House of Representatives
3 June 1942

16th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 16th Parliament
  3. 1942

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. M. Nairn) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2042

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. SYDNEY

Wives and Oth er Defendants of Ratings.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for the Navy inform me what arrangements, if any, are being made to grant assistance to the wives and other dependants of the men of H.M.A.S. Sydney, in view of the difficulty they are experiencing in securing the distribution of their husbands’ estates because of inability to furnish proof of death?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall secure the necessary information during the course of the day and supply it to the honorable member, possibly before the adjournment to-night.

page 2042

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Stoppages of Work

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Prime Minister state when the conference promised to the coal-miners will be held, particularly in relation to the disputes at the Millfield- Greta and Metropolitan mines? I have received a telegram which expresses the wish that the matter shall be dealt with expeditiously, in order to avert an extension of the trouble. Can the right honorable gentleman also state why His Honour Judge Drake-Brockman has directed that his award in respect of the working of what is known as the scraperloader machine at Millfield-Greta shall have general application? Does the right honorable gentleman know that the officials of the miners’ organization have stated that they cannot and will not recommend the acceptance of such a condition throughout the industry, because His Honour was not asked to make such an award ?

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– At the conference which deliberated last Saturday with respect to the coal-mining industry generally, I said that I would request the managements of the Metropolitan and Millfield-Greta mines to meet the lodge officers in conference, and that I would endeavour to arrange that meeting. Owing to the exigencies of the war situation, I was obliged to leave Canberra for important deliberations. During my absence, I directed the despatch of telegrams in connexion with these two conferences. I am positive, although I have no actual knowledge, that the telegrams were sent, because I have confidence in my staff. I say frankly that I have not given consideration of any description to the problem of coal production since last Saturday evening, other than to direct the despatch of those telegrams. I tell the honorable member, as well as the coal-miners and the country, that I have had to deal with other and, to my mind, much more important responsibilities. I have to answer in the negative, for the reason that I have already given, the question whether I am aware that His Honour Judge Drake-Brookman has made a general award. That reason is responsible also for my lack of knowledge of whether or not the mining officials have said that they cannot and will not recommend the acceptance of this general condition. I am not ignoring the subject of coal; but on some days I have other matters which preoccupy my mind. If I may put the position quitebluntly, my assessment of the duty which the Parliament, as a whole, and I, personally, owe to the coal industry, or to any other matter during the last three days - bearing in mind that I have not given to it the slightest consideration because of other more urgent and vital demands upon my time - is one which, I believe, every man would make if he knew as much as I know.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Since the peace code for the coal-mining industry was announced, nineteen coal-mines have been idle. Can the Prime Minister say how many of the eight reported stoppages of work at coalmines to-day are due to strikes, and when he expects the peace code to operate?

Mr CURTIN:

– For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot state accurately the number of mines that have been idle. I have had a glance at to-day’s report, but have not been able to study in any detail either that report or the reports foe- the previous days-. I have to inform the honorable member that the conference on Saturday afternoon terminated with the complete and unanimous acceptance of the code by the representatives of the unions concerned and the owners. The code was formulated as the result of discussions in which the Government representatives, consisting of three Ministers, and the representatives of the owners and the miners, participated. It represents the general view of those who took part in the conference, that the code furnishes the best means whereby peace may be secured in the industry. I understood, and I still believe that the view was correct, that a few days would be needed to clear up the overlag of conditions that have been operating. I wish the code to be given a reasonable chance by both the unionists and the owners. I am satisfied that the owners and the responsible body of the union, including all its officers, will do their utmost to make it work. I accepted their assurances on Saturday afternoon, and repeat them now, as expressing a determined intention on the part of these men who, although representing different interests, none the less recognize the overriding problems of the nation, and are willing to do their best to ensure tha.t the maximum coal production shall be achieved in order that this country may have the benefit of it. I shall not be deterred by what has happened in the last two or three days from giving to those men and to the code the chance to prove themselves.

page 2043

CIVIL CONSTRUCTIONAL CORPS

Allied Works Council

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Melbourne press last evening published the following statement: -

Judge Kelly, in the Arbitration Court at 2.30 to-day, will consider a notification by the Plumbers, Painters and Builders Labourers Unions of a dispute which may arise over the Allied Works Council’s award for the Civil Constructional Corps. [ ask the Prime Minister whether the regulations constituting the Allied Works Council confer on the Director the power to make awards? If not, under what authority did the Director act ? Does the Government consider it to be a sound principle that the employer - in this case the Allied Works Council, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government - shall have the power to make awards and compel observance of them? In view of the protest of the combined unions, does the Government intend to intervene, or does it endorse the award and the method of its making, or either?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The views of the Emergency Committee of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions on this matter have been placed before me. I have had a consultation with the Director-General of Allied Works, and the position, briefly, is this: The men previously followed a great variety of occupations, and they are to be transferred to works under the direction of the Allied Works Council. The works will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate industrial awards, both in respect of crafts and of the place in which the work is done, but a period of time must elapse between the calling up of the men and their assignment to a particular work in a particular place. There was no award in existence to cover this interregnum. Such questions as what should be the rates of pay, or what was the degree of responsibility of the Allied Works Council to the men, had not been decided. A man could not be paid the award rate applicable to his previous job, because he was no longer working at it, and he could not be paid at the rate applicable to the job at which he would eventually work, because he had not been assigned to any specific job. Therefore, so that he would be assured of sick pay and a definite status from the time that he came under the control of the Allied Works Council, this code was formulated. I have the assurance of Mr. Blakeley that, as a determination, it is eminently fair. It is unfortunate that there had been no previous consultation between the representatives of the Allied Works Council and the trade unions; but on Monday afternoon there was a conference between the DirectorGeneral of Allied Works and representatives of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions. I do not know what took place, but the Director-General has assured me that he accepts the position that every man called up will be dealt with in accordance with the appropriate award covering the work upon which he will be employed. This was agreed to by the Government after consultation with the trade unions. The present arrangement is an improvement on the vast majority of awards in that it provides sick pay and workers’ compensation, benefits which were in doubt, because the tuen are not in the employment of any one except the council until they are assigned to particular jobs. The DirectorGeneral stated that, whether or not the determination was a good one, was open to discussion; but in his opinion it was good, and he would be pleased if the unions would take it to the Arbitration Court and have it either confirmed or varied, though he expressed the opinion that he could not see how any union could be in a position to take the matter to court. As for plumbers, any man who works as a plumber will be paid accord-, ing to the award for plumbers; but, until he is actually employed in that capacity, he cannot be so paid.

page 2044

QUESTION

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the suggestion of Mr. E. H. Graham, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, that a Commonwealth Ministry of Food should be set up to organize and direct production of food on the pattern of the Ministry of Food in Great Britain? In view of the great importance of food supplies, as affected by production and by civil and military consumption, will the Prime Minister consider the appointment in Australia of a Minister for Food?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The Government has established the Australian Food Council, which is sitting to-day. The honorable member’s suggestion that its activities should be placed under the direction of a Minister will be considered.

page 2044

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - During the current sitting of the House I propose to submit for the consideration of honorable members a Supply Bill to cover the first three months of 1942-43, a War Loan Appro priation Bill, an Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill, and War Pensions Appropriation Bill. For the services of the financial year 1941-42, I shall introduce an additional Revenue Appropriation Bill. The Supplementary Estimates and Appropriation for ordinary votes, and for New Works and Buildings for the year 1940-41 will also be submitted to the House.

page 2044

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL POLICY

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In yesterday’s issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph it was stated that the Prime Minister, in answer to a letter from the Newcastle branch of the Australian Labour party, indicated that the banking policy of the Government could not be put into effect because the Government did not have a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. Did the Prime Minister write such a letter? What is the policy of the Government which, he says, he is unable to get through both Houses of the Parliament? If this policy is of importance to Australia, why does he not submit it to the Parliament ? Will he place the correspondence referred to on the table of the House?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I cannot say whether I wrote such a letter Or not. The policy of the Government regarding banking and monetary systems as it affects the conduct of the war has already been given effect by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) with the support of the Government and with the agreement of Parliament. As the honorable member knows, the platform of the Labour party provides for the nationalization of banking. We do not regard the nationalization of hanking as a measure which should be introduced during the period of the war, having regard to our war commitments and to the state of political parties. This Government came into office during a time of great national emergency. It has not abandoned its social programme, and it does not regard the postponement of that programme until after the war as an illogical procedure. However, insofar as the nation’s war effort can be assisted by applying the general principles of the Labour platform to particular parts of the national structure, then to that degree we are prepared to do so. The test as to whether such action is, in fact, in the best interests of the war effort will be applied by Parliament. Up to date, Parliament has accepted what we have done, not as something designed for the purpose of realizing a party political programme, but as being in the best interests of the nation, having regard to the need for winning the war.

page 2045

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER REFLECTIONS ON THE SENATE

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Senate yesterday banned members of the staffs - including working journalists - of a certain newpaper, including those engaged in this House, from the King’s Hall, the Library, and the Refreshment Rooms, so that they cannot even have a meal while working at the House? Is it a fact that, before the President of the Senate took this action, he consulted with you, and obtained your agreement? Is the control of the King’s Hall, the Library, and the Refreshment Rooms vested in the Joint House Committee? Is it a fact that no meeting of the Joint House Committee was called to consider whether or not the ban should be imposed ? If so, do you not consider that the action of the President, and your concurrence, constitute a gross flouting of the Joint House Committee’s jurisdiction? If you regard the action of the President as valid, will you state on what grounds it was taken? Why could not some more appropriate action have been taken to deal with the author of the offending article - assuming that an offence was committed - without penalizing inoffensive persons, and stifling criticism, whether that criticism was justified or not?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The action was taken by the President of the Senate on his own initiative, and independently of myself. I do not propose to offer any opinion concerning his decision.

page 2045

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for War Organization of Industry inform me whether it is a fact that, in order to obtain clothes ration books, persons will be required to present their identity cards at a place in the electorate in which they are enrolled? If so, what arrangements, if any, have been made for the purpose of meeting the case of hundreds of men and women who will be absent from their electorates on the 13th and 14th June?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– The rationing of clothes will be controlled, not by the Department of War Organization of Industry, but by the Department of Trade and Customs. I shall refer the honorable member’s question to the Minister for Trade and Customs and obtain a reply for him.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister inform me whether it is a fact that ordinary rates will be .paid to the staffs which issue the ration books on the 13th and 14th June, although they will work on Saturday and Sunday?

Mr DEDMAN:

– I shall submit the question to the Minister for Trade and Customs.

page 2045

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT OF UNCHARGED PERSON

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Attorney-General whether it is a fact that a man has been held in the Russell-street . Police Station, Melbourne, since Thursday last, without being charged, on the ground that he allegedly accepted a bribe of £10 to secure the release of some person from military service? By whose direction are persons held without being charged, and without being afforded the opportunity to obtain bail in order to prepare a defence? Will the Acting Attorney-General see that the procedure adopted in respect of persons who are charged under the National Security Act conforms to the general procedure in the States, whereby persons are charged at the earliest possible moment, thus affording them an opportunity to secure bail? Is the delay in preferring a charge against the man in question due to the fact that the papers had been sent to Canberra, and the Victorian Police are still awaiting directions from the Solicitor-General here?

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member mentioned this matter to me yesterday, but as I was obliged to remain in the chamber until a late hour during the debate on the Australian Broadcasting Bill, and attended two conferences this morning, and as the Solicitor-General is suffering from influenza, I have not had an opportunity to obtain a final report upon the matter.

page 2046

QUESTION

FIREWOOD SUPPLIES

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Many carriers are experiencing difficulty in discharging contracts for the supply of firewood to essential industries, such as butter factories and brick kilns, because the gas-producer units with which their vehicles are equipped are not sufficiently powerful to propel the trucks through the bush, which have been made very heavy by the recent rains. Will the Minister for Supply and Development provide them with additional petrol, so that the factories may be kept working at capacity?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The Department of Supply and Development has examined the firewood problem generally, not only in the Australian Capital Territory but also in Victoria, and, in each instance, has requested the interested parties to apply to the State Liquid Fuel Control Board so that their representations may be properly examined’. An instruction has been issued that they shall be granted adequate supplies of petrol.

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Supply and Development aware that owing to petrol rationing many wood carters in country towns have been forced out of business, with the result that householders, particularly those in the colder districts, are suffering from lack of warmth? Will he see that the allowance of petrol’ which was formerly made to those who have been forced out of business shall be given to those who remain in business in order that the supply of firewood may be maintained?

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is not fair to say that these men have been forced out of business. The truth is that the owners of trucks were given notice to adopt their vehicles for the use of substitute fuels so that, if supplies of petrol were cut off, they would not have to pull their trucks into the sides of the roads. They were allowed plenty of time in which to make the change. Many owners did not take the warning seriously and have not converted their vehicles for tie use of sub stitute fuels. Now, when the firewood problem has become serious, they are exercising a certain degree of pressure in an endeavour to cause a relaxation of the restrictions. I remind honorable members that my duty is to endeavour to conserve the liquid fuel supplies of this country, and, in order to do this, restrictions must be imposed on many people. I believe that every honorable member will agree that it. is far better to impose these restrictions than to allow our stocks to reach such a low ebb that our aircraft or mechanized units will be unable to proceed to their battle stations because supplies of liquid fuel are not available.

page 2046

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform me whether it is a fact, as was stated in the Melbourne Herald last Monday, that an early transfer of the editorial activities of the Department of Information to the press relations section of the Prime Minister’s Department may be expected? Before the Government takes any action to reorganize this department, which should be entirety free from political influence, will the right honorable gentleman appoint a committee consisting of senators and members of the House of Representatives, drawn from all parties, for the purpose of examining the whole subject of Government publicity, and the publicity activities, not only of the Department of Information, but also of many other Government departments, including the Department of the Army, which recently established a publicity section with a large staff? Will the Prime Minister ensure that responsible officers of the various publicity activities will be given an opportunity to submit their view to the proposed committee?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I asked a subcommittee of Cabinet to prepare for me a, report relating to the operations of the Department of Information. Although the report has been completed, I have not yet had an opportunity to consider it. When I have done so, Cabinet will deal with it, and at that stage the Government will announce its intentions. All the rest is mere speculation.

page 2047

MAN-POWER INRURAL INDUSTRIES

Mr BADMAN:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Last Thursday, the Minister for the Army assured me that he would make, in the near future, a statement on the problem of man-power in relation to the production of foodstuffs. Is the honorable gentleman in a position to make that statement now,or will he be able to make it to-morrow,

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I hope to be in a position to make the statement to-morrow.

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Labour and National Service yet in a position to make his promised statement to the House concerning the registration of seasonal workers and the Government’s man-power proposals in relation to rural industries?

Mr,WARD. - The statement asked for will be made to-morrow.

page 2047

QUESTION

MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS

Mr MORGAN:

– Did the Minister for the Navy observe a recently-published reportthat General MacArthur favours motor torpedo boats, and believes that 200 of these craft would enable the allies to sweep the Japanese from the seas ? If that be correct, will the Minister discuss the matter with the naval authorities, and consider the advisability of utilizing local boat-building plants which are now available fortheconstruction of craft of this kind? Would it not be advisable to concentrate upon building motor torpedo boats, instead of larger craft which might not be completedbefore the conclusion of the war?

Mr MAKIN:
ALP

– I have not seen the report that is alleged to have been made by General MacArthur, but any matter relating to the kind of craft that should be used for various naval operations will be decided by those who are charged with the responsibility of determining such matters. The Government will take such action as is required to implement the recommendations of those authorities.

page 2047

QUESTION

TRADING BANKS

Mr SPOONER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Was the Minister for War Organization of Industry correctly reported in the Melbourne Herald last Monday evening when he is stated to have said, prior to a conference of representatives of the trading banks, that certain action which they had taken in relation to the man-power position was not in accordance with the suggestions made at earlier conferences? What suggestions were made at the earlier conferences, and in what way have the trading banks taken action that is not in conformity with the decisions that were reached during those discussions? Will the honorable gentleman also inform me whether it is a fact that, on the 9th April last, he stated in Melbourne that demands made by the man-power authorities on the staffs ofthe trading banks would cause them to close a number of their branches ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I have not seen the report in the Melbourne Herald to which the honorable memberrefers, but it is true that I made a statement to the effect indicated by him. I did say thatthe action taken by the banks was not in line with the suggestion made by me at the conference with the trading banks at the beginning of March. The suggestionI then made was that man-power should be obtained from the banking industry by the closing of branches in towns where more than one bank was operating. I be lieve that it is true that the banks, instead of adopting that suggestion, closed branches in towns where they had only one branch operating. I believe that that action is not in the best interests of the nation at present. I had another conference with the banks two days ago, when I told them that I desired them to implement the policy which I indicated at the earlier conference.

page 2047

QUESTION

RETAIL TRADING HOURS

Mr HOLT:

-Does the Department of War Organization of Industry propose to limit retail trading to the hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily? Have representations been made to the Minister for War Organization of Industry by the Victorian Federation of Retailers Associations that this proposal would involve serious difficulty and prejudice the opportunities of factory and other workers to obtain their requirements from shops? What decision has been reached by the department ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The restriction of trading hours is still under consideration by my department.

page 2048

QUESTION

SHALE OIL

Mr PERKINS:

– Can the Minister for Supply and Development tell me whether the production of oil from shale at Glen Davis is being maintained at the standard he desires, and, if not, what is the reason for the falling off? What is the position regarding the production of oil from shale at Berrima?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– Statistics setting out the position will be given to the House to-morrow.

Mr MORGAN:

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Development whether the policy applied by the Government in regard to the production of oil from shale is that a company producing this fuel is restricted to the quantity required for its own motor vehicles or those of its shareholders and that direct sales to nonshareholders are not permitted. Since many possible investors may not want to use the product and other possible users may not have the capital to invest, will the Minister review his policy and indicate what further encouragement and assistance will be given to those desiring to develop our shale oil deposits, including the State governments?

Mr BEASLEY:

– The practice set out in the first part of the honorable gentleman’s question is followed. We are constantly watching developments in the production of shale oil. At the same time we have to keep our eyes on the fact that some people do not set out to develop shale deposits with the high and lofty purposes which the honorable gentleman has in mind-

Mr Morgan:

– I said nothing about lofty purposes. I want the production of shale oil to be encouraged under government control.

Mr BEASLEY:

– We are watching this matter from month to month, offering encouragement where it is needed and assistance where claims for assistance are bona fide, and we are taking every possible step to improve our liquid fuel position.

page 2048

QUESTION

TEA RATIONING

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– On the 20th May, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the tea ration granted to persons in internment camps was 2 oz. a week compared with 1 oz. a week for private citizens. The Minister for Trade and Customs supplied the following answers: - 1.T he victualling of internees is a responsibility of the Minister for the Army and tea required for this purpose is included in the Army requisitions for tea supplies. Such tea is not subjected to the system of consumer rationing by registration. 2.I am informed by my colleague, the Minister for the Army, that the question of the quantity of tea provided in the schedule of rations allowed to internees by international agreement is being observed.

I now ask the Minister for the Army whether, in view of the fact that the tea ration for internees was fixed when conditions were normal, it is not now necessary that the ration provided to private citizens and internees should be the same.

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I shall consider the honorable gentleman’s representations and answer him to-morrow.

page 2048

QUESTION

HARBOUR DEFENCES

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Navy whether the entry of enemy watercraft into Port Phillip Bay, Sydney Harbour, or any other land-locked harbour of Australia can be detected through the medium of our shore defences and whether any further enemy action within those harbours is expected ?

Mr MAKIN:
ALP

– The presence of enemy vessels can be detected. For security reasons I cannot divulge the nature of the detecting devices. I assure the honorable gentleman that the vigilance of the Navy and shore defences is such that should any enemy craft attempt to pass the heads of any Australian harbour it will meet with the fate which befell the three Japanese midget submarines in Sydney Harbour last Sunday night.

page 2048

QUESTION

IMMOBILIZATION OF SMALL CRAFT

Mr SPOONER:

– The Minister for the Army has appointed a committee to deal with the immobilization of small craft and I am prepared to await its report, but in the meantime a boat builder in my electorate informs me that in a conversation with the committee he was told that it doubted whether its terms of reference and scope of inquiry were wide enough to cover the care and maintenance of boats while they are immobilized. Will the Minister for the Army take steps to ensure that the terms of reference and scope of inquiry of the committee shall be wide enough to cover, not only compensation, but also care and maintenance ?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– That will be taken into consideration. In order to expedite the work of the committee, the secretary of the War Damage Commission, Mr. A. E. Warburton, a very capable man, has been added to its personnel.

page 2049

QUESTION

SECURITY OFFENCES

Method of Trial

Mr BRENNAN:

– I direct a question to the Acting Attorney-General with regard to prosecutions that have been initiated in Melbourne for alleged offences against national security, involving the hindering of what is known as “ the war effort “. I ask the honorable gentleman whether, in those cases in which offences are triable alternatively before a stipendiary magistrate or by a jury, he has consented to the cases being tried by a magistrate? Will he preferably adhere to the time-honoured practice of having the charges dealt with as indictable offences before juries?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to examine the time-honoured practice as compared with any other practices which may have been introduced, and I shall advise the honorable member of the result of my inquiries.

page 2049

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have received from the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The terms and conditions of acquisition and payment relative to wheat delivered to the No. 5 wheat pool and the Government’s failure to finalize payments to farmers on wheat delivered to the Nos. 2, 3 and 4 wheat pools.”

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion supported ?

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have taken this action because, within the next two or three days, Parliament will go into recess for a considerable time, and I consider that the Government ought to make an announcement on these important matters before honorable members disperse. I approach this subject in the fervent hope that definite action will be taken immediately in the interests of the growers who have participated in the various wheat pools that have operated since the outbreak of war more than two and a half years ago. I shall refer to various quantities and values in approximate figures. They willbe reasonably accurate, but I shall be pleased to receive from the Minister correction of any inaccuracies.

I shall deal first with the No. 5 wheat pool for this year. I claim that the Government is confiscating 13,000,000 bushels of excess wheat, and I use the word “ confiscating “ after a careful perusal of the statements that have been made by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) in the last month. I shall refer to some of those statements in order to make the position clear. On the 14th May, the Minister said -

The whole matter of final payments is now under review, so far as the earlier pools are concerned. The previous Government, on an estimated crop of 140,000,000 bushels, guaranteed an initial payment of 3s. 8d. for bulk wheat and 3s.10d. for bagged wheat f.o.b.

A certain amount of money was allocated to the pool for that purpose, and was agreed to by representatives of the wheat-growers throughout Australia.

The crop amounted to 153,000,000 bushels, and the fund created was, therefore, insufficient to pay more than 3s.6d. a bushel. When costs have been subtracted, there will be little left from which to make further payments to the growers from the 1941-42 pool.

On the 19th May, he made the following statement : -

The guarantee of 3s.10d. a bushel applied to an aggregate crop of 140,000,000 bushels, whereas the wheat received has reached a total of 153,000,000 bushels. Spreading the total amount of guarantees over the 153,000,000 bushels, the approximate price payable for bagged wheat will be 3s. 6d. a bushel, less costs, which will represent about lOd. or lid. a bushel. The price for silo wheat will be 2d. a bushel less.

It will be seen from these statements that the Government now proposes to use an amount of £27,000,000, which was promised by the Menzies Government as a guarantee for 140,000,000 bushels, to pay a lower price on the crop _ of 153,000,000 bushels. In other words, the present Government proposes to acquire 13,000,000 bushels of wheat, for which it will pay nothing extra to the growers. Despite what the Minister has said about honouring the contract made by the previous Government, I maintain that, if this Government continues with its proposal, it will repudiate the contract made by the Menzies Government with the growers in 1940. In support of this contention, I refer the Minister to what the then Minister for Commerce, Sir Earle Page, said when the Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Bill was introduced in this House on the 29 th November, 1940. The honorable gentleman made this statement -

It must be realized that any wheat grown in excess of the 140,000,000 bushels basis will not participate in the guarantee. The same must, of course, apply to surplus hay, but facilities for its disposal will be provided. The provision for the cutting of crops for hay will not only assist to form a basis for a national conservation scheme, but by avoiding sharp fluctuations of the acreage sown, will also give the opportunity, should market conditions be favorable, for Australian wheat-growers to take the fullest advantage of a high world price. The scheme will operate in respect of the 1941-42 harvest.

It is apparent from that statement that the previous Government intended that wheat pooled in excess of 140,000,000 bushels should be paid for at realization prices, and that the fodder conservation pool should be organized throughout Australia. This is clear, also, from many references that the right honorable gentleman made to the subject in this House. The fodder conservation scheme was dropped after he left Australia for England, but had it been carried out we should not have met the difficulty that we are now facing over this 13,000,000 bushels of excess wheat. Taking these facts into consideration, I believe that it would be only fair to pay the wheatgrowers 3s, lOd. a bushel for the 153,000,000 bushels that have been pooled. Even, that price is not payable under present conditions, for production costs have risen considerably since that price was fixed.

I now propose to discuss the Government’s failure to wind up the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 pools. According to the best information that I can obtain, practically the whole of the wheat in these pools has been disposed of, although I am aware that substantial quantities of it still remain in Australia awaiting shipment. The Australian Wheat Board acquired approximately 196,000,000 bushels in connexion with the 1939-40 Beason and the whole of it, with the exception of about 1,000,000 bushels which was rust-infected, was placed in No. 2 pool. The rustinfected wheat was placed in No. 3 pool. It is about two and a half years since that wheat was delivered to the board, and, on the most reliable figures that I have been able to obtain, the growers are entitled to about £1,250,000 in respect of it, assuming that the estimate made by the Department of Commerce in 1940 of 9 1/2d a bushel to put the wheat on board ship was not exceeded. If this outstanding amount of £1,250,000 were paid to the farmers they would receive about Id. a bushel extra for their wheat and, on the 4jd. a bushel freight basis, their net return would then be about 4s. Id. a bushel for bagged wheat and 3s. lid. a bushel for bulk wheat f .o.b.

In 194:0-41 Australia experienced a bad year, and the wheat harvest totalled only about 64,000,000 bushels. That wheat was placed in No. 4 pool. I am informed that an amount of about £1,200,000 is still owing to farmers in respect of that harvest. As the wheat has been disposed of, it is only right that the farmers should be paid the money that is due to them. The Australian Wheat Board is the only authority in Australia which can dispose of wheat to-day, so it must have been the intention of the Government that any excess wheat delivered to the board should be paid for at realization prices. It is about eighteen months since the wheat in No. 4 pool was acquired by the Government.

Farmers were obliged to incur expenses as far back as 1938 in connexion with the wheat delivered to the No. ‘2 and No. 3 pools.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– Some of those farmers may not be alive now.

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The delay and anxiety has been sufficient to kill some of them.

Mr McEwen:

– And some of the others may wish that they were dead !

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– Well, I am one of them and I hope to live a little longer. Land has to be fallowed about eleven months before a crop can be sown, and it is eighteen months after fallowing begins before farmers are able to strip their grain. It will be seen therefore that some farmers incurred expenses three and a half years ago in connexion with No. 2 and No. 3 pools. Surely it is not too much to ask that they should be paid the money due to them in respect of that wheat. The business should be concluded before Parliament adjourns.

I regret that the Minister for Commerce is not able to attend the sitting of the House to-day on account of an attack of influenza, but he knows very well the deplorable condition of most of the wheatgrowers, and I consider that I am justified in requesting him to complete the accounts in relation to the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 pools without delay. I also ask that the 13,000,000 bushels of excess wheat in No. 5 pool be paid for on the same basis as the 140,000,000 bushels, for I am confident that had the previous Government’s plan to establish a fodder conservation pool been carried out we should not be facing such great difficulty in connexion with the surplus yield from last harvest.

The Minister is apparently basing his present attitude in respect of excess wheat on an agreement that was supposed to have been reached in Melbourne some time ago by a conference attended by Sir Earle Page, officers of his department, and representatives of the wheatgrowers. I prefer to base my opinion on the statements recorded in Hansard when Parliament had the scheme under consideration. I ask the Minister for Commerce what his reaction would have been had the Melbourne conference to whichhe has so frequently referred requested that 4s. 6d. a bushel should be paid for wheat in the No. 5 pool.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– Was it a recognized body?

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I believe that it was the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. I am not clear on that point, and am open to correction. When the conference met, the conditions were entirely different from what they are to-day. Experience has been gained in connexion with two previous pools, both of which promised a net realization of 4s. a bushel on board ship, and apparently were working very satisfactorily. At that time, large shipments were made to Japan, and it was probably thought that no great difficulty would be experienced in connexion with the disposal of the crop. However, various charges have had to be met during the last three years. I am not making an unreasonable request when I ask that the payment for the 13,000,000 bushels shall be on the same basis as for the 140,000,000 bushels.

Mr Curtin:

– Out of what resources?

Mr MARWICK:

-Out of the resources of the country. To acquire an additional 13,000,000 bushels of wheat for nothing is dishonest. That will be the effect. The previous government at least intended to pay for that wheat on realization.

Mr Curtin:

– Does the honorable gentleman say that a part of the proceeds of the realization of that wheat will not be disbursed to the wheat-growers?

Mr MARWICK:

– The statements made in this House by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) indicate that the £27,000,000, which it was intended should be the guaranteed total price for 140,000,000 bushels, is to be used to acquire 153,000,000 bushels. I can place no other interpretation on the statements of the honorable gentleman, and I believe that the right honorable gentleman will agree that there is no other.

Mr Curtin:

– The Minister for Commerce undertook to find £27,000,000 in the event of a crop of 140,000,000 bushels ?

Mr MARWICK:

– That is so.

Mr Curtin:

– Hashe found less than that sum?

Mr MARWICK:

– I do not know what he has found so far. I am merely basing my arguments on the statements be has made. [Extension of time granted.] It would be interesting to ascertain exactly what the benefits have been to the Commonwealth Bank and, through it, to the Treasury, since the wheat pools were established in 1939-40. I believe that substantial sums by way of interest have accrued to these two government instrumentalities. I believe further that nearly £8,000,000 has been received by State governments from rail freight charges, harbour dues, and the substantial rents which in some States have been paid for the sites on which the wheat is stored. As much of the wheat will be stored for a considerable period, the costs in that connexion might be reduced considerably if an approach were made to the State governments on whose property the wheat is stored at most of the country sidings. I appeal to the Minister to speed up the finalization of wheat pools Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and to treat the 13,000,000 bushels as I have stated.

Mr BREEN:
Calare

.- I regard this as an attempt to discredit the Government or to intimidate the Minister for Commerce.

Mr Marwick:

– Not at all.

Mr BREEN:

– I believe that I can convince the honorable member, in spite of his preconceived ideas. The Minister for Commerce has lately expressed his intention to re-organize the wheat control system. It is significant that a barrage of criticism should be levelled at him concurrently with that pronouncement. It does not come appropriately from those who profess to represent the wheat-growers, either in or out of Parliament. The source of this criticism is clear. I have had forwarded to me resolutions professedly from meetings of wheatgrowers, although they have consisted of the president, a few executive officers, and the secretary of a branch - in one instance, a branch in the electorate that I represent. Other resolutions have been passed by spontaneous assemblies of wheat-growers in various parts of the country. These eulogize the Minister for Commerce and his management of the wheat industry, and the sympathetic consideration he has given to the wheat-farmer in this very trying period of its existence; because, on the handling of the industry at this time will depend its existence, and the livelihood of the wheat-farmer in the future. The authentic information available concerning the history of the wheat trade during the last 40 years shows that it has been subject to tremendous fluctuations from prosperity to depression. On occasions, this has been due to interference by vested interests, whilst on other occasions, admittedly, it has been in consequence of conditions over which neither the grower, the Government, the marketing authorities, nor the consuming public has had any control, the causes having been drought, lack of sufficient transport, war, and the like. In this instance, I maintain, interference by vested interests is responsible for the present move to’ preserve the pastures on which those interests have been browsing for so long and from which they have been gaining considerable wealth. Up to the time when the present Minister for Commerce assumed control, the Australian Wheat Board consisted of Messrs. Teasdale, Hamlin, Harold Darling, James Cameron, Thompson, McPherson and Gatehouse. With the exception of Mr. Thompson, those gentlemen represented trading interests, which had no concern for the welfare of the wheat-grower. On the board also were Messrs. Field, Cullen, Tilt, and Clarke. There were only three representatives of wheat-growers, and they did not represent wheat-growers’ organizations. They were simply representatives of the wheat-growers taken at random. The present Minister for Commerce thought that the representation of the growers could be strengthened in such a way that the board would have more consideration for the growers, and less for those vested interests that had been battening on the growers for so long. Therefore, he appointed Messrs. Bourke, Cavanagh and Evans to the board. That was the beginning of the reformation of the Australian Wheat Board, and those interests which had been getting more than their fair share from the industry have taken fright. It was suggested that the licensed receivers should be excluded so that the growers would get a better deal, and there was immediate reaction from the licensed receivers on the board. They saw that there was no hope of continuing their exploitation of this lucrative field if unrestricted competition were allowed, so it was decided to eliminate those people whose job it was to attend immediately to the handling of the crop at country sidings. A circular was sent out on the 15 th April, 1942, signed by Bunge (Australia) Proprietary Limited, Dalgety and Company Limited, John Darling and Son, Louis Dreyfus and Company Limited, The Farmers and Graziers’ Cooperative Grain, Insurance and Agency Limited, J. A. Hemphill and Sons Proprietary Limited, Lindley Walker Wheat Company Limited, and J. J. Sullivan Proprietary Limited. The circular states, in effect, that there is no longer room in the wheat industry for licensed receivers, who are only commission agents. They do no real work, but they receive a commission of 2 5/8d. on every bushel of wheat they handle. I refer honorable members to the agreement entered into with the licensed receivers by the board for the handling of wheat from the 1940 crop onwards. The point is, that these licensed receivers themselves are in a position to control the Australian Wheat Board. Now, an attempt is being made to stir up hostility to the Government in order to intimidate it. There is no real desire to help the farmers. The author of the. motion knows that honorable members on this side of the House, who represent wheat-growing constituencies, strenuously opposed the proposal for the introduction of the f.o.b. method of payment. We realized from our experience in connexion with the No. 2 pool that payment on that basis might result in the growers receiving ls. a bushel less for their wheat. It was found that, in some instances, costs were inordinately high. For instance, in Tasmania, where only a small quantity of wheat is grown, the cost of handling it is more than 3s. a bushel.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I support the motion. The honorable member for Calare (Mt. Breen) seems to be somewhat thin-skinned over this matter, but I assure him that there is nothing in the motion to disturb him. He and other rural representatives lost no opportunity when they were in opposition to champion the interests of the wheat growers. I remember that a huge and representative meeting was addressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) in Perth some time ago, and I heard him say that, if his party were returned to power, wheat would be acquired at 3s. 10-^d. a bushel, f.o.b. That was a definite promise. This matter of a price for wheat is being turned into a political football. I am now referring to the No. 5 pool. The previous Government offered to pay 3s. 8d. a bushel for bulk wheat, and 3s. lOd. a bushel, f.o.b., for bagged wheat, on the basis of a yield of 140,000,000 bushels, which would cost about £27,000,000. If the crop had not been more than 140,000,000 bushels, the estimate of £27,000,000 would have been enough, but the crop actually reached 153,000,000 bushels, and unless the Government makes the growers some payment in respect of the extra 13,000,000 bushels, it will, in effect, be confiscating that quantity of the growers’ wheat. The Government may have an answer, but the growers cannot wait very long. They are hard up, as every body knows. The extra 13,000,000 bushels of wheat must have some value, and the growers are entitled to receive that value. Unless they do so, it would have been better for them to have fed the wheat to pigs.

Mr LANGTRY:
Riverina

.- I take exception to the use of the words “ repudiation “ and “ confiscation “ by the author of this motion. The Government has been guilty neither of repudiation nor of confiscation. The only act of repudiation of which I am aware in connexion with the wheat industry was when the previous Government took control of the crop for a payment of ls. 7d. a bushel. I ask: Why was the basis of this scheme altered from 3s. 6d. a bushel f.o.r., to 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b.? In my opinion, the alteration was definitely a trap for the purpose of misleading the farmers. On the day that the announcement was made, I sent to the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) a telegram protesting that the alteration would definitely mislead farmers. The Government of the day guaranteed the payment of £27,000,000 for 140,000,000 bushels of wheat, but no one could tell the farmer what he will receive for his crop. I regret that the former Minister for

Commerce (Sir Earle Page), the former Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Anthony), and the present Minister (Mr. Scully) are absent to day, because their views upon the matter would have been most interesting. The subject was never properly understood. Although I did my utmost to ascertain the facts, a definite pronouncement was never mads. I asked Sir Earle Page what would become of the surplus if the crop exceeded 140,000,000 bushels, and the right honorable gentleman replied that he did not expect that there would be a surplus. A few days later, a big meeting of farmers, settlers and interested organizations was held at Temora, New South Wales, and the president of the Farmers and Settlers Association, Mr. Kendall, travelled 100 miles for the purpose of explaining the wheat stabilization scheme to the gathering. He stated that if the crop reached 160,000,000 bushels, the sum of £27,000,000 would be spread over the whole of it. A week later, I complained to Sir Earle Page that farmers were anxious to learn the Government’s intentions if the harvest exceeded 140,000,000 bushels. Again, the right honorable gentleman replied that he did not anticipate that there would be a surplus. The Minister never committed himself to say what would happen if his expectations proved to be wrong. The present Government is not obliged to pay the additional money, although I should like it to do so. For honorable members opposite to declare that the Government is confiscating the wheat, or repudiating a contract, is deliberately to mislead the farmers.

Some time ago, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen) and I estimated that the net return to the growers, on the basis of a harvest of 140,000,000 bushels, would be 2s. 6d. or 2s. 8d. a bushel. The former Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Anthony) challenged our figures, and stated that we were under a misapprehension. Subsequent events have proved that he either misled the farmers or did not understand the wheat industry, because our statistics have proved to be substantially correct. Only 11,000,000 of the 153,000,000 bushels has been, sold, and the expenses are approximately lOd. a ‘bushel. From those figures, honorable members may estimate what will happen when the whole surplus is sold. I also declare that it would be impossible to enforce the fodder conservation scheme in war-time, because labour would not be available for stacking hay. In fact, farmers were unable to obtain assistance to harvest the wheat. Three months after the hay should have been stacked in roy electorate, it was still lying in the paddocks, and heavy rains would have ruined it. Because of the shortage of man-power, the fodder conservation scheme could not possibly operate. I am gratified that in a comparatively short time the whole scheme will be scrapped. The only way in which a farmer may tell what he will receive for his wheat is by having a guaranteed price on a bushel basis, cash on delivery at a siding.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I offer my congratulations to the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick), who submitted this motion. He stated his case so clearly that I see no need to traverse in detail the ground that he covered. The chief point arising out of this discussion is the fact that last harvest reached 153,000,000 bushels, and the Government’s guarantee was limited to 140,000,000 bushels. In my opinion, the Government adopted the proper course in giving that guarantee. It would be better generally if governments were to inform producers of the maximum quantity that they shall grow, instead of preventing them, by indirect methods, from being able to produce a crop. The position, as it appears to me, is that the guarantee applied only to 140,000,000 bushels, upon which payment should be made in full. Regarding the balance of 13,000,000 bushels, there is, I take it, a definite implied contract that payment will be made on the basis of the price realized. Out of that arises the problem of whether the 13,000,000 bushels can be sold at the present time, as the result of the war situation. I agree with those honorable members who say that it is not reasonable to expect the farmers to pay the storage costs for possibly years, and that the Government should pay off the wheat at a fixed date. That is a natural course for the Government to adopt, and I am surprised to hear honorable members opposite, who have so often proclaimed that they are the true representatives of the farmer, protest that the producer will be paid too much. Where are the farmers who produced the surplus of 13,000,000 bushels? I do not know, but the suggestion has been made that many of them are in New South Wales. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. It is time that the arrears on several years’ stored wheat were paid off. The farmers who grew the wheat are not in affluent circumstances and it is only reasonable that their accounts, which have been outstanding for several years, should be paid, particularly as the earlier pools have not resulted in any loss to the Government. That should be taken into account. The primary industries are confronted with four outstanding difficulties just now. The first is the shortage of man-power. There has been a deplorable lack of any attempt by any government to deal with manpower as it affects primary producers, [n that respect the wheat-farmer has suffered perhaps more than, and certainly as much as, any other primary producer. In South Australia there are, I venture to say, thousands of farms where there is not one employee, not even the son of the proprietor, left to do the work. At the same time as we are being told in this House that the sons of farmers will either be released from the Army or not taken into camp their release is being refused or they are being called into camp. There should be some system, and, if the Minister for Labour and National Service makes a statement, it should be carried out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the honorable member were allowed to discuss the wheat industry generally, the same privilege would have to be given to all honorable members. It would be better for him to confine his remarks to the definite matter of urgent public importance mentioned by the mover.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– ^Without wishing to differ from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the question of the payment for wheat cannot be adequately considered unless the general position of wheat, not in detail, of course, be taken into some account. The second difficulty of primary producers is the rising cost of production, which is adequately and excellently set out in the last report of the Joint Committee on Rural Industries. The third difficulty is the provision of financial accommodation by the banks. No one knows better than the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) that the Commonwealth Bank and, through it, the trading banks have been restricting the provision of finance. That policy is reacting to the detriment of the men on the land. I know of men in my own district who have been on the land for 30 or 40 years -and are now vacating their farms because they know that they can meet their commitments at present, but that, if they suffer a couple of bad seasons, they will not be able to do so. I understand that the rule is that the banks shall not penalize the farmers, but, if the choice is between a prosperous city business and a struggling farmer, it is inevitable that the first will receive assistance from the bank, when its own right to extend credit has been seriously curtailed: The fourth difficulty is one which I have discussed before in. this House. ‘ It does not apply to the wheat industry so much as to other primary industries. It is the fixing of prices at figures which show no profit for the producer. It will inevitably cause production of the primary commodities affected to fall below requirements. Although I do not usually venture to prophesy, I say now, as I said to some of my electors months ago, that, in a few months, the Government will be appealing to primary producers to grow food for the people because there will not be sufficient to go round. Men who know more than I do about this matter say that it is possible that before many months have passed we shall find ourselves starved of certain items of food. That is a matter for the Agricultural Council, or, better still, the Minister for War Organization of Industry has the chance to show what he can do, for primary production is a form of industry. If the people find themselves without sufficient to eat, we shall have an expression of their opinion which may be belated but which will be none the less effective. I heartily support the motion of the honorable member for Swan.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

.- The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) has moved the adjournment of the House to discuss -

The terms and conditions of acquisition and payment relative to wheat delivered to the number 5 wheat pool and the Government’s failure to finalize payment to farmers on wheat delivered to the numbers 2, 3 and 4 wheat pools.

The second, third and fourth pools were merely attempts by the then Government to deal with the wheat produced in this country in the ordinary way, that is by acquiring it from the growers, placing it in a pool, and making advance payments to the growers as it was sold. For various reasons, there is still in those pools a quantity of wheat, although it is, admittedly, not large, and final payments cannot be made until it has been sold, because it is not for the Government to fix what price the growers shall get.

Mr Marwick:

– How much wheat remains to be disposed of?

Mr CLARK:

– I do not know the exact quantity. The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) may be able to give that information. The No. 5 pool represented the first attempt by the Commonwealth Government to give to the wheat-growers a guaranteed price. The chief disability with regard to that scheme was that the guaranteed price was on the f.o.b. basis instead of the f.o.r. basis. If the farmer were paid on the f.o.r. basis, he would know better his financial position and would be able to carry on accordingly. The previous Government agreed with the representatives of the farmers throughout Australia to pay £27,000,000 on a crop of 140,000,000 bushels. The crop exceeded 140,000,000 by 13,000,000 bushels. When the amount of £27,000,000 was set aside, the then Minister for Commerce announced that if the crop exceeded 140,000,000 bushels the matter would be further considered. The representatives of the farmers and the Government conferred in pursuance of that undertaking, and it was decided that the amount of £27,000,000 should be spread over the whole crop of 153,000,000 bushels, instead of over 140,000,000 bushels, which meant that, instead of 3s. 1Od., the farmers will receive about 3s. 6d. a bushel. The Minister for Commerce proposes to submit to Cabinet for approval a scheme on the lines proposed by the Prime Minister in his policy speech at the last general elections, in which he said that there should be a definite guaranteed price to the grower on a restricted quantity of production. The Government intends to make the payments as I believe that they should be made. The Labour party’s proposals are that 4s. a bushel should bc paid-

Mr Badman:

– I rise to a point of order. The House is not considering future schemes ; it is considering the pools which have already been in operation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is so. The motion relates only to past pools and to the No. 5 pool.

Mr CLARK:

– I was pointing out that, in my opinion, this motion has been submitted in an endeavour to discredit the scheme which is proposed by the present Government. However, in view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, I shall not proceed along those lines, and I shall confine ray remarks to the pools mentioned in the motion. No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 pools provided that payments could only be made to the growers as the wheat was realized. This is being done by the Government as speedily as possible. The farmers are receiving from the No. 5 pool the price that the previous Government guaranteed, and, in that connexion, this Government is honouring the promise of its predecessor, as confirmed at a conference of wheat-growers’ representatives in Melbourne last year. It was foreseen at that time that the crop would exceed 140,000,000 bushels, and the conference agreed that the guaranteed price should be spread over the entire crop.

Mr Badman:

– Where did the honorable member obtain that information?

Mr CLARK:

– The Minister at the table will tell the House who was present at the conference, and will explain the resolution, which was passed, I believe, unanimously. The fact is that the conference decided to spread the guaranteed price over the whole crop, and thus provided for a much lower return a bushel to the farmers.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I support the motion submitted by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick), and I shall direct my remarks particularly to the No. 5 wheat pool. The disagreement about payments for the surplus of 13,000,000 bushels over the estimated crop of 140,000,000 bushels revolves around the real intention of the Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Bill 1940, and the interpretation of a speech made by the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page). When Sir Earle Page introduced that bill, he made the following statement: -

There will be a guaranteed price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. ports, for bagged wheat, in respect of an acquired crop of 140,000,000 bushels. AH costs of receiving, handling, railage, storage and placing on board will be found out of this price. … It must be realized that any wheat grown in excess of the 140,000,000 bushels basis will not participate in the guarantee. The same must, of course, apply to surplus hay, but facilities for its disposal will be provided.

I agree with the honorable member for Swan that the Minister intended that the Government should pay a price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. ports for 140,000,000 bushels of bagged wheat, which would amount in the aggregate to a commitment of about £27,000,000. Any surplus wheat grown on licensed areas was intended to be sold to the best advantage, the net proceeds of such sales to be distributed to the farmers as a bonus over and above the payment for the 140,000,000 bushels. There should be no argument about that, but I propose to bring forward additional evidence that this was the intention of the Minister for Commerce of the day, as expressed in the act. Recently I solicited information from the present Minister for Commerce with regard to his statement that the Government would pay approximately £27,000,000 for the 153,000,000 bushels of wheat in the No. 5 pool, representing approximately 3s. 6.1d. a bushel, and that this would be the only payment made to the farmers for the entire crop. The statement meant that the guarantee of a price of 3s. lOd. a bushel for the first 140,000,000 bushels of the crop was not to be honoured, and that the Government was to acquire the excess of 13,000,000 bushels practically free. The Minister made the following statement in reply to my representations : -

Some officers of my department were present at a meeting between Sir Earle Page and representatives of wheat-growing organizations at which it was agreed that the guaranteed price should be in respect of a crop of 140,000,000 bushels, and that if the yield exceeded that quantity the estimated amount of the guarantee, approximately £27,000,000, would be spread over the total crop from registered areas. Actually, 153,000,000 bushels has been received into the pool. . . The arrangement made by my predecessor was a definite agreement; this Government takes no responsibility for the terms of the agreement, but on assuming office I gave an undertaking to different organizations and to the country that the agreement would be honoured and not interfered with.

That is all that the honorable member for Swan asks - that the agreement should be honoured. The chief difference of opinion seems to be in relation to what took place at the meeting of wheatgrowers in Melbourne subsequent to the passing of the Wheat Industry (Wartime Control) Bill 1940. The Minister maintains that the conference agreed that the amount of £27,000,000 should be spread over the whole crop. Various farming organizations throughout Australia maintain that such an agreement was never made. That is where officers of the Department of Commerce, the present Minister, and the farming organizations disagree. The only person who can give a neutral decision as to what actually took place at the conference is the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page). He is not in Australia, and it is impossible at the present time to communicate with him in order to find out exactly what happened. However, he wrote a letter to the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, an extract from which has been forwarded to me. The association’s letter states -

We are aware that a joint meeting, over a year ago, carried a certain resolution, but the matter was taken up straight away with Sir Earle Page and a definite assurance was given “ that up to the full quota would be paid for at the guaranteed price, and if a surplus was produced on the licensed area it would be sold when possible and proceeds paid to the farmers “.

That is the only fair thing to do. If the agreement, which is implicit in the act, and which was confirmed by the statement of the then Minister for Commerce, be not carried out by this Government, and if any surplus realized on the crop over and above the guaranteed price of £27,000,000 be not paid to the farmers, the Government will not be carrying out the undertakings of the previous Government. I believe that the Government does not propose to repudiate what it has already undertaken to do for the farmers in assuming the liabilities of the previous Government in respect of the No. 5 Wheat Pool. I therefore ask the Government to carry out its undertaking to the farmers. It should not allow itself to be misled by the views expressed by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen) and others concerning vested interests and attempts to attack the Government. This motion has not been moved for the purpose of attacking the Government. Its object is to secure justice for the wheatgrowers of Australia, and to ensure the carrying out of an honorable undertaking given by the previous Government, under which this Government, through the Minister for Commerce, accepted certain liabilities.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- I support the object of the mover of the motion, which is to obtain for the wheatgrowers of Australia ia fairer deal. Farmers have received only a meagre return for their wheat over a number of years. Nevertheless, it is strange to hear honorable members of the Opposition attacking the weaknesses of the present wheat stabilization scheme and the inadequacy of the returns it is yielding to tile farmers, seeing that the scheme was sponsored, and put into operation, by the previous Government which they supported. The only brief I hold in this matter is for the Wheat-growers. I wish them to receive what they are entitled to receive. It is only just, however, that we should look carefully at the undertaking given to the farmers so that we may allot the responsibility fairly. When the scheme for the war-time acquisition, control and marketing of wheat in Australia was agreed upon a guaranteed price of 3s. 6d. a bushel f.o.r. was proposed. It had been suggested previously by the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle

Page) that the amount should be 3s. Sd. f.o.r. Unfortunately, the representatives of the wheat-growers later agreed to accept 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. That price includes certain problematical charges in relation to the storage, handling and reconditioning of wheat over an unspecified period, and this makes it impossible for anybody to compute accurately what the return to the grower will be. At the time the guaranteed price was agreed to a proposal for the restriction of acreage was also adopted. This was put into operation, but with doubtful success, for complaints about it have been made from all quarters. I have no doubt, from the information at my disposal, that it was agreed that any production in excess of the 140,000,000 bushels from licensed areas was to be sold and the price averaged. This agreement was reached at a conference held in Melbourne last year, which was attended by representatives of the growers, including such prominent persons as Messrs. Watson and Teasdale, Western Australia ; Mr. Cullen, Victoria; Mr. Murphy, Secretary to the Department of Commerce; Sir Olive MacPherson, and several other persons associated with the industry.

Mr Paterson:

– In other words the honorable member is suggesting that the excess over 140,000,000 bushels should be given away.

Mr WILSON:

– Not at all.

Mr Paterson:

– That is what it amounts to.

Mr WILSON:

– At the moment I am not putting my own view. I am stating the terms of the agreement reached at the conference of representatives of the Department of Commerce, the Australian Wheat Board, and representatives of the wheat-growers.

Mr Abbott:

– That is not Sir Earle ‘ Page’s interpretation of the agreement.

Mr WILSON:

– I do not know what Sir Earle Page’s interpretation of it is. Let me make it clear to honorable members that I am not arguing that the agreement reached at that conference should be rigidly adhered to, for, in my view, the wheat-growers have not received nearly enough for their wheat.

Mr McEwen:

– What does the honorable gentleman suggest should be done?

Mr WILSON:

– I suggest that the Government should make an ex gratia payment to the growers.

Mr McEwen:

– A charity payment for 13,000,000 bushels of wheat?

Mr WILSON:

– Not at all. The word “ confiscation “ has been used in relation to this wheat. In fairness to the Government, and to all others concerned, it should be pointed out that this word, which is not a nice one, was used at the Melbourne conference. The representatives of the wheat-growers suggested that wheat grown illegally on unlicensed areas should be confiscated.

Mr Marwick:

– We are not talking about wheat illegally grown.

Mr WILSON:

– I am informed that only about 1,500,000 bushels of wheat was illegally grown. That is a relatively small quantity in the huge total delivered by the wheat-growers, and it should be paid for on the basis of ultimate realization. So far no payment has been made for this wheat. It is obvious that a good deal of the wheat stripped in excess of 140,000,000 bushels was sown for the purpose of cutting for hay. When, because of man-power difficulties, it became impossible to cut the wheat for hay, permission was given to strip it for grain. But the fact remains, and it cannot be disputed on the information available, that an agreement was- reached that any wheat produced in excess of 1.40,000,000 bushels from licensed areas should be sold and that the growers should receive a price averaged over the whole crop.

Mr Paterson:

– That is saying, in effect, that there shall be no payment for the extra wheat.

Mr WILSON:

– The honorable member may twist the agreement if he pleases, but the representatives of the growers agreed that if excess wheat were produced the price should be averaged. An executive member of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board toured the wheat belt of Australia and informed the farmers that if they produced wheat in excess of 140,000,000 bushels, the returns would be averaged over the whole crop. Although f make that statement, I have no wish to do other than assist the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) to secure a more adequate return for the growers. The present wheat scheme has been a dismal failure, for it has not given to the growers anything like the return that they should receive, with the result they are in difficulties to-day as they have been for years past. I consider that the Government should make whatever payments it can make for the wheat received. It could calculate the probable realization and on that basis make a substantial advance to the farmers, who play such an important part in our economic life and are entitled to a fair deal. [Extension of time granted.”] Some of the ‘reasons for the very low returns that have been received from the present plan for the pooling of wheat and the application of the guarantee, may be of interest to honorable members. The total of the costs in connexion with the No. 2 pool was S.67d. made up as follows: - Handling, shipping and administration, 2.9d. ; storage and depreciation, .45d.; interest on advances, .79d. ; and rail freight, 4.53d. There was an increase in respect of the No. 4 pool, the costs of which were as follows : - Handling, shipping and administration, 2.99d.; storage and depreciation, 1.5d.; interest on advances, .74d.; and rail freight, 4.44u. : a total of 9.67d. I wish to give an accurate computation of costs in connexion with the No. 5 pool. It indicates how uncertain is the f.o.b. basis in time of war, and shows that the guarantee may ultimately result in the returns to the growers being lower than the amount advanced, if storage has to be continued for a long time. The inescapable conclusion is that a different scheme must be devised, otherwise many growers must leave the industry. With storage for one year, the costs would be as follows: Storage, 1.327d.; interest, .75d. ; rail freight, 4.5d. ; handling and shipping, 2.5d. ; excess production, calculated on a 10,000,000-bushel basis, 3.25d.: a total of 12.327d. With storage for two years, on the same basis of calculation, the costs would be as follows: Storage, 1.703d.; interest, 2d.; rail freight, 4.5d.; handling and shipping, 2.5d.; excess production on a 10,000,000- bushel basis, 3.25d. : a total of 13,953d.

With storage for three years, the costs would be: Storage, 2.07d.; interest, 2.75d.; rail freight, 4.5d. ; handling and shipping, 2.5d.-, excess production on a 10,000,000-bushel basis, 3.25d.; a total of 15.079d. These costs have to come out of the guaranteed price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. Surely further argument is not needed to convince honorable members that a definite alteration must be made of the basis of marketing and guaranteeing a price to the wheat-growers.

It may be of interest to quote the actual remarks of the Minister for Commerce with regard to the illegal production of wheat. On the 25th November, 1941, the honorable gentleman stated: -

Representations have been made concerning the position of a number of wheat-growers who have planted excess areas and are unable to secure sufficient labour to prevent this excess from maturing to grain. As these growers had broken the regulations, they were instructed to cut the excess areas for hay or to prevent it from maturing, but now we are faced with the position where rural labour is simply not available to enable this to be done. In the circumstances, the provision is being made for w’heat-growers to harvest the excess wheat. They may apply to the chairman of the Local Committee of Review for their district. The chairman will make a recommendation to the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board, and the wheat may then be harvested by the growers. It should be noted that this is intended to apply only to those who find it impossible to dispose of their surplus. Wheat-growers who can deal with their surplus wheat must do so. Having made provision for dealing with this wheat, I want to make it clear that provision is also being made to protect the interests of wheat-growers who have faithfully observed the regulations. They will not suffer because they have complied with the requirements. Although growers are permitted to strip excess areas, they will not he allowed to gain as a result, nor to injure the interests of their fellow growers. The excess wheat harvested will be delivered to the Australian Wheat Board, hut the first advance paid to growers for wheat acquired will not be paid on the excess. The payment which will ultimately be made for it is a matter which will be determined later, and that payment will certainly not be sufficient to show a profit to those who have evaded the regulations.

Many of the growers who, for the reasons mentioned in that statement, were permitted to strip excess wheat, produced the excess because licences were not issued to them until the grain was ready to harvest. So far, many of them have not received a penny for more than one-half of their total production in the current year. J have appealed to the Government privately to make a payment to those who are in financial difficulties, and are being pressed by their creditors. If they have excess, or, as it has been described, illegal wheat, that was not entirely their fault. Some of them have been fortunate in that they have been able to approach the authorities administering the stabilization scheme. It has been reported to me that, although they had illegal wheat, permission was granted for it to be placed in the pool and to be paid for in the ordinary way. That report ought to be investigated, because injustice is thereby done to licensed growers whose price has probably been reduced because of this fact. I support the principle to which the motion seeks to give effect, and I shall do everything I can to secure more prompt and adequate payment to the wheatgrowers. I am convinced, however, that this can only be done in future by methods such as those proposed by the present Minister for Commerce.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick) is to be congratulated upon having raised this matter. He has acted in the interests of the growers, and his action affords honorable members an opportunity to place their views before the Government. So far as No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 pools are concerned, the purpose of the motion is merely to urge the Government to distribute the funds in its possession, funds which are believed to be liquid and distributable. The” financial position of the growers is too well known to need emphasis at this time. They have passed through an extraordinarily unfortunate cycle of low prices and adverse seasonal conditions, and the majority of them are in serious financial straits. In regard to No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 pools, the Government acts only as the agent for the growers in order to realize the wheat, and distribute the proceeds. It is claimed that the Australian Wheat Board is in possession of funds belonging to the growers, and the Government is asked to arrange for their distribution. I hope that, without more ado, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) will be able to say on behalf of the Government that there will be a prompt distribution of the money. The position is not so simple, however, in connexion with No. 5 pool. The speeches that have been made here to-day indicate that opinion is divided as to the nature of the contract entered into between the Government and the wheatgrowers when the present stabilization scheme was drawn up last year. According to the interpretation of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) - and in this he has, apparently, the approval of the Government - the growers are to receive no benefit in respect of any wheat produced in excess of 140,000,000 bushels. I am convinced that it was intended under the plan to guarantee to the growers 3s.10d. a bushel f.o.b. on a maximum crop of 140,000,000 bushels, but it must be understood that no one can estimate exactly the size of the crop that will, in fact, be produced. That is determined by seasonal conditions, and other unpredictable circumstances. Surely no one suggests that the growers, who have passed through such vicissitudes, would voluntarily agree to an arrangement that would prevent them from deriving any benefit from raising a bumper crop. Yet the Government says that they did.

Mr Pollard:

– Such an arrangement would encourage the production of better crops on smaller areas, thus conserving man-power.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– That aspect of the matter has been covered by the licensing system, which was introduced as a part of the stabilization scheme. It cannot be intended, surely, that the growers are to receive no recompense for having produced 13,000,000 bushels more than the stipulated quantity of 140,000,000 bushels. Suppose the crop had been of similar proportions to that of 1939-40, when 196,000,000 bushels was produced. Under this arrangement, the growers would, in that event, hand over to the Government 56,000,000 bushels of wheat for which they would receive no payment. I can understand a government wishing to put the peg in somewhere, so that it might have an idea of the extent of its financial responsibility. That, as a matter of fact, was the purpose of the Government, of which I was a member, when the arrangement was entered into to pay 3s.10d. a bushel for 140,000,000 bushels, any amount grown in excess of that to be disposed of as opportunity offered, and the proceeds distributed amongst the growers. Since then, however, Japan has entered the war, and it is virtually impossible to dispose of our wheat overseas, because ofshipping shortages and for other reasons.There is only a remote prospect that the surplus wheat will ever be disposed of at all ; at best, it will be sold at some time in the distant future, provided the weevils have left any of it by then. I am sure that the farmers, who are pretty hard-headed men, never agreed to an arrangement under which they were to receive no compensation for surplus wheat handed over to the pool.

Mr Wilson:

– Their leaders agreed to it.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not agree that they did.

Mr Dedman:

– We were at war at the time the honorable member’s Government entered into the agreement.

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes, but the situation has changed materially since then. At that time, it was still possible to dispose of wheat overseas, as our experience in connexion, with the earlier pools proves. I disagree with the proposal of the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) that the matter should be disposed of by making an ex gratia payment to the growers. The wheat-farmers are entitled to something better than a mere charitable gift in respect of the extra 13,000,000 bushels. This is a basic commodity, which has a real value and should not he the subject of any charitable gift. It should be paid for. In the new circumstances, the fair method is to pay the guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel upon 140,000,000 bushels, and to make a reasonable advance upon the surplus. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Commerce has already adopted that principle. He announced his intention to substitute for the wheat stabilization scheme an arrangement whereby a specific amount would be paid, on a bushel basis, for a specific quantity of wheat. On the surplus, the advance suggested is 2s. a bushel. The Minister now has an opportunity to apply that principle to the present problem, and to honour the undertaking of the previous

Government that made the arrangement with the wheat-growers by paying 3s.10d. a bushel f.o.b. on 140,000,000 bushels, and making a reasonable advance upon the surplus.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– This debate bar illustrated clearly the differencesof opinion that exist even among wheat-growers when they seek to reach an agreement upon the price to be paid for their crop. I apologize for the absence of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully), who, because of illness, is unable to attend ; but, learning, I presume by the kindly intimation of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick), that the subject was to be discussed, he has prepared the following statement : -

The honorable member for Swan, in his motion, has raised two separate points. First, the payment for the current wheat crop harvested during 1941-42 and placed in No. 5 pool, and, secondly, the completion of payments of the crops from the two previous seasons. I am surprised that there should be any question about payments for the present wheat pool, because the method adopted was specifically recommended by wheatgrowers’ representatives, and the Government is carrying it into effect. The wheat stabilization plan is based upon the normal Australian crop of 160,000,000 bushels, of which approximately 140,000,000 bushels is marketed. Before the details of the plan were decided in November, 1940, the former Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page), together with officers of the Department of Commerce, met representatives of the Australian Wheat-growers Federation in Sydney. They were Messrs. Kendall, Cullen and Stott, who represented three of the main wheat-growing States and held the principal offices in the federation.

It is well that honorable members should note that.

The possibility of production in excess of the normal harvest was discussed, and it was made clear that, in the event of the crop being above the average, payment would be made on the basis of an adjustment of the fund guaranteed over the whole crop.

Mr Prowse:

– That is capable of two interpretations.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Some honorable members have placed two, and even three, interpretations upon it. The statement proceeds -

Honorable members will realize that crops vary, and, in the case of wheat, vary greatly, so it was clear that sooner or later there would be a crop giving more than 140,000,000 bushels for the market. This immediately raised the question of what should be done in such circumstances. Two solutions are obvious. The first is the method which this Government has adopted and which was accepted by the previous Government, namely, to spread the total guaranteed fund over the whole marketed crop. The second method would be to pay a guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel on 140,000.000 bushels, and the excess crop would then be placed in a separate pool.

If the excess crop were placed in a separate pool, some honorable members would have ground for complaint if the Government attempted to recoup itself by selling in competition with the main pools. The statement continues -

On this basis, wheat-growers would receive the full guarantee on a percentage of their crop. Honorable members may recall that the former Minister did not commit himself on this question in the House; but, in reply to several questions, he stated that the problem would be dealt with when it arose. It did arise very shortly after he left office, and I had to deal with it.

The nearest that he came to committing himself definitely on this matter was on the occasion of his introduction into this House of the wheat industry stabilization legislation on the 29th November, 1940. when he stated -

The liability of the Commonwealth Government is based on an acquired crop of 140,000,000 bushels at a guaranteed price of 3s.10d. per bushel f.o.b. bagged wheat basis.

My interpretation of this statement is that the Commonwealth Government’s liability would be limited to approximately £27,000,000 - the total amount of the guarantee. Honorable members will recall that the former Minister had in mind the control of production to a marketable crop of 140,000,000 bushels, by the provision in the regulations for the cutting of crops for hay. However, the matter had been discussed, and, although I am informed that the former Minister for Commerce rather favoured the second method, he asked for the advice of the wheat industry concerning it.

On the 1st and 2nd May, 1941, a conference was held in Melbourne which was attended by members of the Australian Wheat Board, the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board, and the Wheat-growers Advisory Committee. The Wheat-growers Advisory Committee was nominated by the Australian Wheat-growers Federation, and consisted of one member from each of the four big wheat-producing States. The members were Mr. Maycock, of the South Australian Wheat-growers Association; Mr. Marshman, of the Victorian Wheat and Wool Growers Association; Mr. Watson, of the Wheat and Wool Growers Union of Western Australia ; and Mr. Kendall of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales. Mr. Stott, the secretary of the Australian Wheat-growers Federation, also attended. In addition, Mr. Cullen, of the Victorian Wheat and Wool Growers Association; Mr. Field, of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales; Mr. Diver, of the Primary Producers Association of Western Australia; and Mr. Clarke, of South Australia, were present, as the four wheat-growers’ representatives on the Australian Wheat. Board. Honorable members who are familiar with the wheat industry will realize that these men were competent representatives of the growers.

The meeting discussed the method of payment, in the event of a large crop, and the following resolution was carried unanimously : -

That when the marketable crop exceeds the quantity on which the guaranteed price is payable and the realizations from the sale of that crop do not return to growers a guaranteed price of 3s.10d. per bushel f.o.b. ports, bagged basis, payment of 3s.10d. per bushel on the guaranteed quantity be averaged for the whole marketable crop for the year.

This resolution was passed on the first day, and was confirmed on the second day unanimously.

This rather contradicts some of the statements which honorable members have made to-day, and will be most difficult to answer. The representatives of the wheat-growers assembled at this conference. Presumably they were authorities upon the wheat industry, and represented various wheat-growers’ organizations.

Mr Prowse:

– I still think that another interpretation may be placed upon the resolution.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The resolution appears in black and white, for every honorable member to read.

Mr Prowse:

– The Treasurer will admit that the Government guaranteed a payment for 140,000,000 bushels, and that there was a surplus of 13,000,000 bushels. Could not the meeting, in agreeing to the resolution, have meant that when the 13,000,000 bushels was disposed of, the amount realized, in addition to the subsidy, would be paid to the growers ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– To read that into the resolution the honorable member would have to strain his imagination almost to breaking point. The statement continues -

I need only point out that this matter was fully considered by the growers’ own representatives before the size of the crop was known, and now that a crop above the average has been received the Government is putting into operation the unanimous recommendation of the wheatgrowers’ own representatives. Actually, the present position is the result of a crop which was better than usual in Western Australia and Victoria.

Some honorable members have suggested that the new arrangement was made for the benefit of wheat-growers in New South Wales.

Mr Pollard:

– But for the pressure exerted by the Labour party on the then government the scheme would not have been so good as it is.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– No doubt. The Minister’s statement continues -

As I have announced before, the result is that, while growers will get the same amount of money for the crop, the guaranteed price will be reduced from 3s.10d. per bushel to approximately 3s. 6d., but in view of the circumstances which I have explained, the Government does not have to apologize for accepting the advice of the people who are most interested in the matter.

The Government makes no apology, because, if it is not to accept the advice of the people associated with the industry, whose advice will it accept - the advice of some one who wants to make a little political capital?

Mr Marwick:

– That remark is most unfair.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– What is the truth? Do honorable members who have spoken on this matter speak on behalf of the wheat-growers’ organizations ?

Mr Marwick:

– I have been raising this matter for a month.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Yes, but the wheatgrowers of Australia are organized, and I assume that the members of the organizations are elected properly. If they are not, that is the fault of the wheat-growers. Do honorable members claim to speak on behalf of the organizations named in this statement, or are they speaking on behalf of themselves and saying what they believe to be the proper thing to do?

Mr Marwick:

– Yes.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I do not dispute the sincerity of honorable members, but have they the authority to speak on behalf of the official organizations of the wheatgrowers ?

Mr Marwick:

– No one has claimed that he does.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Well, I have made claims myself sometimes which may not have been basically correct. I am sorry that the Minister for Commerce is not here to argue this case; he could do it much better than I can hope to do. But enough has been said to indicate that he had sound reasons for regarding the resolution carried to be a unanimous authorization by the wheat-growers for him to do as he has done. I shall bring to his notice the points that have been raised in this debate. No doubt he will be anxious to read what has been said, and I am sure that he regrets his inability to be here. His statement continues -

The second matter raised by the honorable member concerns the Government’s failure to finalize payments to farmers on wheat in No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 wheat pools. Actually, of course, it is No. 2 and No. 4 wheat pools that are concerned, since No. 3 is only a low-grade wheat from No. 2 pool. It might be pointed out that pools cannot well be finalized until the wheat in them has been sold and payment received for it, and in neither No. 2 nor No. 4 pool has this been done.

The only other pool is the No. 3 pool, which consists entirely of low-grade wheat.

Mr Marwick:

– To all intents and purposes the wheat in the No. 2 pool has been disposed of, and the Government has the money.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The facts are as this statement sets them out. The statement continues -

No. 2 pool was the first war crop, and included in the sales of that wheat was a sale to a country with which we are now at war. War occurred before that country had completed payment, and as a result the Australian Wheat Board has not yet received full payment-

Honorable members may say that there are means of getting that money. The statement continues -

There is still over £300,000 owing and while it is hoped that the money will be paid before long, it cannot be stated definitely just when the money will be received. The other pool mentionedis No. 4 pool which consisted of the very light crop of 1940-41. In this case there is still wheat remaining for sale. Certainly there is not much of it left now, but honorable members will realize that if growers are to get from any wheat pool exactly what they are entitled to, then they cannot get a final payment until all sales in the pool have been completed.

I would point out, however, that it is the policy of the Government to pay advances to growers as soon as they can be justified, and honorable members may be assured that further payments will be made to the growers concerned at the earliest opportunity.

In the case of No. 4 pool this matter has already been considered, and the Government has decided the amount of the next advance. A payment of 3d. a bushel will be made on all wheat in this pool, the total amount being £800,000.

Mr McEwen:

– That was a quick decision.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It was not made within the last few days. The honorable member, as a former Minister, knows that governments sometimes make decisions, but that other people have to be consulted before the decisions can be announced. As the Commonwealth Bank is concerned in the making of payments of this kind, the decision of the Government could not be announced until the banking authorities had been consulted. I am glad that the announcement can be now made. The Government was not forced into making this announcement merely because the adjournment of the House was to be moved to discuss the wheat situation. The Minister’s statement continues -

This will bring the amount paid to 3s. 10d. a bushel less freight for bagged wheat. There will be a final payment for this pool to be made later.

I fully appreciate the feelings of wheat-growers when they find that it takes a long while before they receive the final payment for wheat which they have delivered to the Commonwealth, but this delay is inevitable. Growers realize the diffi culty of selling wheat abroad at the present time, and I think that they realize also that the present system of selling Australia’s wheat is the only satisfactory one under war conditions. With present markets it takes a long while to sell a wheat crop, and at the end of the present year we shall have most of the 1941-42 crop still on hand. I can only assure honorable members that it will be sold asquickly as possible, that it will be sold on the best terms possible, and that wheat-growers will receive the full market realizations.

Thehonorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) referred, I think, to the possibility of there being a shortage of wheat. I say this for myself, not on behalf of the Minister, that in one State there is sufficient wheat on hand to last that State for twenty years.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– I spoke about the possibility of there being a shortage of primary products generally; I did not specify wheat.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Yes ; but the honorable gentleman linked his remarks with a discussion about wheat. I attended one of the wheat conferences, and the picture I saw was that, even if we did not grow any more wheat this year, and if there were no losses of wheat stored, we should have sufficient wheat in stock to last us, on a normal consumption, for three and a half years. I realize, of course, that stored wheat does deteriorate in some parts of the country. In Western Australia, for example, deterioration took place before the grain was taken off the fields. The wheat problem is a hardy perennial in this Parliament. About ten years ago the chances were that whenever one entered this chamber one would hear talk about wheat guarantees and the like. The problems of the wheat-farmers crop up every year in this Parliament. The proper control of the industry has never been the subject of a fullyconsidered plan.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr BADMAN:
Grey

.- I regret that the time allotted for the consideration of the motion before the House is so short as to prevent a lengthy discussion of this important subject. I support the arguments of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick), and I am surprised to notice that those honorable members on the Government side of the House who represent large numbers of wheat-growers have not done likewise. I refer to the honorable members for Calare (Mr. Breen), Riverina (Mr. Langtry) and Darling (Mr. Clark). I cannot understand how they will attempt to justify their present attitude when they have to face the wheat-growers. A great deal of argument has arisen from the Government’s proposal to spread the guaranteed price of £27,000,000 over the entire crop of 153,000,000 bushels instead of over the 140,000,000 bushels for which provision was made. I cannot believe that this Government, or any other government, would take charge of the entire crop without compensating the growers in some way for the additional 13,000,000 bushels that has been produced. Surely the Treasurer will agree that, after the farmers have received the guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel f.o.b. ports in bags for the 140,000,000 bushels, they should receive some payments for the excess. The wheat industry has been made a political football on more than one occasion, but I urge this Government to put aside all political considerations and make a fair payment to the growers for the excess of 13,000,000 bushels, because they have been penalized already by the low prices that are operating to-day. I repeat that I am surprised at the attitude of those honorable members on the Government side of the chamber who represent wheat-growers; I am certain that in future the growers will not trust them as they have done in the past.

Motion (by Mr. Archie Cameron) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon.W. M. Nairn.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 29

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order No. 257b.

page 2066

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING BILL 1942

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Minister for Supply and Development in a bill foran act relating to broadcasting.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Barker · ALP

– Once again, a Minister has presented a message from the GovernorGeneral recommending that an appropriation of revenue be made to cover amendments he intends to move, although the bill has not yet been considered by the committee. One of the time-honoured customs in democratic parliaments is that the Crown must show cause for the voting of money. If honorable members will take the trouble to read the history relating to this matter they will discover that centuries ago a gentleman of my own nationality lost his head over this issue. The Crown cannot call upon the Lower House to vote sums of money without indicating the reasons for which the money is needed. In view of a certain ruling given from the Chair a few days ago, it is vitally important that this principle shall be observed in this Parliament and that the present loose procedure shall be discontinued. If we are not to observe normal procedure in the matter, honorable members should be permitted to move even amendments which may have the effect of increasing the appropriation. My view is that the Standing Orders already give them that right. It is high time that some members of the Opposition at any rate moved in this connexion. I should not like to commit the present Opposition to anything unless it be destruction, but for my own part I shall utter a protest every time a. Minister of the Crown presents a message from the Governor-General asking that appropriations of revenue be made unless, at the same time, the nature of the amendments is explained and the amount of the proposed appropriation indicated. It is unbecoming for members of the Government to present messages in this way without indicating the nature of the amendments proposed to be moved, particularly when a bill has not been considered by the committee. I shall make a protest every time this procedure is adopted. Ministers should disclose the nature of the amendments they intend to move.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report - by leave - adopted.

Tn committee: Consideration resumed from the 2nd June (vide page 1884).

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

This, act is divided into parts, as follows: -

Part III. - The Commercial Broadcasting

Service -

Division 2. - Limitation on ownership or control of broadcasting stations owned or controlled1 by one- person.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move.

That the words “ broadcasting stations owned or controlled by one person “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ commercial broadcasting stations “.

The purpose of this amendment is to bring the verbiage into conformity with words which appear later in the bill relating to Part III.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 -

In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Commercial broadcasting station “ meant a broadcasting station in respect of which a licence has been granted by the Minister;

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the words “ in respect of which a licence has been granted by the Minister” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ other than a national broadcasting station “.

This amendment has been drafted to make a more effective distinction between commercial and national broadcasting stations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause further verbally amended.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– This definitions clause is seriously incomplete because it does not contain a definition of “ General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission “. The general manager of the commission, who must be appointed by the Executive Council, will have to discharge important functions in relation to broadcasting, and I consider that his status should be defined in the definitions clause.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minis.ister for ‘Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– The status and responsibilities of the general manager of the commission are dealt with in a later clause of the bill and may be more appropriately discussed when it is before the committee.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 - (1.) The remuneration of the Commissioners shall be at the rate of -

  1. in the case of the Chairman - One thousand two hundred and fifty pounds per annum;
  2. in the ease of the Vice-Chairman - Five hundred pounds per annum; and
  3. in the case of each other Commissioner - Three hundred pounds per annum. (2.) The Commissioners shall receive such travelling and other allowances as the GovernorGeneral determines.
Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- I consider that the amount proposed to be provided for the remuneration of the commissioners is to be distributed inequitably. Five commissioners are to be appointed. It is proposed that the chairman shall be paid at the rate of £1,250 a year.

Mr Francis:

– And he will be underpaid.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– The ViceChairman is to be paid at the rate of £500 a year, and each of the other commissioners at the rate of £300 a year. The Joint Committee on Broadcasting recommended that all these commissioners, including the chairman, should do work of exactly the same description. I cannot understand why the chairman should receive more remuneration than the other members of the commission, seeing that none of them is supposed to be on more than part-time duty. Therefore I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), the words “ One thousand two “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “six” and in paragraph (c) the word “ three “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

The effect of this amendment would be to give the chairman £650 a year, and the other members of the commission £500 a year. This would not require an increased appropriation; it is merely a splitting up of the same amount of money in different proportions. At present, it is proposed that three commissioners shall receive only £6 a week each, and it is impossible to live in Canberra on £6 a week.

Mr Francis:

– The members of the commission will not reside in Canberra.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– The bill provides that Canberra is to be the administrative centre for the commissioner’s operations.

Mr Francis:

– Yes, but the commission will meet here only once a month.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– The three commissioners who receive only £300 a year will feel that they are the “bob-tail” of the show, while the chairman, who receives £1,250 a year, will want to dominate it. However, it is provided that decisions shall be reached by a majority vote, so that the three members on £300 a year each will be able to outvote the chairman and deputychairman, who are to receive higher allowances. Therefore, I propose to place them more nearly on a level, so that all members of the commission will feel that they are part of the team.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I oppose the amendment. The Government has included in the bill the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting, based upon a recognition of the work which the members of the commission will be called upon to do. It is not suggested that £300 a year would be adequate remuneration if the commissioners were required to give all their time to the work, and neither is it suggested that they should be required to live in Canberra. The money is not to be regarded as a salary; it is only an allowance, which will do little more than cover out-of-pocket expenses. One member of the present commission resides in “Western Australia, and though he is paid travelling expenses, they are barely sufficient to recoup him for his outlay. The committee took the view that the chairman of the commission has a great deal more work to do than have the other members.

Mr Sheehan:

– What does the general manager do?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– He is responsible for general administration, but he does not control policy. That is the responsibility of the commission. Whilst it is provided that the general manager shall attend meetings of the commission, he is in an altogether different position from the chairman. Even £1,250 a year would not be sufficient remuneration for the chairman if he were required to devote all his time to the work. The committee was of opinion that the chairman has done an excellent job, and if he be re-appointed to the position he will be able to carry that work to a satisfactory conclusion. In the circumstances I am convinced that an allowance of £1,250 a year is little enough.

Mr Jolly:

– How do the present allowances compare with those previously paid?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The previous allowances were £500 a year for the chairman, £400 for the deputy chairman, and £300 a year for the other members.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– Whilst I do not go so far as the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) in this matter, I too am at a loss to understand the reason for the increased salaries. It does not seem to me that the position of chairman of the commission calls for a man of outstanding ability. We are making altogether too much of the control of broadcasting. In the United States of America, where broadcasting is a much bigger matter than it is in thi3 country, they are not humbugged with a commission at all. I believe that we would be better off here if we had no commission. We have a wonderful asset in radio; it has enormous possibilities, but we hamstring our efforts at development by appointing a commission to control it. It looks as if we shall have a commission to control the manufacture of sausages before long. I am not one of those who think that national utilities need necessarily be controlled by governments. For instance, our railways are owned by the State, and controlled by railway commissioners, but I believe that private enterprise would have done a far better job. We pride ourselves on our postal department, but it is nothing wonderful to those who have travelled in other countries and seen how things are done there. Our postal service is not to be compared with that in many other countries, even some of the minor countries of Europe. I know that that is not the genera] opinion, but it is true, nevertheless. When I was a member of a previous government, I constantly opposed proposals for the enlargement of the broadcasting commission. I regard the commission as a humbug, and a tax on the people, and I am convinced that the remunerations proposed in this bill are too great, having regard to the work which is to be done.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I agree largely with the remarks of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan). If the chairman of the commission is to be a part-time officer, the allowance proposed to be paid to him is disproportionate to that proposed for the other members. On an ordinary company directorate there is practically no difference between the payment to the chairman of directors, unless he he also managing director, and that to other members of the directorate. I see no reason for the substantial difference proposed. If it be intended that the chairman shall devote more than part of his time to the work, that will not be right. My view of the activities of the commission is that it should meet once a month in order to lay down general lines of policy, and that it should not interfere with ordinary administration. Therefore, on both grounds, the proposed allowance is too largo. I should like it to be reduced to the amount proposed by the honorable member for Cook.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I support the amendment of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan). Effect is here being given to one of the most inexplicable recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee. Whether a commission is of any advantage, is a moot point; I have often said that the arguments pro and con have practically equal weight. A commission of five members will not give a proper spread of representation, provide for sufficient variety, or represent a fair cross-section of public opinion, interest, and outlook. On the other hand, I have a prejudice against committee? and commissions, and rather favour one individual being made responsible for the carrying out of any given task. Committees and commissions are always responsible for division of responsibility, and they produce opportunities, which are usually availed of, for engagement in the fine Australian pastime known as “ passing the buck “. Individual control of an institution does not enable responsibility to be shelved; the individual i3 alone responsible for the success or failure of the venture. Under the proposal in the bill, there will be too great a discrepancy between the remuneration of the chairman and that of the other three commissioners. A vice-chairman is not necessary. Whoever the chairman may be, he will merely be the chairman of a small committee that has been entrusted with the task of deciding general policy. One of the reasons for the partial failure of the existing commission is that the chairman has been too much about the institution, endeavouring to fill every office, from the highest to the lowest. This committee ought to state quite plainly that according to its conception, the chairman of the commission shall be nothing but the chairman, and that Parliament will hold the general manager responsible for the management of the institution. No man can do successfully many jobs. I hope that a vote will be taken on the amendment.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I trust that the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) will not press the amendment to a division. It must be borne in mind that for fully nine months a joint parliamentary committee, consisting of members of all parties, considered this matter carefully. Those who heard yesterday the speech of the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) will recall that he paid a glowing tribute to the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr. Cleary. If that gentleman is to receive only £1,250 per annum, he will be substantially underpaid. Nobody has played a greater part than has Mr. Cleary in the success of the broadcasting organization in Australia. The committee which investigated the matter obviously believed that he is to continue the good work he has done in the past, for which he has always been underpaid. The general manager is not responsible to Parliament, but the commission is. The present body has done a very good job, which ought to be appreciated by this Parliament. Apart from the report of the parliamentary committee, honorable members ought to know that Mr. Cleary has contributed materially to the success of the venture. The normal practice is to appoint a number of directors to control an institution. The chairman of directors receives fees that are slightly in excess of those paid to the other directors. Mr. Cleary has played a major part in connexion with organization, administration, and direction of policy. He has continually kept in touch with everything. Some officer must always be available to deal with matters that arise from the operation of the stations controlled by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the discharge of the imposing array of activities handled by the commission. Problems are always arising. The general manager needs to confer regularly with the chairman, who must be handy for the purpose. As Mr. Cleary has filled the position of chairman so ably in the past, and as the commission has functioned so successfully, the committee would be well advised if it agreed to the payment of the salary proposed. If the honorable member for Cook were to move for an increase, I should support him.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- The clause under consideration deals entirely with the remuneration of the commission, and is not concerned with the question of whether the broadcasting service shall be conducted by a commission. The committee has already approved of clause 8, which deals with the setting up of a commission of five members. It is clear that the general manager will be a servant of the commission, because the bill provides that the commission shall, in due course, appoint a general manager and fix his remuneration. The commission is to be responsible to this Parliament, but the general manager is not. I am entirely in agreement with the recommendation of the committee which investigated this matter. My experience of public companies and commercial interests has convinced me that the committee has recommended the safest and soundest procedure generally for the control of such an organization.

Mr Brennan:

– Has it been followed on this occasion?

Mr SPOONER:

– Yes. The danger which I find in some organizations that deal with public affairs is that too much control gets into the hands of the general manager, and too little control is exercised by the commission or by the Parliament. That is the reason, I take it, for the recommendation of the joint committee. The chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will receive a substantial remuneration, so that he may devote a considerable portion of his time to the control of the general manager, and the organization. That will be to the advantage of broadcasting and will protect this Parliament.

I have heard it said that this procedure is different from that adopted in commercial spheres. With that statement I disagree, because there is no general practice. Many companies follow different procedure. Some prefer to have a chairman who is a figurehead and who receives only a small remuneration; but many very successful companies have a chairman who is regularly on the job, controls policy, and sees that the decisions of the board are given effect That I conceive to be the position of the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He will convene meetings of the commission for the purpose of determining policy, but he will see that the general manager and his staff carry out that policy. If he does that, he must be regularly on the job for long periods. If he has only to attend to the affairs of the commission at irregular intervals, the control of the undertaking will get away from the policy of the commission and this Parliament.

Mr Sheehan:

– -Where does the chairman possess any measure of control when the three lower-paid commissioners may outvote him?

Mr SPOONER:

– The chairman will have no greater voting power than the other commissioners, but I imagine that, as he will be on the job for a large part of his time, they will give due weight to his opinions. It does not necessarily follow that they will adopt his recommendations every time; but if his colleagues have confidence in him and he supports his advice with reasons, they will listen to him. The fact that he does not possess a greater voting-power than the other commissioners does not fix the measure of his remuneration.

Mr Jolly:

– The Prime Minister has only one vote in this chamber.

Mr SPOONER:

– That is an excellent analogy. The chairman will be paid for the amount of time and skilled attention that he must give to the work in order to see that the policy of the commission, as determined from time to time, is given effect. I shall express no personal opinion upon the proposed remuneration of £1,250 per annum for the chairman, because the joint committee examined this matter. But with the principle underlying the proposed remuneration of the chairman, I am entirely in accord.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I agree with the observations of the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) about the urgent necessity for the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to interest himself in the multiplicity of activities that it must undertake; but I suggest to him that there is a difference between the chairman interesting himself in material factors of policy, and interesting himself in administrative matters that rightly are the responsibility of the general manager.

Mr Francis:

– How does the honorable member know that that has happened?

Mr HARRISON:

– The criticism that has been levelled in the past at the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is that he has. interested himself unduly in matters of administration. I have no doubt that, in carrying out his duties, he has been obliged to impinge upon administrative matters: but I venture to say that when the commission is functioning smoothly, the chairman will not find it so necessary to interest himself in staff matters.

Regarding the remuneration of the chairman, I hope that the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) will not call for a division upon his amendment. Obviously, the chairman of a commission entrusted with the control of a huge organization, which receives and expends large sums of money and provides a major essential service, is not excessively rewarded when he is paid £1,250 per annum. Indeed, other countries recognize that the chairman or governor of a corporation similar to the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be paid considerably more than the remuneration -which will be granted to th° chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. With regard to the margin between the chairman and other members of the commission, it is interesting to note that the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is paid 1,500 dollars a year, but the members of the corporation receive approximately 50 dollars for each meeting that they attend, with a maximum of 500 dollars. Obviously, the chairman, who has to perform so many duties that he is constantly on the job, should receive remuneration commensurate with his responsibilities.

Mr Morgan:

– Why not increase the allowances of the other commissioners?

Mr HARRISON:

– They are not required to devote such a large part of their time to matters appertaining to broadcasting. They will have occasion to attend only those meetings of the commission that deal with general matters of policy. If the policy is laid down at a meeting of the commission, it will be given, effect throughout the organization. It does not necessarily mean that the other members of the commission must be on deck for the purpose of seeing that the policy is carried out; but it is essential that some one who is a member of the commission shall supervise the putting into operation of that policy. Who could do it better than the chairman?

Mr Sheehan:

– The general manager.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member must realize that there is a difference between the general manager carrying out a policy that has been laid down, and the chairman presiding over a body that decides policy. The general manager will certainly be entrusted with the administrative work, but he has to implement the commission’s views upon policy. Only through the general manager, in combination with the chairman, can that policy be worked into the fabric of the commission. Therefore, the chairman must devote a considerable part of his time to ensuring that the policy of the commission shall be carried into effect.

Mr Morgan:

– Would not the commissioners have to devote more of their time to the job, if meetings were held in Canberra?

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member attends meetings of this House, but he is not domiciled in the Australian Capital Territory, and he is not here every day. It does not necessarily follow that every commissioner will attend every meeting. In view of the greater responsibilities that the chairman must carry I consider that the margin between his allowance and that provided for the other commissioners is not excessive. Until a chairman is appointed who is prepared to devote the whole of his time to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, our national broadcasting system will not be so high as that of other countries. I oppose the amendment.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.-I rise to oppose the amendment. In the fixation of the remuneration to be paid to members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Joint Committee on Broadcasting took into consideration the volume of work that will devolve upon the chairman. The committee realized that the chairman will be the person to whom this Parliament will look regarding the functioning of the commission, and he will be called upon to carry out the policy upon which the commissioners decide. Australia is a continent of vast distances, and the chairman will be obliged to travel extensively in order to ensure that the policy of the commission is being given effect. In addition, he will be compelled to devote practically the whole of his time to his duties. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) referred to the disparity between the remuneration of an ordinary commissioner and that of the chairman; but I direct his attention to the fact that whereas an ordinary governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation receives £1,000 per annum, the chairman is paid £3,000 a year. In recommending a salary of £1,250 for the chairman the joint committee took into consideration salaries paid to the occupants of similar positions in other parts of the world and the responsibilities and work that the chairman is required to undertake. It discovered that the present chairman of the commission has a thorough grasp of the workings of the commission. Notwithstanding that since this legislation has been mooted his appointment was likely to be ended at any time - sometimes the commission’s term was extended for as short a period as one month - he devoted a considerable part of his time to his duties as chairman. The knowledge I gained as a member of the joint committee convinces me that a salary of £1,250 is commensurate with the work and responsibilities attaching to the chairmanship of the commission.

Mr Morgan:

– Did the committee make any recommendation on this matter?

Mr RIORDAN:

– Yes, on page 11 of the report it recommended that the salary of the chairman be £1,250 per annum.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– The second-reading debate disclosed that honorable members unanimously accepted the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting. It cannot be denied that the members of the committee have a greater knowledge of the work of the commission, and particularly of the chairman, than could be had by honorable members generally. I suspect that a personal element has intruded into this discussion and that the individual and not the position is the matter at issue. At this stage honorable members are not entitled to do other than look at this question broadly. Parliament is being asked to appoint a commission of which one member shall be a woman. It is then asked to decide the remuneration of the chairman and members of the commission. We are dealing with offices, not with individuals.

Mr Holt:

– The commission has not yet been appointed.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is so. The question is whether the chairman ought to be paid the salary recommended by the joint committee. Members of this committee know that the chairman of parliamentary committees, of which there have been many, are paid more than the other members.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– But not four times as much.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The remuneration of the chairman of any body is governed by his duties. I hope that Parliament does not wanta nominal chairman of the commission. It would be better to pay a reasonable salary and have the full services of the chairman than pay half a salary for a chairman who would give to other sources of income time that ought to be devoted to the affairs of the commission. I remind honorable members that this legislation is much more comprehensive than was the original Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. It embraces, not only the national broadcasting stations, but also the commercial stations, and, whilst the commission will not exercise direct control over the commercial stations, it will be a factor in the administration of broadcasting generally throughout Australia, and the chairman will, I hope, give all his energies and capacity to making the broadcasting system national in character. That is an aspect of this matter which I impress on the mind of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) who, as a member of the Labour party, must be interested in the establishment of a national broadcasting service controlled by the Government. If so, he should agree that the Parliament must pay to the chairman of the commission such remuneration as will enable him to devote his services entirely to the service of the country. The eventual establishment of the commission’s head-quarters in Canberra does not affect the issue now before the committee. When the head office is established in Canberra, the commission will meet here, say, every month, but the duties of the chairman will not end at the conclusion of those meetings. The chairman will have to prepare the business for the commission to attend to, and, after decisions have been made, it will be his responsibility to ensure that they shall be carried into effect. He will have to follow the decisions right through.I draw an analogy between the chairman of the commission and myself as chairman of the Australian Food. Council. That council met at Canberra to-day. Certain decisions were reached. The. council ha? dispersed, and I have to see that the decisions shall be carried into effect. The real work of the council will start tomorrow and I shall have to do it.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– If the honorable member draws that analogy all the decisions of the Australian Broadcasting

Commission should be carried out by the Postmaster-General.

Mr Scullin:

– The analogy is between the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Exactly. It would not be possible for Ministers to do all the actual work. That is why we have a public service. Ministers, however, must supervise what is done, and ensure that decisions are put into effect. If they did not do so, they would be asked why in this chamber, particularly by the honorable member for Barker. Cabinet, which Isas faith in the members of the joint committee and confidence in their work, believes that the committee’s recommendation as to the salaries of the chairman and members of the commission should be accepted. A standing committee will be appointed to watch generally the broadcasting system. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The explanation of the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) does not square with time, space, cash, or common sense. A commission is to be appointed and every member of it will have certain responsibilities to carry out. For the life of me, I cannot accept the contention that the chairman, no matter who he may be, will have duties so onerous that they will be, on a cash basis, four times as great and four times as valuable to this Parliament as those of the ordinary members. That argument does not make common sense. I shall not criticize the report of the joint committee. I did not speak on the second reading. I do not think it is of much value in this place at present to speak on the second reading of any bill. But if this discrepancy be allowed to exist we shall establish a precedent for which Parliament will probably be sorry before very long. The Minister referred to other commissions which have been appointed by Parliament. In my experience, thedifference between the remuneration of a private member of such a body and that of the chairman has usually been 25 per cent. In this case, it is to be over 400 per cent. The Minister will have some difficulty in explaining that. It must be recognized that the chairman of the commission does not work in such close contact with the PostmasterGeneral as the chairman of the Food Council does with the Minister for Supply and Development, who has to carry out important obligations in the provision of food in this country. The Food Council is a new institution, and it might well have been established a couple of years ago. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, however, has been in existence for many years, and its reports have been discussed in this Parliament from time to time. In my view, it is one of the most extravagant institutions in Australia, and shows much less consideration for the taxpayers than many other public bodies. As a Minister in other governments, I had experience of such governmental bodies, both in peace-time and in war-time, and I say without hesitation that I know of no other organization that has spent money as lavishly as the Australian Broadcasting Commission has done. I am not an admirer of the present commission. It is an incompetent body, and, therefore, I am not willing to see salaries of the magnitude proposed paid for the kind of work which has been done by the commission in the past. We should set out very clearly the duties required of the commissioners, the chairman, and the deputy chairman. The Minister cannot argue reasonably that the duties which devolve upon the chairman in arranging meetings and business programmes, and in carrying out decisions, when he has a competent general manager and a large staff to assist him, are such as to warrant the payment of a fee four times as great as that of a private member of the commission. The Government’s case is untenable. This clause is based on one of those bad recommendations in the parliamentary committee’s report which must have been agreed to on a warm afternoon. I leave the matter at that, but it will not rest for all time. We shall have an opportunity to deal with it again.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- We should adopt the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting. It has’ had opportunities which have not been available to other honorable- members to investigate the work of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to estimate the ability of the present chairman. In its wisdom, it has fixed the fees proposed in this clause as fair remuneration for his services and those of his fellow commissioners. I realize that there is a great disparity between the rates proposed for the chairman, the vicechairman, and the other members of the commission, as the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) has said, and, had he moved to increase the fees payable to the ordinary members of the commission, I should have supported such an amendment. I belong to a building-up movement, not to a breaking-down movement, and I believe that the labourer is worthy of his hire. The present chairman of the commission has held high positions with private concerns and was the Chief Railway Commissioner for New South Wales for some time. In those positions he received much higher salaries than that which is now proposed for the chairman. I believe that, as Chief Railway Commissioner, he was receiving £5,000 or £7,000 annually. If lie is good enough to hold high positions in other concerns, he is good enough to serve the Commonwealth as chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and he will not be over-remunerated, because the commission is a very hig organization and handles hundreds of thousands of pounds annually.

Silting suspended from 6.15 to S -p.m.

Mr MORGAN:

– The general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will probably be paid £3,000 or £4,000 a year. The remuneration of the chairman should bear some reasonable relation to the salary of the officers of the administration. The joint parliamentary committee paid a tribute to the services rendered by the chairman and the other commissioners. Apparently, a gratuity is not payable to the commissioners upon their retirement. The committee mentioned a striking example of ingratitude and discourtesy, in that certain commissioners who had given much valuable service first heard over the air that the Government had terminated their appointments. The pro posed remuneration of the chairman and the other commissioners would not be an over-payment. I see no reason why the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) ought not to consider the desirability of increasing to £500 the remuneration of the commissioners other than the chairman and the vice-chairman. There could be no objection to that, Apparently, an additional appropriation would not be needed, because payment would be made out of the general funds of the commission. The remuneration of the chairman, in particular, should be such as will enable him to take a continuous interest in the affairs of the commission, and not be obliged to rely on the advice and information tendered to him by officers of the administration. I have seen too many undertakings “go on the rocks “ because “ guinea-pig ‘’ directors were content merely to draw fees and attend meetings every month, accepting what was placed before them by the officials. Maladministration or defalcation has often remained undiscovered until too late to be remedied, because the directors showed a pathetic reliance on the officers and took everything for granted. I cannot support the amendment. If the honorable member for Cook will alter it by proposing that the increase to £500 which I have mentioned shall be made, I shall have much pleasure in. voting with him.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- One would not expect such an amendment as that now before the committee to be moved by a Labour member. The principles of unionism insist that the remuneration of labour shall be raised to the highest possible level. In view of the character of those who are supporting the honorable member for Cook, particularly the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), I wonder that he persists with his proposal. The honorable member for Barker would reduce every one to the “sack cloth and handful of rice” standard of living. The, present chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission relinquished a very high salary as the Chief Railway Commissioner of New South Wales in order to take charge of the national broadcasting system at an early stage of its development. He has devoted a lot of time to the task, and has raised the broadcasting service to a far higher standard than it formerly occupied. His responsibility is such that he is worth at least the allowance of a member of this House. Endorsing the sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan), I would support an amendment to raise to £500 the remuneration of each commissioner other than the chairman and the vicechairman, if that were in order. But I cannot assist reduction, because I should be acting contrary to the ideals of unionism. At one time, the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) wa3 a locomotive engine driver. His fireman received a lower salary than he was paid, although performing more arduous duties. The honorable member would not favour the reduction of the salary of the engine driver in order that the salary of the fireman might be raised. The chairman of a committee or commission has greater responsibility, and has to devote more time to the work, than an ordinary member. The chairman of this commission has practically a full-time job, but the other commissioners have -not; they merely attend meetings, whilst he is a supervisor, organizer and general rouseabout. If it be for the benefit of the organization, he does not begrudge any time or effort that he devotes to the work. Because of the respect in which 1. hold the honorable member for Cook, I urge him not to subject himself to the clean-up “ that he will undoubtedly receive if the amendment goes to a vote. Se will be very sorry if he finds himself sitting alongside only the honorable member for Barker.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- One of the reasons advanced for maintaining the remuneration of the chairman of the commission is that it is in recognition of the services already rendered by him. I take this opportunity to say that my earlier remarks were not dictated by personal considerations; but the personal issue having been raised, I associate myself with those honorable members who have said that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, particularly its chairman, has rendered outstanding service during its term of office.

It was not for that reason that I proposed that there should be an alteration of the provisions of this bill. My reason rests on a different basis. The proposed remuneration will become permanent, irrespective of persons.- My reason for objecting to the clause is, that it proposes a discrepancy which I do not think is justified, between the remuneration of the chairman and that of the other members of the commission. That discrepancy might very well be obviated by raising the remuneration of the other members in order to make it more proportionate to that proposed for the chairman.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The joint parliamentary committee made what it considered a balanced recommendation in respect of the remuneration of the commissioners, and placed a much higher value on the services of the chairman, for the obvious reason that he has to discharge many duties which other commissioners have not to discharge. He has to be in close touch with Ministers, and in almost constant consultation with the general manager of the organization, and he accepts responsibility for every action taken by the commission or any of its officers. The proposed remuneration is an increase upon the present payment; in the opinion of some honorable members, the increase is too great. The responsibilities of the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are also increasing with the passage of time. Although comparisons are odious, if we care to make them we shall find that the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, when in receipt of the proposed remuneration, will not be overpaid in comparison with the holders of similar offices in other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The chairman of the board of governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation receives £3,000 a year, and all the other governors receive £1,000 a year.

Mr Jolly:

– The revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation is £3,000,000 annually.

Mr CALWELL:

– It is true that, because of larger population, the revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation is far greater than that of the Australian

Broadcasting Commission. But I point out to the honorable member for Lilley that Australia has a much larger area than England, and has far greater difficulties to face. After all, we have a population of 7,000,000, which holds 3,000,000 square miles of territory. Generally, the problems which confront the Australian Broadcasting Commission have no counterpart in England, which in comparison with Australia is a pocket handkerchief allotment. We should not make comparisons of revenue without taking into consideration all the geographical and other difficulties that are associated with broadcasting in Australia. I am not enamoured of the proposal of the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan), because its object is to level down, not to raise, the remuneration. It rests on the false premise that all members of the commission have equal responsibilities and equal obligations. If that were so, the original act would not have differentiated, as it did, in favour of the chairman. The joint parliamentary committee has merely continued a desirable differentiation, and has recommended an increase of the remuneration of the chairman and other commissioners because of their additional responsibilities.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– Certain officers have been mentioned by name, and it is assumed that the present commission will be re-appointed. The joint parliamentary committee considered the matter in a broader aspect. It heard in all States evidence which showed that advisory committees which had been appointed for the purpose of watching broadcasting and of giving advice to the commission, had in every instance requested that the chairman of the commission should visit their States in order that they might meet him. Visits by the whole of the commission could not be expected. The committee considered that it should be the duty of the chairman to keep in close touch with the advisory committees of the States in order to learn the nature of the public reaction to the policy that was being followed by the commission. For that reason alone the chairman of the commission is entitled to a greater recom pense - it cannot be called a salary. Payment should be in accordance with the work to be performed.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- Some honorable members seem to have misunderstood the reasons which actuated me in moving this amendment. I was impelled to do so after reading paragraph 40 of the report of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting. That paragraph is as follows : -

The commissioners should be five in number and one of them should be a woman. They should be regarded as having a joint responsibility in the control of national broadcasting and should not consider themselves as individual units for the purpose of exercising specialized supervision over the service. Their main functions should be major matters of policy and finance.

There is nothing in the report to indicate that the chairman of the commission will require to have special knowledge, or that he ought to receive special remuneration. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) accuses me of supporting a policy of pulling down, but in that he is unjust to me. When I was fighting the claims of the firemen, cleaners and engine-drivers before the Arbitration Court, I always tried to have the amount of money available for wages spread as evenly as possible among the members of the three groups. I am now seeking to apply the same principle in the amendment which I have moved. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure will not allow me to move that the salaries of all the members of the commission be £1,250 a year. Therefore, I have done the best I could, and moved that the salary of the chairman be reduced, and that of the other commissioners increased. The chairman and the deputy chairman may be geniuses, but they will be unable to carry a single point of their policy against the combined votes of the three other members. I do not desire to cast any reflections on the present chairman of the commission, who, it is rumoured, may be reappointed. I have it on the authority of no less a man than the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) that he is a first-class man for the job, and that is good enough for me. I have nothing against him, but I say that we should give him a team that will be prepared to work in co-operation with him. This is what sometimes happens in other organizations, though I do not say that it would happen in a government body: The lower paid members are “got at” by outside interests anxious to ensure that the organization shall fail to function properly. However, if all the members of the commission are given reasonable remuneration, they will be less inclined to lend themselves to subversive action of that kind.

Mr Harrison:

– In other words, the honorable member is suggesting that they will vote with the chairman if they are given enough money.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– The honorable member has misunderstood me. The point I am trying to make is that, if the lower paid members of the commission be given no inducement to take a real interest in their work, they may be more open to outside influences.

Mr Spender:

– Is the chairman expected to bear any responsibility over and above that which is to rest upon the other members of the commission?

Mr SHEEHAN:

– No. He will have no additional responsibility whatever. It cannot be said that I am seeking to pull any one down because, at the present time, the chairman receives only £500 a year. I am proposing to give him a rise of £150, and the other members a rise of £200. My motive is to ensure better co-operation among the members of the commission.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I am content to leave the remuneration of the chairman and the other commissioners as fixed in the bill, but I am quite at a loss to understand the principle upon which the committee based its recommendation in this respect. I certainly do not desire to reduce any of the proposed salaries, but I share the wonderment of the mover of the amendment as to the reason for the very sharp distinction between the rewards of the chairman and those of the other members of the commission. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) said that the salary of the chairman should be proportionately higher - disproportionately higher, it seems to me - because of his additional responsibility, but there is nothing in the bill to indicate that he will have any additional responsibility to carry. There is nothing to indicate that the functions of one commissioner are to be in any way different from those of another, nor is such a distinction indicated in the report of the joint committee. We may assume that the chairman will occupy a kind of presidential position at meetings of the commission. That is not to say that his duties in this respect will be any more serious than those of the Chief Justice presiding over the High Court bench, where all justices receive high remuneration, and the Chief Justice somewhat more than that of the others, but not disproportionately more, as is proposed here. I cannot help thinking, with the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan), that the general effect of this provision will be that junior commissioners will be encouraged not -to take their responsibilities seriously. They will be encouraged to feel that, as their remuneration is less than one-quarter that of the chairman, they are expected to expend only one-quarter of the energy devoted by the chairman to the job. I should like all the commissioners to feel that they are equally responsible.

Mr Paterson:

– How often is the commission expected to meet?

Mr BRENNAN:

– I do not think that we have any information on the point.

Sir Charles Marr:

– It is stated in the report.

Mr BRENNAN:

– The report does not bind this committee.

Mr Sheehan:

– The number of meetings is not specified.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I have not seen in the bill anything to indicate the days of meeting, or the number of meetings which shall be held. I should like to know upon what basis the remuneration of the commissioners has been apportioned. Are the junior commissioners to regard themselves as quarter-time commissioners, or as persons sharing full responsibility with the chairman, who will receive a slightly greater remuneration because he is expected to preside over meetings, and, on certain occasions, to be the spokesman of the commission. I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment of the honorable member for Cook, but I do not profess to have a sufficiently intimate knowledge of the matter to propose an alteration of what is provided in the bill. However, I am inclined to make some complaint, because the Government has not established to my satisfaction that there exists a sound reason for the sharp differentiation it has made in the emoluments of members of the commission.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 - (1.) The commission shall appoint a general manager and such other officers and such servants as it thinks necessary. (2.) A person shall not be admitted to the service of the commission unless -

  1. lie is a natural-born or naturalized British subject;
Mr BECK:
Denison

.- Subclause 6 provides that -

Officers and servants appointed by the commission shall not be subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1941, but shall be subject to such conditions (including tenure of office) as arc prescribed.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission employs more than 100 temporary announcers who, hitherto, have not been entitled to annual increments of salary and other advantages enjoyed by the permanent employees. Subclause 8 provides -

The general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission constituted under the Australian Broadcasting Act 1932-1940 and all other officers and servants of that commission holding office, or employed, in the service of that commission immediately prior to the commencement of this act, shall be deemed to have been appointed by the commission under this section as general manager, officers and servants, respectively.

I should like the Minister to inform me whether temporary announcers, some of whom have been ‘ employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for more than two years, will, under subclause 8, automatically become members of the permanent staff.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.-When speaking on the second reading, I indicated that in committee I would move an amendment to sub-clause 2 for the purpose of giving to the Australian

Broadcasting Commission greater discretion to appoint persons to the staff. 1 now move -

That the following words be inserted in subclause (2.) before the letter “ A “ : - “ Except as may be prescribed “.

After the war, Australia should be anxious to attract talented persons from other parts of the world, particularly allied countries, but the sub-clause in its present form will not empower the Australian Broadcasting Commission to offer them permanent employment. In the past, Australia has regrettably adopted a narrow outlook towards immigration. The “United States of America owes its greatness to the fact that it successfully attracted the best brains from other countries until eventually ‘.t was obliged to adopt a quota system for the purpose of restricting immigration. The adoption of my amendment would enable regulations to be issued from time to time in order to empower the commission to employ on its permanent staff talented persons who cannot comply with the existing provisions of the sub-clause.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The proposal of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) is worthy of consideration. Persons who are eligible to become officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are limited to naturalborn or naturalized British subjects. That provision is probably in line with the general provisions relating to appointments to the Commonwealth Public Service. Perhaps the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Beasley) will enlighten the committee upon that point. In any event, it is an unnecessary limitation of the right of the commission to secure the best talent that may be available to it. I cite, perhaps, a hypothetical case, but one quite within the bounds of possibility in view of existing conditions. At present in Australia are many thousands of American troops. It is quite possible, and we hope that it will eventuate, that some of them will remain here after the war and become good citizens of the Commonwealth. Our naturalization laws provide that a person shall not become a naturalized Australian until he has resided in the country for at least five years. Among those who choose to remain here, whether they be American* or other aliens, there may be men whose services would be of great value to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Some discretionary power should be provided to enable the commission to engage them. I am prepared to support a proposal to enable the Minister to authorize the engagement of persons who cannot otherwise comply with the requirements of this sub-clause.

Mr Beasley:

– Is the honorable member mindful of the importance of broadcasting, and the necessity for being certain of the bona fides of those who are allowed to enter this sphere?

Mr HOLT:

– The Minister rightly stresses the importance of broadcasting as a national instrument of policy and propaganda. For that reason, I should be satisfied if the Minister supervised the engagement of persons of the class to which we are now referring. It is quite usual to place a residuum of power or discretion in the hands of a Minister. For example, the Minister for the Interior exercises wide discretion in dealing with some matters. In my opinion, this sub-clause will tie unnecessarily the hands of the commission if it ever wishes to engage a useful officer who cannot comply with the proposed conditions. I shall support a proposal that, subject to the approval of the Minister, the commission may, in an appropriate case, employ an alien who does not comply with the requirements of this sub-clause, but of whose bona fides the commission is completely satisfied.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– In my opinion, the committee should agree to the clause in its present form. The Joint Committee on Broadcasting, in making its recommendation regarding the employment of persons by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, took into consideration the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. That act provides that “ no person shall be admitted to the Public Service unless he is a natural-born or naturalized subject of His Majesty “. Therefore, I consider that persons in the permanent employ of the commission, should also be natural-born or naturalized British subjects. The -idea that large numbers of immigrants will come to Australia after the war in search of employment and that the country will suffer if some genius be not appointed to the service of the commission, is an interesting subject for discussion on a hypothetical basis; but the actual fact is that there are many good Australians who could fill any position on the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If aliens ‘.wish to become good Australians by adoption, they can qualify under the naturalization laws-

Mr Blackburn:

– After five years’ residence in Australia.

Mr CALWELL:

– That is true. In my opinion, that period is not too long before an alien may become eligible for appointment to a governmental instrumentality such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. There are good reasons for exercising greater vigilance in’ a service of this kind than there is in appointing staff to, say, the Department of the Interior. I prefer to be too strict rather than too lax in this matter.

Mr Beasley:

– We cannot be too careful in making appointments to the national broadcasting service.

Mr CALWELL:

– That is my view, too. The bill has been correctly drafted in order to give expression to a belief that it is desirable, in peace-time as well as in war, to prevent the employment of an unnaturalized person in such a governmental undertaking as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. So much fifth column activity has been revealed in various countries since the outbreak of war that we are entitled to be more vigilant than we have been in the past in restricting the appointment of officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Even some naturalborn Australians have been placed in internment camps.

Mr CALWELL:

– And, conversely, some naturalized Australians are faithful supporters of the Allied cause. On the balance, the weight of argument is in favour of the clause in its present form.

Mr Holt:

– The honorable member is opposed to vesting this authority in the Minister ?

Mr CALWELL:

– The Minister should not be saddled with the responsibility of making a decision of this kind. It might place him in a most unfair position if he were to appoint, after the war, to a position in the Australian Broadcasting Commission, a Polish, Dutch, Belgian or other allied subject, when suitable Australians were among the applicants. If the Minister were forced to make such a decision, and relying on his own judgment, it could be a great disadvantage to himself, and he might also render a great disservice to the political party of which he is a member. The corresponding provision in the Public Service Act is almost identical with subclause 2 a.

Mr Holt:

– The Public Service is a different kind of organization.

Mr CALWELL:

– We should be even more careful in dealing with the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission than we are in the matter of entry to the Commonwealth Public Service.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– This war ought to have taught us to protect channels of propaganda or publicity against their use by the enemy or by subversive agents. When Germany annexed Austria one of its first actions was to take oyer the Austrian broadcasting system, and to fill the air with its propaganda. I should like to know from the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) precisely what is meant by the phrase “ shall not be admitted to the service”. Does that embrace both permanent and temporary employment?

Mr Morgan:

– It means both.

Mr HARRISON:

– I do not think so. I think that, as in the Commonwealth Public Service, persons other than those set out in this clause may be employed temporarily, as artists, for instance. This clause deals only with the administrative staff, and if we keep the administration clean and essentially British we shall ensure that a British policy shall be applied.

Mr Holt:

– Where does this clause specify that it applies only to the administrative staff?

Mr HARRISON:

– The words “ admitted to the service “ are used. Artists are not admitted to the service. They are employed under contract or agreement, and at the termination of that contract or agreement, their services are dispensed with.

Mr Holt:

– What about programme directors and announcers?

Mr HARRISON:

– They are members of the administrative staff, and would have to be British either by birth orby naturalization.

Mr Holt:

– What about teachers of languages ?

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The same thing applies. One does not have to be a foreigner to be able to teach a foreign language. The British atmosphere must be preserved at all costs. I should hate to think that the conditions which apply in European broadcasting systems could ever be introduced in Australia. I am sure that on reflection the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) will not press his amendment.

Mr Morgan:

– According to the honorable member, citizens of the United States of America are good enough to fight for us, but not good enough to be employed in our broadcasting service.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member cannot side-track me. Other people besides citizens of the United States of America speak the English language. History is full of instances of the friends of to-day becoming the enemies of to-morrow. We can take no chances with such an important national medium as the broadcasting service. The clause should not be amended.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- This clause should stand for the simple reason pointed out by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), namely, that it is on all-fours with the provisions of the Public Service Act. The employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are in practically the same category as are employees of the Repatriation Commission. I direct the attention of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) to paragraph 134 on page 25 of the joint committee’s report. It reads -

When the commission commenced its operations in 1932, it was rightly given a free hand with certain reservations in connexion with the appointment of its staff, but with its organization now consolidated from ten years of experience, we consider that the time has arrived when the rights of the permanent staffs (that is, managerial, accountancy, secretarial, clerical and others whose employment is permanent, as distinct from casual performing staffs) should be protected by statutory authority. We do not suggest that they should be brought within the Public Service proper but, as broadcasting is a government activity, the conditions applicable to permanent staff should be the subject of statutory rule. Similar protection is given to the staff of other departments whose work is comparable to that of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the sense that it is permanent, as for example, theRepatriation Commission, War Service Homes Commission, &c. We recommend accordingly.

This clause is concerned primarily with the administrative staff. I think that the honorable member for Reid had other branches of the service in mind when he moved the amendment.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- My convictions have been strengthened rather than weakened by arguments in favour of the retention of the clause. The honorable member forWentworth (Mr. Harrison) said that the personnel of the commission’s staff should be kept clean, and should have the British tradition. This clause contrasts radically with the British tradition of liberalism. I am sure that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not limited in the recruitment of its talent.

Mr Harrison:

– The British Broadcasting Corporation is limited to the employment of British subjects.

Mr HOLT:

– If that be the case, how does the honorable member explain the nightly short-wave foreign language broadcasts made from the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr Harrison:

– Those broadcasts are not made by members of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr HOLT:

– But they are announcers, and I asked the honorable member whether the administrative staff included the announcers.

Mr Harrison:

– Permanent announcers, yes.

Sir Charles Marr:

– The gentlemen that the honorable member for Fawkner has in mind are commentators who are paid a fee for each broadcast.

Mr MORGAN:

– The clause covers both permanent and temporary employees.

Mr HOLT:

– I am not convinced that that is not the position. Announcers come within the superannuation and other provisions.

Mr Blackburn:

– I feel sure that they would come within this provision.

Mr HOLT:

– Whether the employment be permanent or temporary it is service, and the clause refers to service.

Mr Harrison:

– I asked the Minister for a statement on that point, but I have not yet received it.

Mr HOLT:

– Members who support the clause as it stands have said that by its means infiltration of subversive influences to the service will be preventable. It does not necessarily follow that all subversive influences are recruited from the ranks of foreigners. “Lord Haw Haw “, who achieved a great deal of notoriety, was, if I am not mistaken, a British subject.

Mr Harrison:

– The honorable member is not setting up “ Lord Haw Haw “ as an example that we should follow ?

Mr HOLT:

– No, but there should be some discretion. I am prepared to allow that discretion to be exercised by the Minister who is responsible to the Government and, through it, to the Parliament. It would be insular to include this limitation in legislation which could not be altered in any way save by. an amending bill. It is reasonable to suppose that, after this war, there will be a great influx of aliens to this country. Many aliens are already here, and for war purposes, some of them will remain. We can reasonably expect thousands of people from Europe who will gladly accept the security of the remoteness of this country from the horrors that they have experienced in Europe. It may well be that they will include people with talent and administrative ability in this new form of public entertainment and education. No limit is placed on the commercial stations. They will be able to engage their staffs from whatever ranks they choose. Subversive elements, if there are any, will be able to disseminate their propaganda through those stations. By this clause we shall limit, for all time or until the legislation is amended, our capacity to engage a suitable alien who, whatever his desire to be naturalized might be, could not be naturalized until the expiration of five years after his arrival in this country. I regret that the Government is not agreeable to the insertion of the words “ without the approval of the Minister” after the words “A person shall not”. The proposed amendment would give discretionary power to the commission, through its recommendation to the Minister, who also would have discretionary power. The amendment would effect a welcome improvement to the bill.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I oppose the amendment. This is one of the most important clauses in the bill, for it relates to the basis upon which our broadcasting organization will be developed. In my opinion, the clause is quite broad enough to embrace all the potential talent that may be required for the national broadcasting service. The clause provides that a person shall not be admitted to the service of the commission unless he is a natural-born or naturalized British subject. The honorable member forReid (Mr. Morgan) has said that, after the war, there may be an influx of foreigners. I remind him that, after the war, many Australians may be looking for jobs.

Mr Morgan:

– If so, it will not be to the credit of the Government.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It would not be to the credit of the Government if one of its organizations employed foreigners while Australians were looking for work. The clause provides that employees must pass a medical examination. They must also obtain their appointments by competitive examination, which is only fair.

Mr Blackburn:

– The commission can waive that provision. .

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– But only in a limited number of cases. I take it that the intention of the Government is that the commission shall have a certain amount of discretionary power in connexion with appointments for which a high standard of education is not required. The next provision in the clause is that successful applicants for jobs must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation in accordance with the “prescribed form”. I have not the least doubt that this will be an oath of loyalty. I can well imagine that the foreigners whom the honorable member forReid expects to come here for sanctuary after the war, and who will be looking for good jobs, will be willing to take an oath of loyalty. They would probably take any oath, with their fingers crossed. That would not be satisfactory to me. Broadcasting is one of the most important features of our daily life. The Australian Broadcasting Commission deals with the cultural and educational sides of national life,’ provides entertainment for the people, and, at times, disseminates national propaganda. All of these things should be based on sound Australian sentiment. The national broadcasting system, above all things, is the proper instrument for the cultivation of a true Australian sentiment, and I believe that we have in Australia sufficient talent for this purpose. There is nothing in the bill to prevent the commission from employing anybody to give casual broadcasts on any subject. The clause deals only with the permanent staff of the commission. I point out to those honorable members who have a taste for imported art that there are Australian artists equally as good as the imported artists who have been engaged at very high fees by the commission.

Mr Brennan:

– Is the honorable member talking about artists or the commission’s administrative staff?

Mr.ROSEVEAR. - I am pointing out, for the edification of the honorable member, that this clause does not prevent any foreigners from doing casual work for the commission.

Mr Morgan:

– It does prevent the casual employment of such persons.

Mr.ROSEVEAR.- I have listened to many imported artists. In my opinion, some of them ought to have been “ on the ether”,but many of them ought to have been “ under the ether “. For this reason, I say that Australia can produce artists capable of satisfying any of the commission’s needs. When all is said and done, an alien must reside in Australia for only five years in order to become naturalized, and so become equally eligible with Australians for appointment to these positions. I have no patience with the people who are always clamouring for something foreign from the broadcasting service. They are the sort of people who cannot enjoy a decent meal unless it is prepared by a French chef and eaten to the accompaniment of music played by a Hungarian orchestra. I maintain that, at the time when the honorable member for Reid expects an influx of foreigners looking for good jobs, there will probably be many

Australians looking for any kind of respectable work. Therefore, the clause as it stands ought to be sufficient to satisfy anybody.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I identify myself with the liberal sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) and the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan). An amendment which would meet the desires of the honorable gentlemen would be the insertion of a second proviso at the end of sub-clause 2 in these terms -

Provided further that, with the consent in writing of the Minister, the commission may appoint to any position named in such consent a person named in such consent who is not a British subject.

That would mean that the Minister would have to approve of the appointment of any person who was not a British subject. This clause has been discussed on the assumption that we should not want to appoint a foreigner, but should want to appoint a British subject, preferably an Australian, and that a foreigner would be of no use to us. There is a difference between an artist, who is a contractor, and an employee, but I can envisage cases in which the commission might desire to have the services of a foreigner as an employee in order to organize some cultural, musical or linguistic service. If the Minister approved of the employment of such a person the commission ought to be free to employ him. I have the temerity to consider that this committee is displaying a certain amount of narrowmindedness on this subject. “We are a young community, and, like the people of the United States of America, we owe a great deal to foreigners as well as to the British race. If one reads Lyng’s NonBritishers in Australia one sees what a great debt we owe to Scandinavians, Swiss, Italians, Germans and Danes. The organization on a modern basis of the British Museum was the work of an Italian exile in England, Panizzi. I do not suppose that the British Government insisted that he should remain in Great Britain for five years before it would appoint him to do that work. There is no doubt that we have distinguished musicians in this country who have been foreigners. I cannot see why the commission should not be free, subject to the approval of the Minister, to secure the services of the best men available for particular services. Probably in 99 cases out of 100 it would employ British subjects, but, if it wanted to employ a foreigner, and the Minister approved, I do not see why it should not have power to do so. I suggest that the insertion of the proviso which I have outlined would meet the wishes of both the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt).

Mr Morgan:

– It would be satisfactory to me. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment which I have moved.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

.- While the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) is being drafted I direct the attention of the committee to sub-clause 1 of this clause. There is a rather notable omission from its language. Sub-clause 1 states -

The commission shall appoint a general manager and such other officers and such servants as it thinks necessary.

In the British Broadcasting Corporation, the officer corresponding to our general manager is the director-general. The express provision made in relation to him by the British act is that he shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation. Similarly in the Canadian broadcasting act, which was passed in the same year, the provision is that the general manager of the corporation shall be its chief executive officer. In these circumstances it is important that the same status should be given to the general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Mr Holt:

– Should he not be appointed by the Government?

Mr MENZIES:

– The approval of the Government should be necessary to his appointment, but, so far as sub-clause 1 is concerned, I propose that we should insert after the words “general manager “ the words “ who shall be the chief executive officer of the commission “.

Mr Morgan:

– Is that not the case in fact now?

Mr MENZIES:

– It may be, but the act is silent on the subject, and I consider that it should not be silent. My proposal would merely clarify the position which exists, hut it should be put beyond any doubt. I consider that this is all the more necessary because clause 10 contains a provision for the payment to the chairman of the commission of a rate of emolument which is, at any rate, such as to suggest that he is to be substantially a full-time officer. “Where there is a relatively full-time chairman and a full-time manager there is always a grave danger of dual control, and that should be avoided. We should make it clear that, whilst the commission itself must have undisputed authority on matters of policy, the general manager shall be the. chief executive officer.

Mr Morgan:

– But he must still be subject to the decisions of the commission.

Mr MENZIES:

– Entirely so, but my proposal is that Parliament should make his position clear. It is for this reason that the British and Canadian acts employ language corresponding to that which I propose to insert. Accordingly, I move -

That, insub-clause (1.), after the words “ general manager “ the following words be inserted: - “who shall be the chief executive officer of the commission “.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I am glad that the point raised by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) has been clarified, but I confess to some confusion of mind still concerning the real meaning of this clause. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) spoke of the desirability of confining appointments to British people and of employing only local talent, but surely what is in mind in this clause is the ordinary public staff of the commission. [ should think that the executive officers, and ordinary office staff, are covered by this clause but not artists, lecturers, and others appointed for casual service during a limited period.

Mr Holt:

– It would cover programme directors and persons of that description.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Quite so; but it would not cover singers, instrumentalists, lecturers and so forth.

Mr Holt:

– I think not.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I should say clearly not.

Mr Holt:

– It may cover directors of theatrical performances, and certain persons who assist in the presentation of programmes on the administrative side.

Mr BRENNAN:

– The commission should be allowed a large measure of discretion in these matters, but surely, at the moment, we are dealing with work of the kind that would be performed by what might be described as the public staff of the commission.

Mr Beasley:

– That is so.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Then should not the usual conditions of our Public Service Act and regulations apply, and do they not require that only natural-born or naturalized persons shall be admitted to the Public Service ?

Mr Beasley:

– That is so.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I have no quarrel with that provision. It is a reasonable precaution to take. I have always held strongly to the view that persons who come to Australia from foreign countries and enjoy the protection of the laws of this country should be required to become naturalized citizens before being allowed to enter into business here. So long as it is understood that this clause will not affect the casual employment of artists of one kind and another for limited periods, and will ensure that the general staff of the commission shall consist of persons of British nationality, I am satisfied.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- I approve of the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Bourke, but I draw attention to another point in the clause. Sub-clause 8 reads: - (8.) The general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission constituted under the Australian Broadcasting Act 1932-1940 and all other officers and servants of that commission holding office, or employed, in the service of that commission immediately prior . to the commencement of this act, shall be deemed to have been appointed by the commission under this section as general manager, officers and servants, respectively.

I gather from the report of the joint committee that it considered that the commission was considerably over-staffed, particularly in its central office.It therefore recommended that a suitable body should be appointed to inquire into the staff position. Will the Minister inform me whether it is proposed by the Government to appoint a committee to make the suggested investigation ? Unless that be done, all the present members of the commission’s staff will become permanent employees immediately upon the passage of this bill. Another point in relation to the commission’s staff deserves some attention. I understand that the six most highly paid officers of the commission, apart from the general manager, are not the managers in the respective States although they may be persons who are quite competent to do the work that devolves upon them. There is, I believe, a federal production manager and there are superintendents or directors of one kind and another who are not doing executive work in the normal acceptation of the term. Only a fortnight ago the A.B.O. Weekly reported that a Mr. Robert McCall had been appointed acting federal superintendent for Australia. I take it that that is a rather important office, but if this clause be passed in its present form Mr. McCall will automatically become a permanent officer of the commission, and will not be subject to the provision requiring new officers to serve a probationary period.

Sir Charles Marr:

– Mr. McCall has been on the staff of the commission for a number of years. He has been in the Middle East and has recently returned. The A.B.C. Weekly announced that he had been promoted.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– As the joint committee indicated clearly that it was dissatisfied with the staff position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and recommended the appointment of a special committee to investigate the position, I hope that” the Minister will indicate clearly that such a body will be appointed.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I move -

That, at the end of sub-clause (2.), the following further proviso be added: - “Provided further that with the consent in writing of the Minister the commission may appoint to any position named in suck consent a person named in such, consent who is not a British subject.”.

Mr Holt:

– That would suit me.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I do not see this matter in the same light as does the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan). The clause does not, I think, relate solely to the office staff. There is, of course, a distinction between persons serving the commission permanently and other persons by contracting with it for varying periods as do singers, musicians, lecturers, and the like. This clause would cover permanent employees but not artists engaged under special contracts. Not only office staffs but also announcers and other persons in fulltime employment may come within the provisions of the clause. Certain persons with special organizing or artistic ability and experience may be desirable members of the staff, and I should not like to see them debarred from appointment because they were foreigners. It is desirable, in my opinion, that, with the consent of the Minister, the commission shall be permitted to appoint a person named in such consent to a position specified, even though he may not be a British subject. I have taken the opportunity to examine the provisions of the Science and Industry Research Act, under which the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was established. It provides an analogue to this commission. Section 14a of that act resembles this act, inasmuch as the employees of the council, like the employees of the commission, are not subject to the Public Service Act; but that act does not require that the persons appointed by the council shall be British subjects. I realize that it is very desirable that the council shall be able to employ the best man it can obtain, even though he may be a foreigner. I consider that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should have similar power.

Mr Holt:

– There are in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research very distinguished aliens who are helping us at this time.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– That is a different matter.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– It is not different. If the commission thought that a special service it desired to give might be best organized and directed by a foreigner, it could persuade the Minister that the foreigner whom it named should be appointed. That is all that the amendment seeks to do.

Sir CHARLES MARR (Parkes) hope that the committee will not agree to it. It proposed a departure from the procedure laid down in the Public Service Act. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has mentioned in his analogy two completely different set-ups. Scientists are not needed for appointment to accountancy and other positions in the commission. The honorable member has said that musicians of note might be brought to Australia. The commission has on its staff a director of music, a director of programmes, assistant directors of programmes, and directors of many other features. Those men are permanent officers, and they will have the organizing of the introduction of overseas artists to Australia. The amendment would make possible the adoption of back-door methods in respect of appointments to the commission, upon which subject the joint parliamentary committee had very emphatic evidence. It would make possible appointments by the Minister to the commission. The power of the commission or the commission acting in collaboration with the Minister, to appoint a friend or an alleged friend is to be withdrawn. All appointments will have to be made as the result of the prescribed entrance examination. If this legislation be kept in conformity with the Public Service Act, we shall not go far wrong. If the provision in relation to appointments in this measure is wrong, the corresponding provision in theCommon wealth Public Service is also wrong. The amendment ought to be withdrawn.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– According to my interpretation, this clause provides that persons who are to be engaged in the service of the commission shall be appointed on terms identical with those that relate to appointments to the Commonwealth Public Service. Paragraphs a, b and c of sub-clause 2 were drafted on the lines of a similar provision in the Commonwealth Public Service Act, at the express wish of the joint parliamentary committee.

Mr Holt:

– Aliens are allowed to join the Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Unnaturalized aliens?

Mr Holt:

– Yes.

Mr Harrison:

– Provided they take the oath of allegiance.

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is important that the personnel of the Army shall be above suspicion, but I regard the safeguarding of broadcasting as of more importance than anything else. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has stressed its importance in the light of history, in connexion with the circumstances that now exist in many countries. It is important that the broadcasting system shall be maintained on such a basis that persons employed in it shall be free from any shadow of suspicion of their loyalty to this country. There is a proviso at the end of sub-clause 2 which will enable the commission to make appointments, without examination, to positions requiring in the appointee the possession of special attainments. Such appointments will be restricted to those prescribed by statutory rule.

The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) referred to the recent appointment of Mr.Robert McColl. This gentleman has been on the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for many years. I am informed that he was with the mobile unit in the Middle East. Apparently, he has been given a post commensurate with his qualifications.

The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Beck) referred to temporary appointments. I am advised that the only temporary appointments in the commission to-day are those of men who are filling the places of officers who are on active service.

Mr Harrison:

– Does that apply to announcers?

Mr BEASLEY:

– I am advised that it does. I am sure that all honorable members will agree that the positions of the men who have gone on active service should be retained for them. Those who are occupying them in the meantime understand that their appointments are only temporary. Appointments made by the commission, under authority which it may exercise, may be regarded as permanent appointments; consequently, those positions will be safeguarded under this legislation. The clause should stand as drafted.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- The clause makes it clear that no person snail be admitted to the service of the commission, whether in a temporary or a permanent capacity, unless he possesses the qualifications set out. A member of the American forces, who may be an outstanding figure in the broadcasting world, may decide to remain in Australia after the war. He could not be employed in any capacity by the commission, and as he would not cool his heels in Australia until he was able to qualify for naturalization his services would be lost t;> this country. I hope that the narrow, parochial outlook of some circles in this country will not prevail after the war, but that there will be a more national outlook. Even a Britisher is referred to as “ a pommy “ unless he happens to be the Governor-General. Others, too, are referred to in terms of disparagement. To believe that there will be unemployed after the war is to have a pessimistic outlook. I hope that the party in power at that time will ensure that every person in this country shall have a job. If we are to hold Australia we must have a population of from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000. To this end, the best elements of other nations must be encouraged to come here. In New South Wales recently the Chair of Law became vacant. The Senate of the University had offered to it the services of Professor Julius Stone, who possesses outstanding qualifications in international law. It considered his qualifications and decided that he was the right man for the position, particularly at present, when Australia should adopt a more international outlook than it has had hitherto. The expressions used by some honorable gentlemen bear a close resemblance to the expressions of certain persons who are cooling their heels in internment camps, such as members of the Australia First movement.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order ! There is no reference in the bill to “Australia First”.

Mr MORGAN:

– It is considered good enough that American forces shall shed their blood on our soil; but according to some persons they will be merely “ Yanks “ after the war, and must return to their own country. Two American soldiers were married in Australia yesterday. They may decide to remain here after the war.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must address hie remarks to the clause.

Mr MORGAN:

– I hope that the committee will widen the bill sufficiently to bring within its scope such persons as may decide to reside in Australia after the war.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I should like to say a few words from the “ narrow, parochial point of view”. Anybody with a knowledge of music would be nothing but an ass did he net admit the tremendous obligation that we owe to foreign races. Germans, Austrians, Italians and Poles, as composers and executants, have been very much more talented in music than are our own people. That is not a disparagement of us ; perhaps we are not a particularly musical race. It is the judgment of the world that foreign races have led the way in music, at least in Europe. It appears to me that the point here is not whether a man is musical, but whether it is advisable at this time to place him on the executive or make him. a servant of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. There is a wide division between performance on the one hand, and becoming a permanent servant of the commission or. the other hand. In the nature of things, the Australian Broadcasting Commission would offer scope for subtle propaganda. At this time, of all times, we should noi think of appointing as a servant of the commission any person who cannot be regarded as 100 per cent. British. Therefore, I shall support the “narrow, parochial point of view”, with, at the same time, the greatest respect for what ha’ been done for music, and for the world in regard to music, by foreigners.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I take strong exception to the remarks of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan). I am going to say that when the war is over - and I should like to know the honorable member’s reactions to this - these places should bp reserved for the men who fought for Australia.

Mr Morgan:

– Yes, for Americans, as well as Australians.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It stands to the everlasting disgrace of the Sydney University Senate that, when making some appointments, it preferred men who had just arrived in the country, and who were not prepared to lift a finger in its defence, to those who were doing their duty overseas. I have heard too much calk of internationalism. One of the greatest curses left to us as a legacy from the last war was this idea of internationalism. You cannot make a kind of hotchpotch of all nations, and expect the world to benefit from it. As a matter of fact, it can produce only chaos, and must lead eventually to disaster. What the world wants is for each nation to develop its own individuality. When I was Postmaster-General, I gave a direction to the Australian Broadcasting Commission that it should afford every facility for the development of local talent, but I am not sure that the direction was carried out. The staff which serves the commission is divided into three groups. First, there are the permanent officers who are concerned with administration. Then there are casual employees, such as the artists, who provide programmes, and finally there are the technicians, who are supplied by the Postmaster-General’s Department. I cannot believe that it is necessary, having in mind what has been done in Australia for the development of broadcasting over the last twenty years, for us to go to Poland or Russia or any other country in order toget men to fill these jobs. If that is to be the approach to this matter, we shall hear more of it. We shall hear, perhaps, something which will scorch the complacency of even the champions of the “ new order “.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I should like to know whether the Minister intends to accept the amendment. I do not want to embarrass him, but I remind him that some of the monitors employed by the commission, persons who were originally engaged by the Department of Information, are not naturalized British subjects. I refer to those engaged to listen to Dutch, French and Japanese broadcasts. I understand that the military intelligence officers are satisfied as to their bona fides, and if they were to leave the service of the commission it would be impossible, as the clause now stands, to replace them with other than British subjects.

Mr Holt:

– That is why we suggest that the Minister should be given discretion in the matter.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– The clause under consideration has to deal with the employment of permanent officers. From time to time, the commission will, no doubt, employ various other persons to perform special work, but they will not be covered by this provision. The commission may, for instance, employ carpenters or plumbers or paperhangers, and it may employ monitors with special qualifications in particular languages, but it will not employ them permanently. In this clause, it is sought to place the permanent organization of the commission beyond doubt insofar as the outlook and sympathies of the personnel are concerned. Such other persons as may be employed from time to time will be restricted to particular duties, and will, if necessary, be kept under observation.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I should like to see a provision included in the bill to give preference to returned soldiers.

Mr Rosevear:

– What about munitions workers ?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– If they are classified as returned soldiers they will be eligible for appointment.

Mr Blackburn:

– Let us dispose of this amendment first.

Question put -

That the proviso proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Blackburn’s amendment).

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 5

NOES: 40

Majority 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Functions of commission).

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- Under this clause, the Australian Broadcasting Commission may make arrangements for the holding of, or may organize or subsidize, any public concert or public entertainment, provided the function is held in co-operation with an educational, religious or other noncommercial institution, and no charge for admission is made by the commission. As I interpret the clause, it is a general instruction to the commission not to charge for admission to concerts which it has organized or with which it is associated. After the war, this provision will seriously restrict the ability of the commission to engage world-famous artists to give concerts in Australia. In my opinion, this clause will have the wholehearted support of theatrical and musical vested interests, who are anxious that the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall be prevented from organizing such entertainments. If my interpretation of the clause be correct, I shall move that in paragraph b of sub-clause 2 the words, “and no charge for admission is made by the commission”, be left out.

Mr Beasley:

– This does not bind the commission.

Mr SHEEHAN:

– I accept that assurance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19-

For the purpose of the exercise of its powers and functions under this act, the commission may compile, prepare, issue, circulate and distribute, whether gratis or otherwise, in such manner as it thinks fit, such papers, magazines, periodicals, books, pamphlets, circulars and other literary matter as it thinks fit (including, the programmes of national broadcasting stations and other stations) :

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That after the word “other”, second occurring, the word “broadcasting” be inserted.

The amendment will make it clear that the relevant provision relates only to broadcasting stations.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- This clause empowers the commission to publish the A.B.C. Weekly. Last evening, I severely criticized this journal, because of the unsatisfactory service which it is giving to its readers. If I were to follow my personal inclinations, I should move that the publication of the journal shall be discontinued, but I realize that the amendment, if carried, would embarrass the commission, which is committed to the publication of the A.B.C. Weekly for some time. I ask the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Beasley) for an assurance that the Government will adopt the following recommendation of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting, regarding the journal : -

Subject to review by the proposed, joint parliamentary committee, the A.B.G. Weekly should he continued in some form as a medium for the publication of programmes if necessary, or as a higher grade journal on the lines of the British Listener. This recommendation is subject, of course, to wartime developments. We are not satisfied with the present standard, appearance and format of the journal, and believe that improvements arc possible.

Honorable members generally are most dissatisfied with the circulation and cost of the journal. At the present time> it is a wicked waste of public funds to continue to produce it.

Mr. BEASLEY (West Sydney- Minister for Supply and Development) TlO.lO]. - Honorable members will agree that the presentation of the journal, and the basis of its distribution, are anything but satisfactory, and I admit that radical changes are necessary. Apart from any undertaking that I may give concerning this matter, honorable members may rest assured that the proposed joint parliamentary committee will examine the A. B.C. Weekly and will doubtless submit recommendations that will meet with general approval. I am happy to give to the chamber an assurance that I shall exert any influence that I possess to ensure that the journal shall be improved in future.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I was greatly impressed last evening by the references of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) to the A.B.C. Weekly. I ask the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) to inform me whether an effort is being made to conserve the supplies of newsprint used by the various radio publications in the Commonwealth. The size of daily and weekly newspapers has already been reduced. What did emerge from the speech of the honorable member for Lilley, who produced for the information of honorable members a large sheaf of publications, was the fact that there is at present a tremendous expenditure of newsprint on matter of a purely ephemeral nature. If the journals devoted their space to the publication of programmes and other radio matter, I should not complain; but, unfortunately, they also publish pictures and a great variety of stuff for the purpose of swelling the volume of the numbers. Whilst that may increase their attractiveness to readers, I am of opinion that a large proportion of that printed matter could be dispensed with at the present time, and I should like the Minister to give an assurance that some restriction has been placed upon the size of those journals.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– When the previous Government had to face the problem of rationing supplies of newsprint, it imposed a percentage cut on each publication. I appreciate the need for such an action, because a vested interest is concerned with each journal. Few people run a business for the mere sake of running it It is certain that the interests in control of radio journals would be reluctant to agree to the suspension of publication, but that may come about by sheer force of circumstances. Newsprint is not available. The honorable member has raised an important point and I shall place his observations before the Minister for Trade and Customs, who handles newsprint rationing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Power to purchase and dispose of assets).

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- I agree entirely with the spirit of this clause which is designed to keep in the hands of the Government control of purchases or sales of property by the commission in excess of £5,000. Suppose that, on a piece of vacant land purchased for £4,900, the commission erected a building costing £50,000, would that be an acquisition which required the consent of the Minister?

Mr Spender:

– I think the point raised by the honorable member is covered by clauses 20 and 21 read in conjunction.

Mr SPOONER:

– But clause 21 relates to agreements.

Mr Spender:

– There was a method by which the broadcasting authority in New Zealand made successive contracts, none of them exceeding the limit permitted. It is something that cannot very well be avoided, I am afraid.

Mr SPOONER:

– If the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) thinks that the matter is made watertight by the two clauses, 20 and 21, I shall be satisfied.

Mr Spender:

– It is not watertight.

Mr SPOONER:

– Perhaps it could be tightened by providing that the commission shall not own property the value of which exceeds £5,000, without the approval of the Minister.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (Bands and orchestras).

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- This clause reads -

The commission shall endeavour to establish and utilize, in such manner as it thinks desirable in order to confer the greatest benefit on broadcasting, groups of musicians for the rendition of orchestral, choral and band music of high quality.

I should like to have the word “Australian “ inserted before the word “musicians”. Local talent is disregarded in this country. Insertion of the word “Australian” will at least ensure that there shall be some Australians in the groups.

Mr Blackburn:

– Does not clause 96 cover the honorable gentleman’s point?

Mr SHEEHAN:

– Yes, but I want to ensure that there shall be some Australians employed in these groups of musicians.

Mr Spender:

– “ Groups of musicians “ would cover Australians.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27- (1.) There shall be an Australian Broadcasting Commission Fund into which shall be paid from time to time an amount which represents such portion of the fees received from broadcast listeners’ licences as is fixed by or under this act. (2.) The amount referred to in the last preceding sub-section shall, in respect of the licence fee received in respect of each broadcast listener’s licence in force on or after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and forty-two, be as follows: -

  1. If the full fee has been paid for the licence, elevenpence for each calendar month after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-two, during which the licence is in force; and
  2. If only half the full fee has been paid for the licence, five pence halfpenny for each calendar month after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-two, during which the licence is in force.
Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

.- I move-

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the words “ time to time “ the following words be inserted: - “out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly.”.

This could not be included in the bill when it was introduced in the Senate as it is a financial provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minis ter for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

.- I move-

That, in sub-clause (2.), paragraphs (a) and (b) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs: - “ (a) If the fee paid for the licence is Twenty shillings or Fourteen shillings - elevenpence for each calendar month after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-two, during which the licence is in force;

  1. If the fee paid for the licence is Ten shillings or Seven shillings - fivepence half-penny for each such calendar month ; and
  2. If the fee paid for the licence is Five shillings or Three shillings and sixpence - threepence for each such calendar month.”.

The proposed amendments are necessary in order to express in more precise terms what proportion of the licence-fee shall be payable to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, particularly in respect of those licences for which the fee is less than the normal fee of 20s.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31- (1.) For the purpose of enabling the commission to defray any expenses incidental to its establishment and operation, the Treasurer may advance such amounts not exceeding in all the sum of Thirty thousand pounds as are, in the opinion of the Minister, required by the commission.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

.- I move-

That after the word “ advance “ the following words be inserted: - “, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly,”.

This provision could not be made in the Senate, because it is a financial provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Audit).

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- This clause provides that the accounts of the commission shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Auditor-General, and that the Auditor-General shall report to the Minister the result of each inspection and audit; but no provision is made for the submission to Parliament of the accounts of the commission. In evidence before the joint committee I suggested that there should be presented to Parliament annually a comprehensive statement setting out the total revenue from licence-fees and the expenditure. Under existing conditions it is impossible for Parliament to know exactly what has happened to the revenue from licence-fees, without making a thorough examination of the profit and loss accounts of the commission and the profit and loss accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department. The British Broadcasting Corporation presents balance-sheets and statements of revenue and expenditure.

Mr Beasley:

– The honorable member’s suggestion has a great deal of merit. What words does he suggest ought to be inserted in the bill in order to meet his requirements ?

Mr JOLLY:

– I do not want to embarrass the Minister now. I understood that the joint committee had some definite recommendation to make.

Mr Spooner:

– If provision were contained in the bill whereby the commission would provide such accounts as were prescribed, the details could be left to regulations.

Mr JOLLY:

– That suggestion would seem to meet the case.

Sir Charles Marr:

– Clause 50 covers the point raised by the honorable member.

Mr JOLLY:

– It does not. That covers the revenue received by the commission, but the commission receives only a part of the licence-fee and the Postmaster-General’s Department takes the remainder as payment for the work that it carries out on behalf of the commission. What I want to have presented to Parliament is a statement showing how every penny of the £1 licence-fee is expended. I understood from the joint committee that although it is not in this bill, arrangements were being made with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for the presentation of a statement similar to that for which I am now asking. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that Parliament will be given an opportunity to review each year a complete statement of broadcasting expenditure incurred by the commission and the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Mr Beasley:

– That would involve two sets of accounts, but, as the PostmasterGeneral administers both sections, it should be possible to meet the honorable member’s wishes.

Mr JOLLY:

– At this stage I shall be satisfied with the Minister’s assurance that he will consider my suggestion.

Mr Beasley:

– I consider that there is merit in it and I approve of it.

Mr JOLLY:

– I thank the honorable gentleman.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– The clause as it stands is satisfactory. The commission cannot present to this Parliament a statement of disbursements of money which is handled by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. That statement will be provided by the department which has agreed to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, and is altering its forms of accounts in order to present the information in the manner desired.

Mr Jolly:

– I am quite satisfied with the Minister’s assurance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Exemption of income, &c. of commission from rate3, taxes and charges).

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I should Like to know whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission has adopted the practice that has been adopted by the Commonwealth Bank. Although the bank is exempt from rates and taxes, it makes an ex gratia payment to the local government authorities equal to the amount that would otherwise be assessed against it. It is only fair that the local authorities, which have to carry out a definite civic service, should receive some payment.

Mr Blackburn:

– Why should the commission be exempt at all?

Mr JOLLY:

– I am not in favour of that, but the clause makes the commission exempt. I assume that the commission does own freehold property. Does it make ex gratia payments to the local government authorities? From my own experience, I know that the Commonwealth Bank always paid to the Brisbane City Council a sum equal to the amount which it would have had to pay in rates had it not been exempt. A trading concern such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission should make some contribution to the municipal authorities.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– Up to the present time, the commission has not owned any extensive property upon which it could pay rates. Over a number of years it has been building up a fund with which it proposes eventually to erect studios in all capital cities. However, the outbreak of war and the action of the previous Government, prevented the expenditure of this money, and the commission was obliged to invest it in government securities. Therefore, the commission has not had the opportunity to establish a practice in regard to payments to local governing authorities. So far, it has erected only a portion of a studio in Melbourne. In Sydney, it rents premises which are scattered all over the city, and in Hobart and Adelaide also it occupies rented property. I am afraid that the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) will have to trust to the discretion of the commission in deciding whether ex gratia payments should be made to municipal authorities when ths commission eventually becomes the owner of property. There is nothing in the bill to prevent it from making such payments. I point out, however, that the commission, has probably contributed much more to municipalities, by way of rates and taxes, than most other tenants of buildings, because it has been paying very high rents. Many municipalities would welcome the establishment by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of regional stations within their districts. A regional station costs the postmaster-General’s Department about £70,000, and there is the cost of erecting the building, so the expenditure helps to raise the rates of the municipality. Local governing authorities really should not worry about ex gratia payments in view of the advantages which they receive from the expenditure of such large sums of public money.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- I do not know whether this clause is similar- to a section which is contained in the Commonwealth Bank Act.

Mr Beasley:

– It is.

Mr SPOONER:

– Some States have enacted rating exemption legislation. In New South Wales, government and semigovernment authorities are exempt from rates in respect of properties which they own, and similar laws have been effective in other States for some years. The object of this is to avoid the necessity for paying money, so to speak, from a government pocket into a semigovernment pocket. I do not believe that this clause is quite on all fours with the corresponding section of the Commonwealth Bank Act. I know why the Commonwealth Bank makes ex gratia payments to municipalities. It is a trading concern in a deeper sense than the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It owns property in many parts of Australia, and it is the banker for many shires and municipalities. In New South Wales, at all events, it conducts more banking business for shires and municipalities than does any other bank, and it conducts the banking business of a number of semi-government authorities, like the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. The bank considers that it should not accept that benefit without making a contribution, as any ratepayer would do, to the revenues of the shires and municipalities. Therefore, it makes ex gratia payments equal to the rates that would be assessed if it were liable for rates. The committee will have to leave this matter to the judgment of the commission.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I understand that a provision similar to this clause has been included in the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act for the last ten years. The clause should remain as it has been drafted. After all is said and done, the commission is merely a branch of the Commonwealth Public Service; it. is not a trading concern. In view of the fact that the clause has been an operative section of the law for the last ten years, it should not be altered.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I have raised this point because, if we continue to exempt property from rates liability as we have been doing in recent years, we shall have to reconsider the position of local governing bodies. In some of our large cities, an enormous amount of property which is under the control of the Commonwealth or State Governments is exempt from municipal rates. The municipal authorities are supposed to carry out special services,, and they are entitled to- obtain revenue for that purpose. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is more or less a trading concern, and if it were privately owned it would have to pay rates, and taxes. In the interests of local governing bodies, it should extend to them the same courtesy as is extended to them by the Commonwealth Bank. I do not propose to move an amendment to the clause, but [ ask the Minister to discuss this matter with the commission.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I shall be pleased to direct the commission’s attention to the honorable gentleman’s observations. We all are mindful of the inroads that have been made upon municipal revenues by exempting from rates governmental institutions and other bodies. It is difficult for municipalities to balance their accounts and, at the same time, provide the services which they are called upon to give. The only way to handle this matter is to bring it to the notice of the commission and leave it to the judgment of that body.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 (Issue of debentures).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– Will the Minister explain why this clause, and the other clauses in Division 4 of the bill, are necessary? What justification is there for authorizing the Australian Broadcasting Commission to issue its own debentures, even though, before doing so, it must obtain the approval of the Treasurer? Any debentures issued under this clause would carry the guarantee of the Commonwealth Government, and it therefore seems to me to be unnecessary to make a provision of this kind. Perhaps, because the commission is being set up as a corporate body it has been thought necessary to give it these’ powers, but I cannot see any justification for them, because the Commonwealth Government will necessarily have to stand behind anything that the commission does in the exercise of its financial powers. Clause 36 gives power to issue debentures, clause 37 deals with the form of the debentures, clause 38 provides for a Commonwealth guarantee, clause 39 makes the debentures negotiable, and clause 40 provides for the sale of them. The remainder of the division consists of machinery clauses. No reason has been given for including this division in the bill.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I raised this matter in my second-reading speech. I can see no reason why the commission should be empowered to issue its own debentures. It would be far better to oblige it to obtain direct from the Parliament any money that it needs. Any loan activities of the commission should, in my view, be subject to the consideration and control of the Loan’ Council, particularly as the Financial Agreement Act provides that all Commonwealth and State loan expenditure shall be considered by the Loan Council.

Mr Beasley:

– There is a limit of £50,000 on the issue of debentures by the commission.

Mr JOLLY:

– That is, at one time. I urge the Minister to agree to the deletion of this division. I appreciate the fact that future developments may make it necessary for the commission to obtain money for capital assets, but is there any reason why such money should not be secured in the same way as the Postmaster-General’s Department is financed? We should not increase the number of debentures on the market. I do not know whether this subject was considered by the joint committee, but I agree with the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) that as the Commonwealth Government would have to guarantee any debentures issued, it is not necessary to make this provision. For the reasons I have given I move -

That Division 4 - clauses 36 to 43 inclusive - he left out.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Guy:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– The Standing Orders provide that bills shall be dealt with clause by clause. The honorable member can achieve his purpose by voting against the clauses as they are submitted to the committee. His amendment is not in order.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the submission of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) and the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly), for their case is sound. The subject of loan raisings by government instrumentalities and bodies similar to the Australian Broadcasting Commission has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Probably this bill was drafted without due regard to the present trend in Australian finance, which is that all loan raisings shall be subject to control by the Loan Council. During recent years a great deal of the looseness of earlier days in this matter has been tightened. In days when money was free it was probably quite all right for public instrumentalities to make their own approach to the market, but it would be harmful to permit that practice in wartime and in days of financial stress. It is true that, under the provisions of the bill, the commission would only be able to raise up to £50,000 at one time, but it is also true that it could obtain such money as it needed by means of an approach to the Loan Council through the Commonwealth Treasurer. I can see no justification for including these provisions in the bill.

Mr Jolly:

– The procedure would not be in keeping with the provisions of the Financial Agreement.

Mr SPOONER:

– I would not say that, but it certainly would not be in harmony with recent trends in financial administration in this country. It will be recalled that more than ten years ago the members of the Loan Council, which included the Commonwealth Treasurer and the Treasurers of all the States, unanimously entered into what was called a “gentleman’s agreement” with regard to borrowings by States in excess of £100.000. That agreement still holds and no indication has been given that any party to it desires that it shall be repealed.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable gentleman has referred to a trend in Australian finance. Would it not be more accurate to say that the authorities concerned were forced along a channel?

Mr SPOONER:

– I do not think so, because the agreement was made unanimously. It was realized by the members of the council that there was considerable danger in indiscriminate borrowing.

Mr Paterson:

– Another purpose of the agreement was to prevent competitive borrowing.

Mr SPOONER:

– That is so. With competitive borrowing by authorities desirous of laying hands on large sums of money, there if a grave danger that interest rates will be forced above the ruling Australian rate. Perhaps clauses 36 to 43 of the bill have been incorporated from the current act.

Mr Blackburn:

– They are exactly similar provisions.

Mr SPOONER:

– I cannot see that there is any justification for including them in this bill, seeing that the Australian Broadcasting Commission may take steps to have its financial requirements met by the Loan Council through action by the Commonwealth Treasurer, or by a direct approach through the Government to Parliament.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- This is a consolidating as well as an amending bill. The joint parliamentary committee specifically desired that it should be a consolidating measure, in order that it would contain every provision enacted in relation to broadcasting. It was, therefore, necessary to include in it all the existing provisions to which the committee did not offer objection. The committee did not consider the provisions now under consideration, and they have been included in the measure simply because they appeared in the original legislation. At the outset, it was necessary that the commission should have certain borrowing powers in addition to its revenue, in order that it might carry on its work. The Parliament of the day conferred upon it certain rights in relation to borrowing, but limited the amount of its borrowings to £50,000, which is not a very large sum in such a huge organization. Subclause 2 reads -

The total amount of debentures so issued, and current at any one time, shall not exceed Fifty thousand pounds.

That does not mean that the commission may borrow £50,000 at any one time ; the limit of its borrowings current at any one time shall not exceed £50,000. There is no particular purpose in retaining the provision, particularly as the commission has arrived at the stage where it is forced by government decree to invest substantial amounts in government debentures. The Minister might well agree to the deletion of this and subsequent clauses.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly), which has everything to commend it. I cannot see how the Commonwealth can argue for the retention of a “gentleman’s agreement “, under which State authorities or instrumentalities shall be prevented from borrowing except through and with the permission of the Australian Loan Council, if the Commonwealth itself should break such a rule. This legislation will simply give to a Commonwealth instrumentality considerably more latitude than, as the leading members of the Australian Loan Council, the Commonwealth thinks should be given to State instrumentalities. Surely, “ what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander “ !

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · “West Sydney · ALP

– The point is well taken. Division 4 is a part of the present act, and apparently it was thought that what was done ten years ago ought to be done to-day. As the honorable members for Warringah (Mr. Spender) and Lilley (Mr. Jolly) have clearly pointed out, it would be quite proper to delete the whole of the division. L’t is interesting to note that the Treasury made certain observations on the point; but these did not reach their proper destination. Apparently they have reached it now.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 37 to 43 consequentially negatived.

Clauses 44 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 (Power to require commission to refrain from broadcasting any matter).

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I should like the Minister, if he can, to give some information as to the purpose of this clause. I could understand it, if its operations were to be limited to the duration of the war. Under it, power is given to the Minister to prohibit the commission, by notice given orally, by telegram or in writing, from broadcasting any matter, or matter of any class or character, specified in the notice, or to require the commission to refrain from broadcasting any such matter. One can appreciate that, on security grounds it might be necessary in war-time to restrict the commission from referring to matters in respect of which secrecy may be desired. But this is not merely a war-time measure; it is an en during provision. It would seem to give to the Minister extraordinary control over the matter with which the commission may deal.

Mr Blackburn:

– There is a corresponding provision in relation to commercial stations.

Mr HOLT:

– My understanding was, that the commission was to be as free as possible from ministerial and political interference. This would seem to give ‘ to the Minister complete power, and an unfettered discretion to determine what matter may be broadcast. May we take it that, far from there being an absence of political control, the Minister may make whatever determination he chooses as to what shall be put on the air by the commission?

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- Section 51 of the original act reads:- (1.) The Minister may, from time to time, by notice in writing, prohibit the commission from broadcasting any matter, or matter of any class or character, specified in the notice, or may require the commission to refrain from broadcasting any such matter. (2.) The Minister may at any time revoke or vary any requirements made in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section.

The joint parliamentary committee considered that that provision ought to be amended, by the insertion of the words “ Subject to this act “ in order that the Minister might not be able to do anything contrary to the act, and that the commission might be safeguarded in some degree.

Mr Holt:

– What limitation is imposed on the prohibition by the words “ subject to this act “ ?

Mr CALWELL:

– It was considered that the Minister might tell the commission that it should not do something which had no connexion with the act. I cannot indicate where the restriction is actually imposed; but the spirit of the provision is, that the Minister shall not do anything by way of prohibition except subject to the act. The further amendment was made, that if any such notice were given orally, the Minister should forthwith confirm it in writing. We considered that it would be unfair if the Minister were to telephone the commission that it must not do a certain thing, and then refuse to confirm his notice in writing; because, if there were criticisms of the action later, it would be the word of the commission against that of the Minister as to who had been responsible for the prohibition. Should a Minister desire to give instructions, he should be bound to accept the responsibility of his decision. It might be that a Minister would not give an instruction without confirming it in writing. On the other hand, it might conceivably occur that a Minister would give such an instruction and subsequently, if difficulties arose on account of its observance, refuse to confirm what he had done. We considered that the commission was entitled to be protected against capricious action by the Minister.

Mr Holt:

– Does the honorable gentleman believe that there should be some classification of the matter or the class of’ matter in respect of which the Minister may exercise his right? Is it not a most dangerous provision to place in the hands of a Minister?

Mr CALWELL:

– The general directive power should remain with the Minis,ter. Qualification would defeat the object of the provision. Provision can not be made in an act for all the possibilities and contingencies that may arise. Any attempt to do so would lead to the Minister being so limited that the provision would not be effective. The Parliament is entitled to protection against the capricious use of power by the commission. The Minister is the responsible agent of the Parliament, in seeing that the commission does not do what may be undesirable from a public point of view. But, having exercised his power, he should give the notice in writing.

Mr Blackburn:

– The Parliament should know.

Mr CALWELL:

– There have been occasions when a. Minister has asked the commission not to do certain things, and the commission has subsequently asked for confirmation in writing. In _ one instance, confirmation was not given. Evidence of that was placed before us. Whilst the commission is entitled to protection, and much as I have faith in the probity and integrity of the present commissioners I can visualize the possibility of its being necessary for a Minister to act very quickly and peremptorily. It is germane to quote section 53 of the original act -

The Governor-Genera! may, whenever any emergency has arisen which, in his opinion, renders it desirable in the public interest bo to do, authorize the Minister to exercise during the emergency complete control over the matter to be broadcast from the national broadcasting stations . . .

Other powers are conferred upon the Minister in the same section. That provision has been repeated in this bill. J do not think that the powers of the Minister should be limited to a greater degree than is proposed, namely by authorizing him, subject to this act, to prohibit the commission from broadcasting any matter, or matter of any class or character, specified in the notice, or requiring it to refrain from broadcasting any such matter. That is a discretionary power which ought to repose in the Minister at any time. Should he abuse this power, Cabinet or the Parliament may take him to task subsequently.

Mr Blackburn:

– How will they know that he has abused his power?

Mr CALWELL:

– -He will have to confirm the notice in writing to the commission. There will be a standing committee, to which the commission may refer any matter at any time, including s matter of this sort. The commercial stations may similarly refer any matter at any time to the standing committee. Therefore, any abuse of power which the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) may have in mind, will probably be found, in the light of experience, to occur no more frequently in the years ahead than it has occurred during the last ten years, in which thi3 provision has been in the original act.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I have often said that, for the first time since this war began, the Government has now to have very close regard to what is said publicly by its representatives, in connexion, with matters that relate to foreign affairs. I believe that to-day we are called upon to evolve what might be termed a foreign policy of our own. Formerly, Ave acted largely upon what had been decided by Great Britain. Because of the war and of the position in which we are now placed, the circumstances are different. Having decided what it thought ought to he done in regard to our foreign relations, the Government has set out to do it. It is conceivable that a commentator on a national station may make references cutting across a purpose which the Government considered should be effected. The commission might not be aware of the plan or the desires of the Government. Consequently, there must be in the Government some power to give effect to its view, particularly in relation to broadcasting. The circulation which broadcast matter may have is obvious to all honorable members. In the past, oral instructions have sometimes been given to the commission, but it is felt that it would be more satisfactory for all parties if instructions were given in writing. Then, if the commission felt disposed to question the instructions, it would have some definite ground to go on. The giving of instructions in writing would be a safeguard, both to the commission and to the Minister. In the British Broadcasting Act, it is provided that -

  1. The Postmaster-General may from time to time by notice in writing to the corporation require the corporation to refrain from sending any broadcast matter (either particular or general) specified in such notice and the definition of broadcast matter hereinbefore contained shall from time to time be read construed and take effect subject to the provisions of any such notice or notices which may have been given by the PostmasterGeneral. The Postmaster-General may at any time or times revoke or vary any such notice as aforesaid. Any such notice may specify whether or not the corporation may at its discretion announce that the notice has been given.

A commentator may be in the habit of referring to a foreign power in a manner which the Government regards as unfriendly. The Government must be supreme in these matters, and should have authority to prevent the continuation of such broadcasts.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I support the clause as it stands, but I believe that the Government should have power, not only to prevent the commission from broadcasting certain matter, but also to compel it, in certain circumstances, to broadcast what the Government thinks it should. During my brief term as Postmaster-General, there was a controversy between the Government and the commission on this subject of what should and should not be broadcast. A certain person employed by the commission persisted in making almost daily statements of a highly provocative nature regarding the civil war in Spain, although the policy of the Government was one of non-intervention in the internal affairs of that country. It has been necessary on two occasions for the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) to demand time on every broadcasting station to contradict statements which had been published in the newspapers, and which those newspapers refused to correct.

Mr Beasley:

– Clause 23 gives the Government power to require the commission to broadcast matter.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes, now that 1 have examined the clause, I see that it covers the point which I raised.

Mr Beasley:

– Does the honorable member agree that my contention is sound ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It is entirely sound.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50 - (1.) The commission shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of each financial year, prepare a statement of income and expenditure

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- This clause is right in principle, but the prescribed form of accounts should be defined in greater detail if the provision is to be effective. On this subject, I hold strong views, which I placed before the House recently in connexion with the Commonwealth Bank. Clause 50 provides that- (1.) The commission shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of each financial year, prepare a, statement of income and expenditure and a balance-sheet in accordance with the prescribed form, and shall forward them, together with a report on the operations of the commission during that year, to the Minister, for presentation to both Houses of the Parliament.

I believe that a time limit should be fixed before the expiration of which the accounts should be presented to Parliament. Ministers are busy men, and have not the time to chase around after the balance-sheets of statutory bodies such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If the presentation of the accounts is too long delayed, interest in them is liable to be lost. As I have said, the prescribed form of accounts should be clearly defined. They should not be too detailed, but should be presented in such a way as to enable Parliament to know what is being done with the money that the commission handles. They should show the sources from which the commission receives its revenue, and the way in which it is expended. Fear has been expressed lest rival broadcasting organizations should learn from the accounts what the Australian Broadcasting Commission pays to its artists. Obviously, Parliament does not want to know what individual artists receive, but it is important that it should know the aggregate amount paid to artists.

Air. Blackburn. - The Auditor-General has to examine the accounts.

Mr SPOONER:

– The duty of the Auditor-General ls to audit the accounts placed before him in the prescribed form; it is not his duty to order reconstruction of the accounts in a different form. There is no reason why there should be any secrecy about the operations of a semi-government undertaking of this kind. As for the suggestion that a time limit be fixed for the presentation of accounts to Parliament, it seems to me that six months is a reasonable period.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I move-

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word “ possible “ the following words be inserted : - “ but not later than six months “.

From time to time, many honorable members have complained about the manner in which some important departments delay the submission to Parliament of the annual reports of their operations ; the Postmaster-General’s Department is a frequent offender. Acceptance of the amendment will ensure that the statement of income and expenditure and the balance-sheet of the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall be submitted to the Parliament not later than six months after the close of the financial year. Regarding the simplification of accounts, I am entirely in accord with the view expressed by the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner).

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I support the amendment. The report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the year ended the 30th June, 1941, was submitted to Parliament only recently, after I had asked whether it had been made available. The accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department for the last financial year are not yet ready, and that condition of affairs is most unsatisfactory. I realize that an organization like the Australian Broadcasting Commission cannot present a statement of income and expenditure and a balancesheet at the close of the financial year, but it should be able to do so within six months thereafter. I should like to know whether this provision is contained in the existing act.

Mr Blackburn:

– It is not.

Mr JOLLY:

– I direct attention to the words “ statement of income and expenditure “ in sub-clause 1.

Mr Beasley:

– That is a departure from the act.

Mr JOLLY:

– Yesterday, I criticized the action of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in covering up losses in items of “ other expenditure “. That is a most serious matter. In the year before the launching of the A.B.C. Weekly, “ other expenditure “ totalled £17,000, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, in publishing its accounts, set out all the details including the cost of printing, stationery, telephone charges, travelling expenses and postage stamps. In the following year, that item had increased to £60,000, because the A.B.C. Weekly had been founded, and was produced at a substantial loss. All the expenses relating to this journal are not covered in that item. For example, the salaries of the staff engaged on the A. B.C. Weekly have been included among the salaries of the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and the revenue from the journal has been included in “other revenue “. I was not able to glean that information from the accounts of the commission or from the Auditor-General’s report; I was obliged to write for detail? to the acting general manager. It is a most serious matter, in public accounts, to cover up such big losses, and if the practice be permitted to continue, it will create suspicion in the minds of honorable members and the public. Regardless of the loss, the commission should set out the information clearly. One of the excuses given to me for the present procedure was that the commission did not wish parties who are interested in the publication of similar radio journals to know the real loss shown on the operations of the A.B.C. Weekly. Thereupon, the rumour spread that the loss was between £60,000 and £70,000, whereas the real figure was approximately £30,000. I support the amendment, because I consider that the accounts should be presented to Parliament within a reasonable period..

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– The phraseology of the corresponding section in the existing act has been altered in order to indicate the precise nature of the financial statements which the commission is required to submit. For that reason, the words “ statement of income and expenditure “ have been inserted in sub-clause 1 in lieu of the words “ profit and loss statement “, which now appear in the act. The same clause also provides, in conformity with recommendation No. 3 of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting, that the commission shall include in its annual report particulars of cases in which power has been exercised under clauses 23 and 49, and also of any cases in which instructions have been received by methods not in accordance with the new provision. Honorable members will recall that clause 23 provides that the commission shall broadcast free of charge from all of the national broadcasting stations, or from such of them as are specified by the Minister, any matter the broadcasting of which is directed by the Minister in writing as being in the public interest. Clause 49 empowers the Minister to require the commission to refrain from broadcasting any matter. In each instance, the commission is bound to include in its report details of such directions which it receives from the Minister. This provision will enable a close check to be kept upon any action that the Min ister may feel disposed to take under clauses 23 and 49. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 - (1.) The Minister may grant to any person a licence for a commercial broadcasting station in accordance with the form determined by the Minister.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minis ter for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

.- I move-

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word “station”, the following words be inserted: - “ upon the conditions and “.

The amendment will empower the Minister to impose on commercial broadcasting stations any special conditions that he may think fit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 - (1.)There shall be payable in respect of every licence for a commercial broadcasting station for each year or part of a year during which the licence is in force a licence fee as prescribed by the Commercial Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1942.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That sub-clause (1.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause: - “ (1.) There shall be payable by the licensee in respect of a licence for a commercial broadcasting station granted or renewed under this act, for each year or part of a year of the currency of the licence or renewal, the fee prescribed by the Commercial Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1 942.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to stipulate clearly that the fee shall be payable by the licensee of the station concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 (Revocation and suspension of licences).

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- This clause seems to confer on the Minister very arbitrary powers. He may, by notice in writing, suspend or revoke and determine any licence of a commercial broadcasting station “ on the ground that the licensee has failed to comply with any provision of this act or the regulations or with any condition of the licence,” or because he considers it advisable in the public interest to do so. If such action be taken, the licensee will not be entitled to any compensation. In my opinion, the Minister already possesses sufficient power, because he is not obliged to renew . a licence. Under clause 54, a licence shall be granted for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Minister determines. He may refuse, at his discretion, to renew a licence. Clause 57 will vest in him an unnecessary arbitrary power which may be abused. If this clause be agreed to, he will be able to close a commercial broadcasting station because he, in his own discretion, considers it advisable in the public interest to do so. Power in that form should not be given to the Minister. A commercial broadcasting station should not be obliged to close unless it commits a breach of the provisions of the act or fails to comply with a direction given by the Minister. Clause 73 provides that the Minister may require the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station to include without charge in his programme such items of general interest or utility as the Minister from time to time determines. Sub-clause 3 of clause 68 states that the Minister may from time to time prohibit the licensee from broadcasting any matter specified in the notice served upon him. If the licensee disregards those instructions, he has failed to comply with the law, and his licence may be cancelled on that ground. That should be sufficient. The Minister’s power to cancel a licence summarily should be limited to cases where the licensee has broken the law, or failed to observe the conditions of the licence; but the Minister should not possess this arbitrary, unrestricted power to cancel a licence because he thinks it advisable in the public interest to do so.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– How does the honorable member interpret the words “ public interest “ ?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– The Minister’s conception of public interest may be vastly different from the opinion of other people. Clause 110 empowers the Go vernment to control broadcasting stations in cases of emergency, but the Minister’* view of what is advisable in the public interest may not be shared by the House. Some principle should be laid down to guide him in this matter.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– The contentions of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) regarding the danger of placing unrestricted arbitrary powers in the hands of the Minister are, to some degree, justified; but if Parliament refuses to vest those powers in him, control of broadcasting could not be adequately exercised. A case occurred recently that points to the necessity for the Minister to possess this power, quite apart from the power which is vested in him under clause 110 to control broadcasting in an emergency. Certain radio stations were owned and controlled by an organization that was held to be subversive, and the government of the day was obliged to terminate their operations. The Government must possess this power, and for that reason I cannot accept the view of the honorable member for Bourke. I shall support the clause in its present form.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The power to which the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) takes exception has been in regulations made under the Posts and Telegraph Act ever since Mahomet was a boy. The honorable member will recognize that they have never been opposed, and, as the Minister says, although they could have been challenged in this Parliament, the fact is there has been no challenge. I know of many instances of recalcitrant stations which could have been dealt with only by the exercise of that power. It is useless to say what could be done to the stations after the expiration of their licences. In the meantime they would have a jubilee. Broadcasting is a service in which a power of this sort is necessary. The only power that some people will understand is that of sudden death.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 11JH p.m. to 12,80 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 4 June 1942

Clause 58 - (1.) Except with the consent in writing of the Minister, a licensee of. a commercial broadcasting station shall not transfer the licence or assign, sublet or otherwise dispose of the licence or admit any other person to participate in any of the benefits of the licence, or to exercise any of the powers or authorities granted by the licence. (2.) Where, with the consent in writing of the Minister, any licence for a commercial broadcasting station is transferred, assigned or sublet or otherwise disposed of, to any other person, or any other person is admitted to participate in the benefits of the licence or to exercise any of the powers or authorities granted by the licence, the application of the provisions of this act relating to licensees of commercial broadcasting stations shall extend to that person as if he were the licensee, and any reference in this act to the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall, in respect of that station, be read as including a reference to that person.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That at the end of the clause the following proviso be added: - “ Provided that the performance by the licensee or that person of any obligation imposed upon the licensee by any provision of this act shall, to the extent of that performance, release both the licensee and that person from the obligation.”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 (Limitation of ownership of commercial broadcasting stations).

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– I support the bill, but regret that the Government has not taken this opportunity to carry out the plank of the Labour party’s platform favouring the nationalization of the broadcasting system. The joint committee was equally divided on this question, the three Labour members recommending nationalization and the three non-Labour members opposing it. The broadcasting system of New Zealand has been under national control since 1936, and the people there have had no reason to be other than pleased with the service rendered. Many essential services in this country, including education, health, railways and tramways, are nationally controlled. If radio were put on a similar footing it would be more capable of control than are many other essential services under public ownership. For instance, censorship would be simpler. The arranging of programmes would be facilitated. Better service could be rendered to the people in all particulars. In the United States of America, broadcast listeners pay no licence-fee. “With nationalization of broadcasting in Australia, listeners could enjoy a similar privilege.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The broadcasting stations in the United. States of America are commercial.

Mr CONELAN:

– I admit that, but that does not alter the fact that the people are not charged a fee for the privilege of listening-in. There is no possibility of the commercial stations of this country allowing the people to listen to their programmes free of charge.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The commercial stations get nothing out of the wireless fees.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– They live on the revenue from advertising.

Mr CONELAN:

– The objective of the Australian commercial stations is to make as much money as they can out of selling time.

Mr Morgan:

– That is why they are in the business.

Mr CONELAN:

– That is what I am trying to overcome. So far the commercial stations have been able to operate by the payment of a licence-fee of £25 per annum. It is now intended that the owner of a station which shows a profit shall be required to pay, in addition to the flat rate, one-half of 1 per cent, of the gross revenue for the privilege of selling time. Now, if the Government were to give effect to the policy of the Labour party, that revenue could be used for the benefit of the people, not merely for the benefit of a few shareholders in broadcasting companies.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Another plank of the Labour party’s platform is unification.

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member supported a move towards unification when he voted in favour of uniform income taxation. The honorable member was so strong in his support of uniformity in that direction that he should be equally in favour of uniformity in all directions - unification.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order ! It is not in order for the honorable member to discuss unification on this clause.

Mr CONELAN:

– This is the appropriate clause on which to suggest that the broadcasting system should be national- i zed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Nationalization is not unification.

Mr CONELAN:

– I agree that a good service to the country has been rendered by commercial broadcasting stations. The people are divided in their preference as between the commercial stations and the national stations. Under nationalization, the stations in operation could be maintained as at present, with the exception that there would be no private ownership. The only difference would be that revenue from advertising would be used for the benefit of the people generally and would obviate the need to charge a licence-fee for the privilege of listening-in. The revenues that would accrue could be used to improve the service and to encourage local talent. The sooner that Australia emulates New Zealand’s example the better it will be for every body concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 -

A commercial broadcasting station shall be operated only by such persons as, in the opinion of the Minister, are competent to operate the station.

Amendments (by Mr. Beasley) agreed

That the letter “a” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ The technical equipment of a “.

That the word “, station second-occurring, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ equipment “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 67 and 68 agreed to. Clause 69- (1.) The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station may broadcast advertisements. (2.) A licensee desiring to broadcast advertisements shall publish a tariff of advertising charges, and shall make his advertising service available without discrimination to any person. (3.) A licensee shall not broadcast advertisements on a Sunday except in such manner and in accordance with such conditions as are prescribed. (4.) An advertisement relating to any medicine shall not be broadcast unless the text of the proposed advertising matter has been approved in writing by the Director-General of Health or, on appeal to the Minister under this section, by the Minister. (5.) The Director-General of Health may delegate to any medical officer of a State his power under this section to approve of the text of advertising matter. (6.) Any such delegation shall be revocable in writing at will and no such delegation shall prevent the exercise of the power by the Director-General of Health. (7.) Any person may appeal to the Minister from any decision of the Director-General of Health or a delegate of the Director-General of Health.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
matta · Parra

– Sub-clause 2 of this clause states: -

A licensee desiring to broadcast advertisements shall publish a tariff of advertising charges, and shall make his advertising service available without discrimination to any person.

A literal interpretation of that subclause would create an interesting situation with some commercial broadcasting stations, as they are owned to-day. Honorable members know that certain stations, adhering to conscientious and ethical standards, are not prepared to broadcast advertisements of liquor, whereas a literal interpretation of that clause would compel them to do so. Under the same literal interpretation of the clause, it would be possible for the Loyal Orange Lodge of New South Wales to insist on station 2SM, the Roman Catholic station, broadcasting advertisements of celebrations of the Battle of the Boyne. Other incidents of that kind could occur.

Mr Holt:

– The Labour party’s stations could be compelled to broadcast advertisements on behalf of the United Australia party.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– Yes ; I understand that the intention of this clause is to ensure that there shall be no discrimination in respect of political propaganda. I know that it is the opinion of the Crown Law officers, that the clause, as it stands, protects stations which for one reason or another have refused to accept advertisements.

Mr Blackburn:

– Where does it give that protection?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– I understand that, so long as the discrimination is consistent against any category of goods that protection exists, but I find it difficult to accept that myself. In any case, it is highly desirable that the matter should be clarified. I know that it is not the intention of the Government to insist that stations be compelled to accept advertisements which up till now they have at a very considerable loss of revenue been refusing. I should like to know from the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Beasley) the views of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. Can the honorable gentleman do anything to reassure the stations to which I have referred?

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that this clause shall stand as printed.

Mr Beasley:

– I propose to move that the words “ the Minister determines “ be inserted at the end of sub-clause 2.

Mr PERKINS:

– That is an improvement, but I do not know that it meets the wishes of such rural broadcasting stations as stations 2BE and 2XL, which are situated in my electorate. They say that their view is shared by all country stations. In a joint letter to me, Cooma Broadcasters Proprietary Limited, the owners of station 2XL, and Mr. J. A. Kerr, owner and operator of station 2BE, say-

Further to our representation to you regarding the abolition of Sunday advertising as recommended in the report on broadcasting. This would seriously affect country stations for the following reasons: -

Advertising from outlying centres is mainly broadcast on Sunday. If this was transferred to the week-day day-time transmission, the listening public would not be big enough to produce payable results. If it were transferred to night transmission, much of it could not be heard by the people for whom it was intended, owing to shared channel interference (i.e., more than one station on the same wavelength). The result would be loss in revenue of approximately 15 per cent, in our case. This reduction coming on top of the big limitation in advertising brought about by war-time conditions, might make it difficult for many small stations to carry on, and, at the. least, would affect the service they are now able to give the public.

In regard to the proposal only to permit sponsored programme advertising on Sunday. This is probably quite reasonable for city stations, where there are firms willing and able to spend big sums of money, but it is utterly unfair to small stations whose sponsors are very few and far between, and who depend on a large number of small advertisers spending a few shillings each week.

We have never at any time received any complaints about Sunday advertising, and our Sunday programmes appear to be widely listened to, and approved of by a very large proportion of the public.

Broadcasting has become a great asset to the more remote centres, and it would be a pity if anything were done to deprive them of its benefits.

The Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations has prepared a two-point scheme, which would be acceptable to my correspondents and would do much to meet the objections which have been raised against Sunday advertising. The scheme is as follows : -

  1. That no mention be made of prices of any products.
  2. That not more than 150 words of advertising matter be allowed in any period of fifteen minutes, the whole of the remaining time to be devoted to programmes.

I assume that the Minister has received similar correspondence. I hope that he will take a liberal view of this matter. The two stations which I have mentioned are typical of country stations throughout Australia. They are of great importance to country residents because, although good A class stations serve most districts, many listeners prefer the programmes of the commercial stations. At the present time the country commercial stations are passing through a lean period, and, if this right be taken away from them, many of them will cease to operate. It might be advantageous in some ways to have a smaller number of stations, but the country people would suffer a great deal. I accept the amendment which the Minister has submitted, but I should like to hear his views in regard to Sunday advertising.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART (Parramatta [12.47 a.m.]. - I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.) after the word “and” the following words be inserted: - “, except as prescribed,”.

The relevant part of the sub-clause will then read as follows: - and except as prescribed shall make his advertising service available without discrimination to any person.

That will enable the department to make proper provision in the regulations to cover cases of the kind to which I have referred.

Mr Blackburn:

– The department will not be bound to do anything.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– No, but it is the desire of the Government to protect the interests to which I have referred, and this will give it an opportunity to do so. I know that the general intent of the clause is to prevent a cornering of advertising time on the air by one advertising agent or a group of agent’s. That intention has my approval, but I consider that the clause, as it stands at present, contains an element of danger.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I am not happy about sub-clause 2. It will be impossible to administer it satisfactorily.

Mr Calwell:

– It has always been in the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Not to my knowledge.

Mr Calwell:

– But it has been there, nevertheless.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It will be utterly impossible to carry it out according to its literal interpretation. For instance, Station 2CH is conducted by the Council of Churches. What will happen if members of the liquor trade insist on advertising over that station? Popular stations, which will charge the highest advertising rates, will receive more requests for advertising time than they can possibly grant. Therefore, the allotment of time must lead to discrimination between would-be advertisers. I cannot see why a broadcasting station should be in any different position from a newspaper. We have no law to compel a newspaper to accept advertisements, and I have never heard it suggested that a newspaper should be compelled to accept any advertisement offered to it. I cannot see why a radio station should be compelled to do so. The sub-clause would be adequate if the final words were deleted so that it would read as follows : -

A licensee desiring to broadcast advertisements shall publish a tariff of advertising charges.

As it stands, it will only lead to administrative trouble in the future.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I believe that I understand the intention of the clause. Sub-clause 2 provides that the licensee shall have fixed advertising charges which shall be published, and that he shall not discriminate between competitors. The purpose is that a commercial station shall not give one of a number of competitors sole advertising rights over its station. If “ A “ and “ B”, competing in the sale of a certain line of goods, both seek advertising time from the station they should be treated alike. Does the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) agree that that is the intention?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Yes.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– However, as the sub-clause is drawn, any advertiser could go to a station and say: “You must broadcast my advertisement at your rates “. The objections to this have been mentioned by the honorable member for Parramatta and the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). Am I to understand that the Government is prepared to give an undertaking that, if the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta be agreed to, it will make appropriate regulations?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Nevertheless, I should like to see the clause recast in order to make clear the Government’s intention to prevent discrimination between competitors. If the Government proposes to achieve its purpose by means of regulations-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Why do by regulation what should be provided for in the bill?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I agree that the position should be covered in the bill. I suggest that the words “ to any person “ be deleted with a view to insert in their place the words “ for or against any competitor “. Those may not be the best words, but they express my desire and the desire of the committee.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– How would the sub-clause read then?

Mr BLACKBURN:

-“ … and shall make his advertising service available without discrimination for or against any competitor.”

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– There is a weakness in that suggestion. I cite the example of station 2CH, which, as a matter of policy, objects to broadcasting liquor advertisements. Two competing publicans might want to buy advertising time from that station.

Mr Blackburn:

– The amendment which I have suggested would provide for such an eventuality. The station could refuse to broadcast a particular class of advertisements, but it would not be permitted to take advertisements from publican “ A “ and refuse advertisements from publican “ B “.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Regulations could make the position clearer than the amendment which the honorable member has suggested would do.

Mr CALWELL:

– Even if the clause were amended as suggested by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) it would be obligatory upon the owner of a broadcasting licence to make his advertising service available without discrimination to any persons who were competing for it.

Mr Blackburn:

– If two persons engaged in the same business wanted to advertise, the station would have to take both advertisements.

Mr CALWELL:

– Even if its policy was not to advertise their wares, it would have no right to refuse the advertisements.

Mr Blackburn:

– It would have that right if the clause were amended as I suggest.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not agree, because the honorable member does not propose to delete the words “ and shall make his advertising service available “.

Mr Blackburn:

– I propose to add the words, “ without discrimination for or against any competitor That means that if two competitors seek the right to advertise from a station, it shall not discriminate between them.

Mr CALWELL:

– If the policy of the station is not to advertise liquor, and these people are publicans-

Mr Blackburn:

– The station can reject both advertisements.

Mr CALWELL:

– I consider that, even if the suggested amendment were made, the clause would still not give to the owner of the licence the right to refuse advertisements. The proposed amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta might meet the position, in part at any rate, in that the Minister would have power to make regulations safeguarding persons who do not wish, on ethical or political grounds, to broadcast certain advertisements. There is a Young Nationalist station in Melbourne known as 3XY. There is also a Labour station in that city known as 3KZ, another Labour station in New South Wales known as 2KY, as well as a Western Australian Labour station. I assume that these stations would not want to broadcast advertisements on behalf of their political opponents, but should they refuse to do so, they would be defying the law, if the bill should be passed in its present form. A provision similar to this clause has always been in the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act, but in actual practice it has always been ignored.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It was not known.

Mr CALWELL:

– It was always known. It may not have been known to the honorable member, but it was known to. members of the Labour party. If we agree to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parramatta we shall at least be able to slide out of a little trouble for a while. I do not like the suggestion of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), becauseI do not consider that it would meet the position. The best thing to do in the circumstances would be to agree to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta and hope that eventually the difficulty would be overcome by means of a regulation or an amending bill framed according to the recommendation of the proposed parliamentary standing committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (3.), the words “are prescribed” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the Minister determines “.

The joint committee devoted considerable time to this subject and stated, in paragraph 420 of its report -

Considering the question as a whole, we recommend that on Sundays advertising shall be for sponsored programmes only and that the advertisements sponsoring these programmes shall he limited to the names of the sponsors without any details of their products. Many stations and advertisers are already adopting this procedure with excellent results in the United States of America. Evidence from the Federation of Commercial Stations indicates that sponsored advertising on Sunday is becoming the rule in the Commonwealth.

The Government has decided to give effect to the committee’s recommendation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.This clause gives the Director-General of Health, or a medical officer appointed by him, authority to approve of the text of all medical advertising matter. The work involved in giving effect to this provision would be enormous as, in many cases, up to 20 per cent, of the time of a station is sold for the purpose of advertising patent medicines or goods which fall within that category. I understand that for some time the commercial broadcasting stations have adopted a standard of broadcasting practice which has eliminated extravagant claims by some manufacturers of patent medicines. This selfregulation has gone a long way towards remedying complaints. In evidence before the joint committee the DirectorGeneral of Health stated that adherence by the commercial stations to these standards of broadcasting practice would overcome most of his objections. Included in the patent medicines advertised are many standard proprietary lines marketed by reputable firms, and it appears to be quite unnecessary to create a new branch of the Department of Health to waste time in a daily censorship of patent medicine advertisements. The involved procedure contemplated by the clause, and the long delays that would occur in obtaining decisions, would dislocate the broadcasting industry. The joint committee in its findings, and the commercial stations in their evidence, were alike unanimously of the opinion that it was desirable to prevent the advertising over the air of “quack” medicines for which extravagant claims were made. A much more simple procedure, which would meet the situation, would have at least two advantages over the proposals made in the bill, for, first, it would leave the administration of these provisions of the act in the hands of the Postmaster-General, which would be in conformity with other provisions; and, secondly, it would prevent discriminatory action being taken by the health authorities in respect of some possibly worthy patent medicines before the Minister could satisfy himself that censorship was in the public interest. If the clause were passed as drafted the Director-General of Health would, to some degree, usurp the functions of the Minister, and the whole procedure would clutter up business. No doubt the health authorities would be conservative in their decisions, and it might happen that efficacious remedies would be denied publicity. It could also happen that new remedies which had not been perhaps fully proved, would be prevented from receiving a fair trial. A conservative outlook by the health authorities in this matter could be understood. Naturally, the Department of Health would not accept responsibility for advertising remedies the value of which had not been proved beyond question. The DirectorGeneral would, in fact, become a dictator in this matter. Many remedies containing ingredients of proved value might be denied advertisement under the procedure laid down in the bill. Obviously the trial and error method is necessary in relation to medicines and we should not deal too stringently with this matter. I move -

That sub-clauses (4.). (5.), (6.) and (7.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause - “ (4.) The Minister may, upon the recommendation of the DirectorGeneral of Health prohibit any advertisement relating to any medicine or class of medicine.”

Such a provision would meet all the needs of the case and make unnecessary the placing of dictatorial powers in the hand* of the Director-General of Health. Moreover, it would give the Minister an opportunity to satisfy himself, by evidence for and against, whether specified remedies should be advertised over the air.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I strongly support the amendment of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan), not only for the reasons that he has given, but also for what I regard as even more important reasons. As the honorable gentleman pointed out, the machinery provided in the clause would undoubtedly prove cumbersome and difficult. The magnitude of the task of censoring all patent medicine advertisements would be great. But [ see a much more serious objection to certain provisions of the clause. I consider that if they were agreed to, the Department of Health would, in effect, be endorsing all patent medicines advertised over the air. That would be most undesirable, but it would undoubtedly be a possible implication of our approval of this clause as it stands.

Mr Lazzarini:

– It would not matter much if all advertising of patent medicines were discontinued.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– I would not go so far as to agree with that statement. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. By so doing he would still retain complete power to deal with all aspects of the situation, and he would make unnecessary the giving of many difficult decisions.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment. The only variation of the clause that I would suggest would be the insertion, at the beginning of sub-clause 4, of the words, “ Except as may be prescribed “. That would allow the Minister to establish any necessary machinery to give effect to the clause. The Director-General of Health, Dr. Cumpston, gave a good deal of evidence to the committee on this subject. He told us, among other things, that he Was sick and tired of listening to the rubbish in relation to health that was broadcast over the commercial stations, including, probably, station 2CH. Newspapers in New South Wales do not apply standards in relation to the advertising of patent medicines, whereas the newspapers of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania are debarred by law from advertising so-called cures for cancer, consumption, arthritis, rheumatism and certain other diseases, for the very good reason that there is no cure for them. I am satisfied that some so-called remedies for certain of these diseases, which are offered to the public at prices up to 7s. 6d. a bottle, are not worth 2d. a bottle. It is criminal to encourage people suffering from incurable diseases to spend their money on quack medicines in the hope that they may recover from their maladies. Some of the concoctions put on the market are worse than useless, and are a cruel imposition upon suffering people. I have in mind such preparations as “Bex”, “Lantigen” and the like, some of which are claimed to be “ curealls “. In point of scientific fact, they cure nothing. The joint parliamentary committee, and the Department of Public Health, desire that what is prescribed in the laws of three of the States shall become the law of the land in regard to broadcasting. The Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations has a code of ethics, the observance of which by the member stations is improving. I have no doubt that in most respects the conduct of those stations is not objectionable. The clause, in the form in which it is presented to the committee, proposes that the text of any advertisements must be passed by the Director-General of Health. What is wrong with that provision? If the Director-General of Health cannot fulfil that condition in Canberra, he may appoint a deputy to do it on his behalf in the States. The broadcasting station will have to bring along the text of the advertisement, and ask, “ Is this claim in accordance with fact? “ The DirectorGeneral or his deputy will ask himself, “Is this a cruel imposition upon the general public ? “ No great volume of work will be involved in- the submission of advertisements by the broadcasting stations. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) argues that they may be stacked up for a month before being passed or rejected. No Director-General of Health or his deputy would take a month to discover a thing that is evil or that makes false or fictitious claims. I should hope that a lot of the stuff submitted would be held up permanently - that permission to advertise it would not be granted. The amendment throws responsibility on the Minister, not on the Director-General of Health. It provides -

The Minister, upon the recommendation of the Director-General of Health, may prohibit any advertisement relating to any medicine.

I do not think that the Minister should be placed in the position of having to say whether he will allow to be advertised rubbish that is labelled one thing to-day and something else to-morrow. He should not have to resist pressure by this or that interest. Fortunes are made out of the credulity of the public. Stuff called “Aspro” is advertised. It costs a few pence to manufacture, and is unloaded on the public at an exorbitant price. That is a matter which should be dealt with by the Prices Commission or some other authority. I am instancing what may be done with a certain drug that may have beneficial effects. A lot of the stuff sold to-day has no beneficial effect. The Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) knows of a lot of stuff that is being peddled round the country, and unfortunates are encouraged to write letters to the press, which are published as a bait to catch other unwary persons. The magnitude of the task referred to by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), which would supposedly be the lot of the Director-General of Health, might very well be passed on to the broadcasting stations. After all, they are making money out of these advertisements. They are not advertising so-called medicines for the benefit of the public, nor are they necessarily anxious to cure people by means of such advertisements; they are merely doing that for which they are paid.

Mr Fadden:

– Does not that apply to all advertisements?

Mr CALWELL:

– It certainly applies to these. In Queensland, there is a law under which anything to which the Director-General of Health takes exception may not be advertised.

Mr Menzies:

– The law specifies those things.

Mr CALWELL:

– It does.

Mr Menzies:

– Why not specify them here?

Mr CALWELL:

– If the words “ except as may be prescribed “ were inserted, they could be specified in the regulation. It would be far better to do that than to oblige the Director-General of Health to make the specification in this legislation.

Mr Menzies:

– The rest of the subclause would then stand. The sensible course would be to specify the kind of thing that may not be advertised.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not know whether the attempt should be made to specify everything. That would be very difficult. The joint parliamentary committee thought that the discretion of the Director-General of Health should be trusted. I suggest that the words “ except as may be prescribed “ be added, in order that the Minister may be able to say that Pepsodent, and a number of other tooth-pastes, as well as products of a like nature, shall not come under this general provision. Under the clause, the Director-General of Health would need to have a listening staff in order to ascertain what the stations were saying. If a product were advertised on one day, and he were to prohibit the advertisement, he would need to listen on other days in order to learn whether it was being advertised as something else. Neither the Minister nor the DirectorGeneral of Health should have the responsibility of policing the commercial stations in order to satisfy himself that they were obeying the law. The stations should be obliged to submit their script to him, and if it were not antagonistic to scientific fact, they should be allowed to publish it. There is not the slightest intention to interfere with proprietary lines of standard quality. The products of Parke-Davis, May and Baker, and other reputable firms could be advertised because they are generally accepted as being beneficial to health.

Mr Holt:

– This clause is not even in line with the recommendation of the joint parliamentary committee.

Mr CALWELL:

– I contend that it is.

Mr Holt:

– The committee says that all matter relating to a patent medicine shall be submitted to the DirectorGeneral. This provides that every advertisement relating to a patent medicine shall be submitted. It would be one thing to say to the DirectorGeneral, “ We have a patent medicine ; here are the facts relating to it; has it your general approval ? “ but another thing to say that every advertisement relating to that patent medicine must be submitted to him.

Mr CALWELL:

– In some of the States, one is not permitted to advertise certain things in the press. Therefore they should not be permitted to be advertised over the air. The principle is the same, except that discretionary power is given to the Director-General, and there is not wholesale prohibition of certain lines. I have not that fear of the Director-General or the British Medical Association which some honorable members have. I do not start off from the premise that everything that the British Medical Association does is necessarily wrong, or that everything which the commercial stations do is necessarily right, and should not, therefore, be subject to review. The clause passed the Senate after a long debate. The committee would be guilty of a retrograde act if it attempted in any way to alter the provision inserted by the Government at the suggestion of the joint parliamentary committee. We ought to try to protect public health against a lot of fake productions, which are on the market to-day, and have been offered for sale for many years. May I conclude with the story of a medical talk that was given over a Sydney station ; it was cited in evidence by the DirectorGeneral of Health? A man bought time on certain stations. Being a shrewd sort of business man, he had taken a flat in Macquarie-street, Sydney. In order to gull the public into purchasing his stuff, and while describing its alleged virtues, he was in the habit of saying: “I am sure that my Macquariestreet colleagues will support me in this contention”. We want to stop that sort of thing, and the best way to stop it is to stand by the clause and make everything advertised on the air acceptable to the Director-General prior to the broadcast being made.

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

– The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has convinced me that the amendment of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) is a good one. He has referred to what seems to be a very sensible provision in the Queensland law. In effect, in that State, and apparently in one or two other States, it has been provided that alleged medicines claiming to cure certain diseases are not to be advertised; I presume generally, not only over wireless stations, but also in newspapers. That is a legitimate measure to protect the health of the community. The amendment of the honorable member for Reid is this -

The Minister, upon the recommendation of the Director-General of Health, may prohibit any advertisement relating to any medicine.

I suggest to him that he might add the words “ or class of medicine “. Then the Minister, having before him a recommendation of the Director-General of Health, could prohibit the advertisement of classes of medicine in the exact terms of the Queensland law. The broadcasting stations would then know where they stood; they would know that certain classes of medicine were excluded from advertisements. The clause as it stands appears to be most cumbersome. I emphasize that the text of every advertisement relating to medicine proposed to be advertised must be submitted for this censorship. I cannot see how people would be able to conduct their businesses satisfactorily under such conditions. The real object, I believe, is to confer on the Minister - who, no doubt, would consult his colleague, the Minister for Health, and would be bound under the terms of the amendment to take the recommendation of the Director-General of Health - the right to say that medicines of a certain description are not to be advertised over the air. That would conclude the matter. Medicines which did not fall within that category could be advertised over the air. There would then be no point in submitting the text of the advertisements for censorship, because that would be merely a literary task.

Mr Beasley:

– Do all advertisements relate to medicine in a direct way, or is the object of some of the talks more to encourage people to undergo certain forms of examination?

Mr MENZIES:

– The clause as it stands says, “ An advertisement relating to any medicine “. It is confined to the physical substance - the medicine. Medicine is not defined. I do not know how far it goes, but it is certainly confined to the physical substance that is bought in the bottle or the jar. The advertisement relating to any medicine is not to be broadcast unless the text of the proposed advertising matter has been approved. It would be more to the point not to worry about examination of the text of an advertisement, but to concentrate upon what is being advertised. There should be power in the Minister to say that one is not to advertise either the particular medicine which, it is believed, is unsafe or damaging, or certain classes of medicine which are defined by reference to the fact that they claim, for example, to cure cancer. If the honorable member for Reid adds the words “ or class of medicine “, we shall have a workable and satisfactory rule. I am told by one of my colleagues that clause 100 deals with health talks. That confirms that this clause relates to the physical substance.

Mr Morgan:

– I accept the suggestion of the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), and am grateful to him for having made it.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.Every member of the committee will agree with the principle underlying the clause, namely, that the Director-General of Health should exercise effective supervision over the advertising of patent medicines. However, I agree with the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) and the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) that the method provided in the clause for obtaining this result is very clumsy. Moreover, it is not even in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting. The committee recommended that any person who desired to advertise a patent medicine should be required to submit all matter relating to it to the Director-General of Health. I am sure that the intention behind the recommendation was that the DirectorGeneral of Health should be supplied with all relevant material so that he could judge whether or not it was proper, in the public interest, that the medicine or treatment should be advertised. It was never intended that the text of every advertisement should be submitted, seeing that the text might be changed every week.

Mr Calwell:

– Advertising contracts of this kind are let for six months at a time.

Mr HOLT:

– Yes, but the text of the advertisement may be altered every week. One might think that most of the advertising space in the newspapers would be devoted to advertisements of clothing, motor cars, motor fuels, &c, but it has been found that, in fact, the greater part is taken up with patent medicine advertisements. It is evident, therefore, that the volume of such advertising, even over the broadcasting stations, would be so great that much work would be involved in checking the text of all advertisements.

Mr Rosevear:

– What is the difference between the clause and the amendment?

Mr HOLT:

– The clause provides that the text of every advertisement must be submitted to the Director-General. Under the amendment, the Director-General will still have power to prevent the broadcasting of objectionable advertisements, but it will not be necessary for him to scrutinize the text of every advertisement. Surely the Director-General of Health should not be required to check the text of advertisements of patent medicines that have been accepted family remedies for years.

Mr Calwell:

– It would have to be done only once in respect of each medicine.

Mr HOLT:

– No, it would have to be done every time the text was changed.

Mr Calwell:

– The Director-General could give a general approval for the advertising of aspirin, for instance.

Mr HOLT:

– Not under this clause. In my opinion, the amendment is a definite improvement. It makes for greater flexibility of administration, while still achieving the desired result. The committee recommended that the advertisements of osteopaths should not be ruled out unless such persons were forbidden by law to practise. If honorable members are prepared to allow that recommendation to go through, they have very little to fear from this amendment.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the joint committee on this matter, and I am not impressed by arguments about the difficulty of submitting to the Director-General of Health the text of advertisements. The committee was impressed by the fact that numerous quacks are preying on the public by offering treatment and medicines that are valueless, and it recommended that the public be protected against them. Those who support the amendment admit the danger from such persons, but while the clause as it stands provides machinery for detecting and checking them, the amendment provides that they can be dealt with only after they have been detected. It is provided in the clause that the texts of advertisements must be submitted to the Director-General of Health, but he is given authority to delegate his power to other persons. In the absence of the provision contained in the clause, I cannot imagine the Director-General of Health spending his time listening to radio advertisements of patent medicines in order to decide which of them are permissible and which are not.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– I should like to know why it is proposed to prevent advertising on Sunday. Have we grown so puritanical?

Mr Beasley:

– It is not proposed to prevent advertising on Sunday, but only to ensure that such advertisements as are broadcast shall be appropriate to the day.

Mr PERKINS:

– I should like to know what are the views of the Postmaster-General on this subject, because it is he who will be charged with the responsibility of administering this provision. It is impossible in country centres for broadcasting stations to get sponsored programmes. Only large city firms are prepared to sponsor radio programmes. Country stations depend on advertising, and they get most of their advertising on Sunday, because that is the day upon which most people listen. If Sunday advertising be prohibited, commercial stations in county centres will be robbed of a great part of their revenue. Unless the Minister can satisfy me on this point I propose to move an amendment the effect of which would be to remove the proposed ban on Sunday advertising.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– The intention of the committee in making its recommendation regarding patent medicines was to keep off the air advertisements of quack remedies. It was not intended to place any restriction upon the advertisement of reputable patent medicines. Honorable members will surely agree that it is desirable to protect the public against quacks who advertise that their medicines are able to cure diseases which are known to be incurable, and it was believed that the Director-General of Health was the proper person to control such matters. The joint committee has sufficient faith in his views to reserve to him the right to make recommendations, and approve or reject the text of proposed advertisements. The provision relating to the submission of proposed advertising matter to the Director-General for his approval in writing is necessary. The amendment which the honorable member for Reid has submitted is a departure from the intention of the joint committee. Mention has been made of the fact that the text of reputable remedies will have to be submitted to the Director-General. That is true; but the text will need to be submitted only once.

Mr Morgan:

– The text will have to be approved by the Director-General.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Once it is approved, the advertiser and the commercial broadcasting station will experience no difficulty. If the clause be agreed to, the purveyors of quack remedies will know that the Director-General will not approve the text of their advertisements. Legislation passed by the Parliament of Queensland prevents the advertising of cures for certain complaints, and a proposal was made that diseases for which remedies should not be advertised should be included in this bill. In my opinion, that should be done by regulation. Parliament should not unnecessarily overload the bill. Probably the commercial broadcasting stations will take exception to the clause in its present form, because it will compel them, before they may enter into a contract for the advertising of a cure, to submit the text of the proposed advertisement ‘to the Director-General, and that may cause some delay. But the Director-General will lay down a policy, and only a short period will elapse before the broadcasting stations will become thoroughly conversant with his conception of what shall and what shall not be advertised. He will lose no time in making known his views upon the matter. The evidence that he gave before the joint committee indicated that he holds definite views upon this subject. I invite the Minister to accept the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) to insert at the commencement of sub-clause 4 the words “ except as may be prescribed “. If experience shows that difficulties have been created by this provision, they may be overcome by regulations.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.The admission of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) that the Director-General stated before the Joint Committee on Broadcasting that a large number of remedies- which are now advertised over the air are, in his opinion, rubbish, discloses the attitude that he will adopt when dealing with this matter. Already in his eyes such remedies are condemned. Do honorable members expect that he will approve the advertisements for many remedies which are now advertised and which have been accepted by the public for many years? Sufficient machinery already exists in the health departments of the States for the purpose of analysing the ingredients of patent medicines, so that no difficulty need arise in that respect. As most of the States compel the purveyors of patent medicines to supply the formulas of their nostrums, that information is already in their possession. The Director-General has in his department the means to enable him to make suitable - recommendations to the Minister.

It is all very well for the honorable member for Melbourne to state that some patent medicines - he mentioned Aspros - though accepted by the public for years, are rubbish. His attitude is intolerant. Because the honorable member believes that certain patent medicines are rubbish apparently nobody will be allowed to advertise them. If these restrictions bc imposed, many people will consult medical practitioners and, for the payment of a fee of half a guinea, may be given a prescription closely resembling the formula of a patent medicine. The chemist will then charge them 5s. for dispensing the prescription. I am dissatisfied with the clause in its present form.

Mr. BEASLEY (West Sydney- Minister for Supply and Development) [1.52 a.m. . - Obviously the Joint Committee on Broadcasting devoted a good deal ot attention to this clause, and, from the discussion that has taken place, honorable members appear to agree that steps should be taken to prevent the broadcasting of advertisements for quack remedies, which are calculated to mislead the public. Other honorable members consider that many advertisements would be prejudiced if the proposed text had to be submitted to the British Medical Association for approval. Perhaps well-known remedies would thereby be withheld from the public. In my opinion, the committee must find a middle course. Some honorable members have complained that if the text of each advertisement must be forwarded to the Director-General of Health, considerable delay will occur before he approves or rejects it, and that an extensive organization, out of all proportion to the value of the proposed system, will have to be created. Is it a practical proposition for the Minister to prescribe, from the date on which this legislation will be proclaimed, such potent medicines as are now accepted by the public as being beneficial to them? If that be a practicable proposition, it will meet the objections of honorable members, because the British’ Medical Association will not be invited to approve or reject the text of an advertisement, and the DirectorGeneral will be relieved of the obligation to scrutinize it.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It would place him in the position of giving his benediction to a prescribed list of medicines

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is so. The contention of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) contains some merit. He asked whether it would be necessary to establish a listening post in order to ascertain whether quack remedies are being advertised.

Mr Rosevear:

– There are nearly 100 commercial broadcasting stations.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– ‘And there are 6,000 doctors in Australia, every ona of whom would be a listening post.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Does the honorable member contend that the extensive range of patent medicines render them incapable of being prescribed ?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It would be difficult.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Honorable members must ask themselves whether it is worth while, in the interests of the health of the public, to take these precautions. Whatever we do some inconvenience will be caused. I prefer to amend the clause in order to provide for the recognition of certain patent medicines. That will compel the purveyors of new patent medicines to submit them for analysis.

Mr Morgan:

– That will satisfy me.

Amendment- by leave - withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to -

That, in sub-clause (4.), before the word “An” the following words be inserted: - “ Except as prescribed,”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71-

The licensee of a. commercial broadcasting station shall not relay or broadcast any part of the programme of another broadcasting station, whether situated in Australia or elsewhere, without the consent of the owner or licensee of the originating station and the approval of the Minister.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– The purpose of this clause is obviously to prevent “ pirating “, and honorable members will not object to that precaution. Whilst it is necessary to incorporate this safeguard in the bill. I believe that the commercial broadcasting stations have their own methods of protecting their interests. It is only right, that a commercial broadcasting station should not be permitted to pirate” a part of the broadcast programme of another station ; but honorable members know that it is a daily practice for many stations to co-operate in relaying portions of their programme. Why it is necessary to secure the approval of the Minister for those relays, I cannot understand. That really cannot he effected without the mechanical linkup being arranged through the PostmasterGeneral’s Department; but to require that approval of the Minister to the mere fact of an arrangement between two or more stations is simply to cause unnecessary work.

Mr Beasley:

– That provision was in the old act.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– Yes ; but that does not make it right. Until recently, aborigines were debarred from participation in Commonwealth social services, only because they always had been debarred. The fact that a certain provision is in the old act is no justification for perpetuating it. I believe from conversations I have had with officials that the original intention of this provision was to prevent the picking up and relaying of news from overseas stations. In that precaution the PostmasterGeneral’s Department had an asset interest. I have no objection to saying that no station shall pick up and relay news items from any other station, particularly from overseas stations. It would be necessary for the Postmaster-General to give his consent to the picking up and relaying of news broadcasts from overseas, because it would not be possible to get the consent of the broadcasting station. But it is carrying things too far to say, as the clause now provides, that -

The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not relay or broadcast any part of the programme of another broadcasting station . . . without the consent of the owner or licensee of the originating station and the approval of the Minister.

I am certain that, on reflection, the Minister will realize that there is a great deal in what I have said. I therefore move -

That the words “ and the approval of the Minister “ be left out.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I do not see any real objection to the elimination of those words, except that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) may himself have supplied the reason for their inclusion in his statement that they were included in the old act for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized picking up and relaying by stations of news from overseas. It is difficult sometimes to define “ news “, and I suppose that the provision was made in order to give to the Minister a blanket power to be used at his discretion.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Even though the consent of the Minister be no longer necessary, it would be necessary for a station to have the consent of the originating station before it could rebroadcast from that station.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes ; I see no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 - (1.) The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall -

  1. within one month after the thirtieth day of June in each year, furnish to the Minister a statutory declaration stating -

    1. whether the operations of the station during the year ended on that date, resulted in a profit or otherwise; and
    2. the gross earnings of the station during that year; and
Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- It would be impossible for any broadcasting company within one month after the 30th June to comply with subclause 1 d. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has been allowed six months in which to fulfil a somewhat similar obligation. The commercial stations should be allowed at least three months in which to prepare the information which they are required to furnish under this provision. Another point that strikes me is the fact that, whereas the commission will now be required to furnish a statement of revenue and expenditure, instead of a profit and loss account, the commercial stations are to be required to furnish profit and loss accounts.

Mr Calwell:

– Hear, hear! There is a good reason for that.

Mr JOLLY:

– I have no objection to it.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The accounts for June would not be collected until the end of July.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I accept the honorable member’s suggestion. I move -

That in sub-clause (1.), paragraph (d), the following amendments be made: - Leave out “ one month “, insert “ three months “ ; after “ profit “ insert “ to the person operating the station “ ; leave out “ of the station during that year “, insert “ , from the operations of the station during that year, of the person operating the station “.

Some commercial stations are, with the approval of the Minister, operated by persons other than the licensee. The purpose of the amendments is to make it obligatory on such persons to furnish statutory declarations concerning the financial result of the operations of the stations concerned.

Mr Holt:

– Why does the Government want that information?

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is needed in connexion with some charges to be imposed on commercial broadcasting stations under another bill.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– When the joint committee was examining the financial statements of the commercial broadcasting stations it found that there was no uniformity of presentation. In fact, several of the companies refused to supply information to the secretary of the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations, who undertook to supply to the joint committee a digest of the relevant information. It was also found that, owing to the lack of uniformity, comparisons could not be made as to profit and loss accounts, dividends, and other financial aspects of the various stations. Although dividends were being paid, they were not shown. Salaries and managerial expenses were grouped, in many cases, with directors’ fees. Some companies showed no provision for depreciation of assets. It was, therefore, impossible to make a comparative statement. If the companies be obliged to supply this information in a prescribed form, an intelligent appreciation of their profits will be possible. There has always been provision for the submission of accounts, but the form of presentation has not been prescribed, and it was thought desirable to make statutory provision for that requirement.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.

Clause 79 -

Any notice, request, or consent (whether expressed to be in writing or not) to be given or made under any of the provisions of this Part, by or for the Minister, may be under the hand of any authorized officer, and may be served on the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station by sending it by registered letter addressed to the licensee at the usual or last-known place of residence or business of the licensee, and any notice to be given by a licensee may be served by sending it by registered letter addressed to the DirectorGeneral at his official address within Australia, or such other officer as is prescribed.

Amendments (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That the word “ request “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ requirement “.

That all the words from and including “ and any notice” to the end of the clause be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 80 (Constitution of committee).

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

This clause forms one of several relating to the establishment of the proposed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, and, before we proceed to consider it, we should know from the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Beasley) what attitude he proposes to adopt on clause 93, which limits the functions of the committee to furnishing reports on matters referred to it by either House of Parliament or by the Minister on the request of the commission or the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations.

Mr Holt:

– That is sufficient.

Mr JOLLY:

– Yes; but if the experience of other committees of this Parliament is any guide, the standing committee will have very little work to do. The Public Works Committee is in that position. I want to be clear that this standing committee shall not interfere in any way with the administration of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It can only report to the Minister and to Parliament, and, if it makes recommendations involving interference with the administration of the commission and Parliament gives effect to them, interference will take place.

Mr JOLLY:

– The joint committee has recommended that the first object of the standing committee’s attention should be the A.B.C. Weekly. If the committee interfered with the publication of that journal, that would constitute inter ference with the administration of the commission.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I do not think that the proposed standing committee will work out exactly as the joint committee thinks it will. I express again my belief that ministerial authority is the best way of dealing with these things. Our experience in this Parliament, especially in the last twelve months, of the manner in which parliamentary committees function, has not been altogether happy. I have no doubt that the standing committee will be set up, but, when its history comes to be written three or four years hence, its achievements will be simply described by one big question mark. We shall have, not only a PostmasterGeneral, but also the commission, the standing committee, and an advisory committee in each State. I fear that the boat will be overloaded.

Mr Calwell:

– They have a somewhat similar arrangement in the United States of America.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– -If we had copied less of our Constitution from the United States of America than we did we should probably have avoided some of the troubles which are worrying us today. I do not turn to the United States of America for an example whenever I want one.

Mr Calwell:

– The committee system works admirably there.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– So does the Tammany Hall system. I protest against the establishment of a parliamentary standing committee. I have very grave doubts whether the scheme will bear the fruit that its sponsors expect.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– The fears expressed by some honorable members are without sound foundation. The parliamentary committee on broadcasting was unanimously of the opinion that all matters connected with administration should not come within the jurisdiction of the proposed standing committee.

Mr Jolly:

– The first thing to be referred to the committee will be an administrative matter.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– No. The committee recommended that an appropriate authority should be selected to inquire into certain aspects of administration, but it did not suggest that the standing committee should inquire into anything other than the three technical aspects of broadcasting which have been mentioned in the report - television, facsimile reproduction, and frequency modulation - and the A.B.C. Weekly. If the committee be appointed and asked to inquire into these subjects its hands will be full for some months. It should only deal with matters referred to it by the Minister or by resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

– As one who was not a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting I greet, with pleasure the proposal to appoint- a standing committee to review certain aspects of broadcasting from time to time. I believe that it is a contribution towards the solution of a very difficult problem of public administration which has confronted parliaments in the British Empire and the United States of America in recent years. It has been necessary for parliaments to decide what authority should be given to such bodies as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In order to provide an authority free from political interference, we have established a commission which is autonomous and which can bc completely divorced from public thought and parliamentary control, unless the Parliament decides to amend the legislation, which is not an easy matter and may create misunderstanding. This state of affairs has caused a great deal of resentment amongst the people. The public generally dislikes boards and commissions, because of the autonomy which must be vested in such bodies. Those who are given powers of administration and control in boards and commissions sometimes forget that they are public officers with a duty to the Parliament, and they use in a very arbitrary manner the powers that Parliament has conferred upon them. This tendency has been very difficult to overcome. It is not easy for parliaments to avoid that autonomy and, at the same time, prevent political interference with ordinary administrative matters. These boards and commissions frequently do things to the public that no Minister of the Crown would dare to do. They thus tend to destroy the very system which Parliament has endeavoured to set up in the interests of the public. I regard the proposed parliamentary standing committee as an experiment which may overcome this problem. When we make the slightest breach in an act governing a board or commission, for the purpose of infusing government policy into the administration of the undertaking, that breach frequently permits the water of political interference to pour through unchecked, thus creating a situation worse than the one which the appointment of the board or commission was intended to overcome. The problem of arriving at a happy medium has puzzled many governments. It is true that the proposed standing committee will consider only such matters as are referred to it by the Parliament or the Minister. If its services are not called upon it can complain, and the public can complain. I hope that it will be used. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works is not used so often as I believe was intended by those who framed the legislation providing for its establishment,, but that is no reason why the proposed Standing Committee on Broadcasting should not be used. If it should be used, it will win respect for itself from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The commission will know that the committee is acting as the ears and eyes of Parliament, and that any report which it makes to the Parliament upon the functions and administration of the broadcasting system will receive very careful attention. The committee will also create a great respect for itself on the part of the Government. Whatever government may happen to be in power will know that, if it seeks to interfere politically with the administration of broadcasting, the committee will make a report to Parliament that will receive careful consideration. I agree with the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that the committee may take some time to shake down into its work, and alterations may have to be made from time to time to its methods of functioning, but there must be a starting point. The principle represented by the formation of the committee is important. If it works satisfactorily it will be a contribution towards overcoming the unfortunate situation in which we either have a board or commission entirely independent of the Parliament or the country, which goes on its own sweet way without regard to the fact that it belongs to the public and is an instrument of the Government, or, as the opposite extreme, the Government seeking to interfere with the administration of things that should be free of political influence. If the committee is successful the Government may be glad to extend this system to other spheres of administration in due course.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– I should like clauses80 to 93 to be deleted. I do not agree that the proposed standing committee will be valuable. If there were no broadcasting commission I could understand the proposal, and I would concede that the committee could administer the national broadcasting system. However, to appoint a commission and then take away some of its powers and give them to a suction of this Parliament is not progressive. This action will not receive the support of the public, which is opposed to hoards and commissions, because it considers that they arc doing work that the Parliament could do. If any supervision can be exercised by Parliament, it should be exercised not by a committee but by the whole Parliament. I do not intend to move for the deletion of the clauses, hut I make clear my objection to them.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I agree with the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). 1 do not want to detract in any way from the efforts of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting, which worked hard for many months, and, in the main, I am prepared to accept its recommendations. For instance, on the subject of the fees payable to members of the commission, the members of that committee were in a better position to form an accurate judgment of the case than other honorable members, who did not have so much detailed information in their possession. However, the proposal to appoint a standing committee reveals a tendency towards unnecessary duplication.

Mr Beasley:

– I remind the honorable member that the bill does not deal with national stations only; it also deals with the commercial stations. The appointment of the standing committee will give to the commercial stations a means of bringing before Parliament matters which they consider ought to be dealt . with.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– A ny th ing which can be handled by the committee could be handled by the commission.

Sit Frederick Stewart. - The commissionhas no control over commercial station?.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That is true, but the parliamentary committee, as such, will have no direct control over commercial stations. It may act as a link, but its activities are not proposed to be limited to that. I do not wish to disparage the work of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting, and I regret that, owing to ill health, the honorable member for Boothby (Dr. Price) is not present to-night, because he has taken a keen interest in these matters. My objections to the proposed standing committee are not based on its probable personnel, but on the fact that my experience has always shown that two bodies with somewhat different powers working in the same field invariably conflict and cause overlapping and confusion. Had this matter been left for me to form my own judgment I should have been opposed to the proposal.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 81 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92-

The powers, privileges and immunities of the committee and of its members shall, subject to this part, be those of each of the Houses of the Parliament and of its members.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That, at the end of the clause, the following words be added : - “ and its committees “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.

Clause 95 (State Broadcasting Advisory Committees).

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- In my second-reading speech I referred to the likelihood of confusion arising between the State advisory committees and the commission. The clause provides that the committees shall report direct to the Minister. In effect, therefore, they will ignore the commission. That, in my view, is dangerous, and will not contribute to the smooth working of broadcasting. I appreciate that at times the committees may deal with matters affecting only commercial stations. Such matters, of course, would not come within the purview of the commission. But obviously, the committees will also be required to deal with matters that may be of considerable consequence to the commission. Such matters should surely be referred to the commission. I have been informed that each committee will include a representative of the commission, but that does not meet the position fully. I ask the Minister to give consideration to an amendment of the clause to provide that in appropriate matters, the committees shall consult with the commission.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.

Clause 99 -

A person shall not, without the consent of the owner or licensee of the station and the approval of the Minister, publish, in any manner whatsoever, any portion of the text of an item transmitted by a broadcasting station, whether situated in Australia or elsewhere.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I invite the Minister to consider the implications of this clause. Had it been in force yesterday no newspaper in Australia could have published a report of the speech delivered m Melbourne at mid-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) at the opening of the second Liberty Loan campaign without having first obtained the consent of the Prime Minister and also that of the station over which the speech was broadcast. I cannot believe that that is the real intention of the clause.

Mr Beasley:

– The main purpose of the clause is to protect the revenue of the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– It appears to me that clause 94 protects the revenue. I cannot see why such a wide prohibition should be included in the bill.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– The same point arose in connexion with clause 71 which relates to the relaying of broadcast programmes of other stations. Unless some such provision were inserted, newspapers would be able to obtain practically the whole of their news service from broadcasting stations, and thereby avoid incurring expenses for telegraph or telephone messages. The Postmaster-General’s Department considers that this provision is essential. I point out to the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) that clause 94 relates to the transmission of messages, whereas clause 99 relates to the publication of the text of items transmitted by broadcasting stations. Unless the bill included a provision of this kind the revenue of the Postmaster-General’s Department would suffer severely.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART (Parramatta [2.39 a.m.]. - My objection relates principally to such wide powers of prohibition. The clause covers the whole range of publication and I can see no reason why such comprehensive power should be necessary.

Mr Holt:

– Even though a reporter were present at, say, the Wesley Church pleasant Sunday afternoon service, he would not be able to make a report of it without first obtaining the consent of the speaker for the afternoon and of the station broadcasting the programme.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– That is so. The clause would also prevent the publication in the press of broadcast speeches in an election campaign. I cannot believe that that is the object of the authorities.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 100 - (1.) A person shall not broadcast a talk on a medical subject unless the text thereof has been approved by the Director-General of Health or, on appeal to the Minister under this section, by the Minister.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- I referred to this clause in my secondreading speech and pointed out the difficulties that would arise if it were agreed to in its present form. The joint committee in its report stated -

We desire to point out that certain unregistered health practitioners, such as osteopaths, have sometimes been in advance of medical practice, and we recommend that there be no prohibition of advertisements by chiropractors, osteopaths and similar practitioners unless their work is prohibited by legislation.

If the clause is passed in its present form such practitioners will he prohibited from explaining their procedure.

Mr Beasley:

– I am prepared to agree to the inclusion at the beginning of subclause 1 of the words “Except as prescribed “.

Mr MORGAN:

– If the clause be amended in that manner, will immediate action be taken to issue regulations covering the point?

Mr Beasley:

– It will be done as soon as possible.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That the following words be inserted at the beginning of sub-clause (1.) : - “Except as prescribed,”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 101 agreed to.

Clause 102- (1.) The Minister may grant to any person, upon application and upon payment of the prescribed fee, a broadcast listener’s licence. (6.) The occupier of any premises or place in which there is any appliance which is capable of being used for the reception of broadcast programmes and in respect of which a broadcast listener’s licence is not in force shall be guilty of an offence against this act.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That, in sub-clause (6.), after the words “ or place”, the following words be inserted: - “ or part of any premises or place,”.

Clause consequentially amended.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I object to the principle underlying this clause. Sub-clause 2 provides that -

A person shall hold such number of broadcast listeners’ licences as is equivalent to the number of appliances in his possession which are capable of being used for the reception of broadcast programmes.

It will be extremely difficult to administer the clause. Who will determine which appliances are capable of being used for the reception of broadcast programmes ? A person may have an old set with burnt-out valves stowed away in an attic. Would such a set be considered to be capable of receiving programmes? Is the clause intended to cover portable sets which persons may have in their possession for use when travelling?

Mr George Lawson:

– For what purpose would he carry it?

Mr HOLT:

– Admittedly, he would be able to listen to what was broadcast. This will place an excessive impost upon the wireless listening public. At present, the use of motor cars is very greatly restricted ; yet the full licence-fee is payable in respect of a receiver that is installed in a car. In many homes, it has been the practice of the employers to provide sets for the use of the domestic servants. The imposition on many households may thus be substantial. It may be argued that more sets possibly mean a wider spread of the entertainment provided over the air. For what purpose is the charge made? It is to provide a fund, a portion of which shall go to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Yet, over 90 per cent, of the time of the public that is spent in listening to broadcasts is devoted to the commercial stations. These do not seek remuneration direct from the listening public; all that they ask is that the listening public shall tune in to their broadcasts. At a time when taxation has reached a record level, this is an unwarranted imposition.

One of the great merits of wireless entertainment is that it helps to educate the listening public. The Government should do ail that it can to encourage the people to buy sets and to listen to broadcasts. It may be necessary to have a fund that will be available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That purpose is achieved by the annual licencefee, which in itself is quite justifiable.

Mr George Lawson:

– Additional licences are at a reduced rental.

Mr HOLT:

– They could mean an extra £3, £4 or £5 to any household. There is no revenue requirement which justifies this proposal. It is merely a bright idea that has occurred to some one. It will need a good deal of policing if the department is to secure a return in accordance with the number of sets in use. I should prefer a scheme under which a licence-fee would be charged when a set was bought. The listener would not then be subject to as much inconvenience and nuisance as he is in having to pay an additional annual charge for a set which may or may not be working. A portable set may be worked by means of a battery, which may run down and be not replaced because of the impossibility of obtaining supplies in war-time; yet the licence-fee will have to be paid. To me, and I believe to a number of people, judging by the protests that have been received, the clause is objectionable, and should be resisted by the committee.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt). This strikes me as one of the worst features of the bill. It would be almost an impossibility to find a household in which there are not two wireless receivers, even though both are not in use. Many listeners started with a crystal set, which they later discarded for a set containing one or two valves, installing later still an improved model. The amount of revenue to be derived isso small that the endeavour to collect it is hardly worth while. An inspector may arrive at one’s home in order to ascertain whether it has in it a wireless receiver. He may be met at the door and be shown the licence, and under the present law his investigation need proceed no further. But under this provision, he will have to make an inspection. If he does not search the premises, he will neglect his duty. An Englishman’s home will no longer be his castle. I should like the licencefee to be abolished. Just as much revenue would be derived from a tax on the machines and the valves. That would be a more simple way of collecting revenue. There are many decent, respectable, honest- citizens, whose only appearance in a police court has been due to their having been without a wireless listener’s licence. It is true that notices to pay are served through the post. As the fee is only £1, however, payment of it is neglected. If the amount were £50, it would be paid. Because payment is made a few days late, owners of receivers are taken before the court and are practically branded as criminals. It would he better to raise revenue by taxing certain parts of the instruments. The sales of receivers would be doubled, and twice as many people would be educated. How this matter is to be policed, I do not know. Scores of men will have to be added to the inspectorial staff. As the honorable member for Fawkner has said, the additional revenue is not needed, because a surplus is already made. When a government takes over a department, it immediately converts it into a department of taxation. Wireless broadcasting should be a department of service, and a small charge should be made for the cost of the service. If taxes be needed, letthem be placed on the whole of the community. I hope that the Minister will remove this provision from the bill.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I am astonished that honorable members should take a paltry view in respect of such a small tax for entertainment. The fee of £1 paid for a listener’s licence in Australia entitles the holder to the cheapest form of entertainment it is possible to obtain.

Mr HOLT:

– The amount is not questioned.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– That is the only question before the committee. If a man took his family to a picture theatre, the cost would be £1 for the night with the addition of the cost of train fares and supper. A person who can afford two, three or four receivers in his home should be prepared, to pay the proposed additional charge.

Mr HOLT:

– It is not entirely a matter of money.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The nuisance aspect has been mentioned. That is the view of those who are likely to dodge the tax. It will not be necessary to search the home of the honest person. I have given a. lot of consideration to the advisability of imposing a charge on sets,to be collected by the dealer at the time of sale.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That would not help in regard to those sets that are already in use.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– It would. Homes would be inspected in order to see whether there were sets in them.

Mr Holt:

– How many inspectors would be needed ?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The number of .inspectors employed to-day is not so large as the committee may believe. We had evidence which showed that some members of the public had installed in their motor cai’3 sets in respect of which they did not pay the licence-fee, because they had not a set in the home.

I3 it right to avoid the payment of the licence-fee on a portable set that is bought primarily for use in a motor car, but which may be used also in the home? Is it fair that the hotels of Australia should make payment in respect of additional sets, while private persons do not pay for such extra sets ? One hotel which came under our notice had 300 rooms, each containing a wireless set. The proprietor paid a fee of 10s. for each room.

Mr Francis:

– That is a business.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– It is for the convenience of the guests. Surely, if a man whose home contains half a dozen rooms wants to have a wireless set in each of them, he should be prepared to pay the charge that is levied upon a hotel or other public dwelling place. The amount is paltry. On the other hand, it is proposed that there shall not be a charge in such deserving cases as the blind, the infirm, and some school children. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Perkins) has stressed the educational value of broadcasting. We recommended that the fee should be abolished in connexion with schools that have to purchase receivers, and the Government accepted our recommendation. This small additional amount will help to compensate the commission and the Government for the loss sustained in those directions. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) has au amendment which should commend itself to the committee. If the listeners’ licence-fee be abolished in respect of certain deserving cases, the committee should consent to the payment of an additional fee by those who are best able to afford it.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

. - i have listened with interest to the observations of the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr). He damned his case by describing the additional amount as small and paltry. The basis of my objection is that it is an unneces- sary irritation. This country is now being taxed to the limit of its capacity. No person who has the money to pay the tax that is levied objects to doing so, because of the special purpose to which it is devoted, namely, helping to win the war. At a time when the nation is taxed as it has not previously been taxed, and as it will not, I hope, be again taxed, this small and paltry amount should not be added, because of the irritation and annoyance it will cause. Many of those who will be asked to pay it are young men in workers’ homes, who have built sets for themselves. The enthusiasm of the young amateur will thus be damped. I appeal to the Minister not to persist with the proposal. What an army of inspectors there will need to be, entering every home to inspect every room and garage in order to unearth any additional set that may be “ tucked away “ ! In addition to being an irritation and an annoyance, the effect will be to make criminals of many householders. I have never seen in any Parliament a more pettifogging impost imposed on the community. My objection to the report of the committee is that, in regard to those matters upon which it should have made a decision, it “ passed the buck “ to other committees. On the whole, however, the bill is a very good one, and will make for the development of broadcasting. The committee has agreed to 101 good clauses and it is a pity to spoil the measure by the inclusion of this one.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

. -I was surprised to hear the remarks of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). The purpose of the clause is to make wealthy persons, who can afford two or more wireless set3, pay something extra in the way of licence-fees. At present, a man who can afford to buy, a motor car for £800 with a wireless set in it is not asked to pay any licence-fee in respect of that set, yet an invalid or old-age pensioner is not granted a free licence. The honorable member for Moreton is concerned only with the interests of the man who wants a wireless set in several rooms of his palatial mansion. It is absurd to suggest that an army of inspectors will be necessary to police this provision.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– The relevant part of the clause refers to the number of appliances capable of being used for listening. It is not intended that a set without valves shall be paid for, but the person with two working sets will have to pay two licence-fees.

Mr Francis:

– What about the boy making a crystal set?

Mr CALWELL:

– He will not have to pay anything in respect of the set until it is completed and in use. The man who wants sets all over his house must pay a fee for each set. The clause is directed against those persons who, for entertainment purposes, wish to have one set in the lounge, another in the bedroom, and another in a motor car, and why should they not pay for the extra sets?

Mr Holt:

– Why should not the commercial stations get a part of the revenue, seeing that they provide a part of the service ?

Mr CALWELL:

– The commercial stations are doing very well now out of advertising. Most of them got their licences for nothing. The great majority are making big profits, and those which are not have generally only their own bad management to blame. As a matter of fact, the commercial stations receive more in advertising revenue than the national stations receive from the licence-fees of listeners. There are nearly 100 commercial stations in Australia, as compared with 26 national stations. The proposed fee of 10s. for extra sets is not go great as to justify the violent protests we have heard. Parliament seems to be always ready to increase the sales tax upon necessary commodities, although such taxation bears much more heavily on the poor than will the payment of a fee of 10s. for a second wireless set.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) shed crocodile tears over the plight of the young amateur who will be required to pay 10s. a year licence-fee for his set. One would imagine from listening to him that it was 10s. a day instead of 10s. a year. We should not forget that all the revenue received by the commission is expended upon provid ing a service for listeners. The commission makes no profit. This is not a new principle. It has been applied in Canada, where the fee for the first set is five dollars, and for all additional sets two and a half dollars. The revenue from the additional sets represents three per cent, of the total revenue of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If a family can afford to have two or more receiving sets, why should it not pay fees in respect of them?

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) made a serious allegation against the Joint Committee on Broadcasting. He said that, in regard to matters upon which it should have reported, it “ passed the buck “ to other committees. I demand that he withdraw that statement, or state definitely the specific matters to which he referred.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– The Australian Broadcasting Commission has, up to the present, made a profit of £600,000. In view of that, surely it is not necessary for the Government to insist upon the irritating proposal contained in this clause.

Sir Charles Marr:

– What about withdrawing the statement to which I objected ?

Mr FRANCIS:

– The joint committee referred to the ponderous overhead expenses and numerous personnel of the central administration of the commission, and suggested that the matter be referred to another committee for examination. The joint committee should have invited the Public Service Commissioner, or some other qualified person, to make an investigation. Then, armed with his report, the committee should have made a recommendation to the Government.

Sir Charles Marr:

– The joint committee did not have authority to do that.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 103 agreed to.

Clause 104-

The fees payable for broadcast listeners’ licences or renewals thereof granted under this Act shall be as follows: -

Provided that -

a broadcast listener’s licence or any renewal thereof may be granted free of charge to any blind person over the age of sixteen years, or to any school maintained by or registered with the Education Department of any State which has an enrolment of less than fifty pupils;

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I move -

That, in paragraph (i) of the proviso, after the word “ years” the following words be inserted : - “ or to any person who is totally and permanently disabled as the result of war service.”

The purpose of the amendment is to grant free listening licences to permanently incapacitated soldiers. It is already provided that free licences be granted to blind persons and to schools. Totally and permanently incapacitated soldiers suffer perhaps a greater disability than do blind persons. Many of them are condemned to an invalid chair for the remainder of their lives, and they are entitled to this concession.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– Will the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) agree to the extension of the concession to tubercular soldiers? It is officially recognized that these soldiers suffer a disability as great as those who are totally and permanently incapacitated, because both classes receive the maximum pension of £4 4s. a week.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– The joint committee recommended that old-age pensioners living alone, and schools with an attendance of fewer than 50 pupils, shall be entitled to receive a free listener’s licence. The committee was concerned mainly with the principle of ability to pay, but the request of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) does not take that into account. Many totally and permanently incapacitated persons are not poor, and there is no reason why they should not be expected to pay for a listener’s licence.

Mr Jolly:

– This applies, not to individuals, but to associations.

Mr CALWELL:

– I was originally under that impression, but the amendment actually means that every person who is totally and permanently incapaci tated as a result of war service shall, regardless of his means, be entitled to a free listener’s licence. That is a new principle, and the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) should not accept it at this stage. The proposal is worthy of consideration by the standing committee. If we once depart from the principle of ability to pay, we shall be inundated with requests for free licences. In a few years, when regional stations are established at Geraldton, Broken Hill, Longreach and other centres, the Australian Broadcasting Commission will not have sufficient money, from the revenue it derives from its share of the licence-fees, to maintain its services. Similarly, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, from its proportion of the fee, will not be able to provide land lines and other technical services. Consequently Parliament, upon the completion of the chain of national broadcasting stations, will be obliged to vote money from Consolidated Revenue for the purpose of assisting to provide those services, or to increase the licence-fee. Whilst all honorable members like to be compassionate, there should be some test of ability to pay before we accept the amendment of the honorable member for Perth.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The Australian Broadcasting Commission is now receiving more revenue than it ever dreamed of.

Mr CALWELL:

– It is a matter, not of what the commission ever dreamed of, but of what it requires. The facts which I have given to honorable members were submitted in evidence to the joint committee. We must not open the gate, so that various associations will ask Parliament to grant to their members this concession. I make this additional point. When the financial emergency legislation was being introduced into this Parliament, the Treasurer of the day stated that a Macquarie-street specialist.-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order ! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr CALWELL:

– This statement deals with the principle of ability to pay. The medical practitioner was earning £3,000 a year and, in addition, was receiving a war service pension. Ifhe had been totally and permanently incapacitated in the sense that he was not able to attend to his practice, but had investments in property, he would, under this proposal, have been eligible to receive a free listener’s licence. I urge the honorable member for Perth not to persist with the amendment, because the joint committee, which considered the matter, did not think that the concession should be granted at this stage. If the amendment were accepted, before long the number of people receiving free licences would exceed the number of people who paid for their licences.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has just opened two Pandora’s boxes. He has told honorable members that in the not distant future the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Postmaster-General’s Department will not have sufficient revenue from their respective shares of the listener’s licence-fee to enable them to maintain their services. It is not the intention of this Parliament to permit the commission to engage upon ambitious development schemes that will call for financial assistance from Consolidated Revenue. We have already gone a long way towards providing an efficient service, and there must be some limit to our investment in this enterprise. It is all very well for the honorable member for Melbourne to talk about opening the gate. The Joint Committee on Broadcasting itself has opened the gate. Previous governments refused to grant free licences, but the principle has been incorporated in this bill, and I am perfectly sure that before the next election - and the Lord forbid that it should be postponed for a day longer than is necessary - some bright supporters of the Government will discover a thousand and one reasons for granting free listeners’ licences to various sections of the community. I have no doubt that the honorable member for Melbourne, if he is not then leading the band, will at any rate be beating the drum.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minis a.m.]. - I appreciate the motive of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn · West Sydney · ALP

in submitting this amendment. On humanitarian grounds, strong arguments can be advanced to support it. Approximately 2,500 persons will be involved in the proposal to grant free listeners’ licences. On page 67 of the report of the joint committee the following statement appears : -

In regard to the question of free licences to other people, the position is that we extended a general invitation to all organizations and persons interested in radio to tender evidence to us, and as no representations weremade to us in favour of free licences to other than schools and pensioners, we aru unable to express an opinion on the merits of other cases in comparison with the claims of schools and pensioners to the consideration we have recommended.

The department also considers that the field should not be widened at this juncture before the effects of the amendment are properly examined. I urge the honorable member for Perth to be satisfied to allow the matter to be considered by the standing committee, which will recommend adequate methods of policing the proposal.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Will the committee also give consideration to tubercular soldiers? Mr. BEASLEY.- Yes.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.-] also ask that the standing committee shall consider the granting of free listener’s licences to bona fide members of any association of disabled sailors or soldiers. There are a few of these unfortunate persons in every capital city.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to-

That, in paragraph (i) of the proviso, the words “to any school maintained by or registered with the Education Department of any State “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “, with the approval of the Minister, to any school “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 105 agreed to.

Clause 106-

Any vendor of appliances capable of being used for the reception of broadcast programmes shall, at the end of each month, supply, to the Senior Radio Inspector in the State in which the vendor is located or to such other officer, as is prescribed, the name and address of each person to whom he has, during the month, sold any such appliance.

Amendment (by Mr. Beasley) agreed

That after the word “ sold “ the following words.be inserted: - “, hired, lent, leased, or otherwise disposed of,”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 107 to 112 agreed to.

Clause 113-

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, prescribing all matters required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this act, and in particular -

for providing for the issue, inscription, transfer, transmission and redemption of inscribed stock of the commission, and all matters in relation thereto: and (b)forvaryingoradding to the conditions governingthe erection or operation of commercial broadcasting stations or appliances for which a broadcast listener’s licence is required to be held.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– As the committee has deleted the provision dealing with the issue of debentures, it will be necessary to amend clause 113. I move -

That the words “particular - (a) for providing for the issue, inscription, transfer, transmission and redemption of inscribed stock of the commission, and all matters in relation thereto; and (b) “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “particular”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clauses 96a and 96b.

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to -

That the following new clauses be inserted in the bill : - “96a. - ( 1.) Subject to the provisions of this section, the commission may determine to what extent and in what manner political speeches or any matter relating to a political subject may be broadcast from national broadcasting stations, and the licensee of acommercial broadcasting station may arrange for the broadcasting of such speeches or matter from that station. (2.) The commission or the licensee of a broadcasting station shall not, at any time prior to the close of the poll on the day on which any election for the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State or for any House of any such Parliament or for any vacancy in any such House is held, or at any time on either of the two days immediately preceding that day, broadcast, in whole or in part, any speech or matter -

commenting on, or soliciting votes for, any candidate at the election;

commenting on, or advocating support of, any political party to which any candidate at the election belongs;

commenting upon, stating or indicating any of the issues being submitted to the electors at the election or any part of the policy of any candidate at the election or of the political party to which he belongs; or

referring to any meeting held in connexion with the election. (3.) The commission or the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not, at any time on or after the date of the issue of the writs and before the close of the poll for any such election, broadcast any dramatization of matter relating to any candidate, political party, issues, policy or meeting referred to in the last preceding sub-section. 96b. - (1.) The commission, in the case of a national broadcasting station, or the licensee, in the case of a commercial broadcasting station, shall cause to be announced the true name of every speaker who is, either in person or through the agency of a sound recording device, to deliver an address or make a statement relating to a political subject or current affairs for broadcasting from the station. If the address is to be delivered or the statement is to be made on behalf of a political party, the name of the party shall be included in the announcement. (2.) The announcement shall be made at such a time and in such a manner, before and after the address or statement, as fully to disclose the identity of the speaker to any person listening to the broadcast of the address or statement. (3.) The commission or the licensee, as the ease may be, shall keep a record of the name, postal address and credentials or occupation of each such speaker, and shall furnish to the Minister any particulars of the record which the Minister by notice in writing requires.”.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (by Mr. Beasley) agreed to -

That the billbe now recommitted for the reconsideration of clauses 71 and 08.

In committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 71 (as amended in committee) -

The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not relay or broadcast any part of the programme of another broadcasting station, whether situated in Australia or elsewhere, without the consent of the owner or licensee of the originating station.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “and the approval of the Minister”.

The committee will remember that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) could not understand why the words “ and the approval of the Minister “ were necessary, and, in the absence of information from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department as to why it was necessary that those words be included in the clause, I agreed to their being left out. I am now informed that by the deletion of the words all real control over the re-broadcasting by Australian stations of items transmitted by other stations has been removed from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Stations will be permitted to pick up news services, &c, from other stations, instead of relying on the ordinary communication channels, local and international, for the relay. That would have a detrimental effect on telephone and telegraph revenue. It is important, therefore, that the words in question be replaced. The honorable member for Parramatta believed that the words were, if not a hindrance to the broadcasting stations, superfluous, because of the fact that broadcasting stations had to have the consent of the originating stations before they could relay programmes. As the words are necessary to protect the revenues of the postal service, I ask the honorable member to aGree to the replacement of the words in the clause.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– The circumstances were not exactly as they were stated by the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Beasley). I direct his attention to the text of the clause which says: -

The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not relay or broadcast any part of the programme of another broadcasting station. . . . without the consent of the owner or licensee of the originating station.

To that the Minister would add the words “ and the approval of the Minister “. The clause is not limited in its application to the relaying of news picked up from another station, which, admittedly, it should secure through the instrumentality of the Postmaster-General’s Department. This will prevent two stations, without the prior consent of the Minister, from co-operating, as is done every hour of the day and every day of the week, in an advertisement which has nothing whatever to do with the transmission of news. I should have no objection to a clause which precluded a station from picking up news items from some other station, because that would be in consonance with another clause to which I took exception, but of which the committee approved. I ask the Minister to realize that, if the verbiage of the original clause be restored, the Macquarie network, for instance, would not be able to arrange a combined relay of an advertisement of Colgate’s soap without first submitting it to the Minister for approval. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be bothered with that sort of thing.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– There would be no prevention of any course of action by stations which did not cut across the revenue of the department. The clause as originally drafted was a reprint of a section of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act. If stations could act in the way suggested by the honorable member, the department would lose the revenue it now receives from the use of land-lines for transmitting programmes from one State to another. I assure the honorable member that the purpose of the words in question is not in any way to restrict the procedure now followed by broadcasting stations or to prevent relaying. They give to the Postmaster-General’s Department the power to ensure that its revenues shall not l>e endangered.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– In spite of the protestations by the Minister the text of the clause as proposed will undoubtedly have the effect I have stated. The clause proposed is too comprehensive. It should not cover anything but the relaying of news items.

Mr BEASLEY:

– This safeguard has been .in the act since its beginning. It is significant that it has not hindered in any way the commercial stations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 98 - (1.) Where a person is convicted under th* last preceding section, or where the Minister has reason to believe that any person has rendered for broadcasting any item, or has passed or selected for broadcasting any matter broadcast from any broadcasting station, which has caused or may have caused offence to any section of the public, he may call upon that person to show cause why an order should not be made directing that he be prohibited from rendering any item or from passing or selecting any matter, for broadcasting, or that restrictions , be placed on his rendering items, or passing or selecting matter, for broadcasting.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– This clause is linked with clause 97 which provides - (1.); The commission or the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not broadcast any matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene. (2.) A person shall not render for broadcasting any item, or pass or select for broadcasting any item, which contains any matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene. (3.) The Minister shall obtain a report from the State Broadcasting Advisory Committee, appointed in pursuance of section ninety-five of this Act, with regard to any matter broadcast from a national or a commercial broadcasting station in respect of which a person is alleged to have contravened this section. (4.) An offence against this section shall not bc prosecuted without the written consent of the Minister.

Clause 98 provides - (1.) Where a person is convicted under the last preceding section, or where the Mininter has reason to believe that any person has rendered for broadcasting any item, or hu* passed or selected for broadcasting any matter broadcast ‘from any broadcasting station, which has caused or may have caused offence to any section of the public, he may call upon that person to show cause why an order should not be made directing that he he prohibited from rendering any item or from passing or selecting any matter, for broadcasting, or that restrictions be placed on his rendering items, or passing or selecting matter, for broadcasting.

The Minister may exercise these powers in respect of a man who had never been convicted. It may be reasonable to say that the person who has been convicted of an offence should ‘be prevented from broadcasting or from passing or selecting for broadcasting, but it is not reasonable that the Minister should have power by such an order to deal with a person who has not been convicted at all.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister becomes the judge.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– -Yes, that is my objection to the clause. I do not object to the Minister having power to say that a person .who has been convicted shall be prevented from broadcasting, although I think that may be excessive punishment, but I do object to the Minister having power to find that person in effect guilty of the offence without giving to him a legal trial. The penalty the Minister may impose may be much more severe than would be imposed on him if he were convicted by a court of law. I move: -

That the words “ or where the Minister has reason to believe that any person has rendered for broadcasting any item, or has passed or selected for broadcasting any matter broadcast from any broadcasting station, which has caused or may have caused offence to any section of the public, he” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “the Minister”.

The effect of that would be that the Minister could not make an order except against a man who had been convicted of broadcasting objectionable matter or of passing it or selecting it for broadcast.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.The Minister could cite an alleged offender before him and he would be virtually prosecutor. He would be the one who would allege what was, in his opinion, blasphemous, indecent or obscene.

Mr Blackburn:

– He would be the law giver, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.

Mr MORGAN:

– Yes. An independent trial should be afforded to the party concerned, because the Minister may take a narrow view of what constitutes an offence.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– Under the old act the Minister could, if he thought public decency had been affronted, cancel or suspend the licence of the station. He was not given any other power. In actual practice no licence was ever cancelled or suspended because of the dissemination over the air of matter blasphemous, indecent or obscene. As honorable members know, there were many occasions when quite a number of stations should have been dealt with. There are some people who have a warped mind, and they include radic announcers who have been constant offenders against public decency. Ministers have hesitated to take action because it meant the suspension or cancellation of the licence and the penalizing of other employees and the owner. Also, under the old act, when a person wanted to leave his employment and was under a contractual agreement not to do so, he could, by making himself obnoxious, ensure his own dismissal so that he could make a contract at a higher rate with some other station. The committee considered that the Postmaster-General’s Department had not been as assiduous as it might have been in protecting the public interest. In addition to sending notices to offending stations, it should have made an example of one of them. Many flagrant cases were brought to the notice of the department, and its officers discovered a number of grave offences, but no salutary action was taken. The committee considered that action should be taken against the individual offender rather than against the station from which he broadcast, so that only he would suffer. Clause 97 lays down that nobody shall broadcast any matter which is blasphemous, indecent, or obscene. That is proper. Lt further provides that, if an offence which is considered to be sufficiently bad occurs, the Minister shall obtain a report from the State Broadcasting Advisory Committee. Clause 98 provides that, if a person has been convicted of an offence under clause 97, or if the Minister has reason to believe that he has broadcast any item or done other things which may have caused offence to any section of the public, he may call upon that person to show cause why he should not be prohibited from broadcasting or doing certain other things. There can be no reasonable objection to that. We must protect the minds of little children from pollution by the broadcasts of degenerates. It is more important that people should be sure that wireless broadcasts will not cause offence to their children than that we should worry about what happens to persons who give offence. In protecting the rights of the individual, we can go too far and forget the rights of the community. All that the Minister is empowered to do in these clauses is to prohibit a person from broadcasting for certain periods which, in his view, are sufficiently long to be justifiable. He can direct that the person shall refrain from broadcasting for a definite period, or that lie shall not broadcast at all. Some of these moral lepers ought to be banned from the air for all time. We should not be anxious to provide all sorts of courts to try their cases while, in the meantime, they may repeat their offences. The words used by an announcer may not be objectionable, but what he insinuates by intonation or a laugh may set up a train of thought which is objectionable. The committee cited the case of a reprobate who was reproved for his objectionable broadcasts, but who later broadcast another story and concluded by saying, “ It may not be funny, but my God, it’s pure”. We do not want the standard of decency that we have set to be ridiculed in that fashion by persons who are privileged to use a very important medium of instruction and entertainment. If the Minister has leaned in the direction of protecting the moral health of the public at the expense of some of these persons, he has not done anything wrong.

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for- Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– iSo far as I am able to determine, the two clauses are separate in their application. Clause 97 refers to broadcasts that are blasphemous, indecent or obscene. In respect of such broadcasts, as has already been explained, the Minister may call for a report and may prosecute the offender. Clause 9S provides that, arising out of the prosecution, he may take steps to prevent the offender from continuing to broadcast. In that event, the offender will have had a trial and the charge against him will have been proved. The clause goes even further and deals with broadcasts not actually blasphemous, indecent or obscene, but in which the action of the broadcaster may be vulgar or improper. For disciplinary purposes, the clause provides that the Minister shall have power to do something more than reprimand the offender. He would probably in the first instance issue a warning not to offend again. The circumstances would not be such as to warrant action under the provisions of clause 97, but would deserve a lesser penalty. Failing compliance with the warning-

Mr Morgan:

– It is a severe penalty to take a man’s livelihood away.

Mr BEASLEY:

– There are two sides to the question. If a man is reprimanded, he ought to be aware of the consequences which will follow if he does not heed the warning.

Mr Blackburn:

– There is no obligation to warn him at all.

Mr BEASLEY:

– He may be prevented for a period from broadcasting, or prevented from broadcasting the kind of talk, joke or propaganda which gave rise to the offence. These clauses have been inserted in order to meet the department’s demand for the provision of some disciplinary machinery. The need to keep the broadcasting service on the highest moral plane is obvious. Honorable members have laid particular stress on the importance of maintaining the highest educational and other standards in broadcasts intended for little children. Probably the highest standards are not maintained, but we ought to strive to attain them, even at the cost of observing, the proprieties even more strictly than may be necessary.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I do not raise any objection to the form of punishment proposed for a person who has been convicted of an offence, but I object to the Minister having power to substitute his own decision for the decision of a court. According to what the Minister has just said, the Minister may go even further than that and deprive a man of his livelihood, or temporarily suspend his right to earn a living, merely because be considers that words used by the person have caused, or may have caused, offence to a section of the public. The word “ offence “ is not defined. — Minister may consider that words are blasphemous, indecent, or obscene, or he may consider that, for some other reason, the words have offended somebody, or may have offended somebody, and that, therefore, he is entitled to fake away the broadcaster’s means of earning a living. The Minister has said that the person would first receive a warning and that he would be prevented from broadcasting only if he continued to offend. But the bill does not provide for the issue of a warning. A man may have an order made against him merely on account, of a phrase, a word or even an intonation. The Minister is not bound to give him any notice. The cause of offence, or possible cause of offence, to any section of the public may be something that is not blasphemous, indecent or obscene. A person who listens to various partisan broadcasts, such as religious or political talks, may be offended by something that is said, and he will have the right to appeal to the Minister. Apparently the Minister will have the right to make an order forbidding the man who has given the offence, on religious or political grounds, to broadcast again. It is undesirable that the Minister should have this power. The Minister will be the lawgiver, and will be entitled to decide what is offensive and what is not offensive. He will be the lawgiver, prosecutor, judge and executioner. He will be empowered to decide what standard of susceptibility shall be adopted, and any contravention of that standard may cause a broadcaster to be deprived of his means of livelihood. That penalty would be severe even if the man were convicted of an offence, but it would be unjust in the extreme to impose it upon a man who had not ‘been tried by a court. The words “ blasphemous “, “ indecent “ and “ obscene “ have ever-changing meanings. The conception of what is blasphemous, indecent or obscene depends upon the mind of the man who is dealing with the case. Fortunately, in a court of law we have the benefit of precedents and established doctrines, which are always changing in favour of freedom of speech. Even a court composed of a- magistrate would be a much more satisfactory tribunal than the Minister. The Minister would be more prone than the court to please narrow-minded and prejudiced persons. The court aits in public and has to administer settled principles of law. That is the reason why I wish to have these words deleted. I believe that -they invest the Minister with judicial power which he should not have. They enable him to deprive a person of his livelihood, even though that person may not have committed any breach of the law and may not have been charged with any definite offence.

A mend men t uega tiived .

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment; reports - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2132

COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1942

Second Reading

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill Ls to give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting concerning the annual fee for licences for commercial broadcasting stations. At present, the fee for each such licence is £25 per annum. The committee expressed the opinion that this flat rate should be maintained, but it recommended, and the bill accordingly provides, that in any case where the licensee of a station declares a profit, he should be required to pay an additional amount representing one-half of 1 per per cent, of his gross revenue. The committee estimated that these additional fees will aggregate £5,000 per annum.

The fee payable over and above £25, in respect of the licence for a station which has made a profit, will be calculated on the gross earnings of the station during a previous period of twelve months. As it is possible that the fee, on that account, may be regarded as taxation, it has been deemed advisable to introduce this measure independently of the Australian Broadcasting Bill in order to avoid any possibility of the validity of that measure being challenged because of the inclusion of any provisions which might be regarded as involving taxation.

Under the Australian Broadcasting Bill, the licensee of each commercial station will be required to supply such information as may be necessary for the calculation of the additional fees, if any, which may be payable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the extra amount of licence-fee that would have to be paid under certain circumstances by commercial broadcasting stations would be one-half of1 per cent, of the gross revenue. He also used the term “ gross earnings “. I wish to know exactly what is meant. Will this be a tax on turnover?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– I think it will.

Mr JOLLY:

– The position is not clear to me. The Minister will realize that there is a great deal of difference between gross revenue or earnings and net profit.

Mr Beasley:

– A station will not have to pay any extra fee unless it has earned a profit.

Mr JOLLY:

– It may earn a small profit and thereby become liable to the extra amount of licence-fee, so that its profit may actually involve a loss because the extra fee is based, not upon net earnings, but upon gross earnings.

Mr Francis:

– Conceivably, the extra tax may be more than the amount of profit.

Mr JOLLY:

– That, is so.

Bill agreed to and reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2132

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1942

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to include in the Dairy Export Control Act 1924-38 certain provisions which already exist in other corresponding acts under which the export and overseas marketing of Australian products are controlled.

Under the principal act the GovernorGeneral is empowered to take certain action for the purpose of enabling the Australian Dairy Produce Board effectively to control the export and sale, and distribution after export, of Australian butter and cheese; but the general powers and functions of the board appointed to administer the act are not clearly defined.

The constitution of the existing board was amended in 1935 to permit the incorporation of the functions of the Australian Dairy. Council in those of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. The Australian Dairy Council was a voluntary organization financed by a fee imposed under the Commerce (Export Dairy Produce) Regulations on butter and cheese exported. The council interested itself in the affairs of the dairying industry within the Commonwealth, whilst the Dairy Produce Control Board controlled exports. The council, amongst other things, rendered financial assistance in certain interests to improve conditions in the industry, and the new organization has continued to assist along similar lines. It has now been shown, however, that the Australian Dairy Produce Board has no statutory authority to give the dairying industry assistance in many directions, such as -

  1. Assistance for the training of dairy factory operatives - either by bursaries or contributions to the establishment or improvement of a State dairy college.
  2. Contributions to funds for an advertising campaign for Australian dairy produce; and
  3. Subscriptions to the funds of the Australian Institute of Dairy Factory Managers and Secretaries to promote, by competitions, improved methods of manufacture.

Consequently it is regarded as important that the principal act shall be amended in order to remove any undue limitations of the board’s activities.

Clause 2 of the bill defines the general powers granted to the board, and gives the board authority to do certain things which it is considered essential such a board should be enabled to do for the satisfactory administration of the act.

Authority for the expenditure of its funds in the course of exercising its powers and functions is provided in clause 3, the object of which is similar to that in the acts constituting similar boards in other industries.

The dairying industry is being organized during the war with the assistance of a special committee, the majority of the members of which are also members of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. The staff and organization of that body are also being used extensively by the committee. It is desirable, therefore, that the statutory position of the board be clearly defined.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– These proposed amendments of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act are designed to include in the measure similar powers to those in other acts dealing with the control, export and overseas marketing of primary products. The present act does not give the board the powers that it should have, and that it believed it had, to assist the dairying industry as other primary industries are being assisted by legislation. In 1935, when the functions of the Australian Dairy Council were incorporated in those of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, it was thought that this board was being empowered to perform the functions of the council. The council was a voluntary organization which assisted in the expansion and development of the dairy industry within Australia, whilst the Dairy Produce Board supervised the export and sale of the produce after it left Australia.

I pay tribute to the exceptionally fine work performed by Mr. Rankin, of Victoria, and Mr. William Harris, of Toowoomba, Queensland, who have given practically a lifetime of service to the industry. The former Australian Dairy Council did splendid voluntary work in providing financial assistance to increase production in the industry by the encouragement of herd testing and pasture improvement, and to train dairy factory operatives, and encourage and improve State dairy colleges. It also encouraged the improvement in the manufacture of dairy produce by making grants and contributions to the Australian Dairy Factory Managers and Secretaries Institute to promote competitions, and to promote an advertising campaign to encourage the consumption of Australian dairy produce. From what I have said it will be seen that material assistance in the expansion and development of the dairy industry in Australia on approved lines was carried out by the council before its aims and objects were thought to be embodied in the amending legislation of 1935.

The amendments proposed in this bill will give to the Australian Dairy Produce Boardthe power which was thought to be contained in the 1935 amendments to carry on the work of the Australian Dairy Council. Power will also be given by these amendments to encourage, by organized publicity and other such means, the consumption of dairy produce in the countries to which it is exported.

The people engaged in the dairy industry work 365 days a year. It is the hardest and most Under-paid work. Dairying has been Australia’s greatest aid to closer settlement, and . has helped remarkably to open up our coastal lands. Before the Dairy Produce Export Control Act was introduced in 1924, Australia sold its butter overseas under the hundreds of individual brands of the factories that produced it. Upon reaching Great Britain it Jost its identity and was not known as Australian butter. Merchants used the first-class Australian butter for blending with cheap butter imported from the continent, and thus made a profit at the expense of our dairymen. The board has largely removed that imposition. To-day, a high standard of quality is maintained, and the product is exported under the brand of the kangaroo, which is’ the hallmark of perfection in butter production ; consequently, Australian butter is now identifiable. Increased prices have resulted from the operations of the board. For many years prior to the appointment of the board, a substantial difference always existed between the prices of Australian and New Zealand butter. That has now been eliminated, and at times Australian butter tops the market in Great Britain. By reason of the operations of the Australian Dairy Council and the Australian Dairy Produce Board, the exports have increased substantially. We have to export our surplus production so as to ensure that a payable price shall be received for that which is consumed locally. In 1920-21, which until then was the record year, our exports were 56,850 tons of butter and 5,656 tons of cheese. Those quantities were almost doubled in 1938-39, when the exports amounted to 102,571 tons of butter and 16,476 tons of cheese. For 1939-40 the exports amounted to 117,022 tons of butter and 19,500 tons of cheese. The board has rendered further invaluable service to the industry in the economies effected in regard to freight and insurance. Through it, the dairymen have been able to make representations to the shipping and insurance companies, with the result that millions of pounds has been saved since the act become operative in 1924. The bill gives to the board the power to encourage the improvement of herds by means of herd-testing, pasture improvement, improvement of the manufacture of butter by means of competitions between the several factories, the training of dairy factory operatives, the development of State dairy colleges. The court will also control advertising in Australia and overseas. Under an agreement with Great Britain, the industry is’ required to make available 70,000 tons of butter and at least 42,000 tons of cheese this season. My reading of press reports indicates to me that we shall not be able to honour those obligations to Great Britain. I remind the House that Britain is on the meagre ration of 2 oz. of butter to each individual. If we are unable to honour our obligation, that ration will have to be lowered. Difficulties are also being experienced by the industry because of the shortage of man-power and fertilizers. I hope that every effort will be made by the Government to ensure that the producers shall have the necessary man-power to assist in the production of this commodity. Man-power is imperative for our fighting forces, which I regard as the first army. It is imperative, also, for the munitions workers, who constitute the second army. Then there i3 the food-producing army, which must not be overlooked; if it is, we shall not he able to meet our obligations to Great Britain and our allies, or to supply the requirements of our own fighting force!or of our allies who are coming here in ever-increasing numbers in order to assist us with our problems. Herds are being depleted; many of the stock have been dried off; herds which some time ago numbered from 150 to 200 have been reduced to less than one-half of that number, because it is not possible, with the limited man-power available, to deal with the cows that are ready to milk.

I commend the Minister for having introduced the bill. I ask him to investigate the man-power problem in order to ensure that the labour made available shall be equal to the demands that will be placed upon it.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– I cannot take the rosy dawn-like view of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) with respect to this measure. The operations of the Australian Dairy Produce Board during the last year resulted in the sun setting upon many of the dairy farmers of South Australia. In regard to dairy produce, the position of South Australia is different from that of any other State. The percentage of second-grade and pastry export butter to the total exports of the State is as high as 71 per cent., the figures being 79,269 boxes in a total of 111,600 boxes. The percentage of lowgrade butter in the other States is much less, being 25 per cent, in Western Australia, 34 per cent, in Queensland, 13 per cent, in New South Wales, 12 per cent, in Tasmania, and 8 per cent, in Victoria. One of the reasons is that in our dairying districts we concentrate on the manufacture of cheese. For our cream supplies to the butter factories we concentrate on the mixed farmer and on outside areas. Consequently, the supplies are not great from men who are engaged in dairying in the real sense; they consist, of small consignments from thousands of farmers, who have only a. few cows and do not produce sufficient to forward very frequently. Also, our climate, particularly in the summer, makes .the conditions such as to militate considerably against the production of a high-grade cream. Long distances, in the districts represented by the honorable members for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), Grey (Mr. Badman) and myself, together with small supplies, prevent frequent forwarding. This applies largely to the Murray lands, Eyre Peninsula, and a considerable area in the northern part of the State. I do not consider that the granting of increased powers to the board will be of benefit to our farmers. Partly because of its short-sighted policy, Ave have not now as much butter for export purposes as we should like to have, and as Great Britain would be glad to take from us.

Mr Chifley:

– Great Britain did not want to take it a while back.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I agree. Recently, Great Britain would take only choice and first-quality butter. This hit South Australian dairymen very hard.

Mr Chifley:

– It was not prepared to take all the first-quality butter it originally contracted to take.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– There is no difficulty in disposing of it now.

Mr Francis:

– There is the shipping difficulty.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Butter is high on the list of priorities.

Mr Chifley:

– Great Britain wanted us to change over from butter to cheese. Steps were taken, at some expense, to that end.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– This has hit the South Australian dairymen very hard, particularly the smaller and poorer men who conduct dairying operations as a sideline to their other activities. Desperate efforts were made to induce the Commonwealth Government or the Australian Dairy Produce Board, or both, to take steps which would obviate the forcing of these small men out of the industry. The honorable member for Barker and 1 were associated with those efforts, which extended over a period of some months. However, it was decided that certain compensation should be paid. T propose to quote, first, the compensation price paid to the factories, and then the price charged by the control committee for resale.

Mr Chifley:

– The British Government did not want to take those grades at all.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Not at first, perhaps. But there is no difficulty in getting rid of them now. Did the British Government itself decide not to take any but first and second grades?

Mr Chifley:

– Yes.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That was only because of the shortage of ships. Prior to the development, of that shortage. Great Britain took all the butter that was offering.

Mr Chifley:

– The Government acquired the low-grade butter for the pur- . pose of helping the producers. At the time, it seemed likely to be a total loss to the Government.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– The figures in regard to compensation paid to the factories and the prices charged for resale are as follows : -

Mr Chifley:

– The action referred to by the honorable member has nothing to do with the Dairy Produce Board; it was taken under national security regulations.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Surely, if it is proposed to amend the act, we are entitled to consider the position as it obtains to-day? Manufacturers understood that the compensation on pastry grade butter would depend on realization, and that there was a possibility of a further advance on second grade if realizations justified it. There was no difficulty in disposing of acquired butter at prices justifying increased compensation. The South Australian Dairy Produce Equalization Committee urged the Dairy Produce Board to grant such an increase, but only selling, prices have been increased. Butter production in South Australia has declined from 33,073 boxes of 56 lb. for the four weeks ended on the 25th December, 1939, to 10,608 boxes for the four weeks ended the 13th May, 1942. Sales in South Australia have increased by 20 per cent., owing to greater spending power of the public, and the influx of overseas troops. Some relief should be provided, so that there shall be no further loss of cattle by slaughtering. We all are familiar with what happens in regard to boards of this kind. There is usually a good deal of justification for their appointment, and at first they are fairly representative of various sections of the community, but as time goes on they become tenacious of power. I find it difficult to understand why these further powers should be required, especially during the war. All surplus butter is sold to the British Government through the board, under contract, and exportable butter submitted for grading to the Commonwealth grader is acquired by the board four days after grading. After that, if butter or cheese graded for export is required for sale in , Australia, the consent of the board is required for its release. It would appear that the board or the Department of Commerce is anxious to retain control of these primary products after the war, instead of allowing trade to revert to natural channels. I have always held the opinion that the marketing of primary products overseas is not properly the concern of the man who produces them, but should be handled by experts. In Great Britain before the war, there was a tendency to discourage attempts by outsiders to control the marketing of primary products, and New Zealand, which interfered in this matter, made heavy losses.

In the proposed new section 13a c (i) the board, through the Department of Commerce, is trying to take from the State agricultural departments some of their powers regarding the control of factories. This paragraph provides that, with the approval of the Minister, the board can, either on its own behalf, or in collaboration with another board, take any action likely to lead to the improvement of dairy produce, or the prevention of deterioration of dairy produce before or during the transport from Australia. That is a matter which now comes within the control of the State departments of agriculture, the federal authorities having no control until the produce is submitted for export. The result of federal control of the industry in South Australia has been calamitous. Despite the attempts of State and Federal members of Parliament and other public men to avert it, hundreds of dairy cows have been sent to the abattoirs for slaughter, and a great many producers have been driven out of the industry. In addition, several butter factories have been closed down, and these things have happened despite the fact that Great Britain urgently requires fats. Therefore, I cannot be expected to regard the activities of the board with satisfaction, and I am opposed to the bill.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The bill represents a departure from the principles of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act. As the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) has pointed out, it is proposed to authorize the Dairy Produce Board to make recommendations for the improvement of dairy produce. I do not deny that there is room for improvement, especially in South Australia, but when we realize the discrepancy between what the producers have received and what the consumers have had to pay it becomes clear to us that there is something very wrong. It is impossible to get butter for less than nothing, and that is what the producers have received for third-grade butter, whilst for second grade the maximum price received was 6d. per lb. Nevertheless, this butter was being disposed of at prices ranging from 8d. to ls. Id. per lb. There is an obligation upon the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) to clear up this matter. The reduction of the number of dairy cattle in South- Australia is alarming. Two years ago, some honorable members, including the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), thought that I should urge dairy-farmers to produce more butter. It is just aa well that I did not oblige them. Before very long, we shall be faced with the problem of maintaining our production at a level that will meet our own requirements and certain export obligations. The dairying industry will experience difficult times in the near future. Apart from the problem of labour, the shortage of supplies of superphosphate is causing great anxiety, because high-grade pastures cannot be maintained without the application of this fertilizer. Matters relating to export and storage contribute to the creation of a first-class problem in the industry, and the bill will not overcome many of the difficulties. It ia true, as the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) stated, that certain acquisitions have been made under regulations. As they have now been in operation for nearly six months, the Treasurer should take the opportunity to explain at this stage the manner in which they have been administered, and what has been done with the money that has been collected by the Dairy

Produce Board from the sale of dairy produce on the local market.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2137

RABBIT SKINS EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1942

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

  1. That a charge be imposed on all rabbit skins exported from the Commonwealth after the commencement of the act passed to give effect to this resolution and on or before the date to be fixed by Proclamation as the date upon which the Rabbit Skins Export Charges Act 1940 shall cease to be in force.
  2. That the rate of charge be as prescribed by regulations made under the Rabbit Skins Export Charges Act 1940, as amended by the Act passed to give effect to this resolution, after report to the Minister by the Australian Rabbit Skins Board constituted under the first-mentioned act, but that the rate of charge do not in any case exceed Two shillings and sixpence for each pound of rabbit skins exported.

This motion is introduced for the purpose of amending the Rabbit Skins Export Charges Act 1940. That act imposed a charge on the export of rabbit skins to provide funds for the administration of the marketing scheme, which it was found necessary to introduce in June, 1940, in order to ensure supplies of skins to Australian hat manufacturers at fixed domestic prices for the production of military and civilian headwear. The scheme works thus : In collaboration with the Prices Commissioner, the Australian Rabbit Skins Board appointed under the National Security Act prepared a list of prices at which the numerous grades of rabbit skins normally used in hat production would be made available to Australian hat manufacturers. At the commencement of each winter buying season - April to September - the board allocates to each hat manufacturer the quantities and grades of skins which he ‘s permitted to purchase month by month under the scheme for his requirements. This phase of the scheme is very closelycontrolled to ensure that hat-makers dc not secure an undue advantage. They buy their quotas of skins at open auction and are paid compensation from the board’s funds to the amount of the difference between the fixed domestic prices and the ruling auction market prices on the day of purchase. The export levy imposed under the Rabbit Skins Export Charges Act provides the funds from which the compensation is paid. This modified control of a difficult industry has functioned very smoothly and efficiently under a small organization incurring very light overhead expenses. The board’s only real embarrassment for some time has been in respect of finance, and this is solelydue to the extraordinary heights to which the prices of rabbit skins have risen. Last year, with heavy exports and with an increase of. the fixed domestic prices of skins, the board managed to balance its budget with the export levy at the maximum rate of 9d. per lb. provided in the existing act. This year exports will be lighter as supplies are not so plentiful. The main reasons for this are two consecutive years of very heavy trapping, seasonal conditions, and depletion of man-power in country districts. Lessened export quantities mean lower collections at the same rate of levy, and on present indications the board has little possibility of obtaining this year from an export levy of 9d. per lb. sufficient revenue to meet its liabilities for compensation payments.

Normally the extra cost might be passed on to the buyers of civilian hats, and I would not regard this as any great hardship in war-time. However, the demands for military hats are such that our factories are not making civilian hats at the present time. Any additional cost of production of military hats would, of course, become a direct charge on Commonwealth funds. In fact, any deficit in the board’s accounts must be made up in one of the following ways : -

  1. By an increase of the rate of export levy;
  2. by increasing the cost of military hats at the Government’s expense; or
  3. by a direct grant from Commonwealth revenue.

In view of the very great benefits which this industry has obtained under war conditions, it would be impossible at this stage for the Government to countenance any increase of the prices of military hats, whilst a direct contribution from Commonwealth revenue is out of the question. The alternative is an increase of the export levy. Any increase of the rate of export levy means a corresponding decrease of market values, and ordinarily I should be very diffident about sponsoring a bill which would have that effect. However, after an examination of all the facts and with the knowledge that the alternative is to impose an additional burden on Commonwealth revenue, I am satisfied that the way to meet the problem is in the manner proposed in the bill.

Beyond question, the rabbit skins industry has been allowed to enjoy war-time benefits such as no other industry in Australia has been permitted to receive. In the immediate pre-war year, 1938-39, the value of the Australian rabbit skins catch was under £600,000, whilst last year it was over £4,000,000, an all-time record. The figures speak for themselves. A reasonable increase of the export levy will not affect trapping activities. Prices are too good. It may interest honorable members to know that the Commonwealth Government compulsorily acquired rabbit skins during the last war, and the highest price payable to suppliers for the best grades was 20d. per lb. Last week in the Sydney market it was 123d., even though skins had not reached top winter quality and an export levy of 9d. per lb. operated. When the 3 940 act was introduced, it was apparently thought that 9d. per lb. was a reasonable maximum, but the heights which skin prices have since reached upset calculations. The maximum of 2s. 6d. per lb. now suggested is relatively high, but it is not probable that this rate will have to be reached. The actual rate is regulated by the market prices and the quantities available for export. No attempt is made to provide a surplus in the board’s fund, the aim being to obtain only sufficient revenue from exports to meet compensation payments and cover the running expenses of the scheme. I commend the motion to honorable members.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– The Opposition has no objection to these proposals.

Mr Prowse:

– That is not correct.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The proposals have been introduced at the request of the Australian Rabbit ‘Skins Board, which was appointed for the purpose of assisting to obtain the number of rabbit skins required to meet Australian and certain export demands. The problem is to secure sufficient skins, in the first instance, for military hats. Accordingly, Parliament should regard this legislation as a war measure and assist the Government in its task of providing hats for the army. The shortage of rabbit skins is due to a number of causes. Dry seasons have caused heavy mortality among rabbits, whilst heavy trappings in f/he two previous years also reduced their number. Above all, the shortage of man-power as the result of the calling up of men for military service has increased the difficulty of obtaining skins. So far as I am aware, the Opposition has no objection to the motion.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.So far as I am aware, a great deal of objection can be taken to this proposal. I do not know where the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) got the idea that the Opposition, as a whole, would support the bill. In my opinion, the excise upon rabbit skins will defeat the purpose for which the Government imposed it. The .States have enacted legislation that compels land-owners to eradicate rabbits upon their properties. The acute shortage of man-power has necessitated an increase of price in order to justify the arduous and filthy work of trapping and skinning. The poison cart is the usual method that is adopted to get rid of rabbits, but that practice destroys not only the rodent but also the skin. Trapping is a much slower and more arduous method, whilst skinning is really a filthy work. Unless the inducement to trap rabbits be substantially increased, the Government’s requirements will not be obtained. Vigorous action by land-owners has wrought havoc among the rabbits.

Mr Chifley:

– The price for skins is 300 per cent, higher than the pre-war level.

Mr PROWSE:

– And the skins are now 300 per cent, more difficult to obtain than they were before the war. The high price reflects that difficulty. Whilst rabbits do not spring up like mushrooms, their number increases far too rapidly for the good of the country. In future, I shall poison rabbits on my property in order to get rid of them.

Mr Chifley:

– Last week in the Sydney market, the price payable for the best grades of skins was 123d., even though the skins had not reached top winter quality, and an export levy of 9d. per lb. operated.

Mr PROWSE:

– Land-owners experience great difficulty in obtaining men to eradicate the pest. My efforts have returned to me not a farthing profit. I have already submitted to the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) a communication from Western Australia pointing out that the Government’s proposals will discourage people from trapping rabbits.

Question- resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley ami Mr. Dedman do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2139

NAVIGATION BILL 1942

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the bill bc now read u second time.

Navigation legislation has been several times before this House. Since the principal act was passed in 1912, there have been six amending acts and, generally, there has been found some difference of opinion as to the merits of the legislation proposed. On this occasion, however, I present a short bill of ten clauses dealing with the sections of the act, relating to courts of marine inquiry and I am sure that when the proposals are explained, they will receive unanimous support. Certain amendments which were found necessary or desirable before the. war have now become more pressing.

They will, if passed, save much loss of time by ships’ officers who may be involved in collisions or other accidents, and may also avoid the necessity for delaying ships to obtain evidence. Both these factors are of great importance in present circumstances.

I should mention, in passing, that the department advises that many other amendments to this act are desirable, but the Government has not yet had an opportunity to examine them. Therefore, the matter which is most pressing is now brought forward in the bill before the House. Of the ten clauses, clause 6 is the most important. The practice followed in conducting courts of marine inquiry in Great Britain allows the court which inquires into the accident or casualty to take action then and there in regard to the certificate of competency of any officer adjudged to be guilty of any wrongful act, carelessness, &c. Here in Australia, it is necessary to convene a second court to consider a charge made against any officer, as a result of the first court’s finding. This double procedure, the Government believes, should be avoided. It delays the completion of the proceedings and thus the chance of an officer getting back into employment, and is more expensive to both the officers concerned and the department. While an officer is awaiting the completion of the two inquiries, he must necessarily suffer some mental distress, and a procedure which will considerably shorten the period will, I am confident, commend itself to the House. By another clause of the hill, an appeal is given to the supreme court of a State, and this will ensure full justice to any one charged with an offence. The other amendments are more or less of a formal character. I propose to reserve further explanation for the committee stage.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– Normally, the Opposition would ask for an adjournment of the debate in order that we might investigate the full implications of the ten clauses of the measure, but, in view of the approach of the close of the sessional period and the circumstances mentioned by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), namely, (he extraordinary demands upon our shipping, it is not the desire of the Opposition that any impediment be put in the way of giving effect- to the desires of the Government. I am bound, however, to refer to clause 9, to which the Treasurer made no reference. We are somewhat concerned at the proposal that the findings of the Court of Marine Inquiry may be overridden by the Minister. That is something new in British jurisprudence. I hope that in committee the Treasurer will be able to justify that proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I support the request of the honorable member for Parramatta that the Treasurer shall explain why it has been found necessary to provide that the Minister may override the decisions of the Court of Marine Inquiry. It is a firm principle of British law that the courts shall in no way be interfered with by Ministers. I am certain that there must be some reason why this course is being taken, hut the Minister should make it clear to .us.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– Two classes of certificates of competency are issued under the Navigation Act to masters, mates and engineers of ships, namely, those having Imperial validity, which are recognized in all parts of the British Empire, and those of a less important character, valid within the Commonwealth only. The issue of the certificates of Imperial validity is subject to the provisions of section 102 of the Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britain, and by means of regulations made under that section power is given, where a certificate of imperial validity has been cancelled or suspended, and if, in the opinion of the Minister, the justice of the case requires it, to return or re-issue the certificate or to shorten the time for which it has been suspended or grant in place thereof a certificate of lower grade. This power does not, however, extend to the purely local certificates mentioned. The new section proposed gives similar power in regard to these.

Bill agreed to and reported from committee without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2141

LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1942

Second Reading

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is not often that Parliament is called upon to deal with lighthouse matters. The first Commonwealth act relating to lighthouses was passed in 1911, and provided machinery for the transfer of coastal lighthouses and marine marks from the various States to the Commonwealth, for the future maintenance and improvement of such lighthouses and marino marks, for the erection of additional aids to navigation, to complete the lighting of the 12,000-mile coastline of the Commonwealth, and for the collection of Commonwealth light dues. It was decided that, before the act should come into operation, an officer should, on behalf of the Commonwealth, inspect all coastal lighthouses and marine marks which had been provided by the States, and report as to the aids to navigation that should l>e taken over from the States, the improvements necessary, and the additional aids required to light efficiently the coastal shipping tracks. This report was completed in 1912, but owing to delays in reaching agreement with the various States as to the properties and personnel to be transferred, and the conditions of transfer, the act did not come into operation until the 1st July, 1915. In the latter year, a small amending act was passed, providing for the acquisition of lighthouses and marine marks by compulsory process where agreement could not be reached with any State.- In 1919, another small amending act was passed, providing that any damage caused to a Commonwealth lighthouse or marine mark by any person or by any ship should be made good by the person or by the master or owner of the ship concerned ; also that such damage should be reported without delay to the Collector of Customs at the first port of call. The act has not since been amended.

The regulations made under the Lighthouses Act provide for the exemption of certain classes of ships, for example, vessels belonging to the Royal Navy or the Royal Australian Navy, ships in distress and mission ships, from the payment of light dues, and also for the remission of light dues in certain cases, for instance, in respect of a ship laid up and not engaged in trade for a period of one month. Recently the Crown Law advisers pointed out that the act did not authorize such a provision by regulation, and it is therefore proposed in this bill to provide for the granting of such concessions by regulation. The matter can be more fully dealt with when the clauses are being discussed in committee. Another clause in the bill is designed to give the Minister or his officer power to carry materials over private property where it is necessary to erect or maintain a light. Obviously, such a power is necessary where places may be so inaccessible that there is only one reasonable approach to the area, and that across private property. This matter also is briefly mentioned now, and may be further discussed in the committee stage. The other three clauses of this short bill are of a strictly formal nature, and I am confident that honorable members will find themselves in agreement with each proposal made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2141

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1940-43

Message recommending appropriation reported. lit, Committee of Supply:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That there be granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the services of the year 1942-43 a sum not exceeding £37,409,000.

The purpose of this measure is to secure the necessary appropriation of moneys to carry on the services of government until the annual appropriation hills for 1942-43 are approved by Parliament. The bill makes provision for the expenditure of an amount of £37,409,000 for revenue services for the period of the first three months of the financial year 1942-43. The provision may be summarized under the following heads: -

The bill provides only for the amount which is estimated to be sufficient to carry on the essential services on the basis of the appropriations passed by the Parliament for the current year, 1941-42. The items, excluding defence and war services, making up this total represent, approximately one-fourth of those appropriations, except in a few cases’ where expenditure is heavier in the early months of the financial year than in the later months. The provision for defence and war services represents the estimated amount which will be available from revenue receipts for the first three months of the year after making allowance for our other obligations. In addition to the defence expenditure from revenue there will, of course, be much greater expenditure which will be covered by loan appropriations. The usual provisions are made in the bill for “Refunds of Revenue “ and “ Advance to the Treasurer the amounts being £1,000,000 and £5,000,000, respectively. The latter amount is mainly required to carry on uncompleted civil works which will be in progress at the 30th June, and also to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure. It will also temporarily finance the special grants to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania on the same basis as that approved by Parliament for the present financial year until a bill can be submitted after receipt of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Except in respect of defence and war services, no provision is made in the bill for any new expenditure; no departure from existing policy is involved.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– The Opposition has no objection to granting supply’ for a period of three months, but it wishes to have an assurance from the Treasurer that, in the event of the war position in the Pacific area or elsewhere deteriorating to . any degree, the House will be called together immediately so that honorable members may discuss the situation and be apprised of the facts.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.As a matter of interest, I ask the Treasurer what arrangements have been made for making reimbursements to the States in connexion with the new uniform income taxation scheme. I appreciate the fact that the bills embodying this plan have not yet become law, but I assume that it will be necessary to make some payments to the States before the end of the period for which the Government, asks supply.

Mr Chifley:

– I do not expect to have any difficulty in that respect. We shall be able to pay the States enough to enable them to carry on.

Mr JOLLY:

– I assume that, as all income taxes will come into the Consolidated Revenue, disbursements to the States will have to be included in the estimates of expenditure to be passed by Parliament. The Treasurer will need approval for any payments that he wishes to make to the States.

Mr Chifley:

– I remind the honorable member that normally income tax revenue would not be received by the States until early in 1943. Therefore, I do not anticipate any trouble, but if payments have to be made they will come from Treasurer’s Advances.

Mr JOLLY:

– I urge that an adequate check be made of all items of the huge amount of expenditure earmarked for the purpose of the war.

Mr Conelan:

– Can not the Parliamentary Committee on War Expenditure do that?

Mr JOLLY:

– No. As a member of the committee I have had an opportunity to investigate war expenditure, and I appreciate the difficulty of obtaining the necessary staff to carry out an adequate check. 1 recall that, in one case which came to the committee’s notice, a proposal for the expenditure of £6,000 on a war project, which was approved by another government, eventually cost the country £34,000. When the committee drew attention to the fact, the Government took action.

Mr Dedman:

– Nothing like that happens now.

Mr JOLLY:

– The committee’s investigations have shown that a close chock is not made of war expenditure. There are indications that the nation is not obtaining full value for the money that it is expending. The Auditor-General complains that his staff is inadequate to provide a close check on this expenditure, but that staff merely checks expenditure after it has been made. I contend that we should maintain a close watch on war expenditure as it is made. It is no good to learn afterwards that money has been wasted. We should take steps to prevent extravagant expenditure.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), I have no hesitation in giving to the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) an assurance that this House will be called together immediately should any change of the war situation warrant such action.

T fully agree with what the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) ha3 said about war expenditure. The honorable gentleman doubtless realizes that there are great difficulties in the way of checking this expenditure at the present time. However, the Government has done everything that is possible. The Department of the Treasury now has the Defence (Treasury) Section under its control, and it has the Board of Business Administration, which employs a number of inspectors to maintain a constant check on war expenditure. One difficulty is that decisions involving large sums of money must sometimes be made overnight. My policy is not to hinder the implementation of such decisions. I have given instructions that, if the military command considers expenditure to be necessary, its decisions must be carried into effect. However, an intimation must be given to the officers of the Treasury immediately so that the Board of Business Administration may have an opportunity to investigate such extraordinary expenditure at the earliest possible moment. In some instances, it is only possible to make a review of the expenditure. I do not deny that there has been a great deal of extravagant expenditure in connexion with military operations. No Treasurer could deny that statement.

I found that many of our building standards were too high to maintain in war-time, though they may have been all right for peace-time. The Government, therefore, appointed Sir Harry Brown, a competent and experienced man, to consult with the officers of the various services with the object of fixing a range of standards suitable for present needs and for defence buildings generally. A unanimous agreement was reached on the subject. It was necessary to take this action in order to conserve both manpower and materials which are in short supply. I assure the honorable member for Lilley that so far as it is humanly possible to do it, expenditure is being supervised. Urgent work of a defence character that must be completed without delay is put in hand at once, but it* an inquiry cannot be made into costs before such a job is done, it is made afterwards and, if necessary, . steps are taken to remedy any mistakes and extravagances. The honorable gentleman may rest assured that the Government is supervising, to the best of its ability, all public expenditure.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- My opportunities in these days to address honorable members are confined to occasions when the House resolves itself into committee, and I therefore take advantage of the consideration of this bill in the Committee of Supply to make some observations concerning the gold-mining industry of Western Australia. I appeal to the Government to lift the threat which it has apparently made to the continuance of this industry. I shall not need to discuss the subject at great length, for a representative deputation from Western Australia, which included the State Premier and persons closely associated with the gold-mining industry, waited on the

Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and the Minister for War Organization of Industry (Mr. Dedman) last week in regard to the matter. I understand that the deputation did not receive any satisfactory assurances. Apparently the Government has adopted the attitude that the goldmining industry cannot be guaranteed any measure of protection in present circumstances, and that in future men will be taken from the mines whenever it is expedient to take them. If that means that the principal industry of Western Australia, which is gold-mining, is to be sacrificed, an undue hardship is to be imposed on that State. When the war started, the gold-miners of Western Australia enlisted in large numbers. There is no more patriotic section of the people than the Western Australian gold-miners. It is estimated that the mines lost about half of their effectives soon after the war began. Apparently, it is now proposed to take even labourers from the mines, and to convert the tools and plant of the mining companies to war production. I trust that the Government will give some consideration to the consequences of dislocating an industry of this description which provides, in a direct way, for more than one-sixth of the population of Western Australia in normal times. Each year the gold-mining industry distributes about £3,000,000 in wages. The economic structure of Western Australia depends largely upon gold-mining, and if the gold-fields be destroyed as a market for the primary produce of the State, railway revenue will be impaired, receipts from the gold-fields’ water scheme will diminish, and, in one way and another, the whole community will suffer seriously. I suppose it is intended to provide sustenance for the dependants of miners who will be removed to work in other localities, but many people who may not be directly associated with gold-mining will also suffer considerable hardships in consequence of of government policy in this regard, and they should be assisted. The fact should be remembered that if some mines are closed down - I have in mind particularly the larger mines - it is unlikely that they will ever resume production. The Lake View and Star mine, which is the largest mine in Australia, has shafts down to 4,000 feet. The spoil from mining operations has been dumped in underground workings, and the mine has to be carefully managed in order to prevent watering at the lower levels. I fear that if this mine be closed down, it will not be re-opened. About £1,000,000 a year is disbursed in wages by the Lake View and Star Company. The Great Boulder and Wiluna mines are of little less importance than the Lake View and Star mine, but no assurance has been given that the management of these mines will be allowed to retain sufficient men to maintain operations. Skeleton crews will not be sufficient for this purpose. If these mines close down, they may be finished for all time. Generally speaking, Western Australia has been rather badly treated in the distribution of Commonwealth moneys for the establishment of industries. That State has also been singularly unfortunate in that about £1,000,000 a year has been taken away from the State by means of the gold tax, irrespective of whether the mines producing the gold have been worked at a profit or not. Western Australia has been unfortunate, too, in that it has received only a small share of the Government’s expenditure on war industries and the like. This may be due partly to the geographical position of the State, and to its lack of industrial equipment, but it is also due partly to the fact that Commonwealth officers charged with the duty of establishing war industries have naturally employed the resources with which they were familiar in the eastern States, and Western Australia’s claims have been overlooked. Although some industries have been started in Western Australia since the outbreak of the war, I cannot see much prospect of them remaining as permanent industries after the war. A power alcohol distillery is to be established in Western Australia, and we hope that a munitions factory will also soon be in operation there. The State also has some prospect of developing a permanent potash industry. But, apart from these projects, I do not see much prospect of the war providing Western Australia with any permanent industries. The people of my State have responded magnificently to every patriotic appeal that has been made to them, but if they are to be deprived of the establishment of war industries on patriotic grounds, they are being asked to bear a little too much.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

– I bring to the notice of the Government the need to make some provision for the compensation of persons who may suffer loss or be injured as the result of air raid precautions. Steps have already been taken to insure property against war damage, but I hope that flesh and blood will not be considered of less value than property, although that has been the traditional attitude of governments. Recently I brought to the notice of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) the death of a little girl, two or three years of age, through drowning in an air raid shelter. No amount of money could compensate the parents for the loss of this little child, but at least a compassionate allowance could be provided to meet the funeral expenses. I urge that consideration be given to cases of this description for I have little doubt that many of the kind are likely to occur.

It is necessary, also, that special consideration be given to the difficulties of persons who are purchasing homes under various time-payment processes. There are 228 building societies in New South Wales, with a membership of 22,000. The average loan granted to the members of these societies is £780. This is, therefore, a people’s organization. Many men who, prior to the war, had entered into obligations with financial institutions in respect of the purchase of homes, have since enlisted, and their payment as members of the fighting services, particularly if they are privates, is not sufficient to enable them to maintain their instalments. It may be said that contractual obligations have been made, but surely in days like these financial institutions are not to be allowed to demand, like Shylock, their pound of flesh ! The Government should take immediate steps to meet this situation. The policy of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) is to reduce rates of interest on new loans. That, however, does not meet the position in respect of loans already raised. Nor would a moratorium meet the situation. Interest will accumulate, and upon their return the men will be confronted with a large debt. The only way is to reduce the interest rate, thus enabling the men to meet the payments from their military allowance. The Treasurer has already received a deputation, and I assume has given careful consideration to the matter. If he were to approach the financial institutions, they might voluntarily recognize their obligations, as members of the fighting forces have recognized the duty that they owe to their country, and reduce the interest to a reasonable rate. The money was raised at a rate of about 5 per cent., which is considerably higher than the ruling rate in respect of new loans. If these institutions were not prepared to do the decent thing, the Government should take appropriate action under the National Security regulations for the reduction of interest to a fair level.

There is vital necessity to conserve supplies of petrol. Australia may be blockaded, and thus be prevented from obtaining supplies from overseas. A considerable quantity of spirit is needed by the Air Force. It is time that we had a statement in regard to the Newnes plant. There has not been a statement of the position of that plant for some time, and considerable concern is felt as to how matters are proceeding. The Commonwealth, must have well over £1,000,000 invested in the enterprise. This Government was not responsible for the methods adopted in the initial stages, and a mistake was made. Instead of setting up a large plant, and expending hundreds of thousands of pounds, it might have been better to start in a small way, and proceed by the process of trial and error. I urge the Government to give some relief and encouragement to the smaller concerns. It is all very well for the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) to say that some of the sponsors of such concerns are not governed by lofty motives. We realize that they are governed by ordinary business motives. This applies also to the major oil companies. It is doubtful whether those companies understand the term “lofty motives “. This is evident from the revelations that have been made in connexion with the parent concern - the Standard Oil Company of

America - to the effect that it has been linked up with the enemy not only prior to but also during the war. A few months ago, it endeavoured to prevent the despatch of lubricating oil to this country, which would have resulted in a saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds under the lease-lend arrangement. We have to become self-dependent in regard to supplies of oil. We have means for the production of oil in our huge supplies of coal, which could be developed by the different processes that have already been tested. I ask the Treasurer to consider the payment of a subsidy to the Government of New South Wales. The previous Government was requested to make a subsidy of £80,000 in order that the State Government might give encouragement and assistance to the different concerns which wished to develop the local oil shale deposits. Had this been granted, the matter would have been directly under the control of the State administration. The community would have been amply protected. The policy laid down by the previous administration in regard to the development of our shale oil deposits completely hampers the operations of private individuals; because it is stipulated that any company that produces this fuel shall be restricted in the use of it to the quantity required for its own motor vehicles and those of its shareholders. Contract sales to nonshareholders are not permitted. This has played into the hands of the major oil companies. Many persons would be prepared to invest in and encourage these concerns, but there is no demand for the product. On the other hand, many users of it may not have capital to invest. The restrictions should be lifted, and the companies should not be hampered. Facilities should be provided whereby the State Government may control the deposits and encourage their development.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– The Treasurer’s statement, unfortunately, is remarkable for the paucity of the information it imparts. We have been told that this is a bill to grant supply foi- three months. We do not know when the Parliament will next meet; it may not meet for three months after the 30th June. I shall not acquiesce in a proposal to close the Parliament for a lengthy period. I have said many times that Parliament ought to meet almost continuously. I do not agree with all-night sittings, or the Government’s policy of thus rushing business through. The majority of honorable members seem to be entirely unconcerned in regard to events in the various theatres of Avar.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government is not rushing business through. Neither the gag nor the guillotine has been applied since it assumed office.

Mr CALWELL:

– By common consent. Parliament will be closed for many weeks. The thinly-disguised dictatorship of that spurious, specious body, the Advisory War Council, will take its place. That is not democracy, but a travesty upon it. I deeply regret that the Advisory War Council was established, because it has never fulfilled any useful function. On the contrary, it is causing a lot of trouble; and its possibilities for evil seem to be almost infinite. Most honorable members are so concerned about their own comfort or pleasure that they would not sit for a day longer, even though it meant that the extra sitting day would give to them the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister relate the latest information in secret. We have been misled into believing that there was a possibility of a secret sitting. That, of course, will not now be held. We have sat for six weeks, and one of the few things we have not discussed is the war situation. Most honorable members appear to be entirely unconcerned as to whether or not we ever discuss the war situation. Their only concern is to leave the National Capital as quickly as they can, to remain here when they must for as short a period as possible, and not to worry about what is happening on the production front or in regard to the safety of the nation. Such is the state of democracy to-day that apparently nothing matters so long as the Parliament can be closed. The matter of production for purposes of the war demands constant attention by Parliament. Last year, the Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) and tie Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), as private members, spoke at length and very gravely concerning the munitions shortage with which we were faced, and the muddle in the munitions factories generally. The same control is operating to-day, and there 13 still a. very great shortage. I have been informed by workers in munitions factories of the muddle that exists. Two men recently assured me that the information they had given to me had been brought to the attention of the Assistant Minister for Munitions (Mr. Holloway) and his predecessor (Senator Cameron). I do not purpose telling the whole story in open sitting.

Mr Holloway:

– I was in the workshop from 8 o’clock one night to 2 o’clock next morning, inquiring into the matter, and found that 90 per cent, of the statements were wrong.

Mr CALWELL:

– I say that 90 per cent, of the statements are not wrong, because I have been given the file numbers and the facts concerning them. These are so disconcerting that an investigation, not in the workshops only, but in various parts of the administrative establishments, must disclose that there is something radically wrong in connexion, with munitions production. The Parliament ought to be continuously advised of the present production figures of all the essentials of war. Last February, comparisons were made between that month and November of last year. I want to hear the story »s at to-day, because I accept gravely my responsibility as a member of this Parliament and do not purpose functioning by proxy or delegating any of my powers, responsibilities or duties to any Cabinet or the Advisory War Council. I do not regard such a course as helping to preserve democracy, but most honorable members, unfortunately, are prepared to transfer their responsibilities, to others.

We are asked to approve of the appropriation of £50,000 for the Department of Information. If ever there was a department that ought to be abolished, it is that department. Recently, I asked questions in regard to the recent Japanese “ hate campaign “, and found that the cost, of press advertisements was no less than £4,468.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– A wicked waste.

Mr CALWELL:

– A shocking waste. No words of condemnation are too strong for the whole conception of the campaign, and its conduct over a period of weeks. There was neither intelligence, dignity nor truth in any of the advertisements, which were designed allegedly to pep up the morale of the Australian people. The matter published was a grave reflection on the mentality of those who prepared it, and an affront to the decent instincts of those who were expected to read it. The department expended £4,468 in press costs alone. That does not take into account the high salaries of those who prepared the awful stuff. Apparently the department is to continue, because we are still expending at the rate of £200,000 a year on it. The money is being raised by all sorts of methods that are obnoxious to me, such as sales tax, and various other forms of indirect taxation which bear most heavily on the working class. The Government does not seem to worry about squandering money. It should worry, because the Parliament would not then be obliged to pass such taxation legislation as it has recently had to pass if so much was not squandered on this department and in other ways, particularly in the Army department, where extravagant spending is even more extensive.

I have asked questions of the Department of Trade and Customs concerning the cost of preparing certain patent medicines, and the reduction of prices, both wholesale and retail, which the Prices Commissioner or the Minister for Trade and Customs might make for the benefit of the general public. In reply to those questions I received evasive answers. If the Prices Commissioner and the Minister for Trade and Customs are unable to give more informative replies than I received, it is time that the commission was abolished, and that the Minister gave more serious consideration to this phase of his work.

Attention has been drawn to the fact that members of the Australia First Movement have been interned, and not brought to trial. The Acting AttorneyGeneral has stated that some members of the organization are on trial in Western Australia, but I have been given to understand by those who know that there is not a tittle of evidence to justify the incarceration of most of those who have been interned in New South “Wales. They are being held although there is no evidence against them. I should like the Acting Attorney-General to lay the files of the Military Intelligence Section on the table of the House so that honorable members may judge for themselves how much justification there was for the statement of the Minister for the Army when he linked all the members of the Australia First Movement with a subversive plot which, if it existed at all, existed only in Western Australia. Those members of the organization against whom there is sufficient evidence should lie tried, and the others should be released.

I also draw attention to the fact that a man has been held in Melbourne on the allegation that he committed a minor offence, although no charge has yet been preferred against him.. He has already been held for nearly seven days, and the papers in connexion with the case seem to have been lost. I understand that it is permissible, under the National Security Act, to hold people in this way.

Mr Blackburn:

– The period prescribed in the act is ten days, and we had a fight to get it down to that.

Mr CALWELL:

– I can well believe it. From what I have seen in the twenty months I have been in Parliament, the fight must have been long and bitter to secure even that regard for human rights. A Labour government should reduce the period still further. The holding of people without trial is opposed to everything for which the Labour party stands, and cuts across what every decent citizen believes to be a fundamental principle, namely, that persons taken into custody should be charged as soon as possible so that they may apply for bail, and thus have an opportunity to prepare their defence.

I wish that there could have been a secret meeting of Parliament to allow honorable members to hear details of the Darwin raids. I am convinced from what I have heard that the public has not been told the truth. I do not propose to state what has been told to me, beyond saying that the number of dead was very much greater in the first raid than was revealed, and that the authorities had fully 22 minutes’- warning of the approach of the raiders.

The Minister for the Army, speaking on the 25th March, made the following statement regarding the despatch of men to battle stations: -

Consideration is being given to the practicability of a suggestion to relieve any inadequately trained members of the Australian Military Forces between eighteen and nineteen years of age who are now at Darwin and Port Moresby. The Government may be relied upon to treat the whole matter most sympathetically.

The degree of sympathy may be gauged from the fact that none of the men sent to Port Moresby have yet returned, whilst more are being sent all the time. I have received from the general secretary of the Labour party in Victoria, Mr. MacNamara, M.L.C, a communication enclosing a copy of a resolution passed by the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union protesting against the sending of youths under 21 to battle stations. The communication is as follows : -

At the last meeting of the State branch council of this organization, it was agreed that representations be made to the Federal Government to prevent lads under the age of 21 years being sent into battle areas; also, in support of a protest against the practice of sending adult soldiers without adequate training to battle stations.

I have received much correspondence from all over Australia protesting against the sending of inadequately trained youths and men - some of them almost unarmed - to forward positions. Mr. J. E. Kunkel, a returned soldier from the last war, says that his son was called up in Brisbane on the 22nd December. He was given five hours’ final leave on the 24th December, and the next heard of him was from Port Moresby. Mr. W. R. Keats, a returned soldier, also residing in Brisbane, states that his son, eighteen years of age, was called up in similar circumstances, and sent to Port Moresby. Mrs. J. Banks writes, stating that her experience has been the same, and similar communications hare been received from M. Mulquiny, Charlton; R. Sinclair, Carrum; A. A. Kreeck, Kensington, Victoria; J. 0. Wood, Bendigo; M. Tierney, Elwood; 0. Thom,

North Fitzroy ; Mrs. J. Cain, Kew ; N. J. Coyle, Mrs. C. K. Fitzgerald, Essendon; Mrs. B. Welsh, Camberwell; and Mrs. E. Jackson, Brisbane. None of the men in respect of whom complaints have been made have been 1- “ought back to their home States, and it appears as if none will ever be brought back.

Recently, the Government appointed Sir Herbert Gepp to a position having to do with waterfront activities. Many people associated with the Labour movement are asking why no Labour supporter was appointed to the position. They are asking themselves whether there was no suitable Labour man in Australia for the job. The feeling in Labour circles is that the Government should not continue to pander to the wealthy interests. The Central Executive of the Labour party in Victoria is of opinion that the Government should, without delay carry out the policy of the Labour party. In my view it should nationalize the banking institutions, the mines and the insurance companies, as well as transport and munitions production. If it did those things, it would inspire confidence in the masses that its policy is really different from that of its predecessor. A Labour government has nothing more important to do, whether in peace or war, than carry out its election promises. It will lose the trust of the people if they believe that it is avoiding doing what it said it would do, because of some temporary political difficulties that stand in the way. I am in disagreement with many members of my party on this issue, but I believe that it would be much more satisfactory from every point of view to adhere to the Labour policy; a policy of flabby expediency; instead of following a policy of mean and irritating political opportunism. I say these things in the hope that the Government will act more in keeping with the aspirations of the Labour party. The people have been looking for a government that will do, when it is in office, those things which it said it would do when it was in opposition. Unfortunately, this Government has not done those things in connexion with the war effort which it advocated when in opposition. In saying these things, I am not inspired by any spirit of personal animosity to Minis ters. They are entitled to their opinions and I am entitled to mine; but the statements that I am making now are what the Labour movement outside Parliament is thinking.

The chamber is asked to vote three months’ supply totalling £37,000,000, and much of that amount will be paid out under the cursed cost-plus system to people who are using the war for purposes of personal aggrandizement. I regret that previous governments adopted this indefensible system of payment for services to the Crown. In New South Wales a company received from the Commonwealth Government more than £1,000,000 of capital expenditure, and the basis upon which it proceeded to manufacture aircraft for the use of the nation was that there should be a cost-plus management fee annually of a minimum of £5,000, plus £50 for each engine, with a maximum fee of £13,000 per annum. There is no equality of sacrifice involved in this huge expenditure of public money with one firm when it is remembered how many families are suffering as a result of the war. What occurred in that case was equalled in another instance when the Commonwealth Government spent £300,000 in order to make an annexe suitable for manufacture, and then proceeded to pay a cost-plus management fee which, I understand, has not yet been settled, but the company has asked for £20,000 for technique and a fee of £6,000 per annum. The Joint Committee on War Expenditure has recommended certain improvements of the cost-plus system. I hope that those recommendations at least will be adopted, because when history is written, it will be found that the cost-plus system of payment for work done will have robbed the people of Australia of many millions of pounds. In the final analysis the masses will pay the bill, and they are the people who are represented, or supposed to be represented, in the main, by Labour members.

Mr Badman:

– They pay no income tax.

Mr CALWELL:

– They make heavy contributions to Consolidated Revenue through indirect taxation, and I fear that constant pressure by the press and other agencies will eventually create an atmosphere favorable to the imposition of taxes upon the lower incomes, and the workers will he mulct in more heavy payments in order to maintain the war effort.

I repeat with added emphasis that the Parliament is entitled to the fullest possible information that the Government can give to it about our war effort, but honorable members receive almost as little information upon the subject as it is possible to imagine. The practice is for the Government to make a couple of statements that contain more platitudes than facts, and more pious hopes and aspirations than details of creditable achievement or courageous endeavour. The public think that honorable members know a great deal about the conduct of the war. They would be surprised if they knew how little we are told. They would be extremely surprised if they knew that, when Parliament is sitting, most honorable members have to listen to wireless broadcasts or read the newspapers in order to find out even the elementary facts about the war situation. Generally we know nothing; generally, we are told nothing; and, unfortunately, most honorable members are content to be so ignored. Therein lies the most deplorable fact of all, namely, the acquiescence of honorable members in the degradation of democracy that is taking place before our very eyes.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– The Government is asking this chamber to vote £37,000,000 for, in effect, three months’ recess. It is undesirable that the Parliament should be closed for that period, because the next couple of months will be the most critical in this struggle. At the end of that time, we should know whether the Axis will win, or whether we shall be engaged in a protracted struggle, the outcome of which and its effect upon our institutions no one can predict. I join with the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) in expressing the opinion that more information should be given, not only to honorable members, but also to the public. People throughout the world are in a deplorable state of confusion, owing to the confused news which is made available to them. One who follows the newspapers tends to come to the conclusion that the same things are told in a different form every day for about a fortnight. For that reason, I earnestly request the Government to consider the advisability of issuing at frequent intervals, perhaps twice a week, authoritative news to the public, with due regard to the requirements of national security. Such statements should be published by the press in exactly the form that the Government issues them. That would be an assurance to the people that the contents are facts, and represent all that the Government is able to tell the people at that stage. People want to be told as much of the truth as can be published, and they are confused and disheartened by the contradictory accounts that the newspapers give to them. One day a set of facts will be given a roseate colouring of hope and success. On the following day, exactly the same facts will be published with a note of depression throughout them. But there is no later news on the second day ; in fact, there is often no more news at the end of a fortnight than there was at the beginning of that period. We have seen this tendency before in wars in which we were not so immediately concerned. In the Spanish war a few years ago, the newspapers would for two days tell their readers that the struggle was going well for the Government. During tie following two days, they would announce that battles were going badly for the Government, whereas, in fact, the position had not altered. The Government should accept responsibility for supplying to the people information about the war, and should tell them as much of the truth as can be published, with the assurance that the information is not more and not less than the truth, always provided that national security permits the facts to be told.

A great deal of emphasis is laid on industrial unrest in this country, and we have been told repeatedly that strikes are not permitted in the United States of America and Great Britain. Recently, I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor, published towards the end of April last, in which the writer contrasted the disturbed industrial condition in the United

States of America with the industrial tranquility of Great Britain, and cited the successful British administration of laws against strikes. Having read that article, I was interested to learn the exact position on the industrial front in Great Britain. I discovered that a good many strikes have occurred in Great Britain, particularly in the coal-mining industry, which is more disturbed than it is in Australia. The Betteshanger Colliery in Kent was the scene of a prolonged stoppage, although that county is more exposed than any other to operations by the enemy. Many of the miners have sons in the fighting forces, and they continued to produce coal throughout the ordeal known as the “ Battle for Britain “. But they decided by a majority of 2 to 1 to go on strike, in a claim against the employers, and some of them were prosecuted. Upon being convicted, many of them were fined; one official was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and three others to one months’ imprisonment. The effect of that order upon the miners was that they decided unanimously to continue the struggle. When the previous ballot had been taken, 900 were in favour of a stoppage and 300 opposed it. Strikes have occurred in other parts of England, particularly in Cumberland against pit head committees. The complaint was not against the committees themselves but against a proposal to restrict their authority to the consideration of only problems of absenteeism. In my opinion, nearly the maximum of possible peace in industry is obtained in Australia, and mine-owners and managers have stated that, in view of all the circumstances, our coal production is exceedingly good. 1 do not believe that penal laws will achieve any good results.

I urge the Government to take action for the purpose of making these immense tidal waves of regulatory legislation more intelligible and less disturbing! to the public.

Mr Calwell:

– And less frequent.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I suppose it is that in war-time, the Government cannot help issuing a large number of regulations. In 1940 or 1941, the Government of the day published a very useful consolidation of regulations. During the recess, some draftsman might usefully employ his time in producing another consolidation. It is impossible even for lawyers to keep track of the regulations. A solicitor in Melbourne informed me that he devotes an hour each day to reading the regulations, and he came to the same conclusion as I have, namely, that nearly every subject is dealt with by inconsistent regulations. I have found it most difficult to reconcile the number of regulations relating to subjects that I have specifically examined.

Another matter is a transient one, namely, what will become of questions that have been placed upon the noticepaper when Parliament rises? Will the Government furnish answers to honorable members, and will they be incorporated in Hansard7: Honorable members should not be deprived of the opportunity of having recorded the replies to the questions upon notice. One of the things that encourages honorable members to ask so many questions without notice is the uncertainty as to whether an answer will be supplied to their questions if they place them on the noticepaper. Sessions are brought to an abrupt close by the process of an all-night sitting. This procedure is bad for honorable members, and tends to produce bad legislation. During an all-night sitting it is impossible to have a free and fair discussion of legislation. Appeals to reason in the small hours of the morning are not so effective as they are when honorable members are able to bring fresh minds to bear upon a subject. I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament will vote three month’s supply to the Government, Parliament will be summoned long before the expiration of that period, because while Parliament is sitting, it is much easier to induce the Government to do things, and to abstain from doing things, which are contrary to the interests of the people.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– In spite of the hour, I am not prepared to let this motion pass with out saying something about the outstanding lack of events in this sessional period. It is true that the uniform tax legislation tas gone through this House. I understand from the press that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has sent a letter to the Central Executive of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labour party, of which he showed a copy to certain newspapers, but not of course to those newspapers which did not speak kindly about the uniform tax. The outstanding paragraph of that letter is -

It is misleading to speak of “the rape of your State “ when the facts show that Queensland is to be more generously treated under the scheme than any other State.

That is a remarkable approach of the head of the Government to a measure which has not yet passed the Senate or received the Royal Assent. The object of the Government in any legislation should be justice. I have always had my doubts about the uniform tax legislation and they have not been resolved. Another thing that concerns me is that for a long time we have had on the notice-paper motions that certain papers be printed. Among those papers are reports that have been supplied by the Joint Committee on Rural Industries. I, with other honorable members, have been most anxious to debate rural industries. I should have liked the opportunity to call the attention of the Government to certain measures necessary for the safeguarding of primary production in this country, but that opportunity was not presented; although on one night I was ready to go on, another honorable gentleman was not, and so the Government decided to adjourn the debate. Any amount of time has been found for debates on pensions of all sorts and in regard to them there was no effective opposition at all. One or two of us stated our case and left it at that, but for hours and hours, we have heard nothing but a repetition of honorable members saying why they support some bill or other. Whenever a pensions bill is introduced the benches occupied by Labour supporters are full and Labour members are very vocal. There are much more important things that could be discussed in this chamber. One is the position of the coal-mining industry. I have tried two or three times to induce the Prime Minister to undertake that there shall be a debate on the coalmining position. It is a very unfortunate position, to use mild language. We have witnessed conference after conference and heard the most frightful threats by the Prime Minister. He has referred to the men who hold up coal production as traitors, but has done nothing about them. The coal situation is one which requires very careful, prompt and efficient handling. Last Friday, a conference was held, according to the reports of which some sort of heaven on the coalfields was arranged. But I cannot see anything in the reports from which we might look for salvation in the. way of peace in the coal-mining industry. There must be coal production, and, if certain miners in this country do not understand the necessities of the country, it is high time that the Government taught them what those necessities are, particularly when we have from the Prime Minister repeated threats towards those gentlemen but no action.

Mr Blackburn:

– Those threats have done a lot of harm.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Perhaps they have. It is the first time a Prime Minister has used language like that on the coal question during this war.

Mr Frost:

– What did the Government of which the honorable gentleman was a member do?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I know what was not done by that Government, There are certain aspects of that which I am not prepared to discuss even to oblige the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), and there are a few things that I would not do to oblige him. But the fact is that the then Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) did go to the coal-fields to meet the miners on the spot. Not one senior Minister of this Government has gone there to discuss the position. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) went there, but he also went to Darwin, and not long after he left the Japs arrived.

Mr Blackburn:

– The honorable member does not blame him for that.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No.’ I think the bombing of Darwin was the only thing ever done in the Northern Territory without the consent of the North Australian Workers Union. The Japs had a “ hide “ to do it without calling a meeting of that union.

Mr Pollard:

– What is wrong with the union?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

-! should like to know what is right with it. I should like the honorable member for Ballarat to go to Darwin and take a census in order to find out how many of its members remain there now.

Mr Pollard:

– They were ordered out by the military authorities.

Mr Ward:

– They came down south and joined the intelligence service.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I have not noticed any of them. Most of them have been closely in touch with the Minister for Labour and National Service and he would have a much better idea of their movements and location than would anybody in the military forces. This I think is the sixth week of sitting in this sessional period, and, in the few weeks we have’ sat, the war has been referred to casually once or twice. There has been no debate on it. I should think in the circumstances that one thing more necessary than anything else was some clear-cut debate by the Parliament on the war and its conduct. There are many things about the general set-up with which I am not satisfied. I shall not go into them all now, because I do not desire to weary honorable members so early in the morning after a long night, but, on the subject of expenditure, there is no doubt that in many places of the Commonwealth to-day absolutely wasteful expenditure is taking place. Amongst those growths, which, like a convolvulus plant, is surrounding and grasping everything, is the publicity service which has insinuated itself into almost every section of government departments. Almost everywhere one moves in the armed forces one bumps against pressmen or press liaison officers.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The honorable member complains that he does not get enough information.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I can get all the information I need. The Government cannot conduct operations by diverting men to this sort of work. The Department of Information, which was referred to by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), has been a costly failure so far as this Government is concerned. It has been one of the worst things done by the Government in this war, and the quicker it is abolished the better. It has done nothing whatever to justify its existence. The other day the honorable member for Melbourne raised the matter of the publication of the Army magazine Salt. I see every issue of that publication, and what in the name of common sense it is for I do not know. Twenty-seven people are engaged on the production of a perfectly and utterly useless thing. In fact, the whole Army educational service has nothing to recommend it. The previous Minister for the Army, the honorable member, for Warringah (Mr. Spender), had fanciful ideas but no real knowledge about how to run a war. His attitude and influence on the Army were bad, and, until the effect is removed, we shall not have in the forces the standard of discipline that we must have if we are to win through. You cannot have Ministers for the Army touring the Middle East and talking of softening influences and discipline being a thing of the past, and at the same time have a cohesive force. You do not want the Army to be cluttered up with unnecessary, educational officers making a nuisance of themselves. The men should be engaged in learning to lick the other fellow instead of the tosh many are learning. A small tooth-comb should be put through the Army so that people performing useless services can be drawn out and put into useful employment. The other day it was announced that £34,000 was to be sent overseas as the Commonwealth’s contribution to the League of Nations. That is a wicked waste of public money. There is no such thing as the League of Nations. Had there never been one we might not now have been engaged in this war. I think that the league has been the breeding ground of hatred, distrust and war for the last twenty years, and, considering the state of affairs to-day, I say that the taxpayer in this country should not be asked to contribute £34,000 of good money to Geneva as a memorial to what will go down in history as one of the most worthless things ever conceived by man. I have referred to the futility of the League of Nations many times in this chamber. It was pure folly to set it up and greater folly to attempt to persevere with it after the sanctions trouble, in 1935. The moment sanctions went overboard the League of Nations ceased to have justification and should have ceased to play a part in the affairs of the world. If other countries are prepared to sink their good money in it, there is no justification for Australia doing so. Considering the sacrifices that the Government has asked all classes of the people to make, it should ensure that wasteful expenditure like this shall cease.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means founded on Resolution of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Lazzarini do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Rill brought up by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2154

LOAN BILL (No. 2) 1942

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the raising and expending of a certain sum of money.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain a loan appropriation of £.100,000,000 to finance war expenditure from loan funds in 1942-43 and to authorize the raising of an equivalent amount of loan moneys to finance that expenditure. With Japan at our very gates, our war effort had to be accelerated to the greatest possible degree, and accordingly our expenditure has increased. Great numbers of men have been brought into our armies, costly works, such as modern aerodromes, have to be completed, and aeroplanes, war materials and supplies have to be acquired. Allied troops have arrived in Australia to assist in its defence, and this has involved additional expenditure under the reciprocal lease-lend arrangement. The Loan Act 1942. which was approved by Parliament in March last, appropriated an amount of £75,000,000, and this, with the balance of earlier appropriations, will be sufficient to cover war expenditure from loan fund up to about the end of June, 1942. A further appropriation is, therefore, necessary to carry on our war plans during the early months of next financial year. Since the beginning of the war Parliament has granted previous war loan appropriations totalling £309,000,000.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– This measure proposes to raise by way of loan for the purposes of war expenditure in 1942-43 an amount of £100,000,000. In March of last year, Parliament approved of the raising of an amount of £75,000,000 for the purposes of the financial year- 1941-42. Having regard to the increased intensity of the war effort in recent months, which is largely due to the activities of Japan in the Western Pacific area, an acceleration of our war effort has become necessary. Some of our soldiers have been brought back from overseas, extra personnel have been called up within Australia, and greater supplies of arms and munitions must be obtained. Accordingly, the Opposition supports the Government’s proposal. Our only criticism of the war effort at any time is that it is not great enough. I do not believe that any serious-minded member of the community can regard any war effort as adequate until the war is ended. Our need is great, and I am glad to know that this money is to be made available for the purposes of the war. War was not sought by us. In spite of every effort made by the Empire, we were forced into the conflict, and I am happy to join in any effort that will help to bring peace by means of a maximum war effort.

I take this opportunity to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) whether the Government proposes to introduce a bill to provide for the establishment of a mortgage branch of the Commonwealth Bank when Parliament re-assembles after the coming recess. When they were in Opposition, honorable members on the Government side of the chamber strongly advocated the establishment of a mortgage branch.

Seven months have passed since the Government came into office, and I had hoped that the branch would have been established long before now. Honorable members supporting the Government indicated when they were in Opposition that there would be no delay; the mortgage branch of the Commonwealth Bank was to have been a complete panacea for all the troubles of the rural industries, which are passing through extraordinarily difficult times. The costs of primary production have increased by 45 or 50 per cent, since the outbreak of war. The problems of farmers have multiplied, and if they are to do their job as the nation expects them to do it, the Government must give effect to its promise to establish a mortgage bank. I ask the Treasurer for an assurance that, when Parliament re-assembles, a bill for this purpose will be introduced.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I protest against the method of financing the war effort which is being employed by the Government. There are two objections to it. One is that the income from every £1 actually loaned to the Government will be free of tax, so that the more money is loaned to the Government the more income is withdrawn from the operations of the taxation system. That is not fair. The other objection is that a great deal of money that the Government has raised and will raise has been newly created for the purpose by the banks. This has an inflationary effect. I have never been able to see any wisdom or justice in inflating the currency and paying interest at the same time. I cannot see how inflation can be avoided in time of war, but there is no reason why the nation should be obliged to pay interest in addition to suffering loss caused by inflation. The people are forced to pay in two ways - through the diminution of the real value of money, and in interest bills. This is wrong. Unless the war ends soon in favour of our enemies it will last a long time, and the Government will be forced to discard orthodox methods of finance just as Germany has done. That nation relies less and less on taxation and more and more on the liberalization of credit. The important thing to us is not inflation but the winning of the war. Inflation and the consequent reduction of the real value of money must be faced. But I object to having inflation and a burden of interest as well.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

– I was interested to hear the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) say that the money proposed to be raised under this measure will be expended, in part, under the reciprocal lease-lend arrangement with the United States of America. What does that mean? To what extent, if any, is the Commonwealth committed to expenditure on behalf of America in connexion with the war?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I would rather not go into details concerning the reciprocal lease-lend arrangements. That is a matter about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) may be prepared to make a statement at a later stage. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has asked for some information about the Government’s intentions in relation to the proposed mortgage branch of the Commonwealth Bank. The negotiations are in an advanced stage. One difficulty is that the Commonwealth Bank considers that the strain on its man-power resources is so great that it will not be able to provide the staff for a new mortgage branch. However, I am able to inform the honorable gentleman that the bill to establish the mortgage branch will be brought down as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Holloway do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2155

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1942

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for invalid and old-age pensions.

The purpose of this bill is to provide £22,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions. This measure is similar to that periodically submitted to Parliament for the purpose of appropriating an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid at rates already approved by Parliament. The balance of the appropriation now remaining is sufficient only to meet pension payments to the middle of this month. Parliament is now being asked to approve of £22,000,000, which is approximately a year’s expenditure. This figure compares with an expenditure of £17,366,000 in 1940-41 and of £19,865,000 in 1941-42. The amount now proposed to be appropriated will not be withdrawn from revenue immediately. Revenue is only drawn upon for payment to the Trust Account as required to enable pension payments to be made as they become due.

This measure has no relation whatever to the rates or conditions under which invalid and old-age pensions are paid. These have been dealt with separately. This bill seeks the provision of funds for the purpose.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

– I have no desire to oppose this measure, but I am always curious, on the occasions of the introduction of these periodical appropriation bills, to know why the appropriation must be made by this method. It seems to me that it would be a better plan to make the appropriations when the Estimates are under consideration each year. An amount was provided in the Supply Bill passed a few minutes ago for certain payments in connexion with social services. I take it that they were intended to meet only administration expenses.

Mr Chifley:

– That is so. This amount is purely for the payment of pensions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Frost do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2156

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1942

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for war pensions.

The purpose of this bill is to provide £10,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. This is one of the recurring measures, periodically submitted to Parliament for the purpose of appropriating an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid therefrom at the rates already approved by Parliament. The balance of the appropriation now remaining is sufficient to meet pension payments only to the end of August next. Although Parliament is being asked to approve of £10,000,000, which is the usual amount appropriated, this sum will not be withdrawn from revenue immediately. Payments from revenue to the trust account are only made periodically as it becomes necessary to meet the payments to pensioners. The basis of payment of war pensions has already been established by Parliament, and this measure merely seeks the provision of funds for the purpose.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I understand from the Treasurer that the amount of money in the fund at present is sufficient to meet war pension payments only to the end of August. Am I right in assuming that whilst general public expenditure was covered for only three months in the Supply Bill submitted to honorable members a few moments ago, the amount providedunder this bill is for a whole year ?

Mr Chifley:

– That is so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Ward do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

Sitting suspended from 7.18 to 11.30 a.m.

page 2157

INCOME TAX (WAR-TIME ARRANGEMENT S ) BILL 1942

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendment) :

Clause 13 -

Where any returns or records relating either wholly or partly to the assessment or collection of any tax imposed upon incomes by the Parliament of the Commonwealth are in the possession of a State, those returns and records shall, as from the date of commencement of this act, be transferred to the possession of the Commonwealth :

Provided that any persons authorized by the Treasurer of a State shall, at all reasonable times, have access to any such returns which relate to the assessment or collection of any tax imposed upon incomes by or under any law of that State.

Senate’s amendment. - Leave out “ any such returns “, insert “, and may make and take away copies of, any such returns and records “.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2157

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1942

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

New clause 18a -

Senate’s amendment, No. 1. - After clause 18 insert the following new clause: - “ 18a. Section one hundred and three of the principal act is amended by omitting paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘distributable income ‘ and inserting in its stead the following paragraph : -

all taxes which are paid in the year of income -

under this or the previous act;

under any law of a State or of a Territory being part of the Commonwealth imposing a tax upon incomes, if the taxes have not been allowed or are not allowable as deductions under section seventy-two of this Act in any assessment for any financial year; or

in any country out of Australia in respect of income of the company which is taxable under this or the previous- Act, less any refund received in the year of income of any tax to which this paragraph refers: and’”.

Section proposed to be amended - 103. - (l.) In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - “Distributable income” means the amount obtained by deducting from the taxable income of a company -

all taxes which, in the year of income, are paid under this or the previous act, or paid in any country out of Australia in respect of income of the com - pany which is taxable under this or the previous act less any refundreceived in the year of income of any tax to which this paragraph refers; and

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The amendment to section 72 of the principal act proposed by clause 8 will have the effect of withdrawing the deduction previously allowed for State and territorial income taxes paid during the year of income; consequently, State and territorial income taxes paid in respect of the financial year 1941-42 during the year ending the 30th June, 1942, will not be allowed as deductions from income derived during that year. The withdrawal of this deduction follows the recommendation of the Committee on Uniform Taxation which considered that, with the introduction of a uniform income tax, there would be no necessity for such a deduction during the period of the scheme. In fixing the rates of uniform tax which it recommended, the committee took into account the fact that such a deduction would not be allowed from the income of the year ending the 30th June, 1942. As the non-allowance of State and territorial income taxes as a deduction from assessable income has the effect of increasing the amount upon which tax on the undistributed income of public and private companies is levied, representations have been received from various bodies requesting that State income tax paid for the financial year 1941-42 shall be allowed as a deduction for the purposes of the undistributed profits tax and the private company tax. These requests are considered reasonable, and it is therefore proposed to allow, for the purpose of arriving at the distributable income, and, therefore, the undistributed amount of a private company, a deduction of all State and territorial income taxes which have not been allowed as deductions in any assessment for any financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 21-

Section one hundred and twenty-five of the principal act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) all the words after the word “ Parliament “ and inserting in their stead the following words and proviso: - “ income tax upon that interest :

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where the person to whom the interest is paid or credited is not a company and the interest so paidor credited during the year of income does not exceed One hundred and fifty-six pounds.”.

Senate’s amendment, No. 2. - Leave out all words after “sub-section(1.) “, insert “the words ‘ Two hundred pounds ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ One hundred andfiftysix pounds ‘ “.

Section proposed to be amended - 125. - (1.) Where interest is paid or credited by a company to any person who is a non-resident -

on money secured by debentures of the company and used in Australia, or used in acquiring assets for use or disposal in Australia; or

on money lodged at interest in Australia with the company, the company shall be liable, without affecting its liability (if any) in respect of other income tax payable by it, to pay at the rate declared by the Parliament -

where the person to whom the interest is paid orcredited is a company - income tax upon that interest; and

where the person to whom the interest is paid or credited is not a company - income tax upon so much of that interest paid or credited in the year of income as exceeds Two hundred pounds.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Under clause 21 as it now stands, a company which pays to a non-resident individual depositor or debenture holder, in the year of income, interest amounting to less than £157, is not liable to pay tax in respect of that interest But, should it pay interest amounting to £157., or more to any non-resident individual, it is liable to pay tax at the rate of 6s. in the £1 in respect of every £1 of such interest. The company is empowered to recoup itself by deducting the tax before paying the interest to the non-resident depositor or debenture holder. As such a provision would create anomalies, and impose hardship in some instances, it is proposed that a company shall be liable to pay tax only on so much of any interestpaid to a non-resident individual as exceeds £156. The effect of the proposed amendment will be that, generally speaking, the amount of tax paid by the company and borne by the individual non-resident in respect of interest so paid will be substantially similar to that payable by a resident taxpayer deriving the same amount of property income. In any case, the act gives to the Commissioner the right of assessment. The non-resident taxpayer may accordingly be assessed on the actual amount of interest paid to him, and be allowed a rebate of the amount of tax paid by the company on that interest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 26-

Section one hundred and sixtyc of the principal act is amended -

Senate’s amendment. - After the words “ is amended “ insert - “ (aa) by omitting paragraph (i) of subsection (1.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph; -

all taxes which are paid in the year of income -

under this or the previous Act;

under any Act passed by the Parliament imposing a war-time tax upon companies;

under any law of a State or of a Territory being part of the Commonwealth imposing a tax upon incomes, if the taxes have not been allowed or are not allowable as deductions under section seventy-two of this Act in any assessment for any financial year; or

in any country out of Australia in respect of income of thecompany which is taxable under this or the previous Act, less any refund received in the year of income of any tax to which this paragraph refers;’:”.

Section proposed to be amended - 160c. - (1.) For the purpose of the further tax imposed on that portion of the taxable income of a companywhich has not been distributed as dividends, that portion shall be ascertained by deducting from the taxable income of the company -

all taxes which, in the year of income, are paid under this or the previous act. or under any act passed by the Parliament imposing a wartime tax upon companies, or paid in any country out of Australia in respect of income of the company which is taxable under this or the previous act less any refund received in the year of income of any tax to which this subparagraph refers;

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

By clause 8 it is proposed that the deduction for State and territorial income taxes shall be withdrawn. This means that State and territorial income taxes paid by taxpayers during the year ending the 30th June, 1942, will not be allowed as deductions from income derived by them during that year. This proposal follows the recommendation of the Committee on Uniform Taxation which, in arriving at its recommendations regarding the rates of uniform tax which it suggested should he imposed, took into consideration the fact that such deductions would not be allowed under a system of uniform income tax. Representations have since been made, however, that State income tax paid in respect of the financial year 1941-42 shall be allowed as a deduction from taxable income for the purpose of ascertaining the amount upon which tax on the undistributed income of both public and private companies shall be levied. This is considered a reasonable request, and it is proposed that it be acceded to. The effect of the amendment will be that. State and territorial income taxes which have not been allowed as deductions in any assessment for any financial year will be allowedas deductions from taxable income for the purpose of ascertaining the undistributed income of a public company.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- 1 am glad that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) had these amendments made in the Senate, because I have received complaints from companies with respect to the anomalies that they correct.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported ; report adopted.

page 2159

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : -

States Giants (Income TaxReimbursement ) Bill 1942.

Income Tax Bill 1942.

Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1942.

Rabbit Skins Export Charges Bill 1942.

Commercial Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1942.

page 2159

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

International Labour Organization

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– I lay on the table -

International Labour Organization of the League of Nations - Twenty-sixth Session. New York, October-November, 1941 - Reports of the Australian Delegates. and move -

That the paper be printed.

The Australian delegation to the 26th International Labour Conference was constituted as follows: - Mr. A. S. Watt, government delegate; Mr. Alured Kelly, employers’ delegate; Mr. A. E. Monk, workers’ delegate; Miss Muriel Heagney, unofficial adviser.

The 26th conference was a special conference of the organization, at which 34 countries were represented, and in all 197 delegates, observers or special representatives attended it. In view of the international situation, no conventions or recommendations were discussed, the items on the agenda being the report of the Acting Director of the International Labour Office, discuss ion of methods, and collaboration between public authorities, workers’ organizations and employers’ organizations. As the Commonwealth’ Government delegate states in his report, the results of the conference were substantial, in that the countries represented placed themselves upon the side of the nations resisting aggression, and endorsed the provisions of the Atlantic Charter. I draw the particular attention of honorable members to the resolutions proposed by the United States delagation, requesting the governing body of the International Labour Office to call the attention of governments to the desirability of associating the International Labour Office with reconstruction. This is to be found in annexure I.c to the Government delegate’s report. These resolutions foreshadow further conferences which will look to the rebuilding of international relationships on the basis of improved labour standards, liberal economic adjustments, and social security. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2160

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION ACT

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– by leave - The Government has been considering the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, and the problems associated with it in relation to the altered conditions under which many soldiers have to be dealt with. I am quite sure that they will be dealt with justly, and- to the degree to which the resources of the country will allow - generously. Having consulted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), it has been considered desirable to set up a special committee, composed of members of both Houses, and equally representative of the parties in the Parliament, to inquire into and report upon the general subject of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, and to recommend what amendments, if any, are desirable, having regard to the conditions caused by the present war. The members of the committee will be : Messrs. Pollard, Watkins, Harrison and Francis, and Senators Collett and Lamp. I propose to ask Mr. Pollard to act as chairman.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

- by leave - I should like the right honorable gentleman to state what is to be done in respect of the men who have enlisted in the present war and have suffered or are at present suffering certain disabilities. For example, what is to be done in respect of those who are suffering from tuber culosis? As the right honorable gentleman knows, tuberculosis is provided for doubly under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. But those who return from this war suffering from tuberculosis will not be covered by any legislation. I should like to know what is to be done in the meantime, while the committee is considering the matter.

Mr Curtin:

– The Government will consider, as quickly as circumstances will allow, what it shall do in regard to that matter; but I hope that the committee will be able to furnish ready guidance for a permanent solution of the problem.

page 2160

ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE 1941-42

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting Additional Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year ending the 30th of June, 1942, and recommending appropriation accordingly.

Ordered tobe printed and referred to Committee of Supply.

In Committee of Supply:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

, - I move -

That the following additional sum bo granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1941-42 for the services hereunder specified, viz.: -

Part I. - Departments and Services - Other than Business Undertakings and Territories of the Commonwealth.

An additional appropriation of revenue is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that more revenue is available for defence expenditure than was expected when the main appropriation was passed by Parliament. The budget estimate of total revenue on which the main appropriation was based for 1941-42 was £186,000,000. Of this, £104,000,000 was appropriated for purposes other than war and defence services, whilst £82,000,000 was set aside for the prosecution of the war. Since the budget was passed, various factors have combined to increase the amount of revenue available for the services of the year. The most important of these factors was the war taxation imposed in December, 1941, after the budget had been passed by Parliament. This consisted of an addition to the’ income tax on individuals by means of a special war tax designed to yield £8,000,000 in the current financial year, and an increase of the tax on companies to yield an additional £4,000,000, making £12,000,000 in all. No appropriation was made in respect of the yield expected from these increased taxes, it being deferred pending a clearer view of the result of the year’s finances. It is now apparent that the receipts under certain other heads of revenue will exceed expectations. The main increases over the budget estimates are: -

Customs and Excise, £6,000,000. This increase is due to two factors, viz., a continuance of overseas trade at a higher level, and greater consumption of excisable goods, than had been expected.

Sales Tax, £2,000,000. This increase is due to greater volume of trade resulting from the increased purchasing power of the community, and the increase of rates imposed in April last.

Collections under other heads of revenue show a tendency to exceed the estimates and, in addition, there will probably be a net saving on the various heads of expenditure other than war and defence services. These factors together will probably necessitate an appropriation of, say, a further £22,500,000. It will be appreciated, however, that it is difficult in present circumstances to provide exact estimates even for short periods. In order to ensure an adequate margin for other possible excess revenue collections which cannot at the moment be foreseen, an appropriation of £25,000,000 is being sought in this measure.

When the budget was brought down in October last, the total war expenditure was estimated at £221,000,000, of which about £139,000,000 was to be provided from the loan fund. Since then, our commitments have greatly increased.

With the entry of Japan into the war it became necessary for us to increase and accelerate our war effort. Many more men have been called into the Army, munitions production has been still further expanded, additional defence works have been undertaken, and in every direction we are faced with considerably increased expenditure in our preparations to prosecute the war with vigour. Allied troops have arrived in Australia to assist in its defence and that of the south-west Pacific area. This has involved additional expenditure under what is known as reciprocal lease-lend. Present indications are that our war expenditure for the year will probably reach approximately £300,000,000, of which about £194,000,000 must be found from loans. The £300,000,000 represents an increase of £80,000,000 on the original programme. Of this £80,000,000, as already stated, £25,000,000 may be found from revenue, leaving £55,000,000 to be charged to loan fund. This additional estimate and revenue appropriation is shown in theschedule to the bill.

I give the following table to show the amounts, including the present £25,000,000, which will be appropriated to meet defence expenditure in 1941-42 : -

In the main appropriation, the total amount estimated to be expended, £221,000,000, was shown under the votes for the various services. In this additional appropriation it is not so shown, but the divisional allocation will be set out in Supplementary Estimates when the requirements of the respective departments are definitely known.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I notice that, in the Supplementary Estimates, no mention is made of the Department of War Organization of Industry. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ventilate what seems to me to be an extraordinary action taken by the Minister for War Organization of Industry (Mr. Dedman) in regard to the answering of questions by -honorable members in this chamber. This practice, if persisted in, will have the effect of withholding from the public information of great importance. In fact, I regard it as of such importance, that I suggest that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) should instruct his Ministers that, when questions are asked in the House, the replies should be given in the House so that they may he recorded in II Hansard. On the 2nd June - a day on which Parliament was sitting, so that the Minister cannot excuse bis action on the ground that he could not give his reply in the House - I received the following letter from the Minister for War Organization of Industry: -

On the 20th Kay, 1942, you asked in Parliament -

Will the Minister for War Organization nf Industry inform the House of the identity of the individual stated to be one of his economists, who gave the interview in Melbourne to the Sydney Daily Telegraph concerning clothes rationing, which was published in that newspaper on Monday last?

Upon whose authority did this unnamed economist act in giving this interview, and upon what information did he base his statement that the department suspected that shops had not really sold their quotas?

In view of this statement and others concerning rationing, made by persons associated with his department, will he indicate to the House upon whom the public can rely for authentic information regarding the position? [ here interpose that the replies given at that time and published in Ilansard were - 1 and 2. I am having inquiries made regarding the alleged interview by the Sydney Daily Telegraph, and will advise the honorable member of the result as early as possible.

Official announcements regarding rationing will be made by or on behalf of the responsible Minister.

The promised replies to the first and second parts of my question were not, however, given in the House, but were contained in the letter to which I have just referred. In it the Minister said -

  1. find in regard to question I, that a representative of the Daily Telegraph had interviews with certain departmental officers regarding current matters, and apparently published the article as a result of these interviews. I do not think any good purpose would be served by furnishing the names of the officers who were interviewed, but it is clear that the statement is not entirely a correct version of the discussions.

With regard to question 2, the officer* who were interviewed acted upon the authority of their responsible officers, but I am informed that no representative of my department made the statement that “ the department suspected that shops had not nearly sold their quotas “.

I suggest that the Minister is not entitled to cover up replies to questions asked in the House. Mine was not an isolated experience because, on the day upon which the Minister answered a part of my question in the House, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) asked what were the names, ages and previous occupations of members of the staff of the Department of War Organization of Industry at the head office in Sydney, and he asked a further question regarding the exemption of those persons from military service. The honorable member for Dalley has since told the House of the Minister’s amazing reply. The Minister stated that he did not think it desirable that the details asked for should be made public, but he would be pleased to make the information available to the honorable member personally. Why was it not desirable that this information should be made public ? Why all the secrecy ? Surely the Minister does not suggest that a reply to the question asked by myself and the honorable member for Dalley would reveal to the world close military secrets! If Ministers fail to make their replies publicly in the House, honorable members will be inclined to look upon them with a certain amount of suspicion. Questions are asked by honorable members in this House in the public interest, and it should not be forgotten that the Department of War Organization of Industry is maintained out of public funds. If the Minister has nothing to hide, he should not take action which has the effect of preventing his replies to questions from appearing in Ilansard. I ask that answers to questions be given publicly in the House in the usual way so that they may be included in Mansard, instead of being sent to honorable members privately.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

– I take this opportunity to stress the need for making money available for the stan dardization of railway gauges in Australia. The problem of transporting troops and equipment from one State to another is complicated by the frequent breaks of gauge. The delay and inconvenience that occur at Albury provide an excellent illustration of the difficulty. The Inventions Board now has under consideration several schemes for overcoming the break-of-gauge problem, and I understand that the Department of the Army may allocate money for this purpose. From time to time, a number of devices has been invented, the adoption of which would not be unduly expensive. Last week, the Inventions Board and professors from the Sydney University examined a design by a Mr. Neilly. Three years ago, its possibilities were investigated by a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and one of the witnesses who gave evidence, Mr. Fewtrell, an official of the New South Wales Railways Department, stated that he could not understand why the States had not adopted it. Evidently, the States were not .able to agree upon the allocation of expenditure; but, in wartime, the duty devolves upon the Commonwealth to take action to overcome this problem.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- The Supplementary Estimates relate to expenditure prior to the 30th June, and I have never been able to ascertain why they are not submitted to Parliament in September when the budget and General Estimates are under consideration. Honorable members should have before them the .Supplementary Estimates when they are reviewing the finances for the year, because there is often some relationship between the General Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates. On one occasion, the Supplementary Estimates were withheld for nearly two years.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order! I remind the honorable member that the committee is considering, not the Supplementary Estimates, but Additional Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1942.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- This week, the press contained two interesting items that may have escaped the notice of honorable members. On Tuesday, the cables reported that the British Government had taken over Parkhill Colliery, in Yorkshire, where a strike had been in progress, and had appointed a controller. Yesterday, the British Government took over the Newlands Colliery, at Normanton. Following this action, the Government assumed control of the entire coal-mining industry. During the last war, the British Government took similar action in order to ensure the maintenance of peace in the industry. Honorable members who wish to see stability -in the coal-mining industry of Australia would welcome an opportunity to examine a full report on the circumstances that prompted the British Government so to act, and the conditions upon which it took over the mines. As press censorship forbids the cabling of full reports of industrial disputes in the United Kingdom, we are not able to obtain this information from the usual source. The Commonwealth Government should secure from the British Government a full report on the matter and make it available to honorable members, because the information might give us a valuable lead in solving our own industrial problems on the coal-fields

Having worked in the coal-mining industry for many years, I know that the introduction of a co-operative system of mining has always resulted in an increase of production, because the men know that their labour will not accumulate huge profits for the bosses. When the coal-mines were nationalized in Great Britain during the last war, production and efficiency increased. The miners realized that they were working for the nation, and not to enable the owners to make huge profits out of the war, and the sufferings of the people. In Australia, the owners are making tremendous profits out of the coal-mining industry. In spite of the restrictions that have been imposed upon excess profit-taking, the owners have their methods of evading them. A royal commission, the cost of which was shared by the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales, inquired into the coalmining industry in 1930-31 and reported that the owners were making a profit of only 2s. a ton. At that time coal fetched from 23s. to 25s. a ton. During the depression, the price dropped to 9s. and 10s. a ton, but the owners carried on their operations. As they were obviously not working for charity, it is difficult to understand how they managed to keep the mines in production. A satisfactory explanation of the riddle has never been given.

The miners have asked the Commonwealth Government to nationalize the industry, and their representations have been supported by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) and myself as a practical solution of disputes. I urged the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) to appoint a joint parliamentary committee for the purpose of inquiring into the ramifications of this intricate industry, and the right honorable gentleman informed me three weeks ago that Cabinet would consider the proposal. Only the bosses oppose the idea, but, to date, the committee has not been appointed. If some honorable members were asked to walk 3 or 4 miles to the working face in a coal-mine, they would be convinced of the necessity for providing an underground system of transport. Under present conditions, it takes some miners one and a quarter hours to walk to the working face over grades as steep as 1 in 3. If underground transport were provided for these men, they would be able to spend an additional two and a half hours at the face, and each man would increase his output by from 2 to 3 tons.

Mr Holt:

– In how many collieries do those conditions prevail?

Mr JAMES:

– In the vast majority of them. Only a few have provided underground transport facilities.

Mr Holt:

– Are the miners obliged to walk long distances in ‘ many of the mines ?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. Having had personal experience of the wearisome walks, I am able to assure the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) that my statements are not exaggerated. Not more than a dozen mines in Australia have provided a system of underground transport, and, in the electorate of Hunter alone, there are 65 mines. Some of the collieries which have introduced underground transport facilities are not in New

South Wales, but in Western Australia. In January, when I revisited the ‘Collie coalmines in Western Australia, where I worked years ago, I was asked by the miners to make representations for the provision of transport. On their behalf, I approached the chairman of the Coal Commission, and, in contrast to the attitude of the owners in New South Wales, transport had been provided at all mines in Western Australia by the 9 th April. The excuse of the owners in New South Wales, which has been accepted by the Government as readily as it accepts all the excuses tendered by them, is that neither rails nor the raw materials necessary to make them are available. All the rails necessary are already in the mines. The time for excuses has gone; now is the time for action, and it is incumbent on this Government to take that action. First, the miners stand for the nationalization of the coal-mining industry. “ We will work for the country, but not to enhance the dividends of the bosses “, sums up their attitude. Secondly, the miners want the Commonwealth Government to set up an impartial committee to inquire into the causes of trouble in the coal-mining industry. There could be no committee more impartial than one representative of both sides of this Parliament. Such a committee would tend to produce greater harmony in the industry, with consequent greater output of coal and, hence, a greater war effort generally.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

, I should have gone straight on to the subject which principally occupies ray attention, namely, the shortage of labour in rural industries, particularly in the dairying industry. The honorable gentleman’s speech, however, prompts me to say that most honorable members and the great majority of the people of this country realize that nothing will ever satisfy the miners, or, at least, their leaders, or make them realize that we are at war. There is ground for belief that a charge of sabotage could be proved against many people engaged in the coalmining industry. There can be no argument that those who work in, but do not own, the mines would like to take them over from those who do own them. It is human nature that the miners should want to nationalize the coal-mining industry. Two mines have been nationalized in Great Britain. The British Government had its own reasons for nationalizing them, hut they did not include a refusal by the miners to hew coal unless the mines were nationalized. The coal-miners in New South Wales want tramways to carry them underground to the coal-face and lorries to carry them to pit-heads. They want to save themselves a walk of 3 miles, for which, I understand, they are paid.

Mr James:

– They are contract workers and are not paid for travelling time.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Even so, they are not the worst off people in the land. Our lads in the forces, both in this country and overseas, sometimes have to march day and night, and what do they get? Can the miners not realize that when the country is at war is not a time for pinpricking? Can they not realize that now is the time when, in common decency, they ought to accept their share of the war burdens? The Government ought to take strong action to end these continual strikes in the coal-mining industry. It would be better to take action now than to allow the miners to go their own way, and possibly hold up production in this country when it was being invaded. The Government’s inaction indicates that it is not prepared to do anything, but what a serious blow it would be to the war industries of Australia if the coal-miners went on strike when the country was being invaded because of the lack of provision of some convenience or other or because the breath of a horse was bad, or because one man was not being paid quite so much as another for wheeling coal out of the mines. Australian governments have been generous to the coal-miners. They have conceded more than they ought to have conceded, because of their desire for peace in the industry. The way in which the coal-mining industry has been treated contrasts strangely with the way in which equally important primary industries have been depleted of their labour. The primary producers have been severely hampered by the man-power authorities. In a great many instances, not one male is left to work the farm. That applies particularly to the dairying industry. In spite of declarations by Commonwealth Ministers that men already in the Army will be released and that others not yet called up will have their enlistments deferred or cancelled, two cases came to my notice last week of the last men on the farms being taken into the Army. In the first case, the wife of the young owner is left to carry on a farm of 26 cows without assistance, except that of a lad. In the second case, the wife has been left with the assistance of a boy of thirteen to conduct a farm of 80 cows. I should like to know when the Government’s policy that primary industries shall be provided with sufficient labour will be applied. Only last week we learned that so great is the realization of the Government of the United States of America that foodstuffs must be produced that it has decided- to recruit an army for agricultural purposes alongside that enlisted for war, and 350,000,000 acres is to be sown in order that the United States of America may produce foodstuffs for the United Nations. That contrasts sharply with the policy applied in this country, where primary production is being curtailed. If that policy be persevered with, the dairying industry, to say nothing of other important primary industries, will not be able to produce sufficient for our requirements. The dairying industry, particularly, is not able to compete with other industries for its labour, because the return to the producers is so small as to leave them unable to offer sufficiently high wages. The suppliers of milk for the metropolitan area of New South Wales have been helped by the State Government of New South Wales. They now obtain 61/2d. a quart for their milk, but the dairy farmer who sells his milk to the butter factories receives only 61/4d. a gallon. The Government should evolve a scheme whereby the dairy farmers of this country will come into the one organization and under the one control; but, above all, the industry should be provided with sufficient labour to enable it to meet demands.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.–! direct the attention of the Acting AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Beasley) to the matter of the imprisonment of Mr. T. C. Trautwein as the result of proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court. The affairs of Mr. Trautwein, who is 74 years of age, and with whom I am personally acquainted, have occupied the attention of the courts of this country for a long time. I have no sympathy with anyone who evades taxes, but it is the function of the Bankruptcy Court to dispense justice, not, I should say, to persecute people. The claims of the Commissioner of Taxation against Mr. Trautwein have been the subject of long and expensive litigation. Both the Commonwealth and the respondent have had to expend thousands of pounds on counsel’s fees and other legal costs. I understand that Mr. Trautwein is in prison because he cannot give to the Judge in Bankruptcy a complete record of his transactions over the last ten or twelve years. It would be difficult for any one so old as Mr. Trautwein, and with such business ramifications, if placed in similar circumstances, to give a correct account of all his transactions over such a long period. I have no personal interest in this matter beyond the fact that, particularly in the last couple of years, a great deal of Commonwealth money has been wasted, and a great deal of time of the Commonwealth courts taken up on this matter. I am especially concerned to learn from the report of the Taxation Commissioner that influential people in Australia owe vast sums of money to the department, but have not been prosecuted. I see no reason why an individual should be singled out for persecution. I understand that about £150,000 is involved in this matter.

Mr James:

– Fines more than anything else.

Mr MULCAHY:

– Yes, £100,000 of fines. These protracted proceedings have been not only ruinous to the ‘taxpayer, but also -extremely costly to the Commonwealth. I do not want in any way to reflect on the Bankruptcy Court, but I know that the Judge in Bankruptcy is an old man. I suggest to the Acting AttorneyGeneral that after so many years it is rime that some solution to this matter was discovered without continuing to resort to legal formalities.

Mr Hughes:

– One solution is for him to pay what he owes.

Mr MULCAHY:

– Every body should do that, but the court has decided that he must pay something that he has not got. “What can he do ?

Mr Hughes:

– That is what he says.

Air. MULCAHY.- This man is in gaol because he says that he cannot remember details of all his transactions over a number of years. I remind the right honorable gentleman that at times his memory has not been good.

Mr Hughes:

– I gave him every consideration although he did not deserve any.

Mr MULCAHY:

– The right honorable member was most sympathetic towards this man, and I do not blame him or the present Minister. However, the Attorney-General’s Department should find some means of solving this problem without expending thousands of pounds for the services of King’s Counsel to continue this case in court. Why does it not take his property and sell it ? He has placed everything at the Government’s disposal. The department should put an end to this silly business of wasting the time of the courts and, at the same time, putting large sums of money into the pockets of King’s Counsel whilst pauperizing this person. The court has done an injustice to him by imprisoning him merely because, on account of his advanced age, he cannot recall in detail his transactions over a lengthy period. He should be released from prison, and some satisfactory method should be evolved to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of taxes due to it.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I address myself to a matter which affects the rights and privileges of all honorable members of. the House of Representatives, and which is not the exclusive preserve of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I refer to the action which lias been taken by the President of the Senate to exclude certain working journalists from the precincts of the Senate and to deprive them of the conveniences i hat are usually made available in Parliament House to the staffs of newspapers. This action has arisen from the publiNon in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph of mi article dealing with the Senate as the reporter who wrote the article saw it. I have read the article. Some of it might well have been omitted, but I consider that most people who read it would regard it more as a humorous piece of work than as a damaging attack on the prestige of the Senate or Parliament generally. These persons who have been so unfairly treated by the President of the Senate are working for a living. In the course of their employment they may frequently have sent to their newspapers reports which have reflected great credit on Parliament, but their employers may not have been prepared to publish that sort of article. It will be generally agreed that working journalists are not free to decide what they shall write fur publication. If they do not write according to the policies of their employers, they are sacked or their reports are not published. In this case, the employees of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph should not be penalized; they must write as they are told to write. If some grave injustice has been done to Parliament, the proper thing to do is to call, the editor of the newspaper to the bar of the Senate and require him to justify the publication of the article about which complaint has been made.

Mr Blackburn:

– Either the editor or the writer of the article.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I am not particular about that. All members of the staff of the newspaper employed at Parliament House - not merely the author of the article - have been excluded from the privileges which have been conceded to journalists since the inception of the Commonwealth. The proper course to take would be to punish their employers. I recall an occasion when a certain Sydney journal published a report of proceedings n this chamber which was far more scurrilous and calculated to damage the parliamentary institution than the facetious article to which the President of the Senate has taken exception. On that occasion, some honorable members moved to have the editor of the journal called to the bar of the House, but nothing of the sort was done. The proprietors of that newspaper were properly attacked by the then honorable member for “Warringah, who said that the press of that day was guided by nothing but “bowelless commercialism “. The employees of such newspapers should not be compelled to suffer on account of the actions of their employers. Further evidence that the Daily Telegraph management, not ite journalists, is conducting a mischievous campaign designed to reflect on the integrity of Parliament, is contained in a leading article in yesterday’s issue, apparently written by the editor. The article deliberately misrepresents the matter which was the basis of the article written by Mr. Hughes. The editorial of yesterday’s date stated -

In this article Mr. Hughes criticized the Senate for throwing out a regulation to giro the Commonwealth power to override the States and secure the release for the Army of beef, which soldiers urgently needed. The House of Representatives “had recognized tin* urgency of this matter and had “not questioned the regulation.

It is true that a motion for the disallowance of the statutory rule relating to the marketing of Werribee beef was not submitted in the House of Representatives. But that may have been merely a circumstance arising from the Opposition’s policy of submitting numerous motions for the disallowance of statutory rules both in this chamber and in the Senate. I have no doubt that the Opposition parties decided to split the job between the two Houses, and that the Senate Opposition was given the task of moving for the disallowance of the regulations relating to Werribee beef. A toss of the coin might have decided in which branch of the legislature the Opposition should submit the motion. In any case, the subject of Werribee beef was discussed on a motion for the adjournment of the House. During that discussion, the honorable member for Darwin (Sir George Bell) made the f olio wing statemen t : -

The people of Melbourne and suburbs will not eat this beef; I am certain of that, and the Commonwealth Government wants to force it on to the market so that it may be used to feed our troops.

The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) went even further, and made this statement -

I make my stand to-night … on the statement made last Sunday to the effect that this beef is to be supplied to the troops, not only Australian troops, but also the troops of our ally, the United States of America.

The Minister for Commerce (Mr. Scully) flatly denied that Werribee beef was intended for the consumption of the troops. Honorable members opposite nevertheless went so far as to state that, if our own and allied troops were forced to eat this beef, they would be in danger of becoming infected with tape worm. The business of the House was greatly delayed by the discussion. The Daily Telegraph was technically correct in stating that the House of Representatives had not interfered with the regulation, but, as I have pointed out, it was probably by chance that this was the case. The truth is that Werribee beef was not intended for consumption by the troops. To state that the Government was slaughtering cattle whose meat was unfit for human consumption in order to feed Australian and American troops, was to make an insidious attack upon the position of the Government by creating uneasiness in the minds of Australians and Americans. I have quoted the misstatement which was made in yesterday’s edition of the Daily Telegraph in order to impress upon honorable members the fact that its editorial policy is likely to do much more damage to the prestige of Parliament than the facetious comments of Mr. Richard Hughes on the appearance and general conduct of the Senate. The punishment of employees of the Sunday Telegraph and Daily Telegraph is merely mischievous; it does not penalize those persons who were responsible for the publication of the offending article. The editor of the Daily Telegraph made this statement in his article in yesterday’s issue of the journal -

Senator Cunningham was forging a weapon that might be used some time in the future by anti-democratic elements to keep the public ignorant of parliamentary debates and proceedings.

That newspaper’s statement that the House of Representatives was not in terested in the subject of Werribeebeef is more likely to keep the public ignorant of the truth regarding parliamentary proceedings than anything else which has come to my attention. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is chairman of the Joint House Committee, and he should have at least some voice in safeguarding the rights and privileges of honorable members and honorable senators. He should have been consulted by the President of the Senate before action was taken. I have had no cause to thank the press for anything during the ten years for which I have been a member of this Parliament. Like other honorable members, I have been sometimes carried shoulder high, so to speak, and then practically kicked to death politically on the following day. However, that does not affect my judgment in this matter. The people who should be punished for the attack on the integrity of Parliament are the employers, not the men who have to work for a living.

Silting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organization of Industry · Cor io · ALP

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) complained this morning that he had asked me a series of questions in the House recently and that I had not answered them in a proper manner. The honorable gentleman asked me three questions, without notice. I gave him an answer to one question at the time and advised that I would inquire into the matters raised in his other questions and supply the answers to him later. I did so in the form of a personal letter.. The honorable gentleman seems to think that he was entitled to a reply in the House. I have yet to learn that a question asked of a Minister in the House, without notice, must be answered in the House. It is within the competence of the Minister to answer the question in the manner he chooses. I answered the honorable gentleman’s questions by letter. Had he wished to receive a reply in the House he could have placed his questions on the noticepaper, in which case replies would have been furnished in the House and published in Hansard.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

– I wish to refer to certain aspects of the rates of pay and allowances ofRoyal Australian Air Force personnel. Last October, a motion was submitted by the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) censuring the previous Government for certain things, including the rates of pay of service personnel. The then Opposition intimated that if it assumed office it would increase the rates of pay of service personnel. Subsequently that was done in respect of the majority of personnel, for rates of pay were increased by ls. a day. That was a simple step which every one could understand, but it might have been thought that the honorable gentlemen who supported that procedure had something more in mind that the giving of an extra ls. a day to members of the armed forces. It might havebeen considered that their policy would have included at least the maintenance of existing allowances to persons engaged in the services. It was with great surprise, therefore, that I discovered that shortly after this Government assumed office certain reductions were made of the rates of pay and allowances to members of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force and permanent members of the Royal Australian Air Force.

I shall deal first with living-out allowances. The rates paid during the regime of the previous Government were fixed, having regard to comparable rates of pay of males and females in industry. Taking this factor into consideration the rates for women were two-thirds of those fixed for men, but, on the assumption that it would cost women just as much as men to live out, the living-out allowance was made identical in each case. It did not take the present Government long to reduce the living-out allowance for certain women. Previously, the livingout allowance was 2s. 5d. a day for both men and women in the case of personnel living out of barracks but in their own homes, and 4s. 4d. a day for both men and women living out of barracks but not in their own homes. This Government has reduced that rate for women to 3s. 6d. a day. I should like to know by what process of reasoning the Government has concluded that women are able to live out more cheaply than men and yet pay the same fares and the like. I should think that the great majority of women affectedby the livingout allowances are required, after their period of training at recruit-training depots is completed, to live away from their own homes.

Mr Baker:

– Does the honorable gentleman agree with the policy of equal pay for equal work?

Mr McEWEN:

– That question scarcely arises in respect of myself, but I can quite appreciate that it arises in respect of the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin)., who has had a notice of motion on the business-paper for a considerable period, the purpose of which is to obtain the approval of the House to the payment of equal rates for both sexes. I cannot reconcile the view expressed by the Minister for the Navy in his notice of motion and the view expressed in his ministerial capacity, for the reduction of the livingout allowance applies to members of the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service as well as to members of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force. The honorable gentleman appears before us in two guises. He is not only Minister for the Navy, but also Minister for Munitions. As Minister for Munitions he is responsible for the employment of a substantial number of women at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. I am given to understand that, after a preliminary period of training lasting for two or three weeks, the women employed at Lithgow, if they prove competent, are paid the same rates as men for the same work, irrespective of whether they are adults or minors. This brings me to another point to which I invite the attention of the Government. How can the practice of paying girls of seventeen and eighteen years of age at Lithgow the same rates as are paid to adult males be reconciled with the reduction of the rates of living-out allowance?

Mr Chifley:

– I do not think that girls of seventeen and eighteen years of age are employed at Lithgow.

Mr McEWEN:

– My advice is that they are so employed. Why should the Government, while paying such rates at Lithgow, seek to reduce the rate of pay to women, under 21 years serving in the armed forces, particularly as they are required to do exactly the same work as their adult sisters?

Mr Rosevear:

– For how long has this been going on?

Mr McEWEN:

– It goes back as far as January last. The reduction of the rate of living-out allowance following the reduction of pay for minors has had such a serious effect upon the remuneration of the girls during the last, two or three weeks that the Government has been obliged to prescribe a minimum rate of £2 16s. a week, pay and allowances, for members of -the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force, and I presume that the same rate applies to women engaged in other branches of the armed forces. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to these matters. I am certain that, upon reflection, it will realize that the reduction of the living out allowance is unjustifiable. It is impossible for girls to live under reasonable conditions on the reduced rates. I asked a question of the Minister for Air on this subject two or three weeks ago and the honorable gentleman said, in his reply, that the step had been taken as the result of an agendum prepared for the previous Government. I do not desire to discuss that aspect of the subject, for I agree with the Prime Minister that discussion of a secret agendum should be avoided; but I am compelled to say that if this proposal originated during rho regime of the previous Government it certainly did not reach the stage at which political consideration was given to it. The subject may have been given departmental consideration without the knowledge of the political heads of the respective departments. A Treasury finance sub-committee is constantly reviewing rates of pay and allowances in the service departments, and almost e veryweek it brings forward proposals which may utimately reach the ministerial head of the department and may finally reach Cabinet. I am not able to say whether this particular matter had been considered by the Treasury sub-committee, but I am quite certain that it had not been brought to the notice of any Minister.

I wish to refer also to certain reductions of pay that have been brought into effect in relation to permanent members of the Royal Australian Air Force. I refer, of course, to the men who have chosen the air arm of the fighting services as their life profession. The rates of pay and emoluments of these men are provided in scales laid down in the statutes applicable to them, and as is the case with other branches of the public service, the rates do not include any allowance for dependants although they carry certain superannuation benefits. The rates of pay of permanent members of the Air Force are higher than those prescribed for personnel who join the Air Force only for the duration of the war, but the pay of such individuals is supplemented by an allowance for dependants and also certain pension rights.

Mr Drakeford:

– On what date did this reduction come into force?

Mr McEWEN:

– I am unable to give the date to the Minister.

Mr Drakeford:

– I think it will be found that the reduction became operative during the term of office of the previous Government. It is for that reason that I am asking the honorable gentleman to give me the date of the alteration.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am unable, at the moment, to state the date but I challenge the Minister to show that the reduction did not become effective during the regime of this Government. I am now referring to what I believe to be an anomaly, under which, by means of a change from the permanent rates to the duration or special force rates of pay, service personnel who are married and have dependants enjoy an advantage, because they receive an allowance for a. dependent wife, and for other dependants such as children ; whereas a single permanent man without dependants finds himself suffering a reduction of his rate of pay, according to his rank. In order that he may not receive a lower amount, the Government makes up. the differencebetween the permanent and the duration rates of pay, as an ex gratia allowance. When this permanent mau secures promotion during the war, however, the pay for his higher rank is at the duration or special force rate; consequently, under this system, a permanent Air Force officer may secure promotion and still not obtain an addition to his rate of pay. In the final analysis it means that a man who joined the Air Force as a permanent life profession, at certain rates of pay which then obtained, now finds that, while serving in war-time, he will receive a less rate of pay than he did in the days of peace. That is an anomaly which cannot be supported, and I shall be glad if the Minister will investigate it. I am quite sure that it has been introduced during the term of office of the present Government. I believe that it was done for the general advantage of these men, who are mostly married and have dependants; but that is the effect upon the single man without dependants.

Mr Rosevear:

– Is the honorable gentleman sure that that happened under this Government?

Mr McEWEN:

– I am quite sure. 1 believe that the honorable- member will find that I am correct in saying that some of these reductions occurred during the first week in January, and the others at a later date.

I ask the Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) whether he will give consideration to the provision of a uniform for the lads between sixteen and eighteen years of age who, with the consent of their parents, are joining or have joined the Air Training Corps - for which service they do not receive any pay - on the understanding that, when they reach the age of eighteen years, they will join the Royal Australian Air Force as volunteers. No attempt is made to impose upon a boy of from sixteen to eighteen years of age a binding obligation to join the Air Force when he reaches the age of eighteen years. It is an honorable understanding, to which his parents are a party, and which, in the last analysis, could be broken either by the parents or by the boy himself. In practice, the Air Training Corps is proving to be a very valuable adjunct to the Air Force. The lads give up their time in order to be trained in all the preliminaries that will ultimately enable them to become members of air crews, and some of them are engaging in the specialized duties that are now playing such an important part in the Air Force.

They, and the officers - most of whom, in an honorary capacity, are giving up their time in order to train the boys - consider that they are entitled to have a uniform to wear. I whole-heartedly support the proposal. I had intended, when Minister for Air, that these uniforms should be provided. The additional cost to the Government would be very little if any, because it was proposed that the uniforms to be provided should be identical with, those of the Royal Australian Air Force. Consequently, most of the boys would be able to pass from the Air Training Corps to the Air Force proper, carrying the 3ame uniform. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this matter.

I wish to refer to the impressment of rifles from civilian owners, for use by the Army and the Volunteer Defence Corps. Almost, without exception the owners, who have willingly surrendered the rifles for military purposes, consider that they are being given a raw deal by the Army authorities. I do not believe this is a matter of government policy; but it becomes ultimately a matter of governmeent responsibility. I have received many complaints in my district, that the rifles have been valued at as low as 7s. 6d. each. Some of them have been valued at 25s. and 30s. The owner of one service rifle, who alleged that it had fired only 20 shots, said that it was valued at £2 5s. Several of those, who complained to me were, members of a rifle club in my locality, which, at the outbreak of wai, had rifles on loan from the Defence Department. The club lost one of the borrowed rifles, and promptly received a bill for £9 from the Defence Department. It was obliged to pay that amount for a rifle which had been mislaid. Now that rifles have been impressed, a rifle of that type is paid for at the rates of 25s., 30s. and 45s., whilst rifles that are inferior in quality are paid for at as low a rate as 7s. 6d. I have had the instance related to me of one family which owned two rifles. These were impressed. The owners were notified that it was necessary to attend at a police station, not in the nearest town, but in a town 12 or 13 miles distant, for the purpose of signing the papers that would enable them to secure payment for their rifles. They were not told how much they were to receive. In these days of petrol rationing, farmers do not drive 25 miles for fun. These two persons drove to the police station to which they had been directed. In petrol alone, the cost to them must have been 4s. Upon arrival, they were asked to sign a document agreeing to accept 7s. 6d. each for their rifles. [ ask the appropriate Minister to bring the matter before the Minister for the Army, in order to learn whether fairer offers cannot be made for rifles that have been impressed, and also, whether it is beyond the wit of the Army authorities io intimate to owners what they are to be paid for their rifles, instead of dragging them 25 or 30 miles, merely to be told the price by a policeman.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · Maribyrnong · ALP

– The reduction of the rates of pay and allowances of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force, to which the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) has referred, has excited a good deal of comment and, perhaps, criticism of the Government. On a previous occasion, the honorable member referred to this matter by way of a question, and I replied that the action of the Government was taken following the consideration of an agendum that had been prepared for the purpose of making uniform the rates of pay for all the women’s services. Apparently the Government, after full consideration, decided that uniformity was necessary. This undoubtedly involved some reductions of existing rates. I believe that the rate of 4s. 4d. a day represented an allowance made to the Women’s Auxiliary Australian’ Air Force who lived away from home, and that 2s. 5d. a day was paid to those who lived at home. The rate of 4s. 4d. a day was reduced to 3s. 6d. a day, and has continued at that level. The alterations have been so made that no one will receive less than £2 16s., The honorable member can, or course, put an excellent case - I pay tribute to him for that - but I believe that he is aware of all the circumstances that surround this matter; and his statement of the case to-day would suggest that he is concerned not so much with obtaining a remedy for the Women’s Auxiliary

Australian Air Force who have suffered the reduction, as with making some party political capital out of what has taken place in pursuance of proposals of his own government.

Mr McEwen:

– I deny that.

Mr Rosevear:

– We should not adopt the proposals of another government.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am not suggesting that we should. But there should be no cause for complaint by the honorable member in respect of reductions that were proposed by the Government in which he was Minister for Air.

Mr McEwen:

– I say that that is untrue; they were not proposed by the Government of which I was a member.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I object to that statement, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr McEwen:

– I have to make it, in order to focus attention on the incorrectness of the honorable gentleman’s statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable member must withdraw.

Mr McEwen:

– I withdraw.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member has alleged that I have made an incorrect statement of the position. I believe that what I have stated has occurred. Whether it be right or wrong,, is largely a matter of opinion. In presenting his case, the honorable gentleman sought to make it appear that £2 16s. a week is all that these women receive. That is far from the fact. They are provided with uniforms, the value of which is estimated to be £18 a year, adding 7s. 6d. a week to the rate; and in addition, they receive free medical and dental treatment, which often involves the provision of new dentures. The other allowances, such as that for uniform, need emphasizing if the matter is to be seen in proper perspective. If an analysis be made of the rates of pay of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force, it will be found that many of them are better paid than are girls who are employed on the civil side of the service, who for doing essential services receive rates that range from £2s 5s. to £3 10s. The Government has reconsidered the matter, and has laid it down that no one shall receive less than £2 16s. in pay and living allowance. Its object is to avoid hardship. I am assured by those who investigated this matter that the value of what the majority of these women receive is practically the equivalent of £4 a week, which is higher than the pay received by many who are in the civil service.

Mr McEwen:

– The honorable gentleman would not argue that because the average rate of pay of all workers is a given amount, therefore the basic wage earner ought to be satisfied with what he gets?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Very few of these women receive the rate paid for highly skilled work. The average rate of pay will be found to be not less than that laid down for the Public Service; if it were analysed, it may be proved to be considerably more.

Mr McEwen:

– This is a new principle in calculating entitlement to payment.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– At all events, it does not lack principle. Some of the remarks of the honorable member seemed to me to indicate that he is interested not in principles but in making party political capital out of the matter.

Mr McEwen:

– The honorable gentleman is indulging in personal abuse.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– There is no intention on my part to endeavour to prevent the honorable member, or anybody else, from expressing views that are different from mine; but if they be put strongly, I shall reply to them with equal force. Whatever injustice may have existed before the minimum rate of pay was prescribed has now been largely removed. The honorable member also referred to rates of pay of minors. A proposal was made that rates should be uniform in all branches of the service. Some recruits were being brought in at eighteen years of age and were receiving lower rates than older members of the service. A certain amount of hardship was caused thereby, but that anomaly has been corrected.

Mr McEwen:

– Will the Government do the same in regard to the men?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– That matter is not at issue. This is an organization for women, and was founded by the previous Government. Some of the practices inaugurated by the previous Government have been followed by the present one. If it be true that the rates of pay are unsatisfactory it might be expected that women would be reluctant to offer their services, but the fact is that hundreds are always waiting for admission. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) said that we had reduced rates of pay for permanent air force personnel. I have no recollection of any reduction having been made since I have been Minister for Air. I think it was always the case that men who signed on for the duration of the war received a different rate of pay from that of the permanent personnel. It has been represented to me that the men themselves welcomed the arrangement, because under it they receive certain advantages such as child endowment allowances, which increase the total amount of their remuneration. However, I shall have the matter investigated with a view to correcting any anomalies that exist.

The honorable member for Indi advocated the issue of uniforms to members of the Air Training Corps, and said that the cost would not be great. As a matter of fact, when the estimate was submitted it was found that on the scale proposed the cost of providing 12,000 uniforms would run into six figures.

Mr McEwen:

– Members of the corps would take their uniforms into the Royal Australian Air Force with them.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– That might be true of those who joined the corps when they were nearly eighteen years of age, but it would hardly be true of those who joined at sixteen years of age, and who continued to grow. One of the reasons why uniforms cannot now be provided is that there is a shortage of blue cloth. The demand of the services for cloth is so great that very little material is left over for the supply of civilian needs. Representatives of the Air Training Corps have discussed the matter with me, and they know the position. I realize that if the boys are given a smart appearance the corps will be more attractive. I do not wish to discourage them in any way, and perhaps sufficient cloth will later on be made available to provide uniforms.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

– I was interested to hear the speech made this morning by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) regarding a matter which originated in the Senate, but which, nevertheless, affects this branch of the legislature also. He referred, in his usual incisive and, on the whole, logical style, to the action of Mr. President in excluding the representatives and employees of a Sydney journal from the galleries of the Senate. I cannot bring myself to agree with him entirely in this matter. His speech awakened memories of an incident which occurred in the Parliament during the time that I was Attorney-General in the Scullin Government. That incident and the present one present for consideration what should be the dispassionate attitude of the Parliament to those who, though technically strangers, are nevertheless admitted - and, I think, rightly admitted - to the chamber or its precincts for the discharge of their several functions. On the occasion to which I refer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) was abroad, and I was with him. Confidential communications passed between the Prime Minister abroad and the Acting Prime Minister in Australia. They were clearly confidential in character, and not intended for publication, just as the communications which pass between individual Ministers in Cabinet arc, by time honoured custom, regarded as being entirely secret and confidential. They were, nevertheless, disclosed. The documents themselves came into the possession of an unauthorized person in the employ of a Melbourne newspaper and, without the slightest regard to their confidential character, they were published in full, and became the subject-matter of an animated discussion in this chamber. The result was that I, representing the Government, took action to trace the movements of the documents, and to find out how they became public. They were traced to the possession of a gentleman who represented a Melbourne newspaper, and who was accustomed to be admitted to the galleries of the House. I sought an interview with this gentleman, and he took the stand that, in accordance with a time-honoured practice, so he said, in the profession of journalism, he would not disclose the source of his information, or state how. he had obtained access to the documents. I took a different

Mr. Bren iia ii. view, namely, that the documents, having been traced to his possession, he must prove to our satisfaction that he had come by them in an honest and regular way, or abide the consequences. He remained firm in the view that he held, and abided the consequences, which were that he was excluded from the precincts of this chamber by the action of Mr. Speaker who, rightly, I think, supported the Government in this matter. The journalist was excluded, and remained excluded for some time, until, in the opinion of the Government, he had purged himself of his contempt, and might be properly re-admitted to the press galleries. The pretentious claim that a journalist was not bound to disclose the source of his information was later advanced by a representative of the press in connexion with the proceedings before a commission of inquiry which sat in Melbourne. The commissioner had authority to hear evidence and to punish appropriately recalcitrant persons who prevaricated or refused to give evidence. The witness refused to disclose the source of certain information, relying upon what was claimed to be a wellestablished rule that journalists should not be called upon to do so. Punishment having been recorded, the matter went to the appropriate court on appeal, and the claim by the witness was promptly anil, I think quite rightly, disallowed. So the matter has been placed upon a legal basis that no such claim can be sustained in law, regardless of what the practice may be among journalists themselves.

In the present case a Sydney newspaper published an article which reflected upon the Senate and, in a general way, upon all honorable senators. In my opinion, the quality of the article was poor, and it was obviously coarse and insulting. The President of the Senate made representations, not to the working journalist concerned, but, in effect, to the newspaper itself. That was the proper and dignified method of approach. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether the Senate preserves or exalts its dignity by taking notice of what a contributor to a newspaper thought fit, in a scurrilous way, to write about the chamber. I have had very long and, from the outside, intimate association with journalists and journalism through the fact, which is largely personal, that many of my close relatives and friends have worked in the profession for many years. I take a very warm interest in seeing that the profession is maintained at the high standard which, I think in fairness it should be said, it has attained in this country. I cannot state truthfully that the standard of literary excellence on the part of journalists has been maintained, or that the proprietors recognize it, or desire it, as they used to do.

The President found himself grievously insulted by the article. In my opinion, the language was undoubtedly coarse and insulting in the highest degree, and was intended to rankle in the minds of those to whom it referred. It was deliberately intended not to convey information or tol serve the public interest, but to wound; and to be, what it undoubtedly was, offensive in character. Honorable members of this House, and honorable senators, allow: themselves a fair degree of latitude in’ speaking of and to each other in the’, chamber. We enjoy the privilege of being able to say in this House things which we might be called upon, if the same words were used outside, to answer for in a court of law. The privilege is well founded on historical grounds. Popular representatives should be free to speak with the utmost liberality of expression if they consider that such a licence should be exercised in any particular case. Most men, conscious of what they owe to their fellow men, would be inclined to say that that privilege should not be abused, and most honorable members have observed the rule that the privileges which they enjoy shall not be misused for the purpose of venting private spleen against a person who does not enjoy a similar privilege.

In any case, the Senate and this chamber have adopted certain rules of conduct. Strict Standing Orders are enforced, which determine that certain things shall not be spoken in this chamber by one member of another. If an honorable member offends against those rules, he is. promptly brought to account for it, and asked to withdraw the remark. In special circumstances, he may be called upon to apologize for an outrage upon good taste, reflecting upon a fellow member. If he does not apologize, he may be suspended from attending the sittings of the House, and a penalty is provided for a repetition of the offence. As honorable members are aware, the House is the guardian of its own honour and dignity, and may even expel a member unless and until his conduct has been endorsed by his constituents and he is re-elected.

It would be surely a curious anomaly if the chamber were to throw open its galleries to a person who would be free, without restraint, let or hindrance, to abuse, revile and hold up to ridicule and contempt in opprobrious language the honorable members who had imposed disciplinary measures upon themselves in order to ensure proper conduct. In this instance, the President, who represents the Senate which, in turn, is responsible to the people, addressed himself to the newspaper, and asked it to dissociate itself from the scurrilous attack that had been made on honorable senators. He made no reference by name to the individual who had offended. The article itself must be deemed to have been written, not as words are sometimes uttered in a moment of heat or forgetfulness, but in cold blood, and to have been published after deliberation by those responsible for the conduct of the newspaper. Therefore, the President addressed himself to the newspaper as such, and its representative sought an interview with him. The request was granted. The representative declined to subscribe to any kind of apology, or publish an explanation of or excuse for the article. Therefore, the President took the stand that the newspaper - a powerful organ of public opinion - should not be represented in the galleries of the Senate until it made amends for its offence. With great respect to the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) I think that attitude is entirely correct. It is not an affront to working journalists as such; they are just as eager to maintain the dignity and rules of their profession as honorable members of this chamber are anxious to preserve its dignity. But the Senate and the House, of Representatives have decided that the President and the Speaker respectively may determine who shall and who shall not he admitted to the public galleries. By tradition and by common consent, the press are admitted. Special accommodation has been provided for journalists, and they are welcome. Sometimes, their criticism is intelligent and well informed. Sometimes, it is unintelligent and ill informed. Sometimes, it is personal and inconsiderate. On other occasions, it is far too flattering. I have never been of sufficient importance to be much noticed one way or the other, but I have read, sometimes with pain, the slobbering flattery in sections of the . press of some members of the Labour party. I regard it as an affront to my intelligence when in the very issue in which this flattery is published, the same journalist on occasions make3 vitriolic and almost vile attacks upon other members of the Labour party. I think both are offensive in a ‘ way, but both are within the discretion of members of the journalistic profession. Very wide latitude is extended, and ought to be extended, to the press. Members extend a wide latitude to themselves, and they ought to do so. I have never taken the view that members of a democratic and popular institution like the Commonwealth Parliament should be mealy-mouthed about the direct expression of their personal opinions on the conduct of individuals, or as to policy in any particular case. A large measure of freedom should be allowed, but I think the Speaker or the President of the Senate is quite entitled to take notice of an article which serves no other purpose, and is intended to serve no other purpose, than to be scurrilous and offensive. Many unjust and unfair things have been said in the press about honorable members and about Parliament. We bear them. Sometimes we are too indulgent. It does not devolve upon us to say that this article is a part of or incidental to the freedom of the press. The press should be free. Members of Parliament should be free. I have asserted so rauch, and I have given sufficient reasons, I hope, for dissenting from the view put by the honorable member for Dalley in this particular case. This is not an attack upon journalism, whose best in-

J/r. Brennan. terests I have at heart. It is not an attack upon the freedom of the press. It is worthy of note that the article was also personally and gratuitously offensive to Mr. Speaker. For the reasons I have given and other reasons I might have given, I think that the attitude of the President was, in the circumsbances, entirely right. Members of this chamber ‘and of .the Senate would do well to place limits perhaps hard to define upon the freedom that a member of the press enjoys and has clearly abused in this case.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I agree with the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) that the Government should compromise in the case of the gaoled bankrupt hotelkeeper and former member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Mr. Theodore Charles Trautwein. The Government should accept the compromise offered by the relatives and friends of this septuagenarian and release him from imprisonment. At the same time, the Government should also seek to compromise in some of the other outstanding cases of understatement of taxable income. It is very interesting to read schedule 4a of the 22nd report of the Commissioner of Taxation, which sets out the names and occupations of people who have understated their taxable income, the amount of understatement, the additional tax charged, and the financial year or years concerned. A glance at the columns shows that in New South Wales alone a huge sum of money is owed by such taxpayers to the Commonwealth. I should say that, unless compromises be negotiated, the Commonwealth will have no hope of collecting a large part of the’ money owed. The penalty tax imposed increases steadily year by year, but the money remains unpaid. I should say that, at the age of 74 years, Mr. Trautwein’s memory would not be so good as it might have been years ago. Some people will say that it is an advantage to have a convenient memory where debts are concerned, but we all know that, as we grow older, our memories deteriorate. Reference to the schedule shows that Theodore C. Trautwein, hotelkeeper, from 1921-22 to 1927-28, understated his taxable income by £156,825, in respect of which the additional tax charge amounted to £47,106 13s. 4d., and from 192S-29 to 1936-37, by £240,731, in respect of which the additional tax charged amounted to £65,030 18s. 4d. The total additional tax charged amounted to £137,000 lis. Sd. The total understatement of taxable income amounted to £397,556. Therefore, the penalty imposed was about 30 per cent, of the understated taxable income. Reference to the cases of other defaulting taxpayers indicates that Mr. Trautwein has been discriminated against by the Commissioner for Taxation. Thomas Glover, grazier and storekeeper, from 1925-26 to 1930-31 and from 1934-35 to 1938-39, understated his taxable income by £55,414 and the additional tax charge ‘amounted to £2,875 15s. 2d., which is a penalty of only about 6 per cent. John F. Metcalfe, municipal contractor, whom most of us know, from 1930-31 to 1936-37, understated his taxable income by £31,683 and the penalty amounted to £6,830 9s. 4d. - about 20 per cent, as compared with the 30 per cent, penalty imposed on Mr. Trautwein. Cook and Williams Proprietary Limited, manufacturers, from 1933-34 to 1937-38, understated their income by £19,270 and only £81 penalty was imposed, whereas, probably because the Commissioner for Taxation did not like the colour of Luigi Filippi’s hair, the penalty imposed by them on him for having understated his income from 1931-32 to 1938-39 by £22,347 amounted to £2,283. David Burke, deceased, builder, between 1915-16 and 1937-38, understated his income by £25,203, and the additional tax charged amounted to £990, which is about 25 per cent, of the understated income. One would think that a case going so far back as 1915-16 would have the highest accumulated fine of the lot. Members on all sides of the House have taken up Mr. Trautwein’s case with successive Attorneys-General. I think it is a standing disgrace that each year the report of the Taxation Commissioner should include these figures. Some of the people concerned are dead and the Taxation Commissioner has no hope of getting the money involved. The Government needs money now more than ever before, and it should use this means to negotiate to get some of what it requires.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Why waste money on legal proceedings?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. Mr. Trautwein is in and out of gaol merely because he has been tried by another individual in a state of senility. It is a shame. Legal costs are steadily mounting. Meanwhile it is impossible for Mr. Trautwein to recollect the things he is asked to remember. It is impossible for him to pay all the money involved, and the Government should accept the offer made to it by his relatives and friends. If the Government were prepared to negotiate it would probably be able to obtain 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, of the money which it claims that Mr. Trautwein owes to it.

I have been approached by the Municipality of Cessnock and other organizations iri that district with regard to the Cessnock aerodrome. Already £20,000 has been expended on it, and it is not yet entirely satisfactory because of a depression at one end. The aerodrome has been contour surveyed. The Commonwealth Government has been advised by its own experts in the Air Force, and in the Department of Civil Aviation, that to put the aerodrome into proper working order so that it could be taken over by the Department of Air from the Department of Civil Aviation would be too costly. To show that the cost would not be so great as the Government’s experts say, the Cessnock municipality points out that at the nearby Aberdare Main and Aberdare Extended Collieries, there are huge dumps of refuse which could easily be carted to the aerodrome for filling. The aerodrome is secluded and well sheltered. If fully developed it would augment the protection not only of the Newcastle iron and steel works, but also the coal-mines. I advocated the development of the Cessnock aerodrome before the site for an aerodrome was chosen. The Cessnock area could well be developed as an auxiliary aerodrome. Prior to the war, when a grant was made for the construction of this aerodrome, the then Minister for Defence, Sir Archdale Parkhill, attended the opening ceremony. Reference was then made to the important strategical position of the aerodrome. To-day we are engaged in a war, and attacks have already been launched upon this country. I ask the Minister to investigate the suitability of this area for Air Force purposes. He should at least make an inspection of the aerodrome. He should not rely entirely upon the advice given to him by Air Force officers, who cannot have estimated the position as accurately as the local surveyors have done. They have reported that the cost of putting the aerodrome into a satisfactory condition with a three-way runway would be much less than that estimated by Air Force and civil aviation authorities. Newcastle occupies a position of unique importance in Australia on account of the heavy war industries situated there, and more aerodromes should be provided for its protection.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I refer to two matters affecting the Department of the Army. The first relates to a procedure which apparently has been adopted in the Militia Forces in order to bring pressure to bear upon men to join the Australian Imperial Force. The practice that is in operation is unfair, and I am sure that the Minister would not condone it if he were aware of the circumstances. I have been informed of the facts by a man whom I have known for about fifteen years and whose word I respect. The noncommissioned officers of the anti-aircraft battery in Melbourne with which he is serving endeavour to persuade the men to join the Australian Imperial Force by telling them that it is the general desire of the unit to do so, and that, if most of the members so volunteer, they will be kept, in Victoria, whereas those who refuse to join will be sent to Caulfield, redrafted, and, in all probability, sent to Port Moresby. This is a curious inversion of the old method of persuasion. It appeals to a man’s fears in order to induce him to join the Australian Imperial Force. He is told that, if he joins the Australian Imperial Force, he will be kept near his home and relatives, whereas, if he does not do so, he will probably be sent to a distant battle station. The reason given for this practice is that the non-commissioned officers are afraid that the battery will be broken up and that they will be transferred to another battery where they will lose their stripes. It does not appear that the commissioned officers of the battery have taken any part in these proceedings. I hope that the Minister will put a stop to them. On another occasion, I drew the attention of the Minister to the procedure adopted at another camp, where the men were paraded by an officer, who ordered those who refused to join the Australian Imperial Force to fall out. That is an objectionable form of pressure, but it is not so objectionable as that which I have just mentioned. If a man joins the Australian Imperial Force, it should be an entirely voluntary act. No man should be subjected to pressure or made aware of any discrimination against men who refuse to enlist.

The second matter relates to conscientious objectors. Honorable members will recall that regulations relating to conscientious objectors were promulgated but were disallowed by the Senate. However, previously under the regimes of the Menzies and Fadden governments, there was an administrative recognition of the position of conscientious objectors. Although no regulations had been made, a person who had a conscientious objection to military service of any kind was not called upon to give either combatant or non-combatant service with the forces. With the entry of Japan into the war the position was changed, and regulations were made. Prior to this, objectors were dealt with under section 60 of the Defence Act, which contained a provision favorable to persons who objected to giving combatant service, but were willing to give non-combatant service. They had the right to establish their objections before a legal tribunal, and to appeal from the decisions of such a tribunal to a Supreme Court or the High Court. This provision did not deal with the case of the absolutist objector - a person who objected to rendering any form of military service. The present Government made regulations upon the lines of the American law and the British Military Service Acts. Almost from the introduction of conscription during the war of 1914-18, Great Britain recognized the right of a person who objected to any form of military service to be excused, either unconditionally or, as in most cases, upon his giving an undertaking to render some form of civilian service. Under the regulations made by the Commonwealth Government, a small number of persons claimed exemption from service. Most of them did so on religious grounds. Some of them were Quakers. The tenets of the Society of Friends forbid participation in war, in either a combatant or a non-combatant capacity. Some of them were Christadelphians. The tenets of that sect forbid, not merely participation in war, but also participation in the ordinary civil life of the community. A small number of the objectors were Christians belonging to churches which did not condemn war, but the individual consciences of these men forbade them to render military service. The position of the Christadelphians is very interesting. They form a small community which had its origin in America about 100 years ago. They believe that Christ will come again upon earth and re-establish His Kingdom, and that, until that time, His followers have no place in the world. Consequently, they take no part in civil life. For instance, they do not vote. In Victoria, they are excused by law from the compulsory voting provisions of that State. Membership of the sect is also accepted by the Commonwealth electoral authorities as a reasonable excuse for failure to vote. They do not render jury service, as judges always excuse them. The first time that the question of military service affected them was during the Civil war in America. The Federated States then passed a law exempting Christadelphians by name, and, although the United States of America did not specifically exempt them from military service, it nevertheless did so in practice. Largely as the result of their objections a change was made to the military service laws of Great Britain in order to give recognition to the position of absolutist objectors. I have seen photostat copies of official certificates of exemption that were granted to such people, to the effect that “ So and so is a Christadelphian, and, as such, is exempt from military service “. I have gone into some detail in this case, because most of the people who claim absolute exemption from mili tary service are Christadelphians. In almost every case, such objectors have expressed their willingness to perform whatever form of civilian service they might be ordered to do under civilian direction. In one case, a man claimed unconditional exemption, and his claim was granted. . The regulation relating to these objectors has disappeared as the result of the decision of the Senate. I was sorry to hear that no adequate defence of the regulation was submitted in the Senate. Apparently honorable senators believed that there was no precedent for it either in Great Britain or elsewhere. That is contrary to the facts. The law provides that a regulation substantially the same as the one which has been disallowed may not be enacted within six months of the disallowance, unless the Senate rescinds its decision. I ask the Government to give earnest consideration to this matter. Even if it limits exemption to persons who have purely religious objection to military service, it will do some good. The existing regulation permits an exemption to be granted to any conscientious objector whether his claim is based on religious grounds or not. In view of the fact that most of the persons affected base their objections on religious grounds, it might be competent for the Government to make a regulation restricting the privilege of exemption to such persons and providing for the application of tests as to their sincerity. In Great Britain, during the war of 1914-18, applicants had to answer a questionnaire and had to prove that they had held their views for a considerable time. They were also required to state what service they were rendering to the community. Every Christadelphian whom I have met is already doing some useful service for the community chiefly in connexion with fire brigade work. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this subject. If it cannot take action by regulation it should certainly take administrative action. The position is becoming more difficult daily. The whole of the regulations covered by the statutory rule were not disallowed. The disallowance applied only to regulation S, which gave to conscientious objectors the right of appeal; regulation 9, which entitled them to be represented on the hearing of an application or appeal ; and regulation 10, which authorized a competent court to make an order on application or appeal. The curious situation has arisen that one of the regulations which remains in force suspends a certain provision of the Defence Act. Regulation 6 provides that a person liable to serve under the Defence Act, but claiming that he holds a conscientious belief that does not allow him to perform either combatant or non-combatant service, may be enrolled as a conscientious objector, and may have his application for exemption heard under the prescribed conditions. A competent court of summary jurisdiction may direct that the applicant shall be registered without conditions, or conditionally to perform combatant or non-combatant service. Unfortunately, applications for exemption under this regulation are not being heard by the prescribed courts in certain districts, because the justices or magistrates are uncertain of their jurisdiction. Several county court judges in Victoria have adjourned hearings to a date to be fixed in the expectation that the Government will clarify the position. Unless prompt action be taken to this end I am sure that persons in this country will go to prison because they will not disregard their consciences. That has occurred over and over again in Great Britain and the United States of America, and we desire to avoid that kind of thing in Australia if possible. I therefore urge the Government to review this whole matter without delay.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

– I desire to refer briefly to the proposal to modify and alter in certain respects the activities of the Department of Information. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has stated that a sub-committee of Cabinet, which was asked to report on the subject, has submitted its recommendations, but he has not considered them. The honorable member for “Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) made a practical suggestion yesterday to the effect that a committee representative of all parties in the Parliament should be appointed to consider this subject, and also, in conjunction with it, the publicity activities of government departments generally. That method of appointing committees to deal with controversial subjects has proved effective, and I can see no reason why such a committee should not submit a valuable report on this subject for the guidance of Cabinet. I emphasize the need for action in this regard, because my attention has been directed to the fact that a public relations section of the Army has been established. Already it consists of an executive staff of 30 officers, and about 140 other ranks, plus about 30 personnel belonging to the military history and information section of the Australian Imperial Force. The majority of those officers are located in Melbourne, but I understand that they are to be distributed throughout the Commonwealth. I have been informed that a staff of six has been sent to Townsville. It might reasonably be asked what work this public relations section will be required to perform, seeing that the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) has his own publicity officers and that there is a public relations section also in the Departments of the Navy and Munitions. The Prime Minister also has an information and press section in his department.

Mr Curtin:

– My section consists of one press officer.

Mr HOLT:

– Then he is doing an extraordinarily efficient job, having in mind the multifarious activities with which the Prime Minister has to deal. If that officer can do such efficient work I can see no reason why such large press relations sections should be necessary in other departments. Honorable members are well aware that ever since the inception of the Department of Information its work has been criticized. Departments of information in other countries have been able to do excellent work and have become powerful instruments in assisting the war effort of the countries in which they serve. There must be something radically wrong with the organization of our own department. For that reason I urge the appointment of a representative committee of honorable members to report upon the subject.

Mr Curtin:

– I shall consider the suggestion.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I have several matters to which I desire to direct attention. I had intended to ask the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) a series of questions to-day, but as that was not possible, I take this opportunity to bring to the notice of the honorable gentleman the questions which, under ordinary circumstances, I should have placed on the notice-paper. They are as follows: -

  1. Is it a fact that air superiority has been of considerable advantage to the enemy in certain theatres of war?
  2. If so, will he give an assurance that he will try to avert on the Australian front any such advantage by ordering the release from the militia to theRoyal Australian Air Force of sufficient personnel possessed of technical training of a type that would be of assistance to our Air Force?
  3. Will he consider favorably the release of all personnel from militia units who, prior to receiving their call-up for military service, had made application for enlistment in the Air Force ?
  4. Is it a fact that men in militia camps have received call-up notices from the Air Force, and that commanding officers in militia camps have refused to allow them to attend the Air Force depot?
  5. In view of the urgent need for skilled men in the Air Force, as evidenced by the broadcast appeals and newspaper advertisements, will he consider favorably the release of such skilled men as are desirous of transferring from the militia to the Air Force and are deemed by the man-power authorities to be of greater value to the latter service?
  6. As the members of the Air Force are all volunteers, will he outline the arrangements whereby men who offered themselves for enlistment in the Air Force for service at home or abroad are released from the militia, which is a compulsorily enlisted force raised for home service only?
  7. Is it a fact that every young man who is potentially suitable for service in the Air Force has, unless he is in a reserved occupation, already been compulsorily drafted into the Army?

  8. If so, is it likely that the Army will not be provided with adequate air protection if men are not released from the Army for service in the Air Force?

    1. also direct attention to a report in to-day’s press that 48 persons, seventeen of whom are policemen, are on trial at Johannesburg, South Africa, for treason. They are being tried by jury in an open court, on charges that they have been in contact with the enemy, that they have assisted internees to escape, and that they have drilled as a military organization. They are also suspected of having attempted to derail a troop train. If a trial of this description may be held in open court in Johannesburg, I suggest to the Government that members of the

Australia First Movement should be tried similarly in Australia or else released.

I wish now to refer to the statements made this afternoon by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) concerning the reduction of pay of members of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force. The reductions of pay of personnel in the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force should not have been made and the former rates of pay should be restored. The Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) said that the action had been taken to bring the remuneration of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air . Force down to the level of other services. Instead of following that course the Government should have raised the lower salaries of the other services to the level of those of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force. The statement that the reduction of these rates was covered by an agendum prepared for the previous Government has significance in only two respects. If such an agendum had been prepared, the work was probably done by departmental officers. Whether it had been prepared or not, a Labour government surely should not adopt an agendum prepared for its predecessors without consulting its supporters in the Parliament. The Labour party has never been, and I hope never will he, dubbed a low-wage party.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Why not let us hear the statement of the Prime Minister on the war?

Mr CALWELL:

– There is too much of a rush by certain members from this Parliament about 4 o’clock on Friday afternoons.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– There is also too much talk on matters that could be referred to Ministers privately.

Mr CALWELL:

– I shall keep talking as long as I have matter which I wish to place before the Government. The honorable member, and other honorable gentlemen who support him, may catch their train for Sydney if they wish to do so; alternatively, they may remain here to do the business of the country.

I desire now to refer to the tobacco prices ruling in Melbourne. The Retail Tobacco Sellers Association, like many others of its kind, is dominated by a few men of big business. In this particular case, the executive of the association is composed entirely of the city members of the trade. The association issues a monthly list dictating to all in the trade the prices at which they must sell tobacco. Following the 1940 budget, the Prices Commissioner, after accepting and adopting without question the prices of tobacco named in the list, approved of the amount of the increased duty being added to the prices listed. Thus the price of tobacco, as fixed by the few, became the legally fixed price of tobacco for all in the trade.

Typical of our present system of price “ control “ is the plain fact that it invariably leaves the door wide open for the convenience of exploiters. The tobacco prices order applies only to tobaccos named in the association list. Not a word is said about the large quantity of tobacco that is sold without any name being applied to it, or sold under, hundreds of different names that do not appear on the association list. Tobacco sellers are allowed to invent and apply any name they like, change the name as often as they like, and charge any price they like, in regard to any tobacco, and, provided that the names used do not appear on the fixed price list, all is well for the profiteers. This means, in effect, that a large quantity of the tobacco sold is not subject to any price control. Loose tobacco, as well as half a dozen officially named tobaccos, appear on the list priced at 9-J-d. an oz., but little, if any, is available at that price. There are only one or two tobaccos priced officially at ls. an oz., but dozens of unofficially named tobaccos are priced at from ls. to ls. 3d. an oz. Several shops were noted for selling dark flaked tobacco at ls. an oz., but none of them would put a name to it. There is no dark flake officially available at ls. an oz. The legal price of this tobacco, sold as loose tobacco, is 9-Jd. an ok. An alien was selling supposedly 2-oz. plugs of black tobacco from which the label had obviously been removed. Equally obvious was the fact that the plug was of the poorest grade. Two and sixpence was demanded for an article legally priced at ls. 7d., but honestly valued at ls. 3d.

There are only two or three tobaccos described officially as mixtures. The number of unofficial names applied to alleged mixtures, and priced up to ls. 6d. an oz., can be counted by the score.

Several stunts are being worked to trap people into paying high prices. Some shops display tobacco in their windows at comparatively low prices, but in the shop there is nothing available under ls. or ls. 3d. an oz. Other shops will quote in their windows tobacco at so much per lb. or i lb., but when asked to supply either of the advertised quantities will offer 1 oz. or 2 oz. at a price about 25 per cent, above that quoted in the window.

The actual number of grades or qualities into which tobacco is manufactured is surprisingly few, but the number of names, brands and allegedly different qualities under which tobacco is allowed to be sold, for the purpose of deceiving the public, can be counted by the hundreds.

At the outbreak of war, the bulk of the cheaper kinds of tobacco was sold at from 6d. to 6 1/2d. an oz. The present price for the same, or the equivalent, and even inferior, tobacco, is on an average, ls. Id. an oz. - a close approximation to an increase in price of 9s. per lb. Of this amount war-time increase in excise duty accounts for only 3s. 9d. The price average covers 22 central Melbourne shops, and was arrived at from data collected by a number of people over a period of one month to the 30th April, 1942.

In Melbourne on Monday last very little tobacco was on sale, and none of it was available at under ls. 3d. an oz. Several small purchases were made at that price and all were of the poorest quality. Only two shops would put a name to what they were offering. One tobacco was named for the time being “ No. 1’ Mixture “ and the other “ Washington Mixture “, neither of which will be found on the official price list, and neither is, therefore, under price control.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means founded on Resolution of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Chifley and Mr. Forde do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2183

APPROPRIATION” BILL (No. 2) 1941-42

Bill presented by Mr. Chifley, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2183

ENEMY SUBMAKINES IN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

– by leave - The following communique was issued by Allied Headquarters to-day: -

Sydney. - Enemy submarines attacked two small cargo vessels 35 miles east of Sydney, and another ship 225 miles south thereof.

A further communique has just been released by Allied Head-quarters, as follows : -

Further information of the submarine attacks off the east coast indicate that one of three vessels was sunk, the other two escaping undamaged.

I have also to say that, after a careful analysis of all the reports of sightings and attacks,the naval authorities have now confirmed that four midget submarines attempted to enter Sydney Harbour on the night of Sunday the 31st May. Only one of these was able to make an attack, as has already been described to the House by the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin). All four of these submarines were destroyed.

page 2183

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Review of War Situation - Australian Representation in United Kingdom War Cabinet and Pacific War Council in London.

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– by leave - In the south-west Pacific, the organization of our war effort, in co-operation with our Allies, has proceeded satisfactorily. The joint machi nery described to the House last April has been in operation, and is functioning smoothly and efficiently. As Minister for Defence, I am in continuous contact with the Commander-in-Chief, and periodically meet him, as well as the Commanderin Chief of the Australian Army and the Chiefs of Staff. I publicly acknowledge the whole-hearted manner in which General MacArthur is co-operating with the Government; and I have no doubt that the Commander-in-Chief is equally appreciative of the way in which the Government is working with him.

So far as operations are concerned, the principal event in this area during the last month has been the naval action in the Coral Sea. In this action, heavy losses were inflicted on the enemy, and extravagant claims as to our losses have been made by Japanese propagandists. I need do no more than ask why the enemy withdrew his forces from the scene of battle and returned to his northern bases. The action was a signal success for the Allied forces engaged, and averted an immediate threat to Australian territory. Successful as it was, however, we do not regard it as being anything more than the first round of a fight which is going to be long and hard. Even nearer home, enemy submarines are active in our waters. The recent attack on Sydney Harbour has brought the battle closer to our daily lives than did any previous incident in the war. The vigilance and prompt action of the naval forces guarding our shores prevented any material success from being achieved by this desperate venture. The Government extends its sympathy to those who have been bereaved. Whilstthe outcome must strengthen our confidence in the men who protect us from the enemy, the attack itself emphasizes the need for ceaseless vigilance, and dispels any lingering doubt that any one may have had that Australia is not in the front line. Allied air attacks on the enemy’s advanced bases to the north have continued with unabated vigour, and the superiority established has been sufficient to deny their use to the enemy as safe places for the concentration of forces for a more southward move. The enemy air attacks on our outposts have been costly to him, and the air fighting has shown a definite balance in our favour. A vita! factor in continuous offensive action is the supply and maintenance of aircraft. Our land forces daily grow stronger, better trained, and more fully equipped; that is true of both the Australian Military Forces and those of the United States of America. I pay a tribute to the bearing of the American forces in this country. It is no simple matter for an army from another country to settle down among strangers in a new environment. The American forces have quickly won the affection and respect of the Australian people by their soldierly bearing and manly qualities. On the industrial front the production of munitions and supplies is steadily progressing towards the peak of our capacity as new factories come into production. The prototype of a new class of aircraft recently did its initial trials in a satisfactory manner. The range, as well as the volume, of our production, is being extended as speedily as possible.

I turn now to other theatres of war. On the Russian front, the claims continue to be conflicting. The recent attacks by the Russians, launched under difficult conditions, must have seriously disorganized German plans for offensive action in the Ukraine. At the same time, the scale of the fighting on the Russian front demands great quantities of equipment, and we recognize that assistance given in this respect represents a vital contribution to our ultimate victory. It is pleasing to note that, within the last few days, a large convoy has fought its way through to Murmansk, despite repeated attacks by U-boats and enemy aircraft.

In Libya, Field Marshal Rommel has launched a new offensive, the initial results of which were favorable to us, and great damage was inflicted upon enemy tanks and mechanical transport. The Royal Australian Air Force has played a prominent part in these operations. Latest reports indicate that the enemy has succeeded in occupying the area between the gaps in our minefield, and that the battle is now approaching a crucial stage,

On the western front, the British bombing offensive has reached record dimensions. On two nights within the last week, more than 1,000 bombers were over Germany, and the huge weight of bombs dropped on the vital centres of Cologne and Essen will undoubtedly have caused widespread dislocation of’ the German war machine. The new air offensive is a factor of considerable importance in relieving the pressure on Russia. In this bombing offensive, airmen from the Dominions, trained under the Empire air training scheme, have played a prominent part. So far as land operations on the western front are concerned, it would not be proper for me to forecast how or when the allies will further relieve the pressure now directed against Russia, by launching a full-scale land offensive.

The House will recall that, in my statement on the 29th April, I referred to the dangers that would face the united nations if our enemies secured a foothold in Madagascar. That danger was largely removed by the British occupation of the island naval base of Diego Suarez on the 5th May. In a communique issued at the time of the operation it was stated that, whilst this action had been taken to forestall a Japanese move against Madagascar, it had been made clear to the French authorities that the united nations had no intention of interfering with the French status of the territory, which would remain French and continue to be a part of the French Empire. This pledge was honoured when, after the protocol of the 7th May with the local Vichy commander had made over Diego Suarez to the British forces, a communique was issued in London stating that it was the intention of the United Kingdom Government that the Free French National Committee should play its due part in the liberated French territory. This action in Madagascar has greatly strengthened the security of our lines of communication across the Indian Ocean. I am now in a position to inform the House that the Commonwealth Government took an active part in urging decisive action in Madagascar from the beginning. We are most gratified that this successful operation has forestalled the enemy.

Throughout their long struggle with Japan, the Chinese have suffered numerous disappointments, of which none has been more keenly felt than the loss of Burma. This has deprived China of its principal supply route foi’ the importation of war materials from allied countries, and has thrown it back to an increasing degree on its own resources. Tint ti if resolution of the Chinese nation and its gallant leader, Chiang Kai-Shek, in the midst, of adversity, continues to stand out in clear relief, and the Chinese are stubbornly resisting the new Japanese attacks from the cast, designed to prevent the use of aerodromes by the allied air forces in attacks on Japan. British and American experts are endeavouring to develop new routes, along- which allied aid may continue to reach the Chinese. Meanwhile, they are being assisted by constant and punishing- raids against Japanese lines of supply by .British and American air forces based on India.

Thu shipping position continues to give cause for anxiety. Losses of shipping, although I hero bus been some improvement recently, are still serious. The shipbuilding programme of the United Nations, however, is expanding, and it may be added that the Axis powers are not without their difficulties in this respect, heavy losses having been inflicted on their shipping in recent weeks.

Authentic news of France is lacking, but the indications are that France still refuses that full measure of collaboration which Hitler deems imperative in order to secure his western flank and facilitate hig flow of supplies to North Africa. The Government has no confirmation of the reports that Italy is attempting to subject the Vichy Government to pressure for the cession of Nice, Corsica and Tunis. It is not thought likely that Italy is in a position to make any demands upon Vichy without German connivance, and until Germany gives some clear indication that it has abandoned the hope of using M. Laval and his government for its own ends, Italian pretensions are not likely- to count for much at this stage.

All our information from Italy suggests that the morale of the Italian people is low, and that they want nothing so much as peace. Food shortages, and

I.771

rising prices have strengthened opposition to Mussolini and his regime. There is little likelihood of a complete crack, however, while Italy continues to be held down, as it is at present, by strong German armed forces and by many thousands of Gestapo agents.

The United Nations have pained a new ally in Mexico, which declared war on (icr.iiia.ny. Italy and Japan on the 28th May. Shortly after the attack by Japan on the United States of America, and the declarations of war by other Axis countries, the Mexican Government, in interpretation of the meaning of continental solidarity in the western hemisphere, and the obligations it had accepted at successive Pan-American conferences, broke off diplomatic relations with Japan. Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, but still remained a neutral. In spite of neutrality, however, Mexican shipping wa3 subject to wanton attack byth e Axis, and, realizing that firmer action was needed both to maintain the integrity of the country and to collaborate in safeguarding the American continents, the Mexican Government entered the war. The support that this new ally can give, particulary in helping to combat the submarine menace in seas adjacent to its coasts, and the valuable resources of oil and metals which it possesses, will bc a real addition to the strength of the Allies.

The Commonwealth Government is anxious, as I have informed the House previously, to establish an early form of reciprocal representation with the Soviet Union. During his visit to London, the Minister for External Affairs has been able to discuss this matter with the Soviet Ambassador, and it is hoped that the Soviet Government will shortly be able to inform the Commonwealth Government of its views.

The Minister for External Affairs has completed his work in London, and returned to Washington. Dr. Evatt has achieved important results in the special mission entrusted to him. There arc some who, earlier in this year, had sought to do a disservice to the unity of the Allied cause and the solidarity of the Empire by distorting my plain and frank statements of the emphasis which the Australian Government placed on the importance of the Pacific theatre in the grand strategy of the whole war, the forces required for the security of Australia as a base, and the forces required for offensive action in this theatre against Japan.

The correctness of my own original statements was confirmed soon after I made them by the following events: -

  1. The directive issued to the Supreme Commander by the United Nations fully provided in principle for my contentions.
  2. The division of the globe into areas for greater facility in the higher direction of the war placed Australia and the southwest Pacific area under the operational responsibility of the United States of America. At the same time, Mr. Churchill also gave me assurances that he did not consider this arrangement as in any way absolving the United Kingdom Government from its determination and duty to come to our aid to the best of its ability.

Probably the greatest, service Dr. Evatt has rendered was the winning of a sympathetic understanding of our viewpoint in Washington and London. He has now had an opportunity to discuss our position with the President and his advisers in Washington, and with Mr. Churchill and other Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff in London, where he has also been able to explain the Pacific outlook to the people and the press of Britain.

As I have indicated, there never was any real cause for doubt or misunderstanding, but I am happy to say that any trace of either has completely disappeared. In conformity with Mr. Churchill’s earlier assurances, Dr. Evatt has also received promises of material aid which I am unable to elaborate at present, but they are a practical gesture of great significance to the Australian people.

Mr. Churchill has expressed to me his pleasure at having had the opportunity for personal discussion with the Minister for External Affairs, and we, for our part, are most appreciative of the facili ties afforded to our Minister while in London to enable him to carry out his mission. I take this opportunity to record publicly the deep appreciation of the Government and myself for the aid and assistance which the British Government, and especially Mr. Churchill himself, have afforded to the Minister for External Affairs and to the Commonwealth of Australia, whose representative he is.

I also express my gratitude to President Roosevelt for the assistance and help thathe has extended to the representative of the Australian Government. I have received a most cordial message of goodwill which I have suitably acknowledged. It is a matter for great satisfaction that the President, with all his onerous responsibilities, is able to preside at meetings of the Pacific War Council. While in Washington. Dr. Evatt will have an opportunity for discussion and consultation with Sir Owen Dixon, who will represent Australia on the Pacific War Council there.

With Dr. Evatt’s departure from London ithas been decided to appoint Mr. Bruce as the accredited representative of the Commonwealth Government on the United Kingdom War Cabinet and the Pacific War Council in London. Mr. Bruce is well qualified to discharge these great responsibilities. As a former Prime Minister, he can speak for Australia, with knowledge and authority, and he is also a member of His Majesty’s Privy Council. In order to free Mr. Bruce from a portion of the responsibilities he will now bear, it has been decided to relieve him of the routine functions attaching to the office of High Commissioner. The official secretary at Australia House, Mr. Duncan, will act as Deputy High Commissioner while Mr. Bruce is the accredited representative of the Australian Government in London. Sir Earle Page, whose illness we all regret, is, I am glad to say, recovering, and hopes to be well enough to return home shortly.

Representatives of the United Nations recently met at Ottawa to discuss problems connected with the training of aircrew personnel in relation to the availability of aircraft. General principles were agreed upon, and will be the basis of future policy. After the conference, representatives of the British Commonwealth discussed the continuation of the Empire air training scheme beyond the expiry of the present agreement in March. 1943. Agreement was reached on main principles, and the scheme will be continued.

I sum up by saying that the past month lias seen the organization of our war effort in co-operation with our allies operating smoothly. We have not only held our enemy in the north, but have also had the best of our encounters with him in that area. The threat to our security, however, remains a serious one which demands unceasing vigilance and effort. There is a rising spirit of aggressiveness among the Allied nations, based on confidence in the growing strength of our arms. We are now able to exchange blow for blow with the enemy, and we feel the better for it. Whilst we know that he still has plenty of fight in him, we can begin to see his weak spots. We believe that when the full weight of America’s war potential is translated into actual terms of man-power and equipment, we shall sweep forward irresistibly to a victory which will enable us to establish the foundations of a lasting peace.

page 2187

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER REFLECTIONS ON THE SENATE

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:

– During the debate on the Estimates, reference was made to the publication of an article reflecting upon the Senate, and

To the action of the President of the Senate in excluding from the precincts of that chamber the representatives of certain newspapers. I have been reluctant to introduce the matter into this House, because the article contained a reference to me, and I do not desire that tuy private complaint should be ventilated here. However, the matter has been raised by honorable members, and the duty devolves upon me to state my position as Speaker. In my opinion, there is a duty upon this House to support and co-operate with the Senate in the maintenance of the dignity and honour of Parliament.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr SPEAKER:

– Both branches of the legislature are equally concerned to preserve the lights, privileges and honour of Parliament. Therefore, unless the apology demanded is published without reservation by the newspaper concerned, I propose to take action similar to that taken by the President of the Senate.

page 2187

JOINT COMMITTEE ON WAR EXPENDITURE

Motion (by Mr. Curtin) - by have - agreed to -

That Mr. Rosevear be appointed to servo on the Joint Committee on War Expenditure.

That the foregoing resolution lie CO”lmunicated to the Senate by message.

page 2187

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING BILL 1942,

Message received from the Senate intimating that it .had agreed to the amendments made by the House of Representatives in this bill.

page 2187

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Gift Duly Assessment Bill 1942. Estate Duty Assessment; Bill 1042.

page 2187

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate .without amendment or requests : -

Supply Bill (No. I ) 1042-4.3. Loan Bill (No. 2) 1!)42. Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill 1942.

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1942.

page 2187

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1940-41

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, for the financial year ended the 30th June, 1941, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to be printed and referred to Committee of Supply.

In Committee of Supply:

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move-

Supplementaryestimates, 1940-41 .

That the following furthersums be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge? for the year 1940-41, for the several services hereunder specified, viz.: -

Part1. - Departments and Services - Other thanBusiness Undertakings and Territories of the Commonwealth.

SupplementaryEstimatesforAdditions. NewWorks,Buildings,Etc..1940-41.

That there be granted to His Majesty to the service of the year1940-41 for the purposesof Additions. New Works, Buildings. &c.. a further sum not exceeding £230,596

The Supplementary Estimates for the year ended the 30th June, 1941, which have been tabled, cover the items of unforeseen expenditure for which no specific Parliamentary approvalhas been given,but which were met temporarily out of the provision for Treasurer’s Advance pending submission to Parlia ment intheformofthese Estimates. Particulars of this unforeseen expenditure in the form of Supplementary Estimates are now submitted for covering appropriation by Parliament,. As copies of these Estimates have been circulated among honorable members, I do not propose to refer to the items in detail. Of the amount of £5,000,000 voted for Treasurer’s Advance in 1940-41, the sum of £1,419,090 was expended on ordinary departmental services and war services payable from revenue, whilst, £239,596 was used for additions, new works and buildings. For the last-named sum, Supplementary Estimates will shortly be submitted separa tely.

Although Parliament is being asked to appropriate £1,419,090, the expenditure for the year was actually £119,786 less than the total provision for ordinary services in the main Appropriation Act. This is because, in many cases, this new expenditure was made contingent on savings of similar amounts in other items. In other votes, straight-out savings were possible. Defence and War Services account for £881,631 of the amount of £1,419,090 included in the bill.

Full details of the expenditure which is now submitted for approval have already been furnished to Parliament in the Estimates and budget papers for 1941-42. The Estimates compare the amount voted for1941-42 with the actual expenditure for1940-41, whilst the budget papers also record the expenditure. Details were also included in. the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1940-41 which has been tabled for the information of honorable members. In order that honorable members will have an assurance that these Estimates are based upon properly audited accounts, it is the practice to await the report of the Auditor-General on the accounts of the year under review. The Auditor-General’s report was laid on the table of the House on the 25th February, 1942.

The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) criticized the delay that has occurred in presenting these Supplementary Estimates to Parliament. I remind the honorable member that they must first be submitted to the Auditor-General,

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1942, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1942/19420603_reps_16_171/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant