View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
23 March 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- ROAD TRAFFIC LAWS
QUESTION
- FLOOD AND CYCLONE RELIEF
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- MORATORIUM
QUESTION
- MOTOR VEHICLES
QUESTION
- CHILD WELFARE
QUESTION
- HEARING AIDS
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- HOUSE COMMITTEE
G O VERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
BIG INCREASE IN AUSTRALIAN FACTORIES
- Opposition Senators. - No !
QUESTION
- U.K. PATIENTS TO PAY FOR PATENT TONICS
PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1950
- Second Reading
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- ADJOURNMENT
PAPERS

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

page 1096

QUESTION

ROAD TRAFFIC LAWS

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– On the 16th March, Senator Critchloy asked the following question : -

I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the many different road traffic laws, by-laws, and rules of the road that are in operation in all States, the Government will give consideration to arranging a conference of representatives of State governments with a view to securing uniformity in this matter?

In my capacity as Minister for Transport, I now supply the following answer : -

A committee was set up by the Australian Transport Advisory Council on the 25th July, 1040, to consider and recommend uniform national road traffic laws for the Commonwealth. The committee, which is known as the Australian Uniform Road Traffic Code Committee, comprises one representative from the former Commonwealth Department of Transport, who is chairman, as nominated by the Commonwealth Minister for Transport, one representative from each State,as nominated by the State Ministers for Transport, one representative of both the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, as nominated by the Commonwealth Minister tor the Interior, and one representative of the following non-governmental organizations associated with road transport: - The Australian Automobile Association, the Australian Road Transport Federation, and the Trans- port Workers’ Union of Australia.

Delay in convening a meeting has been due to awaiting the nomination of a representative from Western Australia. Advice has, however, been received that a representative will be nominated on 24th March, 1950, and when this is received a meeting ‘ will be arranged at an early date. In the meantime, considerable preliminary research work has been undertaken by the former Commonwealth Department of Transport, and business papers for the meeting have been prepared and are in readiness for circulation to representatives.

page 1096

QUESTION

FLOOD AND CYCLONE RELIEF

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– In view of the disastrous floods that have just occurred in areas in southern New South Wales, which have caused considerable damage and loss of stock, will the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth is prepared to co-operate with the New South Wales Government by providing ‘ assistance to the persons affected?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I assure the honorable senator that the Commonwealth will be only too happy to co-operate with the Now South Wales Government in the provision of necessary relief to people affected in the devastated areas in southern New South Wales.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether, in view of the large financial losses incurred during the cyclone season by business people and householders in tropical regions of northern Australia, the Treasurer will consider the establishment of a contributory fund similar to that controlled and financed by the War Damages Commission, so that losses caused by such acts of God may be recouped without “the previous payment of large insurance premiums such as are at present required by the few insurance companies willing to undertake such business?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I take it that the honorable senator’s proposal is that the Government should make some contribution to such an insurance fund. That is a very big question. I therefore ask the honorable senator to put her question on the notice-paper so that I shall be able to ascertain the Treasurer’s views on it.

page 1097

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 16th March, Senator Guy asked me a. question in relation to the establishment of an automatic telephone exchange at Launceston. The Postmaster-General has now supplied the following answer : -

Tt is proposed to establish an automatic telephone exchange at Launceston, hut the installation cannot be effected until a new building is provided to accommodate the equipment. A site has been acquired and plans are being prepared for a multi-storey building. It cannot be indicated at this stage when the work is likely to be undertaken, but the honorable senator may rest assured that the matter will bc expedited as much as possible. In order to meet telephone development in the meantime, the manual exchange at Launceston will be extended and exchanges have been provided at Launceston East and Mowbray Heights.

page 1097

QUESTION

MORATORIUM

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Attorney-General state whether the Federal War Service Moratorium regulations have been declared invalid by the High Court? If so, will the Minister confer with the States to ensure the enactment of uniform legislation to protect ex-servicemen who still need protection?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– It is true that certain portions of the War Service Moratorium Regulations were declared invalid by the High Court. I think it is also true that since then in most of the States provision of a character similar to that which applied under the federal regulations has been made. Recently an amendment of the federal regulations was made to enable the States to give complete effect within their own territory to laws of their own operating similarly to those which previously operated under federal jurisdiction. I do not know if those new regulations have been proclaimed, but provision has been made for them.

page 1097

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport say whether there is any truth in the newspaper report that the Australian Government intends to spend £170,000 approximately on the purchase of new motor cars? If so, will the Minister give the Senate a detailed statement showing how those cars will be distributed to each department and the numbers?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– This matter is handled by the Minister for the Interior. I will draw his attention to the question and get a reply for the honorable senator as soon as possible.

Senator O’BYRNE:
through Senator Nash

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon not-ice -

How many cars of each of the following makes have been brought into Australia since the end of the war - (o) Austin, (b) Morris, (o) Wolseley, (d) Humber, (c) Rover, (/ ) Jaguar, [g) Triumph, (ft) Riley, (i) English Ford and (;) other English makes?
How many (a) French, (6) Italian and (o) other European cars have been brought in during the same period?
How many (u) Buick, (6) Cadillac, (c) Oldsmobile, (d) Chevrolet, (c) Ford, (/) Pontiac, (g) Chrysler, (ft) Hudson, (i) Studebaker and (j) other cars of American or Canadian manufacture have been brought in since the end of the war?
What is the estimated number of all the above makes of cars which will be brought into this country during the year ending 31st December, 1950?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

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

Statistics showing the total number of cadi make of car imported into Australia are not available. However, new car registrations during the period from 1st January, 1040 to 31st December, 1949. are as follows: -

87,100.

page 1098

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN.Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior state if there is any report available regarding the Lady Gowrie pre-school centres in the various capital cities, which, I understand, are subsidized by the Australian Government? Has development of these centres in other towns been considered, and what steps did the previous Government take to extend these muchappreciated services?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– As this is a matter under the control of the Minister for the Interior, 1 ask the honorable senator to put her question on the notice-paper so that the information asked for may be obtained.

page 1098

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to make available free of cost hearing .aids to school children requiring them? If the answer is in the affirmative, will it be necessary for the parents of the children to make application, or will the schools be the distributing authorities?

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

– I preface my reply to the honorable senator, by saying that hearing aids are being made available in this country to returned soldiers who have suffered deafness from war causes. That type of aid is now being manufactured in this country at the Commonwealth acoustics laboratory in Sydney. Parts which are being assembled there have been brought to Australia under licence. They are from the best types of hearing aids in the world, and a very good type of hearing aid has been evolved. It is less costly than those that are entirely manufactured in Australia or imported complete,’ and is designed to suit the varying degrees of deafness. The question of whether these aids could be made available to school children suffering from deafness is a matter for the Minister for Health, to whose notice I shall bring the honorable senator’s question. I shall let the honorable senator have a report on it as soon as .possible.

page 1098

QUESTION

COAL

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

What tonnage of coal obtained from overseas for use in Australia has been delivered in Australia?
What further tonnage does the Government anticipate will be received?
From what places is the coa.1 referred toin (1) and (2) being obtained, and what quantities have been or will be received from’ each source?
What is the cost per ton of this imported coal?
To what States were deliveries made, and in what quantities?
1. What cost has Deen incurred by the Commonwealth in importing this coal?
What is the anticipated cost to the Commonwealth of importing further supplies of this coal?
Is a charge made against the State* concerned in respect of the cost incurred; if so, on what basis; if not, to what Commonwealth account will the cost be debited?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The answers tothe honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

State governments or undertakings have taken delivery of 554,971 tons of coal from overseas in the period June, 1948, to 11th March, 1950.
We arc according to estimates by the Joint Coal Board 3,000,000 tons of coal short of requirements. While it is not anticipated this quantity could be obtained from elsewhere within twelve months a strong effort is being made to obtain as much coal of satisfactory quality and price as possible to alleviate the acute shortage in Australia and to assure adequate production of essential materials.
Deliveries effected in Victoria, South. Australia and Western Australia and the countries of origin were -

Oversea purchases referred to in question 3 have been arranged by and at direct cost to State governments or undertakings. As the Commonwealth Government was not a party to these purchases and seeing that action is now proceeding to acquire additional supplies it is not deemed appropriate to quote prices at this juncture.
Answered under 3.
Nil.
It is not possible to state a figure at -present as tenders are being invited by the South Australian Government on behalf of the Commonwealth for the supply of 500,000 tons. When prices for these supplies are available the information could be supplied.
1. The Commonwealth will pay the cost of -subsidy on coal imported under its authority, -and this subsidy will be a charge against the -Consolidated Revenue of the Commonwealth.

Senator FINLAY:

asked the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

What were the coal reserves held in Australia (a) at the beginning of 1940. and (6) In January, 1950?

Senator McLEAY:

– The nearest available figures for coal stocks held in Australia an? - (a) at the end of 1941, 1,815,000 - tons; (h) at the end of January, 1950, 790,000 tons. These figures do not include coa.1 en route to interstate ports or en route to consumers -within any State.

page 1099

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator REID:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for “Repatriation, upon notice -

Has the Cabinet sub-committee investigating ex-service pensions, &c, given consideration to eases of service personnel who lave developed ailments following discharge?
If so, will it consider such cases on the basis that such ailments be recognized as the -result of war service unless medical evidence is to the contrary?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are ss follows : -

No.
An ex-serviceman may lodge a claim for -war pension and/or medical treatment at any “time subsequent to his discharge or demobilization from the Forces, in respect of any condition which he considers is related to his war service. Any such claim lodged by the exserviceman is duly investigated and receives the consideration of the State Repatriation Board. Where a statutory authority accepts the condition claimed as due to war service, the ex-serviceman is granted a war pension -provided a pensionable degree of incapacity exists. ‘ In addition he is entitled to receive -.medical treatment for the accepted disability.

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

Is it a fact that when a totally and permanently incapacitated soldier loses his wife through death, no allowance for the engagement of a housekeeper to look after his children is paid unless he is unable to help himself, when an attendant’s allowance is given ?
Is it a fact that totally and permanently incapacitated soldiers of World War I. aTe not allowed any assistance for children born after October, 193S, although help can be given to bringing migrants into this country?
If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, will the Minister see that these two anomalies are discussed by the committee of inquiry which is being set up by his department?

Senator COOPER:

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

Yes.
Yes. No child born after the 30th June, 1938, is eligible to receive war pension in respect of its father’s incapacity due to service in World War I.
Yes. Both matters will be considered by the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with pensions and allowances under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act.

page 1099

QUESTION

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I ask foi1 leave to submit a motion-

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask for your ruling on this matter, Mr. President. I9 it not usual for an honorable senator who wishes to make a statement to specify the subject with which he proposes to deal?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so. Usually when an honorable senator asks leave of the Senate to deal with a particular matter, he informs honorable senators of its nature. I ask the Minister to follow that procedure now.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am afraid that Senator Arnold was not listening to what I was saying. I sought leave to move a motion, not to make -a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes; but the Minister should say what his motion is about.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I understand that, and I appreciate the trust that honorable senators so readily placed in me when they agreed to my request for leave. I take it that leave has been granted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That a House Committee be appointed, to consist of the President, Senators Amour, George Rankin,Reid, Tangney, Wedgwood and Wordsworth, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Repre- sentatives.

page 1100

G O VERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Debate resumed from the 22nd March (vide page 1050), on motion by Senator McCallum -

That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: -

May it please Your Excellency:

Wo, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

. -When I sought leave last night to continue my remarks at a later stage. I had been discussing certain statements that hadbeen made by the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay). The Minister had dealt in an authoritative manner with certain aspects of shipbuilding in this country. One of his statements was that a vessel built in a private yard at a cost of approximately £500,000, would cost £700,000 in a socialist yard. The Minister sought completely to mislead the Senate by citing these figures.

Senator Ashley:

– That was nothing new for him.

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Spooner:

– But another important portfolio has been allotted to the Minister.

Senator ARNOLD:

– I want to be very serious because not only all of the members of this chamber, but also the people of this country, must be very perturbed, about coal.

Senator ARNOLD:

– The fact is that many honorable senators do not know the conditions in the coal mines. Many believe, as the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) believes, that there is a Joint Coal Board charged with the responsibility of caring for the men, giving them amenities and providing safety measures and that therefore all is well. I emphasize that the mines are completely run down. It will take years for an authority, even with all the material that, is needed available, to bring proper conditions to the coal mines, but, unfortunately, the Joint- Coal Board, like everybody else, is not able to get materials and cannot do the things it ought to do, and so we have these conditions prevailing.

There is another great irritant in the coal-mining industry. I mention it because I am sure that many members of the Government parties are not aware of its existence. From time to time the press of Australia contains references to strikes that occur for apparently trivial reasons. I remember that about two years ago the press made great play on the fact that a certain coal mine was idle because a miner’s hat had been stolen and the miners had walked out of the pit as a result. The fact is that every coal-miner wears a safety helmet, which is a very important part of his equipment. If the safety helmet does not properly fit the wearer he can be placed in serious danger in the event of coal falling on him. On the occasion to which I refer, the miner who lost his hat tried to obtain another one, but because there was some quarrel over the fact that the management wished to supply the man with a hat that did not fit him, a dispute followed and the mine was closed for the day. That position was unnecessary, and perhaps both sides were at fault. The management could have given the man a suitable hat, or possibly the men could have overcome their grievance in some other way. Such apparently trivial stoppages have a sound basis, but becau.se they are played up in the press the public gains a wrong impression about them. The press also stated that strikes by miners over taxation were wrong. I suppose that statement could be true, but do not forget that the miners were not the only ones who were striking against taxation. There were men in this community, much more happily placed than the miners, who continually struck against taxation. In my district, when the miners pour the water out of their cans and go home for the day, thereby closing the pits, they walk home past bowling greens and golf courses that are full of people playing games.

Senator Collings:

– And robbing the community.

Senator ARNOLD:

So long as private enterprise continues to run the coal mines, we shall always have the difficulties that we are now experiencing in the industry. I repeat that under private enterprise we are losing 70 per cent, of the coal in the seams in New South Wales. If the industry were conducted in the interests of the people, that loss could be obviated ; but so long as it is controlled by private enterprise for the purpose of making profits, that percentage of coal will always be left in the ground. If the Government wants the coal-miners to work for longer periods, in order to increase the production of coal, it must give them some incentive to do so. Production will be increased only when the coal-miners are convinced that they have a stake in the coal-mines. They must be assured that, should bad times come again, they will not be tossed aside as they were twenty years ago. After all, twenty years is not a very long period and the coal-miners have bitter memories of their experiences in the past. They were told that they must abide by arbitration and do this and that as the court ordered, but, later, when things in the industry became a litis tough, the mine-owners said that they would not accept arbitration but that if the miners accepted a reduction of 12i per cent, in their wages, they would open up the mine:: again. When the miners refused to accept that ultimatum, they were starved into submission while the pits v/orc closed down for a period of eighteen months. In view of those facts, what is the natural reaction of the coal-miners to-day when the community is short of coal and the mine-owners tell them that if they go to the Arbitration Court and abide by its decisions they will be given a fair deal and greater amenities? It is only natural that the miners should regard such a proposition with suspicion. They realize that, to-day, they are in a strong position and that the mine-owners are in a. weak position. In such circumstances, when the mine-owners resort to subterfuge and offer a little advantage here or there, the miners do not believe that they are sincere but are convinced that, should the tide turn again as it did 20 years ago, the mine-owners would immediately take those benefits from them. I have been closely associated with the coal-miners and I know something of their psychology. Australia wants more coal and must get it ; but that coal will be obtained only if the Government takes its courage in its hands and convinces the miners that the nation itself wants them to enjoy good conditions, continuity of employment and security for the future. If that is done, the miners will respond whole-heartedly; but the only way the Government can do that is by nationalizing the mines.

Senator LARGE:
Few South Wales

– With other honorable senators, I express my appreciation of the manner in which His Excellency delivered his Speech at the opening of the Parliament. Since I have been a member of the Senate, I have not heard a speech delivered so clearly. I am pleased that Their Majesties the King and Queen propose to visit Australia in the not far distant future. I am also pleased to know that His Majesty has recovered from the illness that prevented him from visiting this country last year.

In this enlarged Senate I have noted not only a change in personnel but also a change in the attitude of some of the older honorable senators. Before proceeding to deal with the principal matters that I propose to discuss, I congratulate the new senators upon their maiden speeches. In that respect, I mention particularly the two new women senators, Senator Robertson and Senator Wedgwood. I say to Senator Robertson that, so long as she continues to express the sentiments that she voiced in her maiden speech and in various questions she has asked, she will have the cooperation of members of the Opposition. Listening to her maiden speech, I wondered whether, in some way or other, she had not affiliated with the wrong party. I shall not be so complimentary to all of the new honorable senators, but more of that anon.

Senator Maher:

– The honorable senator might as well have gone the whole hog.

Senator LARGE:

– That is a matter of opinion. I did not hear Senator Maher make his maiden speech. One of the new honorable senators about whom 1 wish to say a few words- has loft the chamber, but as he is likely to return before I conclude my speech I shall defer those comments. That is why I made the remark that prompted Senator Maher’s interjection. We are proud of many of our Australian . animals, but not of the dingo, and, in some respects, the habits of certain honorable senators opposite remind me of those of that unpopular animal.

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to order. I object to being called a dingo, and I ask that the honorable senator’s remarks be withdrawn.

Senator Grant:

– That is what honorable senators opposite call democracy.

Senator LARGE:

– There is too much “ mock “ in their democracy. Then, for the first time, the banks were stirred from their lethargy. They had been making annual contributions to the funds of the present Government parties, but last year they were told that they would have to dig much deeper into their pockets and provide the sinews of war on a much more liberal scale than they had done in the past. The banks were organized against the Labour party. They realized that if the Chifley Government was successful at the election, they would lose some of the power they wielded and that probably some authority would make an examination of their activities and accounts. Believe me, there will be a terrible smell when that egg cracks, as it will crack eventually. What has happened recently can be compared with an attempt to stem a torrent with, a straw. The banks poured out hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Senator Guy:

– That is over all Australia ?

Senator LARGE:

– Yes,but with 2,000 fewer men in the industry. Do not forget that. I heard Senator Arnold talking about how to get coal. I do not know what honorable senators want coal for. Some honorable senators may have read of Ramsay’s scheme of gasification. I would not expect a private coal-owner to introduce such a scheme. It would be expensive, and it would mean burning coal underground instead of leaving 70 per cent, of it in pillar formation. That method was adopted for a while in the Ukraine until the Germans destroyed the factory. What has happened since then I do not know, but why could not Australia get all the power from the coal in that way? Nothing would be lost and all the by-products would be there. The heat could be transferred through pipes or cylinders all over the country and the holes could be filled with debris.

I have offered congratulations to most honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber on their maiden speeches, but I cannot say the same of a diatribe we had from an honorable senator from Tasmania. It was his maiden effort in this chamber, but not his first speech in a legislative chamber. Had I known that, I, as well as other honorable senators, would not have listened to him without making some comment. The honorable senator from Tasmania accused honorable senators on this side of the chamber of everything that was bad, while attributing everything that was good to honorable senators on his side. I think he must be a Johnny Horner, sitting in the corner. It was unwarrantable presumption on his part to try to teach grandfather to suck eggs, and Burns’s lines came to my mind -

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us,

To see ourselves as others see us!

– I did not complain, I expected honorable senators opposite to tell the people that, because they have done it all along. I am only saying that the Government parties have nothing to be proud of considering the army of power that they had arrayed behind them during the general election campaign. I say, in all candour, that I hope that the Government will get through the next two or three months, perhaps the next twelve months, in. comparative peace. I give it my blessing. I am afraid, however, that it will find its life rather turbulent. The Labour party will appraise all legislation submitted to the Parliament, on its merits, and will vote accordingly. It will not be frightened by any threat of a double dissolution. J_ am glad that I have had such an attentive hearing. My only regret is that I was not “ on the air “. I repeat my congratulations to the GovernorGeneral for the splendidly lucid manner in which he delivered his Speech, and I express again my pleasure that His Majesty has recovered from the illness that prevented him from visiting Australia, and I hope that in the not too distant future I shall see him again.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was very pleased to hear the Governor-General announce that Their Majesties will visit Australia in 1952. I am sure that the people of Australia will welcome them loyally. I wish also to convey my congratulations to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) on his being elected Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am also very pleased that Senator Cooper has been appointed Minister for Repatriation. I know that in that capacity he will do excellent work in administering the business of ex-service men and women. He has always extended sympathy to, and battled very hard for, ex-service personnel, and I am sure that he will do his utmost for them by making recommendations to Cabinet for an increase of pensions and other conditions. In’ the repatriation hospitals throughout Australia there are many ex-servicemen of World War XL, and also of World War I., and I am sure that they will obtain every satisfaction from the Minister. The portfolio that the Minister holds is one which can crucify the holder of it. The previous Minister, Mr. Barnard, was the victim of his office. I consider that Mr. Barnard was one of the most conscientious Ministers who have held the portfolio, although he was not himself a returned soldier. I know that he made a good impression on returned soldiers’ organizations in Western Australia during his visits to that State, and I have never heard any one speak ill of him. I extend my congratulations also to the honorable senators who were entrusted with the responsibility of moving and seconding the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. They performed their task well, as also did the two new Opposition senators, Senator Willesee and Senator Ryan. No government ever came into office in more favorable circumstances than the present Government did. As an honorable member in another place has stated, those circumstances could be described as a Prime Minister’s dream. When the Government came into office it inherited a very sound financial structure. The national coffers were full, the nation’s finances were buoyant. The Chifley Government had balanced its budget for the two previous financial years, a feat of which it justly could be proud. So other government has ever had such a clean sheet handed to it. That circumstance arose from the excellence of the Labour Administration led by Mr. Chifley. It is possible that after the new Government has had twelve months in office it will be able to present a balanced .budget to this Parliament. Should it prove able to do so there is no doubt that the press will take advantage of the fact, and will do everything in its power to convince the people of Australia of the magnificence of such an achievement. But I guarantee that not one word of credit will go to the previous Government for its presentation of a balanced budget in respect of the two preceding financial years.

I consider that the Government’s policy, as expressed in the Governor-General’s Speech, provides for legislation that is a mere continuation of the legislation passed by the Chifley Government. The Government’s proposals are amazing when we recall how the Government parties indulged in pre-election shouting about the Chifley Government, and when we also recall their election promises. T have watched the moves of the Government very carefully since the election and

I am surprised at the attitude that it has adopted towards more than one of the items referred to in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. It has watered down considerably two most important promises that its members -made during the election campaign, and I wonder what is going to become of those promises in the long run. The Government parties promised drastic action, but I do not know whether they are prepared to go ahead with it. By watering their promises down considerably they are running true to form. They made promises during the election campaign that they could not carry out, or even attempt to carry out.

Honorable senators opposite have discussed, during this debate, the problems of housing, the shortage of labour, coal and communism. We have heard quite a lot about communism. I shall deal with that matter later in my speech. But I did not hear many honorable senators on the Government side speak about the attitude of the members of the federal executive of the British Medical Association towards the Chifley Government’s pharmaceutical benefits legislation. Not one word has been said about the boycott that that association used to deprive the people of Australia of the very valuable service that the legislation was intended to make available to them. Very little was said about the rising cost of living. Honorable senators opposite have side-tracked those issues, which are two of the main issues referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech. The cost of living, as honorable senators know, has increased considerably during the last two years. The previous Government attempted to cope with that rise. The former Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), immediately after the war ended, broadcast to the people of Australia, not only once, but many times, warning them that we could expect high prices if the conditions that occurred after the end of World War I. were allowed to recur. He said that if the Australian Government did not have control of prices we would be placed in a position in which our fi would be worth only about 5s. His Government tried to prevent such a position by proposing in a referendum of the people that this Parliament be given permanent control over prices, rents, and other charges. It placed before the people of Australia the sincere and honest argument that a national government should control prices after the war just as it had during the war. He pointed out that the Commonwealth had effectively controlled prices during the preceding four years. Unfortunately, the people rejected the Chifley Government’s proposal at that referendum mainly because its political opponents urged the people to get rid of “ Canberra controls “. Those parties said that the States could, control prices more effectively than tieCommonwealth could. I do not need! todetail the position that developed afterthe Commonwealth relinquished prices, control following the defeat of the; Chifley Government’s proposal. Some1 States said that they could carry om effectively, but prices rose immediately ant? as the result the basic wage has also been increased.

Senator Nash:

– The basic wage has been going up ever since.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. In Western Australia the basic wage has been increased practically every quarter as the result of rising costs of living. However, we know that every increase of the basic wage causes a further increase of the cost of living. A gentleman who gave a lecture recently in Perth on this subject put the position very aptly when he said, “ While the basic wage goes up the stairs, prices go up in the lift”. In Western Australia the basic wage now is £6 15s. a week, whilst all of us are aware that an application is now before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for an increase of the basic wage to £10 a week. I repeat that the blame for the present high cost of living must be laid at the door of supporters of the present Government because they were mainly responsible for the defeat of the Chifley Government’s proposal that the National Parliament be given power in peace-time to control prices on an Australia-wide basis.

The Governor-General’s Speech states -

In view of the urgent need to develop Australia’s vast resources and to arrest the movement of rural population to the cities my Government will create a Ministry of National

Development. Major programmes of national expansion will be fostered by this Ministry in close and friendly co-operation with the States, and through them with local and regional authorities.

Every Australian is directly interested in the development of our national resources. That problem should be above party politics. We realize that we have a population of only 8,000,000 and that much of this vast continent remains undeveloped. I am concerned particularly about the development of our northern areas of the Commonwealth. A serious aspect of this problem is the drift of population to the capital cities. Dealing with this subject recently, the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) stated -

There is no security in six ever-growing capital cities. Within the next 30 years Australia must double its population for security. Vu must occupy and we must do it quicker and better if we are to secure our title to the land.

Apparently, the Minister has awakened to the fact that Australia is underpopulated. He was Treasurer in the Lyons Government and for twenty years prior to the Curtin Government assuming office non-Labour governments had been in charge of this country. What did they do during that period to develop our national resources ? After World War I. the .government of the day inaugurated an immigration scheme, but, later, the Bruce-Page Government abandoned it. However, although the Curtin Government assumed office when this country was as war, it immediately set about making plans for a gigantic immigration scheme. The result is that, to-day, tens of thousands of migrants are being brought to this country annually. I believe that members of all parties will give credit to the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) for the excellent work he performed when he was Minister for Immigration in the Chifley Government. In 1947, the first year of the present scheme, over 37,000 migrants arrived in this country. He did excellent work in overcoming great difficulties including the shortage of shipping for the transport of migrants. The point I make is that if non-Labour governments that were in power for so long prior to 1939 had encouraged immigra- tion even on a very limited scale this country would not have been faced with the shortage of man-power that it felt so seriously when the recent war broke out.

What is the reason for the present drift to the cities? I have had some experience of farming. Indeed, since World War I. my brothers have engaged in farming in a fairly big way. I know the conditions under which farm workers were employed prior to the recent war. At the end of World War I. hundreds of thousands of unemployed, including a great proportion of ex-servicemen, were obliged to tramp from one end of the country to the other in search of work which they were prepared to accept at a wage of 5s. a week with keep. To-day, farmers are prepared to pay from £5, to £6, a week to a man to drive a tractor; and drovers in the north-west are paid £10 a week to drove cattle from places like Meekatharra to central depots whereas after World War I. they received only 30s. a week with keep.

Another aspect of this problem is that during the war a great proportion of our man-Dower was directed to essential industries in the cites in order to assist in the war effort. Although Labour objects to the direction of man-power in normal times, the Curtin Government had to apply that principle because of our imminent danger at that time. That was the only way in which we could effectively . mobilize our man-power. With that object in view, thousands of men were trained under schemes for the dilution of labour as .fitters, machinists, welders, boilermakers and moulders. Those men and their families found conditions in the cities to be far more favorable than those under which they had worked and lived in rural areas. We cannot expect those people to return to rural areas to live in bough sheds and to work on farms for a wage of 50s. a week and keep. Those days are gone. Therefore, the farmers must now do something to attract the man-power that, they are seeking. The Government’s decentralization plans should be fostered. The Chifley Government did as much as it possibly could to decentralize industry. It leased war-time munitions factories to private enterprise, and the extent of the employment that is now given at those factories would amaze many people. Labour wholeheartedly agrees that decentralization is essential to this country. Recently, speaking in Sydney, the New South Wales President of the Liberal party, Mr. L. H. Moore, complained that during Labour’s term of office there had been a drift of rural population to the cities. That was not the fault of the Labour Government. No government can direct private enterprise. If an industrialist wants to establish a factory in the outskirts of a capital city, he is entitled to do so. The solution of the problem is to make our country areas more attractive to industries. For instance, the Commonwealth Government could subsidize country developmental schemes undertaken by the State governments. I should like to see a continuation of the development of the Kimberley district in Western Australia. That is a vast area. To-day, the Wyndham meat works operate only at half capacity during the killing season. Private abattoirs and freezing works have, been established at Glenroy station, 300 miles from Wyndham. The slaughtermen are transported to Glenroy by air, and the slaughtered cattle are carried by air to Wyndham, a journey occupying only one or one and a half hours. Air transport saves many hundreds of miles of droving. I understand that the scheme is subsidized by the Government of Western Australia. The Chifley Government realized the value of the resources of north-western Australia, the Northern Territory and north Queensland. I listened sympathetically to Senator Maher’s appeal on behalf of north Queensland. That portion of his State is to him what the Kimberley district is to me. Unless we populate those northern areas, I am quite sure that, in our time, we may expect 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people from the islands to our north to occupy northern Australia forcibly. With the co-operation of the State governments concerned, the Chifley Government endeavoured to promote the development of our northern areas. I was interested to read some articles that were published in thi Perth Dna,v News last year. One article, which appeared on the 2nd August, stated -

This year the Western Australian Government submitted proposals to Canberra for re-organization of the industry. These included the construction of a formed gravel road from Wyndham into Nicholson station, 300 miles away, on the Ord River, and the building of feeder roads to serve the Victoria River country in the Northern Territory. At present cattle have to walk an average of ISO miles to the works.

Canberra has now agreed to spend £1,500,000 on the capital cost of this and related schemes.

But something is being attempted by private enterprise as well. Abattoirs and freezing works are being built at Glenroy station, 200 miles south-west of Wyndham, as part of a scheme for the aerial transport of carcass beef to the port.

Closer settlement in the Kimberleys will depend , on the long-term experiments being made on the Ord River by the Common wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Western Australian Government.

Any honorable senator who is interested in those experiments should read the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which was made available last week. On page 23, the report deals with the work of the research station on the Ord River, and outlines what the Commonwealth is doing. I understand that the station has now been in operation for approximately eighteen months or two years. The newspaper article continues -

Along the Ord there are about 230.000 acres of black soil plains where rice, cotton, peanuts mid sorghum can be grown under irrigation.

If the experiments are heartening and the Commonwealth can be induced to assist with the cost, a £2,500,000 dam will be built across a gorge where the Ord River cuts through the Carr-Boyd Ranges.

That shows that the Chifley Government was well aware of the situation. It did not merely make promises; it got on with the job. In the same newspaper on the 30th July, 1949, an article headed, “What about Australia’s vast, empty spaces?”, stated -

On the Ord River of the East Kimberleys the Commonwealth is helping the Western Australian Government in a scientific survey of crop and pasture possibilities, with a promise of assistance in water conservation and irrigation if the soil proves suitable for fattening cattle. This is the country in which it is proposed now to spend £1.500,000 of Federal money on feeder roads from cattle stations to the Wyndham meatworks.

Clearly the Labour Government had already started on the development of the Kimberley district. The latest figures show that the population of Western Australia, north of the 26th parallel - that is from Carnarvon upwards - has been whittled down to 7,000. Carnarvon is now the centre of a rapidly expanding tropical fruit-growing area. Large quantities of pineapples and bananas are being grown in the vicinity of the Gascoyne River. An endeavour is being made to secure Government assistance for this enterprise. Banana-growing is a comparatively new industry in Western Australia, and its future appears very bright indeed. Unfortunately, all fruit grown in the Carnarvon area has to be carried by road train to Geraldton, a distance of 300 miles. In 1947, 21,296 cases of bananas, worth £85,000, were produced. In the following year, production increased to 44,962 cases, valued at £157,300, an increase of approximately 100 per cent. The Government of Western Australia has an agricultural research station at Carnarvon. It is supervised by a Mr. Maher, a Queensland expert on tropical fruits. I understand that he was employed previously .by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock. He is an efficient officer, and is doing a splendid job. He was astounded to see the production results in that area. If the Gascoyne River were dammed, with the assistance of Commonwealth money, and a firstclass road built from Carnarvon to Geraldton, the growing of tropical fruits could be greatly expanded. If this Government is anxious to decentralize our population and industries, it could well give attention to this proposal.

The Government has announced that it intends to introduce a system of compulsory military training. On the subject of our defence forces, the Governor-General said -

My Government is concerned about the manpower position of the services, particularly in the military forces. It is considered that steps must be taken to fill all peace-time units and formations and to build up adequate reserves. While the Australian .Regular Army will be kept at full strength by voluntary enlistment, my advisers are making preliminary preparations foi’ the introduction of a sensible system of universal training designed to meet the military requirements of Australia with the minimum of interference with our urgent civil production.

I believe that compulsory training, if it is introduced, will be a failure. I do not agree that it is necessary to compel our young men of eighteen or nineteen years of age to undergo military training, because I believe that under the present system of voluntary enlistments the Australian armed forces will be able to attract all the recruits they need. I consider that the defence programme that was prepared by the Chifley Government will, if it is implemented, provide sufficiently for the defence of this country. On the 23rd September, 1948, the then Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) made the following statement in the House of Representatives : -

The strength of the permanent naval force to be achieved by the end of the five-year programme is 14,753, compared with 5,264 in 19.30. The strength on the 30th June, 1948, which marked the conclusion of the first year of the programme, was 10,076.

In June, 1948, the strength of the permanent naval force was double what it was in 1939. Dealing with the Army, Mr. Dedman said -

The plan provides for a total post-war strength of 19,000 for the Permanent Forces and 50,000 for the Citizen Forces. The present numbers of full-time duty personnel in the Regular Army and the Interim Army are 11,000 and 9,300 respectively, making a total of 20.300, as compared with the pre-war strength of 3,900.

At the outbreak of World War II., there were only 3,900 men in the Australian Army. Thousands of men then enlisted, and many of them did not have an opportunity to handle a rifle until they went overseas. They were trained here with broomsticks. I hope that that will not occur again. Dealing with the Air Force, Mr. Dedman made this statement -

The strength of the Royal Australian Air Force to be achieved at the end of five years is 13,000. The strength on the 30th June, 1948, was 8,000, as compared with a prewarstrength of 3,500.

The total strength of the three services before the war was 12,664, and in June, 1948, it was 38,976. Having regard to our small population, I believe that we should mark-time in relation to recruiting for the armed forces, because almost every man who has entered one of the services was previously engaged in production of one form or another. It is all very well for scaremongers to say that war is inevitable, but I do not believe that it will occur for many years, and I hope that it never will occur. I do not believe that we should compel our young men to undergo military training for some months when there are hundreds of thousands of migrants coming into the country, because if compulsory military training were introduced, those migrants would be employed in civilian jobs while our young men were in the services

A number of honorable senators have referred to the housing shortage in this country. There is a housing shortage in every country. Tor five years during the war we had to divert men from the building and allied industries to war work. Many brickworks, tile works, cement works and timber mills were closed, and the men that they had employed were drafted to other industries that were more essential to the war effort. The Labour Government that was in office during the war realized, that the transition from a war economy to a peacetime economy after the war would give rise to many difficult problems. Nearly 1,000,000 men and- women were serving in the armed forces, and when they were demobilized it was necessary to ensure that they obtained productive employment. That was a difficult task. The Labour Government made its plans for the transition before the war ended, and we can now see the results of its work. Full production has been achieved in many industries. Working conditions in industries such as brick and cement making, and the manufacture of tiles are unpleasant and, consequently, it is difficult for them to attract sufficient labour. Many timber mills have to rely upon the Government to direct new Australians to work them. In Western Australia, over 500 migrants have been sent to work in the timber industry, because the Australians who were working in it before the war have secured employment in other industries in the cities. They left the industry because the working conditions, the living conditions for their wives and families and the educational facilities for their children were bad. They will not return to the industry until it can provide amenities comparable with those that they enjoy in the cities and towns.

During the last few years there has been a large increase of house construc tion. The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the following article on the 11th June, 1949:-

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician (Mr. S. E. Carver) released figures to-day showing that 11,523 houses had been completed in Australia in the 3 months ended March 31 last. In the corresponding period last year, 10,132 houses were completed - an increase of 1,391 in the quarter this year.

In New South Wales, 3,709 houses were completed in the first quarter of this year, compared with 3,510 for the corresponding period last year. From the end of the war until March 31 last, 129,817 houses had been completed in Australia up to March 31 last. The figures revealed nation-wide increases in the number of houses being built. In the first quarter of this year, in New South Wales, construction of 4,318 houses began - 418 more than in the first quarter of last year. The number of people employed in the home-building trade in Australia on September 30, 1945, was 34,6 (;S, compared with 101,718 on March 31 fast - an increase of nearly 200 per cent.

One honorable senator who is a returned serviceman has said that the trade unions are not allowing some exservicemen to be trained for the building industry. I do not deny that that is so. We must avoid a repetition of what occurred after the last war. Hundreds of men were trained to work in various industries, particularly the building industry. They were given instruction in a shop for three months. Employers applied for the services of trainees. They agreed to pay the trainees 40 per cent, of the prevailing tradesman’s wage and the Commonwealth agreed to pay 60 per cent. When the trainees reached the stage at which they were 75 or 80 per cent, efficient and their wages had to be increased to £5 a week if the prevailing tradesman’s rate was £6, the employers then dumped them and applied for- the services of other trainees. The employers were using trainees as cheap labour. The Labour party knew that that had occurred and was not prepared to allow the present reconstruction training scheme to be used for the benefit of employers. The industrial committees have agreed that only as many trainees shall be given instruction in any industry as that industry can absorb.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had pointed out that the trade union movement in Western Australia decided against having an army of trainees with no employment as tradesmen available for them on completion of their courses. That that was a correct approach to the subject has been amply borne out. As the building trades developed the required number of trainees were enrolled. In the meantime, a number of prospective trainees were absorbed in other industries. During the war period there was considerable expansion of Australian secondary industry, as is evidence by the following report in the Canberra Times of the 16th March : -

page 1120

BIG INCREASE IN AUSTRALIAN FACTORIES

Canberra.. Thursday. - Australia in 1948-4?) had 13,069 more factories than in 1938-39, the Common weal til Statistician (Dr. Roland Wilson) said to-day. His figures showed that in 1948-49 Australia hail 40,010 factories, employing 890,454 people, compared with 20,941 factories with 564,100 employees in 193S-39. The figures represent an increase of 4S.51 per cent, in the number of factories and 57.57 per cent, in the number of employees. The value of production increased 180 per cent., from £203.417,000 in 1938-39 to £509,660,000 in 1948-49.

That proves that the Labour Government did a remarkably good job by encouraging many overseas ‘manufacturers to establish factories in this country. It also dispels the bogy of socialism, about which wa have heard much recently. Production in the building industry generally, but particularly in Western Australia, now exceeds the pre-war level. The quantities of bricks, tiles and timber now being produced for building purposes are far in excess of the quantities that were produced prior to the war. Unfortunately, however, because of the shortage of labour, the production of sawn timber is still lagging behind requirements.

During his speech in this chamber last night the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) spoke at length about communism in its relation to the trade union movement. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had done in another place, he appealed to the Opposition to assist the Government to rid Australia of communism. As honorable senators know, many statements have been made about communism in this country by our political opponents during the last twenty years. Although the

Labour party does not tolerate communism in any shape or form, now that the Liberal and Australian Country parties are in office they are concerned about it. Recent press reports indicate that the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport is getting a bit of a headache in connexion with this matter, just as did the former Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). More than twenty years ago the Bruce-Page Government secured control of the treasury bench on the Communist bogy. The then Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) said that there were men in Australia who were a menace to the community, and would destroy Australia, and that they must be removed. According to a report in the Melbourne Age of the 10th September, 1925, he said -

I appeal to my fellow citizens to support and assist me in destroying this viper (referring to communism ) which has raised its head in our midst.

In his policy speech three years later, when he came before the people again, he said -

These men (referring to the Communists) have been too successful in the past. It is for me to see that the activities of these few are definitely stopped.

In his 1928 policy speech, despite the fact that his party had been in office for three years, when he appealed for power to crush the Communists, he again raised the issue and said -

To-day Australia is being challenged by extremity … I appeal to you to help me in this task.

According to the Daily Telegraph of the 6th January, 1940, many years later, the then Deputy Leader of the Australian Country party, Mr. H. V. C. Thorby, declared -

I’ll wipe out the Australian Communist party pretty soon. I have all my plans prepared and the Country party is 100 per cent, behind me.

Yet nothing has been done about it. Now, after twenty years have elapsed, the Liberal party is again appealing for power to deal with the Communists. According to a report in the Melbourne Argus of the 24th May, 1949, the right honorable R. G. Casey, who has returned to the federal political sphere, declared that the Communists should be dealt with as criminals. On the 18th January, 1949. that newspaper reported the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) as having said -

We are against the Communists root and branch with no hesitation and no quarter.

The Sydney Morning Herald of the 1st April, 1949, reported that the right honorable gentleman had declared -

If I am returned to power I will drill the Communists out of the country.

When an executive of the Liberal party was asked during the campaign prior to the general election in 1946 -

What will the Liberal party do about the Communist party and subversive Communist activities if elected to office? he replied - according to a report in the Melbourne Herald of the 29th July, 1946-

The party does not believe in declaring the Communist party illegal and suppressing it, except in war.

The Communist thrives underground and should not be forced down to become a martyr. Subversive Communist activities should be attacked in the same way as other subversive activities - the penalty of the law should be incurred.

That is identical with Labour’s views. The Government is watering down its policy about what it intends to do in connexion with communism. La3t night the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, who administers matters associated with the coal-miners and waterside workers, appealed to the Opposition to assist him. But what did honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber do about these matters when they where sitting in Opposition during Labour’s regime? I noticed, particularly that the Minister did not mention anything about Communists within the British Medical Association. Nor did he offer any comment in relation to Communists who are solicitors in this country, and others that are connected with the universities in Australia. His criticism was directed only against Communists in the trade union movement. In my opinion the Government has gone cold on this issue, and that will be the end of it. The Communists will be treated just as they were treated twenty years ago. I remind the Senate that anti-Labour governments were in office for twenty years prior to 1939, and it is my firm conviction that the starvation policy of those governments, which resulted in farmers being driven off their properties, and men walking the streets in search of employment, depending on hand-outs from soup kitchens for sustenance, bred communism in this country. lt is axiomatic that starvation breeds communism. That is evident from what is happening in other countries of the world to-day.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There was. I am speaking factually as a result of two and a half years’ experience of the conditions that I have outlined. Whole populations of countries overseas are underfed and dying of starvation. It is no wonder that people in those countries turn towards communism. The following report appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 7th March : -

“HUNGER SPREADS COMMUNISM.”

London, March (i (A.A.P.) - Lord Boyd-Orr, formerly director-general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, yesterday blamed the shortage of food for the spread of communism in Asia. In a statement, read for him at a meeting of the World Food Council, Lord Boyd-Orr said -

People who are short of food and other primary necessities of life, and believe that these can be obtained, will overthrow any Government or economic system which docs not make them available. There can be no social contentment or peace in the world so long as the majority of people lack food, and believe that under n new order they can get it. The two problems of scarcity of food bringing about a revolt over a large part of the world, and unmarketed surpluses elsewhere creating economic differences, should, in a sane world, cancel each other out.

The Liberal party was formerly known as the United Australia party, which is an abbreviation for “ unemployment and poverty”. That objective of the Liberals was carried out to the limit when they were in office. previously. I say, seriously, that as our political opponents bred Communists in this country it is up to them to do what they want to do about it.

Senator Spicer:

– Labour bred a lot of Communists during the last eight years.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Six months ago, when Labour was in office, honorable senators opposite contended that the Government should do certain things about communism. It is now for those honorable senators to see that the new Government carries out what they requested Labour to do. In the course of his speech the Minister “ boomed “ the Prime Minister. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have seen enough of the right honorable gentleman. “We know that he left this country in a muddle in . 1941. When giving reasons for his resignation from the Prime Ministership of this country in 1941 the present Prime Minister, according to a report in the Argus of the 29th August, 1941, said -

A frank discussion with my colleagues in the cabinet has shown that, while they have personal goodwill toward me, many of them feel that I am unpopular with large sections of the press and the people ; and that this unpopularity handicaps the effectiveness of the Government by giving rise to misrepresentation and misunderstanding of its activities; and that there are divisions of opinion in the Government parties themselves which would not, or might not exist under another Leader. lt is somewhat significant that that report appeared in a non-Labour newspaper.

Senator Spicer:

– There are people who do not desire to vote.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is perfectly true and there is no legislation that will cope with that state of mind. But the other half of the informal votes were recorded, I suggest, through sheer lack of understanding and by reason of the difficulties inherent in the voting for the

– I have indicated that what the Labour party did in that connexion was the honest, fair and decent and courageous thing to do. Moreover I remind the honorable senator of something that he overlooks and that is that the decision was made before the election was embarked upon. I put it to the Senate that the Government was given a mandate to govern at the election. That does not mean that the Labour party acknowledges that every measure that the Government puts before the Parliament has been approved by the .people. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will criticize and oppose the measures that come before them from time to time. I trust that they will achieve their aim of making that criticism truly objective. Any failure in that respect will be due to human frailty and my colleagues and I will endeavour to get back on the rails as soon as possible. In a contest, whether it be in sport or anything else, there are three elements for which the people look. They look not only for victory but for victory with honour. They look for magnanimity from the victors and for dignity and good sportsmanship from the defeated.

I do not propose to review the election results under those three particular headings, but I will say something on the subject of victory with honour. I invite the members of the Government parties to accept individually their responsibility for the matters that were put before the people by way of propaganda in the press, by the radio and even in the backyards of the people in some cases. Whether honorable members sponsored them or not, or even if they were not aware of them, each member of the Government must accept his share of responsibility for the propaganda that was used. I am not prepared to say whether that propaganda had a great effect or a little effect or any effect at all upon the minds of the electors because the people do not furnish reasons for their decision. One can only speculate upon that subject, and I do not propose to indulge in any speculation. But I do invite the members of the Government parties who are listening to me now to examine their consciences in the light of certain statements that have been made either by them or on their behalf. For example, I invite them to have regard to what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) said in this chamber last night regarding the picture of the Bunnerong depot without any coal. That photograph, presented as a fact, was a picture that had been taken two years before, when the configuration of the building was entirely different. I invite members of the Government to consider the propriety of that usage. Knowing that they art aware of the fact, I ask them to examine their consciences on the statement that, if Labour was returned, there would be industrial conscription in Australia - something that is a constitutional impossibility. I invite the members of the Government to examine their consciences on the statement that, if Labour was returned, the homes, farms and savings of the people would be taken from them.

I draw attention to the type of advertisement used by and on behalf of the Government during the elections. In particular, I am referring to an advertisement covering almost a whole page that appeared in the Melbourne Herald on the 2nd December, 1949. It is headed, “ This is the Liberals’ policy “. There is enough room on that paper for quite a number of items to have been enunciated. ‘But there are three significant omissions from it. It is not the Liberals’ policy. There is not one word on three major issues, which I have no doubt the Government thought would not be popular with the people. In all the great expanse of paper the advertisement does not contain one word about the Liberal party’s programme for military conscription. Why was that omitted? There is not oneword about the Government’s restoration of the Commonwealth Bank Board. Nor is there one word about the proposal to be submitted to the people in 1952, according to the Government, for a contributory insurance scheme. I suggest that if that, scheme is to be put on a flat rate basis it will cost everybody in this country at least ls. 4d. in the £1. I invite the members of the Government to examine their consciences on that question. If this advertisement gives Liberal policy, why were matters of such moment suppressed ? I do not propose to pass judgment on the Government. I leave that to the people. I merely ask the members of the Government to examine their consciences and ask themselves if they are satisfied that, in addition to victory, they have victory with honour.

I pass now to consideration of what, the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport had to say yesterday afternoon on the subject of communism and socialism. He claimed that the Labour party was an appeaser of the Communists. He claimed that the Labour party was white-anted by the Communists. I challenge him now to point to one member of the Labour party anywhere in Australia who is a Communist. No political party in Australia has stood so firmly against communism as the Labour party has. As far as appeasing the Communists is concerned, I repeat that the Chifley Government was the only government that has so far really launched an effective attack upon communism. Let. lis review the events of the last year. It will not be a strain on honorable senators to recall that it was while the Chifley Government was in office that Communists like Sharkey and Burns were prosecuted and convicted. They were found guilty by the courts of the country - not by the Executive, or by other governments, or by individuals. They were charged under the aegis of the Chifley Government, tried by the courts of the country according to law, found guilty, convicted, and imprisoned. Another man named Healy, in “Western Australia, was charged but was not convicted. I invite honorable senators to recall- the Kemira Tunnel dispute when, because of the division of industrial authority between the Australian Government and the Government of New South Wales, both governments had to combine to settle that most intricate industrial situation, which was Communist-inspired and Communist-led. The action that was taken settled that dispute.

I come now to the general coal strike that occurred last year. The Chifley Labour Government recognized the incidence of that coal strike as a Communist conspiracy: We so branded it, we fought it as such, and as a government we smashed it as such. Never was such damage done to the prestige of the Communist party in the whole history of Australia as was done during the course of these events. We branded the action of the Communists in the coal strikers a brutal assault upon other workers in New South Wales and Queensland, as an attack upon governments, and as antidemocratic. Men and women of the Labour party went on to the coal-fields, they went to the very pit tops, and spoke to the miners. They convinced the miners that they were being misled by the Communists. Many of us went to the Sydney Domain and addressed tens of thousands of workers. We convinced them that the coal strike was a Communist conspiracy. The miners eventually went back to work. But I do not recall one member of the Liberal party «r the Australian Country party going into the danger area on the coal-fields, or having the temerity to go to the Sydney

Domain. Where were these gentlemen when Australia was in jeopardy as a result of the coal strike ? Who was doing the appeasing then? Who lacked the courage? I say to the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport that it was not the Labour party. Further effective fiction against communism was taken by the Chifley Government. I point to the regulation under the Commonwealth Arbitration Act, which provides relief for trade union members who are victimized by the Communist-dominated unions. Provision was made for payment of their legal costs in legitimate cases. I refer also to the legislation, passed by the Parliament last July, to clean up irregularities in trade union ballots and malpractices in connexion with the election of union officials. That is Act No. 28 of 1949, which prohibits malpractices in connexion with union elections and indeed goes further and provides for the imposition of very severe penalties on people who indulge in such malpractices. It provides for a penalty upon conviction, of £100, or imprisonment for twelve months, or both. What has been the effect of that legislation? From one end of Australia to the other the Communists have been thrown out of union offices by the trade unionists themselves. The Communists to-day, with these penalties staring them in the face, are afraid to fake union ballots. Those who have been afflicted by their operations are coming before the courts almost every day, and the courts are giving them relief by appointing officers of the court to work in conjunction with legitimate trade union officers to ensure that elections are properly held. In an appropriate case one member of a union - not necessarily a number of members - may approach the court and obtain relief in respect of irregularities or malpractices connected with the election of union officials. That is the way to get rid of the Communists - by doing something about them, as Labour has done, and not by talking as the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport has talked.

I should have been very interested in the honorable senator’s speech last night, if I had not already heard it at least a dozen times in this Senate when he was previously a member of it. I have often heard that self-same appeal for co-operation and good-will, that same bashing about communism and about the Labour party’s alleged appeasement of communism, and I hope that out of sheer pity, he will not inflict it on us again.

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I am afraid that it is wasted.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I turn now to the subject of socialization to which the Minister referred, and to his decrying of the activities of the Labour Government in connexion with it. Let us examine what the Government has done about the Chifley Government’s socialization since it came into office. For instance there is the Government’s airline. Did the conservative parties say that if they were elected to office they would denationalize the Government’s airline? Far from it! Have they abolished the Government’s airline ? No ! Lt has their blessing. Then there is the government shipping line presided over by the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) went no further than to use high sounding words about it. He said that he would call upon the government shipping line’ to justify itself economically and nationally. “Well, it is still under the presidency of the Minister. Let us consider another socialized enterprise - shipbuilding and ship repairs. That too, has received the unmitigated blessing of the Government parties. They have even advocated the stabilization of rural industries with guaranteed prices - another piece of socialism that they have adopted entirely. They have agreed to advocate the payment of a subsidy on shipping freights to distant States. Another piece of socialism! They have adopted the greatest socialistic venture that has ever been undertaken in Australia. They have adopted with pride and pleasure the great Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. And to clinch their conversion to socialism they even announced, quite unnecessarily, in their policy speeches, that they would not disturb the national broadcasting system. The new socialists! “We are proud of their conversion. Not one venture in the socialization field that was undertaken by the Labour Government has been disturbed by the present anti-Labour Go vernment. Nor, if one judges by the policy speeches made by the leaders of the Government parties during the election campaign, will any one of those ventures be interfered with.

The Labour party attitude to socialization is perfectly clear. It is exactly the same as that enunciated in Adelaide during the election campaign by the present Prime Minister. That attitude is that if any industry or class of industry is exploiting the people, or if in the public interest it is undesirable that a matter should remain in private hands, then, and then only, will it be nationalized. That represents the complete conversion of the conservative parties to our policy, or, at least, lip service paid by them to that policy.

Senator Tangney:

– And the conversion occurred overnight.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall tell the Senate a little story that I consider states the position regarding socialism perfectly. A good old man lived in a little village He was of good repute and was looked up to by everybody in the locality. There were three bad men in. that village, and he stood in the way of their designs. One morning, when the good old man came out of his front gate, he found a dog tied to it. It was a very disreputable dog, with only one eye and one ear, with bits out of it everywhere, its coat all dirty and full of fleas, and with a very nasty disposition. “When the old chap in his kindness tried to pat the dog, it bit him. “When he tried to feed it, it snarled at him. “When he could tend it no longer he cut it loose. But next morning he found the dog again tied up to his fence. The old man and the dog went over the same procedure again, morning after morning. Finally the townspeople began to say that he must be a very cruel old man to keep his dog in such a condition. His protestations that the dog was not his went unheeded, and the old man, worried by what was being said about him, went into a decline and died. I do not require to tell the Senate the name of that dog. Its name is “ ism “ - communism and socialism. Tying that disreputable dog to the coat tails of a political opponent is the oldest and meanest trick in the game of political propaganda. It is a mean and well-known practice. It is the kind of trick that the Communists play, and is very akin to their tactics of character assassination for which they are famous. In case there is any doubt about the stand taken by the Labour party in relation to communism, let me repeat which I said to tens of thousands of people in the Sydney Domain during the coal strike last year. I said then that communism and its leaders were evil, that they were antiChristian, anti-religious and antiworking class; that they were anti-democratic and anti-government and, in some instances, revolutionary. Whilst I believe all that I am not prepared to undertake to prove it in a court of law. So long as we of the Labour party were in office no man was going to be convicted by reason of our mere beliefs. We were prepared to leave the conviction of individuals to the processes of the law of this country. But if I understood the Governor-General’s Speech and the policy speeches of the leaders of the conservative parties aright, men who are branded by the Executive of this country as Communists are to he removed from official positions in trade unions. That reminds me of one of the minor tragedies - I use the word minor because of the major tragedies that take place there - that are now occurring in the Balkan countries, where a man who is persona non grata with the Communist regime finds one morning that his employment has gone, and, as he has no work, he cannot eat. To make sure that he cannot eat the authorities deprive him of his food ration card on the ground that he is not a worker, and presently he fades away and dies. That is murder, of course. But it is done in such a gradual way that it is scarcely perceptible. I warn the Government to keep that thought in mind when it is drafting the industrial legislation that is foreshadowed in the Governor-General’s Speech.

I had intended to say something about the British Medical Association, but I have to be elsewhere soon after 9 o’clock. However, if time permits I shall refer to that subject. In the meantime I shall content myself by saying something about one of the British Medical Association’s members - the present Minister for

Health (Sir Earle Page). He has shown in his administration a most staggering lack of frankness. I realize that when I say that I am making a serious statement - one that I should instantly justify. I propose to justify it on four counts. I refer first to a question upon notice that I asked in this Senate as recently as the 1st March last. That question was - ‘

With what non-governmental bodies has the present Minister for Health conferred regarding the provision of pharmaceutical benefits, medical benefits and national health services, or any of those subject-matters?
When and where was each such conference held?
What was the duration of each such conference?
By whom was the Commonwealth represented at each such conference?
Was a verbatim record taken of the proceedings at any such conference; if so, at what such conference? (1. If any such record was taken, will the Minister make available to the Senate a copy of it?
If such record was not taken at any such conference (a) why was it not taken, and (&) at whose request or desire was it not taken?

I asked seven questions and I invite honorable senators to listen to the answer that the Minister supplied. He replied -

Conferences were held in Melbourne on 17th and 18th January with representatives of the British Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Guild and the friendly societies, and subsequent conferences have been held with representatives of these bodies. The Senate will he fully informed of the results of deliberations when finality has been reached.

I refer to that answer as discourteous and not frank. No answer was supplied to my questions, “ By whom was the Commonwealth represented? Was a verbatim record taken, and if it was taken will he make available a copy of it and if if was not taken why was it not taken ? “ Of course, the reason for the Minister’s lack of frankness is that he did not want to answer those questions. He did not want, in effect, to say this : Conferences with the British Medical Association in Melbourne were held behind closed doors, with only doctors present, and for the first time in the history of relations between the Commonwealth and the British Medical Association no record at all was taken. What went on behind those closed doors? Was the Minister arranging the terms of the abject and complete surrender lie made to the British Medical Association in the matter of pharmaceutical benefits? What was he ashamed of that for the first time in the history of these matters no record was made? On the first count I cite the Minister for lack of frankness and I am exceedingly kind to him when I put it as lightly and on as low a level as that.

On the second count, a lady who was good enough to write to me and give me her name and inform me that I might use it, sent to me a letter which the Minister for Health wrote to her on the 7th. February last. That letter reads -

For many years I have been fighting to have all these life-saving drugs including insulin, put on the free list.

Here is the significant portion of the letter -

The late Government refused to do. that and you should binnie them, not me. When the present Government’s scheme is implemented insulin will be on the free list.

When I record the fact that insulin has been in the Commonwealth formulary under Labour’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme from the first day the scheme was launched five years ago, I think that honorable senators will admit that I am very indulgent towards the Minister when f say that he lacks frankness. The Minister’s statement in that letter, “ The late Government refused to do that and you should blame them, not me”, is wholly and completely incorrect.

Senator Maher:

– Apparently, the woman had difficulty in procuring insulin at the time that the honorable senator was Minister for Health.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall again read the reply that the Minister wrote to that lady -

The late Government refused to do that-

That is, to include insulin on the free list; there can be no argument about that - and you should blame them, not me.

I invite the Government to find some excuse for that mis-statement.

I come to the third, point; that is, an announcement that was made by the Minister recently regarding increased allowances in respect of sufferers from tuberculosis. The Minister in making the announcement slated the Labour Govern- ment for having fixed those rates as low as it did. He had not the frankness to say that new rates had been drawn up and settled and were lying in the departmental office waiting to be announced when that Government went to the country at the recent general election. The only reason why we did not announce them was because of Labour’s belief that we should not be offering bribes to, the people on the eve of a general election. The Minister had not the frankness, when he announced the new rates, to say that those rates were ready and waiting to be announced when we went to the election. That was a complete lack of frankness and graciousness on his part.

The fourth count on which I cite the Minister for lack of frankness is the long history of matters that have appeared in the press. On the very day that he was appointed Minister for Health he intimated that he was calling conferences of the various bodies in the field. Then, when things began to leak out about these hush hush and secret conferences, he denied that any proposals had been made, or that the

Government had considered any proposals, and he claimed that all that had taken place were exploratory talks. I refer the Senate to the issue of the Melbourne Herald of the 20th February last, on the front page of which the heading, “British Medical Association’s Opposition Reaffirmed “, appears in the first three columns. There, it was reported that the Victorian Council of the British Medical Association had rejected firm proposals that had been submitted to the British Medical Association. That report reads -

Objections by the Victorian Council of the British Medical Association to national health proposals submitted to the Federal Council of the British Medical Association by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) have been re-affirmed at a further meeting of the council.

The council is adamant in its opposition to the use of friendly societies and similar organizations as the principal means for establishing doctor-patient relations and paying doctors under the scheme.

Its opposition to the fundamental feature of the Page scheme was re-stated last week as being based on the opinion . . .

The report then set out the Government’s six proposals in great detail, and stated that they had been considered not only by the councils of the British Medical Association but also by individual doctors in their various lodges or groups. I shall read one more portion from that report and I invite some one to tell me whether it is correct or not. It is as follows : -

Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and Sir Earle Page have both denied that the Government has any clear-cut scheme, it was learned to-day that a series of proposals, said to bc the Government’!) plans, have been presented to the British Medical Association and have been before the British Medical Association on paper in most States.

Why does the Minister say that he was merely having exploratory talks if, in fact, he was putting proposals of that nature, whether or not they had been considered by the Government?

With regard to pharmaceutical benefits, I merely want to say that after the wedding of the two conservative parties - the Liberal party of Australia and the Australian Country party - had taken place, and very soon after the honeymoon ended prematurely, there was produced a medical monstrosity in the shape of a new pharmaceutical benefits scheme, providing for a limited list of life-saving and disease-preventing drugs. It provided for 40-odd drugs in all. It introduces into the structure of social services a new horror - the disease test. If the people of this country want pharmaceutical benefits under the Page scheme, they must select their disease. What a horror in any scheme of social services! I have not the faintest doubt one will find that the Page list contains many proprietary lines. If one refers to to-day’s Daily Telegraph, one will see a report of the United Kingdom Government’s view of proprietary medicines. That report reads -

page 1129

QUESTION

U.K. PATIENTS TO PAY FOR PATENT TONICS

London, Wed. - The Health Ministry is likely to ban proprietary medicines from its free-issue list. This may be the first move to cut the cost of the National Health Scheme. The Minister for Health (Mr. Bevan) said in the House last week : “ The high cost of proprietary medicines is one of the rackets of civilized society “. A small specialist committee of the B.M.A. is now compiling a list of non-proprietary drugs which doctors will be allowed to prescribe free. If people in future want proprietary medicines they will have to pay for them. Health Ministry officials admit that some of the newer non-proprietary drugs are expensive. They claim, however, that these drugs will be more economic eventually because they will shorten a sick worker’s absence from work. The Health Ministry is considering an advertising campaign to educate the public in the efficiency of cheaper non-proprietary medicines.

I hope that some responsibile Minister will direct the particular attention of the Minister for Health to that quotation. I do not rely upon my own assessment of the position to indicate that this is a mean and wretched approach to pharmaceutical benefits with the introduction of this new horror - the disease test. I shall read to honorable senators the opinion of the chemists as set out in a report of an interview with their chief representative in the Melbourne Sun of the 1st February. That report reads -

” PEW TO GAIN FROM FREE MEDICINE.”

Says Chemists’ Chief

Only about five to eight per cent, of the people in Australia would benefit from the Federal Government’s proposed new “ free medicine” scheme, the President of the Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia (Mr. Eric Scott) said yesterday. “I think it will be a hard scheme to sell to the public,” he added.

I agree with Mr. Scott’s statement. I warn the Government that if it is misguided enough to embark upon the Page scheme, which, incidentally, is the British Medical Association scheme and is part of the Government’s abject and complete surrender to the association, and part of the price, I suppose, to be paid by the Government for the political arid financial support it received from the British Medical Association at the last general election, unending pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government to add to the list. The Government must yield sooner or later to that pressure, and it will thus find itself in the whole field of unlimited and unscientific prescribing. It is time that some supporters of the Government took a look at what is going on. Labour’s legislation on these matters is scientifically based. It involves no compulsion of doctor, or patient, no breach of the doctor-patient relationship, and no breach of secrecy concerning relations between doctor and patient. I hope that my colleagues will ensure that that legislation will not be disturbed. I believe that we owe a duty to those doctors who have co-operated with the Labour Government to give that great spread of pharmaceutical benefits to the people; and I believe that an obligation rests upon me, at least, to advise the members of my party to stand behind doctors and their patients who, in their hundreds of thousands, have been enjoying these benefits.

I shall now say a word about another horror, the medical benefits scheme that is being introduced, if I may accept the report published in the Melbourne Herald from which I have quoted relating to plans submitted to the Victorian Council of the British Medical Association. If those proposals are the Page proposals we are to have a means test, the very thing that I understood every party in the Parliament was endeavouring to abolish. A new means test! This is delightful ! The parties that urged the people at the last election to vote Liberal and for freedom are now about to compel persons to join friendly societies and medical benefit schemes if they wish to obtain any benefits. When I was Minister for Health, I was in difficulties with the British Medical Association. I venture to say that any government will be in difficulties with that body. But, at least, I had only one opponent, whereas my successor is in difficulties not only with the British Medical Association, but also with the Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia. If he keeps going much longer he will pull down the whole house of cards upon himself. The medical benefits scheme and pharmaceutical ‘benefits scheme that were sponsored by Labour presented to the medical profession the existing form, of medical practice literally on a gold plate, and literally as the British Medical Association itself asked for it. I am afraid that, in having to deal now with my successor, the medical profession has jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. I challenge any honorable senator opposite to say now, or at- any time in the future, that in both of those schemes, there was not complete freedom of choice of doctors on the part of patients. There was no disruption of or interference with the doctor-patient relationship, and there was a complete preservation of secrecy. Members of the medical profession were free to enter the schemes or to stay out of them at will. I am afraid that they will not find themselves in such a happy position under the proposals of my successor. On the 19th January, the Minister for Health announced that he would ask the Prime Minister to arrange conferences as soon as possible between himself and the Health Ministers of the States. I noticed in the press on the 15th March - two months later - that he was still saying the same thing. I was reminded of an act I once saw in a little vaudeville show at a beach. There was a large crowd of people on the stage. One by one they retired through a door at the rear of the stage, leaving only two people facing the audience, a young man and a very old doddering man, who, up to this time, had not uttered a single word. The young man looked at the old fellow and said, “ Well, go on “. The old man asked in quavering tones, “ Will you do me a favour ? “ The young man said that he would, and his companion said, “Will you turn me round?” The young man turned the old fellow around, pointed him at the door, and proceeded to walk off the stage, but the old gentleman said, “ Will you do me another favour ? “ The young man replied in the affirmative, and then the old fellow said, “ Give me a start “. I think that it is up to the Government to take its Minister for Health in hand, turn him from his present course, and point him in the direction of national health. It should ask him to do something about the Labour Government’s plan for dental care for children. It should ask him also to do something about the Child Health Division of the Department of Health, the industrial hygiene section that was set up at the Sydney University by Labour, and the anti-tuberculosis scheme which is of vast importance to this country. Labour members were twitted at one stage with being concerned only with “ hand-outs “ such as the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the medical benefits scheme. We were told that we should be getting on with great national work. We were in fact doing such work, but I remind honorable senators that, in the past three months, we have not heard one word about the national health activities that I have mentioned. The only Government statements that have been published in the press have -related to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the medical benefits scheme. Reference has been made, it is true, to a liberalization of allowances for tubercular patients and their families. That again is in the “hand-out” class, but such payments are very necessary, and I throw back at the Government the unjustifiable criticism that honorable senators opposite and their colleagues in the House of Representatives offered when Labour occupied the bench.

Senator MAHER:

– Where is the dividing line between the functions of the States and those of the Commonwealth, in relation to health?

Senator McKENNA:

– -The States have complete power in the field of health. The Commonwealth has been given limited concurrent jurisdiction. It has power to provide medical and dental services with the qualification, “but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription “. In other words, the nationalization of the medical, dental, or any other profession is completely impossible constitutionally, because of the very words that were written into the Constitution at the instance of a Labour government.

Senator Maher:

– Does the honorable senator not think that the States and the Commonwealth are at cross-purposes in this matter?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have already intimated to the Senate that, so far, the Commonwealth Minister for Health has not even consulted the State Health Ministers, although he has been saying for three months that he proposes to do so. I advert to this matter because I hope that honorable senators opposite who take an interest in national health, and are much closer to the Minister for Health than I am, will urge the right honorable gentleman on. In short, they should turn him around and give him a start. In conclusion, I ask the Government why secret discussions were held in Melbourne? Why was no record taken of those proceedings? What was there to hide? Why fool the British Medical Association and waste its time with proposals that had not been considered by the Government? Why pretend that there were no such proposals when, in fact, the British Medical Association itself is rejecting firmly, plans that it has dealt with on a completely firm basis. It is time that the Government took a hand and ascertained just what its Minister for Health is doing or is not doing. The Government should get on with the job of attending to the health of the Australian people. I should be happy to discuss this matter much further, but I have a car waiting to take me elsewhere. I make this contribution to the debate in the hope that some responsible member of the Government will frankly answer the questions that I have posed.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. At the outset, I should like humbly to associate myself with the expressions of cordiality and affection that have been extended by other honorable senators to Their Majesties the King and Queen. I, too, look forward to offering to them a warm welcome to this country in 1952. I should like also to express my appreciation of the unfailing courtesy that hae been shown to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) since I have been Leader of the Government in this chamber. However, I have no illusions about the honorable senator. I realize that he is a hard and unrelenting fighter. Knowing his devotion to his cause and to his party, I do not expect from him any departure from the party line. However, I do appreciate the extreme courtesy that I have received from him.

– As my colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has reminded me, we are here by the grace of the votes of an overwhelming majority of the trade unionists of this country. Less than 5 per cent, of the Australian people are employers, and we- received - I do not wish to rub it in - a very handsome and comforting majority of votes. Therefore, it goes without saying that a. tremendous number of earnest trade unionists, who did not want their unions to be destroyed, thought that the welfare and safety of the unions would be in better and more capable hands while this Government was in power than it would be if honorable senators opposite were in power.

The suggestion has been made that we are in office but not in power. In due course, honorable senators opposite will be given an opportunity to show whether they are prepared, wantonly and arbitrarily, to flout the will of the people. We gave pledges to the people and we were elected on those pledges. We shall honour them. If obstacles are put in the way of honouring those pledges, there is no doubt about what will be done. We shall report back to the people, and I am quite confident that if we do, an angry and impatient people will show at the ballot-box what it thinks of those obstacles. His Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament has a very important part to play.

Senator Courtice:

– As a former deputy leader of the Opposition, the Minister ought to know that.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I was a deputy leader of the Opposition, but I like being on this side of the chamber much better. I have much pleasure in wishing the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) a long term of office. If honorable senators opposite have reason to believe that we are exceeding the terms of the mandate that we have received from the people or bringing Forward legislation that they feel runs counter to the principles to which they are pledged quite openly, I expect opposition from them. I have ‘ said before, and now I repeat it, that a fair and strong Opposition is a great corrective and directive of the policy of a government. The Opposition in this chamber is strong. It remains to be seen whether it will be fair. I think that it will be. It has been suggested from time to time that the last Government was, while it was in office, the repository of all the wisdom, sanity and patriotism in the country. We do not claim, now that we are in office, a monopoly of those virtues, but we think that we possess them in good measure. If from time to time the Opposition, which represents a very substantial body of Australians, sees fit to help us by way of a corrective or a directive, its contribution could be a tremendous one. We hope that honorable senators opposite, from their generosity and sense of service, will give us of the best that is in them, and that they will not oppose us merely for the sake of opposing us. We a.re facing together very difficult, very troubled times. Our common country is entitled to the best that each of us can give to the solving of its problems.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Minister opposed the last referendum for the sake of opposing it.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I opposed it because I am a sensible Australian. The majority of my fellow-Australians opposed it also. I look forward to receiving from the Opposition whatever assistance it can render. We all owe a duty to the people that elected us. If the measures are judged upon their merits, as and when they come before this chamber, and are not prejudged on passion, bias, and lack of consideration, I am convinced that we will not find ourselves far apart.

Although we may not approach problems in precisely the same way, I am prepared to concede that all of us are looking for the best answer. The Government believes that the answer that it will be bringing forward for the solution of our national problems is the best one, and unless honorable senators opposite have a better one, I think, in the name of the Australian people, that the Government can look forward to, and expect, their assistance. Our sole desire as we say every day, and believe, is that we meet here to the greater glory of God and the true welfare of the people of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1135

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to -

That the Address-in-Reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire toaccompany him.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls) . - I shall ascertain when His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply. When the time is fixed the President will acquaint the Senate thereof.

page 1135

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 22nd March(vide page 1018), on motion by SenatorSpooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Nash)adjourned.

page 1135

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator^ O’sullivan)agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn toWednesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 1135

QUESTION

ADJOURNMENT

Road Accidents - Senator A. J.. McCallum : Association with Labour PARTY

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator NASH:
“Western Australia

– Last week I drew the attention of the Senate to the appalling number of motor cycle accidents that are occurring throughout Australia, resulting in the death or permanent disablement of many persons. Usually, when one picks up a newspaper, the first item to catch his eye is an account of a motor cycle accident in which either the rider, the pillion passenger, or some other person has been killed or injured. As this matter is one of national importance, I recently asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator O’sullivan) to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to consider introducing legislation to minimize the terrific loss of life of citizens of both sexes in this country. Many young persons have been killed in this manner. As a result, the country has been deprived of the contributions that those citizens could have made to the nation’s welfare. The Minister agreed that this matter was of great national importance, and stated that there was already in existence in this country, on an Australia- wide basis, a Road Safety Council, which included representatives of the Government, who conferred with State bodies. The Minister undertook to place my suggestion before the Prime Minister, and said that he would supply me, in due course, with any information available on this subject. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his reply, arising out of which I considered that I should endeavour to place further information on this matter before the Senate. As a result of my inquiries I am of the opinion that the Constitution of the Commonwealth pre.cludes the Parliament from legislating on the lines indicated. I believe that this is a matter for State jurisdiction, and that it is competent for the State parliaments to enact appropriate legislation. I consider that they should introduce uniform legislation to deal with this problem. It is for that reason, that I suggested that this subject should be placed on the agenda for the next conference between Commonwealth and State Ministers.

In the final analysis I consider that unless remedial measures are introduced, the Iws of life, particularly of our young people, as a result of accidents in which motor cycles are involved, will soon exceed the loss of Australian lives in the recent war. “Whilst that statement is somewhat strong, my contention is borne out by the frequency with which reports of fatal motor cycle accidents are published in the press. The Commonwealth is already assisting the Road Safety Council financially, and various bodies associated with it which are doing a good job. Recently I wrote to the National Safety Council of Western Australia, Incorporated, drawing attention to the loss of life and disablement of our young people in the manner that I have outlined. I pointed out that the modern motor cycle may be too powerful for our youngsters to handle. I do not know whether that is so or not. However, I have frequently seen young men of small physique, riding powerful motor cycles. I consider that persons who purchase these machines should be required to undergo a period of training in the handling of them before being permitted to take them into normal traffic. Even then it may be advisable to prescribe that the speed of those motor cycles shall be’ governed for a period of about three months. I point out that persons who purchase new motor cars drive them at a nominal speed until the vehicles are run-in. Yet, as matters stand, young people frequently drive new motor cycles at fast rates of speed immediately after taking delivery of them. I stress that I do not desire to interfere with the liberty of the subject. However, in view of its national importance, I consider that this matter should receive attention as soon as possible. It is the duty of the elected representatives of the people to take whatever action is possible to protect the lives of persons who use motor cycles, particularly the younger members of the community.

In his reply of the 14th February. 1950, the assistant secretary of the National Safety Council of Western Australia, Incorporated, stated -

In 104.8, in conjunction with representative* from the Western Australian Motor Cyclists Association and others, we formed a special committee to consider this problem, and some eighteen months ago this council formed a Motor Cycle Safe Riding School, classes being held each Saturday afternoon in the Metropolitan Markets, West Perth.

This school is conducted with the cooperation of the Motor Cycle Traders (who- make available cycles on which students may loam), and members of the various Motor Cycle- Clubs give their time gratis as voluntary instructors on a roster system. Tuition is free, and each student undergoes a course of at least four to five afternoons’ instruction, including both theory and practice as well as a lecture on Traffic Regulations given by a member of the Police Examining Stan” who attends each week for this purpose and also to examine students on the Highway Regulations on completion of the course of instruction. At the conclusion of the course students are given a practical riding test and a Traffic Regulation test, and, on passing, are handed & certificate that they are capable and proficient to ride a motor cycle. On presentation of this certificate at the Police Traffic Office, a Rider’s Licence is given without farther examination, and so faT 138 students have earned these certificates. Of these, according to our records, none has been involved in an accident for which he was held blameworthy.

Similar bodies are carrying out good work in the interests of road safety throughout Australia. I emphasize that in a period of approximately eighteen months 138 students earned certificates; but what is 138 compared with the number of motor cycles purchased during that time? The law does not compel any of these people to have a period of tuition. As long as they can satisfy the traffic department of the police force that they can ride a motor cycle and know the regulations in respect to traffic, they can receive a licence. I will close by quoting one incident that took place not long ago in Western Australia. A young man went into a motor cycle agency. He bought a motor cycle, rode to a point about two streets away and was killed. That is an indication of the necessity for the State governments to give consideration to this matter. In the interests of the people of this country, of the young fellows who purchase motor cycles and ride them, and of the citizens who are likely to be run down, I ask the Government to give this matter earnest attention. I hope the information that I have supplied will -he of value to the Minister when he places the matter before the Prime Minister.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

.- Before the remark to which I took exception earlier this evening waa made, there were a number of interjections from the Opposition benches referring to the fact that I was once a member of the Labour party, and I think it is right that I should place on record what the circumstances were, 1 shall he quite content then to abide by the judgment of honorable senators as to the justice of any of those remarks. I joined a branch of the Labour party in 1923 and was a member of various Labour branches in New South Wales until 1927. -Senator Cooke. - Did the honorable senator sign the pledge?

Senator McCALLUM:

– I signed the pledge. I left the party in 1927 because I was opposed to the new rules which, is my opinion, made the then leader of the parliamentary party, Mr. Lang, a dictator within the party. I remained outside the party until 1931. I shall relate the circumstances in which I rejoined the party. The party had been divided in the House of Representatives by two sections leaving it. The party disintegrated and in those circumstances, when Mr. Soullin was fighting for his political life, I rejoined the . political Labour party and took an active part in the campaign to save the party from destruction. I remained a member of the Australian Labour party in New South Wales, which was wrongly described in the journals and by press publicity as the Federal Labour party, until it rejoined the Lang party, which had broken away. I was never a member of the Lang party with the pledge and the type of platform it had after 1927. I was a member of two federal conferences and I took part in decisions which affected the platform of the party. On all those decisions my voice and my vote were quite consistent with the attitude I am taking now. I opposed the alteration of that platform about banking and I stood for a banking policy which is similar to what the Government is bringing forward now. I failed to renew my membership when it was certain that the party would rejoin the Lang party, because I objected to the policy that it had pursued ever since Mr. Lang and his group obtained ascendancy in New South Wales.

I will state very briefly my reasons for refusing to rejoin the re-united party under Mr. Curtin. I tad the greatest admiration and respect for Mr. Curtin and for Mr. Chifley. For the rest, I thought the party was quite incapable of governing the country. When I was a member of the federal conference a motion was submitted - and there are two honorable senators sitting opposite who supported it - to the effect that Australia would take part in no war until an enemy had actually landed in the country. I was instrumental in defeating that most stupid proposal, and I made up my mind then that never would I trust a body that could even talk in such a foolish way on foreign affairs. On the matter of the pledge, I left because I had no longer a ‘belief in socialism. I was a convert to socialism at an early age, as many are, when without experience of the world, and purely on academic grounds. Later I came to the conclusion that the federal platform meant what it said, and not as various people say, that it means merely taking over this industry or that industry. I believed that it meant complete collectivism! Being opposed to that, I got out. That is all I have to say. If there are honorable senators who think that >a person who changes his opinion, and makes his change public, is a “rat” or a traitor, they are welcome to that opinion. I believe that if a man changes his opinion, it is his duty to register that change, and to make it public If the term applied by the honorable senator is applicable to me, it is applicable to many men in politics. I could mention some prominent examples here, but I know the kind of outcry that follows a recital of their names in almost any Labour atmosphere. Honorable senators will know them without any mention of them by me. Among the men who can be called by the foul word used toy the honorable senator opposite are the younger Pitt, Palmerston, who was one of the greatest secretaries for foreign affairs that Great Britain ever had, Gladstone, Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain, Churchill, and Abraham Lincoln.

Senator Ward:

– Leave Abraham Lincoln out of it.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Abraham Lincoln was a member of three parties. I know Ms history.

Senator Tangney:

– Why not come back to us?

Senator McCALLUM:

– That is not likely. I do not believe that allegiance to a party comes before allegiance to one’s country and conscience, and it is on those grounds that I have made a change.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

. - in reply - I thank Senator Nash i for the extra information he was good enough to supply which will now he communicated to the Prime Minister in the terms of his previous question. I shall he happy to pass the further information on and when a reply is available I shall be glad to get into contact with the honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1138

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of Works and Housing - G. E. Robertson, D. T. Thomson, H. 0. Williams.

Senate adjourned at 9.-54 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 March 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500323_senate_19_206/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 March 1950

QUESTION

ROAD TRAFFIC LAWS

Senator McLEAY:Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

FLOOD AND CYCLONE RELIEF

Senator MURRAY:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

MORATORIUM

Senator SANDFORD:VICTORIA

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator MORROW:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator O’BYRNE:through Senator Nash

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

Senator McLEAY:LP

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS

Senator SHEEHAN:VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

QUESTION

COAL

Senator COOKE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:LP

Senator FINLAY:

Senator McLEAY:

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator REID:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:CP

Senator COLE:TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:

QUESTION

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

Senator ARNOLD:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

The PRESIDENT:

G O VERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Senator ARNOLD:New South Wales

Senator Ashley:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator McLeay:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator McLeay:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ARNOLD:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Arnold:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Arnold:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Arnold:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Courtice:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Ashley:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator McLeay:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Collings:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator O’Flaherty:

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Ashley:

Senator Spooner:

Senate
23 March 1950

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator O’BYRNE:
through Senator Nash

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator REID:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator LARGE:
Few South Wales

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · LP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP