing eligible ex-servicemen in their own homes the loan would be quickly filled, because the people would know that at least some portion of their- subscriptions was to be devoted to a worthy objective. If the Government does not give favorable consideration, to the amendment, servicemen who bore the brunt of the war which has jil5t ended will be loaded with a heavy hurden for the rest of their lives. The Acceptance of the amendment would be heartening to those who were prisoners of war, to patients in military hospitals who are undergoing treatment, - and to others who have much leeway to make up for the opportunities lost to them while they were serving their country overseas.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

-I believe that the greatest tribute that could be paid . to the bill is to be found in the scant opposition offered to it By Senator Leckie. I cannot remember having heard the honorable senator discuss, a measure with so little venom. The speeches of honorable senators opposite were remarkable more for what was left unsaid about the bill than what was offered in criticism of it. Senator Sampson took great comfort from the fact that after 25 years of operation of the war service homes legislation arrears of payments represented less than 2.7 per cent, of the total advances made under.it which have amounted to approximately £30,000,000. To my mind it is a stark tragedy that anything at all should still be owed in respect of homes purchased 25 years ago. The honorable senator also referred to the reduction of the rate, of interest on advances made by the War Service Homes Commission. When the legislation was first introduced at the conclusion of the war of 1914-18, the rate of interest was fixed at 5 per cent. Later it was reduced to 4$ per cent. Now, although costs of building materials and fixtures and fittings for bouse construction have necessitated an increase of £300 in the maximum amount that may be granted by way of loan, thus placing a still heavier burden on the shoulders of the purchaser, there has been some offset in overall costs by the reduction of the interest rates to 3f per cent. If the Government wishes to confer a benefit on ex-servicemen it should do so with as little cost to the beneficiaries as possible. We are all in accord on that point. In order to confer the greatest benefit on ex-servicemen under this legislation, the Government might very well reduce the rate df interest to a percentage which is only sufficient to cover the overhead costs of providing the requisite finance. At the present time, having regard to existing rates of interest that should be 2 per cent, or, at most, 2£ per cent. If. the rate of interest be reduced to 2 per cent., we shall shorten the period of time which it will take the purchaser to repay his loan. Senator Cooper said that, seeing that timber and other materials essential to the building of homes were used to an enormous degree during the war, and in view of the .fact that efforts to procure those .materials was organized so efficiently, we should organize supplies on the same scale now. But Senator Herbert Hays, evidently, disagrees with that view. His complaint is that man-power is so short that a man, or woman, can to-day leave his, or her, present job and obtain another job at double their present wages. I hope that this disagreement between those two honorable senators opposite does not presage another schism in the ranks of the Liberal party, because at the next general elections we on this side shall wish to have something to punch at; and it would be rather awkward for us if our punching ball was then, found to be split. Conditions which followed World War I. cannot be compared with those following the last war, because the magnitude of our war effort, the numbers of people employed, the proximity of the war to our shores, the materials and the labour utilized on this occasion were many times greater. In the last war we did not take more than an abstract interest in hostilities occurring from ] 0,000 to 12,000 miles from our shores. The recent war was brought right home to us. We had .to organize all our man-power in order to implement a 100 per cent, war effort. That involved the transfer of thousands of workers, both men and women,, who, normally, would be engaged in ordinary peace-time occupations, to munitions factories’ and other war industries. Therefore, there is no comparison between the numbers involved., or the materials used, in this country in World War I. and those involved in the last war. The very fact, that during the last war timber stocks were impounded and our forests denuded is responsible for the presentshortage of the essential requisites for the building of homes. Stocks which were generally held ‘ in reserve disappeared completely during the war; and we now have no reserves to fall back upon.

Senator Gibson:

– Reserves of coal, for instance.

Senator LARGE:

– I have already dilated upon that problem, and informed the honorable senator that I should be happy to give him a lesson in breadandbutter economics. I. ha ve told him what I believe to be the ultimate solution of the coal problem which is not peculiar to Australia, but exists in all coalproducing countries. However, Australia has emerged from its difficulties in this respect much better than have the people of Great Britain and the United States of America. Later, when I shall deal with a similar phase of another problem, I hope to satisfy Senator Gibson. Senator Cooper referred to the shortage of such articles as nails, and endeavoured to drive home the point that a strike at Lysaghts Newcastle Works Proprietary Limited was responsible for the present shortage of nails, screws and articles of that class. When the honorable senator was speaking I interjected that those articles had been in. short supply for many years, but he said that the shortage bad been aggravated by a strike at the works of ‘Lysaghts Newcastle Works Proprietary Limited. I remind him that that strike lasted only five weeks, and that it happened some considerable time ago. The honorable senator should realize that it is useless to attempt to attribute responsibility for the present shortage of building materials to industrial disputes.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– They would be responsible to some degree.

Senator LARGE:

– Let us say thatindustrial turmoil is, in- a way, a contributing factor to the present shortage; but it is incorrect to assume that the only defaulters in any industrial dispute are necessarily the workers. Not only the workers, housewives and soldiers but also employers are suffering from war neurosis, just as is everybody else. As the result of living for years under war conditions, tempers are frayed and discord occurs more easily than is normally the ease. But it is useless for honorable senators opposite to point the finger of accusation at the workers and say that strikes are responsible for the present shortage of building materials. The manpower involved directly in the last war was extraordinary. Over 1,000,000 persons in this country were engaged either on active service or in the manufacture of munitions and war materials. Those people must be transferred from a wartime to a peace-time economy, and the Government has done an extraordinarily good job in that respect. I understand that of over 600,000 service personnel, 430.000 had been repatriated by the end of last month, and that our results in this direction are relatively higher than those achieved’ in either Great Britain or the United States of America. The Government is doing as good a job as possible, because in spite of the large number. who have been demobilized very- few people are unemployed. The shortage of labour is partly responsible for the shortage of building materials; but there is another important factor. Many of the delays which have occurred in the building of war service homes were occasioned by the fact that the Commonwealth, before it could take definite action, had to confer with the State Premiers in order to obtain their approval. With that object in view the Commonwealth called a conference over twenty months ago. That conference agreed upon certain fundamentals, and the Premiers undertook to recommend the decisions of the conference to their respective legislatures. I know that the Government of New South Wales sat on those recommendations for about fifteen months. Such delays would have been obviated if ‘the proposals submitted by the Commonwealth at the’ last referendum, which honorable senators opposite opposed so strenuously, had been carried. If the Commonwealth had possessed power to build such homes and to implement its policy on a wholesale scale, we should have made much more rapid progress than has been the case..

Senator Herbert Hays:

– How could progress be made in view of the shortage > of labour?

Senator LARGE:

– Pull preparations could have been undertaken. A few weeks ago I visited Tasmania, where I saw timber which, with proper organization, could have been transported to the mainland and made available for the building of homes. But such work can only be undertaken efficiently by one central organization. It is useless to leave such arrangements for materials used in building, to people with different ideas and ideals, and, in’ some, cases, different governments. . In such circumstances, we must expect confusion to result. Had the Commonwealth possessed power to implement its comprehensive war service homes scheme we should be much further advanced than we are to-day.

Senator Gibson:

– Why does the honorable senator say that the Commonwealth has not power to build war service homes ?

Senator LARGE:

– The Commonwealth has not power to acquire the land required for sites, or to act as a trader in the full sense of the word. That is why the measures relating to an alteration of the Constitution, which are now before the Senate are necessary. Several speakers have urged the adoption of substitutes for materials used in the building of homes in the past. We have been told about aluminium, steel and concrete houses, and other substitutes for bricks and timber. I believe that not sufficient interest has been taken in the utilization of plastics for the building of homes. Plastics have the greatest future of any of the materials evolved during the war. By using plastics in the construction of homes we shall solve the greater part of our housing problem. Sixteen months ago I sa.w a plastic sheet, which had been rolled in the United States, of America the measurements of which were 38 feet by 10 feet. That . is equal to half the side of the ordinary house. In that sheet, provision was made for the cutting of apertures for windows and doors. In the construction of plastic homes, “ H “ iron is ideal for the provision of uprights, studs, and roofing supports. For the last five or six months, 1 have been urging the Government to encourage the manufacture o’f plastics for the building of homes. The Government is interested in that proposition, but just how long it will take ro obtain the necessary machinery I cannot say. However, I believe that plastics will take the place of steel and other building materials.

Senator Gibson:

– What is the basis of plastics ?

Senator LARGE:

– It is composed of a powder which is compressed under steam and heat. It is non-conductive of either heat or cold, and this quality makes it eminently suitable for the construction of homes. It can be treated with alumina. It can be used in the manufacture of door handles, catches and fasteners, and the hundred and one other small articles essential in a home. Many of these articles could be made luminous. In to-day’s newspapers I read of luminous carpets. Three years ago I was able to bring to the notice of the Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin) a luminous tumbler made from a small quantity of this plastic, and theMinister was quite interested. Unfortunately he did not see sufficiently far ahead, and imported only 10 tons of the plastic instead of .100,000 tons. Had large stocks been available when “ black-outs “ and “ brown-outs “ were imposed in this country, it would have been possible to have luminous signs at street corners, luminous numbers on gates, and even luminous key holes for those people who have difficulty in knowing just, where to put the key at night. For interior fittings of buildings we could have had luminous doors leading to offices, luminous telephones, pen and ink stands, and many other articles of office equipment, making it’ almost as easy to work at night without the aid of illuminants as it is in the daytime. I am a strong believer in the more extensive use of plastics in home construction. To-day certain plastic materials are replacing steel. For instance, the use of plastic lining instead of steel in refrigerators increases their efficiency^ because the plastic, being a perfect insulator, does not have to be cooled. The plastics have thousands of uses, and I am confident that there is a distinct possibility of war service homes being built for less than £1,250 by the use of modern materials. However, I am not so optimistic as is Senator Hays, who believes that prices will return to their former levels. Any student of history knows that the value of money has depreciated after every war, which means, of course, that prices have increased. That is inevitable. For instance, whereas before the Crimean War 4s. or 5s. a’ week was considered an adequate wage for a farm labourer, in the post-war years wages increased to a £1 a week. After every war there has been a skyrocketing of prices. This Government, due largely to the work of a most capable Treasurer, has been able to prevent that skyrocketing to a large degree. In fact, inflation has been checked in Australia much more successfully than in other countries engaged in the war. Rigid controls have been exercised, nevertheless it has been found necessary to increase the maximum advance of war service homes from £950 to £1,250. Whilst I agree that it might be advisable for the Government to underwrite a certain portion of the liability of purchasers of war service homes, that is a matter that I should like to examine more closely before expressing a definite opinion. The fact that the suggestion has emanated from Senator Herbert Hays does not necessarily mean that it is without fault. It is possible that there may be some weakness that the honorable senator has not noticed. It may be that a review of housing, costs will have to be made at some future date, but I believe that a more- valuable service’ would be rendered to purchasers of war service homes if interest rates were reduced. If we are to confer benefits upon ex-servicemen, let them be real benefits. We should not aim to make a profit out of what we give, to them as a mark of our appreciation of their services to their country. I consider that building loans, and loans for other purposes to ex-service personnel, should be made at an interest rate which will just cover overhead charges. That would be of much more benefit to returned soldiers than .the underwriting by -the Commonwealth Government of a proportion of their indebtedness upon the homes they purchase.

Senator Collett:

– War service homes occupiers’ have always had the advantage of low interest charges.

Senator LARGE:

– Then let us make them lower. The rate is now 3$ per cent. ; let us make it 2 per cent, if that is economically .possible. We should not worry about the .money. The provision of war service homes should not be a revenue-earning undertaking, and the Government should ‘ endeavour to meet only its overhead, charges. I commend the’ bill.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– I congratulate Senator Collett upon his valuable contribution to this debate. One of the outstanding features of the efforts of this country to safeguard the welfare of ex-servicemen of the war of 1914-18 was the inauguration of our war service homes scheme, and it is gratifying to know that a substantial percentage of the original applicants for those homes are now in full possession of them. Through the years, the War Service Homes Commission has been subjected to considerable criticism. At one period, not long after the commission had got properly into its stride, criticism was most severe. I joined in that criticism, but like many others who voiced the same opinions, I was younger and did not really appreciate the value of the services that were being rendered to returned soldiers. The results of the commission’s activities speak volumes for its administration, and I can only wish the commission similar success in its handling of the much larger scheme that has now been inaugurated.

Under the original war service homes scheme, purchasers had to face a debt on their homes not of £950 as has been claimed so often in the course of this debate, but of £700. That was the original maximum advance for the construction of a war service home. To-day, returned soldiers are undertaking to pay £500 more than that figure and repayment will take 40 years. I have no doubt that reviews will have to be made of the working of the scheme from, time to time, and consideration given not only to a reduction of capital indebtedness, but also to a reduction of interest charges. That will be inevitable in the face of pressure by active ex-servicemen’s organizations, profiting by the experience of the war service homes scheme after the war of 1914-18. If by passing this measure it would be possible to build houses more rapidly, I would suggest that the debate be curtailed ; but unfortunately that will not be the position, and I fear that all this hurry and scurry to obtain bouses immediately under any conditions, may cloud the judgment of applicants for war ser/ice homes. The passage of this measure will not improve the prospects of ex-servicemen obtaining building allotments. In Western Australia, as in other States, one sees returned soldiers scouting around the suburbs of cities and towns endeavouring to -purchase blocks -of land suitable for the erection of war service homes. Few are successful, because land owners will not sell their holdings at the present low-pegged values. In Western Australia, to overcome this almost insuperable barrier the State housing authority has had to resort to acquiring land at its own valuation, which in most cases is so low that owners of other vacant allotments are becoming very much concerned about the fate of their property. In some cases, blocks of land which were purchased as far back as 1929, and on which rates have been paid up to the present day, are being acquired by the State housing authority at less than .half the original purchase price. That will not encourage the release of building allotments for the erection of war service homes. The Government will soon have to review the regulations which prevent the sale of land at prices above those ruling in 1942, otherwise there will be a great scarcity of home sites for exservicemen.. It will not be necessary to relax price control to a dangerous degree, but some improvement of the position will have to be made by allowing the resale values -to go a little higher than at present. No matter how willing they may be to speed up the construction of these homes, the people of Western Australia are faced with the serious problem presented by the scarcity of building materials. Paradoxically, in some parts of the State there is an excess of bricks, but materials such as cement, timber and plumbing requisites’ are in very short supply. The majority of the plumbing materials are obtained from New South Wales, and the’ shortage results from industrial unrest in that State. When condoning industrial disputes, honorable senators opposite should remember that people in distant Western Australia suffer from the effects of stoppages in the Newcastle and Port Kembla areas. Industrial disputes on the coal-fields of Western Australia have been responsible in the main for the shortage of builders’ cement. Had greater stocks of local coal come to hand, the production of cement would have been increased by nearly 50 per cent. A plentiful supply of that material is of great value in overtaking the lag in the construction of homes.

I emphasize the need for encouraging applications for advances for the purpose of building homes in country areas. The requests, in the main, -came from homeseekers in the metropolitan area, but I should like to see a larger measure of service given to applicants in country districts and on the gold-fields: Homes should be made available in’ the country as soon as possible, because the scarcity there is an added inducement for people to leave the rural areas and flock to the cities. The increase of the maximum advance from £950 to £1,250. reflects the increase, mostly during the war years, of building costs. It is no use to vilify one section of the community for trying to make as much profit as possible out of another section, without having regard to the situation generally. Human nature is such that there is a tendency among people to seek a profit, and that characteristic is not confined to employers. One of the causes of the high costs of building is increased taxes If Government supporters lay blame for the present costs on individual employers, whether they manufacture bricks, electrical fittings, or plumbing accessories, they should also put some of the blame on the Treasury. The imposition of sales tax and other excessive imposts has resulted in increases of the cost of building. Last year, facts and figures were presented to show the hardship which those costs inflicted on the working man. It was rather interesting to learn that through indirect taxes the average wage earner was contributing to the Treasury out of Iris own pocket at least 10s. a week. Those figures emanated, not from a Liberal party secretariat, but from the research officer of the Ironworkers Union of New South Wales, so there is no reason to doubt their authenticity.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator accepts the statements of Communists when it suits him to do so.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:

– I understand that some of the officials of that union are Communists, who are reluctant to produce the balance-sheets of their organization. The fact remains that the information was obtained, not from, a Libera] party source, but from a section of the Government’s supporters. Despite that excessive cost to the working man, we had another illuminating set of figures which indicated that, even after an applicant for a home had expended less than £100 in the furnishing of hi.i sitting room, no less than £10 5s. 9d. of that sum was the indirect charge which the sales tax imposed. Those are alarming figures, particularly to young men coming back from active service. I fear that there will be many failures because of the large sums which a man on a small income will have to pay out. The average age of applicants for homes will be about 25 years, and as the term of repayment is 40 years, a man will be eligible for an old-age pension by the time- he has completed the purchase of his home. That is not a very attractive future for these young men who have served their country so well, and therefore the amendment of Senator Herbert Hays that a grant towards the capital cost of his war service home should be made to each ex-serviceman has much to commend it. I do not know how effect would be given to his amendment, but there is a definite case for its favorable consideration by the Government so as to remove some of the penalty which exservicemen have incurred through their (voluntary enlistment for service overseas. I shall support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will see its way to remove this definite disability to ex-servicemen - -a disability which I am sure the people of Australia never meant that they should suffer.

Sitting suspended from B.5S to 8 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– Whilst this bill provides a necessary and desirable extension of tho benefits of the . War Service Homes Act, it does not represent, by any process of reasoning, all that the Government would like to do in that .connexion. We realize that a good deal more could and should be done on behalf of ex-servicemen who served their country so bravely and usefully during the war period, but unless additional powers are given to the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Government to do more than is proposed in this measure. The policy of the Government has. been and will continue to be directed to the provision of benefits for ex-servicemen to the full limit allowed by the Constitution. However, the very wording of the Constitution itself raises doubts as to what its framers had in mind, and unfortunately where a doubt exists and the matter is challenged, the High Court is the supreme arbiter. That is not as it should be. The. wishes of the people, as expressed through the medium of their elected representatives in this Parliament, should be supreme. As long as the High Court remains an ultra legislative body, no Government, no matter how wellintentioned, can fully implement its policy. The members of the High Court are men who have received what is known as a legal training, but that training does not necessarily ensure’ that their judgments are always correct. All it means i? that it fits them to do their best to interpret the law in the best interests of the nation according to how they believe it should be interpreted. There is dialectically a process known’ as subjective and objective reasoning. Subjective reasoning is very often indulged in. however, when objective reasoning would meet the case and vice versa.

As the result of doubtful reasoning, decisions of the High Court are not always in accordance with the will of the people. Our language itself has many limitations. A spoken or written word has different meanings; first it has the accepted dictionary meaning, and secondly, it has the intended meaning according to the speaker or’ writer, or the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be. So in an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty as to the precise meaning of a -word we are not always sure of receiving decisions from the High Court that are strictly in accordance with the wishes or interests of the people. Is it surprising, then, that many close or critical reasoners doubt the wisdom of the existence of such an institution? The Government could do a great deal more in connexion with housing as with many other things if ‘it had supreme powers. For instance, if the Government had full power to provide housing for exservicemen it could eliminate the element of profit which constitutes such an obstacle in the way of providing adequate housing at a reasonable cost for not only exservice men and women, but also the community generally, and the cost of construction would rapidly fall to the irreducible minimum. It has been said by honorable senators opposite that costs are prohibitive. As I have said on many occasions, apparently without creating any lasting impression on the minds of honorable senators opposite, costs may be divided into three categories, costs in terms of labour time, costs in terms of gold, and costs in terms of depreciated currency which is part and parcel of the policy of our political opponents. The cost of housing for ex-servicemen in terms of labour time was never lower than it is to-day. Senator Large has told us about the possibilities of using plastics as a building medium, claiming that plastic houses could be built at very much lower cost than those constructed of brick, concrete, or wood. To-day, houses can be built much more rapidly than at any other time in history, and it is only while construction is proceeding that the real cost is incurred, that is, the cost of thu maintenance of the workers engaged in their construction. When honorable senators opposite speak of costs, however, they have in mind what I regard as entirely fictitious, artificial, and exaggerated charges. In the course of his speech Senator Collett claimed that the shortage of materials and their early supply was prejudiced by industrial disputes. That may appear to be so to a superficial reasoner, but to one who would establish a relationship between cause and effect the greatest factor prejudicing . the supply of materials is incompetent, ,or deliberately provocative management of industry by people who do not know their business. Those who really understand the economics of the task entrusted to them as well as the psychology of the workers with whom they are closely and constructively associated have no industrial troubles. Our Commonwealth Public Service is a striking example of that. If workers in the building trade who- are expected to provide housing for ex-servicemen and women were given the same consideration as members of the Public Service, there would be no industrial disputes in the building trade. Senator Sampson deprecated what he described as the nonsense talked by honorable senators on this side of the chamber who claimed that previous governments were responsible for shocking neglect of the bousing problem. My reply to that is that the shortage of housing to-day is due either to the ignorance or acquisitiveness of previous governments which have made it possible right through the years for the capital cost of a house to be collected over and over again. If a policy had been laid down that once the capital cost of a house, plus interest on the capital investment, had been covered through the medium of rent, the rent should be reduced to an amount sufficient only to cover maintenance, much new capital would have been driven into new avenues, and many additional houses would have been built. Therefore, I join issue with Senator Sampson, and say that the shortage of housing is due to the shocking neglect, or ignorance, of previous governments. What would be said if the workers who are employed in the building of houses demanded, and were able to recover, their weekly wages a dozen times over? It would be said that they were claiming money under false pretences. But whereas they receive their wages once only, those who invest capital in houses recover that capital over and over again; and so long as it is profitable to invest in old houses, and keep houses in short supply, that policy will be maintained. Stress has been laid upon the present high cost of building materials. Senator Allan MacDonald said that it is only human nature to follow the line of least resistance for the purpose of accumulating wealth. It- is not human nature, but the colossal ignorance of human beings that is responsible for this evil. Honorable members opposite should realize that the policy that they gave effect to under previous governments - and they are fighting desperately to continue it - was a doubleedged weapon, and is responsible for the present shortage of houses. I remind honorable senators opposite that, during the depression, there was no shortage pf man-power, of materials, or o.f anything that was essential to the provision of adequate housing. B.ut ignorance was displayed by gentlemen in high places in this Parliament. It might be said in reply to me that there were many empty douses during the depression. That is true; but that was due to a shortage of purchasing power in the community. That is the position which the workers in this and every other country must face. Wherever there is sufficient purchasing power to pay house rentals, or to enable workers to purchase their homes, houses are in short supply ; and wherever houses are to be found empty, purchasing power is in short supply. That is part and parcel of the colossal confidence trick known as high finance. Because that is not understood as it should be, we find that, despite the fact that in the years before the war there was a superabundance of materials and hundreds of thousands of workers were eager and able to purchase homes, there is, nevertheless, a shortage of . houses to-day. I commend that thought to Senator Herbert Hays who prefers to argue in the absolute,’ rather than review the position in terms of relativity. I emphasize for his benefit that we were able to supply adequate houses when we had the opportunity to do so; but that opportunity was not taken because it did not pay the landlords or their political representatives in Parliament to do so. ‘Senator Leckie said that the shortage of houses is due to “ go slow “ policies in industry. I admit that there is such a thing as a “ go slow “ policy, but it exists only as an example of the need for the workers to defend themselves. “When the workers to-day require anything which is in short supply we find that those in control of the distribution of such commodities refuse to supply them to the workers. In this respect, I mention the refusal of certain interests to supply meat to the Melbourne market unless consumers are prepared to accept the terms demanded by those interests. All of these matters - industrial disputes holding up supplies and “ go-slow “ policies - are the result of the policy of previous governments. All of these matters are interrelated. The present shortage of houses for ex-service personnel, to whom we promised that we would do .everything in their ‘behalf, is due to a policy which was given effect by previous governments. It is incumbent upon me to remind honorable senators opposite that the Government is not influenced in the slightest by their superficial reasoning and specious pleading, or when they impute ulterior motives to the Government. I simply point out the position with which we are faced when we are expected to honour our obligations to supply to ex-service personnel not only adequate homes but also the opportunity to earn a reasonable living under fair conditions. Senator Leckie said that very few, if any, might take advantage of the increased benefits to be provided under the measure. Up to a point, that is correct ; that is to say that if ex-servicemen are not provided with jobs, or the opportunity to earn a decent livelihood, they will not be in a position to take advantage of these benefits. But if they are provided with that opportunity, as I am certain they will be if this Government remains” long enough in office, there will be no difficulty in that respect. Senator Leckie said that purchasers of these homes would not be able to pay the added cost. I repeat that the added cost is fictitious. It is an inflated cost, and cannot be justified in reason. The only true cost is the cost of actually erecting the home, that is, the cost in terms of labour time and the cost of maintaining the workers wo engaged. The Government, if it is granted the necessary powers,, can supply without the slightest difficulty, and without inflicting any hardship upon posterity in the form of additional taxation, every man and woman in need of a home at the real cost of the home. We can do more than that; we can also provide them with an opportunity to pay that cost. Provided that the necessary man-power and materials are available, the houses will be provided. My only regret this evening is, first, that the measure does not go so far as I would like it to go, and, secondly, that the Government doe3 not possess the powers which it needs in this respect. If the people are wise in their day and generation and give to the Government the additional powers it requires, they will make the best possible investment in their own interests and in the interests of the nation.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I have listened with interest to the debate, particularly the remarks dealing with the proposal to increase the maximum loan to be made available to purchasers of war service homes from’ £950 to £1,250. Senator Leckie said that this increase was rendered necessary to enable purchasers to meet the increased cost of building, and that that was evidence of the chaotic state of affairs in industry as the result of Labour policy. The Cook Government, in 1918, passed the first War Service Bill. That Government determined that the amount of loan to be made available to purchasers of war service homes should not exceed £700. That act was promulgated on the 27th Decern-‘ ber, 1918. Under Statutory Rule No. 17 of 1927 that maximum was increased to £800; and under Statutory Rule No. 63 of 1934 it was again increased to £950. The governments in office at those periods were not Labour governments; but on the basis of Senator Leckie’s argument they were responsible for those increases of costs. However, the maximum loan of £1,250, provided under this measure, does not represent the minimum cost at which a home will be procurable, particularly if the War Service Homes Commission exercises in the future as strict supervision over the construction of homes as it has done, since by such means it stopped the jerry-building of homes in the period immediately following the war of 1914-18. Purchasers will thus be provided with homes which will outlast the life of the loan. I live in a war service home in Bankstown”. It was constructed of brick. Because of the large deposits of clay in that area, the commission’s officers supervised the laying of the foundations very closely. The building has stood for nearly seventeen years, and there is not one crack in it. When it was completed, the walls were found to be “ drummy “, and three times the contractor had to re-plaster them. That was the result of strict supervision. The charge for supervision is 3 per cent, of the total amount of the loan, and that is money well expended.

In 1926 the interest rate on war service homes was reduced from 5-J per cent, to 5 per cent.’ In 1931, by a further reduction of per cent, was effected, and in 1936 the rate was again reduced to 4 per cent. In 1945, a reduction of another i per cent, was made, bringing the rate to its present figure of 34 per cent. According to information supplied by the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lazzarini), the following are the interest charges made by various authorities which make housing loans -

In my opinion the rates charged by those authorities should be uniform, and I see no reason why the rate should be any more- than 2 per cent, or even less. Under present, conditions the purchaser of a war service home has to pay 3£ per cent, on £1,250. That means a. payment of £46 17s. a year in interest alone. Only 3:s. or 4,s. a week goes to the reduction of principal. If the interest charge were reduced a purchaser would obtain an equity in his home at an earlier date, and the period of repayment of the loan would be considerably reduced. . I urge the Government to consider a reduction of the interest rate.

A parliamentary committee or, if necessary a royal commission should be set up to investigate building costs. It is strange that the prices charged by builders for the construction of homes varies from £60 a square to £1S0 a square. What is the reason for this great variation? I have discussed this matter with master builders, but they have been unable to explain it satisfactorily. They inform me that the wage of carpenters has been increased by only £1 a week since 1930. As a carpenter is engaged on a home for only six or seven weeks, the additional wage bill for his work is only £6 or £7.

Senator McLeay:

– But he would not bc the only carpenter on a job.

Senator AMOUR:

– Generally speaking he would be. A carpenter can only proceed with his work as the other tradesman complete their jobs. I am referring of course to brick houses. In the case of wooden dwellings, a team of carpenters ip necessary. to put up the frame.

Senator McLeay:

– Is a carpenter engaged, on a home for the same period to-day as he was in 1939?

Senator AMOUR:

– Any delay that is experienced is due to the shortage of materials about which I shall have something to say later.

Senator McLeay:

– What about the “ go slow “ policy ?

Senator AMOUR:

– If a worker goes slow it is because his wages have been pegged. When our outmoded arbitration system is finally able to improve the conditions and wages of workers the position will be changed. To-day, tradesmen know that builders, brick manufacturers, timber merchants, and other suppliers, are ‘getting a substantial “ rake off “ from house building, whereas he is unable to earn more than he was earning when the war started. In the New South Wales Parliament recently, in reply to an honorable member who interjected regarding building costs and the shortage of materials, the State Minister for Housing, Mr. McGirr, said that people who had endeavoured to purchase building materials and fittings from retailers knew what a “ joke “ it was. When they saw building materials on display and asked the retailer the price of them, the stock answer was “ They are ear-marked for the Housing Commission “. The fact, is, of course, that the retailers are prepared to sell the materials to whoever is prepared to pay the highest price for them. The Housing Commission has no control over the materials at all, because Lt makes all its purchases from wholesalers.

Senator Cooper has advanced the bright idea that provision should be made for a review of the capital indebtedness of purchasers of war service homes in the light of building costs, say, five years or ten years from now. He suggested that a tribunal should hear individual cases, and that if housing values had slumped, portion of the debt should be written off. I fear, however, that the plan might work in the reverse direction, and that the indebtedness of purchasers of war service homes might be increased with increasing building costs. An exserviceman might find one day that instead of having only £.100 to pay off his loan he had £500. I cannot imagine Senator Cooper’s scheme working satisfactorily. I believe that statutory provision should be made to safeguard homes from devaluation. This measure provides that the maximum advance for war service homes shall be £1,250, and X see no reason why another provision could not be inserted stating that the value of war service homes shall not fall below a certain figure, thus safeguarding the equity of the purchaser in his dwelling.

Senator Allan MACDONALD:

– The honorable senator should support the amendment moved by Senator Herbert Hays.

Senator AMOUR:

– No. I do not believe that the honorable senator is sincere. During the depression, governments formed by the parties of which Senator Cooper and. Senator Herbert Hays are members held office in almost every Parliament in the Commonwealth. Not only did they permit the eviction of ex-servicemen from war service homes, but also they permitted the eviction of unfortunate members of the community from homes of every type. In New South “Wales, the Lang Labour Government introduced a moratorium providing that action could not be taken to foreclose on mortgages, or to repossess goods purchased under the time payment system. Did honorable senators opposite introduce a moratorium to protect occupants of war service homes ? No’; yet they have the effrontery to pose as the friends of ex-servicemen. I am ashamed when I recall that during the depression hundreds of “diggers” and their families lived, not in houses, but in hag and calico huts, some of them without a roof, and with only the earth for a floor.

Senator Herbert Hays believes that a subsidy should be paid to purchasers of war service homes. The time when purchasers of homes needed a subsidy was during the depression years, but did they get it? Of course not. They were informed that money could not be provided for that purpose. Had honorable senators opposite done’ something in those years to” alleviate the, distress of exservicemen and their families, one could understand their, attitude -to-day.

I have received from Adelaide a table of statistics relating to the construction of new’ homes. The document shows that the numbers of houses constructed from 1912 until ‘1932 in South Australia were as follows: -

It took up to 1924 to exceed the number of houses built in 1913.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– When, in 1932, the total dropped to 80, the shortage had been overtaken.

Senator AMOUR:

– The shortage was as great then as ever, but anti-Labour governments neglected to implement the moratorium. They took hundreds of people out of comfortable homes and forced them to live in the scrub in localities like that near La Perouse, known as “ Happy Valley “. If the honorable senator lives in seclusion in comfortable hotels, he will be unaware of the deplorable conditions under which married couples and their, families were forced to live during the depression years, but I have moved among them for the purpose of helping to give relief to them.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Did such things happen in South Australia?

Senator AMOUR:

– I am speaking of what took place in New South Wales, but some people in South Australia no doubt had a similar experience.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– If it had a Labour government.

Senator AMOUR:

– That State then had a Labour government led by Mr. Hill, who supported the “ Premiers’ Plan “:

Senator Mattner:

– He was in office when only 51 houses were built in one year and 80 in another.

Senator AMOUR:

– He supported a former Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, who said that the workers could take up a couple of extra holes in their belts and get used to unemployment.

Senator Mattner:

– When over 3,000 homes were being built annually, a Liberal government was in power.

Senator AMOUR:

– I do not agree with the honorable senator. »When men were walking the streets looking for work, the policy of the honorable senator’s party was to give them a bitter dole.

Steps will have to be taken to reduce the rate of interest charged for advances for war-service homes, and a royal commission should be appointed to examine building costs. In New South Wales an authority was set up which increased the royalty on logs from ls. to 6s. The Prices Commissioner refused to sanction the increase, and that caused a reduction of supplies required for building purposes. That matter should be investigated. An anti-Labour government in New South Wales “ fixed “ the Forestry Commissioner of that State, Mr. Swaine, so that he could not be sacked unless both branches of the legislature agreed to dispense with his services. I know that he .has done everything within his power politically to destroy Labour governments in that State, because he does not like them, and the sooner he is removed from office the better. If the interest charged for advances for the purpose of building war service homes were reduced to 2 per cent., the occupants would be greatly assisted. It should be the desire of this Parliament to enable ex-servicemen to occupy their own homes, and to complete the purchase of them during their lifetime.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

.- - A good deal has been said about the sins of omission and commission of those who have gone before us. I am bound to disagree with Senator Amour, who indulged in a tirade against governments in occupation of the treasury bench prior to the last few years. He blamed them for the present shortage of houses, and spoke of ex-servicemen having been evicted from their homes in 1930. The Prime Minister at that time was the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), and I have always had a high regard for him, yet Senator Amour tells us that this shabby treatment of ex-soldiers occurred during the height of the depression when a Labour Prime Minister was in office.

Senator Nash:

– But he did not have a majority in the Senate.

Senator JAMES McLachlan H<had a majority where he could have given assistance in the matter of house construction. We can probably learn lessons from our experience, but it is futile to talk continuously about what might have been done. We have heard that practically no houses were built during the war period, but I have before me a report from the master builders in Victoria which says that from 1930 to 1939’, no fewer than 98,063 houses were built in Melbourne alone, so I should say that past governments -can be excused of neglect in that matter. Proof that the houses required were being constructed is indicated by the fact that in 1928, when the Commonwealth Housing Act was passed and it was agreed to advance to the States no less than £20,000,000 for house building, the States drew out of that sum less than £2,000,000.

When discussing another measure, Senator Armstrong made a plea for cooperation between government supporters and members of the Opposition. If there is one purpose in the achievement of which- the Opposition will join wholeheartedly with the Government, it is the housing of the people, but, because of difficulties, many small matters which could easily be remedied, that work is being retarded. One of them is the con.trol which the Government exercises over the sale of land. In Adelaide, and in every other capital city of Australia, there are vacant blocks of land. When young ex-servicemen select a block and begin negotiations for its purchase, they find that the Government valuation is lower than the price demanded by the seller, and therefore no deal can be made. It is of no use to say that the buyers should go further afield, where cheaper land is obtainable. The average young ex-serviceman, who marries expects to reside in his own home for the next thirty or forty years, and he has to take into consideration the cost of train and tram fares for himself, his wife and his family. Much has been said about the lack of building materials. Some time ago the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lazzarini) declared that plenty of building materials were available, but we ha-ve failed to notice them. An honorable senator stated to-night that, if this Parliament had more power under the Constitution, more houses could be erected. The Government has all the powers that it requires, and an increased number of .houses could be built without adding to- those powers. Another honorable senator said that he had approached the Government with a view to. encouraging, the construction of plastic houses, but without success. I have a similar complaint to lodge. I have asked the Government on more than one occasion to sponsor the construction of concrete houses. There is a builder in Adelaide w.ho has made a name for himself by the building of homes of this material. Concrete houses a.re cheap and. durable, and they can be built with concrete roofs if desired. In, the Adelaide News of the 28th March last there is an article dealing with concrete homes from which I take the following extract: -

The inventor of these homes (Mr. S. B. Marchant) led an inspection party over 33-year-old houses at Enfield, Torrensville, and Fullarton, and offered a. £1.5 15s. suit to any one who could fmd u crack in any of the walls big enough for a threepenny piece to bo inserted. Not one crack was found, cwn in houses built on Bay of Biscay soil at Fullarton in 1013. Chief among the party was the area . planning officer for Western Australia and South ‘Austral in (Mr. R. W.

Nish), who will make a report to the Commonwealth Government. Mr. Nish said the Commonwealth would fully investigate any idea whatsoever to solve the housing shortage, and would welcome practical suggestions avoiding the use of timber as much as possible, as timber was in very short supply. Mr. Marchant explained that all his concrete houses were built in moulds, and all walls, chimneys, &C., were erected in 2S hours.

At Balaclava, in South Australia, there is a concrete house which Mr. Marchant built 35 years ago. Within three days from the day on which men began its construction it was occupied by a family. That house is in such good condition to-clay that I believe that Mr. Marchant would repeat his undertaking to pay £15 to any one who could’ find a crack into which a 3d. piece could be inserted.

For about three weeks I have had on the notice-paper a question relating to patents; but I have not yet received an answer to it. Under National Security Regulations, the Government has first claim to any patent brought to the Patents Offi.ce. Mr. Marchant has a secret formula for mixing concrete, but he will not pass it on to the Government. I do. not blame him for that. Until that regulation is repealed or relaxed he will not place his product on the market. Mr. Marchant says that if he were granted an assurance by the Commonwealth Government that it would not take any of his patents,, he could build twenty houses “every week.. He claims to have a secret formula for making unshrinkable, waterproof concrete, and would seek a world patent, if given that assurance. I do not pretend to be- an architect or a- builder, but I submit that Mr.- Marchant’ s claim is worthy of investigation, particularly as the houses he constructs require little timber, whilst, if concrete roofs are included, very little galvanized iron is needed.

Senator Mattner:

– How do the prices compare- with those of hou rs of n different form of construction ‘

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Mr. Marchant says that from £950 to £1,250 is ample.

Men are being demobilized in great numbers and are leaving many military camps practically unoccupied, yet other people, particularly in our cities, are living in shacks, disused sheds, stables, and single rooms. The Government seems to be “ passing the buck “ to the States, instead of accepting its share of the responsibilities for providing homes for the people. Recently, Mr. McGirr, the Minister for Housing in New South Wales, has shown what can be done towards easing the housing difficulties by the use of military .camps. I understand that the New South Wales Government has been granted permission to use some camp buildings, and that at very short notice Mr. McGirr has provided a number of families with accommodation in them. I understand that he has stated that if he weve provided with 50 workmen he could provide homes for 45 families a week if allowed to use the material now going to waste in military camps. During the war Ingleburn Camp, near Liverpool, New South Wales, housed more than 6,000 soldiers at a time. To-day, not more than about 200 men occupy that camp, which is sewered and has water and electric light connected. Is there any reason why that camp should not be utilized to provide homes for people who need them? There is no necessity to make permanent homes there, but it would be an advantage if temporary use could be made of the buildings.

Senator Cameron:

– Would the honorable senator make permanent homes of such buildings?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.No; although some of them would be quite suitable as permanent dwellings. My purpose is to relieve the present pressure; later, when more houses are available, people could be transferred to them. At Bradfield Park, near to Sydney, there are ‘400 huts which at present are unoccupied. The conditions which I have mentioned are not confined to New South Wales; in Victoria, also, there are camps which are not by any means fully occupied. For instance, the Puckapunyal camp, near Seymour, is equal in size to the camp at Ingleburn, New South Wales. I admit that Puckapunyal is some distance from Melbourne, but many homeess people would be glad to obtain shelter in that camp. In Queensland, also, camp accommodation is available. The Sandgate camp could readily be converted to house a number of families, whilst the camp at Redbank has many conveniences which would-be of benefit to the public to-day. Redbank was a hospital camp during the war. The Royal Australian Air Force establishment at Kingaroy could accommodate about 250 families. The unoccupied camps in Queensland could accommodate a total of at least 1,000 families. About 7 -miles from. Adelaide is situated the Springbank camp,- which is served by trams, buses and a railway. At present it is a Royal Australian Air Force demobilization centre, where troops awaiting discharge are accommodated. Only about- 200 troops are supposed to be housed at Springbank, but, as the majority of the men live out, only infrequently would there be that number in the camp. That camp consists of 110 small pre-fabricated huts, twelve big standard army huts, as well as administrative . and recreation buildings. If converted into small houses, the huts could provide accommodation for many families. It is well served .with conveniences. Some accommodation of this type could also be provided in Tasmania. The Brighton camp is situated 15 miles from Hobart and is supplied with water, electric light and sewerage. The camp is close to Brighton’, which is a well-developed town with a good shopping centre. The camp is at present used only for demobilization purposes. Dr. C. N. Atkins, who is a member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, has repeatedly asked the Premier of Tasmania to hand the camp over for civil use. He is a health officer, and knows the conditions in the camp and its suitability for housing the people. I urge the Government to utilize these camps for the accommodation of people who now are living in cellars, sheds, stables, single rooms, and whatever accommodation they can get.

Senator Lamp:

– It is a pity that previous governments which the honorable senator supported did not do more to provide homes for the people.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I am concerned with the present and the future rather than with the past. The sooner that something is done to provide homes’ for the people the better it will be for all concerned. I do not care who gets the credit, so long as the job is done.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I propose to deal with the amendment moved by Senator Herbert Hays. I hope that the honorable senator noted the remarks of Senator Brand who seconded his amendment, because Senator Brand rightly said that the amendment merely proposed to pay a special gratuity to those ex-servicemen who obtained loans under theWar Service Homes Act.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Under this bill only war service homes may be discussed. I kept within the scope of the bill.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The amendment proposes to establish a special class among returned servicemen, but the Government will not be a party to any such discrimination. ‘ Moreover, the amendment would not assist returned men who wish’ to obtain loans through building societies or banks, as they are entitled to do.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The Govern ment could extend the concession to men who obtained loans for homes through those organizations.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The speech of Senator Brand must have caused Senator Herbert Hays some disquiet. Let us consider what would happen if the amendment became law. The block of land on which a war service home is built may be worth £150. If £1,250 were advanced for the erection of a home on that land the total value of the house and land would be £1,400. A grant of 20 per cent, would represent £280. If, however, the land was worth £500 a grant of 20 per cent, would represent £350. I regret that the Government is unable to accept the amendment.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The arguments used by the Minister in support of his refusal to consider the amendment are the most ridiculous I have ever heard in this chamber. It was not the purpose of the amendment to provide that an applicant couldobtain more than £300 and no Jesuitical reasoning can get away from that. Senator Amour declared that we should protect the exserviceman by maintaining the value of his house at its present high level. Does the honorable senator claim that we can cure all of the ills of our economic life by maintaining existing high price levels? Surely our objective should be to supply all the needs of the people as cheaply as we can, particularly houses. If this is the sort of logic which honorable senators’ opposite apply to their consideration of important principles submitted for their consideration, is it any wonder the Government has so fallen down on its job? The Minister in charge of the bill attacked Senator Herbert Hays for daring to propose an amendment which is designed to prevent the placing of a heavy burden on the shoulders of those ex-servicemen who will participate in the benefits of the war service homes legislation. In his attack, which was as puerile as it was spurious, he claimed that Senator Herbert Hays had sought to discriminate between different categories of returned soldiers.

Senator Collings:

– Senator Brand agreed with that, view.

Senator LECKIE:

– Not at all. Both Senators HerbertHays and Brand are in agreement that if an ex-serviceman wishes to build or acquire a house under the terms of the war service homes legislation he should not have to pay more than £950 for it in addition to what he pays for the land. . In rejecting the amendment the Minister, in effect, says to the ex-serviceman, “ We shall not give you any relief. See how we have looked after you all these years. In the future, we will continue to look after your interests by charging you £300 more for your house than you should pay for it.”

Senator Collings:

– Who said that?

Senator LECKIE:

– The bill in effect provides that by increasing the maximum amount of loan from £950 to £1,260 to cover added costs brought about as the result of the war. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that exservice men and women will be able to purchase homes at a price within the range of the average salary or wage earned by them. The Minister’s peremptory rejection of the amendment shows that the Government is entirely out of sympathy with the needs of those who risked their lives in the defence of their country. The Minister has classified the amendment as discriminatory. Against whom would it discriminate? The only persons affected by it are those who desire to build or acquire a home under the terms of the war service homes legislation. Those who wish to settle on the Landor to be trained in a profession or trade cannot be affected by it-; they are covered by the Re-establishment and Employment Act. The grounds Upon which the Minister has based his objection to the amendment are without foundation. Surely it is better to makea grant to the purchaser orbuilder of a war service home now than it is to give him a mythical promise that if, at some future date property values fall, theGovernment will see what can be done to assist him.Iagree with SenatorCollett that the housing schemes implemented by the governments whichheld officeafter the termination of the war of1914-18 were a gigantic success.

Senator Collings:

– At that time the limit of the advance was£700.

Senator LECKIE:

– The fact that it has been necessary to increase the maximum amount of the loan to £1,250 does no credit to this Government. I am aware that part of the additional cost of house construction has been brought about by a state of affairs beyond the power of the Government to control ; but it cannot entirely escape responsibility for soaring costs. Notwithstanding the Minister’s cries to high heaven about his interest in the future of ex-servicemen, by his peremptory refusal to acceptthe amendment he has shown that he is completely oblivious of their plight.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

. - I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to supply for the information of the Senate particulars of the amounts placed on the Estimates for the financial years ended the 30thJune, 1945, and the30th June, 1946, for theoperations of the War Service Homes Commission, and to state how many applications for advances were received in those two years, and how many were approved. There is a general feeling that the Government hasnot planned ahead as well as it might have clone in order to meet the most pressing problem of assisting ex-servicemen to secure homes.

Senator Collings:

– The Government has often been accused of too much planning.

Senator McLEAY:

– Whatever plans the Government may have had, there has certainly been no action. Many exservicemen whowere discharged in 1944 are incensed by the fact that their applications for advances for the purchase of homes have been deferred on the ground that insufficient money had been placed onthe Estimatesfor that purpose. They weretold that nothingcould be done and that they would have to wait until the Estimates for the following financial yearhad been passed. The Minister has treated the amendment moved by Senator Herbert Hays in a very cavalier fashion. The Government has recognized the heavy burdens placed on those engaged in primary and secondary industries by the high costofmachinery and plant by making provision in the income taxlegislation for a special depreciation allowance of20 per cent, for such machineryand plant. The amendment is an extension of the principle of thatconcession to returned members of thefighting forces. The Minister suggests thatifthe amendment were accepted those who purchased their litanies through the commission would be given a special benefit not available to other returned servicemen. I remind the Minister that every ex-service man and woman qualified to do so has the right to make an application to the commission for an advance for this purpose.

SenatorCollings. - Or to any other home-building authority.

Senator McLEAY:

– That is so. Exservicemen can get equally good conditions from the savings banks and from other home-building agencies as they can from the War Service Homes Commission. I trust that the Minister will reconsider his attitude towards the amendment.

Question put -

That the Wordsproposedto be left out (Senator Herbert Hays’s amendment) be left out.

TheSenate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

Ayes . . . . . . 10

Noes . . . . 17

Majority . . . .7

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator COLLINGS:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Queensland · ALP

– in reply - I ‘thank honorable senators for the excellent reception which they have given to the measure. The few honorable senators opposite who expressed opposition to it did so in such a half-hearted and gentlemanly fashion that I am indebted to them also. I do not propose to traverse all of the arguments advanced in opposition to the measure. One thing which should be said is that no country in the world has treated its ex-service personnel better than Australia has done; and 1 say that regardless of whatever government may have been in. power at the time such legislation was passed. ( During the debate quite a good deal of misunderstanding was revealed as to what the bill really proposes to do. The bill is not a generalization. It proposes to amend the War Service Homes Act in certain particulars-, and the only two provisions of consequence in the measure are : First, the bill proposes to widen the definition of persons eligible to obtain a loan by including merchant seamen ; and, secondly, the bill increases the maximum (oan to purchasers of a war service home from £950 to £1,250. Those are -the two important provisions in the bill, the remaining two clauses being machinery provisions.

Senator James McLachlan suggested that the Government should buy up disused army huts, and make them available as homes for returned soldiers.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I did not say to make them available as homesfor returned servicemen.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator said that those huts could be converted into homes; and the measure deals specifically with homes for ex-service personnel, and no one else. I assure the honorable senator that the Government has a higher ideal in respect of its obligations to ex-service personnel who are needing homes for themselves and their families than to ask them to return to camps of the kind from which they have only so recently emerged. Honorable senators opposite said that the increase of the maximum loan to purchasers from £950 to £1,250 had been rendered necessary because of the increase of building costs. That is only partially correct, because the fact is that this country, due to the existence of a Labour Government, has been able to keep down the cost of commodities to a more successful degree than any other of the United Nations. Senator Allan MacDonald said that’ there were many difficulties in the road, that prices had increased, that the sales tax had been increased, and that these extra charges had caused an increase of the cost of erecting houses. The honorable senator was only stating something which any school boy knows to be a fact. The Government certainly passed legislation to increase the income tax and the sales tax; and that increased cost was a mighty cheap premium of insurance against the invasion of this country by the Japanese. However, when it comes to tickling the ears of the groundlings, honorable senators opposite refer to increased costs. Those increased costs are the price which we had to pay in order to .keep our hides whole.

I now supply the following information which was asked for by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) with respect to the amounts provided on the Estimates for the War Service Homes Commission for last financial year and the current financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Total cost of dwelling house).

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I should like to know whether this provision will he made retrospective in order to give to applicants who lodged their application since the outbreak of the war the benefit of the increase of the maximum from £950 to £1,250. This provision should be made retrospective to the date of the commencement of the war, namely, 3rd September, 1939; but, perhaps, the Minister in charge of the bill may be able to suggest a more suitable date. However, this provision should be maderetrospective in fairness to all ex-service personnel of the war just ended.

Senator Collings:

– This provision may be made retrospective in order to give to applicants for the previous maximum of £950 the benefit of the increase to £1,250.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– The . Vice President of the Executive Council (Senator Collings) said that in the Estimates for 1945-46, £817,000 was provided for war service homes for the current financial year. That sum will be sufficient to erect only 800 homes, whereas over 10,000 applications for homes have been received since the 1st July last. Is that how the Government proposes to help ex-service personnel to obtain homes ?

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I deprecate the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay). The honorable senator knows quite well that applications have been coming in in thousands because the war is over and service’ men and women are being demobilized. Obviously, it is not possible to deal with a flood of applications without some delay, because each application has to be considered on its merits, and approved or rejected in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeaderof the Opposition

– Surely the Government could make a further appropriation for the erection of war service homes. If the amount of money appropriated to date is sufficient only for800 houses, that must mean that permits can be granted for the erection of only 800 houses. What is the use of dealing with further applications if more money is not available?

Senator COLLINGS:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Queensland · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) can rest assured that when the Government decides upon a definite policy with regard to the provision of homes for ex-servicemen, or for any other member of the community, it is prepared to ensure that sufficient money will be made available for that purpose. The delay to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred is due to the fact that since the war ended10,000 applications for war service homes have been received from returned servicemen. As I said before, each application has to be considered on its merits, and dealt with in accordance with the law. In regard to the provision of money for the construction of war service homes,I remind the Leader of the Opposition that portion of the current Commonwealth loan is definitely ear-marked for this purpose.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Is it a fact that because sufficient money was not appropriated during the financial year ending the 30th June, 1945, many discharged servicemen have been unable to have their applications for war service homes approved?

Senator Collings:

– No.

Senator McLEAY:

– I have handled several cases personally, and that is the reason given to me.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Advances to acquire land, &c).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- T should like to hear from the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Senator Collings) an explanation of the words “ leasehold in perpetuity “. In the Australian Capital Territory, for instance, land is held on a 99 years lease. Can that be described as leasehold in perpetuity?

Senator Large:

– Hardly.

Senator LECKIE:

– I should not think that ex-servicemen residing in the Australian Capital Territory, and who are holders of Crown leases, should be prevented from obtaining advances for war service homes because they are not holders of leases in perpetuity.

Senator COLLINGS (QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council [9.50]. - I am sure that the words “in perpetuity “ are quite well understood by honorable senators. It is generally understood that leasehold for 99 years is leasehold in perpetuity. All land in the Australian Capital Territory is leasehold land. The object of this clause is to allow advances to be made to applicants who have been granted Crown leases in perpetuity from a State. No special provision is required in respect of the Australian Capital Territory, because, as I have pointed out, all such land is held on a 99 years lease. The intention is to make this provision applicable to any State or Territory in which Crown leases are held.

Senator Leckie:

– But leasehold land may be held for twenty years, sixty years, or any longer period.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Under this clause lea.ses may be granted in perpetuity.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I. should like to know what tenure an ex-serviceman must have before he is eligible for an advance for a war service home. I know that the bill says “ in perpetuity “ but leasehold lands may be held for periods up to 100 years. What does “leasehold in perpetuity” mean? If it means indefinitely, that is all right, but what about the man whose lease is for a specified period, say, of 50 years? Will he be eligible for an advance?

Senator COLLINGS:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Queensland · ALP

– This clause means that the title to the land shall be leasehold in perpetuity,, as it is in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Leckie:

– But that is not so.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I regret very much that I am unable to reach Senator Leckie’s perception.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I take it that .as a lease in perpetuity is for 99 years, if 75 years of that period had elapsed, a lease would continue for only 24 years, and at the end of that time, the property and any improvements on it would revert to the Crown. Is that so?

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland VicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I am advised that it is the title to the leasehold land that will be in perpetuity, and- that if an existing lease has five years, ten years, or fifty years, to run this provision will convert it into a perpetual lease.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- That is the most outrageous statement that I have ever heard. To say that this bill will convert a lease of say five years into a. lease in perpetuity is ridiculous. This is the first time I have heard the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Collings) acknowledge his utter helplessness. He usually puts up some sort, of a case. I am not a lawyer, and unfortunately there is not >a lawyer present amongst Government supporters, but as a business man I have not heard of a more ridiculous proposition. If that is the only explanation that, the VicePresident of the Executive Council can offer, he would be well advised to emulate the example of his colleagues and say nothing.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 .to 9 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1276

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -

That Standing Order 68 be suspended for the remainder of the present week to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1276

JUDICIARY BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) lead a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales-

Minister for Supply and Shipping) [10.2].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to increase the number of justices of the High Court of Australia from six to seven. The number of seven was fixed prior to 1933. Originally the court consisted of three justices. That number was subsequently increased to five, and in 1912 there was a. further increase to seven. The number remained at seven for 21 years. In 1933 the number was reduced to six. There has been a substantial increase of the volume of the work of the court since 1933, both as regards the work of justices sitting alone and that of the Full Court. The restoration of the number from six to seven is justified by the volume of evidence placed before the court, which suggests thatits work will again be comparable with what it was during the period when seven justices were sitting.

When the Judiciary Bill of 1933 was introduced by Sir John Latham, now Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Littleton Groom, who had been Attorney-General, pointed out that the reduction of the number of judges from seven to six might create occasions when there would be an even division of opinion on the Bench. Sir Littleton Groom quoted a remark of Sir Samuel Griffith in a case where the court had been equally divided to the effect that a judgment of the court that was equally divided in opinion is not generally considered of great validity. If any constitutional question is involved and there is an equal division of opinion, the matter is determined according to the view of the Chief Justice or the senior justice. If, however, the matter is an appeal from the Supreme Court of a State or a justice of the High Court to the Full Court, an equal division results in the decision appealed from being affirmed.

There has been quite a number of important cases in which there has been an equality of opinion. In 1934 there was one such decision, in 1936 there were five, in 1937 two, in 1938 one, and in 1939 two. Where there is an equal division of justices the question may arise as to whether such decision is binding upon the court in a subsequent case. In the case State of Tasmania v. State of Victoria in 1935 - the Potato case - a point arose in relation to section 92 of the Constitution similar to that which was considered by the court in Ex Parte Nelson in 1928- the Tick case. In the Tick case the court was equally divided. In the Potato case the court had to consider the effect of the Tick case. Two of the justices stated expressly that it was not an authority binding on the court. It is desirable that there should be an odd number of justices of the High Court, and the proposed appointment of an additional justice will greatly facilitate the conduct of the business of the court.

Debate (on motion by Senator Leckie) adjourned.

page 1276

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to approve the sugar agreement made on the 17th December, 1945, between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Queensland. The present bill, which is in substantially the same terms as the Sugar Agreement Act covering the period 1941-46, is one of a series of agreements dating back to 1915 made between successive Commonwealth governments and the State of Queensland. Thirty years of experience have demonstrated the special suitability of a. sugar agreement as an effective means of protecting the industry and of giving adequate consideration to the reasonable needs of. growers, manufacturers, distributors and consumers. Commonwealth and Queensland Governments of every political complexion have, since 1915, been parties to renewals of the agreement. It has indeed become a non-party matter. The existing agreement is due to expire on the 31st August, 1946, and the Commonwealth Government has accepted the invitation of the Government of Queensland and decided to renew the agreement before its ex- piration. It is necessary that the agreement be approved as soon as possible, so that the industry will know the position in which it will be placed after August, 1946, and can plan accordingly.

The Australian sugar industry is to be congratulated on the good effort it made to supply its important product under the difficult circumstances prevailing during the recent war. As during World WarI., Australian consumers and manufacturers have been protected by the fixing of the home consumption price by the agreement. Regardless of the fantastic prices of sugar on the world’s markets, or whether Australian seasons were good or poor, Australian consumers for many years have had to pay only 4d. per lb., which, as the following statement shows, is the lowest retail price at present in any capital city in the world : -

Consumers and manufacturers have also been protected ‘under the sugar agreement, not only from the high prices prevailing in the world’s markets during the war, but also during peace-time. The present retail price of sugar has stood for fourteen years. In this respect it takes a unique place amongst important primary products. Exporters of manufactured products are protected by special conditions in the agreement, which enable them to obtain their sugar at the Australian equivalent of the world parity price, or £32 10s. 9d. per ton whichever is the lower.

Whilst accepting with gratification the stability and security which the agreement affords, the industry has expressed some fear as to the future. The limitation of prices to prevailing amounts was viewed with some misgivings, and assurances were sought that the Commonwealth would meet any further increases of production costs and reimburse the industry in the event of a fall of export prices. It must be pointed out that the industry has been able to carry on at the present domestic price, despite increased costs of certain of its requirements, principally because of the remarkable improvement in its efficiency. The acreage yield in terms of raw. sugar is now at least twice as great as it was in 1900, whilst the mills have also greatly increased their efficiency during the last 30 years. Further, the Tariff Board in 1944 conducted an intensive investigation of the economics of the industry in respect of the 1943 crop, which was produced in one of the worst seasons experienced, but found that the payment of a subsidy was not warranted. It may be claimed, with some justification, that efficiency has fallen somewhat because of war-time difficulties. This, however, is merely a temporary factor which will, I believe, be soon overcome. The Government, however, while taking the stand that there could be no ground for varying the existing terms of the agreement, recognized that future Australian cost levels were unpredictable, and accordingly gave an assurance to the Queensland Government that if, during the currency of the agreement, cost, levels in Australia increased substantially, it would be prepared, on representations from the Queensland Government, to give consideration to instituting an investigation of the sugar industry’s position in that respect. The claim by Queensland’ that the Commonwealth should guarantee the price of export, sugar could not be entertained. The. Commonwealth could not recognize as an obligation that it should subsidize sugar exports, and this is specifically provided under clauses 9 and 10 of the agreement. Clause 9 states -

The Queensland Government shall on behalf of the Australian cane-sugar industry accept responsibility for any loss arising from the exportation of surplus cane-sugar from Australia.

Clause 10 provides that the Queensland Government shall take the necessary action to control the production of raw sugar. Advice was received from the secretary of the Federation of Retail Grocers Associations that his executive had instructed him to state that, if any adjustment was to be made to the wholesale price of sugar, provision should also be made for an increased margin to the retailer. As the wholesale price remains unchanged in the new. agreement, the question of any alteration to the retailers’ margin does not arise. It must be pointed out that the sugar agreement is a document which relates mainly to peace-time conditions, and is based on the normal powers of the Commonwealth. The retail price of sugar is, therefore, not relevant to this bill. The Government has also received representations that the existing 2 per cent, wholesale discount be granted to what is termed genuine wholesalers only. The agreement provides that this 2 per cent, discount shall be allowable to any person, firm or corporation who or which in the opinion of the Queens- land Sugar Board - (i) provides reasonable credit facilities for retailers on a comprehensive range of groceries ; (ii) keeps reasonable stocks of such groceries for resale to retailers; and (iii) buys not less than £1,500 worth per calendar month of sugar and other sugar products. The Government recognizes that the wholesale trade is an essential and important factor in the distribution of sugar and other groceries, and both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments gave careful consideration to these representations when reviewing the agreement. Both Governments agreed, however, that it would be undesirable to revert to the chaotic conditions which applied before 1940, when under the agreement then existing an endeavour was made to restrict the trade in the manner now desired. It has been decided, therefore, that it would be in the best interests of all concerned to allow the conditions for wholesale discount to remain as prescribed in the 1941-46 agreement. The agreement continues to provide for the prohibition of imports of sugar into Australia, except as to types of sugar which may be required for special manufacturing purposes and for scientific research. In consideration of this extended prohibition of imports, the Queensland Government accepts numerous obligations, the chief of which are -

  1. To accept full responsibility for any loss arising from the export of surplus cane sugar from. Australia.
  2. To take such action as is necessary to control effectively the total production of rawcane sugar in Australia.
  3. To make sugar and other products available at not more than specified maximum prices at all State capital cities and at Darwin, Fremantle and Launceston.

MayI interpose here my personal hope that this provision will be extended to include the National Capital at Canberra -

  1. To contribute £216,000 per annum to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for disbursement by that committee in paying domestic and export sugar rebates and assisting processors of Australian fruits generally.
  2. To pay export sugar rebates in respect of other goods containing sugar . so that the net cost of Australian sugar contained in such goods shall be no more than the Australian equivalent of the world sugar parity price.

On previous occasions the economic value of this industry to Queensland has been stressed. On this occasion it is quite unnecessary for me to mention at length the great national importance of this industry, which has supplied Australia and other countries with sugar throughout the war period when sugar supplies were unobtainable from other sources. The agreement is essential to the stability of the industry and to the security of the many people dependent upon it for their livelihood. I, therefore, commend the bill to the Senate believing that honorable senators will agree that it provides equitable treatment for all sections of the community.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 1279

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales-

Minister for Supply and Shipping) [10.20].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Many requests have been made for relief from sales tax in respect of numerous classes of goods. All these requests have been considered, and it is now proposed to grant certain further concessions relating to : hose goods which appear to have the best claims for consideration. An annual loss of revenue amounting to £1,400,000 is involved in the present proposals. In September, 1945, relief amounting to £2,800,000 per annum was granted, so that the sales tax concessions allowed during the current financial year will involve a total revenue loss of £4,200,000 per annum. A summary of the classes of goods covered by the present proposals has been circulated for the information of honorable senators. It will be seen that certain goods are being removed from the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, thus reducing the rate of tax thereon from the maximum of 25 per cent, to the general rate of 12½ per cent., with one exception which relates to certain garments, hitherto taxable at the rate of 25 per cent., which will become subject to tax at the special rate of 7½ per cent, applicable to clothing generally. The goods affected by the proposed reduction of rate are goods in respect of which it is felt that, under present conditions, the continued application of the maximum rate of 25 per cent, is no longer justified.

Exemption from tax is being restored in respect of certain goods which were exempt from tax prior to the war. These goods are chiefly foodstuffs, such as canned meats, canned vegetables and similar goods. A number of new exemptions are proposed, including some items of building materials, certain goods for use in primary production, and goods for the use of non-profit making schools, school committees, and infant welfare centres. There are also certain drafting amendments of the existing provisions for exemption of aids to manufacture. The most important of these is to extend the exemption of aids to manufacture so as to cover machinery and equipment leased by a manufacturer for use in manufacturing operations. The exemption has hitherto been limited by its terms to machinery, &c, purchased, imported or manufactured by a manufacturer for his own use. It is proposed that the amendment extending the exemption to leased goods shall be deemed to have commenced on the 13th September, 1945, i.e., the date of commencement of the exemption of manufacturers’ machinery. A slight consequential amendment, of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 9) 1930-1936 is also required in this connexion, and a separate bill has been prepared for that purpose.

The amendments provided for in the bill now under consideration are operative on and from the 10th April, 1946, except in a few instances in which a contrary intention is shown on the statement circulated among honorable senators. The bill deals only with the allowance of relief from taxation “ and should, therefore, commend itself to senators generally.

Debate (on motion by ‘Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 1280

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 9) 1946

Bill received f-r-om the House .of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a, second time.

As explained by me in connexion with the bill to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, provision is made in that measure ‘for an extension of the exemption of manufacturers’ machinery and equipment so as to cover machinery, &c, which is leased by manufacturers in addition to that which is purchased or imported by them. < This necessitates a slight consequential amendment of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 9) 1930-1936, which deals with the imposition of sales tax on leased goods. It will be provided in the regulations that manufacturers who are entitled to freedom from tax in respect of their plant shall quote their certificates of registration when leasing such plant from other persons, just as they already .do when purchasing or importing similar plant. It is necessary to make a consequential amendment of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. D) to ensure that there will be no liability for tax under that act when the .lessee quotes his certificate in respect of the leasing of the goods. This will conform to the provisions in other sales tax assessment acts which authorize freedom from tax upon the sale or importation of goods in respect of which the purchaser or importer quotes his certificate. The bill now before the Senate is solely for this purpose, and is designed only to effectuate the exemption of machinery, &c, leased by -manufacturers.. .It is provided that the bill shall be deemed to have commenced on the 13th September, 1945, viz., the date of commencement of the exemption of aids to manufacture in the form of plant and machinery

Debase .(on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 1280

NATIONALITY BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resoumed from the 2nd April (vide page ‘853), on motion ‘by Senator Collings -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

.- The purpose of this bill is to enable a British woman resident in Australia to retain her British nationality under Commonwealth law irrespective of her husband’s nationality. Under existing Commonwealth law, a woman who loses her nationality because of her marriage to a foreigner may, by making a declaration, exercise in Australia and its territories the rights and privileges of a British subject. In such circumstances, the woman does not regain her nationality, but remains a foreigner. I support the bill,

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– I too support the bill, but I wonder whether it would be possible to go farther. I should like to know what happens to the children of. a marriage of this kind. What is their nationality? Under the measure now before us, an Australian woman will be able to retain her British nationality regardless of the nationality of her husband. If her children were horn in Australia what will be their nationality? The bill does not seem to clarify that point, yet it may be just as important as the nationality of the wife. It would appear that this matter is being dealt with piece-meal. The progeny of the marriage should be the principal concern. If, as is usually the case, they are to take the nationality of the father, then the Government is offering to Australian women who wish to retain their nationality a very small part of what they are seeking. Does the

Government propose to take any action, or to leave the bill in its present unsatisfactory state?

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

.- in reply- The bill does not provide for any alteration of the present position regarding children. I shall make a note of the point raised by the honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1281

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Ashley,) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10 a.m.

page 1281

ADJOURNMENT

Food Shipsfor Indonesia - War Ser vice Homes -Feed Oats - Elizabethstreet. Melbourne, Post Office - New Parliament House.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I have received the following telegram concerning the hold-up of Dutch ships in Australian ports : -

Urge you move motion of urgency or suspension of Standing Orders to discuss vital effect on Australian primary and secondary industries by the cancellation of £6,000,000 Netherlands East Indies orders. Members of our group concerned not only for themselves but for effect on Australian trade generally. We suggest rehabilitation of ex-servicemen may be vitally prejudiced.

The people of Australia are reaching a stage when they will lose their patience with the Government for not having taken action in this matter. The ships should either be placed under the control of the Australian Navy or the British Navy.. I again urge the Government to do something to get the ships moving so that food and other commodities so urgently needed may be taken to the East Indies.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– A few months ago, I was in a township named Norseman, in Western

Australia, where I. was. told that people were having difficulty in getting war service homes, and that the department was not giving much attention to that district. I followed the matter up, and received advice from the Workers Homes Board, which represents the Commonwealth in Western Australia, that all applications were being considered. I thought that the reply was satisfactory, and passed it on to my original informant. Then I received a letter from a man writing on behalf of his son, a returned soldier, saying that although the original application had been made four months ago nothing had yet been done. I communicated with the Workers Homes Board which told me that the applicant had not sent in the necessary fee for inspection. Now I have received a letter which shows that the position is still unsatisfactory.. I am not raising this matter in order to criticize the Government, but there seems to be something wrong in Western Australia with the department which is acting on behalf of the War Service Homes Commission, and the matter should be investigated.. I received the following letter from. Mr. A. Morton, of Norseman: -

There are quite a lot of men in Norseman waiting a replyto their applicationsand have been waiting for months.

I can only quote figures from my son’s supplication. He applied on 21st December, 1945 ; no reply or even notification of receipt. On 2.1st January, 1946, he wrote again and got his discharge papers and was notified it was under consideration.

On 21st February -two months after application - he gets a demand for £1 inspection fee and 2s. search fee. Why wasn’t that on the original application form and so save two months’ waiting? This was sent by airmail next day, also1s. for a telegram to say when he could expect something definite. T his was never answered.

On 21st March, after writing Mr. Nulsen, M.L.A., and his interviewing the Secretary of the Board a man was sent from Kalgoorlie by ear to inspect the place.

That was exactlythreemonths after application. There are competent people here that could have valued the place - Roads Board secretary and three valuators, also the Government building inspector from Kalgoorlie visits here regularly.

Since 21st March there has been dead silence as before.

Now this place is valued for taxation at £1,100. It is insured for £1,500 and the vendor is asking £850. It is freehold and there are no obstacles. It is a clear-cut, straight-out buying and selling proposition. Any land agent would have got the transfer through in three weeks and now it is nearly four months and nothing done.

I have no reason to doubt that the document is genuine, and that the position is as has been stated. There would appear to be need for investigation regarding the “War Service Homes Department in Western Australia, if this is a sample of what is going on.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– Recently the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) imposed a prohibition on the export from Australia of feed oats, ‘ which is proving very embarrassing to Western Australian exporters of that commodity. Last week Senator Gibson raised this matter in the Senate and was informed by the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to the effect that feed requirements in Australia would absorb all existing supplies of feed oats and that the Government did not propose to permit exports until there was a surplus over Australian requirements. In Western Australia at present there is a definite surplus and merchants’ who have purchased stocks for export overseas are being greatly embarrassed by the prohibition. They have been put to considerable expense in acquiring the oats and in grading and clipping them for export. The .result of the ban on export is that stocks are accumulating in Fremantle where they are occupying valuable space that could be put to other uses. If a market were available in Australia for the stocks of feed oats now on hand the merchants would soon find it.. The’ position is the same in Victoria. In view of the heavy stocks now accumulating in this country it seems strange that the prohibition has not been removed. It is conceivable that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture is afraid that a shortage of this commodity may he experienced, but from all information I can gather on the subject it would appear that the chances of that happening are very remote indeed. I urge the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to discuss this matter with his colleague with a view to ascertaining whether it is possible, in view of the circumstances now existing, to withdraw the prohibition and enable exports to be resumed.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) a press report stating that it is proposed to abolish the famous tin shed erected behind the Elizabeth-street post office at the corner of Elizabeth-street and Post Office-place, Melbourne, and that the site will be used for the extension of postal facilities or the erection of a new Commonwealth building. During the last few months I have noticed great congestion among people waiting at the Elizabeth-street post office for trunk line telephone calls, and the inadequacy of the accommodation provided for them. The seating accommodation provided is sufficient for only about six persons, but it is an every-day sight to see scores of people, including women and children, standing around for long periods waiting to make their calls. I trust that if and when the famous ‘ tin shed is removed - and it has had a very long life, despite frequent threats of demolition - our enterprising PostmasterGeneral will take advantage of the opportunity to utilize the site for the erection of a building to provide better facilities for telephone users in Melbourne. Very many post offices in country districts have neither seating accommodation nor protection against the weather for people waiting to make trunkline calls. Frequently the operators of the telephone switchboards are located in an upstairs portion of the post office where they have no means of contacting people waiting below to give them some idea of how much longer they may have to wait. I trust that now that the war is over and labour’ conditions are improving that these matters will be rectified and telephone facilities improved, particularly in country towns.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– This Government has inherited an enormous programme of arrears of work in all directions. Some of the arrears came into being as the result of the depression years; others arose as the outcome of the war. I assure Senator Sheehan that all that U humanly possible to bo done is being done to overtake the lag.. I have not seen the press statement dealing with the demolition of the tin shed which stands behind the Elizabeth-street .post office. As the honorable senator ‘know*, one must not take press paragraphs too literally or too seriously. I am not aware of nay such proposal; if, however, it is intended to demolish the old building and to erect a new Commonwealth building on the site or extend the existing postal building, I can assure the honorable senator thai that work will be expedited. The Government has arranged to provide at least 400 automatic telephone exchanges to meet the needs of country people. I know from my own experience that the honorable senator’s reference to the lack of adequate shelter and seating accommodation in both the metropolitan area and country districts is true. ‘ Again, as far as possible, wo are doing our best to overtake those arrears. All the money necessary r.o do all the work has been authorized by the Government, but we are still faced with a shortage of materials, equipment and labour. Recently we overcame some of the equipment trouble, and we hope that additional equipment will soon come to hand. “We are also manufacturing ourselves as much equipment as possible, I assure the Senate that the heads of every section of the Postmaster-General’s Department are fully aware of the position and, consistent with what resources they have at their disposal, they are doing their best to overtake the arrears and to establish postal and related services in Australia in accordance with the needs of the people.

Senator j B Hayes:

– What about automatic telephone exchanges in country u n as ?

Senator CAMERON:

– I have already said that the Government proposes to establish 400 automatic telephone exchanges in country areas. The areas will be selected by the department on the basis of needs, and I hope that a few will go to Tasmania.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– This afternoon I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior a .question about a new Commonwealth Parliament House at Canberra. I asked that question, because I want to bo clear as to what the Government is doing. 1 foresee a problem in the near future. The Minister replied that no: bing had been done, and stupidly went on to talk about the housing shortage.

Senator Ashley:

– And that is what he meant to do.

Senator ARNOLD:

– That had nothing to do with what I asked him. When I ask a question I expect to receive a courteous reply. No one could bc unaware of the need for houses and shops. They must be provided first. That is what this party has consistently advocated. I am as anxious as the Minister is to sec the demand for houses and shops satisfied. But I am also conscious of the fact that Canberra h supposed to be a -planned city and that all round us we see temporary buildings, many of them monstrosities like the woolshed-like structure erected to house the Prices Branch almost outside the front-door of this building. Wo are getting a long way away from the original plan for the development of Canberra. Not so long ago we were talking about increasing the membership of this Parliament. Members of parliament and other people who work in this building are harassed. They cannot get the space they need to work in. You, Mr. President, know how difficult it is to fit into this building the people that have to bc fitted into it. You also know the disabilities, of this chamber. Wc do not want to bc rushed into a new home for the National Parliament.. I realize tha, when it is decided to proceed with the building of a new Parliament Mouse it is probable that a worldwide’ competition for a design will bc held amongst architects. It may take three or four years to choose the final design. Members of Parliament themselves should be given considerable time to peruse the plans. The Government ought to make up it.; mind what it intends to do. Is it intended to provide individual accommodation for members of parliament? I hope so. All the preliminary work will take years to complete. I do not think that, even if an immediate start were made with the preliminaries, we should have a new building for seven or eight years. It is time that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Johnson) examined this matter. It is wrong for the Minister representing him in this chamber to dismiss a matter of such importance so curtly as he did to-day. I bring it again before the Senate, because I believe that unless this matter is properly considered we shall eventually be rushed into agreeing to the erection of a building that will be neither a credit to the Commonwealth Parlia- nor an addition to the architecture of this city. I earnestly ask the Minister to give consideration to the preliminary planning of what will eventually be a new Parliament House.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales. · ALP

.- in reply - The Leader ofthe Opposition (Senator McLeay) read a telegram relating to the hold-up of the Dutch ships. I am not able to supply him with any information at the moment. In anycase, I think that any statement that. I might make on the matter ought tobe made in his presence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1284

PAPERS

The following papers were pre- sented : -

Immigration -

Agreementsand Proposals - Statement by theMinister for Immigration (5th April, 1946).

Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Committee - Report.

Freeand Assisted Passage Schemes for British Migrants from the United Kingdom - Copies of Draft Agreements between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governmentof the Commonwealth of Australia, together with explanatoryleaflets issued by the United Kingdom authorities, anda Statement (5th March, 1946) by the Minister for Immigration when the Agreements were signed.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Commonwealth purposes -

Cairns, Queensland.;

Denman, New South Wales.

National Security Act - National Security ( Prices ) Regulations - Orders - Nos. 2458-2492.

Senate adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 April 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19460410_senate_17_186/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant