Senate
26 October 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 19th Parliament
  3. 1950

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1406

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 18th October, Senator Critchley addressed the following question to the Minister representing the Post-master-General : -

Can Hie Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral say whether any further consideration has been given to the building of homes for telephone linemen in the various towns in which ‘ the district head-quarters m o located ? If .not, will the PostmasterGeneral cause further investigations to be made on this subject in order that the many married nien employed on this important work may lie able to live with ‘heir wives nml families near their places of work?

Senator COOPER:

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer to the question : -

The Postal Department recognizes the dim m I tic;s confronting many of its officers stationed in country districts in obtaining suitable homes, and. arrangements have been, made with the Department of Works and Housing to purchase several hundred prefabricated buildings from overseas to meet necessitous cases.

Senator COOPER:

– On Hie 17th October, Senator Robertson asked me, us the Minister representing the PostmasterGenera.!, to give favorable consideration to the formulation of a. scheme by which telephonic Christmas greeting messages could be sent, either free or at reduced cost, between Australia and America by those whose relatives are now resident in America. The PostmasterGeneral has furnished me with the following reply: -

There is a letter-telegram service between Australia, and the United Status of America whereby a message may lie sent at half the ordinary rale. The charge for a. letter telegru in containing not more than 22 words is IS. 4d. This service is available for conveying Christmas greetings.

The types Of. telegraph service between countries are fixed by the International Telecommunications Union, and there is not provision in the International Regulations for Christ mas greetings messages to be sent at lower rates than those which apply to lettertelegrams.

The agreement relating to the radio telephone service between the Commonwealth and the United States of America does not provide for the application of concessional rates for calls made during the Christmas season, moreover the volume of such traffic is substantial and the department finds it difficult to dispose of the business with reasonable promptitude.

For the reasons, mentioned, I. am afraid that the way is not clear to proceed along the lines suggested by the honorable senator.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - ls it a fact that instructions have been issued to thu Postmaster-General’s Department to reduce all major works, including new telephone exchanges, new post offices, underground telephone construction and extensions to interstate trunk line communications, and, further that all staff must be reduced? If so, why ?

Senator COOPER:

– The Postmaster General has supplied me with the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s question : -

So instructions of the nature mentioned by the honorable senator have been issued to the Postmaster-General’s Department. On the other hand, the Government is assisting the Post Office in every possible way in its endeavour to overtake the arrears of urgent and essential works, and to restore and expand the postal and telecommunication services to cater for public needs. Despite shortages of labour the .programme of new telephone and telegraph works is being accelerated and the honorable senator may rest assured, that t;. efforts of the department to meet the position will not be relaxed.

page 1407

QUESTION

SOIL CONSERVATION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister foi National Development say whether his colleague is aware that there has been serious silting-up of the SwanAvon River systems of Western Australia and consequent destruction of valuable farm-lands? Will the Minister for National Development cause a survey to be made of this important area with a view to providing heavy equipment al present unobtainable in Western Australia in order that these river systems may be preserved and valuable farm-land? protected ?

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

– I.” shall bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Minister for National Development, and obtain an answer from him.

page 1407

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– As a result of representations that have been made by interested bodies, I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer the following questions in relation to the proposed deductions from wool-growers’ cheques : -

  1. Will the Minister assure the Senate that such prepayments will be deducted only from this year’s wool cheques?
  2. Will the Government make prompt repayment of the balance where deductions exceed income tax assessments ?
  3. Will adequate provision be made for prompt relief in necessitous cases?
  4. Will the scheme be abolished in the event of a sudden fall in values to below last year’s values ?
  5. As a counter to inflation, will the money collected as prepayments be “ frozen “ until income tax is normally payable by the woolgrowers from whose cheques it has been deducted ?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– As the honorable senator’s series of questions is based upon a circular letter I prefer to refer the matter to my colleague for a considered reply to be furnished, rather than attempt to deal with it myself.

page 1408

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport inform the Senate of the quantity of coal that has been imported into Australia during the last ten months, and the landed cost ?

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

– From memory, 600,000 tons of coal have been imported into Australia during, the last ten months. I cannot remember offhand exact details of the landed cost, but I think that it was about £5 15s. a ton. I shall ascertain the correct figures and communicate them, to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 1408

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Trade . and Customs has invariably answered questions that I -have directed to him about the declining value of the £1 by saying that the remedy lay in increased production. According to this morning’s press, share values have reached record heights. If something is not done to remedy the present situation, this country will end in financial disaster. Will the Minister inform the Senate what the Government proposes to do about it?

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

– I would not attempt to improve upon the pronouncements that have already been made about this matter by the Prime Minister. If the honorable senator was not privileged to listen to the right honorable gentleman’s broadcasts, I shall be very glad to supply him with transcripts of them, and I commend a study of them to him.

Senator Grant:

– Since the broadcasts were made share values have risen much more quickly than ever before in the history of Australia.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Unlike the honorable senator, I have neither the time nor the inclination to study the fluctuations of the stock exchange. I am not aware that there has been the violent fluctuations to which he has referred.

page 1408

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Great concern has been expressed by the Minister for Trade and Customs and other Government supporters in the Senate, as well as by the Treasurer, over the fact that the Parliamentary Labour party accepts orders from the federal executive, not all the members of which are members of the Parliament. Has the Minister noticed a statement in the Melbourne press that of sixteen persons who submitted their names as prospective Liberal candidates for the Fawkner electorate at the next general election, eight have had their names removed from the list by some Libera] party controlling body the members of which are as yet unknown? Seeing that the names and occupations of the members of the Labour party executive are well known to the public, will the Minister ascertain the names and occupations of this Liberal secret junta which will finally order and determine the political fate of those persons who desire to serve the Liberal party in the National Parliament?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– We can well understand the desire of the honorable senator to get some balm for the humiliation which he feels because only two members of the Parliament are included among the twelve members of the federal executive of the Australian Labour party which controls tyrannically the whole party. If the reading of the newspaper report to which he has referred affords him any relief, I should be the last to deny it to him.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– As the Attorney-General has been in Melbourne during his absence from this chamber this week, I ask him whether he was one of those responsible for the removal of certain names from the list of candidates for the federal Liberal pre-election ballot?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– It is quite easy for me to answer that question. The first that I heard of this matter was the question asked by .Senator Sheehan this morning. I am in no way concerned with it. The honorable senator seems to derive some comfort from what, after all, is merely a newspaper report, the accuracy of which I am not prepared to accept.

page 1409

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator KATZ:
VICTORIA

– Recently, large increases were made in the tariff charges at Government hotels and hostels in Canberra. Can the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Interior say whether the increases are due to maladministration, and to the failure of the Government to restore the value of the fi ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The previous Minister for the Interior examined the books of government hostels and hotels, and found that, while the Labour Government was in office, those institutions were being run at a loss. I understand that in an attempt to remedy the position, slight tariff increases have been made in certain instances. If the honorable senator wants more specific information I shall get it from the Minister concerned.

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior inform the Senate of the position of members of the Parliament as the result of the proposal to increase charges for hotel accommodation in this city? For very many years we have been able to obtain accommodation on a bed and breakfast tariff, making use of the facilities provided in this building for additional meals, such as lunch and dinner. I understand that that privilege will not in future be enjoyed by guests at the Hotel Kurrajong, where many members of the Parliament are accommodated, and that in future members will be charged the full daily rate. If that be done many members who for years have taken advantage of the concession of a bed and breakfast tariff will be seriously inconvenienced.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the question?

Senator FINLAY:

– Will the Minister do what he can to ensure that the privilege hitherto enjoyed by members of the Parliament who desire accommodation on a bed and breakfast basis shall be retained ?

Senator McLEAY:

– I appreciate the point raised by the honorable senator. I shall discuss the matter with the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior and let the honorable senator have a reply as soon as possible.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. By way of explanation I draw his attention to the fact that owing to the recent Commonwealth Arbitration Court award, the lower paid male public servants in Canberra will receive an increase of approximately 10s. per week in their salaries, and female public servants approximately 7s. per week, or 7-5 per cent, of the male rate. Those public servants have been notified by the managements of the various hostels where they reside that from the 1st November, 1950, when the new award commences to operate, the rate of tariff will be increased by £1 per week. As the increase will cause grave hardship to lower-paid public servants, will the Minister give serious consideration to adjusting tariff rates so that they will be more in keeping with the salaries received by such persons ?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I shall be pleased to discuss that matter with my colleagues and furnish the honorable senator with a reply to his question. However, it must be appreciated that those hostels cannot be conducted, even by the Government, at a loss.

page 1409

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF

Senator ARNOLD:

– In view of the fact that residents in the Forbes district, and those along the lower reaches of the river Lachlan, have repeatedly suffered loss from floods this year, and are in the midst of another flood at the moment, will the Government do what is possible to afford them relief?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Government views with great concern and regret the circumstances referred to by tha honorable senator. The affording of immediate relief, however, is a matter primarily for the State governments concerned, but I assure the honorable senator that the Commonwealth Government will co-operate, as it has done in the past, at the request of State governments, in affording such relief as is in its power to grant.

page 1410

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that long delays in the installation of both business and private telephones arc imposing considerable hardship on sonic applicants, I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether he will take up with his colleague the question of expediting installations in the suburbs of the City of Launceston? Will lie also inquire whether any priority is given in the allocation of new telephones to either business or private applicants? i urge also that action be taken to speed up the installation of telephones in amis where new exchanges have been built, many applicants who have been on the waiting list for as long as- three years are still without telephones.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– Everyone knowthat there is a great demand for telephones to-day. Certain parts of telephone sets have to be imported, and those components are difficult to obtain. I can assure the honorable senator that, in the ten months that this Government has been in office, the Postmaster-General hai managed to speed up the delivery of those parts. I shall bring the honorable senator’s inquiry about priorities to the notice of the Postmaster-General and I shall also ask the honorable gentleman for :i report on the installation of telephones in the suburbs of Launceston.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister has stated that there is a shortage of imported parts for telephones. I understand that ample supplies of telephones are available but that they cannot be installed because of the shortage of cable and exchange equipment.

Senator Cooper:

– I ask you, Mr. President, whether the Leader of the

Opposition is making a question or making a speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– These questions will be broadcast over the air and on that account I have allowed honorable senators certain latitude to enable them to make their questions clear. All honorable senators take advantage of that latitude and nearly all preface their questions by explanatory statements. I permitted the Leader of the Opposition to proceed because I thought it desirable to allow him to make a short explanation before he proceeded to ask his question. He should now ask the question.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I ask the Minister whether the answer he has just given to the question asked by Senator Aylett was correct or whether he has misunderstood the position. I understand that ample supplies of telephones are available in Australia but that the demand for telephone installations cannot be met because of the shortage of cable and other equipment. Will he obtain from the postmasterGenera1 information concern ing the factors that are impeding the provision of telephones, and make it available to honorable senators?

Senator COOPER:

– [ shall be glad to obtain such a statement from the PostmasterGeneral and to make it available to the Senate. If the Leader of the Opposition had taken any interest in the activities of the Postal Department he would realize-

Senator Ashley:

– Obviously the Minister himself does not know much about them because he misled the Senate in regard to them only a few days ago.

Senator COOPER:

– Since the Leader of the Opposition relinquished control of the Postal Department an unprecedented demand has been made for the installation of telephones. As I have already indicated, the Postmaster-General is giving a great deal of thought to the means whereby additional telephone facilities can be provided, but owing to the shortage of equipment, including telephones, he is not able to keep pace with tha demand. I assure honorable senators that he is doing everything in his power to meet the situation.

page 1411

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 19th October, Senator Robertson asked a question concerning the application of the free medical scheme to persons on small superannuation pensions. In answer to the honorable senator’s question, I have been informed by the Minister for Health that the scheme of medical benefits to age, invalid, widow and service pensioners and their dependants is at present limited to those categories.

Senator AYLETT:

– During the last ten months many reports of the Government’s national health scheme have appeared in the Australian press, some of them under big headlines. Will the Minister, at an early date, make a statement to the Senate about this scheme, of which we have heard so much in the newspapers but nothing in the Parliament?

Senator COOPER:

– The Government’s national health scheme is being implemented in stages, and some portions of it aro already in operation. I shall ask the Minister for Health to furnish me. when he is prepared to do so, with a statement containing information about the portions of the scheme that have still to be put into operation. When I receive it, I shall comply with the honorable senator’s request.

Senator ARNOLD:

– Many distorted versions of the Government’s national health scheme have been published in the press and members of the Parliament are continually being asked questions based upon those reports. Does not the Minister representing the Minister for Health believe that it would be proper for his colleague to inform members of the Parliament of the intentions of the Government in this connexion and not leave them to discover what is contemplated from press reports?

Senator COOPER:

– I assure the honorable senator that when the full health scheme contemplated by the Government is ready to be put into operation, the Senate will be given full information about it. I remind him that the previous Government took approximately eight years to present a national health scheme to the Parliament, and that that scheme was never put completely into operaton. Portions of this Government’s national health scheme are in operation at the present time, and other portion; will be implemented as soon as possible.

Senator GRANT:

– Am I to assume from the Minister’s reply that he has no knowledge of the details of the scheme ( I point out that the Minister for Health has explained it to various institution? and also that, according to press reports, he proposed to travel to America ann explain it to the American public but refrained from doing so because there wa-; a possibility of a double dissolution? Does the Minister mean that he is nor yet acquainted with the details of the scheme, even on paper?

Senator COOPER:

– It is not the practice to make statements of Government policy in reply to questions.

Senator GRANT:

– Does not the Minister think that it would be right and proper for members of the Parliament to be made acquainted with details of the scheme before they are published throughout Australia and other countries? Would not that be in accordance with the principles of good political conduct and courtesy?

Senator COOPER:

– The Minister for Health has no authority to prevent the public, press of this country from indulging in speculation about the national health scheme contemplated by the Government. I assure the honorable senator that the scheme will be placed before the Senate in its entirety when it is finalized and ready to be put into operation.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Did I undersand the Minister to say that the Government’s national health scheme was a “ full “ or a “ fool “ scheme?

Question not answered.

page 1411

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Are any of the .private airways companies operating in Australia indebted to the Commonwealth for any services supplied, such as air route or other charges?
  2. If so, what companies are indebted, and to what extent?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Yes.
  2. As the question of the payment of these air route charges is now before the court, the matter is sub judice.

page 1412

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1950-51

FirstReading.

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vid page 1331), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a first time.

SenatorWEDGWOOD (Victoria) [11.38]. - Last night you, Mr. President, reminded us that, under the Standing Orders, in discussing certain bills honorable senators were allowed to refer to matters not strictly relevant to the motion before the Senate. Although the Standing Orders permit that to be done, I wonder for how long the tax-harassed people of Australia will be prepared to pay honorable senators £1,500 a year for reading press cuttings and verses - and very bad verses at that.

When the debate was interrupted last night, I was referring to the last report submitted by the Auditor-General, in which he recommended the reestablishrnent of the Public Accounts Committee. When the committee was established in 1913, the annual expenditure was £21,000,000, and the national debt was £19,000,000. To-day, as everyone knows, the national debt is more than £2,900,000,000, and the estimated expenditure for the current financial year will be more than £738,000,000. If it was necessary in 1913, when the country’s revenue and expenditure were so low, to have a committee that would inquire into the expenditure of public money, I submit that it is even more necessary to have such a committee to-day. The Public Accounts Committee functioned very satisfactorily, and I believe that had it not been suspended in 1932, it would have continued to save this country considerable expenditure. Its very constitution and function prove how valuable it was to the overall control of the country’s finances. Section 3 of the

Committee of Public Accounts Act 1913, reads -

The duties of the Committee shall be -

to examine the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth, and to report to both Houses of the Parliament any items in those accounts or any circumstances connected with them to which they think that attention should be directed;

to report to both Houses of the Parliament any alteration which the Committee think desirable in the form of the public accounts or the method of keeping them, or in the mode of receipt control issue or payment of the public money; (c)to inquire into and report upon any questions in connexion with the public accounts which are referred to them by either House of the Parliament; and

any other duties assigned to the Committee by Joint Standing Orders approved by both Houses of the Parliament.

The committee itself, by limiting its expenditure to £2,000 annually, later increased to £3,000, provided that it would not be an extravagant body. There can be no just claim levelled against the committee that it was wasteful. On the other hand, it actually saved the country a considerable sum of money. Between July, 1917, and June, 1.930, there were 21 royal commissions, which cost £107,755, an average of £5,132, compared with fifteen inquiries by the Public Accounts Committee carried out at an average cost of £1,222. The committee investigated very many questions and included State disabilities, particularly those of South Australia and Tasmania.

Its first report related to the Lithgow Small Arms Factory ; the Commonwealth naval dockyards at Cockatoo Island; expenditure incurred in connexion with Aurora of the Shackleton expedition; stationery, printing and advertising accounts of Commonwealth departments; stores and supplies for Commonwealth requirements ; establishment of the Public Works Department; and the manner of submitting the Estimates, the budget and the Treasurer’s statement. Its second report contained the results of investigations concerning the Papuan oil-fields; expenditure in connexion with establishing naval bases ; expenditure on premises in capital cities owned and rented by the Commonwealth for office accommodation; Commonwealth finance - credit balances, method of departmental payments, and Commonwealth railways. Its third report “referred to Commonwealth shipbuilding; transactions of the War Service Homes Commission with Mr. J. T. Caldwell; purchase of saw-mills in timber areas - in which Senator O’Byrne should be interested; War Service Homes Commission - progress reports from all States, and final report; sugar - interim and final reports. The fourth report contained references to expenditure on air services ; War Service Homes disposal ; the Lithgow housing scheme; Canberra housing; expenditure on munitions supply; expenditure on the Royal Australian Naval College and Royal Military College; certain transactions between co-operative Estates Limited, Hobart, and the War Service Homes Commission - a report that was specifically called for by the Government ; expenditure on oil exploration, development and refining in the Commonwealth and Papua. In its fifth general report the committee again examined expenditure on oil exploration in the Commonwealth and Papua. It also referred to Commonwealth shipping activities, including Cockatoo Island Dockyard. The report contained individual reports in relation to Pacific island shipping facilities; communications between Tasmania and the mainland; transport facilities within the Federal Capital Territory; housing and building costs generally in the Federal Capital Territory; and agricultural and pastoral leases in the Federal Capital Territory. The Joint Select Committee on Public Accounts of the Commonwealth Parliament, in June, 1931, undertook an investigation, inter alia, into the desirability of uniform methods of accounting for the Commonwealth and the States. I suggest that the Public Accounts Committee accomplished a formidable amount of work at low expenditure.

Let us consider the position since the committee was abolished. All honorable senators are conversant with the trenchant criticisms of the AuditorGeneral with regard to many items of expenditure. All women’s organizations and many men’s organizations, year after year, have been disgusted because nothing has been done following the Auditor-General’s report drawing attention to grave shortages and incapacity. After the presentation of one Auditor-General’s report, the honorable member “for Dalley in the House of Representatives (Mr. Rosevear), in one of his audacious and blatantly partisan utterances, said that he was not much concerned over what the Auditor-General had to say. By contrast, the taxpayers are very interested in what the Auditor-General has to say. I shall refer to his comment about immigration camps in his report for the year ended the 30th June, 1949. We are all very interested in the problem of immigration at the present time. It is one that is looming very largely on the political and social horizon. The AuditorGeneral stated -

Audit inspections of Immigration camps have been made and in some instances have revealed unsatisfactory features which were referred to the Department for attention. Among the matters so referred were those dealing with stores accounting (including foodstuffs), preparation of salaries and wages sheets and the .payment of salaries and wages, errors in accounting for cash receipts, and defects in the recording of charges, lack of knowledge and experience of staff handling and accounting ‘for cash and/or stores, and absence of internal checks.

There is an interesting reference to the Australian Shipping Board, and as a large amount of money is involved, the paragraph is worth reading. It is as follows : -

As stated in my previous Report the accumulated surplus at 30th June, 1047, in respect of Commonwealth-owned and Chartered Tonnage was £3,445,367. During 1947-48 additional debits of £41,121 and £4,059 on account of the year 194li-47 reduced this surplus to £3,400,187. Statements of account for the year ended 30th June, 1948, which were incomplete at the date of my 1947-48 Report have since been completed and audited. Operations for the year, as shown in the statements set out hereunder, resulted in a net loss of £2,548,102 (£1,843,038 for 1946-47). This loss reduced the accumulated surplus to £852,085 at 30th June, 1948.

In its reports the management has broadly attributed these losses to the unsuitability of the chartered tonnage, the necessity to maintain unprofitable voyages in the Commonwealth interest, and factors generally common in the industry such as increases in operating costs, disputes, and slow turn-round of vessels. In view of the magnitude of these continuing losses it is suggested that they should be the subject of special investigation by an ad hoo Committee, or in the event of the reestablishment of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee.

There is much food for thought in that report, and yet some members of the Parliament profess to. be unconcerned about what the AuditorGeneral has to say. It is the responsibility of every member of the Parliament to regard himself as a custodian of the public purse. It is our responsibility to see that there is a careful scrutiny of all public accounts. One might quote at length from the reports of the Auditor-General on the methods of accounting, and of controlling stores and equipment in the Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air, as well as in connexion with aircraft production and the administration of cafeterias. They all add up to an indictment of government administration. I believe that a Public Accounts Committee would be able to check the tendency of government departments to indulge in extravagant expenditure. This should not be a party matter. The Government has already announced that it will reconstitute the Public Accounts Committee, and I hope that it will persevere in its intention. There has been much talk about the increasing cost of living, but a careful scrutiny of government expenditure would be one way in which to reduce costs. I do not believe that the people of Australia are satisfied with the methods of government accounting and auditing as practised in recent years. The record of the Labour Government was one of gross maladministration, and the appointment of a public accounts committee to scrutinize carefully all public accounts should be of great benefit to the people.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I agree with Senator Wedgwood that it would be well to reconstitute the Public Accounts Committee so as to keep a check on government expenditure. It is interesting to recall that the committee was abolished by the Lyons Government, and that it was during the regime of the same Government that a “ slush fund “ was established out of which to pay money to persons in industry either to provoke industrial unhappiness,. or to do other than they f cif ‘themsel vesmorally bound to do. Why a government which held the same political beliefs asthe present Government should have abolished the Public Accounts Committee,. I do not understand, and I certainly do not agree that the Auditor-General deserves such censure as has been passed on him. The duty of the Auditor-General is to see that public accounts disclosethe true position, having regard to the documents placed before him. If Senator Wedgwood really believes what she hassaid about the Auditor-General and his officers it is her duty to suggest to her leader that action be taken in regard to them. It is not the duty of the AuditorGeneral to act as a private detective, or to be influenced by political opinion, and it ill behoves any member of the Senate to cast a slur on a capable public servant whom I, for one, hold in high esteem.

I also think that Senator Wedgwood was very ill mannered in her references to Senator O’Byrne, in which she stated her opinion as to whether he earns his salary, just because he quoted a piece of poetry of which she did not approve. The speech of Senator O’Byrne was a more constructive contribution to the debate than that of the honorable senator herself. Senator O’Byrne discharges his parliamentary duties in an efficient and honorable way. I remind Senator Wedgwood that it would be very rude of me to suggest that, when she speaks, she is merely voicing the opinions of her husband. Such matters should be left out of discussions in this chamber. Senator O-‘Byrne has served his country well in the Parliament, and as a member of the armed forces during the war, in the course of which he became a prisoner of war in Germany.

The Supply Bill that is now before the Senate is an extraordinary document. There has been so much talk of inflation and mounting costs, that we expected the budget to indicate a reduction of government expenditure. We also expected that something; more would be done for age and invalid pensioners, and those on fixed incomes, whose position is worse now than it ever was before. When the Labour Government was in office, the age pension represented 36.64 per cent, of the then

Iki aic wage. It now represents only 30. S per cent, of the basic wage. Governmental expenditure in many avenues has been increased to abnormal levels. Apparently in those directions at least the Government intends to put value back into the £1 at the expense of the pensioners. Although we have heard several, speakers from the Government side of the chamber, not one of them has attempted to explain the substantially increased rate of expenditure provided for in this bill. When submitting a. measure such as this, Government spokesmen should not deal in generalities or resort to innuendoes about the Labour party but, rather, some adequate justification of this extraordinary document should be given. During the election campaign, tho claim of the present Government parties was that governmental expenditure should be reduced. They said that the Treasury was overflowing and that taxes were excessive. They objected to the maintenance of economic controls. That was all dishonest propaganda. The Government’s budget proposals include increases of the sales tax which is one of the most vicious forms of taxation. lt is paid by the poorest people, including pensioners. There is no consideration of capacity to pay. While, as I have said, the ratio of pensions to the basic wage is lower than it has been for many years, the Government is raising indirect taxes and so increasing the burden on the poorer sections of the community. The sales tax on bicycles, for instance, is to be substantially increased. Apparently honorable senators opposite regard bicycles as a luxury, but I remind them that not every one in the community can afford the comfortable modes of travel that they have at their disposal. On the coal-fields, in outback areas, and the towns, cycling is the mode of travel of working people. Bus, tram, and train fares have increased enormously - in some instances by as much as. 100 per cent. - and bicycles are being used more than ever by working people including comparatively lowly paid apprentices who are seeking to improve their skill and knowledge not only during their working hours, but also by attending technical schools. It is upon those working people that the Government must rely for in creased production. The increasing of indirect taxation on such essentials as bicycles reveals grave inefficiency somewhere in the Government’s administration.

Honorable senators opposite were loud in their election promises to improve the economy of this country but when the time came to act, their opinions apparently had changed. My belief that this administration is inefficient is backed by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) who, in a press statement, is reported to have told the Federal Council of the Australian Country party on the 21st October -

I have recast my budget seven times mainly because of rising defence costs as the international situation becomes tenser, the Premiers’ refusal to reduce their expenditure and Public Service pay increases.

The Government parties pose as the friends of the workers, but their actions belie that claim. The Treasurer speaks with one voice within the confines of party meetings, and with another voice in thi* Parliament. The above statement reveals that he tried to use duress on State Premiers to avoid the payment of increases that public servants were justly entitled to receive. He-says that he has been unable to convince the State Premiers to curtail their expenditure, and that he has had to recast his budget seven times mainly because of rising defence costs. What arrogant hypocrisy ! We all know that he recast his budget because of pressure brought to bear on him by various groups in the community. They have been too strong for him. The result is that we have before us a. thoroughly dishonest budget, which amongst other injustices imposes a sectional tax on the wool-growers. It may he that, because of high prices, the wool-growers can afford to forgo that part of their income which is to be withheld from them temporarily, hut the proposal is dishonest because the n mount obtained from this source will go into Consolidated -Revenue and will be used to offset considerable losses occasioned by concessions to certain commercial interests which the Government feels it is morally obliged to compensate for political support. If we had a. public accounts committee that could deal with receipts as well as expenditure, or if the AuditorGeneral had that authority, there would be some very caustic criticism of the Government’s dishonest budgeting.

There would have been no necessity for this second Supply Bill had the Government been efficient enough to produce its budget at the normal time as preceding Labour administrations always managed to do. We should now have been working under the budgetary provisions, and the pensioners would have been receiving their increased remuneration. Again I say that the budget is dishonest. It has been recast seven times because of the activities of pressure groups outside this Parliament. A second Supply Bill had to be introduced to enable the members of the Government parties and their supporters to adjust their differences. The budget shows evidence of leanings towards the demands of pressure groups, whilst, at the same time, it ls calculated to induce the people of Australia to believe that the Government is doing something about inflation. The inflationary spiral has obviously beaten the Government. Apparently Senator Robertson was hurt by Senator O’Byrne’s clear demonstration of the Government’s miserable failure to deal with inflation. Members of the Government parties sang their own praises enthusiastically during the election campaign. They even sustained their song for some time after they had been returned to office, but when the time came to act they failed lamentably. The promise to put value back into the £1 has not been fulfilled. We are told that higher production is the key to lower prices. I believe that production in Australia is already high, with due regard to the welfare of the man who has to put his hand to the wheel. Per capita production in this country is as high as in any other country, including America, allowing for our lag in mechanization. To give some indication of the real effect of production on prices in this country, I refer the Senate to a recently published statistical bulletin. The document deals, amongst other things, with wholesale price index figures, so that it is a true reflection of production. Compared with a base figure of 1,000 in 1939. the wholesale price index figure reached 1,S00 in 1949, when the LabourGovernment relinquished office, but was still below that of the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom,, and New Zealand. This year wholesale prices have risen higher in Australia than in the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand, the index figure now being 2,110, or 1,110 above the base of 1,000 in 19.39. Since 1939, the value of our exports, excluding gold, has risen by almost 400 per cent.

Senator Guy:

– From what publication is the honorable senator quoting?

Senator COOKE:

– I am quoting from the Monthly Review of Business Statistics, published by the Commonwealth Statistician in April last. Honorable senators opposite have recently asked what has become of our dried milk production. Senator Robertson said that no supplies were available in Western Australia.

Senator Robertson:

– I referred not only to Western Australia, but to Australia generally.

Senator COOKE:

– The honorable senator was not quite honest in either her question or her interjection. Dried milk is being exported to overseas countries, where it is sold at prices much higher than the Australian economy can afford. The production of dried milk in Australia is higher now than ever before in our history, yet Western Australians cannot obtain it. Senator Robertson raised this matter because she regarded it as a politically popular line. She should be more honest in her approach to matters of that kind and admit that the Government is regulating exports in the interests of Australian traders. The export of certain commodities should he prohibited until the requirements of this country have been met at a price which people can afford to pay. Goods should not be sold on the home market at inflated world prices merely to satisfy the greed of investors. I do not believe in the imposition of unnecessary restrictions, but in present circumstances export restrictions must be imposed by the Government in the interest5! of the people. Because no control is exercised over the export of commodities from this country, manufacturers are greedily flooding the markets of the world with their products in order to reap the benefit of the inflated prices. They are not concerned about the requirements of the home market. The uncontrolled export of commodities which are almost unobtainable on the Australian market may destroy our economy. The workers cannot be expected to increase their output while such exports are allowed to continue. Unless the position, is remedied prices on the Australian market will continue to rise until they reach world parity. If we increase our production of wool, more wool will be exported to Russia or its satellites because they pay higher prices for wool than other countries do.

Last night, Senator O’Flaherty said that although there has been great criticism of communism in this country, the Australian Government was permitting the export of large quantities of wool to Russia and other potential enemy countries in order to reap the benefit of the high prices paid by them. As the result of the attractive prices offered on the overseas markets, wool supplies in Australia are extremely low. The Government’s proposal to pay a subsidy of £40,000,000 a year on woollen goods for home consumption will do very little to relieve the situation here. It will be like tipping a bucket of water into the sea. If this Government were honest it would take steps to stabilize the markets of this country and ensure that the requirements of our own people shall he given first consideration. Only the exportable surplus that remains after our own needs have been met should be sent first to overseas countries which are trying to recover from the effects of a brutal war that brought their people to the point of starvation, and secondly to those countries which are ‘building up their supplies of wool, lead, nickel and other commodities as a war measure or to guard against the possibility of future shortages. If th» world’s markets slumped to-morrow and the prices of export commodities fell, an abundance of commodities of all kinds which are now short in Australia would be unloaded on the local market at unprecedentedly low prices, which would nol enable manufacturers to pay their employees decent rates of wages.

In an extraordinary speech on this bill last night Senator Guy endeavoured to justify the failure of this Government to halt inflation by drawing a parallel between conditions in this country and in the United States of America. He asked how the Australian Government could prevent inflation when the United States of America with its huge production had been unable to do so. His argument cut right across the contention of the Government that increased production will provide a cure for inflation. Production per capita in the United States of America is higher than in any other country. At present American production is 77 per cent, above normal and only 35 per cent, below the abnormal level that was achieved in 1943 when that country was fully geared for war. The people of the United States of America are suffering more severely than are those of any other country from the effects of inflation. Production in the United States of America is so high that that country is not only exporting commodities but also making gifts of its production to other nations because the home market through legitimate trade is unable to absorb all the goods that it produces. Senator Guy told us last night that Americans now have to pay as much as a dollar and a half for a haircut. In what way did his speech strengthen the Government’s contention that increased production is a cure for inflation? We must so recast the economy of thi9 country as to ensure that all the requirements of the home market shall be met in times of both inflation and deflation. This country can stand a regulated economy and the Government should take immediate steps to establish it.

Nothwithstanding the promise made to the people by this Government that it would reduce governmental expenditure and cut down staffs, it has introduced a bill which provides for two months expenditure which in some instances is very much greater than that provided in an earlier measure which covered a period of four months. During the general election campaign members of the parties now in office criticized the Chifley Government for adding to the number of Commonwealth employees. Since this Government has been in office the number of persons in government employment, both male and female, has increased by 44,500. I do not challenge tha necessity for such an increase but I should like the Government to explain what caused it to change its dogmatic opinion that the number of public servants could bc drastically reduced. This measure includes a provision of £5,300,000 for tha Department of the Treasury for the enduing two months. The estimated expenditure during the preceding 4 months is £1,600,000. I should like the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to state the reason for ‘ this very great increase in the cost of that department. What is the reason foi1 an increase of over 100 per cent, for half the period? There is an obligation on the Government to explain what appears to he an extraordinarily In rae expansion of expenditure by that department.

Let us turn to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which, I appreciate, has provided service of great value to this country. The Government is requesting supply of A’S+4.000 for that organization for two months, although expenditure during the previous four months is recorded at £fi53,000. It is extraordinary that for two months an additional £191,000 should be required. Yet no member of the Government has suggested any reason for the increase.

The estimated expenditure for two months by the Department of the Navy is £7,400,000 against expenditure of £3,900,000 for the four months ending the 30th October, or practically double the amount required during the previous four months; yet, there has been no explanation of the increase. I do not doubt that the Royal Australian Navy has incurred expenditure in prosecuting the Korean campaign, and it may also have incurred expenditure in Malaya and IndoChina. Whilst I support the contention that expenditure on defence is thoroughly justified, such expenditure is expected to ensure some real protection for the people of this country. The Government should not concern itself with troubles in other parts of the world in which th.j. nation is under no obligation to interfere but in which it is likely to become involved through the arrogance of its Minister for

External Affairs who has attempted totell other nations of the world how they should handle their affairs. If expenditure has been incurred in assisting the United Nations organization to maintain peace, then I highly commend it, but if it has been incurred in causes which do not concern the Australian people but iv, which our big investors have a monetary interest, the Government should give some explanation to the people. However, I doubt whether such an explanation, will be forthcoming, because I know that whenever members of the Opposition seek information on matters that are pertinent ti the welfare of the country, the members of the. Government are not willing to supply it. They prefer to hold a gun at thu head of the Opposition and suggest that if it does not permit this bill to go forward it will place another burden on the back of the working man and the man on a fixed income.

Expenditure by the Department of the Army is estimated at £S,254,000, whereas expenditure during the previous four months was £3,250,000, representing an increase of £5,004,000, or, on a monthly basis, an increase of approximately 400 per cent. It is possible to envisage certain expenditure because of commitments to the United Nations organization, but I do not think that all of that expenditure is. intended to be incurred in that way. An explanation should also be given of that item, because this Government clearly stated that it would reduce expenditure.

There are other matters that I wish to discuss, but as the budget will soon bc debated in this chamber, I do not propose to deal with them at this stage.

Recently I” asked a question ‘ of the Minister for Social Services in relation to the completion of a rehabilitation centre in Western Australia, and the Minister informed me that as far as he was concerned the centre had been completed. I admit that that centre has done some excellent work and that the Government has kept the cost of its erection to an absolute minimum, but it is by no means complete. I should like to tell honorable senators of some of the unusual cases that have been treated at that centre. The first case is that of Leon Pyke, a single man aged 22 years, who was an invalid pensioner. The history of his treatment is as follows: -

Previous employment: assistant in shoe store for three months.

Pensioner suffers from a spinal tumor removed in 1945; was bedridden from 1945 to 1948. On grant of invalid pension in 1946, his medical condition -was stated as “ extremely wasted and ill - lugs paralysed “.

Accepted for rehabilitation from 22/10/48.

Treatment previous to acceptance was carried out at Royal Perth Hospital, where a spinal tumor was removed in 1945. He was discharged from Royal Perth Hospital to Home of Peace in 1946, and was bedridden for two years. Re-commenced out-patient treatment at Royal Perth Hospital in July, 1948, and was educated to walk. Was mobile on crutches, with splints on both legs, when accepted for rehabilitation. Admitted to Rehabilitation Centre on 25/10/48. Occupational, remedial,, and education therapy applied, and continued physiotherapy at Royal Perth Hospital as an out-patient. Dental treatment and dentures supplied, it is worthy of note that pensioner, when admitted to Rehabilitation Centre, had to be assisted when walking, but his progress was such that lie was able to manage alone within a short period.

Report from specialist at Royal Perth Hospital on 15/3/50, stated - “1. No further treatment or attendance at hospital necessary.

  1. He will have to wear a caliper splint indefinitely.
  2. No further improvement anticipated “. Pensioner was discharged from centre on

18/4/50.

Pensioner was referred to Commonwealth Employment Service for employment in April, 1950, but the position obtained for him proved unsuitable. Case was referred to training sub-committee, and pensioner commenced training as a process worker with K. & R. Tough on 19/6/50. Unfortunately, through lack of materials, Pyke was put off, but Tough’s were willing to recommend him to any other firm. Contact was made with Chamberlain Industries, who said they would he willing to employ pensioner, but he would not be able to commence for sonic time as the lathe on which he was to work was not yet installed. Pensioner was referred to W.A.G.B. Workshops, Midi:,,id Junction, and the officer-in-charge has recommended that he hit employed as a steam-hammer operator on probation. The Commissioner’s decision is expected within a week.

That young man has now returned to employment in industry after being placed in the Home of Peace for Incurables. I also have details of three other cases. The first is that of E. S. Gore, a single man aged twenty years, who was condemned to a life of enforced idleness because of his disabilities. He was admitted to the centre, and was able to resume work after treatment. The second case is that of Leonard J. Dobbs, a single man aged 30 years. He was also treated at the centre, and subsequently returned to employment in industry.

The third case is that of Betty L. Prunster, a single woman, 30 years of agc. She was a dressmaker. An invalid pension was granted to her in respect of her disability, which was pulmonary tuberculosis, and she was treated at Wooroloo Sanatorium and later at Perth Chest Clinic. She has been, rehabilitated to some degree.

I agree with the Minister that this rehabilitation centre is doing excellent work, but I do not agree that constructional work on it has progressed as fatas was envisaged by the Chifley Government. Li that respect, it is not so far advanced as are similar centres in New South Wales. South Australia and other States. The sheds are temporary structures, and valuable equipment cannot be utilized because there is insufficient space available in the buildings. I saw a medical practitioner working in the open while treating a young woman. I arn not criticizing the Government. I am appealing to it to complete the centre. I am certain that the Minister looks at this problem from the humanitarian viewpoint, but apart altogether from that aspect of the matter, the expenditure involved in completing the centre could be regarded us an investment.’ If it were completed, many more persons could be treated, rehabilitated and returned to industry. The expenditure would be an investment, because the country would be relieved of the necessity to pay those people unemployment, invalid or sickness benefits, and their return to industry would help to increase production. Prom the humanitarian viewpoint, they would be happier and their dignity as human beings would be restored. The officers of the centre and of the Social Services Department have done excellent work and used every means at their disposal to get the centre going properly. The men employed on demolition and building worked for more than the standard hours because they took an interest in the centre. The money made available has been used most carefully, but it has been exhausted, and one-third of the work remains to be completed. I urge the Government to arrange for it to be completed as soon as possible.

I hope that the Government will cease to tell US what the policy of the Labour party is and begin to explain its own policy. It should tell us how it reconciles this inflationary bill with the promises made to the people and why the number of public servants has increased by 44,500. I do not say that the increase is not justified, but I should like to know the reason for the change of the Government’s attitude in this connexion. I should also like to know whether any provision is made in the budget to provide immediate relief for people in receipt of fixed incomes. The Opposition’s main criticisms of the budget can be left until it is presented to this chamber It is an extraordinary document, and I believe that .we shall be able to make many suggestions for improving it and ensuring that public money is expended in the best interests of the people. I hope that the debate on the budget will be constructive, not abusive.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– ‘Senator Cooke alleged that the Government proposed to expend an unnecessarily large sum of public money. For his information, I shall give details of the projects upon which that money is to be expended.

Senator Cooke:

– Is the honorable senator talking of the budget or this bill l.

Senator VINCENT:

– I am dealing with the allegation by Senator Cooke that the Government proposes to expend an unnecessarily large sum of public money. In the next twelve months, the bulk of Government expenditure will be upon defence, repatriation, social services, payments to the States, subsidies and public works. I challenge Senator Cooke to suggest how expenditure, upon defence, for instance, could be reduced. Last year, Australia expended £54,000,000 on defence, and this year the expenditure will be more than double that sum. It is obvious that the honorable senator’s criticism of the proposed expenditure upon defence was ill-founded.

Senator Cooke:

– I did not criticize the items. I requested the Government to give details of them, because they appeared to be large.

Senator VINCENT:

– Perhaps Senator Cooke is not aware that we are engaged in a war in Korea. The Opposition has taken advantage of the debateon this bill to launch an attack upon the Government. I wish to make it clear that I do not criticize the Opposition for attacking the Government, because that is its function, but honorable senators opposite have indulged in criticism of a type that is not founded upon fact and is designed more for propaganda purposes than for constructive purposes. They have said repeatedly that this Government is responsible for the present high prices and that it is doing nothing about prices. They have alleged that the Liberal party and the Australian Country party represent the capitalist class and, as agents for the capitalists, exploit working men.

Let us examine the allegation that this Government is doing nothing in connexion with prices. When honorable senators make that allegation, invariably they begin by saying something about putting value back into the £1. I remind them that when they do so they condemn the. previous Government, because any person who talks about putting value back into the £1 admits that value has been taken from it. Honorable senators opposite have been taking value from the £1 for years.

Opposition senators interjecting,

Senator VINCENT:

– Despite the outbursts of honorable senators opposite, I am. convinced that reasonable Australians believe that this Government is not responsible for the present rising prices. They are a legacy from the Chifley Government. Apparently, the Labour party has suddenly discovered that prices are rising. I remind the Opposition that rising prices were a very important issue at the last general election. They were made an important issue by the Liberal party. The answer that the Labour party gave then to the electors who asked what it proposed to do about rising prices was that it would nationalize the means of production, distribution and exchange.

The electors indicated that they did not like that, and that they preferred our policy. I believe that they still do. To refute the allegation that the Government is not doing anything in connexion with prices, I shall state briefly what it has done and is doing, despite the efforts of a hostile Senate that has deliberately and inordinately delayed the passage of every piece of legislation presented to the Parliament this year.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Will the honorable senator enumerate the measures that the Labour party in this chamber has delayed ?

Senator VINCENT:

– It has delayed every measure from the child endowment legislation to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill; but, despite that, the Government has done and is doing things. The suggestion that it has done nothing is unfounded.

Sitting suspended from 12.J/S to 2.15 p.m.

Senator VINCENT:

– I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1421

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading,

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the appropriation of £28,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. The measure is similar to that submitted to the Parliament from time to time for the purpose of appropriating from revenue an amount for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid in accordance with such rates as are approved by the Parliament. The following table indicates the progressive increase in expenditure on war pensions : -

The amount of £2S,000,000 now requested will cover approximately a year’s expenditure.

This measure merely authorizes the provision of funds for the trust account and has no relation whatsoever to the rates or conditions under which war pensions are paid. The Government’s intentions in this matter have been outlined in the Treasurer’s budget speech, and honorable senators will have a full opportunity to. debate the proposals when the enabling legislation is before the Senate. In view of the fact that the present appropriation is now exhausted, an early passage of the bill is necessary so that the payment of pensions may continue without interruption at the rates at present approved by the Parliament.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

.- The Opposition raises no objection to this bill, which is a machinery measure. However, although the Minister has said that the appropriation of £28,000,000 sought in this measure “ has no relation whatsoever to the rates or conditions under which war pensions are paid “, I draw attention to the fact that the expenditure on war pensions during the last financial year was only £22,023,000. It would appear, therefore, that either more pensioners are being provided for, or that there has been an increase of the amounts of pensions payable. The Minister has stated that the present appropriation has been exhausted. Therefore the Opposition will facilitate the speedy passage of the bill.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - What the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) has said is correct. This appropriation contemplates an increase of pension rates, in accordance with the budget. In effect, however, both his statement and mine are correct because this bill is a machinery measure to enable the provision of funds from which the pensions will be paid. It might therefore be said that it has no relation directly or indirectly to the rates, although an appropriation of £5,000,000 more than the appropriation in the last financial year is sought.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1422

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1950-51

Debate resumed (vide page 1421).

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia.

– I shall recapitulate briefly a few of the measures that the Government has taken to counter the inflationary pressure on this country. In the first place the Government has increased coal production. Since it has been in office 9,800,000 tons of black coal have been produced. In the corresponding period of last year, when the Chifley Government was in office, only 8,200,000 tons of black coal were produced. I do not think that any honorable senator would deny that coal is the keynote of our production. Furthermore, the present Government has facilitated the importation of 600,000 tons of coal, against the wishes of the Labour Opposition majority in this chamber. That isa direct answer to the repeated accusations of honorable senators opposite that the Government is doing nothing about rising costs. We decided to subsidize the importation of prefabricated houses, and it is proposed to import 1.0,000 prefabricated housing units this financial year. In order to increase the productive capacity of the nation, the Government proposes to remove duties on certain capital goods, and has negotiated a dollar loan for the purpose of importing vital capital goods.

SenatorFraser. - But what about the currency?

Senator VINCENT:

– Is the honorable senator who has just interjected against the dollar loan ?

SenatorFraser. - Most definitely. Cash and carry is our method.

Senator VINCENT:

– The honorable senator remindsme of the attitude of a small child towards medicine that it is forced to take in order to make it well. I suggest that if we are to get well this dollar loan is absolutely vital, in order to assist the economy of this country. The Government proposes to apply the proceeds of the loan to obtain essential supplies. I should be very surprised to learn that any honorable senator opposite did not approve of that course. After a delay of many months, the Senate passed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and, irrespective of the views of some honorable senators opposite, I am convinced that that measure will result in increased production. In order further to counter the inflationary pressure on our economy, it is proposed that there shall be a prepayment of tax by the wool-growers. The Government also proposes to introduce a tax on excess profits, and to increase subsidies. I submit that the implementation of these proposals will have a marked effect, ultimately, on the cost of living in this country. Of course a reasonable length of time must elapse before the effect of these measures will be reflected in the nation’s economy. My purpose in referring to those measures is to give the lie to Opposition senators who say that the Government has done nothing to deal with the problem of rising costs. Every one of the measures to which I have referred is in accordance with our election promises.

Another criticism frequently heard is that we on this side of the Senate are capitalists, and represent the capitalist class. It might interest honorable senators to learn that Bertrand Russell, the well-known socialist, does not believe that there are any capitalists in Australia. I quote the following from the Sydney Morning Herald of the 23rd October: -

In talking of Australia, he said : - “ There is a very general level of material prosperity ; except among recent immigrants and aborigines there is hardly anything that can be called poverty. Except in great cities, everybody is comfortable as nobody is rich “.

It is of no use for honorable senators opposite to criticize unless they can support their arguments by facts. The mere repetition of a charge in an hysterical manner does not constitute proof.

I belong to the Kalgoorlie branch of the Liberal party. Its president is a blacksmith. He is a worker, and has been a worker all his life. “Would any honorable senator say that he is a capitalist? If he is, then honorable senators opposite are capitalists. On the executive committee of the branch there are miners, who are good trade unionists, tradesmen, storekeepers, a bank manager, an accountant, an engineer and, of course, a lawyer. One cannot get away from the lawyers. The secretary of the branch is an insurance salesman. It would be silly to suggest that the branch consists of capitalists, or that it represents the capitalist class. However, the Kalgoorlie branch is not unusual in this respect. Recently, I addressed a country branch of our party, and the president of that branch is a railway guard. Would honorable senators opposite call him a capitalist? It. pleases honorable senators opposite to be facetious, but I am stating facts in order to rebut a silly allegation that keeps on cropping up in this chamber. On the State executive of the Liberal party in Western Australia there is a fireman who is a good trade unionist. There are also country storekeepers, and an employee of one of the oil companies, who is also a good trade unionist. We have some accountants and some more solicitors, men of the same profession as Senator McKenna. There are also some farmers and country housewives. All capitalists, all wicked capitalists! The general president of the State executive and of the Liberal party in Western Australia is a humble country storekeeper from a small town. I am sure that Mr. Gillespie, the man of whom I speak, would be ‘flattered, and certainly amused, to hear himself described as a capitalist, or as one who represents the capitalist class. He would say what I am about to say now, and what every honorable senator opposite knows to be true: The Liberal party represents all sections of the community, including both employers and employees. It represents the country dweller and the city dweller. It represents professional men and pensioners. The policy of the party is based on the democratic principle that the rights of employers and employees are equally entitled to respect and protection, but that is something which honorable senators opposite will not concede. We also believe that employers and employees have a common purpose in life. They arc not placed in the world to cut one another’s throats. If we are capitalists, and represent the capitalist class, then the last general election showed that there are 2,300,000 capitalists in Australia, and I am sure that the number will be greatly increased at the next election.

We are frequently charged by honorable senators opposite with being the representatives of the capitalist class that exploits the working class. That is a fallacious charge, and is in accordance with the efforts of the Labour party to create class consciousness in Australia. Indeed, that effort represents the keystone of the policy of the Labour party. Ever since the Labour party became a socialist party after the return of Mr. “ Jock “ Garden to Australia in 1920, the Australian Labour party lias been trying to thrust clown the throats of Australians this obnoxious doctrine of class consciousness.

Let me give an example to show how ridiculous that doctrine is. Let us assume that a poor working man marries a woman, and they have a child - a very common occurrence. The child shows some ability at school, and is encouraged by his parents and teachers to improve himself. Later, he leaves school and gets a job, say, in an insurance office as a clerk. He proves himself an industrious worker, and eventually, after perhaps twenty years of hard work, he is made a branch manager for his company. He returns to his parents’ home with a certain amount of pride in his heart, but is met by his father, who says, “ My son, you are now one of the capitalist class. You are not welcome in this house. Get out!”

Senator Nash:

– That is a fallaciousargument.

Senator VINCENT:

– Of course it is fallacious.

Senator O’flaherty:

– Is that what the honorable senator’s father said to him ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators should listen in silence, and not turn the Senate into a bear garden.

Senator VINCENT:

– I agree with honorable senators opposite that it was a ridiculous story, yet that would he the logical thing to happen if people took seriously the doctrine that the Labour party preaches. A good Labour supporter would be expected to say to his child: “ My son, I will never agree that you, in this land of opportunity, should become a lawyer, a doctor, a farmer, an accountant, a storekeeper, or a business manager. In short, you must stay in your rut.” I am convinced that most Australians have sufficient brains to reject such a doctrine utterly. It is as old as Karl Marx, but honorable senators opposite are still preaching it. The strongest support for it, apart from utterances in this chamber, comes from the Yarra bank and the Sydney Domain. It is a socialist policy of despair. The criticisms of the Liberal party’s policy that I have discussed to-day are often heard in this Parliament. I refer to them only because they are not founded on fact. I should welcome frank criticisms of our policy, but I refute the baseless assertions that one hears so often from honorable senators opposite. I commend the policy of the Liberal party to the Opposition. The people of this country have already accepted it.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– This bill provides for the expenditure of £61,1S9,000 on governmental services. It is appropriate that I should mention at this stage that the expenditure of that money is made possible only as the result of the services rendered by the workers of this country. I say that because Senator Vincent referred to repetition. If there has been any repetition in this chamber in recent weeks, it has been the repetition, ad nauseam, by honorable senators opposite of their claims about the need for increased ‘production, and for action against the Communists. I have coined a new word - “Commophobia “. That is the mental disease from which Government supporters are suffering. It has its origin in logophobia. One is fear of Communists, and the other fear of words. I believe, therefore, that it is necessary to direct attention to the Government’s endeavour to evade dealing with the real isues. It has been said that what this country needs is increased production, but figures cited by speakers on this side of the chamber, together with reports by the Commonwealth Statistician, show that production was never higher than it is to-day. Increased production above market requirements, and beyond the purchasing power of wages and salaries, leads either to poverty or war. That has been so throughout history. Why was there industrial stagnation in the early 1930’s? There was stagnation because production had exceeded the purchasing power of the community. Factories were idle, and hundreds of thousands of people were out of employment. They were ready, willing and able to produce, but because of the mental bankruptcy of the antiLabour governments of those days, nothing was done. I am reminded of the writer who said, “ Where wealth accumulates, men decay “.. The endless repetition of the cry for increased production indicates to me, convincingly and clearly, that honorable senators opposite have notstudied the problem as it should be studied. I do not suggest for a moment that they are incapable of studying it thoroughly, but obviously there has been no sustained effort to understand the problem as it should be understood. To endeavour to side-track the issue with a lot of talk about communism and increased production does not help in the slightest. Hitler had a slogan - “ Expand or explode “. What he meant was Germany had to expand its trade, or face revolution among its own people. Excess production in Germany led to war in 1939, just as excess production in earlier years had led to poverty in every country of the world, including Australia. In those days, there was no lack of manpower, material resources or land. There was only a lack of brains in this institution and similar institutions. The task that should have been faced was not faced.

Senator Guy referred to a statement by the president of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party, Mr. Ferguson, that, as far as he was concerned, there would be no increased production. What he meant to say was that he would not advocate increased production under existing conditions. He was quite right. Until the Government is prepared to fulfil its promises, and until all the workers receive the fair share of increased production to which they are entitled, there will be no collaboration or co-operation. That can be taken for granted. The workers may not understand the technique of doctoring budgets and falsifying statistics, but they do understand the effects of increased production when they are not receiving the returns to which they are entitled. That 19 particularly true of the coal-miners. Years ago, the miners piled up mountains of coal at the pitheads and then found themselves out of work because they had over-produced. In that instance, overproduction led to poverty. Statisticians and others who are fond of using technical terms tell us that what we must do is establish and maintain economic equilibrium so that those who increase production will be rewarded accordingly. It is significant that honorable senators opposite who are howling for increased production have not indicated what they have in mind for the workers. Amidst all this talk of increased production, prices continue to rise, and the purchasing power of wages, salaries, pensions and other . fixed incomes automatically continues to decline. That is the result of inflation. I have explained the meaning of inflation on several occasions. It is interesting to note that many people who, years ago, were not interested in our economy, are now making all sorts of suggestions to improve it. For instance, the press now is much more concerned than ever before with the state of our economy. It is certainly much more concerned than it was in 1938, when I was privileged to speak in this chamber for the first time. In those days, hundreds of thousands of people were, unemployed. We were then passing through a period of deflation. Prices had gone down, and the purchasing power of wages had gone down. Thousands of families were living on the dole. Because of what has been said in this debate about inflation, and particularly because of t -he assertion that there is no remedy for it, I draw the attention of honorable senators to an article that appears in to-day’s Melbourne Argus. Stating that inflation is the greatest single problem facing Australia to-day, the article continues -

Mr. Menzies, for instance, has done no single thing effectively to tackle inflation and has even evaded his own party’s solution of revaluation of the Australian £1.

There is no reason why Australia should not successfully attack inflation. The national income and the capital value of the country are both vastly increased.

Our problem is prosperity in the midst of financial plenty, surely one of the most agreeable problems with which any nation was ever faced. If we choke to death on our own riches it will argue little either for our common sense, or our understanding of the fundamental bases of our economy.

Here I pause to point out that not one honorable senator opposite has given any indication that he understands what is meant by the fundamental basis of our economy. The last paragraph of this very timely article states -

About the real wealth of Australia there is no doubt whatever. There is enormous strength in the country - unfortunately equalled by enormous weakness among its politicians.

The politicians who are in charge of this country to-day are members of what is known as the Menzies Government. They are the ones who, during the election campaign, undertook to put value back into the £1 - a promise that they now deny having made. On the 6th March the newspapers carried the headline in bold type, “ Government to put value back into the £1 “. On the 7th October they carried a streamer headline, “£1 not to be revalued ; Mr. Menzies “. There is the proof of the promise made by the Government and of its failure to honour it. The leaders of the Government parties promised faithfully to put value back into the £1, or, in other words, to increase the purchasing power of the £1, but they made no attempt to honour that promise, either because they did not understand the fundamentals of our economy or because they did not have the moral courage to tackle the problem as it should be tackled.

Senator Hannaford:

– Why did not the Labour Government do anything about this matter during the last few years in which it was in office ?

Senator CAMERON:

– It did a lot about it. Senator Hannaford was not a member of a government when this country was engaged in the greatest war in history. He does not know what is involved in placing the country on a wartime basis. He does not know what it means to assume office at a time when the country is in a state of chaos and to have to gear it to an all-out war effort. Members of the Labour Government had the practical experience and the academic qualifications to enable them to step into the breach and not only to save this country but also to earn the respect of all those in overseas countries who were qualified to judge their record of achievements. War provides the acid test of a government’s capacity to carry out its task. In 1941 the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) who was then Minister for the Army, said that if one division of Japanese troops came to Australia it could capture the country. At that time Australia was in a state of chaos and complete disorganization. The members of the then Government were working at cross purposes. The then Ministry was characterized by a complete absence of team work and collaboration. The Government had no idea of the colossal task that had to be faced or how it should be accomplished.

Senator Spooner:

– Which section of the Australian Labour party is the honorable senator now speaking for?

Senator CAMERON:

– I am speaking for the Australian Labour party. It was a solid party then, and it is a solid party now.

Senator Spooner:

– It was a solid party.

Senator CAMERON:

– The Labour Government did a job which the Liberal Government was incapable of doing. In the position that I occupied in the Labour Ministry I found that a number of the supporters of the former Liberal Government had capitalized on the war and had debited the Government with hundreds of thousands of pounds that should have been debited to themselves. All I regret is that I did not have sufficient time to treat them as they should have been treated, and as they certainly would have been treated had they been on active service.

Senator Guy has said that we should adopt a system of incentives for the purpose of increasing production. He did not say precisely what he meant by incentives, but I assume that he meant that we should give the workers extra pay for extra work. Incentive payments would not compensate the workers for the additional labour involved in increasing production to anything like the degree to which they should be compensated. Unless honorable senators opposite are prepared to suggest a more sensible and just means of increasing production I can assure them that there will be no increase of the existing level of production. The workers are entitled to be rewarded adequately for the additional work they perforin.

Senator Spicer:

– The honorable senator does not want more houses to be built for the workers?

Senator CAMERON:

– I do, but I do not want more luxury residences to be built. We do not want a lot of lawyers who draw high fees in the High Court for forging weapons to smash the trade unions-: -

Senator Gorton:

– Be careful ! The honorable senator is treading on dangerous ground.

Senator CAMERON:

– All the wealth that is produced in this country is produced by the workers in primary and secondary production and by those engaged in the provision of essential services. Members of the professions do nothing to increase the wealth of this country. They are wealth consumers. Surely honorable senators opposite do not suggest that members of the legal profession produce wealth. The real producers of wealth carry the rest of society on their backs, including too many overpaid teachers who have made such a poor job of their task of educating the young that hundreds of thousands of adults are so badly educated that they cannot vote intelligently. Many of our teachers would be far better employed digging potatoes or coal.

Senator Spicer:

– Does the honorable senator seriously mean that he believes that members of the teaching profession are overpaid?

Senator CAMERON:

– If the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) must interject, at least he should be articulate, so that we should know what he is talking about. He will have to adopt a much more dignified attitude in the High Court when he becomes a member of that august body.

Senator Gorton:

– Does the honorable senator really ‘believe that teachers are overpaid ?

Senator CAMERON:

– ‘No ; what I complain about is that many of them are not competent to teach. I should be prepared to pay competent teachers a good deal more than they receive to-day. The education departments in all States are not given sufficient funds to enable them to offer the conditions of service which would attract to the teaching profession those who are best equipped to undertake the task of teaching the young. I have had considerable experience in educational work because for many years I was actively associated with technical education. I am well aware of the difficulties that confront the technical education authorities in obtaining sufficient funds to enable them .to bring their colleges and schools up to date. At a time when hundreds of thousands of pounds were being spent on all kinds -of unnecessary projects we were expected to go down on our hands and knees and beg for a few thousand pounds to extend technical colleges and schools. I hope that in the days to come the State education departments will provide attractive conditions and remuneration for school teachers.

Senator Wedgwood:

– The Labour Government had many opportunities to make larger grants to the States for the purpose, hut it refused to do so.

Senator CAMERON:

– We helped the States as they had never been helped before. One of the first acts of the Curtin Labour Government was to establish schools for the training of tradesmen for absorption by war industries. Trainees were paid the basic wage until they were qualified to enter industry.

Senator Robertson:

– That is not education as we understand it.

Senator CAMERON:

– In 1938 I suggested that the Australian Government should make a substantial grant to technical colleges so that in the event of war sufficient trained men and women would l>e available to undertake the work that would have to be done. That suggestion was received by the Government in stony silence.^ The present Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who was then the senior Minister in the Senate, said that technical training was not the function of the Australian Government. The State governments said that no money was available for that purpose. The exigencies of war constituted the driving force that compelled the Government to provide technical education facilities which had not been provided in times of peace.

Senator Simmonds who had a good deal to say about socialization, expressed the fear that it might come in his time. Capitalism can be described as the private ownership of the land and the means of production. Socialism can be described as the common or collective ownership of the land and means of production. The problem of production has been solved by capitalism. It has organized our economy on an economic basis up to a point, but it has not solved the problem of distribution. The degree of inflation that now exists in this country is evidence of the fact that that problem has not been solved and that no intelligent approach to it has been made by this Government or any other anti-Labour government. We are now passing through revolutionary times. The impact of two world wars is compelling men and women to think as they have never thought before. It is not a matter of the Communists agitating the minds of people who do not know better than to be influenced by Communist propaganda. In this revolutionary phase we must either do the job that is to be done or put . up with the consequences. If I may use an analogy, the impact of two world wars has had the same effect on the stratified thought of the people as an earthquake has on the stratified surface of the earth. To-day governments in all countries are being challenged as they were never challenged before.

Let us consider the position that has arisen in Victoria because of the stoppage of railway services. That is not the result of agitation by the secretary of a union or a few Communists; it is the result of conditions that have come into existence and that have forced those men to take a. stand which, in other circumstances, they would not have taken. They do not intend to allow themselves to be fooled, ruled or robbed by a government that refuses to take action. Nor do they intend to stand idly by and see themselves robbed because of inflation which the Government makes no attempt to counter. The war has had the effect of making those people think as they never thought before. So it is throughout the civil service. That new attitude is everywhere evident, and most of all in the very thickly populated areas of Europe, in countries such as Italy, France and Germany, and also in eastern countries such as Japan and China. In all those countries there is a state of revolution because of the driving force of economic circumstances that are not understood by governments. The people of the world are taking up a revolutionary attitude. So far as I am able to discover, there is not one country that is really making an intelligent approach to the solving of its economic problems. The only approach that is made is an endeavour to restore the status quo ante, which means thinking backwards instead of forward. Governments seem to be totally unconscious of the fact that the social structure has been destroyed all along the line by this revolutionary attitude that has come into being.

For some years, I worked on the Western Australian railways and in my experience railway workers in those days never took a stand similar to the one taken in Victoria to-day. In my time the thought of such a thing was impossible, but to-day it is relatively common for stoppages to occur almost at a moment’s notice.

Practically everything in this world depends on management, and where there is intelligent management there is very little trouble. If I were asked to state the origin of strikes I would say that the worst strikes have their origin in either unnecessarily provocative management or in incompetent management. There is no evidence that the governments of Australia have made an approach to the solving of the problems confronting this country. If they did that they could abolish the need for strikes. We are fortunate to possess a small population in a large area, so that the task would be much easier for us than it would be for the thickly populated countries of Europe. Yet we find that honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber, and members of the House of Representatives, with all their academic qualifications, have no intelligent approach to the problem. When I spoke on another matter last week I pointed out that a suggestion had been made by the Institute of Public Affairs that an immediate conference should, be held to discuss such matters dispassionately in order to see what could be done. As far as I know, no move has been made to hold such a conference, and the Government has allowed the position to drift from bad tq worse.

It has been suggested that socialization is an impossible proposition, but I consider that a measure of socialism will be forced upon us, whether we want it or not, because it provides the only basis upon which to work equitably and smoothly when the economy of a country is being made unworkable by private monopoly control. Where there is secondary and primary production organized on a large scale, that constitutes the economic basis on which a more equitable and a more workable social structure can be erected. Socialism will come about, not because we really desire it, but because of the driving force of economic conditions which will leave us with no alternative. To refer again to the Victorian rail strike, the gentlemen who said that nothing could be done or would be done are now modifying their attitude and are prepared to confer with the representatives of the employees concerned. That is a step forward towards the time when the men and women employed in essential production in primary and secondary industries will have much more say about how those industries should be managed than they have ever had in the past.

For those honorable senators who take their position in this chamber seriously and who are not mere coiners of platitudes and slogans, who are capable of inductive reasoning as well as deductive reasoning, the three essentials on which socialism is based may provide food for thought. The first is the social or collective ownership of land or the means of production; the second is production for use rather than for profit. ‘ Under existing conditions, if working men and women desire to earn honest livelihoods and to amass wealth for the benefit of the community, they are not permitted to do so unless they are able to return a profit to the employer. When unemployment occurs, it is because men and women cannot be employed at a profit. If it is thought that the national or the international economy can go on indefinitely on the old lines, there will be disillusion, which may be very painful as well as costly. The third essential is the distribution of wealth from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs. There is nothing very involved, or even Utopian, in that because if we consider the ideal household we shall find that the distribution of its wealth is made according to the needs of the family. The sick and the ailing receive preferential treatment to those who are healthy and able to provide for themselves. But in our national household, in a wider sphere, the position is completely reversed, so that those who have worked all their lives and have made it possible for this country to become one of the wealthiest in the world, are living under conditions of semistarvation, inadequate housing, clothing and food shortages, and reduced pensions, to the financial gain of people who are over-fed and over-paid. The national and international economy must be organized on the basis to which I have referred. It may be said that I am up in the clouds and that it cannot be done, but I say that it will be done. If it is not done in a constitutional way it will be done in a violent way.

In India, in China, and in other thickly populated countries the people have had to choose between two evils; whether they starve or they fight, and in most cases they have preferred to fight. To a lesser degree in the European countries the same alternatives are being faced. Where people are possessed of the necessary mental equipment to do the job and are in positions similar to those we occupy in this chamber, it will be done constitutionally, peacefully, and in a way that will be an example to the rest of the world. But that approach will not be made by the members of the Menzies Government. It is only necessary to read the statements that they make to appreciate that. They are concerned merely with the restoration of the status quo ante. Honorable senators will remember that the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said that because the Commonwealthowned ships were being run at a loss, the Government intended to sell them. War conditions intervened in the meantime and according to reports appearing in the press the Government has now decided not to sell them. Again we find that conditions have determined the attitude of the Government rather than a desire to do the job that should be done. It is rumoured - although the rumour has been denied - that the Government also intends to sell its interest in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and hand over control to private enterprise. I should not be surprised if the Government sold Parliament House and then leased it from the people to whom it was sold, so that effect might be given to its policy of private ownership and control of all such institutions. It is obvious that no intelligent approach towards an understanding of our economic difficulties and the adjustments that are necessary is being made in this country, where the most favorable conditions in the world obtain. .If I were asked to describe life’s processes in a word, I should use the word “ adjustment “. Unless we adjust ourselves to these new conditions - revolutionary conditions in which men who never thought of doing so before are rebelling, revolting and striking - we shall have to suffer the consequences. If we adopt the attitude of refusing to adjust ourselves to those conditions, a remedy will be found ultimately, but it will be much more costly and painful than that which would, have been applied had a more intelligent approach to the problem been made.

I shall suggest to the Government what could be done to increase the purchasing power of the £1. I suggest, first, that a capital levy be struck. In making that suggestion, I am in good company, because a similar suggestion was made after the first world war by the late Lord

Keynes, who was regarded as, and, in fact, was, England’s leading authority on economics. Because his suggestion was ignored and repudiated, England suffered under appalling conditions. Millions of its people were unemployed and povertystricken in the midst of plenty. I pause to point out that socialists often speak of the contradictions of capitalism. Poverty in the midst of plenty is one of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. After the first world war, Lord Keynes, in his book The Economic Consequences of Peace, suggested that a capital levy be struck, but the British Parliament and British capitalists refused to have anything to do with the suggestion.

Senator O’flaherty:

– They said it could not be done.

Senator CAMERON:

– Capitalists say that of almost everything constructive. For instance, the present Prime Minister of this country says that prices cannot be fixed. Because Lord Keynes’s suggestion was ignored, millions of people in England were thrown out of employment. Men decayed in a country where there was accumulated wealth. Millions of men, women and children deteriorated mentally and physically in a Christian nation, and in the name of Christianity. Not one hand was put out to save them. What saved them from going from bad to worse was the war, just as the Korean war has saved the position in America for the time being. Before the 25th June of this year, 6,000,000 people in the United States of America were out of work, but now, as a result of the war in Korea, unemployment in that country has decreased. America is dependent upon war industries and war itself to keep its economy going. Lord Keynes suggested that a capital levy be struck after the first world war, and in 1940, just after the outbreak of the second world war, he said the same thing in a brochure entitled How to Pay for the War. The average socialists regarded Lord Keynes as an orthodox economist and did not consider that there was anything very revolutionary in his teachings.

The second suggestion that I make is that all indirect taxes be abolished. An indirect tax is a flat tax. Under a system of indirect taxation, a pensioner pays as much as does a person earning thousands of pounds a year. All indirect taxes, in addition to being flat taxes, are unjust taxes.

Senator Spicer:

– The Chifley Government increased them.

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not dispute that, but I point out that the cheap gibe of a man who did not do anything, or attempt to do anything, during the war, ignores the fact that, in the midst of a war, a government cannot reorganize or adjust a country’s economy. It must make the best use it can of available machinery. That was the position in which the Labour . party found itself when it was in power. When a war is in progress, it is physically and financially impossible to re-organize the economy of a country and deal with people as justly as they should be dealt with.

Senator Vincent:

– Why did not the Chifley Government do what the honorable senator has suggested after the war?

Senator CAMERON:

-When we attempted to do it, we were opposed by the present Government parties. When we tried to secure an alteration of the Constitution to give the Commonwealth power to control prices, we were opposed by people with hearts of oak and heads of reinforced concrete. They had plenty of physical courage, but their heads were as thick as bricks. They opposed the fixing of prices, but it will have to be done ultimately. After the damage has been done, the Government’s experts are telling it that it will have to fix prices. It will be forced to do so by conditions that it is powerless to control and which it would ignore, if it possibly could. I shall not go down on my hands and knees and plead with the Government to do this. I pin my faith to the conditions that are coming into being. Despite all the Government says and its attempts to explain its inaction, it will be faced with the choice of doing the job that has to be done or being swept, .from office.

The next suggestion I make is that direct taxation on all smaller incomes should be reduced. To the degree that a capital levy is imposed or the incomes of persons in the higher income group are reduced, direct taxes on lower incomes can be reduced, with the result that there is an increase of the purchasing power of the persons who really need the increase and those from whom the Government is demanding increased production. Honorable senators opposite must not delude themselves that the world can be run indefinitely on the principle of something for nothing. It has been run on that principle since we have had what is called a capitalist civilization. That form of civilization superseded serfdom, and serfdom superseded chattel slavery. In this era of capitalism, the ruling class, exploiting class or expropriating class, has always operated on the principle of something for nothing, -just as the members of the present Government parties are doing now when they demand increased production from the workers and ignore their obligations to the workers.

As I have already said, I believe that we must have a system of prices control. It must be much more effective than tha t which the Chifley Government was able to enforce. It must be one which will enable us to reduce or eliminate entirely the millions of pounds capital charges that have not been incurred but are nevertheless included in prices.

Senator Spicer:

– Why did not the Chifley Government do that?

Senator CAMERON:

– For the same reason that it did not do a lot of other things in time of war. It is easy for the “ chocolate soldiers “ to say after a war has been won that they would have done this or that, but the fact is that they did not do it when they were in power.

Senator Spicer:

– The Labour party was in office for four years after the war.

Senator CAMERON:

– We were opposed by the anti-Labour parties when we tried to secure’ an alteration of the Constitution to enable us to do the job that this Government will have to do, whether the Constitution be amended or not. It can be done without amending the. Constitution. I have referred to the millions of pounds capital charges that are included in prices but have not been incurred. We must have a system of prices control that will enable us to deal with that aspect of the matter. If it does not enable us to do so, it will not be a real system. Why should the owners of slum houses or obsolete machinery be permitted to recapitalize their assets repeatedly and recover the recapitalization in prices and charges? If a wage-earner attempted to- do anything like that, he would be charged with obtaining money by false pretences, but for years it has been part and parcel of our established procedure.

There must be price subsidies for basic needs, just as there were during the last war. Our people must have bread, meat, vegetables and other commodities. If, forgood reasons, primary producers or manufacturers are unable to supply essential commodities at reasonable prices, they should be subsidized by the Government so that supplies can be maintained. Last, but not least, exports must be regulated. A system of sending almost all of our goods overseas and starving the population of the homeland cannot be tolerated. We .must retain sufficient wool, at reasonable prices, for the clothing of our men, women and children. It does not matter how high prices are in other countries. The exporters and the Government must not he permitted to stand idly by while the people of this country go short of essential commodities.

I have made those suggestions because none has been forthcoming from honorable senators opposite. All that they have done has been to deplore the fact that production has not increased and attempt to gain political capital from, to use a word that I have coined, “ Commophobia “ - the fear of what Communists are doing and are likely to do. They have ignored the constructive work that must be done to establish and maintain the economy of this country on a workable and equitable basis.

I shall deal now with the case of Dr. P. R. James. I shall do so only because the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) is not prepared to make a statement about the case and, if I am any judge at all of what is going on behind the scenes, this man has been unjustly treated and those who were responsible for that treatment are doing their best to prevent an inquiry from being held. Dr. James was a medical practitioner employed by the Repatriation Department of Heidelberg Hospital. His work in the pathology department included- clinical pathology, certain special investigations and treatment, and some research projects. As far as I can learn, he is a very capable, competent man, whose services are needed in connexion with .the treatment of many war victims in the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. On the 29th May he was given ten days’ notice of dismissal by the Public Service Board. He asked for an inquiry, which was denied, although the medical superintendent of the hospital told him that he had never had any reason to question his medical efficiency. Not only the senior medical officers of the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, but also the Deputy Commissioner’ of Repatriation in Victoria has professed to be completely in the dark about the matter. These responsible men have disclaimed any responsibility in connexion with his dismissal. On the 30th May, Dr. James wrote to both the Repatriation Department and the Public Service Board requesting an explanation. He asked to be informed of the source of the implied complaint, and sought an opportunity to. reply to it. He also offered his co-operation to ensure the completion of important work that was in hand. Both these and other letters that he subsequently wrote, were ignored. The Government is mistaken if it thinks that such treatment of a professional man, on whose training large sums of money have been spent, will be tolerated. On the 30th May, also, 25 of Dr. James’s medical officer colleagues, at a special meeting, unanimously protested against his dismissal, and demanded that an investigation should be held. However, an investigation has not been held, and, judging by the Minister’s attitude, there is no intention to hold one. I remind honorable senators opposite that incidents such as these have their repercussions in strikes, and if honorable senators opposite think that this sort of thing can be done with impunity, they will be disillusioned in more ways than one.

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Double disillusioned!

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes. About the year 1889, a well-known Italian philosopher stated that there are times when we have to wait for the hard school of disillusionment to educate where our reasonings have failed. Apparently we will have to wait in this instance for disillusionment to educate. When I mentioned this matter previously, .the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) was good enough to give me the advice, free of charge, “ Consult a good solicitor “. Dr. James has consulted good solicitors and barristers, who have assured him that he has a good case that will stand investigation in the courts. Therefore, if the Government is not prepared to institute an investigation of this matter - and Dr. James is prepared to accept the decision of a competent authority - the matter will be ventilated in the courts. This man, and his fellow medical officers, are not prepared to stand idly by and allow this sort of thing to go unchallenged. Much to my surprise, when he was questioned on this matter in the chamber, the Minister said that Dr. James had been dismissed in accordance with the precedent “that had been established by the dismissal of Dr. Webster in the Northern Territory. Because Dr. Webster and Nurse Lawler have not challenged the Government about their dismissal is no reason why Dr. James should not demand the inquiry to which he is entitled. I point out that such actions by the Government generate a feeling of hostility, and ultimately men are bound to organize themselves to resist iniquitous treatment. Appeals boards have been established for railway and tramway employees, and others, not because the employers - government or private - wanted them, but because of the sustained resistance and determination of the victims, or potential victims, of unjust decisions. The employers have been compelled to make a virtue of necessity.

As is happening in Victoria to-day, employees elsewhere in this country have organized themselves into associations in order to gain better conditions. It is absurd for supporters of the Government to think that they can run this country on a semi-military basis, and that a Minister’s word shall be final and binding. I have only been able to judge this matter on an ex parte basis up to date, because of the sustained silence of the Minister and hi9 colleagues. However, I consider that Dr. James has an excellent case. He has been treated most unjustly. I have been reliably informed that at a public meeting in Tasmania, a member of this chamber denounced Dr. James for having been “ tossed out of Heidelberg Hospital”. I refer to Senator Wright. His action was cowardly and contemptible, because Dr. James has been denied an investigation. Honorable senators opposite will find that that sort of attitude cannot be maintained indefinitely. From the callousness and indifference of Ministers when answering questions in this chamber, I am convinced that they have no respect for personalities. It does not matter to them that Dr. James’s career may be ruined, or that he may have to go through life branded as an undesirable person, because he has been denied a fair trial. During the many years that I have been associated with workers’ organizations I have never knowingly insulted anybody by implying, without proof, that he was guilty of unworthy conduct. Yet that is what the Minister is doing, backed by both the Government and the Public Service Board. By implication, the Minister has accused Dr. James of unworthy conduct, and of being unfit to associate with other medical practitioners. He has also implied that Dr. James is not fit to be in the hospital in Tasmania where he is now, although the medical superintendent of the hospital has described him as a person of excellent character and competent in every way for the position he now occupies, in spite of Senator Wright’s statement that reflected on him personally.

I have always had the highest respect for the Minister for Repatriation because he has always been most courteous in his dealings in this chamber. I have been astounded by the attitude that he has adopted in this matter, and I believe that if the truth were known, he is shielding somebody else. I believe that, left to himself, the Minister would give his fellow men the consideration that they deserve. I have refrained from raising this matter before, in the hope that the Minister would have supplied an answer to Senator Morrow’s question. However, it has remained unanswered. It is of no use the Minister telling me that the information is not available, because I have had too much experience in a ministerial capacity to accept such an explanation. When I was Postmaster-General in the previous Government, I always called for the files when postal employees complained of unjust treatment. In many instances aggrieved employees were brought before me, and inquiries were held immediately. In almost every instance such matters were disposed of promptly. In this matter, a young man, with his career before him, by implication, has been guilty of unworthy conduct. It may be that the Government considers that Dr. James is a Communist, and that it is relying on public prejudice to keep him quiet. That will not happen, because Dr. James will have the assistance of some of the ablest legal men in Melbourne to state a case for him, if necessary. However, even ‘at this late stage, I implore the Minister to give this man an opportunity to appear before an investigating committee. This is a fair request. He is just as entitled to have his case investigated, as would any member of the Government if he were placed in a similar position. I say to honorable senators opposite, “ Give him a chance to do as you would have done unto you if you considered that you had been penalized or victimized “. The Minister could order an investigation without loss of dignity or prestige, and ultimately with great credit to himself. I trust that my plea has not fallen on deaf ears, and that Dr. James will not be compelled to institute legal action in order to have his case investigated.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– The debate on the measure before the chamber has ranged over many subjects, including inflation, putting value back into the £1, prices control, revaluation, and that hardy old annual - what the Labour party did whilst in power to win the war. Honorable senators opposite have asked what this Government ha9 done since it has been in office. I remind the Opposition that the greatest contribution that this Government has made is that it has preserved the democratic freedom of the Australian people. It has preserved this freedom against the subtle attacks of the great Australian Labour party, and that alone justifies its existence. Thanks to the efforts of this Government, democracy is not dead in Australia. The Australian people were shocked into a rude awakening when they discovered that Labour senators, who claim to be the upholders of democracy, took their orders from an outside body. Labour senators did not oppose the proposed dissolution of the Communist party.

Senator Ward:

– We voted for it.

Senator MATTNER:

– Exactly, but Opposition members were prepared to fight to the death to preserve human freedom, and then what happened? They took orders from an outside body.

Senator Ward:

– The high command.

Senator MATTNER:

– Precisely. The high command of the soviet party.

Senator Large:

– The description of the Labour party as the soviet party is offensive ‘to me, and I ask that the statement be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator nicholls). - Senator Large has taken exception to the statement. Therefore, it must be withdrawn.

Senator MATTNER:

– I withdraw it, but it is impossible to kill a thought. I still think so. The public of Australia should rejoice because democratic freedom has been preserved by the Government. We are constantly hearing of what happened during the depression. Every one admits that the depression was a disastrous occurrence, and we hope that we shall never have a similar experience. Honorable senators opposite are fond of mentioning Sir Otto Niemeyer, and the role he played during the depression. I remind them that the man who was sent out to Australia with Sir Otto Niemeyer was none other than Professor Gregory.

Senator Ward:

– Was he not a German named Guggenheim?

Senator MATTNER:

– He was Professor Theodor Emmanuel Guggenheim Gregory, and he was sent out by the London School of Economics to advise Sir Otto Niemeyer. One of the leading instructors at the London School of Economics was Professor Laski, at whose feet sat Professor Gregory. One of the Fabians was the famous Mrs. Webb, who was lucky enough to inherit a large fortune. Another was George Bernard Shaw. Fortunately for him he married the Irish heiress, Miss Charlotte Payne Townsend.

Senator Murray:

– The honorable senator cannot hold that against him.

Senator MATTNER:

– No, I merely point out that it was a profitable association. We come now to another socialist, Karl Marx-

Senator Murray:

– He was a capitalist.

Senator MATTNER:

– No, he was a parasite. He lived on the bounty of the Manchester capitalist, Fredrick Engels. Even in this Senate we have socialists who are actively engaged in commerce. The only difference between them and us is that we are engaged in the making of the first million, while they are on their second million. It will not be denied that there are many wealthy men among the members of the Labour party. Honorable senators opposite probably know them better than I do. I have not noticed that they are actively practising socialism. Some members of the Labour party in the House of Representatives are far from being poor mon. One leading member of the Labour party in the House of Representatives is at present engaged as counsel to assist the Communist party in its fight against the Communist Party Dissolution Act. a law that the Labour party in the Parliament helped to pass. I refer to the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) who, in his book, The King a-nd his Dominion Governors, published in 1936, wrote these words in the preface -

I am also under obligation to Professor Laski of the London School of Economics, for much encouragement and advice.

I think it would be fair to say that Laski’? philosophy might be summed up in these words : “ Christianity has failed. The Russian idea has taken its place as the inspiration of mankind, and as the standards of public morality”.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– From what work is the honorable senator quoting now?

Senator MATTNER:

– I said that I was stating Laski’s philosophy. Under the Russian system the dictator issues decrees, which the secret police execute. Do honorable senators opposite wish that system to be introduced into

Australia? Socialism would not be possible in practice without economic conscription. The Russian ideal means economic conscription and conscription of labour, with death as the final penalty. It is evident, therefore, that the people of Australia should be careful in their selection of parliamentary representatives if they desire democracy to exist. When I am asked what the Government has done, I answer that it has preserved the fundamental freedoms, which I hope will survive during my life and be handed down to my grandchildren.

We have heard a good deal about the great Labour party. Apparently, it has superseded the Australian Labour >party, which was a democratic organization. The great Labour party has emerged as a result of the internal dissension in the Labour ranks. It is a truly destructive party, one which obeys the federal Labour executive of which, I believe, there is a member in this chamber. The public would like to know who are the members of that executive. The Labour party is no longer a constitutional party. It no longer serves the general public, but takes ito orders from the virtual dictators of Australia. The public should realize that if, by chance, the Labour party were again to get into power, it would delegate its sovereignty to an unknown, outside body. It is time that the people of Australia woke up. It is time to become concerned over the fate of democracy.

I am glad that the Government has decided to put the defences of Australia in order. I have never questioned the way in which any government, whether Liberal or Labour, conducted the war effort. It was my privilege to serve in the forces, and I believed that whatever Government was in power was concerned only for the welfare of ,the country, and was doing its best to win the war. However, we have been hearing a great deal about what the Labour Government did from 1940 onwards, and if the Labour party is prepared to accept praise for what it did from 1941 to 1945 it must also accept its share of blame for what happened during the same period. It was while a Labour government was in office that we witnessed some of the greatest tragedies that have ever befallen

Australian forces. I refer to the occurrences in Darwin, Rabaul and Malaya.

There is in Australia to-day a great revival of national spirit. Notwithstanding the asides which occur in this chamber, it is a fact that the great mass of Australians are true and loyal to their country. They realize the dire peril that confronts us. One of our most important tasks is to strengthen the British Commonwealth of Nations, which has been a power for good throughout the world. To-day, there is apparent a changed outlook in the world, and particularly in Australia. So much is that the case that we, instead of looking to Great Britain for help, now accept it as a matter of course that our natural ally is America. We should do everything possible to strengthen the bonds of friendship that were forged between ourselves and the people of the United States of America during the war. To the north of Australia are 1,000,000,000 people who have suffered much from the effects of war famine and plague. We are apt to think of Australia as a large, comparatively empty country, a land of open spaces and scattered population. In one sense that is true. The lands north of Australia total only one quarter of the earth’s surface, but in them lives 50 per cent, of the world’s population. Of the 1,000,000,000 people occupying those territories, only 10,000,000 are white. Thus for every white person there are 99 coloured people, most of whom are poorly fed and inadequately housed. It may truly be said that the white people are the “ haves “ and the coloured people the “ have-nots “. The coloured races are rapidly increasing; our population is practically static. Several times in history Asiatic hordes have swept right to the Rhine in Europe. The Mongols and the Tartars conquered almost all of the then known world. Modern Russia is following the pattern of earlier Asiatic conquerers. I do not propose to discuss at this stage the merits of the Russian form of government. My point is that whereas,, in 1939, the Russian southern frontier ended in Siberia, now it extends beyond the lands of its satellites to the Equator. Great Britain’s sea power, and the gift of its people for colonization, built a great’ empire. To-day, Russia is the greatest’ imperialistic nation in the world. I do not propose to deal with the methods by which the Soviet has pursued its policy of imperialism. It is sufficient to say that enormous, expansion has been accomplished. Russia’s aim is that Asiatic nations should expand, not over the Soviet frontiers, but southwards. The Koreanwar is a relatively small affair, but whilst the eyes of the world are on Korea, Russia is consolidating Communist gains in China. A glance at the map shows the position only too clearly, Indo-China, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies and New Guinea are next on the list. The pattern of Asiatic expansion is clear. The Korean war has shown that, given training and modern equipment, the Asiatics can put powerful armies in the field. We must do everything possible to convince the Asiatic nations that our way of life is better than that of the Com.muists. Can we make them believe that? That is a task on which we should all be united regardless of our political affiliations.

Senator Ashley:

– Let us get together.

Senator MATTNER:

– That is an excellent idea. What would be Australia’s chance of survival should all Asia come under the domination of the Communists ? That is what I have in mind when I say I am pleased that the Government is preparing to take the necessary steps to put the defences of this country in order. I hope that every member of this Parliament, regardless of his political views, will support the Government’s recruiting campaign. Let us hope that we shall be able to build adequate defence forces under the voluntary system.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Where will the men be asked to serve?

Senator MATTNER:

– Our primary aim is to protect the ‘shores of this country. The honorable senator who has just interjected frequently extols his own deeds and those of his party in time of war. I have also heard the honorable senator make some scurrilous remarks about honorable senators on this side of the chamber. The honorable senator should be aware that no sane government in this country would send troops overseas without justification. Primarily, the role of our defence forces is to defend Australia.

There should be no need for me to remind the Opposition that when, on a previous occasion, there was a call for Australian troops to defend the cause of democracy beyond Australian shores, honorable senators opposite said, in effect, “Let the enemy come to Australia. We shall only fight in our own defence “. What did they care about the fate of their mothers, sisters, or any one else? However, I do not propose to digress any further. Where our troops will fight is not the main issue at present. I am sure that Senator Hendrickson is as concerned as I am about the safety of the people of this country, and I have no doubt that he will be prepared to allow the disposition of our forces to be decided by whatever government is in office. I regard defence as a national duty and if the voluntary system is not adequate, I hope that recruiting will be placed on a national basis, and all citizens will be called upon to play their part in the defence of this country. Under such a system, of course, consideration must be given to the needs of industry, and to the qualifications of prospective recruits. For instance brilliant engineers must not be called upon to serve in infantry units. Again I make an appeal to honorable senators opposite to forget political differences when considering the defence of this country. Let them say what they like about the revaluation of the Australian currency or the restoration of prices control, but, on “the defence issue, let us get together as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) has said, to work out a scheme by which our shores may be protected from swelling Asiatic nationalism.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wish to place before the Government several suggestions on which representations have been made to mc from time to time, and in which I believe there is a great deal of merit. The first matter is one in which I hope my representations will have the support of all honorable senators, particularly those on the Government benches who may have more influence with the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) than I have because of my political associations. I refer to the fact that most inmates of mental institutions throughout Australia receive no payment of any kind from the Commonwealth. This problem is not new to the Minister. Representations have been made to him before on this subject, and he has offered in reply two lines of argument with which I shall deal in a moment or two. Admittedly those arguments were used also by his predecessors. Members of all political parties now agree, although it was not so in the early days, that every citizen of this country has a human dignity that should be protected in time of adversity. Although, over a period of years, social services benefits have been extended to one section of the community after another, no provision has been made for people incarcerated in mental hospitals. This gives rise to many anomalies. For instance, an invalid or age pensioner may be forced eventually by growing infirmity to enter a mental home. The moment he does so, his pension ceases. I do not suggest for one moment that a full pension should be retained by such people, but at least some payment should be made. At the Claremont Mental Hospital in Western Australia, there are 1,340 patients. Of those 1,000 receive no visitors, have nothing to call their own, and are completely dependent on the institution for their living. I am sure that all honorable senators who have given thought to this matter will agree that this denial of social justice is not in accordance with the spirit of our social services legislation. It is noteworthy that a person with war service who has to enter a mental institution receives 15s. a week whether or not his breakdown has been due to war service.. That 15s. is regarded as part of the pension that he would have received had he not entered a mental home. This is a serious anomaly. One does not have to be a doctor to know that to live on the food ordinarily provided in a mental home, and with only the tobacco ration that is made available to inmates of such institutions, is hardly conducive to a return to good health. Consider the position of eld’erly persons who have nobody to worry about them and who have lived in little camps or shacks, getting a- little enjoyment from life such- as- an occasional visit to the pictures or the purchase of an ice-cream or a few sweets or biscuits, and who suddenly find themselves in a mental home where all the little amenities to which they were accustomed are taken away from them. Irrespective of the age at which mental disease may have overtaken them, surely they are entitled to a small amount of pocket money to enable them to purchase the few comforts to which they had been accustomed, an icecream or a few biscuits, or in the case of the unfortunate womenfolk, a small supply of inexpensive cosmetics. Nothing would be more calculated to retard the restoration of their health than the deprivation of these small comforts to which they have been accustomed. Objections to the payment of a pension to persons in such circumstances’ have been raised by not only the present Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), but also his predecessors. These objections have been based on the grounds, first, that the States are responsible for the maintenance of the inmates of - mental institutions, and secondly, that the inmates of such institutions are not fit and proper persons to handle money. I do not suggest that the full rate of pension should be paid to them. All of them are fully maintained and many of them are clothed by the institutions in which they are cared for. As to the objection that the payment by the Commonwealth of a small sunt of money to such persons would relieve the States of a financial obligation, I point out that in respect of the three claimant States - the States which now receive grants” from the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth already pays the -piper by way of grants to offset their deficits. If grants are made it does not greatly matter1 to what purpose the money is devoted so long as its expenditure be justified. Representations have been made to me on this subject’ by a welfare body which includes in its membership many persons who are very well known in Western Australia. I have no doubt that the position that exists in Western Australia is common to other States. I refuse to- believe that the Minister and his officers could’ not devise a satisfactory scheme under which payments of the kind I have suggested could’ be made and adequately supervised. “We have been informed that the budget, which has already been introduced into the House of Representatives, contains proposals for the improvement of social services, including provision for an increase of the rate of invalid and age pension by 7s. 6d. a week. Such a payment as I have advocated would be fully in accord with our concept of social services as a means of humanely providing for the sick, the aged, and in particular, the mentally afflicted who have been overlooked by successive governments for too long. Welfare organizations would assist the Government in seeing that payments made were not improperly expended. The extension of social services which I have suggested is within the realms of practical administration. In the past, governments have undertaken much more difficult administrative tasks than that involved in such a payment as I have suggested. All members of the Parliament, with the exception of those whose actions are solely dominated by their desire to win another vote will, I am sure, support my remarks. If the Government believes that these unfortunate people have a just claim on its generosity, it should provide them with this small comfort irrespective of any administrative problem that may be involved. I do not believe that Australian ingenuity will not be able to overcome any problem that may arise in connexion with the granting of this muchneeded assistance.

I propose now to refer to that section of the Social Services Consolidation Act which deals with the adequate maintenance of invalid children under the age of 21 years. It is a cardinal principle in that legislation that invalid children under the age of 21 years shall not be entitled to receive a full invalid pension. My quarrel with the existing provision of the act is in relation to the manner in which adequate maintenance is assessed by the Department of Social Services. I propose to relate the circumstances of a case which has been under my notice for some time, because by doing so I shall be able to quote real figures in order to illustrate my point. I am sure that if the Minister will give it some consideration he will be able to devise a fairer means of dealing with it than his officers have. been, able to do up to date. The case is that of a married couple who have two children in their teens, one of whom is healthy and the other an invalid who is permanently confined to bed. In assessing the pension payable in respect of the invalid child the department allows a certain amount from the income of the parents for their maintenance and that of the healthy child. The total amount allowed for that purpose is deducted from the total income of the parents in order to arrive at the amount available for the purpose of maintaining the invalid child. When the calculations were first made about three years ago the father was in receipt of an income of £364 a year. Honorable senators will note that even three years ago that was a very low income. The department originally assessed the amount available for the maintenance of the invalid child at £39 a year. In order to earn more money the father left his wife and family and obtained employment in the bush. By very hard work he has been able to increase his income to £519 a year, which it will be observed is not much more than the present basic wage. Hilder the formula adopted by the department the amount available to the claimant has now been assessed at £71 a year and the rate of pension payable in respect of the invalid child has been correspondingly reduced. I believe the formula adopted by the department for the assessment of invalid pension payable to an invalid minor to be very unfair. No incentive is given to the father of such a child to earn additional money because as his income is increased the pension payable in respect of the invalid child is automatically reduced. In this instance the father is living in the bush away from his family only because he can earn more on bush work than he could if he stayed in the city.

I realize that while the means test continues to operate the reduction of pensions in some manner is inevitable. If the father’s income had been increased to, say, £1,500 a year, there would be very good reason for reducing or entirely eliminating the pension paid in respect of his invalid child. In this instance, however, the department is dealing not with a man who has a good position hut with a man who is one of the lowest paid workers in Australia. It has frequently been said in this chamber that very few people in the community have to exist on the basic wage. Very many people who are on the basic wage also receive additional income by way of child endowment and other allowances. The income of £519 earned by the parent in the case which I am discussing includes a camping allowance of £52. His net income is therefore only £467, which is not greatly in excess of the existing basic wage. For every additional £1 he earns, a proportionate reduction is made in his son’s pension. What sort of a race of people will we develop in this country if this sort of injustice is allowed to continue? I appeal to the Minister for Social Services to examine the case and to make his decision on its merits. ‘No incentive is given, to the father to remain in the country in order to earn higher wages. He will probably return to the city in order to live with his wife and family hoping that by working on Saturdays and Sundays he may be able, lo earn an additional pound or two. No one could blame him if he did so. We could have nothing but admiration for him if he returned to his family and tried to alleviate in some way the sufferings of his son. It is reported in the press that it is the ambition of this Government, as it was of the previous Government, and, indeed, as it should be of any government which desires to enlarge social services benefits, to abolish the means test. Here is an opportunity partly to abolish the means test in favour of deserving members of the community. Not a great deal of money would be involved because, in any event, on attaining the age of 21 years, invalids are entitled to the full pension. Invalid pensioners under the age of 21 years should be entitled to receive a specific rate of pension according to age, as is the case of junior employees in the Public Service and in many industries. At all events, the means test should not be applied to persons who are in receipt of very low incomes. If the Cabinet gave this suggestion its blessing, I am sure that the officers of the Department of Social

Services would have no difficulty in formulating a satisfactory scheme to give effect to it.

Recently the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) tabled the 22nd annual report of the Australian Wine Board. The Clerk of Papers has been good enough to allow me to peruse it. The Minister’s statement on the operation of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act, which accompanied the report, was very brief. Indeed, his typed statement covered only one half of a foolscap sheet. The third paragraph of the statement reads as follows : -

The production of wine, including wine for distillation, has been maintained at a high level, the 1050 output being estimated at i!2 million gallons as compared with last year’s record of 34.18 million gallons.

It is encouraging to note that we are maintaining a very high production of wine. The next paragraph reads -

The downward trend in post-war wine exports which commenced during 1948-40 has continued throughout the past year, and shipments to all overseas destinations approximated only 1.1 million gallons. The decrease if almost entirely reflected in sales to the United Kingdom to which market only 584,000 gallons were shipped during the year under review.

The penultimate paragraph of the Minister’s statement reads as follows : -

Tt is felt that the prohibitive revenue duties being levied on wine entering the United Kingdom are largely responsible for the diminution in the volume of exports to that country and, a ? indicated in the Board’s Report the Government is persisting in its efforts to have the rate of the import duties on Empire dessert wines, in particular, substantially reduced.

I am perturbed to learn that whilst wine production in Australia had increased our overseas market for wine has declined. There is good reason for the alarm of the Government, the Australian Wine Board, and, indeed, of all those who are interested in the welfare of this industry. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has placed before the Parliament such an abbreviated statement. Itis quite true that papers are tabled for all honorable senators to see, but I think the Minister should give more attention to such statements and endeavour to incorporate in them a little more information. I have here two reports, one from the Australian Wine Board, in Adelaide and one from the overseas representative in London. When I examined the figures in the Minister’s report, I discovered that the total shipments of wine from Australia during last year decreased by 56.8 per cent. That is a serious position for a young industry endeavouring to establish itself. London imports of wines from all over the world decreased by 23 per cent, in 1949, but importations of Australian wines decreased by 42 per cent., again showing that Australia is not faring very well in the scramble for the London market.

More accurate figures are shown under “ Withdrawals from Bond “ because those figures represent the actual quantities taken from bond for consumption. We find that the general level decreased by i5 per cent., and that the Australian decline was 37 per cent., or two and a half times greater than the genera] decrease. I then browsed a little further through the report, and I made inquiries from people who were recently in London. They informed me that there is no difficulty in obtaining South African wines in London, but that Australian wines are almost unprocurable. They are unfavorably known, and are not generally advertised in England, South Africa pays the same amount of import duty is Australia does, and the position makes one curious to discover the reason for. the disrepute into which Australian wines have fallen. It is not the glib reason given by the Minister,, that import duties alone are responsible. When I heard those criticisms of Australian wine advertising methods in London, 1 decided to consult the report of the Australian Wine Board, in Adelaide. This is what it says -

There waa a considerable increase in publicity work in the United Kingdom during the year. The display at the National Gardens Show in London from the 27th July to the 5th August, 104.1), resulted in considerable interest being shown by all sections of the public. A firm of public relations consultant* was appointed for twelve months, from the 1st March, .195-0, to arrange press publicity in the United Kingdom in consultation with the overseas representative of the board. The wine section of the Australian Court of the Imperial Institute Exhibition Galleries, London, in common with the sections devoted to oth,, Australian industries, has been brought up tr. date. The story of our industry is now told by the aid of script, suitable photographs, and lighted transparencies, in addition to which a coloured diorama has been provided, depicting a typical Australian vineyard scene during vintage. The production of improved show cards and their distribution to the trade was authorized, as was an increase in window displays arranged by the London office.

I think all honorable senators will agree with me that that report would lead one to think that the publicity methods adopted in London were quite satisfactory, and that everything was being done in the best interests of the Australian wine-growing industry. But when we turn to the second report which has been tabled, the report from the overseas office, London, we find that the man on the spot says -

Although many are of the opinion that it would be a waste of money to advertise our wines and brandy on the United Kingdom market while duties are so high and the retail price beyond the purchasing power of the public, I feel that much could be done to prepare and educate the consumer for the day when prices are more reasonable. Now that further austerity cuts are being suggested and the cost of living rising rapidly for the middle classes, price is becoming a vital factor to the consumer who likes his wine. The 21) per cent, duty advantage is starting to mean something and subtle advertising could capture a large proportion of this market. The average British consumer is still prejudiced against Australian wines. This could be broken down by an appropriate advertising campaign to make the consumer more conscious of our industry and our wines.

I suggest to honorable senators that there is a marked difference between the views of the man on the spot in London, and those expressed by the Minister in his statement. The Minister states that unless something i3 done about the import duty the situation cannot be improved. The representative in London says that he should be allowed to undertake a propter publicity scheme. One fact that stands out clearly is that South Africa has captured the London wine market. Australia should enlarge its markets; otherwise, the day will be not very far distant when we shall not be able to sell our wines. If that happens, and we are still on this economic honeymoon, many wine-growers will be forced out of production. I submit that there is no other alternative.

Senator Kendall:

– Surely the alternative would be to produce wines of better quality.

Senator WILLESEE:

– That is very true, and it strengthens my argument that the Minister evaded the facts in his short statement to the Senate. On reading those reports my mind also turned to the marketing arrangements. I wanted to know how it came about that South Africa should be getting the better of us. I now quote from the report of the overseas representative in London -

The present system of marketing Australian bulk wines and brandies of non-proprietary brand origin, is far from satisfactory:

1 ) The host of merchants and brewers who buy Australian wine and brandy in bulk market under their own brands, which are not nationally known.

The distribution of each brand is limited to local areas and cannot be obtained everywhere.

3 ) There are over 500 different types and brands of Australian wines and brandies being marketed, and very few of these brands are known in Australia.

The British consumer is being confused bythe variety of types, labels, and brands presented to him.

I have been informed that over 200 Australian growers are exporting wine independently to London. I made some inquiries and I found that because those people are exporting wine to London through individual channels, even good Australian wines - and we are exporting good wines to London - are being mixed with other wines, so that they might be sold under some 500 different brands and labels. It is perfectly clear that the Government has no power to direct action in that field, but it is also perfectly clear that it is the job of the Government, because of the economic consequences that might arise, to give a lead or to appoint some one to investigate the position. I think that the exporters in Australia, and the importers in London would listen to some persuasion by the Government if it endeavoured to do something for the good of this industry. Why cannot we emulate the South Africans, who export a few well-known brands, and conduct a wellplanned advertising campaign? On the figures that I have quoted to honorable senators, Australian growers are faring worse on the London market than are the growers of any other country.

I now wish to discuss a matter which., perhaps, should be addressed to the Min ister for National Development (Mr. Casey). We all know that decentralization projects, such as irrigation schemes, in this country -very seldom get be lond the talking stage. A great deal of good might be done for Australia if the Minister for National Development were to examine local conditions in various parts of this country. The northwestern part of Western Australia is an area that is very often spoken about in glib terms, but I lived there for many years, and I have read expert’s reports concerning that area. Those reports suggest that there are possibilities for irrigation, and although there will be difficulties attached to any such project, it is obvious that that country can have no future unless modern science comes to its aid, and assists in its development. The township of Carnarvon, at the mouth of the Gascoyne River, is situated in an area which has very many natural advantages and which, by its own efforts, is developing into a very prosperous centre. Bananas are being grown there, and also winter crops, so that they may be exported to places where crops such as peas and beans cannot be grown. Those crops are being produced under the crudest of irrigation methods. The land is irrigated by a river which flows for 400 or 500 miles, for only a few months of the year, and then disappears under the sand. The farmers draw water from it by means of pumping engines. I refuse to believe that we have not sufficient engineering skill in Australia to stay that water in its flow towards the sea. If. it were held back, it would be possible to enlarge that area, so that the highly productive soil could be used to full advantage. Already a whaling station has been established and it is not an uncommon sight to see thousands of pounds’ worth of whales in the sea. There must be dozens of areas in Australia which have grown into promising centres by the unaided efforts of their inhabitants. I suggest that it is in areas such as those that the Minister should concentrate his energies and his finance. An essential requirement is good roads. If good roads were constructed between towns like Carnarvon - which is 700 miles from Perth and has a beautiful climate, good soil and great natural wealth-and the more densely populated areas, the process of decentralization would be greatly assisted. We could establish towns of a reasonable size and arrest the octopus-like growth of our capital cities. It is not of much use to talk about these matters if the government of the clay is not willing to translate words into action. If we developed our smaller towns and their road systems we should make a greater contribution to decentralization and the development of our country than we should by undertaking the high-sounding schemes of which we hear from time to time. Immediately a government began to attempt to do that, all the Doubting Thomases in the country would demand that it justify the labour and expense involved, but I, for my part, would admire a government that was willing to take a risk and make available a few million pounds for such projects, even if some of them did not prove to be successful.

Senator Sheehan:

– The AuditorGeneral would probably make some very caustic remarks about it.

Sentaor WILLESEE. - We are accustomed to caustic remarks. If we look at every penny we spend, nothing will be done. If war broke out, we should not worry about expenditure. .We should find plenty of money with which to kill people. It is not beyond the ability of the Australian people to do these things. Let us stand up to criticism and spend the money required. We have talked about these things for over 100 years. It is clear that the parts of Australia to which I have referred will make no progress until they are readily accessible from the thickly populated parts of the country and irrigation systems are established in them.

I mention the matter to which I am about to refer in the hope that the Government will do something about a motion relating to the social advancement and protection of aborigines that was proposed in the House of Representatives by the honorable member for Curtin (Mr. Hasluck). To the disappointment of every body, the motion has been relegated to the bottom of the House of Representatives notice-paper, although it is concerned with a problem that Australia will have to face before many years have passed. Apart from the humanitarian aspect, the seriousness of the problem is shown by the fact, that in one area of Western Australia alone, the half-caste population has increased sixfold in 33 years. In a State with a population of only 500,000, that is a serious position.

Senator Kendall:

– What are the actual figures?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I am speaking from memory, but I believe that in the area to which I have referred the half-caste population increased from approximately 6,000 to 36,000. Dealing with the problem from the humanitarian viewpoint, I defy anybody to say that he would not fee) some emotion if he went into the country areas and saw the plight of these people. I realize that there is no easy solution of this very special problem. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth is forbidden to do any-thing for aborigines, but there are ways in which that difficulty could be overcome. If at any time the Commonwealth wanted to contravene the provision in the Constitution that prohibits it from dealing with aborigines, I am certain that few people in Australia would raise their voices in protest. It is obvious that the Commonwealth must step in, because it cannot be expected that the Government of Western Australia will solve the aboriginal problem in that State by itself, although it has done some remarkably good work. Mr. Middleton, the Director of Aborigines in Western Australia, is an excellent officer, who i9 very interested in the work and is making a 24-hours-a- day job of it.

If we can break down the existing class and race consciousness, we shall have done much to solve the problem. There is no quick and easy way to lift these people up, but there is much that can be done. On one occasion, I saw seven people sitting on a bench in a country town, and they were of seven different shades. They sat there for eighteen hours a day; they had nothing to do, and had no hope for the future. When one sees people of that kind, one realizes what a great responsibility rests upon the Australian Government. It will not do for -the Commonwealth to say that they are the responsibility of the States.

That may be the legal position, but the Commonwealth has a very clearly defined duty to people living within the borders of Australia. That marvellous crumbling edifice, the Constitution, permits the Commonwealth to help foreigners who live in this country, but it prohibits it from helping aborigines. Owing to political considerations, a referendum for an alteration of the Constitution was rejected by the people. I hope that the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) will tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that at any rate some members of this chamber are interested in the motion that was proposed in the House of Representatives by the honorable member for Curtin.

I believe that State governments should be empowered to charge the children of aborigines with being delinquents, when they are in fact delinquents. If I were to neglect my children, they would bo charged with being delinquents and placed in the care of the State, hut although the children of some aborigines live in the filthiest of camps, State governments have no power to charge them with being delinquents. How they manage to exist, having regard to the disease and filth with which they are surrounded, I do not know. It is not the fault of the children that they live in places of that kind, and if they could be taken away from them and reared properly, they would become good citizens. We have a golden opportunity to do something now, because Australia is crying out for workers. During the depression, aborigines were pushed from pillar to post, but they could be utilized now. If we begin to lift them out of the conditions into which, to a large degree, they have been forced, we shall do something to break down the prejudice that the Australian people have against them. We must not be high and mighty about this matter. It must be admitted that those prejudices are generally wellfounded. People know that at night aborigines return to their disease-ridden camps, and the instinct of selfpreservation makes them keep away from them. In areas where half-castes are in regular employment and living in huts) they dress decently and present a clean and tidy appearance. The local population, know ing that they have got away from their normal- environment, accepts them.

During the last general election campaign, I had an embarrassing, or perhaps an amusing experience. Another Labour candidate and myself went to a town called Kellerberrin. It was Show day and we were unable to get a meal at the hotel, so we went to a rather small fish shop. We sat at one table and two half-castes were seated at another table. Two white people came into the shop and chose to sit with the half-castes. I said to my companion, “I do not know whether they have done that because they know that we are members of the Labour party or because the half-castes happen to be local people”. To me, that was a very good sign. If these people can be elevated to a higher plane, the prejudice against them will slowly be broken down. They have ability and good appearance. One has only to look at some of their women with their “ new look “ frocks, ankle strap shoes and cosmetics to realize that. These people want something better from life, and we have no right to prevent them from achieving it. Once again, I am speaking on behalf of people who, unfortunately, are not entitled to vote at elections. First, I spoke on behalf of patients in mental homes and now I am speaking on behalf of aborigines. Apart from the humanitarian viewpoint, if we do not make an attack on this problem soon the day will inevitably dawn when, owing to the rapid increase of our halfcaste population, we shall be faced with a colour problem in this country, with all its attendant unfortunate incidents. We have the means to solve the problem. All that we need is goodwill. These people are available. Let us use them and go forward.

The only other matter to which I wish tb refer is the state of mind manifested by the proposed levy on wool. I have made accusations, not only against this Government but also against those people who support it, that the only way in which they are attacking the present inflationary trend is by a partisan attack on wage fixation. Some people say that there has been no wage fixation in this country since the appropriate regulations were cancelled in, I think, 1946, but the fact is that there is a fixation of wages by courts, however impartial they may be. We hear it said from time to time that the only solution of the problem of inflation is to try to do something about wages. Many of the people who say that genuinely believe it to be true, but I maintain that it is a partisan attack, because it is a suggestion that one section of the community should be asked to make sacrifices. I believe that strong action must be taken to counter inflation, but I believe also that all persons in the community should be asked to make a contribution to the attack. In my opinion the proposed wool tax is wrong in principle. I agree that during the last few years wool-growers have been very fortunate, but if the principle is established that people who have been fortunate can be subjected to a special tax, when the Melbourne Cup has been run, perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) will impose a special tax upon the book._1 if another horse like Old Rowley wins the race. It is financially unsound to balance a budget with money that does not .properly belong to Consolidated Revenue. The proposed wool tax will not have the anti-inflationary effect .that has been claimed for it. I.t is estimated that approximately £103,000,000 will be taken from the wool-growers, but the wool-growers would not spend the whole of that £103,000,000 if they had it. I have heard it said - I admit it is an argument against the appreciation of the £1 - that high export incomes do not have the inflationary effect that they appear to have at first sight, because exporters do not spend all the money that they receive. If they have been in the industry for some time much of it would go into cold storage in the savings banks - I hope the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The Government does not propose to take this money away from them and put it into cold storage, but to apply it to various expenditures. I shall have more to say about this matter during the budget debate.

I sound a note of warning to the Government that there is no easy way out of the predicament in which we find ourselves. The successful way out of that predicament does not lie in making partisan attacks, by refusing to fix prices, and arguing that social services should be taken into con- sideration in the assessing of the basic wage. Had that argument been accepted by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration the basic wage would have been reduced recently rather than increased. It is of no use supporters of the Government saying to the producers, “ You can sell your goods for what you like”, if it does not adopt the same attitude towards the workers. I do not believe that either argument is sound. It is not possible to have an open-slather economy on one side hut not on the other. It must be either an open-slather economy on both sides, or a pegged economy.

This debate affords a grand opportunity for honorable senators to bring before the Senate views that they have formed when travelling in the various States. In effect, honorable senators are agents of the Government in that connexion, irrespective of the political colour of the government in office. In all sincerity I commend my observations to the various Ministers, and I hope that honorable senators opposite will frankly express their views to the Ministers. My advice to the Government is to go forward with the utmost courage in order to check the inflationary trend in this country. It should not be afraid to implement the slogan “ One in all in “, in order to prevent Australia from getting into the mess towards which it is heading.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– There occurs in the life of every person an opportunity to do what he wants to do, provided that he is prepared for that opportunity when it comes. Had Senator Willesee concluded his address at the end of his remarks about native affairs I might have crossed the chamber and embraced him.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the honorable senator would be out of order doing that!

Senator ROBERTSON:

– If he had followed me around Western Australia listening to my address at various meetings for many years .past he could not more faithfully nave given to the Senate my ideas about the native affairs problem in Australia. I commend him for it. On the other hand, I am going to slap him.

The PRESIDENT:

– That would be out of order, also!

Senator ROBERTSON:

– He painted a terrible picture of the people of Western Australia. I thoroughly agree with his contention that the inmates of mental asylums are not receiving a very fair deal from the Commonwealth. However, he asserted that, of about 1,300 inmates of asylums, approximately 1,000 never have a visitor, never have Id. to spend, and have not anything to call their own. He painted a very gloomy picture about the charity of the Western Australian people. I should like to point out that I have contributed for years past to a comforts fund that helps every one of the inmates of asylums in Western Australia. However, I compliment the honorable senator for his stand on the aboriginal question, and I hope that the Commonwealth will be able to find ways and means to deal adequately with this problem, which promises to become more acute in the future.

On behalf of the teachers of Australia, I deeply resent Senator Cameron’s implication that failure to educate all of the Australian people can be laid at the doors of the teachers. I am not going to sit down under that criticism. If there is one setof persons in this country that deserves every kind of help that can be given to them in the task of educating the Australian people, it is the teachers. Apart from the housewives, I can think of no other such self-sacrificing body of people in the community.

In approaching a consideration of the measure before the Senate we must remember that Ave are living in an inflationary period, an age of great expansion. The items of expenditure under consideration are normal in such a period, except perhaps the items of expenditure that are forecast in relation to health, defence and immigration, all of which are most important to Australia at the present time, and will demand a mounting budget. There will be ample opportunity during the budget debate to discuss each of these problems under their separate headings. I am hopeful that a great deal more attention will be given by this Government to the needs of Western Australia that have been so eloquently portrayed by Senator Willesee, particularly the necessity for the development of the north-west of that State, roads, reafforestation, and water schemes, so that a. great movement towards decentralization may take place, resulting in Australia being filled up with a happy and contented population.

Re-afforestation is already a serious problem in this country. As Senator O’Byrne has already pointed out, this problem is also assuming large proportions in New Guinea, where wonderful timbers are being cut out and cut down. Many people believe the popular fallacy that Australia is a well-timbered country. Nothing is further from the truth. The way that we are going about piecemeal reafforestation in the various States, it will not be very many years before Australia has been almost completely denuded of its timber resources. The present Government is worthy of praise for the things that it has already accomplished. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) devoted practically the whole of his speech to traducing the present Government. Among other things he accused the present Government of indecision and procrastination, and he claimed that, in consequence, the economic chaos that exists to-day was attributable to the inefficiency of the present Administration. Nothing is further from the truth, as honorable senators opposite know. As long ago as 1945 the rot had set in. Two years ago the then Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) had a golden opportunity to revalue the £1, but he did not do so. Therefore it is time that we began to put things in their correct perspective. The Government has not procrastinated. Pursuant to its election promise, the Government has abolished controls on petrol, tea, rice and butter. The payment of endowment for the first child in every family under sixteen years of age is now an accomplished fact. The national health scheme is in partial operation, that is in the most necessitous cases, and free milk is being supplied to school children. This is evidence that the Government is considering the general well-being of the people of this country.

Senator Nash:

– Are any children actually getting free milk?

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I am in a position to assure the Senate that some children are getting free milk, because I am the secretary of an organization in Western Australia that is handling the distribution. The increase of all classes of pensions will, as Senator Willesee has already mentioned, perpetuate some anomalies, but that does not indicate that the present Government is procrastinating. We are determined that the splendid standard of living that is enjoyed by the people of this country to-day shall not be interfered with. The recently passed Communist Party Dissolution Act will enable the Government to check those persons who are threatening to interfere with the standard of living in Australia. That legislation was passed as urgently as the Labour Opposition in this chamber permitted. That we have a good standard of living in this country is proved by the many compliments that the Government has received. Senator Vincent used some of my thunder this afternoon when he quoted what the great world-wide socialist, Bertrand Russell, had said about Australia. It is worth repeating. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 23rd October he stated -

Having spent only ten weeks in Australia, I am not in a position to say anything very profound about that continent. The most I can do is to relate a traveller’s impressions. Some of these impressions are likely to he mistaken, but there is one of which I am completely confident and that is that the general spirit of friendly kindness which met me everywhere seemed to be a national characteristic.

I do not think that it could he called a national characteristic in a country where the standard of living was low. His article continued -

I had a general impression of a high level of diffused happiness. The people seem to be more easy going than in the United States

  1. . There is a very general level of material .prosperity; except among recent immigrants and aborigines there is hardly anything that can be called poverty. Except in great cities everybody is comfortable, as nobody is rich.

It is the ideal of socialists that nobody shall he rich except themselves. Australia is, as I said before, a happy country, and for a long time to come an increase of population will bring only an increase of happiness. I pay tribute to the Australian Labour party for the important part it has played in raising the standard of living to what we enjoy in Australia to-day. Other prominent visitors to Australia have also declared that we are living under very desirable conditions. I have here a letterwritten by a visitor, and published in th6 West Australian of last week. In it he comments as follows upon the Government’s proposed health scheme: -

No doubt, Dr. Evatt’s recent criticism of the Page medical scheme is the official first gun in a campaign against it. After the dreadful way in which the schemes in Britain and New Zealand have been exploited by the people for whom they were instituted, it seems incredible that any one but a rabid socialist or an unscrupulous vote-catcher could contemplate saddling this already heavily taxed country with a free-for-all service open to the same abuses. Friends in England assure me that not all the responsibility was on the claiming and receiving ends. Plenty of it came from the prescribing and dispensing end, and at this end some pretty fortunes have been made.

On what grounds do the socialists deem such an open scheme as the McKenna plan to be necessary for this country? A newcomer to Perth, I notice that every one is well dressed, the hotel bars are crowded;, tobacco is dear, but every one smokes, from juveniles to dowagers; racing and all forms of sport are heavily patronized, and cinemas, theatres and al] shows are well attended, many having long queues of people booking seats. Shops are full of luxuries and gew-gaws, and every few chains people are seen investing in lottery tickets. On the domestic front many examples of easy spending could be given. I ask myself, inn these be the people for whom Labour is so solicitous, and for whom it hopes to supply free, all medicines from penicillin to ,pink pills ?

That is honest criticism from a man who came to Australia and noted the general well-being of the people. The Menzies Government does not intend to do anything to reduce the standard of living in Australia. As I said, I pay tribute to the Labour party for the work that it has done. The party has not existed in vain, but my complaint is that, for a good while, it has been living in the past. It is bewhiskered and hoary. I am thinking particularly of its advocacy of the strike weapon as a method of enforcing industrial claims. In this field, the outlook of British trade unionists has undergone an important change. . The Labour party in Great Britain has been completely springcleaned, and a similar spring-cleaning is overdue in Australia. Trade unionists in the United States of America have also developed , a new outlook. Senator O’flaherty advised us to read the publications issued by the Institute of Public Affairs. J propose to quote from one of its journals in order to show that the time lias arrived for the Australian Labour party to undergo the spring-cleaning I have referred to. It should change its methods and outlook, and really get down to business on the inflation issue, about which there has been so much discussion. From the September-October issue of the journal of the Institute of Public Affairs, [ quote the following trenchant observations : - lt is simply that the trade unions are now beginning to make increased production and the raising of standards of industrial efficiency tile prime objective of their activities. This represents a fundamental break away from deeply ingrained trade union notions and traditional conceptions of trade union policy.

From their beginnings the unions have directed the major part of their energies to obtaining for their members a larger share ot what is produced. Only in a secondary and minor sense have they been concerned with enlarging the amount of wealth available for distribution, and many of their activities have, in fact, militated against the achievement of the highest levels of production. Hut a new and momentous change in the trade union attitude to production is occurring. lt is excellently, and rather dramatically, summed up in the opening paragraphs of a report by it team of British trade unionists who visited ‘the United States late last year to investigate the role of American unions in increasing p rod u at i v iity. .

British trade unionism, to repeat what almost amounts nowadays to a platitude is standing on the threshold of a new social, economic and industrial order - a situation which has been created in part by the trade unions themselves. The way has been long and arduous but ‘mass’ and ‘hard core’ unemployment and social insecurity, characteristics of social injustice have, we hope, disappeared for good. But what lies beyond this threshold of Labour Movement achievement? By and large the answer has been found, lt is to seek a rising standard of life for all. achieved through increasing industrial productivity or output per man-hour. This then is the real problem confronting trade unions; to find ways and means of increasing productivity - a problem concerned mainly with industrial policy and action as distinct from the political pressure to achieve full employment and economic stability.”

The weight of inescapable economic fact, driven home by economists, statisticians and even by Labour politicians, seems to have convinced the unions - or at least their lenders - that ‘ there is now no prospect of raising living standard through a further sharing-up of available wealth. The lemon has just about been sucked dry. Therefore, progress to a better standard of life for the mass of the people depends now on higher and more efficient production. The hard ultimate logic of economics can no longer be escaped.

Members of the Labour party seem to think that when we say that production should be increased in order to combat inflation, it is the only anthem we can sing. They will find that we have other anthems. One of the greatest obstacles to production in the past was the fear - and it was a real fear - that overproduction would lead to -unemployment. However, there is no -justification for such a fear to-day. Population is increasing, industries are expanding, and with a rising standard of living, overproduction will be impossible for many years to come. The economic planning suggested by honorable senators opposite when the Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill was under discussion is not the solution to the problem of inflation. Trade union co-operation is necessary in any genuine, all-out attack on inflation. The one sure way to put value back into the £1 is to increase the quantity of goods that the public can buy. In addition, every person must refrain from luxury spending. The example of the housewife that was cited by an honorable senator opposite was most unconvincing. I should say that the housewife was a very indifferent buyer. Housewives in the United States of America settled the problem of high prices and stopped inflation in a period of about six weeks by refusing to buy. That is what people should do here in regard to luxury goods. Every effort should be made to combat inflation, but first let us get down to the basic weakness in our economy - coal and steel supplies. The statistics in connexion with the .coal and steel industries make grim reading. Some figures have already been cited in an endeavour to show that the situation is improving, but the real figures undeniably show that in New South Wales the output of coal per man shift has fallen by more than 17 per cent, over a period of ten years. In the United States of America, the production of coal has increased by 50 per cent, per man shift in the same period. In South Africa, the increase is 43 per cent, and in Canada 17 per cent. The story in regard to steel is much the same. In Canada, there has been an increase of 92 per cent., and in the United States of America one of 68 per cent., whereas in Australia the increase has been only 3 per cent. That is where the story of inflation begins. Prices control, as suggested by the Opposition could be completely successful only in a completely regimented State in which everything would be pegged, including wages. Such a state of affairs was threatened by the Chifley Government, and the people, in December last, said, “ No, we will have none of it “. We must work out our own salvation, and ourselves solve the problem which first made itself manifest in 1945. Inflation has now, I think, almost reached its peak.

I reiterate that prices control is only one factor in the curbing of inflation. Complete prices control would have a very bad effect on Australia. We must remember that we are a growing industrial country. We are still a pioneering community, and the control of the prices of all goods, including primary products, could seriously hamper the development of the country. In a recent broadcast, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said -

In some industries and on the part of many employers as well as employees, there is now a carefree attitude which lias led to the belief that you can safely produce as little as possible and charge as much as you like.

Under-production in basic industries, beginning with coal, gravely threatens the prosperity of Australia. If we wish to retain our present standard of living, we must do nothing to hamper development.. Again, I give the Labour party full credit for what it has done to improve the living standard of the workers, and I am proud to believe that I am a worker myself, together with other honorable senators on this side of the chamber. If we would retain our standard of living, the Labour party must co-operate with the Government to give effect to the proposals of the Prime Minister to overcome the threat of inflation. I trust that the Senate will not waste much time in getting his bill through. When the Estimates come before this chamber, I hope to see that Western Australia is not being forgotten.

Senator COLE:
Tasmania

.- I propose to deal with a few points that: have been made by honorable senators opposite in the course of this debate. We have been told what wonderful benefits the people of this country will derive under the national health schemethat has been prepared by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). Senator Robertson spoke disparagingly both of the British scheme, and of that devised during the regime of the Chifley Government by Senator McKenna. Every one knows that Senator McKenna’s scheme was sabotaged by the British Medical Association because he was endeavouring to prevent the exploitation that had occurred in Great Britain and New Zealand. The British Medical Association refused to co-operate in the scheme. The British scheme is not nearly so bad as honorable senators opposite would have us believe. That is borne out by the following newspaper report : -

Considering that the national health scheme in Britain was launched so hastily just two years ago, it was remarkable how smoothly this experiment was now -working, said the president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Victoria (Mr. L. Long) when he reached Fremantle in the Stratheden yesterday.

However, a great number of contentious problems remained to be solved. Costs had been grossly under-estimated. The scheme appeared to have the support of the majority of the public who considered that its continuance was essential. Despite physical and financial hardships, members of the pharmaceutical and allied professions had co-operated to make the plan a success.

Provided that the majority of Australians wanted it, the Commonwealth Government was to be congratulated on its wisdom in implementing a carefully-conceived plan of medical insurance in Australia, Mr. Long said. Leaders in pharmacy in Britain had commented favorably on the Australian plan at the Pharmaceutical Association conference held in Glasgow last month.

Senator Guy:

– When was that report published ?

Senator COLE:

– On the 8th of this month. So far,- neither we on this side of the chamber nor honorable senators opposite know very much about the scheme that the Minister for Health intends to introduce in this country. We have been told, however, that milk is to be provided free of charge to school children. Having had some associations with school, I shall be most interested “to learn how the right honorable gentleman proposes to implement that scheme. I have no doubt that the plan will be a great vote catcher should the right honorable gentleman have to face the electors in the near future ; but they may feel differently about it after an attempt has been made to implement it.

Senator Robertson:

– It will be implemented; the mothers will see to that.

Senator COLE:

– I do not think that the scheme can be implemented through the schools, and the State governments “will not be prepared to shoulder the burden of providing the equipment and services necessary for the distribution of milk to school children. The scheme will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Refrigeration and storage facilities will have to be provided at the schools. Our herds of dairy cattle will have to be increased substantially. If free milk is to be distributed through the schools, what is to be done with the surplus milk at week-ends and during school vacations? It is argued that surplus milk can be sent to processing factories, but what about areas in which there are no such factories? In Tasmania, for instance, there is no dairy factory at all in the southern regions. They are all on the north-west and north-east coasts. I believe, therefore, that this grandiose scheme will be a complete flop.

Higher production is the panacea for all our ills offered by Senator Guy and his colleagues. They would have us believe that higher production will put value back into the £1. I do not believe that higher production is the answer to our problems. The solution is controlled production. Increased production may make some contribution, but only if it is controlled. Otherwise, what will happen when production begins to exceed demand ? Are we going to destroy our surplus products as America has done?

Senator Cooper:

– Is that not a negative attitude?

Senator COLE:

– No. Our economy is still reasonably good. People still have a relatively high purchasing power, but when production has overtaken demand, unemployment will result. What is the use of putting value back into the £1 if people are not to have pounds to spend?

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– We shall deal with that problem when production has been increased.

Senator COLE:

– Honorable senators opposite have not ability to deal with it. Another cry of Government supporters is that inflation in this country was accentuated when the Chifley Government withdrew price stabilization subsidies. If that is so, why does the Government not restore those subsidies? Instead of doing that, it has withdrawn the subsidy from superphosphate which is essential to the production of food. The result will be higher prices for foodstuffs. I believe, therefore, that honorable senators opposite speak with their tongues in their cheeks when they criticize the action of the Chifley Government in withdrawing subsidies. The present Government parties opposed the prices referendum. Senator Vincent adopted a different line of attack. He spoke enthusiastically of the American dollar loan which has been so widely acclaimed since the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) returned from his quick trip around the world.

Senator Ashley:

– It is known ‘as the “ three-quarter dollar “ loan now.

Senator COLE:

– We all know what will happen. The Americans are smart business people. Already they have caught this Government for 25,000,000 dollars. The dollar loan is really a sellout of Australia’s economic independence. It is merely a beginning. Our borrowing will not stop at 100,000,000 dollars. We shall be tied to the wheels of the big capitalistic machine of the United States of America.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Senator COLE:

– I direct the attention of the Senate to the unfair treatment that has been meted out to Tasmania for very many years. The time has arrived when we should take stock of Tasmania’s position in the federation. It is possible that had Tasmania remained outside the federation it would be much better off than it is to-day. The hand-outs which Tasmania receives from the Australian Government are not based on honest calculations and are far from sufficient to meet the needs of the State. I do not blame the present Government for that. I admit that former governments could have granted much greater assistance to the Tasmanian people than they did. Tasmania is included in the federation in name only; it is treated like a poor relation. But for the production of Tasmania the people of Sydney might on many occasions have almost starved. Tasmania suffers from many disabilities that require urgent attention. One, which I .mentioned on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate recently is the unsatisfactory wheat supply position. Tasmania is the only State in the Commonwealth which imports wheat and the. carriage of wheat to that State involves the expenditure of a great deal of .money. The transport of wheat to Tasmania was formerly subsidized by the Australian Government. Payment of the subsidy was abolished at the instance of the Australian Wheat Board. At present the Tasmanian Government meets the charges involved, which amount to approximately £260,000 per annum. If those charges were spread over the whole of the wheat consumed in Australia they would represent only approximately 1/4 d. a bushel. If, as has been proposed, the Tasmanian Government ceases to pay the subsidy at the end of this year the cost of a 2-lb. loaf of bread to Tasmanian housewives will be increased by Id. The Government should direct the Australian Wheat Board to re-examine the matter with a view to the restoration of the subsidy.

Tasmania, being an island State, has suffered greatly from the lack of a suitable and adequate shipping service. The Australian Shipping Board could do a great deal to assist the Tasmanian people by providing a. better service of ships under charter to the Commonwealth. v It appears to be the policy of the present Government to make sure that the Commonwealth shipping activities shall not pay. It wishes to cease operating the ships because it does not regard the existence of a Commonwealth service as necessary for the wellbeing of Australia. Vessels under Commonwealth control frequently arrive in Tasmanian ports with no cargoes on board. Some go to Strahan where they load cargoes for Melbourne; others arrive at Devonport and Burnie with very little cargo. One vessel recently berthed at Devonport carrying only two motorcars, and very small ones at that!

I propose now to refer to the very niggardly way in which this Government treats the subject of education. There is nothing in the Constitution toprevent the Commonwealth from providing money for educational purposes. I propose ‘to read for the information of the Senate a report which appears in one of the teachers’ journals on this subject. Under the heading, “Schools starved on present votes”, the report reads as follows : -

A message to the Prime Minister during the premiers conference urged substantial grants for essential increased expenditure on public school education.

The telegram asked that such grants be made available to the States immediately and in addition to normal State allocations which had already been decided upon.

Main reasons for the message were that existing educational services cannot adequately be maintained on present expenditures, and that, in addition, it is essential -to provide for a rapid expansion of educational services in all States.

In New South Wales, at least, 4.000 more class rooms and teachers will be needed by lilo.”i to accommodate the rapidly rising enrolments due to increased birth rate and migration.

Of primary importance, therefore, is the recognition by the Commonwealth Government of the seriousness of education’s needs, but no response other than a statement that the matter had been noted was made by the Prime Minister to this request.

The Commonwealth Government’s failure to recognize education’s critical condition is the m,ore unjustified in view of its ability to find an additional £130,000,000 for war ‘ expenditure.

Money can always be provided for the prosecution of a war, but difficulties always arise when it is needed for the education of the people. This Parliament would provide the additional finance required by our education authorities if the Government asked it to do so. The provision” of school amenities is urgently needed in almost every State of the Commonwealth. These amenities include improved staff accommodation, larger and extra staff rooms, study and work rooms, equipped with washing and minor cooking facilities and comfortable furniture, including a desk and locker for each member of the staff. All playgrounds should be made safe playing areas and’ playgrounds should, where necessary, be extended. Playgrounds are essential at all schools. In the past all governments appeared to follow the policy of building schools on the worst and most rocky sites in the district. Provision should also be made of suitably equipped and placed shelters for use by children in inclement weather, and of cycle sheds where necessary. Hygienic and efficient cafeterias run by special staffs are also urgently needed, as well as rest and first aid rooms, properly equipped to deal with emergencies during school hours, and for use by visiting doctors and dentists. Gymnasiums, projections rooms, an assembly hal] for each department and school auditoriums are also required. Provision should be made for adequate indoor washing and sanitary facilities and for the installation of septic tank systems in unsewered areas. I am sure that all honorable senators have seen the unhygienic condition of many country schools. Where warranted, tennis courts and proper playing fields adjacent to schools should also be provided. These are some of the physical needs of the schools. The Government, instead of framing its budget in such a way as to gain a political advantage, should have concentrated on its duty to look after the well-being of the people. As it is desired that this bill shall be passed to-night I shall leave the discussion of the other important matters with which I wish to deal until the budget is under consideration.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in, reply - As is customary, this debate has ranged over a great number of subjects. To me it has been interesting because of the variety of topics that have been covered by honorable senators. I shall hardly be expected to reply to all the points that have been raised, but I shall do my best to cover a reasonable number of them. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) criticized the late presentation of the budget and the large amount requested for Supply by comparison with the amount provided for in the last Supply Bill. He also made a series of charges of inefficiency against the Government, attacked its wool plan and last, and most interesting of all, offered to co-operate with us. I shall deal with all those points at a later stage. It would be fair for me to say that the principal recurring theme in the speeches of honorable senators was the high cost of living and the panacea with which they propose to cure that economic ill. Not one constructive proposal to combat high prices was advanced except the transfer of price fixing powers to the Commonwealth. General charges were levied against the Government of being inept, dilatory and insufficient, but even those charges were not stated in direct terms. The Opposition indulged in general as distinct from specific criticism. I understand that a similar practice was followed by the Opposition in the House of Representatives where the Leader of the Opposition commended only the Government’s proposal to re-introduce capital issues control. Not one Opposition member in that chamber made a constructive proposal which would aid the Government in carrying out its task. From that I go logically to the proposition that if the Opposition were the government to-day it would be bankrupt of ideas. There have been no proposals advanced by the Opposition in the debate, so that if it had the responsibility of government it would have no ideas and no proposals to implement. The only suggestion that has emanated from it is that a referendum should be held to transfer control of prices to the Australian Government. Senator Sheehan pointed to Achilles heel of that argument during the course of his speech, because he made the contribution that in a referendum campaign the probabilities are that a number of State governments, despite the fact that they are Labour governments, would probably oppose the transfer of those powers. I believe that to be a true statement. Even if the Government accepted the Opposition’s proposal, which it will not do, the net result of such a referendum would be a combat between the Australian Government and the State governments which would result inevitably in the defeat of this Government upon such an issue, because a. referendum has not only to be carried by a majority of the people but also by a majority of States. If theer were a Labour government in office to-day and it submitted such referendum to the people they would undoubtedly reject it, and the Government would thus have played its only card. Its sole course then would be to sit back and await the debacle, as the government of the day did in 1930, when it remained in office until the people, threw it out. I believe that is fair comment upon the tenor of the debate that has ensued during the last few days.

I wish very briefly to direct the attention of the Senate to some newspaper cuttings which I consider pertinent to the issues that confront this Parliament to-day. I propose to quote only briefly from the cuttings, and I trust that honorable senators will not accuse me of presenting the extracts out of context, because it would take too long to quote the articles in full. However, I shall, in each case, make an acknowledgment of what the balance of the article refers to. I quote first of all a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), who, under the heading - “ All must help Australia says Chifley, has been reported as follows: -

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chifley, appealed yesterday to all Australians to help stabilize the country’s economy. He said that neither his Government nor the present Government were to blame for inflation, which was also affecting other countries.

No one could do other than commend that sentiment expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The Minister has not quoted the whole statement.

Senator SPOONER:

– That was a statement made at the commencement of the right honorable gentleman’s speech. The remainder of it was devoted to criticism of the budget, but that is a sentiment which we should all emulate in our discussions, and I think it bears quoting for that reason.

I wish to quote another extract from a newspaper, because it also fits in to the general theme. It is a report of a comment by Mr. Finnan, the New South Wales Minister who is administering prices control in that State. In this report Mr. Finnan is advancing the claim that only the Australian Government can effectively control prices. He says -

The six States, after working together with a degree of uniformity for two years, have now reached the stage where State control is completely incompetent in carrying out’ what its name implies. The State prices- branches have become clearing stations for applications for price increases.

I suggest that that statement, as it applies to State control of prices, would apply with equal force to federal control of prices unless federal control were backed, by other economic measures, of which no mention has been made by the OppositionIt is well to think of such matters, and I believe that the people of Australia, understand that prices control can make, in the best of circumstances, only a very moderate contribution to the curing of economic ills.

The third report which I wish to quote is not so pleasant. It is a report from the Canberra Times, and it reads as follows : -

Labour says “ No “ to appeal for all-out production. The federal president of the Labour party, Mr. J. A. Ferguson, told a public meeting to-night that Labour’s answer to Mr. Menzies’ appeal for all-out production was nil. “Labour’s help will be equal to the help that Labour received from the British Medical Association and the private banks “, he said.. “ Labour’s answer to Mr. Menzies is this : The amount of assistance you will receive in respect of your appeal is nil ‘ “.

Coming from a responsible official of a political organization, that is a statement of which the party concerned should bethoroughly ashamed. Whenever this matter has ‘been mentioned in the Senate there have been interjections to the effect that the gentleman concerned was not correctly reported. That ground has been vacated by the interjections to-night and by the statement of Senator Cameron in the course of his speech this afternoon.

The next newspaper cutting to which I refer reads as follows: -

page 1452

QUESTION

WATERFRONT STOPPAGE

Red Bill Discussed

About 20,000 Australian waterside workerswho stopped work to-day as a protest against rising prices will return to work at 8.00 a.m. to-morrow.

I ask honorable senators to consider those four statements in perspective. The first, made by the Leader of the Australian Labour party, is upon a high level, and the others, I submit, arise from the unrest and uncertainty which the Australian Labour party is fermenting in its fatuous endeavour to undermine the people’s confidence in the Government. This attempt to attack the Government and to convert the people to the belief that price fixing is a solution of our difficulties is entirely a political campaign in the worst possible taste. It is not a campaign which is having any effect upon the Government, but it is doing national harm because it is giving rise to fear and uncertainty. It is intensifying the conditions that the members of the Opposition profess to fear. However, the campaign is not succeeding. I believe that the people of Australia know that they are fortunate in the Government which is in charge of Australian affairs to-day. The more the prices referendum proposal is debated the more absurd it is shown to be, and that is evidenced by the fact that in the debate upon it in the Senate the members of the Opposition are no longer advancing proposals to show that the scheme is practicable and can be implemented.

Before turning to the detailed replies which I have prepared to points raised during the debate I wish to make brief reference to the contribution by Senator Kendall because I consider that his was a speech that opened up new avenues of thought for honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. I believe that his speech was listened to with a good deal of interest in all parts of the chamber. I came to the conclusion that the suggestions made by the honorable senator lend point to the contention that I made previously in the debate to the effect that the Labour party in its attempts to gain control of this Senate and in its method of election, had overreached itself, and must carry the responsibility for the fact that to-day we have in Australia a Senate which has become unworkable. That is a serious thought and one that none of us should lightly brush aside. The Parliament to-day is in a situation in which parliamentary government can not function.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am not concerned with the dead ashes of the past, but with the position that exists to-day. Since the Australian Labour party was responsible for that situation, it has no moral right to criticize the Government or the results achieved by it. This Government has brought before- the Par liament two major pieces of legislation. One of these aimed at remedying weaknesses in the industrial affairs of the nation, and the other was aimed at strengthening the control of the financial affairs of the nation. The first one was the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, which the Opposition allowed to pass after six months’ delay; the second was the Commonwealth Bank Bill, which the Opposition is still delaying. That is the charge that the Government makes and that is the position that must be met. Unless there is a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the Opposition concerning the Government’s legislative programme, events will lead irresistibly to one conclusion. On both sides of the Parliament we should be men enough to face the facts and cope with them.

I propose now to reply to some of the matters that were raised during the debate. Senator Ashley asked why larger appropriations were sought in this Supply Bill than in the Supply Bill of July last. The reply is that the previous Supply Bill was based on the Estimates for last year, whereas the present Supply Bill is based on the Estimates for this year. As all honorable senators are aware, there has been increased government expenditure this year compared with last year. One item of great significance i3 the recent award of the Public Service Arbitrator, which has been given retrospective effect dating to last December and which will involve the Government in the expenditure of £3,000,000 for additional salaries during this period.

Senator Ashley:

– Pension inceases are not to be dated back to last year.

Senator SPOONER:

– Supply is based on this year’s Estimates, not on those of last year. Several honorable senators asked why the proposed appropriation for defence purposes is greater than the appropriation made in the earlier Supply Bill. While this bill was being prepared, the defence programme was developing and difficulty was encountered in separating items of a capital nature and those of a revenue nature. The increased appropriation sought to be made in this bill will be offset by a smaller appropriation in the Supply (Works and Services) Bill.

The Government has been criticized for introducing the budget late. During the last ten years, the budget has never been introduced into the Parliament earlier than during the month of September. In 1946-47, it was not introduced until November. The reason for the presentation of the budget this year somewhat later than usual was the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) overseas. The right honorable gentleman returned to Australia on the 23rd August. Shortly after his return, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held and the Loan Council met. The budget was introduced within five weeks of the conclusion of those meetings.

Senator Grant:

– What does the Government propose to’ do about the rate of exchange?

Senator SPOONER:

– It has been said ad nauseam that the Government will not alter the rate of exchange. Honorable senators who continually raise that question do no credit to Australia.

The Government’s wool deduction proposals have also been criticized. It is not true to say that the wool deduction is designed to meet the ordinary expenses of government. The budget for this year makes provision for a number of nonrecurring items which will inflate the total expenditure. The items are £50,000,000 for stock-piling-

Senator Armstrong:

– Will there be stock-piling next year?

Senator SPOONER:

– I hope not, because £50,000,000 is a large sum of money for that purpose. Much of the money will bo recovered. Another nonrecurring item for which provision is made in the budget is war gratuity, which will fall due for payment in this financial year and for which £67,000,000 will be required. There has been an abnormal increase of defence expenditure to meet special conditions obtaining this year. If it were not for those items, Commonwealth revenue this year, without the wool deduction, would be sufficient to cover expenditure. The wool deduction is essentially an antiinflationary measure. It is true that the proceeds of the deduction will be paid into Consolidated Revenue, but the effect of the payment will be to offset exceptional items of expenditure, some of which I have mentioned. The general effect of the wool deduction and of the budget as a whole will be to assist in countering inflation. It is obvious that, having regard to the items to which I have referred, the Government was faced with the choice of leaning on treasurybills to a large degree, which would have had an inflationary effect, or of relying upon the wool deduction scheme. I am convinced that if the Labour party had been in power it would not have had the brains or the ingenuity to evolve such a scheme.

The 100,000,000 dollar loan has been criticized, first on the ground that it is now worth only S0,000,000 dollars, and secondly on the ground that it was negotiated in order to enable restrictions on the importation of petrol and luxury goods from dollar areas to be lifted. Both of those statements are misleading. It is ridiculous to assert that the loan was negotiated in order to enable restrictions on the importation of petrol and luxury goods to be lifted. With regard to petrol, other countries in the sterling area, including the United Kingdom, have abandoned petrol rationing, and there is no suggestion .that, as a result of that action, they will need to negotiate a dollar loan. Australia, as a participant in the sterling area dollar pool, is in a similar situation. With regard to luxury goods, it is within the recollection of honorable senators that at the time the loan was negotia ted the Government made it quite clear that there would be no relaxation of the restrictions imposed ou the importation from the dollar area of goods of that kind. The statement that the 100,000,000 dollar loan is now worth only 80,000,000 dollars was a reckless utterance. It intrigued me so much that I asked Treasury officials whether they could endorse it. The answer that I received was that insufficient data was available to enable anybody to make such a statement. The only information available is that the August wholesale price level in America was below the high water mark of 1948, although the price of some heavy equipment has increased during recent months. The statement was a generalization which had not basis in fact. It cannot be supported in any way and is manifestly incorrect.

Senator O’Flaherty made two requests. The first was that the Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization should confer with the South Australian Mines Department on experiments at Moorlands in connexion with the gasification of coal, and the second was that the organization should assist in developing uranium deposits. I have been informed that the Commonwealth is already assisting the South Australian Government to some degree in power projects, but I have made arrangements for the honorable senator’s requests to be brought to the attention of the responsible Ministers.

I propose now to reply to the charges of ineptitude that have been levelled against the Government. Very few governments have as good a record in relation to things actually done as this Government has. This afternoon I made a list of actions of the Government that occurred to me. The list is by no means complete. I ask honorable senators opposite to consider whether any other Government has done as much as this Government has done in the face of a hostile Senate and without having the advantage of being able to secure a smooth and swift passage for its legislation. The Government has made provision for the endowment of the first child in every family. It has abolished petrol rationing, subsidized wheat to keep bread cheap, subsidized butter, abolished butter rationing, abolished tea rationing, subsidized tea, subsidized the importation ‘of coal, imported steel and removed duties and restrictions upon a great variety of articles. It has negotiated a 100,000,000 dollar loan to enable us to purchase equipment to increase production throughout Australia. It has, after a struggle, secured the passage through the Parliament of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and is now in a position to make an attempt to eradicate what is probably the greatest industrial ill from which Australia is suffering. It has introduced a pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which the previous Government was unable to do. It proposes to introduce a free medical and pharmaceutical benefits scheme for pensioners. which the Labour party, to its shame, did not do during the eight years itwas in office. It has evolved a proposal for the withdrawing from circulation of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of Australian wool. It is evolving an excess profits tax scheme.

The Government has made a vigorous attack on all the problems that beset this country, and few governments have a better record of action. It will continue to take vigorous action. No economic difficulty can be cured entirely by legislation or regulation. What we need in Australia most of all is a community working together in the interests of the country as a whole. Honorable senators opposite have indulged in cheap gibes at the Government for its request to them to co-operate with it. For my part, I shall not ask Opposition senators to co-operate. If they have not the inherent decency to co-operate, I shall not ask them to do so. I shall do everything in my power to secure their co-operation, but, if they have not the decency to do what is right, they must accept the responsibility for their actions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Secondreading

SenatorSPOONER (New South

Wales - Minister for Social Services) [8.40]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Requirements for the first four months of the financial year 1950-51 were provided in Supply Act (No. . 1). The purpose of this bill is to obtain supply for a further two months to carry on the necessary normal services of government,other than capital services. The amount desired to be appropriated is £61,189,000 and may be summarized under the following heads : -

It has been customary in the past to use the appropriations of the previous year as the basis of the provision in a supply bill. However, under present conditions, it has been found impracticable to limit the amounts for this bill to one-sixth of last year’s requirements for ordinary services. Salaries have been increasing progressively with the rise in the cost of living, and the recent award of the Public Service Arbitrator, which dates back to December last, has required a substantial additional amount. Increased costs of materials have had a considerable impact on the amount required. The amounts in the bill are, therefore, based on the current needs of departments but there is no provision for the increase in the basic wage announced recently. The amount of £27,325,000 included for Defence Services is to provide for expenditure on the post-war defence plan and the additional commitments which the Commonwealth has undertaken in connexion with Malaya and Korea. Expenditure on repatriation and rehabilitation and other charges arising out of the last war are covered by the amount of £597,000 provided for War (1939-45) Services. Except in relation to the commitments in Malaya and Korea, no amounts are included for new services.

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– We have just heard a remarkable speech by the Minister in charge of this bill (Senator Spooner). I refer to his remarks in reply to the debate on the motion for the first reading of this bill. Never previously in my experience have I known a Minister to produce newspaper cuttings in an endeavour to bolster up his speech. The Minister produced four newspaper cuttings -as an answer to the case that had been made out against the Government. The Minister has adopted a new technique to dispose of questions raised by the Opposition. By reading newspaper cuttings to the Senate, instead of making his own explanations, he is turning his position as a responsible Minister into the leader of an admiration society. He even recited a list of achievements by departmental undertakings, such as would be common to any government. I am amazed at the Minis ter’s attitude in this matter. Perhaps it is due to his inexperience in ministerial office. The Minister stated that he does not require the co-operation df the Opposition, and that he will not seek it in the future. If he persists in that attitude there will be greater resistance by the Opposition towards the increasing ineptitudes of the Government. We have tried to help the Government by co-operating with it to the greatest degree possible. The Minister read a newspaper report of a statement alleged to have been made by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley). There is no evidence that the right honorable gentleman made the statement that was attributed to him.

Senator O’sullivan:

– It was to his credit.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), who has just interjected, was not in the chamber at the time, and it behoves him to have better manners.

Senator O’sullivan:

– I was in the chamber at the time.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Minister should have better manners. The statement was alleged to have been made some considerable time ago. There is no evidence that it is authentic. The Minister also read to the Senate a statement about price fixing supposed to have been made by Mr. Finnan, the Minister in charge of prices administration in New South Wales. I am as confident as the Minister appears to be to-night, that when the people of Australia have the opportunity to express their views about the present Government’s neglect to take effective action to halt the continually increasing cost of living in this country, they will condemn the opponents of Labour. The Government has given no indication of any attempt that it proposes to make to halt rising prices, and the charge made by several Opposition speakers that this country is facing economic ruin has not been answered. We are facing destruction of our national economy, and if some action is not taken to arrest the rising cost of living in this country, chaos will be inevitable. The Minister may smile, but I remind him that the housewives of this country are not smiling to-day. They are not happy at present.

Senator Vincent:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition consider that they would he happy if the party that he supports was in office?

Senator ASHLEY:

– At least we would make an attempt to do something. I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to adopt the attitude that he has adopted to-night, and I hope that in the future, when information is sought by the Opposition, a Minister speaking in reply will not rely on statements in newspapers.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I desire to make a personal explanation, after which I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) will withdraw his inaccurate remark and apologize for the manner in which he has misrepresented me. He said that I was not in the chamber when the Minister in charge of this bill (Senator Spooner) was making his speech in reply to the first-reading debate. I was sitting in the seat of the Minister for Social Services long before the Minister rose in his place to make his speech, and therefore I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the misrepresentation, which, I believe, was made innocently.

Senator Ashley:

– By way of personal explanation I wish to say that I regret having made the statement. I assure the Minister that he was “ snookered “ and I could not see him from where I was sitting.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I regret that so much heat was engendered during the debate on the motion for the first reading of this bill. Robert Burns wrote -

But Facte are chiels that winna ding,

An’ downa bedisputed.

In other words; facts cannot be disputed. The question that must arise in the mind of every senator is, “ Has the Government succeeded in stopping inflation ? “ One of the main planks in the platform of the Government parties provided for the taking of steps to check rising costs.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I am afraid that I was rather lenient with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley). I remind honorable senators that it is against the Standing Orders to revive at this stage the debate on the motion for the first reading of the bill. We are now debating a motion that the bill should be read a second time, and the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has already spoken to the motion. On the motion for the first reading of a bill of this kind honorable senators may speak on any subject whatever, but on the motion for the second reading they are required to deal with the bill itself.

Senator GRANT:

– In view of your ruling, Mr. President, I shall confine myself to the subject of the valuation of the £1. It is of no use my continuing to state Labour’s point of view and for honorable senators opposite to state their point of view, unless something concrete materializes. As I pointed out during question time to-day, share prices have reached record heights. It is of no use for honorable senators opposite to contend that the stock exchanges do not know what they are doing.

Senator Vincent:

– It is obvious that people have confidence in the Government.

Senator GRANT:

– As the honorable senator who has just interjected hails from a desert which is about 300 miles from the’ nearest village, he would be well advised to listen to what I am saying. I understand that the Minister for Social Services is an accountant, about whom much was heard during the depression. I should like him to explain how it is possible for prices to be reduced in this country while our currency is at a discount of 40 per cent. compared with the currency of the United States of America and of 25 per cent. compared with the currency of Great Britain. Honorable senators opposite continue to assert that raw materials are urgently required in this country, yet the Government is not prepared to reappraise the Australian £1. I wish to ask the Minister a specific question. It is this: If the workers of this country produce more, what will the Government do to check continually rising share prices? I point out that industrialists are well aware that if production is increased the value of their shareholdings will be enhanced. However, the position of people on fixed incomes, including politicians, is very different. When walking along a street in Sydney last week various people stopped me and asked me questions, such as, “ How long do you think this inflation is going to last ? “. and “ What is the use of being insured ? We do not- know how much our money will be worth”. Public servants made such comments as “I do not know how I am going to continue to live “, and “ The way things are going I will have to take my children away from the University “. Is it any wonder that people are worried? During the /period that the present Government has been in office, prices have risen at a much quicker rate than at any comparable period during the term of office of the previous Governwent

Senator Guy:

– But prices have been rising continually since 1946. Apparently the honorable senator has not studied the position very carefully.

Senator GRANT:

– I have before me a cutting from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 21st October, which reads -

page 1458

THREE TIMES AS MUCH FOR CLOTHES

Canberra, Friday. - Clothing prices in Sydney were 182.2 per cent, higher at the end of September compared with the same time in 1939. Dr. Wilson says the aggregate of certain retail prices in Sydney has gone up by 72.9 per cent, over 1939. . . . Compared with 1939, here are comparative percentages for price increases’ in Sydney: Food, 50 per cent., 1949, and 71.9 per cent., 1950; rents, 1 per cent., 1949, and 1.1 per cent. 1950; clothing, 144.2 per cent., 1949, and 182.2 per cent., 1950.

Senator GRANT:

– The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) has advanced an extraordinary reason for clothing rising by almost 40 per cent, in a year. Apparently the Minister considers that devaluation was a mistake, and that the way to rectify that mistake is to continue the .present value of our currency in relation to sterling. Although I expect such asinine remarks from his colleagues, the Minister usually makes intelligent statements. I cannot see the slightest logic in bis contention. Surely the Minister must know that the people of this country consider that an outside junta is running the Government, which is the laughing stock of the world.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– Almost every honorable senator opposite is individually in favour of revaluing the £1, but collectively they lack the courage to tell the Australian Country party what to do. I warn them that if something is not done quickly, there will he nothing left of the £1 to bother about.

We have been accused of putting forward our prices control proposals as a panacea. No one claims that for it, but we do say that the system of prices control that existed under the Labour Government was incomparably better than what we have now. Senator Guy said that he was not one of those who subscribed to the contention that pricefixing by the States was a failure. He must have been born in Aberdeen because, if he would not subscribe to that proposition, he would not subscribe to anything. I remind honorable senators opposite that it was they who claimed that we were passing through an inflationary period, and that value had gone out of the £1. It is now their responsibility to apply the proper remedies. The issue is no longer what a previous government did, but what the present Government proposes to do. The fact that the Government is still making charges against the Labour Administration shows that it is finding difficulty in defending its own position.

There is no doubt that the Australian currency is in a precarious condition. The Government will probably have to peg wages. It will have to do something to control share issues and dealings in shares. It will have to do something about those who are allowing depreciation of 70 per cent, on motor cars. It will certainly have to do something to check the production of luxuries. It will have to do something about the great volume of graziers’ money that is in circulation. It will have to ensure that imports are restricted to bulldozers and machinery for national development, and that the production of luxuries is forbidden altogether if, necessary. In other words, the country must be put on to a war-time economy. The danger of economic collapse is incomparably greater now than it was during the war. Eventually, the Government will, I believe, have to introduce, not only the controls that we have suggested, but the full range of war-time controls. Surely the Government does not think that it can get out of its difficulty by complaining that the Labour party will not cooperate. If the Government can show that it has a programme for dealing with those who are taking advantage of the present currency situation, the workers will not be slow to co-operate; but how can they be expected to co-operate when they see their standard of living going down and down, while the Government does nothing about it.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

.- I propose to bring various matters to the notice of the Government. We have been accused of failing to co-operate-

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate is now debating the motion for the secondreading of the Supply Bill. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), representing the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), has made his second-reading speech. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) has spoken, and a considerable amount of latitude was allowed him. I do not propose to allow any further latitude. Honorable senators must confine their remarks to the bill.

Senator AYLETT:

– I was about to point out that it is our wish to cooperate with the Government by bringing to the notice of the Minister representing the Treasurer certain matters relating to the departments’ for which Supply is sought. The Minister said that, because we are in Opposition, we should not criticize the Government, but I disagree with him. We cannot bring to the notice of the Government matters requiring attention unless we voice at the same time the criticism offered by those who brought the matters to our notice. Moreover, we claim the right to criticize the Government when criticism is justified. My complaint at the moment is that since the present Government came into office very little has been done by the Postmaster-General’s Department to provide long-awaited telephone connexions. Applications that were lodged 12, 18 and 24 months ago are still unsatisfied. At first, we were told that the connexions could not be made until a new exchange had been completed. Then we were told that we would have to await the laying of cables. Now, the exchange is finished and the cables are laid, and the excuse is that there are not enough lines in the cables. I think we are fully justified in complaining, especially as we know that certain persons are receiving preferential treatment. If the Government wants our co-operation, it should be prepared to co-operate also.

The Labour party is not opposed to expenditure on migration and the armed forces, provided the money is used wisely, but we have a right to object to unwise expenditure. In his very brief secondreading speech, the Minister did not give details of the proposed expenditure. I should like to know whether the money that is being appropriated for the armed services will be used to pay recruiting officers and an enlarged general staff, or on the provision of amenities for members of the forces. Is it proposed to establish new camps for recruits, or are the old camps that were in use during the last war to be used? Some of the old military camps have been occupied by New Australians, who were recently given notice to quit. It was pointed out there .were other camps in which military trainees could be accommodated, but the official reply was that such camps were unsuitable. I want to know whether the Government is making provision for the accommodation of the New Australians.

I should also like to know whether any of the money which we are now being asked to vote will be used to pay for newspaper advertising, of which the Government has done a great deal lately. Some of the individual advertisements have cost as much as £50 a day. Will the money that is to be allocated for the armed services be expended in that way, or upon actual defence preparations ? Does the Government propose to expend the money by advertising in the newspapers of its friends, who give the Government so much useful publicity? When some of us have asked questions in the Senate, we have been told by Ministers that they do not take any notice of pre3S statements, but to-day a Minister quoted press statements without knowing whether they were true or false. Some of them, I am sure, were incorrect, and the Minister read only those parts that suited his purpose. He was not courageous enough to read the entire statements.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - In my second-reading speech, I referred to increased public service salaries due to the rising cost of living. The Government is well aware that costs have risen. I put it to the Opposition in all seriousness that they are not helping to solve our problems by making wild and extravagant statements. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) talked of economic ruin and chaos. Senator Grant made a series of wild assertions. We are not unmindful of existing circumstances. I regret if I said anything that was unfortunate about co-operation by the Opposition. The only point I wished to make on that score was that it should not be necessary to ask for co-operation; it should be forthcoming willingly, or not at all. It is not for me to seek cooperation, but for the Opposition to offer it.

Notwithstanding what Senator Grant said, I maintain that the best indicator of movements of prices is still the “ C “ series index. Despite statements to the contrary, the “ C “ series index has risen by just a fraction over 9 per cent. in each of the last three years. In view of events in the last six months, particularly the disturbing war conditions, that is a circumstance from which every Australian can take comfort. This country has by no means reached the stage at which the future may be viewed with fear and apprehension. It is very wrong for the Opposition to create circumstances which result in disturbance, anxiety, worry and trouble, because those are the very conditions that lead to panic buying and a general deterioration of our economy.

I suggest to Senator Aylett that the information he seeks could more appropriately be sought when the Estimates are before this chamber. In any event, provision for the erection of huts and other buildings is made not in the Supply Bill, but in the Supply (Works and Services) Bill, which we should have before us shortly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– The vote for the Department of External Affairs includes £39,300 for the Australian Embassy in Russia, compared with £23/200 for the Australian Embassy in Indonesia, and only £200 for the Australian Embassy in China. In view of all that is said about the Russians, I should like to know why such a large sum of money is being expended in that country.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– The explanation is the very high cost of purchasing Russian currency to provide for the upkeep of the Australian Embassy at Moscow.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I notice that Australia has no diplomatic representation in Greece. I should like to know whether, in view of the large number of Greek citizens in this country, and also the fact that Greece has consular representation in each State, consideration has been given to establishing Australian representation at Athens.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– In view of the long period of our friendship with Greece, I agree that there would seem to be a case for Australian representation in that country. I shall obtain the information that the honorable senator seeks and let him have it as soon as possible.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The bill provides a total of £844,000 for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Included in that sum is £5,200 for mining and metallurgy and £52,700 for industrial chemistry. I should like to know whether provision is made in those sums for experiments in the gasification of coal. I should like to know also whether any assistance is being provided to South Australia for its work in the treatment of the radium ore now being mined by the South Australian Government.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– The Commonwealth has already provided considerable assistance to the Government of South Australia in connexion with the development of power production in that State. I shall submit the honorable senator’s request to the appropriate Ministers.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- Provision is made in the vote for the Attorney-General’s Department for the maintenance of the Public Service Arbitrator’s Office. I have a question which relates not directly to that office, but to the work of the Arbitrator himself. One of the reasons given for the inability of the Treasury to give accurate estimates of probable departmental expenditure, is wage increases. It is claimed that salary-sheets cannot be based on last year’s figures. I should like to know whether the statute which clothes the Public Service Arbitrator with authority to fix salaries and wages could be so framed that the Arbitrator would not be able to make new awards retrospective. At present it would appear that the Arbitrator is at liberty to make an award retrospective for as long as he wishes.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The honorable senator’s suggestion, as I understand it, is that a limitation should be placed on the power of the Public Service Arbitrator to make awards retrospective. I confess that I cannot recall the precise provisions of the relevant statute, but my recollection is that retrospectivity has some relation to the time of lodgment of an application. I do not think there is any danger of awards being made retrospective for unduly long periods. I confess also, that I am rather surprised that an honorable senator from the other side of the chamber should put forward a proposition such as that made to-night by Senator Benn.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

.- Under the vote for the Department of National Development, the sum of £62,000 is provided for operational expenses of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and £20,000 for assistance to the mining industry. I should like to know what work the bureau is undertaking.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– The Bureau of Mineral Resources maintains a staff which carries out a considerable amount of field work, including prospecting, testing, developing, and research generally. The provisions to which the honorable senator has referred are to cover that work and also assistance given from time to time to prospecting ventures.

Senator Nash:

– Where are those investigations being made?

Senator SPOONER:

– Mostly in the north of Australia.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Included in the vote for the Department of External Affairs under “ Miscellaneous Services “, is the sum of £35,000 which is described as a contribution to the International Labour Organization. I should like to know just what organization that is. There was an international labour organization of which the Communists obtained control with the result that Great Britain and some other countries severed their association with it.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– As the honorable senator is aware, the International Labour Organization has branches and establishments throughout the world. Australia’s contribution will be paid into the common pool. The organization apportions its funds to its various establishments and branches wherever they operate. Australia does not make separate contributions to the various establishments conducted by the International Labour Organization.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that these matters would more appropriately be dealt with when the Appropriation Bill is before this chamber. In the debate on that bill honorable senators will be able to cover the ground which they are now seeking to cover and Ministers will have their advisers in the chamber and be in a better position to furnish, the fullest information to assist them.

SenatorAylett. - If the Minister does not know the answer to my question, let him say so. What countries are affiliated with the International Labour Organization for which it is proposed that £35,000 be appropriated in this bill and for which a considerably greater amount will be provided during the financial year ?

Senator SPOONER:

– With respect, I point out that the question which Senator Aylett has just asked is totally different from his earlier question. I do not know what countries are affiliated with the International Labour Organization. All I know is that the number is very great. I defy any honorable senator to answer the question correctly offhand.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I am afraid that the committee is getting somewhat astray. We are now dealing with a supply bill for two months, but some honorable senators are seeking information concerning the provision of funds over the whole year. If the Minister can assure us that full information in relation to the proposed votes will be available when the Appropriation Bill is before this chamber we shall be satisfied.

Senator Spooner:

– I am pleased to be able to give the Leader of the Opposition that assurance.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I wish to revert to a question which I asked earlier but to which no satisfactory reply has been given. I directed the attention of the committee to the fact that the amount proposed to be provided for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in this bill for a period of two months is twice as much as the amount that was provided in the earlier supply bill for a period of four months. - Will the amount sought to be provided in this bill be additional to that provided in the earlier bill, and will there be a corresponding reduction of the proposed vote in the Appropriation Bill?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– : The honorable senator’s question is neither logical nor relevant. The Appropriation Bill will provide for the requirements of the Government for twelve months. Supply bills are introduced solely for the purpose of enabling the Government to carry on its activities pending the passage of the Appropriation Bill. Accordingly the proposed votes in the Appropriation Bill will include the sums that have already been voted in Supplybills.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1462

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1950-51

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vide page 1294), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This bill provides for a further appropriation of £18,592,000 for a period of two months to enable Commonwealth works in progress at the 30th June last to be continued pending the passing of the budget. Among the major items mentioned by the Minister for which further appropriation is sought are £9,975,000 for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, £2,335,000 for immigration and £1,452,000 for civil aviation. The Minister in his secondreading speech stated that a policy of comprehensive long-range planning, covering periods of from three to five years, had been adopted by the Government for capital works in the defence services and in certain departments. I do not know whether it was his intention to claim some credit from the Government for having evolved such a plan. The system which was introduced by the Labour Government is sound and the Government has been wise to continue it. Under that system departments are able to place orders in advance which enables considerable savings to be effected.

Last week when I referred to the installation of duplex telephone lines I was informed by the Minister that no conditions were imposed on the provision of telephone equipment of that type. That statement was entirely incorrect. I have examined the application forms for the installation of telephone equipment of that type and I have ascertained that one condition, is that the applicant must agree to the connexion of the telephone of another subscriber on the duplex line. I raise no objection to the adoption of that practice. I merely point out that I am disappointed that information given to me should be incorrect. However, I was somewhat disturbed to learn that the very question which I had raised was answered correctly this week by the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony) in the House of Representatives. When a question is asked by an honorable senator information in reply to it should, in the first instance, be given to him in this chamber and not in the House of Representatives. Postal officials have always promptly furnished answers to questions asked by members of the Parliament. Almost daily answers to questions asked about the activities of the Postmaster-General’s Department are sent to this chamber. I trust that the promptitude that has marked the furnishing of information relating to the activities of the Postal Department has not lessened since the Labour Government relinquished office. I am sure that it has not, and that the information furnished in reply to the question I had asked was stated in the House of Representatives in the first instance solely for political propaganda purposes. I do not suggest that all applicants for telephones should be provided with a duplex service. I realize that such a service would be most inconvenient for businessmen who urgently need telephones for their sole use, nor do I believe that duplex telephone lines should be installed on a permanent basis. I realize that equipment of that kind is being installed only as an expedient which has been forced on the Government pending the supply of sufficient equipment to enable it to provide the services which the people require.

Towards the end of my term as Postmaster-General I urged that automatic telephone exchanges be installed first in country centres then in towns and lastly in the capital and provincial cities. I did so because I realized that people who live in the sparsely populated areas do not enjoy the means of communication that are available to those who live in the cities. The installation of automatic exchanges in outback centres will pro vide a much needed amenity and at the same time facilitate the opening up of new settlements. In many outback towns telephone subscribers are provided with only a restricted service, usually from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The installation of automatic exchanges in those areas would enable them to enjoy the benefits of a continuous service. I trust that the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) will not regard my remarks as carping criticism of his administration and that he will favorably consider the adoption of the proposals which I made when I held that portfolio.

When the Labour Government was in office an inquiry into the provision of television services was conducted by departmental officers and a sub-committee of the Cabinet. Plans were made for the installation of television stations at Sydney and Melbourne and, at a later stage, in each of the other capital cities. I understand that those plans have been scrapped by this Government. As usual, for information about matters of this kind I have to rely on the press. Sometimes press reports are correct; sometimes they are not. The press has announced that the Government has recently changed its plans covering the provision of these services. It was the policy of the Labour Government that such services should be conducted by the Postmaster-General’s Department. This Government decided that they shall be conducted by private enterprise. A sinister rumour is floating around - I do not know whether or not it has any basis of truth - that the television stations have not been provided in Sydney and Melbourne because private enterprise regarded the cost of their establishment to be too great. I understand that the Government now intends that an experimental station be established in Sydney only. It seems to me that a service of that kind should be conducted by the Government, and I should appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why the policy has been altered to provide for it to be operated under private management. The Minister might also state whether there is any truth in the rumour that Sydney is to be given a monopoly of television until such time as experiments have been made in order to satisfy private enterprise that it can be run profitably and that, when those experiments have been carried out, it will be extended to the other cities of the Commonwealth.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

. –I notice that an amount of £1,452,000 has been appropriated for supply for the Department of Civil Aviation. The airlines which use the department’s aerodromes are receiving very great benefit from the expenditure of enormous sums of money upon facilities such as runways and navigational aids along the routes. 1 should like the department to formulate some definite policy so that it may recoup itself for the expenditure that has been incurred by it for the benefit of private airline companies. At the present time there is a matter which is sub judice, and in which a sum of money is involved which I consider should be payable to the department. As soon as that litigation is concluded, some definite policy should be put into operation whereby this department could attempt to balance its budget by exacting charges for the use of its aerodromes.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I wish to direct attention to the statement that £2,335,000 has been appropriated to enable the Department of Immigration to carry on. I do not quibble at that sum because I know the urgent necessity for this country to increase its population as soon as possible. Provided the migrants are suitable, we must have them if we wish to survive. I agree with the Government in that respect. Up to the end of the last financial year this Government carried on the Australian Labour party policy in regard to immigration, but the Government has now been in office for over ten months and has not yet presented a statement in this chamber concerning its immigration policy and the amount of money that has been expended on immigration. If the Minister has not the details available now, I hope he will deal with the subject in the budget debate so that this chamber may have the benefit of such a statement. The only regret I have is that the sum I have referred to is not twice as large and that we are not able to secure three times as many migrants.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I do not propose to reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) in regard to telephones, because I feel that it would be unfair to ask me to do so.

Senator Ashley:

– I appreciate that the Minister would perhaps prefer to provide the information at a later date.

Senator SPOONER:

– Yes. I shall make arrangements in order that the honorable senator may have the information he desires.

So far as his query about television is concerned, the Government, believes that television is still in the experimental stage, and having regard to the necessity of economizing in the use of labour and materials, it intends to have only one station as a commencement ; but that station will be under the control of the Postal Department. The rumour which the honorable senator mentioned is incorrect, because it will be a project of the Postal Department.

Senator Ashley:

– Will it not have its own staff?

Senator SPOONER:

– No tender has so far been accepted, and no decision has been made.

The reply to Senator O’Byrne’s question is that the Civil Aviation Department still collects revenue from landing fees and from charges made for the use of aerodrome facilities.

In reply to Senator Aylett, I have not the details of immigration expenditure, but from the context and its position in the bill, obviously it must be for the erection of buildings and for works of a similar nature.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1464

ADJOURNMENT

Superannuation

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I desire to bring to the notice of the

Government the serious position concerning the declining value of pensions and the necessity to raise the value of superannuation payment units in the Commonwealth Public Service. On the 28th June last the Victorian .Parliament passed legislation which raised the value of the superannuation unit to £39 per annum in the case of officers of the Victorian State Public Service. The object of the bill was to increase superannuation payments to pensioners by 20 per cent. As far as children are concerned, there is to be a SO per cent, increase, the reason being that the 1948 rate for children has remained unchanged, although other recipients of superannuation pensions had benefited by an increased rate. The Victorian legislation was necessary because of the changed value of the £1. It was considered that it would be unjust if people who had contributed a certain amount, believing that they would receive payment that would enable them to purchase a certain quantity of goods, subsequently discovered that they were able to purchase considerably less. No increased contribution is required from those entitled to superannuation in Victoria, because the increase is borne by the Government.

In view of the serious decline in the value of pensions, the necessity for legislation to increase the value of Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation units is obvious.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I- do not pretend to have the full details within my knowledge, but the budget proposals provide for an increase in Commonwealth superannuation pensions and a re-adjustment of superannuation payments.. My recollection is that the increase is 20 per cent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1465

PAPERS

The ‘ following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Health - L. W. Wheeldon.

Works and Housing - H. C. Green.

Senate adjourned at 9.S9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 October 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501026_senate_19_210/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant