Senate
20 August 1959

23^rd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- APPLES
QUESTION
- FILM CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- CANBERRA TRAFFIC CODE
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF LAMBS
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- NEWSPAPERS
QUESTION
- IMPORT LICENSING
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
PRINTED COTTON PIECE GOODS
- Tariff Board Report
- Printed Cotton Piece Goods (Industries Preservation Act)
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1959-60
F.6204/59.- S.- -[11]
- Thomas Reed, Bishop of Adelaide
ADJOURNMENT
- Air Mail to Canberra

– Yes. The fuller information for which Senator O’Byrne asked has now been supplied to me. The answer is -

It was a specific condition attaching to the permission for this experimental shipment that no pure blood merinos at all, whether rams, ewes or wethers, would be included in the consignment.

The lambs were first inspected at the holding yards at Penrith by veterinary officers of the Department of Primary Industry and the sheep and wool expert of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. Later two qualified officers of the Department of Primary Industry were present at all times during the loading of the vessel and every sheep was inspected as it moved on to the ship. In other words it waa a 24 hours per day, 100 per cent, inspection.

page 198

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator SCOTT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise.. When will the benefit of the Government’s, decision to reduce the customs duty on petrol by id. a gallon be passed on to consumers in Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I cannot answer the question specifically. I can only say that statements have been made in the press by the independent company in New South Wales, and by spokesmen for the other oil companies of Australia, that as soon as supplies of petrol on which the higher duty has been paid have been exhausted, and supplies on which the lower rate of duty has been paid are available, the benefit of the reduction will be passed on to consumers in Australia. The oil companies anticipate that this will be within the next few weeks.

page 198

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Last week 1 asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service regarding the conditions that have been imposed on applicants for unemployment benefit. I understand that Senator Gorton now has an answer to that question.

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The honorable senator asked whether it was necessary for an applicant for unemployment benefit to provide proof that he had applied for six jobs each week before the unemployment benefit could be paid. The Minister has supplied the following answer: -

The Social Services Consolidation Act under which unemployment benefit is paid, is administered by our colleague, the Minister for Social Services, but the Commonwealth Employment Service also receives applications for unemployment benefit and, after applying the work test, refers the application to the Department of Social Services. The Commonwealth Employment Service also receives, on behalf of the Department of Social Services, the income statements which unemployment benefit recipients are obliged to lodge each week.

After a person has been in receipt of benefit for three months, the Department of Social Services reviews the case as to the beneficiary’s continued eligibility. In this connexion, the recipient is required to complete a review form on which, in addition to other information, he is required to state the action he has taken himself to obtain employment during the previous three months and to give a list of employers he has approached for employment, other than by referral by the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Subsequent to this review by the Department of Social Services, a recipient of benefit may be asked to establish that he has taken adequate steps on his own account to obtain employment and to this end to state on the backs of subsequent weekly income statements lodged by him, the names and addresses of prospective employers approached in his search for work, together with the reasons why he was unsuccessful. There is no requirement as to a minimum of six employers.

The Social Services Consolidation Act provides that to qualify for unemployment benefit, a person must be capable of undertaking, and willing to undertake, suitable work.

The act also provides that reasonable steps must be taken to obtain such work. The Commonwealth Employment Service is under no statutory obligation to obtain employment for a beneficiary though it does, of course, render all possible assistance. It still rests on the beneficiary to make every effort on his own behalf.

Senator Tangney:

– What about tea and things like that? Would not the same considerations apply?

Senator SPOONER:

– I thought the honorable senator’s question related to petrol only.

page 200

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Australian National Line

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

What new ships have been addedto the Australian National Line fleet in the past three years, and on what dates did they commence commercial operations?
What Australian National Line ships have been laid up or disposed of in the same period, and on what date did each cease its commercial operations?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

The vessels added to the Australian National Line fleet since it took over the former Commonwealthowned fleet as from 1st January, 1957, are -

Ships laid up or disposed of by the Line during the same period are -

page 200

PRINTED COTTON PIECE GOODS

Tariff Board Report

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -

Printed Cotton Piece Goods (Industries Preservation Act)

The recommendation of the Tariff Board has been adopted by the Government.

page 200

QUESTION

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1959-60

Debate resumed from 19th. August (vide page 196), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the following papers: -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions. New Works and other Services involving Capital Expenditure, for the year ending 30th June, 1960.

The Budget 1959-60 - Papers presented by the Right Hon. Harold Holt in connexion with the Budget of 1959-60, and

National Income and Expenditure 1958-59 - be printed.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

At end of motion add the following words - “ but that the Senate is of opinion that their provisions and omissions inflict grave injustice on recipients of social service benefits (such as child endowment, age, invalid and widows’ pensions, repatriation benefits, maternity benefits, funeral benefits, amelioration of means test), on taxpayers, on the family unit and on other sections of the Australian people and that they make no effective contribution to correcting seriously adverse trends in the Australian economy including unemployment and rising living costs “.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– Last night, when the debate was interrupted, I was discussing the need to increase social services. I should now like to answer one of the statements made by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). The Minister attributed to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) the making of certain charges against the Commissioner of Taxation and members of the Treasury staff. I wish to point out on behalf of Senator McKenna that at no time did he attack those people. It is true that he attacked the Government. He did so fairly and very effectively. But I repeat that I should like to place on record the fact that at no time did Senator McKenna make any personal attack on those people.

Senator Spooner:

– Of course he attacked them. What he said in effect was that the Government falsified its Budget and that those officers knew of the falsification but did not disclose it. That was his attack. It is complete cowardice to say in this chamber that he did not attack them.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Senator Spooner said last night that we had reached a stage in this place when we could not even be fair. There is more and more evidence of that every day in the Senate. There is evidence of it here now.

Senator Henty:

– He can always make a personal explanation without your help.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Ormonde:

– Ask some of the pensioners about that.

Senator MATTNER:

– I will come to that. I will come to the pensioners very soon and point out what Labour did to them.

Senator Ormonde:

– That was in 1949.

Senator MATTNER:

Senator Toohey:

– How many own them?

Senator MATTNER:

– The best that Labour could ever do was to have 58 per cent, of the people either owning or ‘buying homes. So there has been an increase in home ;ownership, .because the people have been able to .earn a good living, save money and invest in property. The people have gladly availed .themselves of this opportunity. They do not want to be directed by some czar, whether it be Senator Toohey, who ls .one of the head men in the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party-

F.6204/59.- S.- -[11]

error. I often see people praying to Aladdin’s lamp thinking it is the sun; that is a pardonable error!

Senator McKenna said that because the loan market had improved and we were thereby able to borrow £70,000,000, our book deficit was approximately £30,000,000. He claimed that we would finish the year with a deficit of only £30,000,000 and not the estimated £110,000,000. And we did finish the year with a deficit of less than £110,000,000. But if you borrow £50,000,000, you still owe it; it is not income. That is where we differ with the honorable senator. Even this year we will not be able to balance our Budget. In spite of what happened last year and what will happen this year, the Labour Party says that the money is available; but I remind honorable senators opposite that their former great leader, Mr. Chifley, differed from them in that respect. Both Senator Cole and Senator McKenna have said that central bank credit is available to pay for social services; but Mr. Chifley, whom honorable senators quote so often, said that social services could not be paid for by that means.

Senator Ormonde:

– Why?

Senator MATTNER:

– Because sometimes there are labour troubles which cause more loss and inconvenience than there would be if telephone charges were increased hundreds of times more often than they have been.

Senator Ormonde:

– I thought we had had. no labour troubles since this Government got in.

Senator MATTNER:

Senator Cooke:

– So do I.

Senator MATTNER:

– Then let us together try to solve some of the problems that have arisen. People who, with the best intentions in the world, claimed exemption from sales tax are now being required to pay sales tax on’ aerated waters sold since 1957, just because there is a difference of opinion on the matter. It cannot be resolved quite so easily as one might think. Perhaps the brains of some of the best analytical chemists in South Australia have been; applied to this question. Certainly there are some grounds for a difference of opinion, but in the interests of the Australian fruit industry - on whose behalf 1 am making this appeal - the exemption from sales tax on aerated waters should be applied if they have an Australian fruit juice content of 3 per cent., not 5 per cent, as at present.

I wish now to address myself to the subject of defence and Australia’s position in the world to-day. Particularly, I wish to answer some of the things that have been said by Senator Cole. Strangely enough, I do not oppose the re-opening of the Russian Embassy in Canberra.

Senator Toohey:

– Be careful!

Senator MATTNER:

– I shall be careful. I think that we in Australia have to take a great deal of notice of what is happening in other parts of the world. The struggle that is going on between the Communists and the countries of the free world is based on an) ideology designed to win over men’s souls. Fundamentally, that is the purpose of the struggle. The most remarkable thing about the political map of modern Europe is that it shows that Russia occupies half of the continent. Only a relatively small area of Europe is tenanted by the Western powers. Perhaps the world conflict has now shifted from the sphere of strategy to economy. That it has done so is borne out by the race for relative efficiency in trade, investment and production.

Much has been said about defence. I do not think that any country now has physical defence; no one is quite sure whether there is any adequate defence against the weapons now available in the world. No one can even hazard a guess on how we should arm ourselves in order to survive, nor do we know what the ultimate weapon of offence will be.

Unfortunately, there is international discord on the question of ending nuclear tests. That is one of the tragedies of the world today. We are experimenting with an antimissile missile. The intercontinental rocket is now an established fact. We know that America needs allies and bases in Europe to offset Russia’s lead in the long-range rocket sphere, and we must ask ourselves for how long America will need to maintain its bases in Europe. Will Western Europe and Great Britain become expendable? Can the Americans who have never known what it is to be bombarded in their homeland and have had no experience of the terror that that entails, be expected to risk death and devastation to rescue people who to them are European foreigners? No longer is America a continent apart; it is rapidly being reduced, as it were, to an island. As we know, the big nations could now bombard each other over the pole. We cannot be unmindful of the peril that confronts Western democracy in Berlin.

I hope to have the time to expand my thoughts on these matters, which are related to my feeling that it is not wrong of us to allow the re-opening of the Russian Embassy in Canberra. We must counter the idea of Russia dominating the world, just as Russia herself will not entertain the idea of the Western democracies dominating the world. There must be some means by which Russia can be allowed to retain its ideology. We should try to understand Russia’s point of view a little more. At the same time, we must retain our own philosophy and preserve our way of life. Therein lies the basis of the present struggle, as I see it.

I could not disagree more with what Senator Cole has said about top level conferences. By all means, let us have toplevel conferences. Let the Great Powers get to know one another. Our approach to the Russians need not be like that of a highly intellectual person who has never had to earn his own living, who is often carried away with enthusiasm and so easily blinded by what he is shown overseas, perhaps behind the iron curtain, that he returns to this country and says, “ All is well in Russia and whatever the free nations of the world may do about Russia is wrong “.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator MATTNER:

– Though it may not be a matter that one ought properly to discuss during a debate on the Budget, 1 must disagree with Senator Cole concerning the restoration of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. I do not want to proceed further with my point that the security of Australia is linked with the safety of Europe because I am hopeful that later an opportunity to discuss international affairs may be afforded honorable senators. Suffice to say that if the safety of Europe could be guaranteed by a twoway arrangement between Russia and America there would be a great deal more peace in the world. Sir Winston Churchill outlined a proposal to that end in 1952.

I repeat, it is an economic, and not merely a military question. We all agree that free trade, Manchester style, died out years ago. So, too, did the trade pattern followed by Germany before 1939. We must evolve a system which will enable capitalistic and controlled regimes to coexist. If Europe were to follow the example of the British Commonwealth much good would come of it. We all want bread and butter. To-day nations are in a receptive mood, and we should take advantage of that fact to face the geographical and economic realities, for the future safety of mankind. That is why I believe in summit talks. We must show the world that our system is preferable to any other. The more we can understand each other the better it will be for every one.

I am told that I did not give a clear picture earlier of the sales tax imposed on aerated waters containing Australian fruit juices. Accordingly, I shall re-state the position. Under the existing law, aerated waters that contain 5 per cent, of Australian fruit juices are exempt from sales tax. People engaged in the trade wish the percentage to be reduced to three.

The only other matter that I wish to mention concerns immigration. It may seem to be minor, but it has great implications for the migrant. The Government, through the Department of Immigration, has by its exceedingly active publicity campaign abroad, assumed a great responsibility in respect of migrants. The more positive aspects are stressed the greater the responsibility that is assumed for individuals and families who uproot themselves in order to start life afresh in Australia. This is as true of migrants of British origin as it is of people born in other European countries. Publicity usually attracts those who have few resources, either financial or within themselves, for coping with a new situation. The really satisfied, secure person, with a future for himself and his family in his own country, does not tend to migrate. I ask the Government to ensure that the number of trained social workers - who have done so much to help the assimilation of migrants - is not reduced. I understand that there is a movement afoot to reduce the number. It would be a grave mistake to replace skilled social workers with volunteers. The need for trained people has never been greater.

I have pleasure in supporting the motion for the printing of the Budget papers. I believe that the Budget will strengthen our community life and, accordingly, I oppose the amendment of Senator McKenna.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I support the amendment, which is really a censure motion against the Government for its failure to provide adequately for the under-privileged. I. have carefully read the Budget Speech. Apparently 21 pages of flowery utterances are required to tell the ordinary rank and file worker that he is to get nothing. When one considers what has been given and what has been taken away, one sees that that is the net result. It is some considerable time since a budget received so much free publicity. We heard about the handsome Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) who had prepared it. One Melbourne paper surpassed itself by saying that the Treasurer was tall, handsome, distinguished, debonair - the best-looking person ever to hold the office.

Senator Hannaford:

– Don’t be jealous.

Senator McManus:

– What about Sir Arthur Fadden?

Senator TOOHEY:

– I shall not engage with the honorable senator in making odious comparisons. I am merely referring to what the newspapers have said about the Treasurer. They even went so far as to suggest that he had left a trail of broken hearts behind him. The broken hearts caused by his Budget provisions would tar outnumber those which he caused in the field of romance. The plain fact is that all this free publicity, speculation and adulation of the Treasurer have produced nothing of benefit to the Australian community. It was perfectly obvious that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) was unduly optimistic when trying to reply to Senator McKenna last night. I used the word “ trying “ advisedly because the Minister was unable to answer any one of the points made by Senator McKenna. All he did was to misrepresent some of the statements contained in the Budget. He attempted to paint this gloomy, drab document in rose-coloured hues, suggesting that the people were to get all sorts of benefits and concessions from it. He said there was a note of optimism in the Budget which pleased him greatly. I should like to know who is optimistic about it. I know that the age pensioners are not very optimistic about the meagre rise they are to receive. I know also that widows, invalids and others in receipt of pensions in Australia are not optimistic. I cannot see that the people on fixed incomes have any reason to be optimistic about the terms of this Budget. Indeed, I should be very surprised if any member of the Government could bring before the Senate evidence that the people on fixed incomes find even the slightest ray of hope in the document we are discussing. The optimism appears to be all on the side of the Minister for National Development. Certainly it is not felt by the Australian community.

Before proceeding any further, I wish to deal with a matter which I feel ought to be explained fully in view of the fact that something Senator McKenna said last night was deliberately misrepresented by the Minister for National Development. I refer to the Minister’s allegation that Senator McKenna had reflected on the integrity of the public servants who were associated with the compilation of the Budget. I deny that Senator McKenna said anything at all that reflected on the integrity of any public servant. What Senator McKenna did reflect upon was the integrity of the Government, and he made that perfectly clear in his statement in the Senate last night. In my opinion, that statement was deliberately misunderstood by the Minister for National Development who proceeded to allege that Senator McKenna had said something he did not say at all.

This is what Senator McKenna did say - 1 know the officers of the Treasury and the Taxation Department sufficiently well to realize that they do not make errors of that magnitude. I refuse to believe that they could be so far out in their advice to the Government.

That is not an indictment of the public servants. What Senator McKenna was suggesting to the Senate was that the Government had not accurately and properly presented the facts as collected by the officers who assisted in the compilation of the Budget. We on this side agree with him, because we believe that many of the things that have been put in the Budget, and many of the statements that have been made do not reflect the true financial position of Australia to-day. It does not help the Minister’s case to make statements of that character, especially when it is obvious that every one in the Senate understood exactly what Senator McKenna meant.

Now, let us have a look at the people who are .supposed to be satisfied with this Budget. Senator Armstrong had something to say about postal charges and referred to the attitude of certain groups of people who were engaged in the publishing field. He stated their view on what this Budget meant to their future, and I want to develop that argument, because I think it is most important. In the “ Sydney Morning Herald “, to-day, we find an article in these terms -

The Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies, is reported to-day to have promised .a meeting of the Government parties that Federal Cabinet will review some of the proposed increased postal rates in the Federal Budget.

If that statement is correct, then some member of the Government - obviously the Minister for National Development - should have informed the Senate to-day that such a move was afoot so that the Senate would understand fully what the Government intended to do in connexion with this very important matter. But not one speaker on the Government side has given any indication that such a meeting took place, nor has there been any indication to the Senate as to what flowed from that meeting. In that same article, we find this interesting statement -

The Government’s decision is taken as a definite victory for the Postmaster-General, Mr. C. W. Davidson, who is known to have fought strenuously against the increases- that is, the increases in postal charges - when the Ministry was- framing the Budget, and is reported to have threatened, to resign.

This is very interesting. I did not know that the dissension in the Government’s ranks was so strong that one of its most senior Ministers was so opposed to the proposed impositions that he was prepared to resign as a protest against their introduction. Only now is this tide of discontent and disruption amongst Government members revealed. I challenge some member of the Government, at a later stage in the debate, either to deny that the statement is accurate or to tell the Senate exactly what happened in connexion with the disputations on postal charges.

There are many important aspects in the Budget, but the question of postal charges is probably one of the most important. It appears that the people engaged in the publishing field to-day can find no reason to be optimistic at all about the terms of the Budget, for, in the article in the “Sydney Morning Herald “ to which I have referred we find this statement under the heading “ All Religious Papers Hit “ -

The editor of the inter-denominational paper “ New Life “, Mr. E. J. Daley, said in Melbourne, “ If the bulk postage increases go through it will force us out of business.”

Is the Government concerned about that? Dr. Daley goes on to say - “ Our postage bill will go up 800 per cent, from ?7 to ?40 a week.”

The article continues -

The “ Messenger of the Sacred Heart “ - Australia’s biggest and longest-established Roman Catholic journal - said it would consider publishing overseas to escape the burden of the increased postage.

Finally, the article states -

Mr, W. Noble, editor of “Presbyterian Life”, asked: “Would the Government feel it had achieved its aim if, having closed down at least a section of the religious press, it found that the Communist Party, with its greater financial resources, was still able to keep its paper in circulation? “

That is a very reasonable question indeed and one to which I feel the Government must give some reply. Mr. Gourlay, who is the president of the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation, has not been silent. A report of his attitude reads -

Mr. Gourlay warned in Melbourne that mass dismissals in the printing industry could follow the proposed increases in bulk rates.

He warned that mass dismissals must take place as a result of this unprecedented step in connexion with postal charges. We have accumulating evidence that this Budget, which is claimed to be a “ give-and-take “ Budget, can only be described as a “ take “ Budget. I suggest that we could use even stronger terms in describing it, and that we could say that it was nothing more nor less than a take-down Budget.

The question of postal charges must be examined again by the Government. I know half the Government members recognize that, and I propose to read certain telegrams to support my suggestion. I have before me three telegrams, two of which I received last night and one of which arrived this afternoon. I intend to read them because I believe they ought to be incorporated in “ Hansard “ so that the public may know just what is going on in this country as a result of decisions made by the Government in recent months. The first telegram is from the “ News Review “, Adelaide, and reads -

Most vigorously protest against figures 700 per cent, increase in bulk postage for registered periodicals, stop Where is freedom of press without independent newspapers.

The second telegram reads -

Please register strong protest on behalf” of S.A. branch R.S.L. against crippling increase in bulk postage charges for ex-service journals.

That is signed by the State secretary of the returned servicemen’s league. Finally -

Strongly protest on behalf of Church of England in South Australia against proposed increased charges bulk postages. Would make impossible distribution of local church papers and strike blow at all small independent publications.

Thomas Reed, Bishop of Adelaide

Surely it must be obvious to the Government by now to what extent it has offended-

Senator TOOHEY:

– Yes, blundered is an appropriate word. It has blundered and plundered. Surely it is obvious to the Government now to what extent it has offended a great number of influential people in this country who still believe in the right to freedom of speech and who still desire to send out their publications to various parts of this country to express their point of view. If this blunder is not corrected by the Government, if some degree of shame does not compel the Government to do something about the situation, then of necessity the power of the monopoly controlling the great associated newspapers of this country will be increased. The number of independent voices expressing individual and independent points of view will become fewer and fewer as a consequence of this drastic action by a Government which apparently has gone mad.

That madness displayed itself in the statement made by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) last night, when he said, “ We of the Liberal Party are in government in this country for keeps”. That type of arrogance usually precedes a sojourn in the political wilderness. The Australian people, whatever they may feel towards the Government at the present time, will make their own decision as to who will remain in government in this country. For any party to assume - whether it be one of the Government parties or the Labour Party - that it is in office indefinitely is to think along dangerous lines. It may be a question of pride coming before a fall. The Government’s term of office may be much nearer to completion than the Minister for National Development supposes.

I listened with interest to the statements made by both Senator Spooner and Senator Mattner. The speech that was made jointly by Senator Mattner and Senator Hannaford just before lunch contained some things with which I agree.

Senator Mattner:

– What about getting Senator McManus to help you?

Senator TOOHEY:

– I am prepared to receive any constructive suggestions. I appear to be going along all right at the moment, but I will let you know if I want any help. As I was saying, the speech that was made jointly by the two senators from South Australia before lunch, contained some things with which I quite agree, and I shall touch on them at a later stage of my speech.

I want to take the Minister for National Development and Senator Mattner to task for the misrepresentations of which they were guilty. Last night the Minister, speaking about pharmaceutical benefits, said that the Labour Party, when it went out of office, had spent only about £49,000 on pharmaceutical benefits, whereas this Government was now spending £24,000,000 a year. He implied, of course, that that is a remarkable achievement on the part of the Government. Woolly thinking of that type ought to be shown up as such in this chamber. What both the Minister for National Development and Senator Mattner failed to acknowledge was that when the Labour Government went out of office, it was striving to establish a national health scheme for the first time in the history of this country. Honorable senators opposite should remember that until the advent of Federal Labour governments in this country the field of social services was completely and utterly neglected. It was left to the Labour Party to introduce every major social reform in this country. It is utter tripe for Government senators to talK of what was spent in 1949 on a social reform just introduced by the Labour Party - a reform that was in its infancy - and compare that expenditure with the expenditure in that field to-day.

It is tantamount to the son of man who took up, 25 years ago, an area of virgin, unimproved country that had to be cleared, developed and stocked, saying that the property is worth much more now than when his father took it up. It is that type of stupid thinking of which honorable senators are guilty.

I will be prepared to debate before any audience in Australia the record of the Labour Party in the field of social services as against the record of the present Government. It is easy for the Government to come in and occupy a house which was built by the Labour Party, and then say that any improvements it has effected are to its eternal credit. Why not give some consideration to the vicissitudes, troubles and obstacles that the Labour Party had to contend with in bringing into this country the elements of social justice and social reform? If honorable senators opposite were to do that, they would not be so anxious to talk in terms of misrepresentation, as Senator Spooner did last night and as Senator Mattner was guilty of doing to-day.

Senator Mattner:

– Will you debate with me outside this chamber the matter of the £130,000,000 for social services?

Senator TOOHEY:

– Let me say to

Senator Hannan that his views are not shared by his own party.

Senator Gorton:

– You have no right to say that.

In 1953-54 the Menzies Government” again increased the age pension by 2s. 6d. a week. The amount of the pension rose instead of declining, as it did in 1931, when the Labour Party was in office. In that year Labour reduced pensions by 2s. 6d. a week, and that was not the only time that it did so. I would advise honorable senators opposite not to talk about Labour’s record in the field of social services. Also in 1953-54, the permissible income for pensioners was increased by 10s. a week, from £1 10s. to £2. The property exemption was raised from £100 to £150, while the property limit was increased to £1,250. In 1954-55 the permissible income was increased by £1 10s. a week, from £2 to £3 10s. The property exemption was raised from £150 to £200, while the property limit was increased from £1,250 to £1,750. Income derived from property was excluded from income for means test purposes. There was a subsidy of £1 for every £1 raised by organizations proposing to erect homes for aged persons. I think it was in the following year that I was in Alice Springs, where I saw homes being built for aged people by a church organization. I inspected the homes and spoke to some half-dozen of the people living in them. They were very appreciative of what the Government had done for them under its social services legislation.

In 1955-56, pensions were again increased by 10s. a week. To that date, in the space of five or six years, the increases of pensions granted by the Menzies Government each year totalled more than the full amount of the pensions being paid in 1949, when Labour was dismissed from office. In 1956-57, the Menzies Government introduced additional pensions of 10s. a week for each child under sixteen years of age, except those of invalid or widow pensioners. In 1957-58 pensions were again increased by 7s. 6d. a week. The Commonwealth subsidy in respect of homes for aged persons was increased to £2 for every £1 raised by the organizations concerned. In 1958-59 the Government introduced supplementary assistance of 10s. a week for single pensioners, and for married pensioners whose spouses did not receive penions or allowances, if the pensioners concerned, paid rent and were deemed to be entirely dependent on their pensions. The property limit was raised from £1,750 to £2,250. Then we come to the current year 1959-60, when the Government again proposes to increase age and invalid pensions by 7s. 6d. a week, to make a total of £4 15s. a week. A married couple who are pensioners will receive £9 10s. a week. With the additional income of £7 10s. a week which a pensioner is entitled to earn without his pension being affected, a married couple may have more than £16 a week to live on, which is a jolly high amount for invalid or aged pensioners.

I should say that Labour is the only political party that has reduced pensions in this country. The Labour people did that once and got away with it. Then they did it a second time. I suppose if they were returned to office in the future and if similar conditions existed, they would do it again. Senator Toohey, instead of saying that an increase of 7s. 6d. per week is not enough, should try to justify the action of former Labour governments, which reduced pensions. The people of Australia are not keen to return to office a political party that will not look after the aged persons in the community. As I have mentioned, pensions were reduced in 1931 from £1 to 17s. 6d. a week. At that time, Mr. Scullin was the Prime Minister of Australia.

At this time last year, we expected that in 1958-59 our overseas reserves would fall by something over £100,000,000, but the actual decrease was only about £10,000,000, and we are still in the happy position of having something over £500,000,000 in credit overseas.

Over the last decade, the population of Australia rose- by some 2,150,000, of whom 750,000 were immigrants. The Government is proud of its record in relation to home-building over the last ten years. I should like honorable senators opposite to write this down,, because I do not want to have to repeat it. No fewer than 715,000 homes have been built in the last decade. If we look at the total population increase over this period, we find that one home has been built for slightly less than every three of the population increase. Steel production is up by 171 per cent., cement by 143 per cent., and electricity by 133 per cent., compared with ten years ago. Our petrol refining capacity is now 90 per cent, of our requirements, whereas in 1949 less than 10 per cent, of our requirements were refined in Australia. In the- last decade, wool production in Australia has increased by 50 per cent. I think it is true to say that this improvement is due in no small measure to the killing of rabbits by myxomatosis and the development by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of the 1080 poison, which has played havoc with the rabbit population throughout Australia. This has had an important bearing on the increase of our sheep population. Mining is running at a very high level, and this year £4,000,000 - if one takes into account tax relief - is to be spent on oil search. Indeed, every encouragement is being given the oil industry. If we can only find oil, we shall cease to have trade balance difficulties. I sincerely hope that within the next few years we shall be in a position to export oil, instead of importing £30,000,000 worth every year.

Honorable senators opposite have suggested that a 5 per cent, reduction in income tax will materially aid the big businessman but will not help the small man. When tax rates are being increased I never notice Labour complain that the man in the top bracket is being hit. I never hear it say that it will involve a great outlay for the high income earner but not for the low income earner. Labour has been well to the fore in imposing income tax. When we came to office the maximum rate of tax payable was between 17s. and 18s. in the £1. Now the maximum is down to 12s. 8d. in the £1. That is a real achievement because the more one decreases income tax the more money is available for spending on capital improvements. We should not forget that many working people own shares in companies, and that the more they receive from their investment the better they will be able to put money into mining and other companies in the commercial field. I should like to see income tax rates reduced still further. It is something to be proud of when we can go to overseas investors and say, “ In England and America your taxes are as high as 18s. and 19s. in the £1. If you bring your capital, which we so urgently need, to our country and put it into developmental projects your net return will be much higher.” That is doubtless one of the reasons why capital comes into Australia in ever-increasing quantities, year by year.

I should like to refer briefly to the subject of development, and to the north-west of Western Australia, in particular. As we all know, this large areas is virtually undeveloped. It has a reasonably assured rainfall. The Western Australian Government, in conjunction with this Government, has been conducting experiments at the Kimberley research station on the Ord River. We now know that we can grow there sugar cane, rice, cotton and safflower. 1 have inquired about the possibility of selling our rice and safflower overseas, and the prospects for cotton in Australia. Markets are readily available for these crops which our scientists have proved can be grown. It should be a responsibility of the Commonwealth and State governments to go ahead with the development of the Ord River project on a restricted scale. I realize that the complete project involves the expenditure of about £20,000,000, but an immediate wall across the Bandicoot Bar would enable us to irrigate 10,000 or 20,000 acres. That should be the next step, and it should be inquired into by both governments.

Recently, I joined other members of the Parliament in, a tour of the north-west. 1 noticed that rice was being grown sucessfully at the Fitzroy River. Acreage had been increased from 200 acres, the figure two years ago, to 800. Six hundred acres were being harvested and plans were being made to plant some 1,500 acres of rice next year. One can safely say that the rice growing project in that area has been successful. It is interesting to know that the State Government is working in close harmony with the private company which is planting the rice, and that the only restriction on acreage is that imposed by the availability of water. Henceforth there should be no water problem in the area. There are many other places on the Fitzroy River where large acreages of rice can be grown. However, the money required for the development of the north-west is far in excess of what could be provided by any State Government. Therefore, the development of the region should be financed by the Commonwealth Government.

We find that £25,000,000 is to be spent from revenue upon the Snowy Mountains project this year. Last year some £24.500,000 was provided. The Snowy scheme is one of the greatest ever contemplated in Australia, and it deserves the commendation of all. I think that any one. even some one from Western Australia, who has seen what has been done there will agree that it is vital; that we must go ahead with it. Whether or not we are financing it correctly is another story. Only last week it was estimated by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority that the scheme would cost £381,000,000. From memory, £170,000,000 has been spent so far. I believe that the scheme has gone far enough ahead to justify the Government approaching the International Monetary Fund or the International Bank seeking finance for its further development. The Commonwealth Government should be able to obtain from the International Bank perhaps £200,000,000 repayable over 25 years. If the International Bank agreed to the loan, the Commonwealth Government could then utilize general revenue to finance such projects as the Ord River, Fitzroy basin and other irrigation works that need to be developed in some of the other States.

I am not sure that I really believe that wc in Australia should be using general revenue for the development of such huge projects as the Snowy Mountains scheme. I understand that scheme is so far advanced now that within the next twelve months or two years income from the sale of electricity will be sufficient to meet interest and sinking fund charges on the money expended so far. We are assured that eventually these returns will pay for the cost of development, and I really feel that whether we are right in paying for that development out of general revenue and so delaying the- development of other vital projects in Australia because of lack of capital is a matter that needs very careful consideration indeed. The Government is deserving of great credit for the fact that in these prosperous times it has been able to finance the Snowy Mountains scheme out of general revenue up to this stage, but surely there are other parts of Australia crying out for development and surely, now that the Snowy Mountains scheme has developed so far, it would be worth our while approaching the International Bank for finance repayable over the next 25 years so that the completion of this scheme might be expedited. I know that the Canadian Government has spent an amount equal to £1,000,000,000 Australian on the development of its Lakes scheme in the last five years and that this money came from general revenue; but, surely, as the need for further development arises, and as the Snowy Mountains scheme now seems to be at the stage at which the Internationa] Bank should be quite willing to advance money, we should obtain a loan and utilize general revenue for the development ot other interesting projects.

It was indeed a source of great pleasure to me, on my recent visit to the northern part of Western Australia, to see the reaction of the people there to the Commonwealth Government’s recent grant of £5,000,000 for expenditure on approved projects. The people of the north were very grateful indeed for that grant. They seem to have a new feeling. Before my last visit the people seemed to have the feeling that no government was interested in them, but now that they have a Commonwealth Government which has made them a gift of £5,000,000 for expenditure on approved projects, they have been given new hope.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Can you tell me whether the Western Australian Government has got to get rid of all the kangaroos up there before the Commonwealth Government will advance any money?

Senator SCOTT:

– Let me tell the honorable senator that just outside Port Headland, at a place called Woodstock, the Commonwealth Government has established a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization station to deal with that very matter. The C.S.I.R.O. has an officer there to carry out experiments in connexion with the breeding and watering habits of kangaroos. He has been working out there for three years now and I understand that he has written a report, which will be available shortly, containing recommendations for the destruction of the kangaroo. No doubt his plans for getting rid of this pest relate to the Kimberley district.

Speaking of kangaroos, I understand that in America there is a ready sale for kangaroo meat. It is a processed and packaged product which is sold as kangaroo venison, and brings a very high price in America. This meat is produced in Western Australia and sold in America as a luxury food for something like one dollar per lb. I understand that some people in the eastern States of Australia are seeking licences to export low-grade kangaroo meat as- pets’ food to be sold on the American market: for less than 30 cents per lb. 1 sincerely hope that licences will not be granted’ for1 the export of this meat because that would tend to destroy the market for the high grade meat produced in Western Australia. In saying that, I do not claim that there is no high grade kangaroo meat in the eastern States; there is but the people who are. packing, kangaroo meat in the eastern States are trying to compete on a lower market in America which is being supplied, with such things as horsemeat.

But. I mention that, matter only in passing. I had been speaking, abour the need for further development of the northern part of Western Australia and 1 mentioned how glad the people of that area were to know that at last they had a Commonwealth Government which was sympathetic to them and, because of that, they were full of hope that great things would be done by the expenditure of the gift of £5,000,000. I have mentioned the need for further finance from the Commonwealth Government for developing the area and have suggested ways in which that finance could be obtained.

I conclude on that note. I have the utmost confidence in the Budget. I believe it is the right type of budget to bring down at this stage in our history, and if the next decade in Australia is as good for Australians as the last decade has been, I shall be a very satisfied statesman.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- Critics of the Government’s financial proposals have stated that this Budget may be termed a class Budget which has been prepared wholly and solely in the interests of the wealthy sector of this country which consists mainly of the privately owned monopolies. In my opinion, that is undoubtedly the case. It could not be otherwise under existing conditions. What should be kept in mind is that the everincreasing mechanization of primary and secondary industry has the effect of reducing the subsistence wage in terms of labour time. Secondly, the virtually unchecked depreciation of the currency has the effect of reducing the purchasing power of wages in terms of money. As the Budget proposals do not include any provision whatever for protecting the ever-increasing number of impoverished’ victims’ against’ the sustained! reduction of their* subsistence wages, in. terms of either labour-time or money, the overall effect’ from year to- year must be, first, to increase substantially the profits and income of the wealthy people^ and secondly, to increase substantially the number of impoverished victims and their dependants who are in receipt of the semistarvation relief payments made by Commonwealth and State governments.

The first point I wish, to make is that it cannot be denied that in primary and secondary production labour-time is a diminishing factor. To the extent, that labour-time is a diminishing factor, the subsistence wage is a diminishing factor. The subsistence wage is automatically reduced by mechanization. Then again, the virtually unchecked depreciation of the currency reduces the purchasing power of the wage in terms of money. On 31st October, 1957, I supplied the Senate with some figures, which were included in the “ Hansard “ of that day. Those figures, supplied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, covered every year from 1914 to 1956, with the exception of the war years 1939 to 1945. They disclosed that by 1956 there had been a depreciation of 78 per cent, in the value of the £1, compared with the value of the £1 in 1914, the year in which depreciation commenced. That means that in terms of gold the £1 sterling was worth 4s. 4d. in 1956, compared with 20s. in 1914. Since 1956 there has been a further depreciation, and I should say that the £1 sterling to-day is worth approximately 4s. only, compared with 1914. If we subtract an amount of 25 per cent, to allow for our adverse exchange rate, it means that the Australian £1 now is worth approximately 3s. only, compared with the £1 sterling in 1914. It is important that these things should be borne in mind, because Government senators and certain newspapers would have us believe that the £1 sterling to-day has the same purchasing power as it had in 1914.

The effect of that depreciation, of course, is that costs of production have been lowered enormously, but the Budget does not make any mention of protecting the victims of the depreciation of the currency. We must assume that silence gives consent. The result, as I have said, is that from year to year the profits of the monopolists are substantially increased. The colossal profits to which reference has been made from time to time in the press are made possible by two things, namely, a reduction of labour-time in production and a depreciation of the currency.

What does the Government propose to do to rectify that state of affairs? As I have said, the number of persons and their dependants who are in receipt of reliefpayments from the Government is increasing. By granting these relief payments, the Government is simply paying them a premium for the privilege of impoverishment down to the lowest level. Because the Government pays aged and other pensions, some people speak euphemistically about a welfare State. That sounds very pleasing in the ears of people who do not know better, but actually all these payments amount to the subsidizing of preventable impoverishment or pauperism. I regard what is called the welfare State as subsidized pauperism.

When introducing the 1956-57 Budget, the then Treasurer, .Sir Arthur Fadden, said -

As I have said on other occasions, inflation cannot be remedied by government action alone.

Who is the supreme authority to control the economy of the country if it is not the Government? Inflation can be remedied, in my opinion, provided that the Government has the knowledge and the moral courage to tackle the job. If it has not, the position will continue to go from bad to worse. Wages and salaries are not being increased in terms of real purchasing power. The money wage is one thing, but the goods you can buy represent the real wage. Money is simply a medium of exchange or a medium of indirect barter. The real wage represents what you are able to buy with the money you are paid. In my opinion, there has been no increase in wages or salaries, in real terms, as the Government would have us believe. It is apparently so only in terms of depreciated currency; it is not actually so. Take, for example, the recent increase in the basic wage. If the basic wage were increased to £14 a week, instead of being £13 odd, the purchasing power of it, in terms of gold, would be no more than the purchasing power of the basic wage in 1907 when it was fixed at £2 2s. That cannot be denied. Two approaches can be made to these matters, the mathematical approach and the geometrical approach. I am suggesting, on the mathematical approach, that the position to which I have directed attention has arisen. Senator Spooner has referred to the Richardson Committee report. The press and, I suppose, the great majority of the people, believed that parliamentary allowances were increased in terms of real money. The committee stated, at page 9 of the report, that in 1907 the Parliament had raised the allowances to £600 a year. I maintain that if the purchasing power of that £600 had been maintained, the parliamentary allowance to-day would be approximately £3,600. That is the way in which people are being misled by a false conception - whether created purposely or in ignorance I am not prepared to say at the moment - of the whole position.

Many workers of this generation say, “ When my father was working, he received only £2 8s. or £3 a week, but I am getting £12 a week”. Others may be getting £16 a week. No school of thought, particularly that which is composed of those who claim to be expert in finance, has attempted to explain to the people of this country or of any other country the extent to which they have been robbed or misled by the sustained, unchecked depreciation of the currency. Senator Scott referred to the increased money payments for social services, but all of those increases were made in terms of depreciated money and did not, in my opinion, maintain the status quo. Unless the Government is prepared to face this question as it should be faced, there will be further increases in prices. The Arbitration Court fixes the basic wage and the directors in charge of monopolies fix the purchasing power of the wage and their rate of profit. We will not have the smooth passage to which Senator Scott referred if that state of affairs is allowed to go on. It is well known in physics that beyond a certain point quantitative differences create qualitative changes, and unless adjustments are made the stage will be reached where there will be a collapse in currency just as there was in 1924 in Germany and in other places. If that happens, it will create a veritable harvest for the owners of fixed capital. It will mean mass unemployment for workers and insolvency for debtors. The Government has made no approach at all to this matter. I make that point for the purpose of directing attention to what really may happen.

Senator Scott referred to the position overseas. I have a recent copy of “ Challenge “, a publication of the Institute of Economic Affairs, New York University. One of the articles in it deals with inflation and reads -

For two years economists have been trooping to Washington at the invitation of Congress to tell all they know about the causes of inflation in modern industrial societies.

The matter is still being considered and the position is becoming desperate in America. It was referred to by no less a person than Mr. Lewis, manager of the secretariat division of the Victorian Employers Federation, as reported in the Melbourne “ Sun-Pictorial “ of 6th July last. Mr. Lewis said -

The United States credit system and the American public’s blind acceptance of its economic philosophy appalled me. The effect of credit in the States is vastly more extensive than in Australia. It is comparatively easy for private individuals to obtain loans of SOO dollars from banks without security. There was a general belief that competition should govern both selling price and profits. Trade associations were not allowed by law to fix retail prices.

The banks in America are overloaded with paper money and amounts of 500 dollars are being lent without security. The object of that is to compel borrowers to pay tribute to the banks all their lives, as most of the workers in America are doing at the present time. Many Australians are doing it through interest payments to the extent of £350,000,000. The position that is developing was referred to in the “Washington Post “, “ Times Herald “, “ New York Herald Tribune “ and “ New York Times “. I suppose most honorable senators have received copies of a document containing quotations from those newspapers. One of them reads -

When the value of the dollar declines at home it is cause for alarm, but when the dollar loses its value abroad America’s prestige and influence in the world are certain to shrink even more than the shrinking purchasing power of the dollar. For Americans and for the whole of the free world-

Of course, there is no free world for the debtors - our inflation may become a time-bomb that could pose a threat as great as the Communist conspiracy.

Recent press publications indicate that a slump is developing in Wall Street and that the people in control are at the end of their wits to know what should be done to rectify the situation. A further paragraph reads -

But inflation would dry up the flow of funds into savings institutions and bonds. At the same time the Federal Reserve Board would have to clamp down on bank credit, in order to dampen down the rising prices. Home building and capital goods expansion would suffer and the inflationary boom would inevitably come to a halt.

I quote that to give the Senate some idea of the position in America. The difference between the situation in Australia and that in America is only one of degree. The same could be said about the United Kingdom, Italy, France and other European countries. Our money based economy is reaching a stage where it will be impossible to do anything for the benefit of the people unless the Government has the moral courage to take the initiative in that direction. So far as I am able to judge, the Government is relying for its advice upon authorities in the United Kingdom and America, but particularly the International Bank which is principally an American bank. All that Senator Spooner said in justification of what he claimed to be the progress that has been made was really a process of what I call subjective reasoning. The Minister wants to see the picture as he imagines it should be. He is not prepared to face realities or, if he is, he is not prepared to refer to them.

Let us consider the position of the age pensioners. As Senator Scott said, the age pension was fixed more than 50 years ago. In terms of money, it has been increased from time to time to £4 7s. 6d. When effect is given to this Budget, possibly in October, the pension will be £4 15s. a week. Let us assume it is £5 a week. In terms of gold or purchasing power, an age pension of £5 a week would be worth no more than 15s. was worth in 1914 or before that. The overall effect is that thousands of age pensioners are living in most appalling conditions. They are living in rooms, they are robbed by landlords, and they are hardly able to exist. When they are in receipt of £4 15s. a week, there will be an increase in prices and rents.

J.n the “ Sun “ of 30th May, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) is reported as stating that contributory national insurance schemes had been set up in many countries, but that all had broken down in varying degrees. He said they broke down because there was no way of stabilizing the value of money. There is a way in which to stabilize the value of money without inflicting the slightest hardship on any one; but the Government does not intend to make any adjustment until the pressure of the physical needs of the age pensioners and the unemployed “ forces it to do so. For all practical purposes, this Government and many other governments operate on the principle of the wheelbarrow; they go just as far and as fast as they can be pushed by the people. They never take the initiative and go forward themselves.

The Minister for Social Services, in one of his statements, has said that there are 500,000 age pensioners. It has been stated elsewhere that it is estimated that by the end of this year the number will rise to 550,000. Included in the ranks of the age pensioners is a very large number of ablebodied men and women who would welcome the opportunity to forgo the pension and earn a decent wage. But such people, where they can be replaced more cheaply by machine power, are compelled to end their days in conditions of enforced unemployment. In many instances, enforced unemployment practically means condemning them to withering away in solitary confinement in rooms. Many of those people would be much better cared for if they were in gaol. That is a tragic state of affairs which has been allowed to develop in a country with unlimited resources to provide adequately for men, women and children in need of food, clothing and shelter. Such people are existing in a state of semistarvation. Of course, as I have said, those conditions apply in almost every country of the world, simply because governments act in accordance with the requirements of moneyed interests.

Behind the scenes, the real government of the country is exercised by the monopolies, which are becoming wealthier and fewer in number. Almost every day we read in the newspapers about continual take-overs, or mergers. Monopolies are becoming the real governments of the day, and parliamentary governments act. accordingly. Not only this Government but also governments overseas do that. Increasing industrial unrest and resistance to this state of affairs is becoming apparent. According to American newspapers,, millions of steelworkers are on strike. There has been a big printing industry strike in England, while before that there was a big transport strike. There have been strikes in steel and other works in both England and America. All industrial unrest of that kind represents reaction or resistance to enforced impoverishment.

In my opinion, governments will not make any move to improve matters until something drastic has been done, or is threatened, by the victims. Practically everybody who has gone into the question of age pensions will agree with what I have said. According to the Melbourne “Sun” of 27th July last, Professor Downing of Melbourne University has made some pertinent comments. The report stated -

Poverty in Australia’s economy to-day was concentrated almost entirely among old people, Professor R. I. Downing said at Melbourne University last night. Many of these old people had an urgent need for help, he said. “We need a change in the will of the community to change the lot of our old people,” he added.

That is the statement, not of a Communist, but of a man who is qualified to speak. Professor Downing said that we need a change in the will of the community, but there has been no change while this Government has been privileged to held office.

Let us consider the extent of unemployment. We are told that unemployment is declining. According to official figures that have been published from time to time, in 1956 there were 30,000 unemployed; in 1957 there were 46,000; in 1958, 64,000; and in 1959, 70,000. So unemployment is increasing, while the position of age pensioners and other recipients of social service benefits is deteriorating, simply because the Government will not take action. Senator Spooner, on 19th February last, stated in this chamber, in effect, that the production of coal between 1954 and 1958 had increased by 54 per cent. That was claimed as an achievement, but the honorable senator made no reference to the facts that more than 7,000 miners had been dismissed from the industry, that many of them had lost their homes and, I suppose, that a great number of them are now recipients of unemployment relief.

That kind of thing is going on. In every place where production exceeds enormously the cost of subsistence - which is the cost of production - unemployment increases. The number of age pensioners also increases. If this country were as thickly populated as are countries overseas, the position here would be just as bad. We have a small population in a very big country. Because that is so, the position of those who are responsible for the depreciation of the currency and for the creation of unemployment is not so strongly entrenched as it is in thickly populated countries. The effect is, of course, that our cities are becoming overcrowded. That is also the case with capital cities overseas. Where working men and women and their dependants are denied adequate housing, the general effect is to lower the moral and intellectual level of the people concerned. If you herd people together as you would herd cattle, the effect is most tragic. You have an unbalanced economy, as I have indicated, and you have an unbalanced population. The task to be undertaken is to establish equilibrium and to maintain it as best we can.

This Government has no reason to congratulate itself, nor has the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). However, I am now not addressing the Senate for the purpose of discrediting the Government. What I am attempting to discredit is the system it would enforce and which we are trying to adjust. But it cannot be adjusted. Actually, the people of this country, as in other countries, are being divided into classes in this century to a far greater extent than ever before. As I have said, the owners of capital and land, in this highly mechanized and private monopoly controlled age, are becoming wealthier and fewer in number. On the other hand, the non-owners are being impoverished in ever-increasing numbers. Class warfare, which honorable senators opposite would ignore if possible, is becoming more widespread and more devastating; so much so that industrial disputes and upheavals in the Western world are becoming more frequent, as are revolu tions in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Both industrial upheavals and revolutions result from class war. Class warfare is inevitable when millions ot people are denied freedom of access to the means by which they live. We are told by the press and all sorts of publications that we live in a free world. That statement is not wholly true. There are two categories of freedom - positive and negative. The freedom of those who depend upon wages, small salaries and repayments is purely negative. They are free only to the extent permitted by the holders of land and capital whose freedom is positive because they have freedom of access to the means by which they live quite independently of anybody else. The freedom of those who are dependent on the will of governments, such as the Government now in office, is negative. This talk about freedom, in the full meaning of the word, is not true in reference to us, but it is repeated again and again by the monopoly controlled press, by television and broadcasting commentators and by members of the Government. One does not improve his position merely by saying that he is free and announcing what he will do. He must act as a free person or suffer all the restrictions of freedom to which he is subjected.

There is another matter to which I should like to direct attention. It has been stated repeatedly by the press and by Government senators that we should attract capital from overseas with which to develop this country, but they have not said that that is in the interest of those who do the work. As I have said before in this chamber, profits are appropriated by the owners of capital, and to-day profits are colossal. The profits of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, General Motors-Holden’s Limited, and others are increasing enormously. The wealth of those companies has been collectively produced by the mass of the workers far in excess of the wages they have received, and it has been privately appropriated. The attraction of capital to this country does not make the position any better in the slightest degree for the men and women who actually do the useful and the necessary work. The position of those in receipt of dividends and other profit payments is improved but the position of the great mass of the people whom we are supposed to represent and in whose ‘interests we are supposed to legislate is going from bad to worse, failing adequate adjustments in the meantime, as .it has done from the cessation of hostilities.

I should like now to refer to the cessation of aircraft construction in this country, which I think is a very important matter. lt has been proposed that in future all aircraft we require shall be imported from overseas. According to Air Marshal Sir George Jones, formerly Chief of the Air Staff whom I know very well, aircraft construction in this country is on the verge of extinction. The following report of the views of Sir George Jones appeared in the Melbourne “Age” of 9th June, 1959: -

Addressing Frankston branch of the Australian Labour Party, he said that the Commonwealth Government had placed the last order with the industry nine years ago. Although £20 million had gone into the industry, no further orders had been placed since.

Sir George Jones said that, over the years, he had done much to develop .the aircraft industry, and Australia had produced many effective aeroplanes. The industry was now stringing out the remaining orders for Sabres to last as long as possible.

A basic need in the defence of any country was a steady, ensured supply of major arms such as ships and aircraft.

If Australia did not have this .ensured supply she might as well not have an air force.

The Royal Australian Air Force had projects in mind to which the aircraft industry could be directed.

In 1941, when I was appointed Minister for Aircraft Production in the then Labour Government, a position that I occupied until 1945, the aircraft industry was in a state of chaos. This position developed after the fall of Dunkirk a year earlier. We had to organize and to adopt all sorts of expedients to supply aircraft because they could not be imported. Then it was suggested that America would supply us. A report of a select committee of the United States Senate, which was presided over by Senator - later President - Truman referred, in effect, to some types of American aircraft such as the Hell Divers and Aircobras as suicide machines. An attempt was made in those days to close down the production of aircraft in Australia, and to buy machines from America. I have always considered that in times of war as well as in times of peace a country should be as self-contained as possible and I said at the time of which I speak that if an attempt was made to close down aircraft production in Australia I would make public the information that I had received from America about suicide aircraft. Air Marshal Sir George Jones became one of the prominent members of the Aircraft Production Commission. He is warning the Government of what is likely to happen. Suppose war were to come again - we hope it will not - and we could not import aircraft from America or elsewhere. What would we do? ‘We would just have to do the best that we could. Our aircraft technicians during the last war did a remarkable job, but the Government’s decision to close down the industry is nothing short of suicidal. The report continues -

The excuse of the Government was Australia’s dependence on the United States.

I remind honorable senators that in 1941 we could not depend on the United Kingdom for aircraft. The report states that .Sir George Jones said -

In the last war I spent much time in the United States trying to get aircraft. Eventually I succeeded, but unfortunately it was too late.

The report goes on -

He suggested that an overseas mission should attempt to attract the “ know-how “ and skills in aircraft building from abroad.

Sir George Jones said Australia could no longe depend on Britain as she had in the past.

It was clear that Britain was not capable of helping Australia greatly because she was no longer a first-rate power.

She was on the other side of the globe.

It was of more concern to Australia that she develop relationships with her Asian neighbours in a wholly friendly manner.

I invite the attention of honorable senators to the expression “ Asian neighbours “. It is interesting to see how the attitude of Government supporters towards China and Russia is changing. The report continues -

It was necessary for Australia to be developed as a supporting base in the South-East Pacific, and it was also highly necessary that Australia be selfsufficient in such things as ships, army weapons and aircraft.

Answering questions later Sir George Jones said he considered the Government had spent too much money recently on aircraft carriers.

He would be glad to see a couple of aircraft carrier’s in Australia’s defence, but they should be kept in strict relation to land force bases.

Sir George Jones, answering another question, said he thought that any major world war would be a long, drawn-out struggle.

As long as we are dependent on the monopolists of , the United States for aircraft we must expect them to call the tune. They will direct policy and lay down the time when aircraft will be supplied.If that state of affairs continued for long we should become another satellite of the United States.

The international situation is most serious and I have very little confidence that success will attend the efforts of those who are taking part in the various conferences being held at present. The production of armaments of all kinds is now an integral part of the economies of nations. If disarmament were agreed upon and the manufacture of war materials ceased, what would happen to the millions of people who would become unemployed The United States does not know what to do with its unemployed now. The delays which we have witnessed in the settlement of international differences have been caused by failure to confer. The only redeeming feature of the United Nations is that it is a forum where men may confer in an attempt to preserve world peace. However, the representatives of countries are often subject to influences beyond their control and therefore they are not altogether reliable. When one sees changing attitudes in our own country, one is not persuaded to accept ex cathedra what is said elsewhere. One must form one’s own judgment on the evidence available.

As an Australian by birth and an internationalist by conviction, I should like to see one world for one people. I believe that to be physically and financially possible, but it would mean the re-organization of internal economies and the economies of international trade. However, the representatives of the various governments are reluctant to make such changes. They are political paranoics. A paranoic is a person who is a slave to a fixed idea. They believe that their judgment is beyond question. One had only to read in the French newspapers accounts of the recent trouble there to understand that various generals of that country want war and believe that it will lead to the salvation of all. In this century we have had two world wars. Since 1945 we have had approximately 18 local wars. At any time another world war might develop. In my opinion, this dangerous situation exists because of lack of knowledge on the part of governments and peoples. If every one understood the real position as intelligently and clearly as he should, I am certain that the attitudes of governments to one another would be very different.

Debate (on motion by Senator Hannan) adjourned.

page 232

ADJOURNMENT

Air Mail to Canberra

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) pro posed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I should like to direct the attention of the Minister in charge of the Senate to a matter related to the receipt of Western Australian mail by air, under the amended schedules. Previously, mail which was despatched from Western Australia in the evening reached Canberra on the following morning and was delivered at Parliament House at 3.30 on the next afternoon. Nowadays, although the planes leave at the same times in the evening, they reach Canberra much earlier. The connecting planes arrive in Canberra at 9.30, but the air mail I have received over the past ten days has not reached me in Parliament House until 24 hours after the time of its arrival by plane in Canberra. I feel that this delay is far too long and I should like the Minister to take cognizance of my complaint. I have envelopes in my room which will prove the truth of my statements.

I do ask the Minister to see whether people receiving air mail from Western Australia can be given better service than has been provided recently. A delay of 24 hours between the time of arrival at Canberra and the time of delivery to the addressee at Parliament House appears to be unreasonable.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping -and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - I shall see that the honorable senator’s remarks are brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.46 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 August 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1959/19590820_senate_23_s15/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate20 August 1959

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator SCOTT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator BUTTFIELD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

CANBERRA TRAFFIC CODE

Senator O’FLAHERTY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator PEARSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

EXPORT OF LAMBS

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator GORTON:Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator SCOTT:

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator ARMSTRONG:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

NEWSPAPERS

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator TANGNEY:

Senator SPOONER:LP

Senator Tangney:

Senator SPOONER:

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator KENNELLY:VICTORIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

PRINTED COTTON PIECE GOODS

Tariff Board Report

Senator HENTY:LP

Printed Cotton Piece Goods (Industries Preservation Act)

QUESTION

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1959-60

Senator ARMSTRONG:New South Wales

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Henty:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senator Spooner:

Senator ARMSTRONG:

Senate
20 August 1959

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia