View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
7 August 1946

17^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

HOUR OF MEETING
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
ARMED FORCES
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- MEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- JUTE GOODS
TAXATION
- Decentralization of Offices
QUESTION
- FILM “INDONESIA CALLING
QUESTION
- RE-ESTABLISHMENT
NEW GUINEA
- Trusteeship
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 5
- Article 7:
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
APPLES AND PEARS
QUESTION
- DIVISION OF IMPORT PROCUREMENT
BATMAN AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
- Report of Public Works Committee
GALVANIZED IRON, WIRE AND WIRE NETTING
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION
TUBERCULOSIS BILL 1946
- Second Reading
PATENTS BILL 1946
- Second Reading
MEAT INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL 1946
- Second Reading
TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1946
- Second Reading
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
WOOL INDUSTRY FUND BILL 1946
- Second Reading
PAPER
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Commonwealth Funds: Audit
- Public Service; Temporary Employees

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3845

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

page 3845

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Conditions on “ Dominion Monarch “ - Compassionate Air Passage.

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Last Friday, I handed to the Minister for Repatriation a telegram that I had received from Adelaide in regard to the conditions on’ the bride ship Dominion Monarch. Has the Minister received a reply from the captain of the ship, in response to the inquiry that I asked him to make?

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– The honorable member handed to me a telegram that he had received from the husband of a bride on Dominion Monarch, which was carrying 143 wives, 107 children and ten widows, a total of 260, and was then, I understood, about to enter the Red Sea. Because of concern in regard to the accom- modation on the vessel, I sent a message to the captain, and received this reply -

Accommodation fitted in this ship for Australianexservicemen’s dependants was speciallyconstructed for them by sea transport and approved by the Australian Government representatives in London. Some wives dc not approve being berthed in eight or ten-berth dormitories.There are no complaints regarding food and general amenities.

page 3846

ARMED FORCES

Occupation Force in Japan: Supply of Soap; AmenitiesDemobilization - University Studies - Illness of Relatives: Transport.

Mr BRYSON:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– A friend of mine has received from his son who is with the Australian Occupation Forces in Japan a letter from which the following is an extract -

I am going to ask you to do me another favour. The canteen supplies here are terrific as far as the Army is concerned. Our ration is half a cake a fortnight, so I am going to ask you to get gome for me and forward it on, as it is impossible to make half a cake do one for a fortnight. From what I can see of this Australian contingent, the bulk of the canteen supplies from Australia go to the “ Pomms “. One instance : 32 cases of canteen goods arrived here on the RiverMitta about a fortnight ago, and the Indians copped the whole issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! Can the honorable member not condense that? Mr. BRYSON. - The letter endsSo now you can sec why I am asking for the soap.

Will the Minister for the Army invests gate the position and arrange for Australian . troops in Japan to be supplied with adequate supplies of soap?

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

– The CommanderinChief of British Commonwealth Occupation Forces has complete authority andpower to deal with all such matters on the spot. I shall communicate with him to ensure adequate supplies of soap.

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– Numbers of young men still in the armed forces who have matriculated are desirous of taking up a course of study at a university. As some time has elapsed since the termination of the war I ask the Minister for the Army whether he is in the position to indicate that all. such matriculated persons still in the services who desire to take up courses of study will be released by early in 1947 in order to do so ?

Mr FORDE:

-This subject received a great deal of consideration from my colleague the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction when the demobilization scheme was being evolved. The honorable gentle- man sought the advice of the Universities Commission, and’ that body, in turn, conferred with the Australian universities. Because of lack of accommodation and other factors the university authorities intimated that all they would request for the time being was that persons who had successfully completed one year of study in an Australian university should be granted accelerated discharge. To give accelerated discharge to tens of thousands of matriculated persons would have been impracticable at that time, on the best advice available to the Government. The subject was subsequently considered by Cabinet which decided that, accelerated discharges could not be given to all who wished to. begin a course at a university, any more than it could be given to all other persons who wish to learn a trade, such as plumbing or carpentering, because every accelerated discharge that was given involved calling upon another person to serve longer than he would otherwise have been required to serve. However, the Leader of the Opposition has now asked whether something can be done ‘ to ensure that persons still in the services who wish to. begin university courses next year may receive accelerated discharges. I give an assurance to the righthonorable gentleman that the most sympathetic consideration will be givento his suggestion. The Government is desirous that those whose studies were interrupted by war service shall be allowed to enter upon university coursesor apprenticeships of various kinds without unnecessary delay.

Mr Spender:

– Many persons, qualified for discharge, are not being released because they are regarded as key personnel.

Mr.. FORDE__ I gave the honorable member an assurance yesterday that the procedure in regard to the release of key personnel was . being completely overhauled by a special committee appointed for the purpose. The Government is anxious that demobilization shall be completed at the earliest possible date, but taking an overall view of the picture, a splendid job has already been done.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

-I have received a letter from the broken-hearted, mother of a member of the Royal Australian Air

Force who is a member of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. She desires that members of that force shall be granted leave, because many of them are suffering a nervous breakdown. She says that she has received a letter from her son; who had “ never written in that strain before “. This is a portion of the son’s letter -

I don’t know what is the real cause of it, but most of the jokers here have the hills closing’ in on them, as we put it, but you go around feeling as though you are in a cage from which you can never escape.

Sis letter went, on to say that there are no cafes at which food can be obtained; that food is scarce; and the men have to exist on tinned meat. The worst feature is that which I am now about to relate. This woman said in her letter that recently a neighbour’ had informed her that both she and her mother had wept when they had received advice from their brother and son respectively that one of his colleagues, a member of the Australian Imperial Force in the occupation force in Japan, had committed suicide by throwing himself under a train, so as to escape from the conditions under which. he had been living. Can the Minister for Air obtain some amenities for Australian members of the occupation force in Japan ? ‘ Will he consider the granting of leave, in order that these men may escape for a time from the conditions in which they are placed to-day?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I can hardly be expected to have absorbed all t.he details of the letter from a heart-broken mother which the honorable member has read to the House. I promise to have inquiries made. I find it very difficult to understand why anybody should feel so aggrieved as to weep about persons who volunteered to serve in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan.

Mr Francis:

– Because of their having been neglected.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– All that I can say is that complaints have not previously come to -me. Had the honorable member, instead of ventilating the matter in this House, brought this complaint to m’ notice, I would have been most willing to have it” investigated. Even in Australia persons commit suicide without waiting for <£ the hills to close in on them “. I am not at all unsympathetic ‘in regard ‘to the conditions of the men who are serving in Japan. The Government has endeavoured to provide the best, possible conditions for them. So far as I know, this is the first complaint that has been made about unfair treatment of members of the Royal Australian Air Force. I regret that the honorable member has raised the matter in. this House.

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Reports have appeared in the press in regard to the inadequacy of the amenities provided for the occupation force in Japan, and I have also received, letters on the subject. The . health and morale of men must inevitably deteriorate when so many of. them are stationed in an eastern country with not much to do. I ask the Minister for the Army whether suitable hospitals have been hired, camps provided, and leave arrangements made for these troops? What is the strength of the personnel engaged in providing amenities for them? How are those personnel employed? Has the amenities branch in Melbourne had staff and equipment ready for some time for embarkation for Japan? What is the reason for the delay in embarking these personnel? When will they leave Australia?

Mr. FORDE (Capricornia - Minister for the Army). - by leave - This matter has been raised by several honorable members, and this morning I read in the press a further statement on the subject in an article by Mr. Massey Stanley. That statement is incorrect, and I have- no doubt whatever that Lieutenant-General Robertson did not make certain statements which have been attributed to him. Massey Stanley, in the article appearing in the Daily Telegraph, is reported to have” stated that ‘ Lieutenant-General Robertson would ask General MacArthur whether the American forces can temporarily extend the amenities the Australian Government has denied. The Australian Government has not denied amenities to the Australian troops, and as I have already indicated, , it is the policy of the Government to provide amenities and leave facilities for our Australian . troops in Japan to the greatest extent practicable.

Lieutenant-General Robertson, in a recent message to Army and defence headquarters, had stated that he had come to the conclusion -that the only way to provide for British Commonwealth Occupation Force troops in time to enable them to have relief during hot summer and autumn months, was to request the appropriate American authorities to hand over a percentage of United States operated centres for operation by the British Commonwealth Occupation Force on a sterling’ basis. Lieutenant-General Robertson had stated that he proposed taking such action. He was clothed with the necessary power to act in the best interest of the troops.

The. Australian troops number 12,600 out of a- total of 37,300 of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, and it is pointed out that a small advance party of Australian troops arrived in February this year, and other troops followed in April, May and June. On the last occasion, when this question was raised, I intimated that Lieutenant-General Robertson had been asked to furnish his recommendations as to any additional amenities or facilities that, in his opinion, should be made available. On the 31st July, a signal was received by the Joint Chiefs of Staffs in Australia from LieutenantGeneral Robertson stating that the fundamental problem in regard to amenities “was to provide civilized surroundings for the occupation troops. It will be appreciated that his responsibilities relate to all troops of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, and not merely the Australian troops.

The signal continued that- the area occupied by these troops did not include any Japanese city where men could find anything approaching western facilities, and he considered the solution of the problem could be found in (a) providing adequate clubs, cinemas, libraries and education facilities in garrison centres; and (b) providing leave centres at attractive resorts outside British Commonwealth Occupation Force areas. He advised that he was submitting detailed recommendations for the provision of adequate clubs, cinemas, library and education facilities, . but these detailed recommendations are still awaited, and will receive urgent attention as soon as they come to hand. In the meantime, the Australian Amenities Service have provided goods to the value of £160,000 for Australian troops, and, in addition- to equipment already forwarded, 200 tons of equipment was now in course of transit to Japan. In addition, the Australian Comforts Fund provided £45,000 for the establishment and conduct of leave centres for Australian troops. Four cafeterias and non-residential club3 for other ranks had already been selected, and the plant and equipment for these was already in Japan. In addition, buildings have been selected at Kyoto and Kobe for the establishment of holiday leave hostels. These will provide accommodation for 250 persons who may spend their leave there free of cost, on a basis similar to that provided for American troops. Another- centre which will provide accommodation for 500 personnel is being, established on Kyushu Island. Two canteen cars are being prepared for attachment to British Commonwealth . Occupation Force troop trains. These are of a buffet type and similar to those already provided by the American Red “Cross for American leave trains. The suggestion in the Daily Telegraph article’ that Lieutenant-General Robertson is turning to the United States authorities for the provision of amenities is most misleading. Lieutenant-General Robertson has already advised that the United States authorities, who have been longer in the field and have established facilities, recognized the needs of the British Commonwealth Occupation’ Force, and discussions have been proceeding for thcallotment from their resources of accommodation for our troops on leave in areas under the United States Army control. This involves the expenditure of dollars to cover the free accommodation for our leave parties in such areas and hostels, and such expenditure has been authorized by the Government and communicated to Lieutenant - General Robertson.

JUTE GOODS

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– During the war the Commonwealth Government subsidized the users of jute goods, notably wheat bags and sacks of various kinds for produce. The sugar-growers’ organizations of New- South Wales and Queeusland inform me that they have asked the Prime

Minister more than once to extend this concession to the sugar industry, but their representations have been rejected. The amount involved is more than £500,000. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited has agreed that any subsidy payment made on account of sugar bags shall be returned to the growers. As the sugargrower did not receive any increase of price during World War II., although costs of all kinds increased, will the Prime Minister inform me why he has denied to this industry the subsidy which is granted to almost every other user of bags? Will the right honorable gentleman reconsider the matter and, if necessary, receive a further deputation on the subject?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The sugar-growers organizations of New South Wales and Queensland submitted to me a request for the extension of the subsidy to the users of sugar bags. On the first occasion on which the matter was raised, the amount involved was £300,000. Since then, apparently, from the figures mentioned by the honorable member for Richmond, the amount has increased. It is true that a subsidy is paid to wheat-growers and wool-growers in respect of the jute goods that they use. But sugar-growers receive extensive subsidies on the fertilizers that they use. The particular reason why the request for the extension of the subsidy to the users. of jute goods in the sugar industry was rejected, was that the Tariff Board had inquired into the industry and reported that its financial position was very satisfactory. The then Minister for Trade and Customs, Senator Keane, submitted the whole of the facts to Cabinet, which considered, in view of the report, that no justification existed for subsidizing jute goods for the sugar industry. However, the fertilizer subsidy, which is paid to all primary producers, was continued. Recently, I received further representations from the sugargrowers’ organizations, and I promised that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator J. M. Fraser) and I would re-examine the matter. - We determine on behalf of the Government the payment of subsidies in connexion with the stabilization of industries. I shall reexamine this matter in view of the fact that some changes may- have occurred since the Tariff Board submitted its last report.

page 3852

TAXATION

Decentralization of Offices

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Government has given any consideration to the decentralization of taxation offices. Because of the increased volume of the work in the capital cities a great deal of congestion has occurred. I believe that this would be relieved by decentralization. 1 desire that offices should be established in big cities outside of the capital cities, with authority to receive returns, issue assessments and collect payments.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– This subject has been under consideration for some time. The honorable member ‘for Bass, in particular, has raised it with special reference to Launceston.

Mr James:

– Newcastle has a larger population than the whole of Tasmania.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I have discussed the matter with the Commissioner of Taxation. As soon as men of a suitable standard and capacity are available, the endeavour will be made to decentralize administration, as far as possible, by establishing branches in large centres other than capital cities.

page 3852

QUESTION

FILM “INDONESIA CALLING

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether any assistance was given by am Government department or any permanent or temporary .Government official in the preparation of the propaganda film “ Indonesia Calling “ ? I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs hasviewed this film. Has he made a report to the Government as to whether or not it reflects accurately the attitude of the Government to the matter with which it deals? The film will circulate in Australia, and possibly abroad, and- may be interpreted as an official propaganda film. If the Government believes that it does not, accurately reflect its attitude, what action does it propose with a view to ensuring that those who view it will clearly understand that it is not an official film?”’

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I read a short newspaper article in regard to a film dealing with Indonesia. Neither the Government nor anyof its officers was connected in any way with the preparation of the film. Whether or not it is suitable for public exhibition is a matter which, I imagine, must be decided by the Commonwealth Film Censor. I was unaware that the Minister for Trade and Customs had viewed the film. He has not made any report to me on the matter. I have not given any thought to whether the Government should disclaim responsibility for any films exhibited in picture theatres. Films of all sorts are screened. The fact that the Government has not placed its imprimatur upon a film should certainly be sufficient indication to the public that it is not sponsored by the Government. I shall discuss the matter with the Minister for Trade, and Customs.

page 3853

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction Training Allowance

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction review the allowance that is paid to persons undergoing reconstruction training courses, particularly adult students, with a view to raising the allowance to at least the a moun t of thebasic wage ?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– The allowance paid to students undergoing reconstruction training courses has been the subject of consideration by Cabinet on several occasions. On the last occasion, Cabinet decided that the present rates are adequate to meet the circumstances. However, I shall have another look at the matter.

page 3853

NEW GUINEA

Trusteeship

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - On the 17th January, 1946, the Australian Government declared its intention of placing the Territory of New Guinea under the international trusteeship system established by the United Nations. Similar declarations were made by the governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand concerning their mandated territories in Africa and Western Samoa respectively.

The United Nations Charter provides that the terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system shall be agreed upon by the “ States directly concerned “, including the mandatory power, and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

In his statement to the House on the 13th March, 1946, the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) indicated that the House would be informed of the Government’s proposals for bringing New Guinea within the trusteeship system. Consultation with other States which may be regarded as directly concerned is now taking place, and. as yet there is no definitive text which can be placed before the House.. A draft agreement, however, has been prepared as a basis for our discussions with other governments. I shall read the articles of this agreement to honorable members at the. conclusion of this statement, thus affording an opportunity for expression of views on the principles which the Government will be following in the negotiation of the agreement.

There are two fundamental considerations on which the Government bases its attitude in the negotiation of the trusteeship agreement, namely, the fact that Australia will have complete and exclusive power in controlling the administration of New Guinea and that the only limitation upon this control is the obligation to carry out the duties imposed by the Charter.

The Commonwealth of Australia, as the administering authority, must have full powers of legislation, administration and jurisdiction over the territory. This was the position tinder the mandate, and the Government is resolved that it must continue. The Territory of New Guinea, in which so many of our men died in battle against the Japanese, is of such importance to the safety of this country that nothing but absolute control could be accepted by any Australian government. Moreover, the welfare of the native peoples demands such control.

The Minister for External Affairs made this point very clear in his statement to the House on the 13th March of this year, when he declared that “ in order to be acceptable to Australia the new agreement must, like the present mandate, designate the Government of Australia as the exclusive administering authority in the territory. Like the present mandate it must also permit the territory to be administered as an integral portion of the territory of Australia and under Australian laws, subject, of course, to the general duty laid down in the Charter and also contained in the mandate to promote the welfare .and advancement of the inhabitants.”

Furthermore, under the provisions of the United Nations Charter, to which this country is a signatory, the administration may make use of volunteer forces, facilities and assistance from the territory in providing for the defence of New Guinea. We could not do this under the old C mandate terms. The Government, moreover, intends to go farther and to ensure that its complete administrative authority will be utilized to the full in providing, where necessary, ‘for naval, military and air bases in New Guinea and for the erection of fortifications. No agreement would be considered by us which restricted in any way our right to provide for the defence of New Guinea and consequently for the safety of Australia. I must emphasize that such comprehensive defence measures were not possible under the old mandate. By bringing the mandated territory under the trusteeship system we are permitted to plan and carry out measures directly relevant to the security, of Australia- itself.

The second consideration of fundamental importance is that we shall recognize and gladly accept the general duty, laid down in the Charter, to promote the welfare and advancement of the inhabitants of New Guinea. This obligation to advance the social, economic and political development of the inhabitants is not new. A similar duty was imposed by the mandate. The Charter has simply redefined, clarified and elaborated that obligation. There are clearly set ont in Chapter XII. of the Charter the basic objectives- of the trusteeship system. At San Francisco last year our delegation was prominent in securing recognition of the principle that all members of .the United Nations responsible for the administration of dependent territories recognize in relation to them the principle of trusteeship, that is, that the main purpose of administration is the welfare of the dependent peoples and their economic, social and political development.

It is our responsibility to ensure thar. the. welfare of the inhabitants shall be the motive inspiring all such administrative acts. That duty we have discharged in the past as the mandatory power. Under the trusteeship system we shall likewise be faced with the necessity for advancing native welfare, and we must be prepared to discharge whatever responsibilities fall upon us in the execution of our obligations. The Charter, furthermore, require.Australia, in return for its full control, to give an account of its stewardship in the form of an annual report drawn upon, the basis of a questionnaire formulated by the Trusteeship Council.

The initiative in drafting the terms of the trusteeship agreement rests with Australia. Until the agreement is approved by the United Nations Assembly the right,? existing under the mandate continue in being. Before any trusteeship agreement in respect of New Guinea can be approved by the General Assembly and enter into force, Australia must, under the terms , of the Charter, be a -consenting party to it.

Eventually, Australian legislation will be required to give effect to the trusteeship agreement and to make the appropriate amendments in the New Guinea Act. As the General Assembly will not meet until. September, at the earliest, it will not be possible to bring the necessary measures before the House during the present session.

In conclusion, I should like to read to ‘ honorable members the draft terms which we propose to use as a basis for our discussions with other governments. These terms commence with the following preamble : -

The Territory of New Guinea has been administered in accordance with article 22 of the Covenant of the League ‘of Nations and in pursuance of a mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty and exercised on- His behalf by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Charter of the United Nations, signed at S.m Francisco on the 26th June, 1945. provides by article 75 for the establishment of an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements.

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia now undertakes to place the Territory of New, Guinea under the trusteeship, system, on the terms set forth in the present Trusteeship Agreement.

Therefore the General Assembly of the United Nations, acting in pursuance of article 85 of the Charter, approves the- following terms of trusteeship for the Territory of New Guinea, in substitution for the terms of the Mandate under which the Territory lias been administered :

Article 1

The Territory to which this Trusteeship Agreement applies (hereinafter called the Territory) consists of that portion of the island of New Guinea and the groups of islands administered therewith under the Mandate dated the 17th December, 1920, conferred upon His Britannic Majesty and exercised by the Government of Australia.

Article 2

The Government of Australia (hereinafter called the Administering Authority) is hereby designated as the sole authority which will exercise the administration of the Territory.

Article 3

The Administering Authority undertakes to administer the Territory in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and in such a manner as to achieve in the Territory the basic objectives of the international trusteeship system, which are set forth in article 76 of the Charter.

Article 4

The Administering Authority will be responsible for the peace, order, good government and defence of the Territory and for this purpose will have the same powers of legislation, administration and jurisdiction in and over the Territory, as if it were an integral part of the Commonwealth of Australia, and will be entitled to apply to1 the Territory, subject to such modifications as it deems desirable, such laws of- the Commonwealth of Australia as it deems appropriate to the needs and conditions of the Territory.

Article 5

It is agreed that the Administering Authority, in the exercise of its powers under article 4, will be at liberty to bring the Territory into a customs, fiscal or administrative union or federation with other dependent territories under, its jurisdiction or control, and to establish common services between the territory and any or all of these territories, if in its opinion it would be in the interests of the territory and not inconsistent with the basic objectives of the trusteeship system to do so.

Article fi.

The Administering Authority further under- takes to apply in the Territory the provisions 1 of such international agreements and such recommendations of the specialized agencies referred to in article 57 of the Charter as are, in the opinion of the Administering Authority, suited to the needs and conditions of the Territory and conducive to the achievement of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system.

Article 7:

The Administering Authority may take all measures in the Territory which it considers desirable to provide for the defence of the Territory and for maintenance of international peace and security.

page 3855

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Detention of ACI - Jones.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am concerned about the statement published in the Canberra Times that ACI Jones, who had been kept in detention for 111 days awaiting court-martial, and was sentenced to detention for 28 days, has been kept in the Royal Australian Air Force for the last two months although his sentence was suspended as the result of an . official inquiry. On the 10th July the Minister for Air advised me, in answer to a question, that the discharge of ACI Jones had been arranged. I now ask the Minister whether the discharge of this man has been effected? If not, can the honorable gentleman explain the failure to effect it?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– As. I recently informed the House in answer to a question by the honorable member, I was under the impression that ACI Jones had been discharged from the Royal Australian Air Force. I have read the paragraph in to-day’s Canberra Times, a newspaper that I find the time to read before I come to the House because it is published in pithy form and does not take long to read. When the case was brought to my notice, I was given to understand that immediate effect had been given to the suspension of the sentence upon and the discharge from custody of ACI Jones. I’ also understood that action was being taken to discharge him from the Royal Australian Air Force. According to the press report, however, such action has not yet been taken. I have directed that if ACI Jones is still in the Royal Australian Air Force” he shall be discharged immediately. Arrangements to that end should be completed within the next few days. If he is then still in the Royal Australian Air Force, I shall ask for an explanation of the incorrectness of the information previously furnished to me.

page 3856

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr.FRASER. - Can the Minister say when the apple and pear growers in the Winsole, Penrose, T along and Exeter districts will receive the payments due to them from many years under the. acquisition scheme? The payments have been held up because of litigation, and the growers are in urgent need of the money.

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– The whole matter of compensation for fruit-growers is held up because of the delay in getting a final decision from the High Court, which has been dealing with the matter. The officers of the Apple and Pear Acquisition Board were required to make submissions, and these have been before the Court, but there has been delay because of the accumulation of work.

page 3856

QUESTION

DIVISION OF IMPORT PROCUREMENT

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Prime Minister read the comment by David McNicoll in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph that by the time the Criminal Investigation Branch has finished its inquiries into the defunct Division of Import Procurement, the Commonwealth Government would have no alternative but to appoint a royal commission? In view of this exceedingly grave reflection upon an important section of a Commonwealth department, will the Prime Minister make a statement on the subject either now or before the House is dissolved?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– As a matter of fact, I did read the paragraph in Mr. McNicoll’s article which was publishedyesterday, and I understood from it that some investigations were being made by the Criminal Investigation Branch. I was not previously aware that investigations werebeing made, nor that any improper practices were alleged in connexion with the working of the division. I shall certainly ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he has any knowledge of these matters. For the time being, there is no need for me to make a statement about something of which 1 know nothing.

page 3856

BATMAN AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · Werriwa · ALP

.- by leave - I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-36, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and on which the Committee has duly reported to this House the. result of its investigations, namely: - The erection of the Batman Automatic Telephone Exchange, Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

I explained this proposal to the House on the11th April, 1946, when I moved that it be referred to the Public Works Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3856

GALVANIZED IRON, WIRE AND WIRE NETTING

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · Werriwa · ALP

– by leave -I recently promised the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Williams) that I would make inquiries whether quantities of galvanized iron, wire netting and barbed wire could be made available to farmers, and also in regard to the allegation that there were enormous quantities of these materials lying in Queensland awaiting distribution. As honorable members are aware, supplies of these items are in acute short supply, and it has been necessary for my department to distribute the production of these items to all States on an equitable basis. From inquiries made of the Commonwealth Disposals Commission, it is understood that 24,000 feet of wire netting in Brisbane has just been declared surplus to requirements and will shortly be disposed of. In addition, a further quantity of 126,000 feet at Townsville has also recently been declared surplus and will shortly be allocated. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Disposals Commission to furnish my department with information concerning any large quantities of housing and fencing materials that are available for disposal.

When disposal is subsequently made within a State my department makes any necessary adjustments of’ that State’s quota. At the present time, my department has no advice other than I have stated from the commission that there are any large quantities of galvanized iron, wire netting ‘and barbed wire that have been declared surplus to requirements and thus available fpr disposal. If specific information as to the locality where the material is alleged to be stored is furnished, the matter will be investigated further with the Disposals Commission and the Army and Air Force authorities.

page 3857

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION

Tractors

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping aware that practically all the McCormick-Deering tractors released by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission are being taken over by State and Commonwealth departments to the exclusion of primary producers? Will he confer with the Minister for Supply and Shipping, with a view to having some of thetractors made available to primary producers so that they may carry on their important functions?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I do not know whether the allegation by the honorable member is correct, but I shall confer with my colleague, and ask him to male; inquiries. I am sure, that he will do the fair thing in regard to the distribution of tractors.

page 3857

TUBERCULOSIS BILL 1946

Motion (by Mr. Holloway) agreed to-

That leave he given to bring in a hill for an act to amend the Tuberculosis Act 1045.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to amend the Tuberculosis Act 1945 by substituting a :new section for the existing section 0, which provides for the payment of special allowances to sufferers from tuberculosis and their dependants. The Tuberculosis Act was passed by the present Government in October, 1945, to give effect to its plan to strengthen the attack on tuberculosis by means of improved diagnostic and after-care facilities, treatment in suitable hospitals and the payment of special allowances to sufferers and their dependants. With a view to encouraging the States to establish additional diagnostic facilities, provision was made under section 4 for the Commonwealth to subsidize, on a pound for pound basis, the expenditure of the States in the maintenance of diagnostic facilities such as clinics, dispensaries, and X-ray equipment, established after the commence-: ment of the act. For this purpose the Commonwealth has provided the sum of £50,000 per annum for distribution amongst the States, as determined by the Minister. Under the same section a further sum of £50,000 -per annum has been provided for payment to the States, also on a pound for pound basis, for the maintenance of after-care facilities, on the same basis as for diagnostic facilities. Provision has been made in section 5 under which the Commonwealth will pay to the States a subsidy of six shillings for each daily occupied bed in approved tuberculosis hospitals established after the commencement of the act. This payment is subject to the condition that no charge is made for accommodation or treatment in the public wards of the hospitals. Section 6 of the act as it now stands . provides for the payment of special allowances to sufferers from tuberculosis and to dependants of sufferers, provided such payments will assist in preventing the spread of tuberculosis or promote the better treatment of the disease. For this purpose the Government set aside the sum of £250,000 per annum. In attempting to give effect to the objects of the section, however, policy and administrative difficulties have arisen, because there, is no power, such as is provided in sections 4 and 5, to make grants to the States” for this purpose.

It is now proposed to’ amend the act by repealing section 6 and substituting a new section whereby the Commonwealth’ will make available to tie States the sum of £250,000 per annum, to be distributed as determined by the Minister. This will bring section 6 into line with sections 4 and 5 of the act. The money will be payable to the States upon the condition that it shall be applied by the States during the year in which it is received, in making payments to, or in respect of, sufferers from tuberculosis, or the dependants of such sufferers, with the objects of - (a) encouraging such sufferers to refrain from working and to take treatment; (o) minimizing the spread of tuberculosis ; and .(c) promoting the better treatment of tuberculosis.

The States, owing to their constitutional powers, have a large share of responsibility towards tuberculosis sufferers, and this Commonwealth grant should make a valuable contribution towards the problem, particularly when it is supplemented by existing State agencies. The States will be entirely responsible for the distribution of this money and will select the people to whom payment should be made.

Proposed new section 6 contains a special provision- to the effect that payments made to tubercular sufferers and their dependants by the States, whether from moneys provided by the Commonwealth under the section or from their own moneys, will not be treated as income in tie hands ‘ of the recipients for the purpose of applying the means test under tie Invalid and Old-age Pensions, Widows Pensions and Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Acts. This provision will ensure that these moneys will be applied fully to the worthy objects set out in the new section, without in any way affecting pensions and benefits payable under the acts to which I have referred.

minor amendment has been made to section 7 of the act by the addition of the words “ by the Commonwealth or the Treasurer “ after the word “ payments “. This has the effect of clarifying the section. The worthy objects of this bill, representing as they do a valuable con- ‘tribution to the problem of tuberculosis, will, I feel sure, commend themselves to ‘ honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Sir Frederick

Stewart) adjourned.

page 3858

PATENTS BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 4th July (vide page 2238), on motion by Mr. Holloway -

That the hill he now read a second time.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– The purpose of this bill is to amend the Patents Act in various respects. The bill itself is, of necessity, very technical, although some of the matters dealt with in it are of some general importance. However, the bill possesses no party character at all. I want to make comments on about four points that arise in the bill, and 1 particularly urge the Minister to take those points into consideration and and not proceed with the bill any further at this stage. After all, there is no very great hurry about any’ of its provisions, and it would be unfortunate if changes in the patents law were made without full consideration of the various” points of view. I illustrate that by turning at once to the points I intend to emphasize. Clause 2 deals with the publication of complete specification. . There is considerable delay, which I recognize as being owing to staff difficulties in the Patent Office, in examining applications, and, as the result of that, a complete specification may be lodged and a very substantial time elapse before the matter comes to finality. The delay, as the Minister pointed out, is ‘ serious, because it abridges the inventor’s right in his invention, by abridging the life of his patent, which operates from the date of application. But I notice that the words in the proposed new provision are these -

After a complete specification has been lodged, the Commissioner shall publish in the Australian Official Journal of Patents, Trademarks and Designs a notification that the complete specification is open to public inspection and, thereupon, the complete specification and provisional specification -(if any) shall be open to public inspection.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister’ indicated that the design of’ that provision was “ to provide for the publication of the complete specification forthwith after lodgment at the Patent

Office”. So I take it that the intention is that, forthwith, after the complete specification has been lodged, there is to be publication in the manner described in the remaining words of the proposed new section. On that, I point out to the House that the Official Journal is usually despatched, or it was when I last knew of it, each week to the patent offices of all principal countries. Therefore, if the proposal be carried out, the complete specification of an invention will be published in those countriesshortly after the filing of the complete specification in Australia, and that will seriously affect the validity of subsequent overseas patent applications of the inventor. Let me make that quite clear. The inventor puts in a complete specification in Australia. He, perhaps, intends to secure protection in other countries. Time must elapse between his filing his complete specification in Australia and his making application abroad, unless he has the great fortune to bring hisinvention to a final satisfactory state very early in the piece. If, in fact,the inventor, having filed the complete specification in Australia, proceeds by the ordinary course of the post to take steps to make applications in other countries, his applications may be confronted when they arrive by the fact that his invention has been published in those countries in anticipation of the claims that he is making. This advance publication of his invention in another country may turn out to invalidate his application when it is made in that country. I suggest very earnestly for the consideration of the “Minister that the real remedy is to insert at the beginning of the clause the words “ not less than three months “. The proposed new section would then read -

Not less than three months after a complete specification has been lodged the Commissioner shall publish …

Then the inventor would have three monthsof grace in which to forward his applications inother countries..

The next point arises on clause 7, which deals with what the lawyers call “ a threats action “, in the patent law, the kind of action provided under the principal act when threats are made of legal proceedings on behalf of some in- . vention that turns out to be invalid.

There is a provision in section91a ofthe principal act dealing with the matter.It is now proposed in this bill to substitute a new provision. Clause 7 provides-

Section ninety-one a of the Principal Act it repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - “91a. -(1.) Where any person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens any person with any action or proceedings for infringement of a patent, or other like proceedings, then whether the person making the threats is or is not entitled to or interested in a patent, or is or is not interested in an application for a patent, any person aggrieved thereby may bring an action against him and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable and an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he has sustained thereby, unless the person making the threats satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the proceedings were threatened constitute or if done would constitute -

an infringement of a patent in respect of a claim in the specification which is not shown by the plaintiff to be invalid; or

an infringement of rights arising from the publication of the complete specification in respect of a claim therein which is not shown to be one which would be invalid if a patent had been granted in respect thereof.

The person who writes the actual threat will, perhaps in nine cases out of ten be a solicitor or a patent attorney. The proposed new section goes on to deal with the cases of a solicitor or a patent attorney by saying - (2.) Nothing in this section shall render any solicitor or patent attorney, in respect of any act done by him in his professional capacity on behalf, and with the written or telegraphed authority, of his client, liable to any action or proceeding under this section, provided that the solicitor or patent attorney produces the authority for inspection by the person threatened or satisfies the court that the authority was received by him but has been inadvertently lost or destroyed. ‘

So the solicitor or the patent attorney will be liable to a threats action, unless he can produce or explain the nonproduction, unless he can prove - let me put it that way - written or telegraphed authority from his client to write the letter containing the threat. That is a very far-reaching restriction on the ordinary relation between solicitor and client. It is a novelty that a client who consults a solicitor and instructs him to take charge of a proceeding for him should have to give any written authority to the solicitor to issue a letter, which is a perfectly normal step in proceedings of that kind. In the same way, it would be a remarkable evasion of the ordinary position of a solicitor or patent attorney if, being threatened in this way, he was able to prove that his client had told him to write the letter but was not able to show he had got authority from his client in writing. That seems to me to be an entirely unnecessary invasion..

Mr Holloway:

– I thought lawyers insisted on having everything in writing.

Mr MENZIES:

– No. The Minister will perhaps be surprised to be told that 95 times of 100 a solicitor who acts for a client has acted for him many times, and. there is no question of getting written authority. They act on the basis of mutual confidence. But this provision will make it necessary that the solicitor or patent attorney shall protect himself in relation to correspondence of this kind by securing the written authority of his client.

The third point I want to mention is contained in sub-section 3 of proposed new section91a. It says -

The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action or proceeding under this section.

This, I venture to say with great respect to the draftsman, is a complete oversight. The threats action usually produces a counter claim for infringement, as the honorablemember for Warringah (Mr. Spender) knows. The man who has been threatened with proceedings says, “ Very well, I shall tackle you. You are the defendant in my action for damages for your threats “. Then the man who made the threat replies,” You are infringing my patent and I shall sue you for infringement “. Consequently, in the experience of patent lawyers, it almost inevitably happens that an action for threats will produce a counter-claim for infringement. The threats action may, under this proposed new sub-section, be brought in the High Court, but infringement proceedings can be brought only in the Supreme Court. There was, at one stage, a proposed patents bill in which it was intended to give jurisdiction to the High Court in infringement proceedings ; but until jurisdiction is given to the High Court in infringement proceedings, it is absurd to say that the man who is claiming on the “ threats “ may go into the High Court, and the other person who wants to take the normal counter-action must go into a Supreme Court. That is a serious anomaly, and until the High Court is given infringement jurisdiction, the proposed sub-section should not be agreed to.

The last matter to which I desire to refer arises in clause 8, which provides for the insertion in the principal act of the following new section: - 112b. - (1.) A person shall not falsely represent that he or any other person is the patentee of an invention. (2.) A person shall not falsely represent that any article sold by him is patented in Australia or is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia.

That is. a very wise provision, andI entirely agree with it, but I’ am at a loss to understand why proposed new subsection 3 has been inserted. Proposed new sub-section 2 is in perfectly general terms, and in quite effective terms, but proposed new sub-section 3 states - (3.) For the purposes of this section -

a person shall be deemed to represent that an article is patented in Australia if there are stamped, engraved or impressed on, or otherwise applied to, the article the word “ patent “ or “ patented the words “ provisional patent “, or any other word or words expressing or implying that a patent for the articlehas been obtained in Aus tralia; and
a person shall be deemed to represent that an article is the subject of an application for a patent in Australia if there are stamped, engraved or impressed on, or otherwise applied to, the article the words “ patent applied for “. “ patent pending “ or any other word or words implying that an application for a patent for the article has been made in Australia.

As honorable members know, many patented articles made abroad, for example inthe United Kingdom or the United Statesof America, have stamped upon them the word “ patented “, or the words “patent applied for” or the number of the patent given in the United States of America Patent Office or the Patent Office of Great Britain. If that article comes into Australia, as it very frequently will for sale, the label, stamp or mark cannot be removed; and yet there may be a serious danger of the seller of the article being prosecuted for- a breach of this proposed new sub-section, because a person shall be deemed to represent that an article is patented in Australia if there are stamped, engraved or impressed on it the words “ patent “ or “patented”. In my view, that matter deserves very careful thought. I consider that proposed new sub-section 3 should he left out. Surely the language of proposed new sub-section 2 is perfectly adequate. It is a very simple matter of fact to decide whether a man is putting * on the goods some mark which suggests that they are patented in Australia, ff, in the view of the tribunal, that is the effect of the label, then he is guilty of a breach of this proposed new section. But if the label states quite plainly that the article is patented in some other country, then in the interests of ordinary international trade, no barrier should be put in the way of goods so marked being sold.,

To summarize my speech, I invite the Minister to consider the points which I have raised about the publication of the complete specification, about the provision for another authority from client to solicitor or patent attorney in a threats action, about the anomaly created by subsection 3 of proposed new section 91a, and about articles which come into Australia marked with some reference to a patent abroad.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour, and National Service · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– in reply - Knowing the “ qualifications of the Leader of the. Opposition (Mr. Menzies) to deal with patent law, my colleagues and I must and will take notice of the points that he has raised. I do not desire to take any action which will in any way destroy the efficacy of, this small bill to achieve its three objectives. The first is to encourage and assist the development of Australian industries by informing them as quickly as possible about pending patents or changes of technological method. We do not want them to tool-up, and generally prepare to make articles, only to discover later that a com petitor abroad has a new process of manufacture which’ will make their method obsolete. In addition, we do not desire to clutter up and increase the work of the patent examiners by obliging them to devote a. great deal of time to examining provisional applications which sometimes are not followed up with complete specifications. As the Leader of the Opposition will agree, that must be short-circuited. We. desire also to protect the patentee, whose rights in a patent are reduced by the momentum of scientific changes. Sixteen years now seems to be a much shorter period than it was in the last century. If we waste two or three years of .that period before we- can announce that the patent is sealed and admissible, we shall do a great deal of harm.

Mr Menzies:

-I agree with that view. The object of the bill, is most commendable, but the measure itself is a little short of perfection.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Those three objectives must be preserved. The officials of the Attorney-General’s Department will carefully examine the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition. I am prepared to agree now to the deletion of sub-section 3 of proposed new section 91a, which provides that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear’ a “ threats “ action. Why should not the whole of the proceedings be heard by the Supreme Court?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7-

Section ninety-one a of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “(3.) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action or proceeding under this section.”

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I move -

That proposed new sub-section (3.) be left out.

I did not move the amendment which, in my second-reading speech, I suggested to clause 2, because the Minister (Mr.

Holloway) has been good enough to state that the matter will be examined. I do not desire it to he determined in a hurry, because it is extremely difficult.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (False representation as to patents and patented articles).

Mr Spender:

– I understood that the Leader of the Opposition desired to submit an amendment to proposed new section 112b, contained in this clause.

Mr Menzies:

– The Minister has’ promised to discuss with his technical advisers the other points I raised.

Mr Holloway:

– That is so. At this stage I cannot accept the other suggestions of the right honorable gentleman.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to. .

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3862

MEAT INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th July (vide page 3117), on motion by Mr. Scully -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LEMMON:
Forrest

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– It happened at Murtoa, and that was one indirect reason why the works had to close. On that account, certain lambs were “ docked “ and were designated second quality and third quality, although they were first quality when they entered the works. That difficulty can be overcome. I am not using it as an argument against the extension of the system. Any extension of inland killing which the Minister may see fit to make will have my unqualified support.

This is an important bill. The honorable member for Forrest has made many references’ to the Australian Country party. When he spoke previously, he stated that that party had advised certain fat lamb-raisers not to mate Downs ram* with their ewes. That charge is misleading. I have advised many personsnot to mate Downs rams with their ewes. The matter is governed by the circumstances. We know that Downs lamb is the best for export purposes. A statement in general terms, and having such wide implications as that of the honorable member for Forrest, would make it appear that the member’s of the Australian Country party were advising producers not to raise the best class of lamb.

Mr Lemmon:

– Does the honorable member deny that members of the Australian Country party gave that advice ?

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– I do not deny it. But the honorable . member either has attempted to confuse the issue or has no knowledge of lamb-raising; because there are occasions on which, as the Minister knows, it is not in the best interests of the industry to mate Downs rams with certain ewes. Foi- example, some parts of northern Victoria occasionally experience a series of droughts. In such circumstances, ewes are mated with Border Leicester rams, the reason being that, in a dry season when lambs cannot be fattened, the grower has a good store line. One would not think of mating a Downs ram with a very fine Comeback ewe, but one would mate it with a Border Leicester or an English Leicester or a Romney Marsh ewe; because, the result of mating a Downs ram with a fine Comeback ewe would be to throw back to the merino, .which would not be a good export lamb. Therefore, the decision, depends upon the district in which the lambs are raised, factors to be taken into consideration being freedom from drought and the breed of ewe being mated. Consequently, members of the Australian Country party against whom the charge has been made, have done the right thing, not the wrong thing. Perhaps I should thank the honorable member for Forrest for having drawn attention to the matter.

Mr Lemmon:

– In other words, the advice was not to breed any lambs for export.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Not at all. Does the honorable member know that, at the Newmarket saleyards, the largest in Australia, if not in the world, the biggest proportion of the fat lambs sold are bred from Border Leicester rams, for the sole reason that they are bred in certain districts and make a good store line if they cannot be fattened? Downs cross lambs which cannot be exported as fat lambs are not much good for any other purpose. The honorable member has either tried to confuse the issue or lacks knowledge of the subject.

Mr Lemmon:

– I have grown more lambs than has the honorable member.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– I have been handling them all my life. Because of the time that has elapsed since the bill was last discussed, its purpose may not, be quite clear to some honorable members. It is “ a bill for an act to provide for the transfer of the powers, authorities and functions conferred upon and exercised by the Controller of Meat Supplies and the Meat Canning Committee appointed under the National Security (Meat Industry Control) Regulations and the National Security (Meat Industry) Regulations respectively to the Australian Meat Board during the continuance of the National Security Act 1939- 1946, and the regulations thereunder “. I believe that the authority in question should rest where it now resides, so that, when any action is taken, it will not be attributed to the so-called producercontrolled board, but the light will be thrown on those actually responsible. The only result of the restriction of open competition, of which there was an example in Victoria recently, is to cause loss to the producer. The reason given by the Minister for the introduction of this measure cannot be accepted. He has said that its object is to stop black marketing. It has bren claimed that because meat was sold above ceiling prices at Newmarket and elsewhere, purchasers could not retail it with1 out themselves resorting to black marketing. The price fixed for the one bid at auction was stated to bo in relation to the price permitted in retail sales. Hon orable members will recall that this onebid system did not last long. Having acquired meat for a time, the Minister decided to allow the business to revert to the conditions that obtained prior to his intervention. When the restriction wa..imposed, chaos ensued at Newmarket. A few of the producers sent their stock tn the saleyards,- but the majority of them withheld supplies until the restriction? were lifted. The effect of that withholding of supplies has been reflected in the heavy winter yardings, which, during the last eight or ten weeks, have probably been heavier than those that had been experienced for many years. That this invasion of the market is not in the best interests of either the producer or the consumer will readily be realized. When it appeared that prices would be permanently lower on account of the enforcement of the restriction of one bid, many fatteners sold their stock in the paddocks, at rates much lower than those which had prevailed before the auction. They sold them to speculators and other persons with whom true producers do not want to deal to a great degree. As . I have said, the rates were much lower than those which prevailed before the auction, and were definitely lower than those that have prevailed since the restrictions were lifted. It is well known that, generally speaking.” there is only a limited time in which to market fat stock if they are to be sold in prime condition. Especially in wintertime, when feed is short and the weather is cold, there may be just one week in which stock can he marketed in order to get the maximum return. It is probable that when chaotic conditions prevailed in the Newmarket sale-yards a good proportion of the stock passed this peak period, and the owners will never have opportunity to recoup the losses then sustained. It is, of course, recognized that we cannot provide against an act of God, but it is also true that, many of the stock lost in the disastrous floods of the western districts of Victoria would have . been sold in Victoria before that date bad normal conditions prevailed at Newmarket. If the Government proposes in future to take action which might lead to such chaos, it should, not shelter behind a board which allegedly represents the primary producers. All the indications are that restrictions similar to the onebid provision at Newmarket may be introduced again, and if that is done chaos must result. I maintain, that in such a case the spotlight should be focused, upon those really responsible.

Mr FULLER:
Hume

.- During the course of this debate it has been interesting to note the line-up of the Liberal party and the remnants of the Australian Country party, who are now in poor favour with recognized farmers’ organizations. They are being supported by the vanquished Liberal party, which has fought every attempt by the farmers to shake the middlemen and food speculators off their backs. An unholy combination of men who have consistently betrayed the organizations of genuine farmers is suddenly blossoming forth. as the champion of a newly formed organization. It was obvious, of course, when the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) was questioning the bona fides of the Australian Wool and Meat Federation and, in particular, pointing the finger at the Victorian Wheat and Wool Growers Federation, that he was grieved .because he was not able to dictate the policy of those organizations.. The members of the New South Wales Wheat Growers Union have a stake in the meat industry equal to that of any other organization of similar calibre, affiliated with the Australian Wool and Wheat Federation. It is obvious that the Opposition, particularly the Australian Country party, is. attempting reprisals, and using another organization for the purpose.

In naming the two meat producers’ organizations, and in providing for majority representation of producers on the Australian Meat Board, the Government has gone immeasurably farther than did the previous government when it gave the producers only minority representation. Yet we find the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) and ‘ the Deputy Leader (Mr. McEwen), expressing dissatisfaction with the composition of the board, and being cheered on by the Leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Menzies) and the Deputy Leader (Mr. Harrison), who would not know beef from mutton unless they were cooked. The Liberal party appears now to be deeply interested in obtaining representation for the newly formed organization with a rural name. ‘ What is the reason for this nascent interest in rural affairs? The tie-up between the Australian Country party members, who are peeved because they cannot dominate recognized producers’ organizations, and the Liberal party, which believes in the law of supply and demand, and which, therefore, has never been in favour of farmers’ organizations, stimulates the belief that the Primary Producers Union is either the foster-child of political parties in the Opposition, or that it is expected to be more pliable than the recognized farmers’ organizations.

There is nothing in the name of this new organization to indicate what section of producers it claims to represent. We know that all growers of wheat and wool are stock-owners, and have a vital interest in meat prices. We know that among the members -of the organization are no persons who do not own any stock. That cannot be said of the Primary Producers Union, which ‘ might include - and no. doubt does include - persons who have not the remotest interest in meat or stock. I understand that some of the members are berry-growers in the Dandenong Ranges, some are market gardeners, others apple-growers, whilst there are other producers whose interests are not even remotely connected with meat.

The Minister has pointed out that the board will consist of four representatives of the lamb and mutton producers, two of the beef producers, and one of the pig producers. Parliament is not asked to take a step in the dark. It is proposed to set up a meat industry board, and we know that this measure ensures that such a board will be appointed.

Mr Rankin:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member in order in reading his speech, and reading it very badly?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is merely referring to his notes; he is not reading his speech.

Mr FULLER:

– Honorable members opposite do not like to listen’ to anything that gets’ under their skins. All last week they were hurling innuendoes across the floor of the House, but when we throw something back they winge. However, they will’ not stifle my voice. I am here to speak for the primary producers, and I will do so. Is Parliament expected to examine the views expressed by producers’ organizations in order to find out whether they are in accord with the political views of members opposite? That is actually what members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party want. The bill provides for majority representation of the meat producers on the board. Those who have no political axe to grind will not ask for more. “ Therefore, I support the measure.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

.- L support the measure, believing that it is an advantage upon, previous legislation providing for the handling and disposal of meat. Honorable members will realize that meat is a difficult commodity to deal with - for governments, for primary producers, for butchers and for processors. Meat is very perishable, and its production depends upon the- seasons, lt is true that, before the Avar, there was an Australian Meat Board, but it ceased to operate when war broke out. An attempt was made” under the National Security Regulations to bestow, its powers upon the Australian Meat Industries Commission, but unfortunately the Senate disallowed the regulation. Subsequently, the whole matter of meat export control became, the concern of the present meat board, established under National Security Regulations. Now. that the war is over, the Government believes that a new board should be established, and it has provided for the . constitution of a board to deal with the control of meat exports. The bill provides that the board shallconsist of twelve members, with a chairman appointed by the Government, seven representatives of various sections of meat-producers, and the other members representing publicly owned abattoirs, privately owned moat works, and the workers engaged in the industry. If the board is properly selected it will be thoroughly representative. I have no doubt that it will” prove to be satisfactory, because the members will be selected from persons nominated by the various interests concerned.

The board will discharge most important functions. Under the terms of the meat agreement with Great Britain, the whole of our exportable surplus will be sent to Britain for a specified number of years. The board will have authority to purchase meat on behalf of the Commonwealth, to advise the Government generally, and to be the main authority dealing with the subject. The board will be also authorized under its licensing powers to prevent the licensing of any exporter unless he, under instructions from the board and the Minister, is prepared to accept stock on a graded basis. That is a marked advance on previous legislation. It will ensure the protection of the producers from speculators and dealers, and from the great’ meat trust operating in Australia. When people of that kind depress markets as the result of questionable methods or the eliminition of their ‘competitors - and they hav, done- that repeatedly . in- the past- -the primary producer has’ recourse to operating on the weight and grade basis at the works which will be financed by the Meat Board. 1 am glad that this measure has reached .a stage which will ensure its passage during the life of this Parliament. The substantial producer representation on the board’ and the ‘powers to be vested in the board constitute a marked improvement on the set-up of meat board.established by earlier administrations. In that regard the measure gives effect to the policy of this Government in contrast to that of former governments. Here are some interesting statements relative to the operation of legislation introduced by earlier administrations in connexion with this industry:-

The tardy recognition by the Federal Government of the vital importance of primary production in the national Avar effort is entirely in keeping with the attitude of indifference manifested by the same political forces over the past decade. Whilst secondary industries supplying equipment and foodstuff? are accorded production costs, plus a profit as’ a matter of course, primary producers arc being compelled with varying success, to use political pressure in an effort to obtain production costs for essential foodstuffs commandeered by the Federal Government. Upon the various boards constructed by the Federal Government to handle primary commodities there is evidence of political patronage rather than of a desire to provide suitable and adequate representation for those who produce and own the products. ‘

No Labour man, no political propagandist, could have uttered truer words about the incapacity and political shortcomings, of governments which held office in the national Parliament for a decade prior to March, 1941. I did not make that statement but I was interested in it as it had been made in Ballarat, and I found on inquiry that it had been read to -the twenty-sixth annual conference of the United Country party held in Ballarat in March, 1941, and that it was published over the signature of no less a person than Mr. George Bowden, now the honorable member for Gippsland in this Parliament and a prominent member of the Australian Country party. If a representative of the Labour party had made such a statement it would have immediately been characterized as partypolitical propaganda. What was the composition of the Commonwealth governments to which the statement refers? For nine years prior to 1941 composite governments supported by honorable members opposite were in office in the National Parliament. In such a government in 1941 the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), held ministerial rank as did also the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony). The right honorable’ member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), was a member of the governments in office for almost the whole of that period. Thus Australian Country party supporters had been associated with those governments over a long period of years, yet the best the annual conference of the United Country party could say about them was that they had been guilty of political patronage and that during their term of office the farmers had experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining their just dues. It is true that when the statement was made the honorable member for Indi’ was not a member of the Australian Country party; he was then on the “ outer “ having been associated with the break-away faction; but he was on the crawl back and not long afterwards was again received into the fold. However, conditions did not improve for the primary producers, particularly the pig producers of this country, until October, 1941, when a Labour government came into power. . From then onwards conditions improved substantially and continuously for the primary producers.

Mr Rankin:

– And political patronage was rampant.

Mr POLLARD:

– Irrespective of the truth or falsity of that statement, political patronage could not have existed in a more marked degree than it did during the regime of governments composed partly of members of the party which the honorable member himself supports. If it be true that political patronage exist? to-day the worst that may be said is that we are following in the footsteps of previous administrations in which members of the Australian Country party held office.

I should like to say a word or two about inland killing in which the honorable member . for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) affirmed his belief to-day. Many loose statements have been made about that subject during the debate on this bill. I believe in inland killing. Many years ago the farmers of Victoria raised the necessary money with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government to finance and operate co-operative killing works at Ballarat, Bendigo, Murtoa and Donald. The honorable member for Wimmera hae told us that those works were dismal failures because they had operated on the weight and grade basis, with the result that sheep were kept too long in the stock-yards before being killed.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– That statement applied only to the meat works at Murtoa.

Mr POLLARD:

– The Murtoa works failed because they were too close to Donald, with the result that they were unable to draw lambs from a sufficiently wide area. If the works at the other centres were dismal failures it was not because they had operated on the weight and grade basis but because of the machinations of subtle, keen, clever ‘ representatives of the great meat combine which, when it found that the farmers had established their own co-operative works, sent, agents into the areas in which the works were located and wheedled the farmers away from their own , cooperative concerns by offering them an additional 5s. or 6s. on the hoof if they would take their stock to the combine’s works. One of the directors of a co-operative works who was a member of the Victorian Parliament confessed in the Parliament that he had sent his lambs to W. Angliss and Company (Australia) Proprietary Limited because he thought he would get a little more for them. As the result of the loss of patronage brought about in that way” the works collapsed financially and they had to be taken over by the Victorian Government. Their collapse can be attributed solely to the operations of the great meat combine and the speculators who batten and fatten on the primary producers of this country. Another factor which caused the collapse of these works was the existence in Victoria of a composite government of the Nationalist and Country parties. It was so inefficient in its administration of the affairs of the State that when it was followed by a Labour government in 1929, and Mr. Slater became Minister for Agriculture and I became his Assistant Minister, we found that the Victorian inland killing works, which at that time were being operated by a board of directors responsible to the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, were gradually getting further and further into debt. “We found that the directors were going out into the paddocks and buying lambs oh a speculative basis, and- that if after processing and export to the United Kingdom the market collapsed, the works had to meet the loss. We discovered further that they were no longer killing stock on the weight and grade basis. The shrewd, competent, and wise Labour administration quickly issued, instructions to the directors of the works that henceforth they were not to buy on a speculative basis, that they were first to obtain firm orders from London and to buy on the basis of such orders, thus ensuring that no further losses would be made. In addition they were instructed to operate on the weight and grade basis. From that time ‘ onwards the works improved. These are the facts concerning the closing down of the great inland killing works in Victoria. I have dealt at length with this matter in order to clear up misconceptions and to inform the mind of the honorable member for Wimmera-, who obviously knows very little about it. fitting suspended from Z4-4 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr POLLARD:

– When tire sitting was suspended, I was about to1 refer to speeches made in this chamber on and before the 25th July about the handling of pig-meats. It is significant that, knowing of my intention, all the members of the Australian Country party are absent from the chamber. They saw fit to attack me in my absence. I have no objection to members of this Parliament using its facilities to state a case on any matter or to attack me or any one else, because that is their right, and I claim no immunity from attack, even in my absence, but it would be common decency for them to be here when I am about to defend myself. On the 4th July, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) and I had a verbal passage at arms. He referred to a meeting of the Victorian Ham and Bacon Curers Association in Melbourne in 1945, and said, that at it an inspector was appointed, of course by the Government, to police the pigmeat prices, and that I was in the chair. I was under the impression then that he was referring to a meeting in Melbourne on the 16th May this year, and 1 interjected, “Yes, 1 was present”. But. as he developed his speech, I realized thai he was referring to the 1945 meeting, and. later, I made the following personal explanation : -

I, perhaps, misled the honorable member foi Indi (Mr. McEwen) when I said that I wa> present at the meeting at which he alleged I occupied the chair. I neither attended nor chaired the meeting at which, according to him, an exporter was appointed an inspector of pig-meat prices. It is true that from time to time, by invitation, I have attended meetings of the Newmarket Meat Producers Association, and other primary producer organizations of one kind and another, and I know that the honorable member has attended similar meetings, for he has been working hand in glove with such organizations in their various ramifications.

That was my only comment. I made it quite clear that I was not at the 1945 meeting. I made no reference in that statement, because it was merely a personal explanation, to any subsequent meeting, but the honorable member for Indi, in this chamber, on the 25th July, in my absence, practically repeated his allegation, notwithstanding that, after my personal explanation, he had accepted my denial. ‘He said - l am bound to point out that the decision to appoint an inspector who was empowered to go to country auction sales is said to hav.e been made at a meeting. I emphasize that that meeting possessed some authority. Ultimately its authority was the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. By virtue .of the powers vested in him under National Security Regulations, the Minister was not at the meeting in person, but his delegate was there.

That is the meeting at which the inspector “as appointed -

It has been suggested that the delegate whs the honorable member for Ballarat.

He qualified the charge that I had been present by using the words “ It has been suggested He read a letter .sent by the secretary of the Victorian Ham and Bacon Curers Association, Mr. Johnston; who had seen a. press report of my statement during the passage -at arms. The report was not exactly complete. The honorable member for Indi read that letter and led the country and this Parliament to believe that, I was a liar. Since then I have been informed by letter that the secretary of the Victorian Ham and Bacon Curers Association, on The 29th July, sent the following telegram to the honorable member : -

Received your reply regarding meeting bacon curers. Advise meeting referred to in Hansard no connexion with meeting which Mr. Pollard attended where advice given was that pig prices should conform to pig plan price.

Mr McEwen:

– Did Mr. Johnson give the honorable member my answer to the telegram?-

Mr POLLARD:

– No; but the honorable member has not been decent enough to make a personal explanation exonerating me.

Mr Bowden:

– He has not had a chance.

Mr POLLARD:

– I have received another’ letter from the chairman of the Victorian Ham and Bacon Curers Association - 1’ feel that an explanation is due to you concerning a letter which was sent to Mr. McEwen, M.H.R., by this association following on a press’ statement which alleged that you denied being present ut a meeting of Bacon Curers and Pig Operators.

The inference in this statement was that the meeting ‘‘referred to ‘ was that convened by the Deputy Controller of Meat Supplies in May, 1940, whereas in fact the discussion which took place in Parliament concerned the appointment of an inspector in 1945.

Tho meeting which was convened by the Deputy Controller of Meat Supplies in May of this year was at the request of members of this association, and also the pig operators willi a view to devising some plan whereby prices being paid in the markets for pigs could be stabilized at the prices laid down in the Pig Meat plan, and also of ascertaining il margins in canning contracts were such a* to permit operators to pay prices in excess of the plan price.

regret any inconvenience or embarrassment our letter may have caused you, and trust the foregoing may to some extent rectify this.

That clarifies the situation, except that I desire to point out that, notwithstanding that I had denied being at the 1945 meeting, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) saw fit to repeat the allegations of the honorable member for Indi in the following terms : -

The honorable .member for Ballarat did not chair the meeting. However, he was present at . the meeting and he addressed it as a representative’ of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. This fact was not disclosed by the honorable member for Ballarat. He lead the House to believe that if he were there at all, he was present only in an innocuous capacity.

Mr Rankin:

– Not for pork.

Mr POLLARD:

– No, for baconer. The price of pork is correspondingly high. According to the *Argus report, the price for prime porkers was 6d. to 0£d. per lb.; good, to 5 3/4d ; medium, 5d. The price of baconers was 5d.-.to 5$d. per lb.; good to 4-Ad. To-day, under the plan, the price is . 9d. per lb. I agree .that it is difficult for a person to judge on the hoof the weight of a pig to within a few pounds. The honorable member for Indi, the honorable member for Bendigo and the honorable member for Richmond know, that persons who are familiar with the stock business can judge the weight of a lamb to within h couple of pounds.

Mr Anthony:

– Will the honorable member inform’ me whether the plan has resulted iri a reduction of price to the consumer ?

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Richmond should know that at the meeting to which I referred, the Acting Deputy Prices Commissioner, as the result of the revelations, told the bacon curers and processors that if that kind of thing were possible, he would conaider whether the margin between the price to be charged to the public and that which the processors were then paying to the producers should be reduced.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Riordan:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Order ! The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

– in reply - The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) .has dealt thoroughly ‘ with the purposes of this bill, and the criticisms which honorable members opposite directed against it. The object of the measure is to transfer the powers, now exercised by the Controller of Meat Supplies to the board which will be established by this legislation, and at the outset, I believed that honorable members could not possibly object to it. Unfortunately, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) made many statements of such a questionable nature that they destroyed the whole force of his argument, and filled his listeners with a sense of repugnance. He lowered the standard of this Parliament. The honorable member for Indi was supported, although less offensively, by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), who appeared in a new role. In the past, he was always- a clean fighter, and played the game. On this occasion he made innuendoes and. uttered half-truths. The honorable member for Ballarat effectively replied to both honorable members.

This Government has treated the meat producers with greater generosity than, was shown by members of the Australian. Country party who were Ministers in” the Menzies Government. The honorable member for Ballarat referred to the exceedingly low prices which were paidto pig producers before the Labour Government took office towards the end of 1941. Equally low prices were payablefor fat lambs and other meat. In 1941, ‘ before we took office, the prices for pigmeats and fat lambs in Australia collapsed.. That disaster was caused by thecessation of shipping as the result of the Japanese threat. Although the primary producers appealed to the Menzies Government -for assistance, no effort wasmade to relieve their plight. Under theauthority of my predecessors, the Department of Commerce warned lamb producers not to joint their ewes at that: time. Pig-meat prices also collapsed. On the border of my electorate, there is a. big market for pig-meats. Because of theunprecedentedly low prices, some producers took their pigs back to their farms, some sold them for as low as 5s. each, and others were prepared to give away a pig with young pigs. ‘ That was the - kind of “ protection “ which members of the Australian Country party afforded to meat producers on that occasion. About that time, the honorable member for Richmond, who was Assistant Minister for Commerce, visited New Zealand, where a Labour government was in office. It had the same problems as those which confronted the Commonwealth government of the day. What did the honorable member find? The Labour government rose to the occasion, and purchased all the meat at export parity and placed - it in cold storage. The government expended millions of pounds, and, in doing so, took enormous risks; but ultimately, when the shipping services were restored, the whole of the meat was exported to the United Kingdom which required it so urgently, and the producers - of New Zealand-, under the Labour Government, ‘ were adequately protected. .

When the honorable gentleman returned from New Zealand did he recommend that the Australian Government should act as the Government of New Zealand had done to protect the fat lamb and pig producers from absolute ruin? He did not. He was not prepared to take any risk. That is the difference between the treatment of the producers by a Labour government and by a so-called Country party government which was Country party only in name.

I wish to refer to despicable suggestions and innuendoes made during the debate that certain persons in the organization of the Controller of Meat Supplies had made a “ rake-off “. More objectionable statements have never been made in this House, and an unjustifiable stigma has been cast upon officers who have been responsible for the sale of meat. Such attacks upon public officials debase the standards of Parliament. An unfair blow has been dealt at persons who. are not here to defend themselves. Yet the right honorable gentleman forCowper (Sir Earle Page) in the same debate, spoke in high appreciation of the efficiency of the Controller of Meat Supplies and his staff. I have attended meetings in the capital cities of Australia from Brisbane to Perth in company with the Controller of Meat Supplies and members of his staff and I have been pleased to hear the eulogistic references which have been made to them for the sympathetic consideration they have given to the primary producers of Australia. That very fact gives the lie direct to the baseless allegations that have been made during this debate. I have no more to say, except that I hope, for the sake of parliamentary propriety and the maintenance of a high standard of debate, we shall not witness another such exhibition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

-Is it the pleasure of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole ?

Honorable Members. - Yes.

The bill.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

. I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) whether, as the persons who will sit on the board as representative of the Prices Commission and the Rationing Commission are to act only in a temporary capacity, and as the National Security Act and the regulations thereunder are to expire at the end of December, we may take it that the Government intends that meat-rationing shall end at that time, or does the Government intend that rationing shall continue ?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

. -It is impossible to answer the honorable member’s question at present. The action to be taken at the end of December following the expiration of the National Security Act will depend largely upon the position in regard to meat supplies in the United Kingdom at that time. I cannot say any more on the subject at this juncture.

Bill agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The question is that I report the bill without amendment.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise to order. I ask. Mr. Temporary Chairman, whether the bill was taken as a whole ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair asked whether it was the pleasure of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole. The committee agreed. The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) then rose and. asked a question of the Minister. The question was then put and carried.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise to order. The question was put in such a way-

– I rise to order. Is the honorable member in order in disputing the ruling of the Chair?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is not strictly in order, but the Chair desired to hear his view. Having heard it I shall put the question -

That the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Mr Spender:

– I rise to order. I agree that the question that the bill be taken as a whole was put, as I heard it put, but that is not the vital matter. Through some inadvertence - I know that the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) was conversing with a colleague on the terms of the bill - the question was put without, his hearing it. Is it not now competent for the bill to be recommitted so that the points which the honorable member desired to raise may be raised ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That can be done only in the House. The position at present is that the bill must be reported to the House. The House may then decide to recommit it.

Mr Anthony:

– I protest against the bill having been put through the committee as a whole. That is not fair to honorable members who may wish to debate particular clauses.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The committee agreed to the bill being taken as a whole.

Mr Anthony:

– It is scandalous if we cannot debate the business putbefore us. It is absolutely scandalous.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member may not proceed along those lines.

Mr Anthony:

-I have been thwarted twice in my efforts to discuss the bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Mr. Scully) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- I move -

That the bill be now recommitted to ‘a committee of the whole House for reconsideration.

My reason for doing so is that I consider it was quite wrong for the Chairman to put the question, “ That thebill be taken as a whole “. The measure contains eight clauses. The usual procedure is that each clause shall be put to the committee separately. Sometimes a chairman, in order to cause a bill to be passed quickly, especially if it is an embarrassing measure, may ask whether it is the pleasure of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole. I do not regard that as correct procedure. The clauses should be called one by one. When that question was put to the committee some honorable members were otherwise engaged. Honorable members are entitled to an opportunity to consider each clause, andI protest most strongly against the method adopted to push this bill through. I desire to discuss certain aspects of ministerial control of the meat industry, and, particularly, the provision to establish a producer-controlled board, having special regard to a short provision which the Minister had included in the bill in order to make the board subservient to the political party in office for the time being.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not debate the purpose of the bill. He must confine his remarks to reasons why it should be recommitted.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That is what I am proceeding to do. The measure should be recommitted because honorable members were prevented from discussing certain important features of it which abrogate the right of producers to control their own industry.

Mr Scully:

– I rise to order. Is the honorable member entitled to discuss the merits of the measure in this manner?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr, W. J. F. Riordan.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.

Report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3877

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 11th July (vide page 2386), on motion by Mr. Hollow ay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- This is rather an involved measure, and the circumstances with which it proposes to deal may not be known by many members of the Parliament. There are aspects of it, and principles embodied in it, which I believe demand our close scrutiny. The Minister (Mr. Holloway) said, in his second-reading speech, that honorable members on both sides of the House would wish to redeem the pledge given to our bona fide tradesmen that pre-war practices and customs would be restored, and that we would also wish to provide a just measure of rehabilitation for men who had served in the fighting forces.With both of those sentiments, I am certain, all members will agree. The bill purports to give effect to undertakings that were given to unions and employers when the dilution agreements were made, and it is claimed that it will assist in the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. I propose to address myself to both of those aspects.

First, however, I should like to make some remarks dealing with the history of this’ matter. Early in 1940, it became clear that Australia would need to expand rapidly and extensively its facilities for making munitions. At that time, the role which Australia was to play in the war had not been so clearly defined as was the case later. Japan was not in the war, and it was believed that large numbers of troops would not be sent from Australia, but that Australia would have an important part to play as a manufacturer of munitions, and in the supply of foodstuffs and goods of various kinds. At that time, reference was frequently made to our position as the arsenal of the Pacific. If we were to expand our capacity to manufacture munitions, it was clear that we could not do so by using only qualified tradesmen in the traditional fashion. Tradesmen in the metal trades group, who were in key positions, had gone through five years of apprenticeship. Some had been elevated by their employers in the workshops, but only if they showed that they had acquired the necessary degree of skill. The craft unions had guarded very jealously and justifiably the rights of their members, as, indie past, had other organizations associated with trades and professions. They had stipulated that those who were to receive the title and the advantages of tradesmen should be properly qualified. However, the war could not wait for everything to be done in the prescribed way. The emergency of war called for emergency measures. Just as in Great Britain an arrangement was entered into between the representatives of the Government, the employers and the employees for what was termed the dilution of the metal trades, so we in Australia tried to bring about a similar result here.

It was my responsibility, as the Assistant Minister for Supply at the time, to preside at discussions early in- 1940 on these important matters. I think I can say with justice to those who attended these conferences that they were worked out with, skill, and certainly to the great advantage of the producing capacity of Australia, especially regarding munitions. The negotiation of the agreements was not easy. Strong views were held by the representatives of the employers and the employees. The early discussions were led, so far as employees were concerned, by representatives of what is, perhaps, the most powerful ‘ and significant union .in Australia, the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It was largely as the result of the leadership of that union that other trades followed suit, and joined in the dilution arrangement.

The success of the agreement reached is evidenced by the Minister’s statement that 50,000 men were added to the various trades. Although many have now returned to their normal occupations, 20,000 of this added number still remain in the metal trades. I have mentioned’ the Amalgamated Engineering Union, but there- were five trades con- cerned - engineers, boilermakers, blacksmiths, electricians, and sheet metal workers. Some trades would not come into the scheme, and for that reason we should be more appreciative of those that did. The Minister, when introducing the bill,’ concluded his speech by expressing his appreciation of representatives of the organizations of employers and employees who had participated in the negotiations. I, as the Minister who negotiated the agreement at the time, also wish to express my appreciation, and that of other members of- the Opposition. Without wishing to make any invidious distinction, I feel justified in paying a special tribute to Mr. Cranwell, who led the’ Amalgamated Engineering Union during the war. That union has given loyal and unstinted service to the Commonwealth. It exercises a position, of great _ authority and importance because its workers are in key positions- in practically every establishment of importance in Australia. In spite of the undoubted power which the union could exercise by departing from constitutional practices in industrial matters, it has consistently “ played the game “.

Honorable members will obtain some idea of its importance when I cite the figures associated with the introduction of dilutees. According to information placed before the Arbitration Court by a representative of the union, of the 50,000 dilutees engaged during the war, 37,000 entered the engineering unions, and of those 1S,000 are still employed in the industry. There is, of course, another engineering union, the Australasian Society of Engineers, but the principal union, numerically, and the one which took the lead in negotiations with the Government and the employers, is the Amalgamated Engineering’ Union. : In September, 1939, its membership was 28,000. It reached a. peak figure of 72,000 in 1944, and its membership is now, I understand, 64,000.

I now pass on to the statement of the Minister ‘that this bill honours the undertaking contained in the dilution agreement. Some honorable members will naturally wish to know what those undertakings were. They were embodied in a comparatively short and simple document known as the Dilution Agreement. If I read some of the clauses of this document, it will be clear what we had in mind at the time. They are ac follows: -

In view of the abnormal conditions created by the war it is recognized that a temporary relaxation . of existing customs affecting the employment of men to do skilled work is necessary, where it can be shown that tradesmen are not available and production may be prejudiced.

To ensure that the full resources of available labour may be organized and applied in the best possible way to meet the demand for skilled labour, and that by careful planning and selection the problems arising when the ti ma arrives to return to normal working conditions will be minimized,- the scheme set out in the subsequent paragraphs is approved.

That all propositions for dilution will be consolidated under one Commonwealth Governmentcontrolled scheme.
All .available engineering tradesmen, provided they are competent’ to do the work required, will be employed. No tradesman shall be debarred on the ground of age or minor disability if the local committee is satisfied that he can perform the work required of him.
No skilled man or apprentice will be called up for service in the armed forces unless his skill as an engineer is fully availed of, and those now engaged and not required for skilled work will he discharged.
If sufficient tradesmen are not available, applications will be called from persons of engineering or appropriate classifications willing to undergo an intensive course of training on engineering work. Provided that after period of training, determined by the local committee, in a technical school, or in an approved industrial establishment, during which he will be paid by the employer the basicwage, the trainee will be entitled to be paid by the employer not less than the wage prescribed in the appropriate industrial award, agreement or determination for the work to which he is allotted: Provided further that the trainee shall be required to sign an agreement to serve if and as required by the local committee constituted under this scheme for the period of the war in the performance of the duties for which he is trained.
In the event of the provisions of clause (5.) not being sufficient to meet the demand for skilled tradesmen, applications may be called from alternative classes of workers willing to he trained and paid as provided in clause (5.).
A register will be kept of all menso trained, a copy of which will be supplied to the union and to the employer organizations concerned. Changes of trainee personnel made under this scheme will be registered by the employer on a standard form; a copy of which will be supplied to the worker affected, to the local representative of the union, and the Department of Supply and Development and the employer organization concerned. No “ recognized “ tradesman is to be discharged because of a reduction of work in his section whilst any of the “ added “ tradesmen are employed within that section, and when skilled labour becomes available restoration of the pre-agreement practices will be made.
There shall be a central committee functioning tinder the administration of the Department of Supply and Development, consisting of a representative of the department, ‘ the employers and the employees.
Nothing in this agreement shall be taken to deprive any employer of any rights under any existing award, agreement or determination.
This agreement having been approved to meet the exceptional circumstances referred to above will not be used or cited in any pro- ceedings before a Federal or State wage-fixing tribunal, and/or in any other way.

Clearly, there is a good deal of misunderstanding in the minds of many people, including members of Parliament, as to the arrangements made at that time. It willbe seen that, in the first place, we set outto add to the number of men working in the munitions industry, and secondly,to provide that recognized tradesmen would not be dismissed before dilutees - in other words, the first to come should be the last to go. I emphasize this because some persons have sought to read into the agreement a limitation on the capacity of the Government to provide for the rehabilitation of servicemen. Quite clearly, it would have been impossible at that time to lay down any hard and fast rule regarding the rights of servicemen. Nobody could predict what would have to be borne by those who worked in the factories. It might be, and proved to be the case in other countries, that the factories would be subject to attack from the air; or that, in the event of invasion, they might even be in the battle line itself. Thus, no one could determine the rights of factory employees as against members of the services. We could not tell for example how long the men who enlisted in the forces would be required to serve. The war might be over in twelve months; it might not be over for ten years, and consequently no government with any sense of responsibility would have endeavoured to determine where its obligations ended. We did not attempt to do that, nor has any government since we were in office done so until this measure was brought before us. Whatever this Parliament believes should be done with respect to the absorption of certain members of trades or professions among returned servicemen, nothing that wasdone by the government of which I was a member would limit its capacity to do so. The Minister told us that the purpose of this bill is to honour the undertakings given under the Dilution Agreement. Honorable members will find that it goes much further than that. I do not criticize the unions for pressing for the restrictions which they believe should be imposed. They have a very considerable membership to look after; they know that their trades have expanded under the impact of the munitions programme, and they may foresee difficulties in maintaining in constant employment during a period of possible declining production all those who have come into the metal trades. It is natural that as far as practicable they should seek to restrict the admission of other persons into their callings. They may regard the limited absorption provided in this measure as a gesture of willingness . on their part to rehabilitate ex-servicemen. I shall examine how extensive that absorption is likely to be. By this bill the Government is establishing a very much greater protection than was contemplated in the Dilution Agreement, a greater protection than has ever been known before in the history of this country. We are limiting not only the right of the employer to revert to pre-war practices and, if he so desires, elevate or up-grade his employee as in the past, but we are also, making it virtually impossible- for certain groups of persons to find their way into .the trades covered by this bill. “ I have already mentioned that there are five important trades so covered. If honorable members wish to get a quick view of how extensive that limitation is likely to be, I suggest that they examine the schedule to the bill where they will see that the trades come under the headings of engineers, boilermakers, blacksmiths, electricians and sheet-metal workers.

Mr Holloway:

– -In fact the whole of the dilution trades.

Mr HOLT:

– -That is so, but their members comprise a very substantial section of industry. They constitute not merely the heart, but also most of the body of the metal trades group. The protection accorded to the members of the unions by this bill will create an unchallengeable vested interest and impose a serious limitation upon the rights of thousands of young ex-servicemen to enter the trades and trade classifications set out in the schedule to the bill. This limitation on the entry of members might almost be- described as a reversion to the practice of the mediaeval guilds.

I turn now to the position of exservicemen. As I pointed out earlier the Minister has claimed that one of the principal functions of the bill is to provide a measure of rehabilitation. I am certain the Minister is -fully aware that the bill would have a very doubtful constitutional validity if it were not purely a rehabilitation measure. Consequently we must examine just how sound and warranted is the claim that the bill does in fact provide a measure of rehabilitation. The num bers of those who have had trade experience in the services within the respective categories- is enormous. We would get some idea of the problem that would confront us should all of them, desire to engage in those classes of work. Quite clearly many thousands of them will not wish to do so. Indeed the applications already received suggest that only a very small proportion of those who had experience during the war, either in the Army or the Air Force - I have not been able to obtain the figures for the Navy - will seek employment in the metal trades group.

Mr White:

– Could a migrant tradesman secure employment .under this bill ?

Mr HOLT:

– The honorable member refers to a fully qualified tradesman from Great Britain ?

– The Minister emphasises what I say. It should not be difficult for the union to nominate a member who is also a. member of the league. Similarly, on the employers’ side, there are many representatives who would be eligible under that head. I hope that is one amendment that the Government will accept.

My third amendment will be to clause 41, which provides in sub-clause4 -

An application . . . shall, unless a Local Committee in a particular case otherwise permits, be made within six months after thedate of discharge of the member of the forces or after the twenty-second day of March, One thousand nine hundred and fortysix . . . whichever is the later. [n other words, March this year. Six months .from then will be about a fortnight hence. So I suggest that the Minister look at the figures in relation to Victoria - only 273 applications! Yet hundreds of thousands of people have been discharged from the services. Because little publicity has been given to this scheme, I am. certain that few of them are aware of their rights.

Mr Abbott:

– Only 83 applications have been dealt with.

Mr HOLT:

– Yes. The Government has been, apparently, aware of the difficulty of placing such a short limit of time on applications for training under the Reconstruction Training Scheme, because f am advised that it recently extended the period under which those applications may be made to twelve months after the date of discharge, or the 30th June, 1947, whichever is the later. If it is fair- to extend the period of eligibility for training under the Post-war Reconstruction” training scheme, it is equally fair that the Parliament should extend the period of eligibility under this scheme, at least until twelve. months after the date of the discharge or the 30bh June, 1947, whichever is the later.

That is all I desire to say at this stage on the bill, but I think the House will have heard enough to realize that it goes a great deal beyond what the Minister has -said. Our undertaking to the trade unions under the dilution agreements must be honoured, and all parties would desire that. But the hill goes a long way beyond that. In regard- to its second aspect, the Minister has erred in the other direction. He claims that it is a measure of rehabilitation of exservicemen. I do not accept it as- such and I am certain that no other honorable gentleman on this side does so. Judging by the communication that we have received from the representatives of exservicemen and by the disappointment expressed by those who have already realized that their rights to admission to the trades are f rustrated by the application of this measure, I believe that there is a vast body of indignation in the community against the bill. The Minister has the reputation of being a fair and reasonable man, and I do not wish to detract from that. I believe that, conscious as he must have been of the need to get a measure of agreement on this matter, he may not have realized the full extent of the exclusion of ex-servicemen with trade experience before or during the war. Consequently I hope that as the result of the matters being debated openly, he will accept as reasonable the amendments that I intend’ to move. I have not drafted an amendment .so far that would go the whole way, although’ I believe that the Parliament should do that. I have not drafted an ‘amendment that would bring in the man who had trade experience before the war and enlisted immediately on its outbreak, and therefore had no experience during the war in either his own or any other trade. To that extent even the amendments that I have suggested remain unsatisfactory.

Mr White:

– Why not bring them in, too? Many air-crew members are excluded.

Mr HOLT:

– Frankly, I had my amendments prepared before I became aware’ that that group was excluded, although it might well be included. It would be a travesty of justice if the Parliament were to pass a measure to disqualify from training men who served in combatant .units from the outbreak of war.

The DEPUTY .SPE AREE.- Order! - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) clearly showed the defects of this bill, and I very much question the need for it. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) said in commencing his second-reading speech -

This is intended to give effect to the undertakings given to the unions and further’ to assist in the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen.

I think the honorable member for’ Fawkner has shown that the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen does not come into the bill. On the contrary, it excludes them and makes their position more difficult. Therefore, it is on that point principally that I desire to make a few observations.

I say advisedly that many men enlisted, particularly in . the Royal Australian Air Force, who had experience in trades before they entered the service, and who now cannot be considered as tradesmen. At the outbreak of the war, I was commanding officer at the Initial Training School at Somers, in Victoria, where I saw the records of every man who passed into the establishment to be trained for air crew. I noted that large’ numbers of the men had been employed in the categories of engineers, metal workers and electricians. Later some of them became pilots, observers and air gunners and achieved high distinction in the service. Because of their determination to serve as air crew they were away from their trades for a number of years. Had they not been able to make the grade as air crew, or had they any physical defects, they would have remained in their trade in the Royal Australian Air Force. I am sure that the Minister will recognize that this bill will do a great injustice to many outstanding young men. I cannot say why he did not think of them when this bill was being drafted. Now that the omission has been brought to his notice, I hope that the scope of the bill will be widened so as to include those who were tradesmen or had some experience in a trade before the outbreak of war. The post-war Air Force is not attractive to these young men. The Government has not yet announced a suitable establishment, but has stated only that there will be an Interim Air Force and personnel may enlist in it for a period of two years. In those circumstances, many former members of the Royal Australian Air Force willdesire to return to the trade or calling to which they belonged before their enlistment. Some worked as bank and insurance clerks, or as business executives. Many of those who distinguished themselves as much as men with the best education were the young men in the mechanic class, who had worked at the bench or forge. Their names became famous in the service, yet this bill will exclude them. I exhort the honorable gentleman to remove this hardship. The bill will create more confusion in industry, but if the Government insists on passing it, the measure should be just.

Let there be preference to those who left the workshop to go into the front line to fight! Preference should not be extended to the man who, whatever his reasons, worked in Australia during the war.

When the honorable member for Fawkner was speaking, I asked what would be the position of British tradesmen who came to Australia as migrants.

Mr Holt:

– If the migrant had been a tradesman in the services or got his trade experience in the services, he would probably be excluded, just as our own people are.

Mr WHITE:

– What a prospect at a time when the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) is issuing booklets ad lib to advertise Australia and encourage men trained in the building trade to migrate here! This bill will defeat the objects of the Minister for Immigration. I have received the following letter from the Returned. Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial Leagueof Australia, exImperial sub-branch : -

Our organization is of the opinion that British ex-service personnel on the whole are getting a rough deal. They have been promised a fair go on paper, but what are the actual facts. These men get little or no consideration when it comes to employment and training because of a clause in an instruction given to rehabilitation officers for their guidance that reads as follows: - “United Kingdom ex-servicemen and women selected as eligible and suitable for training will rank after Australian ex-servicemen and women where there is competition for training vacancies “.

Our members contend that British exservice personnel have been automatically barred from training because by the time that Australian personnel have been absorbed (which at the present rate will take years) our men will have graduated to he useful members of the community per medium of the pick and shovel or as genera] labourers.

This bill will impose an additional hardship upon this class of person. In my opinion, this Parliament is passing too much legislation. Too many authorities are planning other men’s lives. Their ideas are put forward to receptive Ministers. I know that the Minister in charge of the bill is steeped in industrial affairs, and I have no doubt that the trade unions instruct him that he must preserve their vested right in industry, and ensure that they shall receive preferential treatment. That is the reverse of the policy of preference to ex-servicemen I invite the honorable gentleman to explain how former members of the services and immigrants will fare under this bill.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

[4.6 J. - This measure affords me an opportunity to direct attention to further examples of the Government’s shocking bungling of the rehabilitation of exservicemen, and to its deplorable treatment of .ex-servicemen anxious to engage in useful trades. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who introduced the bill, said that one of its purposes was to assist the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. But it is futile to talk of assisting, their rehabilitation while the Government is content to allow the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs to continue. It is evident that in addition to red-tape strangling effective rehabilitation, certain trade unions are determined to prevent men who fought for their country from engaging in useful trades. A few days ago, the Sydney press reported that Mr. Roy Jackson, secretary of the federal shipwrights and ship constructors organization, declared, first, that soldiertrainees .were not admitted under the post-war reconstruction training scheme, and, secondly, that there was not enough work to admit soldier trainees who, in any case, were too old and. had had the opportunity before the war. of entering a trade. Earlier, in Brisbane, a man with three years’ service in the Royal Australian Air Force in Darwin and overseas, was thrown out of work because’ the local branch of the Amalgamated. Society of Carpenters and Joiners would not accept him a3 a member.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I remind the Leader of the Australian Country party that this is not a bill for the rehabilitation of exservice personnel. It refers only to certain trades.

Mr FADDEN:

– The Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated that one of the purposes of the bill was to assist in the re-establishment of servicemen.

Mr Holloway:

– This is not a reestablishment bill.

Mr Holt:

– It provides a measure of re-establishment.

Mr FADDEN:

– Does not the handling of re-establishment ‘and the admission of trainees to the various unions come within the scope, of the bill?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the right honorable gentleman can show me that this bill has any relation to shipbuilding or carpentry, the Chair will hear him.

Mr Spender:

– Boilermakers, who are mentioned iri the bill, are connected with shipbuilding.

Mr White:

– I rise to order. I inform you, Mr. Speaker, that in- the first schedule you will find reference to coppersmiths, who are employed in shipbuilding. I point out also that the Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that the bill was to assist the rehabilitation, of ex-servicemen.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to paragraph b of the preamble, which states -

And whereas it is necessary - to make provision for the training, and employment of members of the Forces, as defined in this Act, in the trades to which this Act applies, as a measure of .rehabilitation of those members:

Boilermakers and electricians are persons who normally have a great deal to dowith shipbuilding, and they are certainly covered by this bill.

Mr Harrison:

– If any further evidence be required, I direct attention to the schedule which shows various trades that are associated with shipbuilding.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair is not . assisted by the point of order raised by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt). Paragraph b of the preamble states that it is necessary - to make provision for the training and employment of members of the Forces, as denned in this Act, in the trades to which this Act applies . .

– I marvel that honorable members on the Government side of the House have made no attempt to reply to the charge? that have been levelled against the Government in connexion with this ‘bill, which the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who, introduced it, told us was a measure to assist in rehabilitating ex-servicemen. It may be that honorable gentlemen opposite are critical of the measure, or that they do not regard it as a rehabilitation bill ; but the fact remains that they have not answered the serious charges that we have made. I do not wonder at the doubt as to whether this is a rehabilitation measure, because when the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) made certain observations concerning the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen you, Mr. Speaker, called him to order and said that this was not a rehabilitation bill. I can understand you making such a mistake. It is high time that the exservicemen should know where they stand in regard to this measure and, in fact, to Government policy generally. By the introduction of this bill the Government is seeking to give peace-time permanency to regulations promulgated to meet a war-time emergency. I , fail to understand how the two sets of circumstances can be reconciled. .During the war the regulations to which I am referring which, by the way, were framed largely by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), who was then in ministerial office, served a very good purpose; but now that peace has returned and we expect a considerable expansion of industry to occur in Australia, I can see no reason why such restrictive provisions should he applied to industrial employment. Surely it-must be recognized’ that if our vast industrial potential is to be developed, there must be a considerable expansion of employment. I cannot understand, therefore, why the Government should -seek to continue in peacetime restrictions which were intended only to meet the emergencies of war.

In claiming that this was a rehabilitation measure the Minister, in his secondreading speech, said -

The bill makes provision for the admission to the engineering, boilermaking, blacksmithing, electrical, and sheet-metal trades of exservicemen who have had sufficient training and experience in .those trades while in the forces to enable them, after a reasonable period of probation or training in employment, to reach the standard of skilled tradesmen.

I was greatly heartened when I heard that statement, until I noticed one “ catch “ in it. The honorable gentleman referred to “experience in these tradeswhile in the forces “. That caused me to examine the measure more closely. The Minister having -made a statement of some’ considerable importance, immediately qualified it by saying -

At the same time, I must warn honorable members that the Australian engineering industry, despite its expansion since 1939, has not unlimited absorptive capacity, and, therefore, one function of the committees provided for in the bill will be “to avoid the overloading of industry, which would result in the ultimate unemployment of both ex-servicemen and recognized tradesmen.

Mr Haylen:

– Is that not desirable?

Mr HARRISON:

– If the honorable “member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) or the Minister could forecast what our industrial circumstances will be during the next two or three years in relation to the absorptive capacity of industry, something might be said for it, but our industrial potential is practically unlimited, and we should anticipate a big increase of employment, particularly in the industries mentioned in the schedules to . the bill. The Minister said, in effect, “We are going to do certain things, but I must warn you that something is going to happen “. I shall show what is going to happen.

I wish to revert for a moment, however, to remarks made by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) when the Re-establishment and Employment Bill was before this House. At that time Opposition members’ criticized the Government’s, proposal to establish an employment service. Our criticism has since been amply justified. The technique of the reestablishment and employment legislation is being continued in this bill, for the exserviceman is being used as a stalking-horse. This is not a rehabilitation bill, as I shall prove before I resume my seat. The measure., has been designed, in . fact, to give to trade unionists complete control of their respective trades, and to apply restrictive measures to ex-servicemen who wish to enter various trades. Our exservicemen have won the right to just and generous treatment, and they are entitled to be re-admitted to industries in which they served, many of them as apprentices, prior to enlistment; but if anything reveals the insincerity of the Government and its supporters in regard to ex-servicemen this bill does.

The measure creates a close preserve in ;the dilutee trades for members of unions, 95 per cent, of whom, were not on active service. Ever since demobilization began, and in fact ever since the passage of the Re-establishment and Employment Act, it has been apparent that Ministers, by instructions given to various committees, Hy press statements and by answers to questions in this Parliament, have been endeavouring to . discourage ex-servicemen from seeking to enter dilutee trades. An answer which the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction gave to a question which I asked him yesterday is further evidence of this fact Government policy, is becoming more positive in this respect as the days go by, for Ministers are saying to exservicemen in effect, “ You must not enter this or that trade “. In fact, some trade unions have closed their books even against apprentices formerly engaged in the trades concerned. Consequently these men will be denied the right to resume work in the callings of their choice. A specious reason given to excuse this action is that the absorptive capacity of the industry may not permit of the reemployment of the men. By this means ex-servicemen are being debarred from taking advantage of the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act. Only a very limited number of them will be able to secure employment in’ the trades mentioned in the schedules of the bill. Do honorable gentlemen opposite take the view that we shall have no development in the engineering, boiler-making, blacksmithing, electrical and sheet-metal trades? That seems to be the assumption on which this bill is based. Actually we should be preparing for a considerable expansion -in these industries. lt is true that a handful of exservicemen may gain admission to these trades, but an unqualified preference will be given to members of the unions concerned to the disadvantage of ex-servicemen who may desire to obtain such employment. This, of course, is in line with the policy of the Australasian Council of TradesUnions, the body controlling this Parliament for the time being. That policy has also been expounded from time to time .- by honorable gentlemen opposite, but it is unjust and a complete violation of the promises ma’de to the men of this country when they entered the armed forces. Such a situation’ should not be tolerated by the great body of men and women who rendered such glorious service to Australia in its hour of need. In view of what I have said it will be realized that the promise of preference that was given to servicemen when they were fighting has been so emasculated that the preference is now nothing more than a sham. This is particularly so in view of the exclusion of ex-servicemen from the dilutee trades.

– He must have gained the whole of the experience while he was a member of the forces, usually a- period of five years. I assume that the Minister ‘does . not propose that the provisions of industrial awards shall be violated, by allowing these men to be classed as tradesmen’ after training that has lasted for only three years. If that be. his intention, I should like him to state it. If he agrees that a man. could become a tradesman in the armed forces in three years, vast industrial possibilities will be opened up. If we accept the principle that only men who have had. five years experience during their war service shall be accepted as recognized tradesmen, what number of men will be brought into industry? Only in engineering units could such conditions exist. But we do not accept that principle. As the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) nas pointed out, this bill places a premium on the non-fighting branches of the services, because a man who had had some experience in any of these industries prior to enlistment would be precluded from deriving any advantage from the provisions of this bill if he had been so -unfortunate as to enlist in the Air’ Force as a- pilot, or in the Army as . a commando or in an artillery unit. Unfortunately for his civil rehabilitation, he fought with arms for the preservation of the conditions that are now denied to him. On the other hand, a man who belonged to a unit that did not have active service experience, such as workshops in an area not even subject to bombing, may come under this bill.

The honorable member devoted much of his speech to complaints against the possible exclusion of exservicemen from trades. It is possible that some ex-servicemen employed as specialists in the forces are ready to find employment immediately in industry. Their interests are secure. It is utterly absurd for the honorable’ member to assert that this bill has been drawn with the deliberate purpose of injuring ex-servicemen. On the other hand, it is a supplementary measure to the general rehabilitation plan, which includes ex-servicemen as well as civilians, and provides for our economic development in the years to come. The measure deserves nothing but praise, because of its level-headed, carefully-thought-out provisions. We must view things as they are. It is not right for the honorable member to talk glibly of unions-accepting thousands of applications for membership by ex-servicemen. Of course, the honorable member for Wentworth belongs to the era of the Battle of Omdurman. lie has never been able to envisage total war. He thinks of war in terms of horses and flashing sabres, as’ does the honorable, member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin), who -fell from his horse some years ago, and whose capacity to think has been retarded ever since. The plan of the Government provides for the man who made the bombs as well as the man who piloted the aircraft which dropped them. It provides fox the man who used a rifle and bayonet, as well as the man concerned in their manufacture. Unless honorable members, realize those things, it is obvious that they have not given much thought to the contents of this bill.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– This purports to be a bill for the regulation of tradesmen’s right of employment in certain trades, the employment of members of the forces in those trades, and for other purposes. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), in the course of his second-reading speech, laid great emphasis on the obligation of the Government to promote rehabilitation. He also emphasized the provisions of the existing dilution agreement, -entered into in May, 1941. He said that that agreement, was a legacy from a conservative govern-‘ ment, and that the present Government now had to “ clear up the mess “. We are becoming’ used to talk of that kind. But a brief examination of ‘the dilution agreement will lead us to the conclusion that there is no substance in the Minister’s arguments. He said that the Government’ believed that the agreement unduly prejudiced the prospects of rehabilitation of a number of ex-servicemen, and that therefore it had negotiated with employers and’’ employees and that this bill was the result. The agree- . ment was signed on the 8th May, 1940, and is expressed in very simple language. The Government says that as thu result of the agreement, it must now bring down this legislation. I point out however that this bill marks an entirely new departure and establishes a completely new principle in Commonwealth legislation. The Government has said, in effect, “ We must bring down this legislation because, as the result of the dilution agreement, it has become almost impossible for us to provide for the rehabilitation of exservicemen “. The agreement is contained in twelve short clauses, which read -

Memorandum of agreement between Commonwealth Government, Amalgamated Engineering Union and Employers’ Association regarding temporary relaxation of existing customs to overcome difficulties due to shortage of engineering tradesmen for war requirements.

It is hereby mutually agreed -

In view of the abnormal conditions created by the war it is recognized that a temporary relaxation of existing customs affecting the employment of men to do skilled work is necessary, where it can be shown that tradesmen are not available and production may be prejudiced.

To ensure that the full resources of available labour may be organized and applied in the best possible way to meet the demand for skilled labour, and that by careful planning ami selection the problems arising when the time arrives to return to normal working conditions will, be minimized, the scheme set out in the subsequent paragraphs is approved.

That all propositions for dilution will be consolidated under one Commonwealth Governmentcontrolled scheme.

All available engineering tradesmen, provided they are competent to do the work required, will be employed. No tradesmen shallbe debarred onthe ground of age or minor disability if the Local Committee is satisfied that he can perform the work required of him.

No skilled man or apprentice will be called up for service in the Armed Force’s unless his skill as an engineer is fully availed of, and those now engaged and not required for skilled work will be discharged.

If sufficient tradesmen are not available, applications will be called from persons of eungineering or appropriate classifications willing to undergo an intensive course of training on engineering work: Provided that after a period of training, determined by the Local Committee, in a technical school, or in an approved industrial establishment, during which he will be paid by the employer, the basic wage, the trainee will be entitled to be paid by the employer not less than the wage prescribed in the appropriate Industrial Award, Agreement or Determination for the work to which he is allotted: Provided further that the trainee shall be required to sign an agreement to serve if and as required by the Local Committee constituted under this scheme for the period of the war in the performance of the duties for which he is trained.

In the event of the provisionsof clause (5) not being sufficient to meet the demand for skilled tradesmen, applications may be called from alternative classes of workers willing to , be trained and paid as provided in clause (5).

A register will be kept of all men so trained, a copy of which will be supplied to the Union and to the Employer Organizations concerned. Changes of trainee personnel made under this scheme will be registered by the employer on a standard form, a copy of which will be supplied to the worker affected to the local representative of the Union, and the Department of Supply and Development and the Employer Organization concerned. No “ recognized “ tradesman is to be discharged because of a reduction of work in his section whilst any of the “ added “trademen are employedwithin that section, and when skilled labour becomes available restoration of the pre-agreement practices will be made.

There shall be a Central Committee functioning under the administration of the Department of Supply and Development consisting of a representative of the Department, the employers and employees.

A Local Committee comprising equal representation of employers and of the employees, with a representative of the Commonwealth Government as Chairman, will be set up in each State for the purpose, subject to the direction and control of the Central Committee, of determining any matter arising in the State under this scheme, and without limiting the scope of the functions of such Committee, the duties will include: -

The disposition of’ men training and trained in accordance with the provisions of this scheme;

The approval of industrial establishments desiring to be utilized as training establishments;

The determinationas to whether any and what number of trainees should be allotte to any factory, and whether such numbers should be increased or decreased;

The recommendation of the persons who shall be registered, or, if registered, who shall be removed from the register; and, in collaboration with the local Technical Education Advisory Committee -

The exercise of a general supervision over the theoretical and practical training under this agreement;

The determination of the degree of proficiency of trainees.

Any dispute regarding matters of principle, on which agreement cannot be reached, will be referred by the Chairman of the Local Committee to the Central Committee.

The number of tradesmen added in any establishment or factory by the provisions of this agreement shall not be included in the number of tradesmen on which the proportion of apprentices is based for such establishment or factory.

Nothing in this agreement shall be taken to deprive any employer of any rights under any existing Award, Agreement or Determination.

This agreement having been approved to meet the exceptional circumstances referred to above will not be used or cited in any proceedings before a Federal or State wage-fixing tribunal, and/or in any other way.

Signed on behalf of -

The Commonwealth Government - F. H. Stewart. Minister for Supply and Development.

The Amalgamated Engineering Union - Joseph Cranwell, President.

The Metal Trades Employers’ Association - John Heine, President.

The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures - P. C. Oake, Secretary.

The South AustralianChamber of Manufactures Incorporated - H. H. Winterbottom, Secretary.

Melbourne, 8th May, 1940.

It will be seen that in May, 1940, when this country was in the gravest danger, an agreement was made under which the unions wereto relax existing customs so as to permit the introduction of dilutees under such conditions aswould afford absolute protection to recognized tradesmen; There is, as will be seen from a perusal of the document, no foundation for the claim that there is need for this legislation, or that there is any problem of rehabilition as the result of the dilution agreement.When the war came to an end theonly task that had to be undertaken was to preserve the rights of recognized tradesmen as against the so-called added dilutees.No one disputes the necessity to do that. But is it necessary to approach that task by legislation of this kind? Not at all; it could be carried out effectively, as indeed it was intended to be carried out, by the Arbitration Court. An examination of the bill shows that it goes vastly further than the mere carrying outof what the Minister agrees was the real essence of the. problem, namely, the preservation of the rights of recognized tradesmen as against dilutees. There was no question, arising from the agreement, of the preservation of the rights of recognized tradesmen as against those of men who served in the war, and it is well that that should be made plain. Under the bill, the rights of the recognized tradesmen will in substance be extended and consolidated above the rights of all other people, including dilutees or ex-servicemen. Dilutees are not in terms referred to in this legislation; but they are already in the trade. The only way in which people will be able to get into the trade now will be by permission of a local committee. That is the substanceof this legislation. In simple language it means that the Government will establish what I understood Labour always fought against, namely, a monopoly more vicious than those usually made the subject of its attacks, a mon opoly of men inside a trade who will keep it a close preserve for themselves. The bill is divided into parts covering, amongst other things, the engineering, boiler-making, blacksmithing, electrical and sheet-metal trades. Each of those trades is made the subject of a definitions clause. All of the trades are then brought within the provisions of Part VII. of the bill . which is headed “ Incorporated Provisions “, which is the very essence of this legislation. It will be observed that it is intended that the recognized tradesman in the sense of the man who was engaged in the trade before the dilution agreement was made, shall be protected against everybody; the only persons who are given no rights at all, and indeed, from whom rights are to be subtracted by the bill, are exservicemen. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) has said that this Government is desirous of assisting ex-service-: men. If that be so all I can say is that in this legislation it has been very much overborne by the union. If the unions themselves had been given the task of drafting a bill to protect the interests of their members, I can not imagine that they would have produced a more satisfactory measure than this. No doubt they’ were consulted and their lawyers had a good look at the bill before it was brought before us.

In the incorporated provisions in Part VII. clause 34 establishes a central committee which is to have power to give directions on any matters referred to it by , a local committee, to issue directions to local committees, to determine the form of certificate to be granted to any person, and, finally, to advise the Minister generally with respect’ to any action considered necessary to give effect to Part VII. of the bill. The decisions of the Central Committee are to be final and it may act on any evidence it thinks fit. Clause 35 prescribes that a local committee shall have power to determine any matter arising in the State in which it is established and without limitation of that very general power it may authorize the employment of probationary and trainee tradesmen, and direct the removal from the register of the name of any probationary or traineetradesman. I point out that in clause 44 power is given to an employee already in the industry to appeal even to the supreme court of a State against a decision of the local committee directing, approving or. consenting to his dismissal. Under clause 35 however, no power of appeal is given to a person who is refused the opportunity to become a probationary or trainee tradesman. What is even worse still, no power ‘ is given to the probationary or trainee tradesman to appeal if his name is removed by a local committee from the register. Under .clause 35 the local committee is also to have power to issue certificates of recognition as a reL cognized tradesman and to act in any manner it thinks fit without challenge on the part of the man concerned. It is also to have power to consider, and to issue ‘ directions to employers in relation to any matters in dispute regarding the claims of persons under this Part - and note these words - “ or under any other law of the Commonwealth-“ to employment in any trade to which Part VII. applies. So, irrespective of any law of the Commonwealth contained in any award, a local committee may issue directions to employers relating to employment in any of the specified trades. When a local committee gives directions - and no doubt ultimately power will be taken to make regulations to- carry out the provisions of the bill - it will have in substance the power of determining the future life of a large number of people, particularly of ex-servicemen, and it is to have power to do that arbitrarily, without any right of appeal against its decisions. The next serious provision is in clause 41 which prescribes that if a local committee . is satisfied, upon application by any person, that that person is a recognized tradesman within the meaning of the definition of “ recognized tradesman “, or ‘ a member of the forces who has, during the period of the war, acquired, by reason of his service in the Forces, the skill necessary for the performance of work ordinarily ‘ performed by recognized tradesmen, the committee may, if it thinks fit, issue to that person a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman. Let us stop there a. moment.

Consider the two sub-clauses. Paragraph a of sub-clause 1 reads -

If the Local Committee is satisfied that be is a recognized tradesman . . .

That is in the case of the boilermaking trades, a person who was employed as a tradesman prior to the 29th of November, 1940, and other dates in ‘ 1940 in the case of other trades. Whether a man who, prior to this agreement, had . been recognized as a tradesman or not, it should not be left for anyone to say whether he shall be re-engaged in the industry or riot. I should like the Minister to pay some heed to what I am saying. All that the sub-clause provides is that the local committee is not obliged, even if it is satisfied that an applicant is a recognized tradesman, to issue a certificate of recognition.’ The committee has complete discretion to say, “ No, we will not issue a certificate. We do not see fit “. If that power does not ‘lend itself to the utmost abuse, I should like to know any power that does. Is the Commonwealth Parliament to embark on a series of legislative acts, of which this is proposed to be the first, under which so-called tribunals will be able to affect the lives of thousands and thousands, of people .in this community by having the power to determine that they shall or shall not be permitted entrance to the. metal industry or some other avocation. That is what this bill provides. Then,, dealing with other people, the clause says - (2.) If a Local Committee is satisfied that an adult member of the Forces who, during the period of the war, has had training and experience in the Forces in a trade to which this Part applies could, within a period not .exceeding twelve months, acquire the skill necessary for the performance of work ordinarily- performed by a recognized tradesman, the Committee may, on the application of that member, authorize the employment, subject to the provisions of section forty-three of this Act. of that member as a probationary tradesman …

– But the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment

Act are for all practical purposes excluded from operation as far as the trades specified in this bill are concerned.

Mr Holloway:

– No: the men in that group are covered.

Mr SPENDER:

– Sub-clause 2 of’ clause 41 cannot apply, as a probationary tradesman must be an adult and must satisfy the local committee that he could, within twelve months obtain the necessary experience. That in itself is limiting. I have good reason to believe that that provision was made in order not toaid but to exclude ex-servicemen.

Mr White:

– An ex-servicemen could not get that experience in twelve months.

Mr SPENDER:

– Of course not. 1 come now to trainee tradesmen. Subclause 3 provides - (3.) If a Local Committee is satisfied that a member of the Forces who -

during the period pf the war has had’ training and experience in the Forces in a trade to which this Part applies; and
1. is certified by a Regional Training Committee to be eligible for training benefits under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme established under Part III. of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945, could, within a reasonable period,- as to what that reasonable period is no one has any guide at all - acquire the skill necessary for the performance of work ordinarily performed by a recognized tradesman, the Committee may, upon the application of that member, authorize the employment, subject to the provisions of section forty -three of this Act, of that member as a trainee tradesman for the purpose of undergoing a course of training in an industrial establishment in a trade to which this Part applies.

It is well to turn to clause 43 with this final observation’ on the powers of the local committee : The aspirant has to’ go through the gateways held- by the local Committee, and, even then, only a man of a certain type can qualify under the provisions of clause 41. A probationary tradesman, must be an adult whom the committee is satisfied can, within twelve months, acquire the necessary skill. A trainee tradesman must be one who, amongst other things, could within a reasonable period - and no indication is given of what a reasonable period is - acquire the skill necessary for performance of the work ordinarily performed by recognized tradesmen. No indication is given of what that is. In both cases there is no appeal if the application is rejected.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– He goes to the central committee if he is not satisfied with the decision of the local committee. The honorable member has read the bill and says that he knows all about it.

Mr SPENDER:

– I do not know all about it. I said that the Minister knew all about it. Would he mind telling me where it is provided that a man turned down by the local committee can go to the central committee? If the Minister does not answer me now, I shall have to ask him in committee. The power is given to the local committee in clause 41. The local committee isin substance an arbitrary body. The provisions relating to probationary and trainee tradesmen are subject to clause 43, which reads - (1.) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the provisions of Division 2 of Part II. of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 shall apply in relation to employment in the trades to which this Part applies.

That makes it appear that the Parliament is extending preference in employment to ex-servicemen, but when the bill says “ subject to the provisions of the act “, it substantially cuts down the whole of the preference conditions of the Reestablishment and Employment Act. Before I leave that, I point out that clause 45 says -

A person shall not be entitled to make an application to a court of summary jurisdiction under section twenty-eight of theReestablishment and Employment Act 1945 in respect of a failure to engage him in employment in a trade to which this Part applies unless the matter has first been considered by a Local Committee.

So there is a distinct writing down of the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act. An application must first be considered by the local committee, but clause 43 provides - (1.) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the provisions of Division 2 of Part II. of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 shall apply . . .

Then it says - (2.) An employer shall not, in the engagement or elevation of any person to carry out work ordinarily performed by a recognized tradesman of a particular classification, engage or elevate -

a person other than a recognized tradesman if a recognized tradesman of that classification who is competent to perform that work is available and offering for employment; or
a person other than a recognized tradesman or a probationary tradesman if a probationary tradesman of that classification who is com- petent to perform that work is available and offering for employ ment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– That was the promise made to him by the dilution committee.

Mr SPENDER:

– No such promise is contained in the dilution agreement. Time after- time the allegation has been made that that promise was made by the dilution committee, but on the11th May. 1946, Mr. F. T. Perry, president of the Australian Metal Industries. Association, was invited to attend a meeting in, Melbourne of the central engineering trades committee to discuss the future terms of the “ agreement “. At that meeting. I am informed, he restoration of prewar practices and customs in relation to the employment of bona fide tradesmen was fully and frankly considered and discussed. Mr. Perry, on behalf of the metal trades employers of Australia, agreed that the enunciation of the undermentioned principle would be a full and proper implementation of the winding-up of the “ agreement “. This was assented to by the Amalgamated Engineering Union andthe Australasian Society of Engineers. It was agreed -

Conditions in the industry to be those operating prior to the signing of the dilution agreement on8th May, 1940, which means that the custom of the trade was to recruit tradesmen in the greatest percentage of case’s in the industry, through the apprenticeship system or other approved training scheme.

It is well to disclose what the agreement provides, because no greater rights can exist than are provided in it. Reverting again to the bill, paragraph a of sub-clause 2 of clause 43 gives to the recognized tradesman preemption in respect of engagement or elevation over any one else in a job, regardless of whether a probationary tradesman or even a full tradesman who has given most distinguished military service overseas and is much more competent. So long as the recognized tradesman is competent’ - no degrees of competency are provided for -he is given complete priority over everyone. This bill is designed to consolidate the interests of men already in the trades.

Mr.White. - It is the reverse of preference to ex-servicemen.

Mr SPENDER:

– Of course it is. Then sub-clause 4 of clause 43 provides - (4.) An employer shall not, without the consent of a Local Committee -

dismiss a recognized tradesman of a particular classification while any person of that classification, other than a recognized tradesman, is employed by him in the same establishment ; or

So there is no choice between recognized . tradesmen. All are to be brought under the control of the local committee. In time of war, I could understand the need for some of these provisions, but, in days of peace, I shall resist them with every argument that I can advance.

Then it was said that the purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of both the employers’ and the employees under the dilution agreements. I direct attention to the fact that in existing awards power exists for an employer to dismiss an employee for inefficiency. As honorable members will see, sub-clause 5 of clause 43 provides -

The provisions of sub-section (4.) of this section shall not prevent the exercise by an employer of any rights which he possesses under any law or any award, order, determination or industrial agreement to dismiss an employee for malingering, neglect of duty or misconduct.

Sub-clause 4, of course, provides that an employer shall not, without the consent of a local committee, dismiss a recognized tradesman or probationary tradesman. From sub-clause 5 the word “inefficiency” has been omitted. “Why? That is a direct denial of the rights of the employer, Which are contained in the dilution agreement and which, we were told, this bill will preserve. Provision is made for some, but only some, of the decisions of a local committee to be reviewed. Accordingto the “statement of the Minister, an appeal is allowed to the central committee. I point out that under clause 44, only a very limited right of appeal is permitted in special cases, because sub-clause 1 provides -

Where a local committee has directed or approved or consented to the dismissal of a person from employment, or the refusal by an employer to engage or elevate a person in employment, and that person or the employer considers that the direction, approval or consent is not justified by the provisions of this part, he may request the Chairman of the local committee to refer the matter to the central committee, and the Chairman shall, as soon as practicable, refer the matter accordingly.

If the person concerned is dissatisfied with the decision of the central committee, he may appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court. Now, this clause limits the appeal to two cases, first the refusal of an employer to engage or elevate the . employee and, secondly, the dismissal of a person from employment. So far asI am able to observe, all other cases under clause 41, such as the refusal by the local committee to grant a certificate that a man is a recognized tradesman, will not be made the subject of appeal.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Clause 45 takes it a little further.

Mr SPENDER:

– Sub-clause 1 of clause 45 provides that -

A person shall not be entitled to make an application to a court of summary jurisdiction under section 28 of theRe-establishment and Employment Act 1945, in respect of a failure . to engage him in employment in a trade to which this Parliament applies unless the matter has first been considered by a local committee.

Iremind honorable members that section 28 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act states -

Where any person whom an employer has refused to engage in employment considers that, having regard to the provisions of the last preceding section, the employer should have engaged him in employment, that person may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction constituted by a Police, Stipendiary or Special Magistrate for anorder under this section.

– Are not the tradesmenautomatically secured, and,’ in that way,, have preference?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) is-‘ generally fair. I shall deal later with the matter which he raised. Surely honorable members opposite recognizethat the matter of preference in employment to ex-servicemen does not arise here. All the- references to the necessity to fulfil our promises to rehabilitate ex-servicemen after the war are not relevant to this bill, which deals only with the training of exservicemen.

The second purpose of the bill is- to honour the promise given by the honorable member * for- Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) as. the representative of the government of the day. The agreement was partly drafted by. the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt).

Mr Holt:

– The bill goes a long way further than that.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– If all the things that the honorable member for Warringah- (Mr. Spender) imagined, and some of the things upon which the honorable member for Fawkner grew expansive, were involved, the bill would undoubtedly go a; long way further than I said.

Mr Holt:

– I shall’ be happy if the Minister will show me where I was wrong.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The only matter apart from the training of ex-servicemen in certain trades is the desire of the Government to honour the promise which was made by a previous administration and renewed by this Government. The Government, with which honorable gentlemen opposite were -associated is just as responsible as this Government is in this matter. One honorable gentleman has said, “ I would not promise, anything “, whilst another has said, “ .1 would make all the promises in theworld to tradesmen while their trades’ were being diluted during the war, hut I would not promise them anything after the war “. That, as a matter of fact, has been the practice of all governments. But there was no need to make promises for the war period, because everybody was working. A total of. 119,000 men received training during the war, and the training. was given with the assistance of the unions. The promise made by the previous Government and re-affirmed, .by this Government was that if any men had to be dismissed after the war, the recognized tradesmen would be the last to go. We all hope that there will be no need to dismiss anybody. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), has told us that our industrial potential is such that we may reasonably expect an. expansion ‘of employment of some hundreds per cent. I hope that he is proved right. I hope, also, that in our lifetime there will be no need for anybody to be dismissed. All the signs and portents suggest that that will be so,

– There may have been a few men ‘who had some training in these industries in backyard factories or with their fathers before the war, but who were not apprentices. There cannot have been very many of them, although I admit that some young fellows sixteen years of age or thereabouts gave a wrong age in order to get into the forces. If these young men had received some training without being indentured they were, of course, breaking the law. But even men who had some training in such circumstances could make application for consideration, though, as I have said, the number would not be very great.

Mr Holt:

-There should be one exserviceman on each committee in each State.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

-I do not consider that to be necessary, because, as I have already pointed out, no question of preference arises. The points at issues will be purely technical. There are large numbers of returned men in these industries in all States, but, in any case, it is essential that the men to be examined should come before experts capable of assessing their efficiency. For this reason it would not matter whether a member of a committee was an ex-serviceman or not. Only experts could say, with authority, whether a person who appeared before a committee was 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or 60 per cent, efficient in respect of his technical knowledge. As a matter of fact, the chairman of one of these committees is a returned soldier. I refer to Mr. White, chairman- of the committee in Western. Australia. It should be remembered that thousands of men who enlisted at about the age of 30 years were already fully trained artisans and there is no reason why some of them should not be appointed to these committees. It would be desirable, in the interests of the servicemen themselves, that they should appear before experts rather than before a committee whose members had been appointed only because they were exservicemen. Experts would be able to test all the men who appeared before them strictly on their technical knowledge and training.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Under the bill, an appeal will lie from a local committee to a central committee, and if the decision of the second committee be not satisfactory a further appeal may be made to the court. Men who can be regarded as being in the borderline class will have the right of appeal to the committee, and if they can show that they possess the necessary qualifications they can be examined and attache’d to a trade. There cannot be many in this class, apart from men who. had followed their trades, prior to enlistment, and these would return to their former positions and be regarded as tradesmen. Those men who do not possess full qualifications will commence their employment at the full award rates of wages. As the employer cannot be expected. to, and would not, pay the full rates in such instances, and the difference will have to be paid by the Government out of revenue contributed by the. taxpayers, there must be some control of .the’ number of applicants accepted.

Whilst it is not obligatory that members of the committees shall be exservicemen, there is no reason why exservicemen should not be nominated and be elected to the committees. Probably 50 per cent, or more of the members of the engineering and allied trades, are exservicemen of either World War I. or World War II. This fact would be likely to assure the election of exservicemen to the committees.

For the reasons that I have given, neither ‘ the Government nor I can see any logical reason for accepting the amendments foreshadowed by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt). If I could see any reason, I would certainly accept them. I believe that their incorporation in the measure would weaken rather than strengthen it.

The honorable member for Wentworth cited some figures in relation to the number of applicants accepted and rejected. I have been supplied by telephone with quite different figures! up to the 24th July, in relation to the engineering trade only in New South Wales. These show that 225 probationary tradesmen have been approved and 42 not approved, and that 107 trainee tradesmen have been approved and 30 not approved.

Maybe the bill has one “weakness. I am not convinced that it is a weakness; nevertheless I intend to make the position secure. . Honorable members will recall the Footscray test case, in which the .Crown allegedly was an offender. The Government has realized how difficult it is for an ex-service ‘man or women to prosecute the .manager of a government factory, with the Crown as the defendant. The Solicitor-General. Professor Bailey, with the assistance of his staff, is preparing amendments to both this bill and the Re-establishment and Employment Act, in order to make sure that the Crown will be placed on exactly the same footing as any other employer. The. Government desires that it shall be just as easy for a man ot woman to prosecute the manager of a” government factory or workshop as any other employer. The amendment has not yet been completed’; consequently, I shall haveit inserted when the bill is being con-sidered in the Senate. I -trust that that will be regarded as satisfactory. From the outset, the intention of the Government has been that an ex-service man or woman should be able to obtain satisfaction under the law, whether the Crown or a private employer is sued.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 18

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so. resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Definitions).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I should like the Minister to give me some information about the definition of “ recognized tradesman which runs as follows: - “ recognized tradesman “ means a person who, in relation to any trade to which this Part applies -

was employed, prior to the eighth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and forty, as a tradesman ;
has qualified or qualifies by service as an apprentice for employment as a tradesman;
has completed his courseof training as a trainee tradesman to the satisfaction ofa Local Committee: or
has been granted a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman.

Assuming that a certificate is given, or that a man complies otherwise with the requirements laid down, what is there to compel a union to admit him as a member? Several cases, have come before me of men who have been fully qualified for a particular occupation, who have been offered employment, and against whom no personal reason can be advanced for refusing to accept them as unionists, yet they have been refused admittance to a union. That, in itself, is a sufficient bar to employment, because the Minister knows that in the’ metal trades no unionist will work with a non-unionist. It would be useless for a man to obtain from the committee a certificate of recognition as a tradesman unless such a recognition entitles him to membership of the union pertaining to the craft in which he wishes to work. Paragraph a of the definition which I have just quoted defines a recognized tradesman as a person who was employed prior to the 8th May, 1940 as a tradesman. That was the date of the dilution agreement, and I should like to know whether the provision limits recognition to persons who were tradesmen in Australia at that time or does it cover persons who were tradesmen elsewhere, such as British servicemen who might have been good tradesmen before that date? Paragraph d of the definition provides that a recognized tradesman means a person who has been granted a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman. Does that mean that it is open to the committee to give such a certificate, irrespective of the qualifications stipulated in paragraphs a, h and c?

Mr HOLT:
Faulkner

.- This bill seeks to restore in the unions concerned pre-war. practices. I understand that, before the Avar, recognized tradesmen included those persons who had qualified by apprenticeship in a particular trade, and also those who had been elevated, by their, employers, and were thereafter paid tradesmens’ rates. Such persons were regarded by their employers and by the unions also as fully qualified, and were accepted by the union for membership as fully fledged tradesmen. I now ask the Minister to state, out of his long experience in industrial matters, what is the approximate number of such persons in the unions under review, and what proportion of them would to-day be recognized as tradesmen under the provisions of- the bill. .

The point raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. .Spender) about tradesmen who come here from other countries is important. The Minister for Migration (Mr. Calwell) said that it was proposed to bring to Australia 1,000 building tradesmen. Can the Minister inform the committee what will bc the position of those men when they arrive ?

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- In this clause, “recognized tradesman” means a person who was employed prior to the 8tH May, 1940, as a tradesman. Tt is not stipulated that such a person shall have worked, at his trade within recent years. He may have been out of the trade for many years. Thus, the status of a member of any of the 31 trades listed in the schedule is preserved, even though he may not have worked at his trade for years, and he is given priority over an air force fitter who worked on high-speed engines or on maintenance .jobs. Such a person must go before a committee iu order to prove that he is fit to be recognized as a tradesman, and on the committee there need not be one returned serviceman. There may be. a serviceman on it by chance, but noi; by virtue of this bill. This clause loads the hill against the servicemen. I regard the bill as unnecessary. It is a piece of skilful camou flage, and’ this is the principal camouflaging clause. Why should a- man who worked in Australia at good wages all. throughout the war - he may have had good reasons for not joining the forces, but the fact remains that he did not - beable to obtain permanent employmentand full security, while the man who served in the forces cannot be immediately classed as a tradesman, and must rank second in priority?

The Government says it hopes that whole industries will migrate to Australia. We join in that hope, and I seeno reason why it should not be fulfilled, if we are sensible in our politics, and in our taxation policy. However, if thisbill is passed in its present form, the: position of qualified tradesmen from overseas who come, to Australia will not be clear. When he was .speaking, 1 asked the Minister to define the positionof tradesmen migrating here from GreatBritain, but he did not make the position clear.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The bill defines a “recognized tradesman” as a person who was employed - prior to the Sth May, 1940, as a tradesman. As the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) pointed out, that was the date upon which the dilution agreement was made’, but I want to know what effect this provision will have upon an apprentice who did not complete histraining until 1941, who then became a recognized tradesman in his industry, and later went overseas and served in thi, armed forces for a period… Such a person cannot have served for the requisite period at his trade, and he was not a. recognized tradesman on the Sth May, 1940. Perhaps the- Minister will say that, he is covered by paragraph *b of the difinition of “ recognized tradesman “, but 1 should like the position to be clarified.

The point made about the closing of the books of unions to persons over 21 years of age is important, and the practice is a menace to servicemen. I should like to know what action the Minister proposes to take to ensure that the books shall be re-opened. , In the Reestablishment and Employment Bill, there was a clause to compel unions to accept servicemen as members, ‘but that power has not been exercised,’ despite protests from. honorable members. What will be the position of servicemen who .have fulfilled their indentures and other requirements at a date later than that set down in the agreement? If he be given recognition in the particular trade in which he proposes to engage, what action will the Government take to see that he will get union recognition ? As has been pointed out by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender.)’ this bill will enable the unions to exercise a form of industrial, dictatorship. They will be able to refuse membership of their organizations if they so desire. If a union believes that it has sufficient members to cover the absorptive capacity of the industry it will refuse to open its books to newcomers, [f a non-unionist is employed in any shop a union will declare a strike in that particular shop until such time as the nonunionist is discharged. This bill has been represented as a rehabilitation measure; that in itself pre-supposes that the Government intends to give full effect to its promise of full preference to exservicemen. If that be so, the Minister should have no difficulty in saying what action he proposes to’ take to safeguard the interests of trained men who do not come within the provisions of the bill, and to state definitely whether, on being recognized as tradesmen, they will have the right to join their appropriate unions. - Mr. ROSEVEAR (Dalley) ‘ [8.32].- Following the movement of large numbers of people into the engineering trade just after the outbreak of the war, I was appointed a member of the Manpower and Resources Survey Committee which was established by the Menzies Government. In the course of my service on that committee, I had ample opportunity to see the working of the dilution scheme and the benefits it brought to. the war effort. I am amazed, therefore, to’ hear criticism voiced by honorable members opposite of the definition of what is known as a “ recognized tradesman “. The definition of a “ recognized tradesman “ in the measure now before us is much broader and more generous than that contained in the original dilution agreement signed by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick

– No up-graded men?

Mr.ROSEVEAR.- There were no upgraded men then ; there were no dilutees. No persons who had not completed fulltime apprenticeship were being paid- full rates of wages.

Mr Holt:

– Does the honorable member contend that at the time no men had been elevated to the position of tradesmen and were being paid as such?

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Yes. A recognized tradesman in the engineering industry was one who had served his full apprenticeship. The Engineering Union was then completely organized, and the agreement to keep recognized tradesmen in employment while other men were put off was part and parcel of the principle of preference to skilled unionists. Not only was the agreement signed by the ministerial representative of the parties opposite; it also recognized that the unionist, while forgoing the time-honoured principles of his union in order to meet the exigencies of the war, would have his full’ rights restored to him after the war had terminated. It was realized then that in the event of work slackening the, first men to go would be the dilutees or added tradesmen. Let us look at that clause about which there has been so mucb discussion. The clause provides - “ Recognized tradesman “ means a person - who, in relation to any trade to which this Part applies -

was employed, prior to the eighth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and forty, as a tradesman;

That was the date of the first agreement -

has been granted a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman;

That gets right back to the original position. The man had to be either employed as a tradesman at the prescribed date or an apprentice who had served his time and had gained a certificate. But this is where this bill broadens the definition. The third classification covers “ one who has completed his course of training as a trainee tradesman to the satisfaction of a local committee “. Prior to the signing of the first agreement, nobody was a recognized tradesman until he had served a full-time apprenticeship. This clause makes provision for the inclusion of men who had completed to the satisfaction of the local committee a course of training, as a trainee tradesman. The next important definition relates to trainee tradesmen. A trainee tradesman is defined as “ a member of the forces (not being an apprentice) whose employment as a trainee tradesman in a trade to which this part applies; for the purpose of undergoing a course of training in an industrial establishment, has been authorized bya local committee “. Honorable members will see that this interpretation of a recognized tradesman is infinitely broader than- the definition included in the original agreement signed with the union.

I come now to the right of the unions to close their ‘books. While the provisions of this bill remain the law, the unions will not be in a position to close their books except on the advice of a local committee, and there are good reasons for ‘believing that that might be done because the committee is representative of the unions and the employers. If the employers were of opinion that a greater number of men were needed in a particular trade, surely they would not agree to the union closing its books. But the representatives of both employers and employees, and the chairman appointed by the Minister, might come to the conclu..sion that the trade was overmanned, and that the prospects of the industry were such that new men should not be introduced. Surely, in the event of a setback or economic depression, the partly trained men would be the first to be dismissed. The committee, as a responsible body, would be able to gauge the man-power requirements of the industry. That is all-important. It is rubbish to talk about faking ex-servicemen into this scheme, if here are no safeguards whereby, at any particular time, some responsible body an say, “ The prospects of this industry are not bright, and there seems little possibility of its expansion. You should” not be encouraged to join it”.’

Mr Anthony:

– That argument could be applied to every industry.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Does the honorable member believe that he does the ex-serviceman a good ‘ turn by inviting him to seek employment .in an industry whether there is work in it or not? “What would be the use of saying to such a man, “ Come into this industry.. We shall train you, but as soon as we experience a setback, you must be the first to be r brown out?” In the last analysis, the employer would always give preference to the most skilled tradesmen in his shop. Honorable members would not do exservicemen a good turn by inviting them to go into an industry, the ramifications of which they do not understand. The conditions of the industry will be much better understood by a committee consisting of representatives of unions and employers presided over by a chairman nominated by the Minister. In’ the circumstances which I have outlined, such a committee would say to the man, “In your own interests, you should consider looking to another industry for employment. If you join this industry, you might waste a couple of years of your life in being trained for a trade which cannot permanently absorb you “. All of us remember that after World War I. men were encouraged temporarily to go into industries which were doomed to fail. We no longer desire to put square pegs into round holes. Every man should he given an opportunity, as far as is practicable, to follow the calling for. which he is best suited. This bill, in effect, not only broadens the interpretation of “ recognized tradesman “, but also says to the man who has been in the services, “ Provided there is work” or prospects of continued employment in an industry, here is an opportunity which you probably never had .before to learn a useful occupation “. I have followed this matter very closely. Frankly, as a trade unionist, I had. grave misgivings when the engineers were the first to sign the agreement, because I know how easy it is. years afterwards, for one of the contracting parties to shirk its obligations, and that is exactly what is happening to-day. When the agreement was negotiated on behalf of the Menzies Government, Ministers did not talk about ex-servicemen. The added tradesmen, the dilutees, were wanted then, but the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) said to-day, “ They are all right in war-time, but, in peace-time, I will fight them to the last ditch “. He meant that he would sign a solemn agreement or support a Ministry that signed a solemn agreement in order to ensure the production of the weapons of war, but -that, when the war. was over and he did not need munitions to protect his hide, he would repudiate his pledge.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I did not intend to speak at length on this clause; but the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has given such a distorted version ‘ of the attitude of the Opposition that I must state the facts clearly for the benefit of the committee. Apparently he did not have the benefit of hearing the full debate on the second reading, because, speaking on behalf of and with the full authority of the Opposition, I said that we intended fully to honour the obligation that we accepted’ in entering into the dilution agreement when we were the Government. The honorable member referred to the fact, that the agreement was signed by the then Minister for Supply and Development (Sir Frederick Stewart) ; but, if any responsibility for the agreement is to be taken, I take it, because, as Minister assistin gthe Minister for Supply and Development, I negotiated and carried the agreement through to the point at which the parties, were agreed and the arrangement was submitted to the Cabinet. I have followed it with great interest ever since. “We would not have divided the House on the second reading had the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) not indicated that he would reject the three amendments that I foreshadowed in my second-reading speech, which would “do nothing to prejudice the rights of the unionists under the agreement, but would do something to preserve the rights of the servicemen, whom this bill is ostensibly designed to benefit. The dilution agreement was designed to give us when we were plunged into war the necessary rapid expansion of the munitions industries by an infusioninto the metal trades of a group of men who had not qualified through apprentice-, ship for the work. The. ready lead of the Amalgamated Engineering’ Union, which is affiliated with its counterpart in Great Britain, in accepting dilutees, was followed by the other four unions. I assured the unions on behalf of the then government that the main clause of the agreement enshrined the principle upon which this discussion revolves, namely that preference in employment would be given to the recognized tradesman, who was denned as a person who was in a trade and accepted as a tradesman when the agreement was made, over the added tradesmen, on the basis that the last to come should be the first to go. No recognized tradesman was to be displaced while added tradesmen remained- in employment. We are as determined to honour that pledge as is the Government. Although we commented -that the bill gave a stronger right of protection to recognized tradesmen than the dilution agreement gives, our criticism was of the exclusion from the bill of a large body of men with trade experience, not apprentices or qualified, but men like motor mechanics or others with some trade experience, who served in the forces. The honorable member for Dalley says that in effect in that agreement we gave preference to unionists and excluded ex-servicemen. That was never an’ element of our discussions. It is to the credit of the unions concerned and to the Government and the employers that they tried to deal with a situation that no ohe at that time could judge with authority. Who knew in 1940 whether the war would last twelve months or ten years, or whether our factories would be in the front line of attack, bombed out ‘ and shattered as in Great Britain, or invaded as in France and Russia? They were matters that we could not consider as within the scope of reality. We could not even realize how the war would develop. But we could determine the respective rights of recognized tradesmen and added tradesmen, and that is what we set out to cover in the agreement. We have no intention of departing from the principles set out therein. After World War I. the Minister spoke about this. Governments took action to facilitate the entry of returned men into trades and professions. Accelerated courses were given at the universities to ex-servicemen in _ the professions of law, medicine and dentistry, and I have no doubt that in the trades similar assistance was given to them to get back into civil life. Our criticism is of the failure of the Government to give a reasonable opportunity to tens of thousands of ex-servicemen who, during the war were trained in mechanical or technical units and desire to go into the civil counterparts of the trades in which they were engaged. We know that this, is not an easy problem. I earlier cited the enormous growth during the war of the membership of unions associated with metal trades. The membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union rose from about 29,000 in 1939 to the peak figure of about 74,000 in 1944. Even to-day 64,000 persons are members of the union, and, unless a considerable expansion of the engineering trade occurs, obviously there will not be scope for a vast body of men to enter’ it. In the Army and Air Force alone the men engaged in the trades affected by this bill numbered about 60,000. Many of them were tradesmen when they enlisted, and no doubt most of these will want to return to their civil trades. Our strongest criticism has been directed to the three points that I will cover later with amendments. I do not intend to go into those matters now. I merely rose to state my view of the correct position of the Menzies Government and the employers’ organizations that negotiated the dilution agreement with the unions. That .agreement stands. We want to honour it, and, as between .the recognized tradesmen and the added tradesmen, the principle the last to come should be the first to igo must apply. But added tradesmen will get practical preferonce, although the bill is discreetly silent on that point, over men with a comparable training and service in the forces. The added tradesman is on the job. There is no proposal to displace him. The Minister has. told us that there are still 24,000 added tradesmen in the trades to-day. In Victoria of 273 applications for training only 27 have been approved. There must be tens of thousands of men with training equal to that of the dilutees still in the services or demobilized. There are 24,000 added tradesmen still in the trades as against the 27 ex-servicemen accepted for training in Victoria. I imagine that the proportion of men accepted in the other States is about the same. If that does not signify practical preference given, to the added tradesmen, I do not know what does. I do not criticize the added tradesmen, who did a valuable job during the war, but they have had no greater training and have no greater rights than the men who were- trained in” the forces. The added tradesman is a member of his union, and under this legislation, without the safeguards of my amendments, he will receive preference in practice over the men whose training was received as members of the forces. He will have absolute preference over added tradesmen with two or three years trade experience before the war who served during the war in combatant units. These servicemen are absolutely excluded from the metal trades group while the provisions of the bill remain unchanged. The Opposition adheres to the dilution agreement, but insists upon amendments that will give nothing short of bare justice to the .serviceman who is entitled to his opportunity in these trades.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I hoped that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) would speak before I rose again.

Mr Holloway:

– I will speak.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am glad of that. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has engaged in his usual practice - rather unworthy of a man occupying the Speakership of the House of Representatives - o£ making false allegations against another member for the purpose of bolstering his arguments.

Mr Rosevear:

– They were not false.

Mr SPENDER:

– I .shall deal with the honorable member in a moment. I can deal with him when he joins in committee consideration of a bill, even though his high office protects him in the House.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Barnard:

– Order! Deal with the clause.

Mr SPENDER:

– I will, and in doing so I will deal- with the remarks of the honorable member for Dalley. He said that I had said that the dilution agreement was all right during the war, but that when peace came it was a different matter. That is completely false. The honorable member must know it is false, or he did not listen to the’ debate on the second reading, because what I said was that, under the terms of this bill, a. right was vested in the local committee to prevent an employer from dismissing men. I said that that was all right to meet the exigencies of war ; but I went on to say that in, time of peace it could not be justified. What I said had nothing to do with the subject that we are now discussing. The honorable member for Ea wkner (Mr. Holt) made our position on this bill clear. We stand four-square for carrying out the dilution agreement, the terms of which I read to honorable members, and from the terms of which no warrant can be found for the exclusion of ex-servicemen from the benefits of this bill. This bill will do more th’an extend the provisions of the dilution’ agreement. It will exclude ex-servicemen very largely from entering the industry.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! I ask the honorable member to confine his. remarks to this clause, which deals with definitions.

Mr SPENDER:

– I am dealing with the definition of “ recognized tradesman “. i The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN. - The honorable member is discussing the general purposes of the bill.

Mr SPENDER:

– With great respect, I am not able to discuss this clause without having regard to the purposes of the bill. The measure contains various definitions and provisions relating to recognized tradesmen, and I am pointing out that when I asked three questions, the honorable member for Dalley did not answer one of them. “ Recognized tradesman” means a person who, in relation to any trade to which this part applies -

was employed, prior to the eighth day of May,’ One thousand nine hundred and forty, as a tradesman;

The first question which I asked ‘was: Is this intended to be confined solely to the persons employed in Australia prior to the 8th May, 1940, as tradesmen? If. the answer be in the affirmative, this provision will exclude ex-servicemen from Great Britain who may migrate here; I have received a copy of a letter which the Ex-Imperial Branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s League addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service seeking to have the definition clause widened so as to include British ex-servicemen who have the qualification of tradesmen. The honorable gentleman replied by telegram, as follows - .

Definition member forces Tradesmens Rights Act same as definition in Re-establishment and Employment Act. No intention to amend Re-establishment Act. Therefore, unable amend Tradesmens Rights Act.

I point out that, apart from the complete non sequitur in the telegram, the definition of “ member of the Forces “ in the Re-establishment and. Employment Act does not include British ex-servicemen. If this bill excludes British ex-servicemen, we shall know where’ we stand, and, no doubt, the Government will give reasons for its decision. .

A “recognized tradesman” is also a person who, in relation to any trade to which this part of the bill applies - >

has been granted a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman.

Does it mean that a person may be granted a certificate in respect of any industry or any trade, regardless of whether he complied with the specific qualifications contained in the bill? That question is clear, and I am entitled to an answer. It may be that many dilutees have already received certificates. I do not know. But I should like to know whether power is given, by virtue of this definition, to the local committees, to grant certificates of recognition to any person whom they think fit, irrespective of whether he was employed prior to the 8th May, 1940, and was an apprentice, a trainee or a probationary trainee. Surely I am entitled to an answer to that question !

My third question is, assuming that a man. has been granted a certificate of recognition as a recognized tradesman, is the union obliged to accept him as such? I pointed out, when dealing with clauses 35 and 41, that a local committee had power to determine whether a person shall or shall not follow one or more of the trades mentioned in the bill. If a local committee refuses to grant to that person a certificate, he had no appeal from its decision. What I seek to discover is, assuming that he does get a certificate, what obligation, if any, is imposed upon the union to accept him ? He has to apply to a local committee for a certificate, obtain a certificate, seek employment, be told that he is a non-unionist, ask the union to admit him as a member, and perhaps be met with a refusal. It- will be futile to tell me that that will not occur. I know of specific instances of such occurrences in other industries. I am not very much persuaded by the argument that a local committee will know whether saturation point has been reached in any particular industry, and consequently will not issue a certificate unless there is room for more employees. It does not follow that a man, having got the certificate, will be entitled to follow his avocation. Our protest upon this bill can be made quite plainly. We are wholly in favour of protecting the rights of the men who were employed as tradesmen prior to the dilution agreement. As I said in my second-reading speech, the purpose of the agreement was to protect those men against dilutees. The whole basis of our contention, which has not yet been met except by alleging that it has been answered, is that as the result of these definitions and the consequent provisions of the bill operating them, ex-servicemen will be excluded except under limited conditions. ‘ They must satisfy a local committee, and if its decision be adverse, they have no remedy. Those are my three questions, and I hope thai they will be answered. Honorable members must concede that I am entitled to know precisely what interpretation the Government has placed upon the definitions.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I listened in vain for some convincing argument by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) and the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) against my submission that the interpretation of the persons who will be acceptable under this scheme is infinitely broader than the agreement which was signed by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) on behalf of the government of the day. The honorable member for Fawkner endeavoured to cloud the issue by mixing the teem “ added tradesman “ with that of “ recognized tradesman “. He would have us believe that at the time the agree- ment was signed, there were classes of people other than the recognized tradesmen and the apprentices who were learning to be recognized tradesmen. Of course, there were not, and the award covering the engineering trades at that ‘time specifically precluded any unapprenticed youth or woman from doing anything which could be described as work for journeymen and apprentices. So no confusion can arise regarding the conditions existing at the time this agreement was signed.

I emphasize that the agreement did not contain any ‘provision nearly so generous as the provision in this bill. Definitely the agreement provided that in the event of the slackening of work, the whole of it should be monopolized by members of the Amalgamated Engineers Union who were recognized tradesmen and had served their apprenticeship. That meant, in effect, preference to unionists. This bill is not. a measure for the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen except in the sense that in the formulation of the legislation, there is recognition that the engineering industry is expanding, the prospects are good, and there is a likelihood of permanent employment in it. For that reason, the situation is visualized that not only recognized tradesmen, but also dilutees and added tradesmen will have permanent jobs. In addition, there will still be room for ex-servicemen who desire to enter the industry. The honorable member for Fawkner built up a man of straw with the object of knocking it down. He visualized thousands of men entering the industry. Of course, that is foolish. I challenge the honorable member to prove that thousands of servicemen had three years’ experience as apprentices in this trade. About six months after the outbreak of World War II., and from that time onward, men who had three years’ experience in the trade were not allowed to enlist. Therefore, the situation visualized by the honorable member does not exist. When early in 1940 the agreement was signed between the Government of which he was a member and the union, the necessity for the arrangement Was a clear indication’, that the manpower authorities would not allow men to drift out of an industry that .the Government was endeavouring to build up with added tradesmen and dilutees. It would have been utterly foolish for the man-power authorities and the military authorities . to permit thousands of men with three years apprenticeship in the engineering industry to drift into the forces. Six months after the time of which I- speak, in order to encourage greater production, the factories were paying a full journeyman’s wages to men who were entering their last year of apprenticeship; I make those statements in order to emphasize the almost desperate position of this industry at the time when the honorable member for Fawkner considered that thousands of men were drifting from it. The conditions about which he spoke could not possibly have existed. The honorable member for Warringah said that he stood four square by the original agreement, entered into by the Government of which he was a member. What did the honorable gentleman mean by that remark? He has not been able to controvert what I have said concerning the definition of “recognized tradesman” in this bill, which is infinitely broader than the definition in the agreement made by the Government of which he was a member.

Mr Spender:

– I shall deal .with that matter under the relevant clause. Will the honorable member answer the questions that I asked?

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I propose to do so. The honorable member asked what would happen in respect’ of a tradesman who came to Australia from’ overseas. That question is answered in paragraphs a and b of the definition of “ recognized tradesman “. The definition provides that a- - “ Recognized tradesman “ means a person who, in relation to any trade to which this Part applies -

was employed prior to the eighth day ‘ of May, One thousand nine hundred and forty as a tradesman.

Mr White:

– It does not say in Australia.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– If it said in Australia there might be something to argue about.

Mr Spender:

– I do not think that the Minister would give the same reply to my question.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson) believes in unionism before patriotism. Perhaps it is as well that I should mention here, that I have received a letter from the New Guinea Returned Soldiers Association objecting to the slur cast upon returned soldiers by the honorable member, and stating that it had .written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) requesting him to ask for an apology from the honorable gentleman for the remarks he made. It can be said of the honorable member for Bourke -

His footballing cheers,

And political jeers

Equip him for everyday work.

The honorable member for Dalley . has clearly shown that the trade unionist comes first and the ex-serviceman second. If any doubt existed on that point, it has been resolved by the text of the bill. . According to this clause, a probationary tradesman means “ an adult member of the forces whose employment as a probationary tradesman in a trade to which’ this Part applies has been authorized by a local committee “. A trainee tradesman means “ a member of the forces, not being an apprentice, whose employment as a trainee tradesman in a trade to which this Part applies, for the purpose of undergoing a course of training in ‘an industrial establishment, has been authorized by a local committee “. Therefore, an adult ex-serviceman must be either a probationary tradesman or a trainee tradesman. The persons who are to be protected are those unionists who were members of a union in 1940. Some of them may have gone overseas, but the majority remained in Australia. The essential thing is that all except those who were unionists in 1940 are in a different category; they are ticketed men. Is it necessary that a man should have a licence to work in this country after he has been on active service in its defence for from four to six years? That appears to be the ‘ position. Surely the honorable member fo*r Dalley has enunciated a policy of despair in having expressed the fear that these unions may be swamped with applications for membership. We do not want that. But at least we should be optimistic, and believe that production can be so expanded as to absorb these men. Otherwise, the unionists will have all the work preserved for them’.. Whilst some men are to be protected, - others who have had technical experience in the armed forces may he denied the right to bc described as tradesmen in the country for which they fought. That is the issue, without exaggeration. Many of these nien are skilled tradesmen. I have heard it stated that from the outbreak of the war approximately 30,000 men were given technical training in the Royal Australian Air Force, and became skilled craftsmen. The . Air Force established its own technical training schools, and staffed them with excellent instructors. I pay tribute to the unions, which assisted to provide instruction in those schools. The Melbourne No. 1 Engineering School was larger than any technical school in Australia. There, were over 100,000 men and women in the ground staffs of the Royal Australian Air Force, in a total force of approximately 180,000.

All of those 30,000 technically trained persons will be labelled probationers or trainees, notwithstanding that they can pit their skill against that of any other person. They will have to appear before a committee consisting, of two employers and two employees, with a Government representative as chairman. The members of the committees may be the fairest persons in the world. But why, in a democratic country, should not a man be permitted to obtain employment according to the degree of his skill.? All the members of the engineering unions are not highly skilled, nor have all of them passed through an apprenticeship. In the 31 classifications of tradesmen there are these -

Ground engineers, aircraft mechanic and ground engineer and aircraft mechanic, as specified in Classification No. 57 of -clause 3 (<*) of the Consolidated Award - Aircraft Industry of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; tradesman ground engineer or aircraft mechanic holding no certificate; motor cycle mechanic; motor mechanic; and motor tuner and tester.

Many such men have not served an apprenticeship. Preference is to he given to men in .the aircraft industry who worked in an aircraft factory for good wages and lived at home throughout the war. On the other hand, this legislation will operate against the man who went through a Royal Australian Air Force technical training school and fitted himself to service a Spitfire or to become a flight engineer, or who may have piloted a £100,000 bomber such as the Lancaster in operational flying. Yet, in his native land, he is to be junior in the matter of employment to another man who happened to be a member of a union in 1940, even though that man may not have worked in his trade for years. I have asked the Minister to say whether that statement of the position is wrong in any respect. This is one of the most dangerous and unfair bills that have been introduced in this Parliament. Merely because a man is a member of a union, it is likely that employment will be guaranteed to him, whereas the exserviceman is to be placed in the discard unless a committee permits him to be admitted to a trade after a period of training or an apprenticeship, no matter how skilled he may be. What will happen should there be a depression? There are portents of one in other countries, and over-control here will force one. There is a clause which provides that” a man may be dismissed for certain reasons, but inefficiency is not one of them. The ex-serviceman who has had valuable technical training will have to take the labouring jobs, and do pick-and-shovel work. I hope that the Minister will not allow that to happen, and that he will accept the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Fawkner for the inclusion of these men in the scheme. If he does that, there will be no danger of the fears that I have expressed being realized. But if he does not, we cannot accept as a promise of adjustment any statement that he may make.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

.- Clause 10 deals with definitions. These are exactly the same as the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) helped to draft when the dilution scheme was first brought into existence. The only difference between the proposal now before the committee and that for which the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) was responsible, in the evolving of which the honorable member for Fawkner played a prominent part, is that, by mutual agreement between employees and employers, other training facilities are being provided for ex-servicemen. Therefore, the very thing which the objectors, want to have done is being done. This addition was volunteered by union representatives and employers when they discussed in conference the discontinuance of the dilution scheme. The question asked repeatedly is: Who will come under the definition of “ recognized tradesman “ ? Recognized tradesman means any person who was employed as a tradesman prior to the Sth May, 1940, when the dilution scheme was first brought into existence; any person who has qualified or who qualifies by service - as an apprentice for employment as’ a tradesman; and any person who has completed his course of training as a trainee tradesman, as well as those men who broke their apprenticeship to serve in the forces overseas, ex-servicemen who are probationary tradesmen, and recognized tradesmen from Great Britain.

Mr Spender:

– Does it also include any tradesmen from Malta, the United States of America, or any other country?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I would not go that far.

– The irrelevant interjection of the honorable member for Balaclava shows that he has already lost his case. As I have said, the engineering unions will not close their books against new members. They have been parties to the scheme from the- beginning. Were it not for their cooperation, Australia could not have made such a splendid war effort. Therefore, it is in bad taste to suggest that members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which has done so much for the country, would refuse to let ex-servicemen work with them, even if they were recognized tradesmen. I have so much faith in the men associated with the union that I have not the slightest fear that they will act in the way suggested. Honorable members opposite have also suggested that unless servicemen are. accepted by the unions they will not be allowed to work. I- will not admit that that is correct.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I thank the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) for the trouble he has taken to explain points to members of the Opposition. He is. one Minister who does know his job. I should like him to explain the position regarding electricians, with reference to servicemen who qualified, perhaps after having had some prior experience, during their period of service in one of the armed forces. Such, men are thoroughly qualified, and are ready to receive certificates. What is their chance of obtaining employment? I represent an important industrial centre where many Royal Austraiian. Air Force men qualified during the war as electricians, but they are finding it difficult to obtain employment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour, and National Service · ALP

, - First, the honorable member wants to -know what will. happen in regard, to electricians who served in the forces, and then he asks why can they not get a job at their trade. It may be that “there are not enough jobs in the electrical trade for all first-class electricians. In that case some of them will have to do something else in the meantime. I remind the honorable member that electricians are qualified to come under this scheme. A man who has worked as an electrician in ‘the forces can, after a period of training, become qualified to receive a certificate. There are also State apprenticeship commissions which issue certificates to plumbers, enginedrivers and electricians qualifying them to work at those trades. When the men have fully qualified, they must still compete with others in order to get jobs. The electrician who has served in the forces will get a certificate if he goes through with the training scheme.

Mr White:

– What about the wireless air-gunner?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– He would very soon get his. certificate.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The Minister has somewhat belatedly explained two of the points raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). I do not know whether to describe his explanation as more and more about less and less, or as less and less about more and more. If the law were to lie interpreted in the court, not according to what is written in the act, but by what a Minister said during the committee stages of the bill,, it would be easier for lawyers to interpret the law. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender)’ asked whether it was intended that this clause would cover the position of ‘migrant British ex-servicemen.

Mr Holloway:

– The answer is “Yes”.

Mr McEWEN:

– I remind the committee that the Minister said earlier that it would cover migrant ex-servicemen from the United Kingdom. When, by interjection, he was questioned as to the position of other Empire ex-service personnel, he said that it would cover migrant ex-servicemen- from the British Dominions. There should be no- doubt about what is actually meant. The clause itself is silent on the point; it merely provides for the inclusion of persons who were employed as tradesmen prior tq a certain date. Only two interpretations can be placed upon the language in which it is expressed. It either applies solely to Australian citizens, or it applies without limit to any tradesman who may come to this country. If there is no limit to its application it would cover a tradesman from Sweden equally with one from the United Kingdom. The Minister’s explanation has only added to the confusion of the committee. It is not proper that the committee should be invited to translate into law words which the spokesman . of the Government either cannot or will not interpret. The Minister can find no greater justification for saying that the clause applies to British ex-service personnel who may migrate to. Australia than for saying, that it covers a migrant Maltese ex-serviceman. If it has application only to Australians at least we can understand its implications; if it is to be construed as having general application we do not know what its implications are. If it applies without restriction, the more migrants to whom this entitlement is conceded the more inevitably will be the occasions when Australian ex-servicemen .will be excluded from the- benefits of the Reestablishment arid Employment Act. It is clear that .the benefits of that legislation are to be overridden by the provisions of this measure at the discretion of a” local committee. The more people brought into this country and granted certificates of recognition the more occasions will inevitably arise when local committees will have to. decide whether, a certificated person who is not an exserviceman shall be entitled to be employed in preference to an Australian exserviceman, notwithstanding the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act. Obviously the greater the number of people covered by this provision the less justification will there be for imposing on our own Australian exservicemen, who at the moment are not entitled to certificates of recognition, the conditions contained in the provision relating to trainee or probationary tradesmen.

Mr Holloway:

– That is not likely to happen. I have already said some engineers who were formerly in the British Navy have already been admitted. That does not mean that the door will be left wide open and that preference to Australian ex-servicemen will be destroyed. The whole scheme operates for a period . of only three years, and the number of migrants who will come to this country . during that period will not be very great.

Mr McEWEN:

– Whilst the Minister’s reply is satisfying in some respects, I point out that his. words in debate are not the law. The law is embodied in the act which is passed by this Parliament. On the one hand the honorable gentleman would have us believe that the Commonwealth Government is entering into an agreement with the British Government for migration on a grand scale; on the other hand he now admits that not many. British ex-servicemen will come to Australia in the next three years.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member is. not in order in discussing immigration.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do so only insofar as immigration is intimately connected with the provisions of the clause. Immigration’ on a grand scale would automatically bring to this country very many men who would be entitled to receive certificates.

The second question raised by the honorable member for Warringah was whether the issue of a certificate of recognition carried automatic entitlement to membership of a union. We endeavoured to get the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) up to the barrier on that issue, but he shied away. We would, at least, have expected the Minister to say whether the issue of a certificate will in fact carry such an entitlement. The. honorable gentleman, however, merely replied that the books of the Amalgamated Engineering Union are already open, and he expects them to remain open. The provisions of this bill, however, extend farbeyond the sole organization referred to. by the honorable gentleman. What has he to say in respect of the other unions? The real issue is that we have before us a proposed law, under which Australian ex-servicemen may be given certificates of recognition, but their entitlement to become members of the appropriate union, and thus secure employment, is to be dependent on the union itself. The Minister says that the Amalgamated Engineering Union had a verygood record during the war, and that, therefore, we can be assured that it will do the fair thing in the admission of new members. The wheat-growers of this country also had a very good record during the war, but the question as to whether they should continue to grow wheat was not left to the determination of their organizations.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Order! The wheat industry is not involved in this bill.

Mr McEWEN:

– An ex-serviceman who desires to engage in a rural industry, the name of which I shall not mention-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not discuss rural industries on this clause.

Mr McEWEN:

– Such a man must go to a government authority in order to secure permission to engage in his chosen occupation; but an ex-serviceman who, because of his training, is entitled to. become a registered tradesman, is dependent upon the decision of a nongovernment authority, to wit, a trade union. The Minister has failed completely to give asatisfactory explanation of these two simple but important points.. I trust that we maybe able to get the honorable gentleman to face the barrier and not shy away from it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRYSON:
Bourke

.-I suggest that the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) should go back to his farm and milk his cows and yard his calves. From the outset of his remarks he showed clearly that he knows very little about unions and, as he continued his rambling talk, he displayed his complete lack of knowledge of industrial matters. The agreement which this bill proposes to honour was made, in the first instance, between the government of the day, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and the employers in the engineering trades. The Government proposes to carry out the terms of’ that agreement by this’ bill.- The provisions of the measure, . however, are a little more liberal than those contained in the original agreement. Honorable members opposite are raising .bogys, in an endeavour to cloud the real issues. Although they supported the government which was a party to the original agreement in 1940, it is clear that they are now seeking to repudiate its provisions. That is typical of their hostile attitude towards the industrial movement. Ever since I became a member of this Parlia-1 have become increasingly aware of the fact that honorable members opposite believe that anything that emanates from a union or an industrial organization must be scotched. The Opposition must come into the open instead of beating about the bush. Honorable members opposite deny that they are advocating repudiation of the agreement made between the Menzies Government and the unions affected by dilution. If they are not trying to have the agreement repudiated, they must support the bill.

Mr. Anthony. If the honorable member listened to our speeches he would know that we are not seeking to repudiate the agreement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That is not a point of order.

Mr BRYSON:

– If the honorable member for Balaclava were able to understand words, he would know that this bill goes as far as possible to help, exservicemen. Its prime purpose is to restore to the tradesmen in the engineering and other trades covered by the bill, the conditions that they had before 1940, in accordance with the promise of the Menzies Government that this would be done if the unions would accept dilutees during the war. The members of the organizations concerned in the agreement carried out their part, and it is this Government’s duty to do it’s part by putting them back in exactly the same position :as they -occupied before the agreement was signed. Further than that, the Government is providing, in plain terms, in the definitions, for exservicemen who were not tradesmen when they joined the services but gained some engineering knowledge in their service in the Army, Navy or Air Force. I recommend the honorable member for Balaclava to read clause 10. He will then see that “ probationary tradesman “ means “ an adult member of the forces whose employment as a probationary tradesman in a trade to which this part applies has been authorized by a local committee “. That bring the exservicemen, about whom the honorable member cries so plaintively, into the scheme. It gives them an opportunity of training in a skilled trade that they would hot have attained had they not joined the forces.

Mr White:

– A lot of .them are trained.

Mr BRYSON:

– Yes, in various ways. The honorable member referred to men skilled with aeroplane engines. They are covered. If. the honorable member had read the bill properly, he would know that.

Mr White:

– I appeal to the Chair to protect me from the attacks of the honor-, able member for Bourke.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr White:

– It is up to the Chair to do so.

Mr BRYSON:

Mr Ward:

– Why did not the honorable member for Fawkner raise the matter last year?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Government is’ in charge of the legislation introduced in this chamber. Amendments submitted by the Opposition do not receive consideration, and are not accepted. If one of our amendments, other than one of a trivial technical nature were accepted, it. would be an occasion for us to treat the whole chamber to a champagne supper. It just cannot happen. The bills which the Government introduces into this chamber are as unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. They have received the imprimatur of the Labour caucus, and cannot be altered. On this occasion, the onus was on Ministers to disclose, when the Re-establishment and Employment Bill was being considered, the existence of certain agreements with the trade unions. Apparently, the honorable member for Fawkner and others believed that those matters were covered. Now, Ministers say that they were not. They place on this agreement a different interpretation from what the Opposition and particularly those members who participated in the negotiations place upon it. Of course, that is not a new experience. In politics, business or private relations, an agreement reached in 1940 under one set of conditions may bear an entirely different interpretation to-day. However, the issue will have to be resolved, not in this Parliament, but by our masters.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Despite the assurance of the honorable .member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson), this bill will determine whether ex-servicemen shall have preference in employment. I have been impressed by the manner in which the Minister (Mr. Holloway) has answered certain questions, and. his attempts to clarify the purposes of this legislation. I propose to address to him a question, and from his answer, I shall know definitely whether I can support the bill. From people at Swan Hill, Mildura, Kerang and other centres in my electorate, I have received letters asking me about opportunities for men to enter certain trades. The purpose of the bill is to permit certain specified classes of individuals to obtain training in the five industries to which the measure applies. I wish to ask the Minister a direct question: Will the ex-servicemen who receive certificates of qualification as tradesmen be given absolute preference over all other persons to enter these particular trades when the industries can absorb more employees and when vacancies exist, and will they be entitled to trade-union membership? That, to my mind, is the crux of the matter.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– The answer to the question of the honorable member for Wiminera (Mr. Turnbull) in regard to preference is, “Yes”, with the single exception of the recognized tradesmen who were originally affected by the agreement.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Can the Minister give me a plain “Yes” or “No” to the question whether the ex-servicemen will be given absolute preference in the circumstances that I have outlined?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

-I have said that they will have preference, with the single exception that I have mentioned. That exception is necessary because of the terms of an agreement to which some of the honorable gentleman’s colleagues were a party when they were members of a previous government, and to which this Government also is a party.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause12 - . (1.) There shall be a Central (Engineering Trades) Committee consisting of -

) a representative of the Minister, who shall be the Chairman of theCom- mittee;
two representatives of employers; and
two representatives of employees. (2.) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Minister and shall hold officeduring the pleasure of the Minister.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- During my second-reading speech I stated that at the committee stage I would move a number of amendments to this clause. The purpose of the clause is to constitute a central committee in respect ofthe engineering trades. This committee is to be the pattern of similar committees to be appointed in respect of other trades affectedby the bill. The committees are to consist of five members, two of whom shall be representative of employers, and two of the employees, whilst the repre sentative of the Minister shall be the chairman. I desire that one representative of the employees and one representative of the employers shall be a member of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. I therefore move -

That, after sub-clause (1.), the following new sub-clause be inserted: - (1a..) One of the representatives specified in paragraph (b), and one of the representatives specified in paragraph (c), of the last preceding sub-section shall be a member of the Returned Sailors. Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia.”

I had intended originally to move that . the representatives of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia should be additional to those already provided for, but it has been suggested that the committee would be overloaded if two additional members were appointed to it. As my prime purpose is to ensure that two members shall be men who have been on war service, and I can achieve that end by- the amendment that 1 have moved, I do not propose to proceed with my earlier suggestion. There should be no difficulty whatever in the employees in engineering tradesnominating as one of their two representatives a person with war service, for, literally, tens of thousands of them were in the forces in either a trade or combatant capacity. Likewise, it should not be difficult for the employers to nominate as one of. their two representatives a person who has been on service. I stress the need for direct representation of ex-servicemen on these committees. My reading of the bill before to-day's debate and my judgement of the views that have been voiced by honorable gentlemen in the course of our discussion fortify my view that the rights of exservicemen should be protected by means of direct representation on the committees. The Minister has said that the proposals in the bill are the result of agreement between the organizations representative of employers and employees. I question whether that is a correct statement because the emplayers' organizations have brought to my notice certain provisions of the bill to which they are opposed. They object, for example, to the exclusionfromtheschemeofmembersof the services, who- had no trade experience during their war service, but had experience prior to the war. These men should be entitled to apply for certificates as probationary or trainee tradesmen. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- The central . committee has always dealt with these matters. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- In any case the OPPO:sition regards the measure as giving insufficient protection to ex-servicemen and for this reason I press very strongly for direct representation of ex-servicemen on the committees .that are to be appointed. ' Obviously the provisions of the bill must be given a generous interpretation. I said earlier that the period for qualification was too limited.. I believe that if ex-servicemen know that they will have direct representation in both the employer and employee sections they will be much more satisfied than they otherwise will be. We must consider" this subject in a realistic and humane way. It can hardly be "denied that ex-servicemen are likely to receive more consideration from former colleagues who know what the applicants who will appear before the committees have been through in their war service. Despite the earlier remarks of the Minister I hope that he will accept my amendment. {: #debate-25-s22 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth -- I support the amendment. We have travelled a. good distance from the arguments in the committee at an earlier stage on the rights of trade, unionists. This whole scheme, has been designed, according to the Minister, to protect the interests of ex-servicemen, but there is every reason, in my opinion, for granting direct representation to servicemen on the committees. I remind, the Minister that in New Zealand regional1 committees have been established to assist in placing ex-servicemen in employment and these committees give every consideration to the men who appear before them. In a sense, the committees that are to be established under the bill will act as regional committees. We should take every possible step to ensure that sympathetic consideration will be given to applicants for certificates as probationary tradesmen. The definition in this connexion reads: - " Probationary tradesman " means an adult member of the forces whose employment as a probationary tradesman in a trade to which this Part applies has been authorized by a local committee. Obviously sympathetic consideration must be given to applicants for certificates. Representatives of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, who know what servicemen have been called upon to go through in the course of five or six years of war service, will understand the problems of the situation. In 1944 a committee consisting of **.Dr. Coombs, Dr. Curtin,** Professor Mills and a representative of the Apprenticeship Council of Victoria authorized the taking of a census last year to ascertain the wishes of servicemen in regard to post-war occupations! I do not know how many servicemen were invited to submit answers to the questions, or how many indicated a preference for the engineering trade, or other trades specified in this bill; but it is obvious that many men will apply for certificates from these local committees as probationary tradesmen. It must be manifest to all honorable members from our discussions that no preference whatever is being afforded to ex-servicemen in this measure. The theme of the bill is "preference to unionists ", and it will be necessary to take the greatest care in administering the measure in order to avoid discord and dislocation in industry. I ask the Minister, when considering the matter, to . bear in mind that committees appointed under other rehabilitation and repatriation legislation have on them representatives of ex-servicemen. The Minister has said that this is a rehabilitation measure. If it will affect- the lives and callings of ex-servicemen, surely they should have representatives on the committees that are appointed under it! It is pertinent to point out that the committees that will determine the registration of recognized tradesmen and will issue certificates, must have' on them representatives of the unions and the employers. Therefore, another section of workers that is to be affected also should be represented on them. The interjection of the Minister that still other sections are. likely to be. aflfected, begs the question. I concede his point. Doubtless, he has sought to convey the impression, that those sections, too,, might seek to have the right to be represented on the committees. I point out to him,, however, that exservicemen are in a special category. Many of them have served their country for five or six years* Therefore, they are entitled to consideration additional to that given to any other section of the community. I have much pleasure in supporting the. amendment. {: #debate-25-s23 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- Most of the men .who will be dealt with by the committees, are ex-servicemen, and will be in the categories of probationer and trainee tradesmen. The acknowledged tradesmen were members of the unions prior to 1940, irrespective of whether or not they were skilled, because at one time the unions accepted almost anybody for membership. Therefore, the ' committees will have a very important duty to discharge, and will .be empowered to determine the future security and happiness of the men concerned. It would be extremely unfair if ex-servicemen were, not represented on them. . I referred earlier to the high standard of the training that was given in the Royal Australian Air Force technical training schools. It has been urged constantly that ex-servicemen should be represented on the committees by nominees of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. I should like their representative to be men with the qualifications of the Director of Technical Training in the Royal Australian Air Force. He, of course, is not available. The advertisements that are published daily, inviting enlistment in the interim air force, give the whole gamut of musterings in the Royal Australian Air Force. I object to the statement of the ' Minister that men who passed through the Royal Australian Air Force technical training schools received only a smattering of engineering knowledge, and consequently cannot be described as tradesmen.- The young nien who were trained as air crew under the Empire Air Training Scheme commanded squadrons overseas, and. took great risks which no unionist who stayed at home had to take. That applies also to flight engineers, and! to other men in the various, musterings associated with maintenance; they qualified to such high efficiency in some two years, whereas apprenticeship for trade is for five, years. All of these tradesmen are to be ticketed as probationers and trainees, and although they are of such types that they can absorb knowledge- quickly, they are to be placed secondary to nien who- remained on the home front. I am sure that the Minister #for Air **(Mr. Drakeford),** will agree that the standard of technical training given in the Royal Australian Air Force technical training schools was very high. The question that we have to consider is, whether ex-servicemen should have representatives on the committees. I definitely affirm that they should. I do not intend to accept the Minister's promise that the matter will, be investigated. When earlier legislation was being considered, he made a promise that he did not keep! I have made this extract from the debate that occurred at the time - >I inform the honorable member for Wentwortb **(Mr. Harrison)** that I am not arguing Hie merits of the amendment. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- Will the Minister postpone the clause? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- No. I want the committee to complete its consideration of the bill, but I promise to submit the measure to Cabinet when it meets next Tuesday. {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr Ryan: -- Cannot Cabinet meet to-night? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- No;, some Ministers are occupied in the Senate. I shall present this proposal to Cabinet with the same degree of sympathy as the honorable member for Wentworth has shown. He is aware that the bill will not be implemented for some time! {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron: -- Then why should we hasten to pass it? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- I have given my word and I ask honorable members to accept it. Some honorable members have paid tribute to the Minister's technique. I agree that he has a persuasive manner, and the soft answer which " turneth away wrath ". I wish that I could emulate him. On the other hand, it is rather an oleagenous form of appeasement, which we cannot accept. Unless the statute . contains the provision that we desire, any promise , by the Minister will be useless. The amendment referred to in the debate from which I have quoted was that exservicemen should not have the amount of their pension deducted from 'any unemployment relief to which- -they became' entitled. Although the Minister promised a year ago to secure that concession for them, it has not yet been given. The. honorable gentleman knows that the deduction is still made when exservicemen are without employment. Yet men in any other walk of life who receive payments from a friendly society or any other source do not have the amount deducted from their unemployment relief. Therefore, we must make the position secure by having the' provision incorporated in the bill. The Minister can do that very simply. The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** has referred to the speed with which legislation is passed through this chamber. The ministerial caucus stamp is placed on a bill, and we are told that' there is to be no amendment of it. This legislation is important to the welfare- of a large number of men. Approximately 40,000 members of the Royal Australian Air Force were technicians. {: .speaker-JSW} ##### Mr Bryson: -- A large number of them are members of the engineering unions to-day. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Perhaps they are. But a large number of them will not be admitted to those unions. They are ' labelled probationers and trainees. {: .speaker-JSW} ##### Mr Bryson: -- When they become proficient in their trades, they will be recognized tradesmen. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member for Fawkner has moved for the representation of ex-servicemen on the committees. To deny that measure of justice is to exhibit bias against the exservicemen. I urge the Minister to place that provision in the bill. {: #debate-25-s24 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton .- This is one of the most important clauses, of the bill. I support the amendment that was so ably proposed by the honorable member for Fawkner1 **(Mr. Holt),** whose proposition is a simple one which should appeal to the Minister **(Mr.** Holloway) if he really desires to help the ex-servicemen and give them confidence in . this legislation. There are to be two representatives of each of the employers and employees on the central engineering trades committee - a Commonwealth body - and the local engineering trades committee-a State body. The proposal is that one of those representatives in. each instance shall be the nomineeof the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and: Airmen's Imperial League of AustraliaHonorable members opposite do not seemto display towards ex-servicemen that goodwill which might reasonably be expected of them. The honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Bryson)** has accusedOpposition members of a- lack of goodwill in respect of trade unionists. Provision for those men is made by the hill, which deals with two classes - the trade unionists who, prior to May, 1940, were members of the unions, arid those who are now about to come into the industry *as* ex-servicemen. I ask the Minister to provide that both of those classes of men shall have representation ' on the committees. He has stated that the bill pro- vides that first preference shall be given to members of the trade union movement, and that the second preference is to be given to those men who, after examination by 'the two committees that are to be constituted, are considered to be eligible to' receive certificates entitling them to be regarded as recognized tradesmen. The amendment is most reasonable, and I cannot understand why the Minister should hesitate to accept it. If representatives of ex-servicemen were on the committees, they could deal with the problem of men who left the engineering industry to enlist, and were attached to combatant units in which they fought for their country. Such men will not be entitled to receive any consideration under this legislation, whereas those men who, in the forces, followed -the trades they had left, will be recognized tradesmen under it. The Minister, has made that statement several times -to-night. **Mr.- Holloway.** - Do not be so foolish. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- These men devoted five or six years of their lives to the service of their country. The question is, whether trade unionists are to receive all the consideration, or whether some consideration shall be given to exservicemen. If the Minister will accede- to our request, he will facilitate the passage of the bill and will take a step towards giving to ex-servicemen some confidence in it. {: #debate-25-s25 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP -- Opposition members complain that the Government refuses to accept amendments to this and -all other measures. What they want is, not the amendment of the bill, but its entire rejection. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** adduced a most peculiar argument in support of his contention that we should not persist with this legislation. He said, in effect, that it was quite true that the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt),** as Minister for Labour and National Service in the Menzies Government, had made an agreement with the engineering unions, and had given certain promises to them. He then went on to argue that, because other promises were made, subsequently, on account of changed circumstances, the only promise that one was obliged to keep was the last. That is consistent with the policy of the Liberal party, and T hope that the people will bear it in mind at the forthcoming general elections. The Liberal party believes that it can break "promises whenever it is convenient and advantageous to do so. ' The view of the Government is. that, this agreement having been entered into by an antiLabour administration with the trade union movement, it should be honoured. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD Corser: -- It was made during a time of war. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I do not admit that that makes any difference. With me, and with the other members of the Labour party, a promise is a promise, and should bc kept, whether it is made in war or in peace. The Labour Government, by proceeding with a programme of national works, is providing not only for ex-servicemen, but also for all others who need work, and are able to do iti Honorable members opposite are attempting to make political capital out of their alleged solicitude for ex-servicemen. Servicemen from this and the last war received greater benefits from Labour governments than from other governments. What would be the advantage to servicemen if this amendment were accepted? Already, there are representatives of servicemen on the various committees, so that there is no need for the amendment. The honorable mem ber for Balaclava would have us believe that he has now become a champion of trade unionism. Evidently even he recognizes that there are advantages in being a member of a . trade union, because he wants to force the unions to accept, certain members irrespective of the opinion of the union. At one time, he was not so considerate of trade unionists, nor did he regard it as an advantage for men to be members of a union. He wai not always anxious that trade union conditions should be observed. I understand 1 that he .was associated with a lock-making firm- {: #debate-25-s26 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member to discuss the amendment. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- That is what I am doing. I am seeking to show that the amendment has not been put forward for the reasons stated. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Is the honorable member in order in making a personal attack upon me under pretence of discussing the amendment? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- There is no point of order. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I wish to show the inconsistency of honorable members opposite. Whatever they may say now, it was obvious from what they said during the second-reading debate, that they are trying to destroy the measure altogether. The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** spoke of the right of people to work, but when did he ever want to give people the right to work? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must discuss the amendment, which deals with the constitution of the central committee. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- It is the central committee which considers the absorption of men into specified industries. Members of the Opposition say that the amendment will assist in the absorption of men, but I am trying to show that .the amendment, if it is. accepted, will in no way affect the volume of employment offering. Do honorable members opposite press for the inclusion of a. clause that employers should be compelled to employ all men offing and able to work? That is the only way in which ex-servicemen and others can be assured of the right to work. As a matter of fact, the. workers in this country have never had that right. The engineering unions are entitled to ask for the full observance of the promises given to them at a time when this country was in great need of skilled men. I believe that there will be ample employment for recognized tradesmen, and also for all those who have acquired skill in trades while serving with the forces and in defence industries. I believe that the expanding industry of the nation will be .capable of absorbing them all. Members of the Opposition, by their stone-walling tactics, are trying to hold up this bill, and to destroy it. They are not anxious to assist ex-servicemen, but only to assist their own political cause, which stands in much 'need of assistance. {: #debate-25-s27 .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond -- The Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward)** shows that he is bankrupt of ideas when he has to distort statements made by honorable members in reference' to another clause. He referred to1 a statement which I allegedly made, but I repudiate his charges against me, and the matter can be determined by reference to *Ilansard.* The honorable member said that I had advocated the repudiation of the agreement with engineering unions because circumstances have changed since 1940. That is false, in that it is a distortion of what I said. If the Minister had followed the debate throughout instead of walking into the chamber and catching the- last few words, he would have known that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Holloway)** ki defending the Government's action, had claimed, that not only was the original agreement being honoured, but' also that its scope had been extended to cover certain persons not mentioned in the agreement. Circumstances had altered since 1940, and there was now every justification {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- On a point of order: What relation have the remarks of the honorable member to the amendment? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is replying to statements made by the Minister. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- The Minister has distorted what I said, and now is trying to throttle attempts to make the truth known. There has not been the slightest suggestion that the agreement should be departed from, but we advocate that it should, be widened to include certain classes of ex-servicemen. As a matter of fact, it has already been widened in many respects. 1 support the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt)** that at least two ex-servicemen should be . members of the central committee. This committee ' is the' only body to which servicemen can look for assistance. As for their admission to a union;- that is complete *'y* in the . hands of the union. The central committee cannot dictate to a union what it shall do after the trainee has completed his course. We have tried to ensure that once a trainee has become qualified he shall be admitted to an appropriate union, but we have been unsuccessful in this. Only by appointing an ex-serviceman to the central committee can the general body of ex-servicemen be assured that their interests will be protected. Several measures, including the Rehabilitation and Employment Act, have been passed by the Parliament, and they profess to give a measure of preference to ex-servicemen and women, but those provisions have not been put into force. The clause provides that there shall be on the central committee a representative of the Government who shall be chairman. Thus, the Labour party for the moment is to have the selection of the person who will have a deciding voice on the committee. I cannot see why the Government should object to one df the other representatives on the board being an ex-serviceman. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- The Government has nonobjection. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- But it is not stipulated in the bill. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- We cannot, interfere with the rights of people to elect their own representatives. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -More than 750,000 persons enlisted in the services during the war out of a population of a little over' 7,000,000. Therefore, on the law of averages, we ought to get one or two servicemen on the committee. However, servicemen will be at a disadvantage in obtaining nomination because they have- not yet had time to establish themselves in their trades, or to come to the front in those organizations from which representatives will be selected. Therefore, during the first, few years that this legislation will operate the persons chosen are "not likely to include a big proportion of ex-servicemen. Moreover, as the Minister has said that this legislation may not be needed after three years, it would appear that ex-servicemen will receive little .consideration under it. {: #debate-25-s28 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat .- The amendment, if agreed to, -would make a farce of the bill. Listening to honorable members opposite, one would, think that the Australian people1 are entirely unconscious of the services rendered by the men of the' fighting services in the two wars in which Australia has been engaged since 1914. That is not so. Exservicemen would prefer to be treated as ordinary citizens, and be appointed to positions because of their competence and ; experience to fill them, rather than because they have fought for their country. They wish to take their place with other citizens on an equal footing. It must be remembered that most of them have relatives who will look after their interests. The Opposition is endeavouring to make political capital out of the fact that this measure does not contain any specific provision for the representation of exservicemen, as such, on the' committees to be appointed, but they made no such protest when other measures which may affect ex-servicemen either directly or indirectly were under consideration; "Was there any demand by the Opposition that ex-servicemen, as such, should have special representation on the board to control the wheat industry ? No protest was made by the Opposition against the absence from that measure of any specific provision relating to ex-servicemen, notwithstanding that many thousands of men who were with the fighting services are associated with the wheat industry. Honorable members realized that -the wheat-growers themselves could be trusted to look after the interests of the exservicemen among them. The same may be said concerning the board to control the meat industry ; there was no outcry by the Opposition that returned soldiers were . not given special representa tion. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** said that the Government and its supports paid lipservice to the policy of preference to returned soldiers, but I remind him that actions speak louder than words. When the parties now in opposition were in power, enlisted men in the fighting ser: vices were paid 5s. a day, an allowance of 2s. 6d. a duy was made for a wife, and a. " lousy " 9d. a day was allowed for each dependent child. When a Labour government caine into office it increased the pay of men on service to 6s. 6d. a day with 2s. a day deferred pay, with 4s. 6d. a. day for a wife and a similar amount for each dependent child. Among honorable members opposite there is too much lip-service, hypocrisy and humbug on this subject. {: .speaker-K2A} ##### Mr Rankin: -- I rise to order. The honorable member for Ballarat has made the stupid statement- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! There is no point of order.. Has the honorable . member for Ballarat concluded his. speech ? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The honorable member for Bendigo said that I had made a stupid statement. Knowing his ability to judge stupidity, I do not take objection to his statement. On the contrary, I regard it as a compliment. {: #debate-25-s29 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP -- I support the amendment. This afternoon I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service ' **(Mr. ' Holloway)** whether absolute preference would be given to an ex-serviceman to enter a trade c for which he had qualified when that trade was able to absorb more men. The Minister did not give an affirmative answer to my question, 'and, therefore, it is necessary that the organization which represents ex-servicemen should be entitled to nominate a representative to sit on this committee. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Pollard)** has referred to other authorities concerning which no protest was made by the Opposition that ex-servicemen were not being" given special consideration. As the Minister, for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Scully)** is inviting certain organizations to nominate representatives to certain boards, surely the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia should have a right to make nominations to the proposed committees. The Minister for Transport **(Mr. Ward)** referred to many promises that have been made; hut he did not tell us about the promises made to the men -who went overseas. Those who remained in Australia in comfortable well-paid jobs, do not understand the reason for preference. The honorable member for Ballarat praised the present Government because it increased the pay of the private soldier by ls. a day. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member to deal with the clause. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP -- I was replying to the honorable member for Ballarat who did not tell'us that the extra ls. a day was paid to every soldier, including generals. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must deal with the clause. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP -- The honorable member for Ballarat also said that exservicemen wish to Be treated as normal members of the community. I agree, but after six years of war, some of which were probably spent in a prison camp, men require rehabilitation. The Minister for Transport does not understand such things. The Government believes in preference to unionists, but ex-servicemen have stronger claims on the community. At the forthcoming elections the people will show that they believe that ex-servicemen should be given preference. {: #debate-25-s30 .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby .- I was employed in industry at the time of the dilution scheme. The agreement reached with the unions was that recognized tradesmen would have the first right to employment. The present Government is determined that ex-servicemen shall be properly rehabilitated and shall have preference. The honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt)** has moved an amendment that returned soldiers should have the right to nominate a member-'- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- That is not my amendment. Nomination is left in the hands of certain organizations. {: .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr SHEEHY: -- In view of the honorable member's interjection, I withdraw what I said regarding his amendment. The schedules show the trades affected; by this bill. 'It would be more democraticto allow the members of the unions concerned to elect their own representatives. The Government has been charged with, being unsympathetic to ex-servicemen,., but I - remind the committee that **Sir Gilbert** Dyett, who for many years wasthe federal president of the Returned. Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, said that this is themost sympathetic government with which, ex-servicemen have ever had to deal. On the. 7th May last, **Mr. Eric** Millhouse, whosucceeded **Sir Gilbert** Dyett, as federalpresident of the league, said that 'theGovernment was doing a grand job in. rehabilitating the men of the fighting: services. _ , {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- **Mr. Millhouse** favours theamendment. {: .speaker-KRI} ##### Mr SHEEHY: -- The men in the industries concerned should have the right to say who shall be their representatives. We shall obtain greater satisfaction if, we leave the decision to them. {: #debate-25-s31 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP -- These committees are small expert bodies, each consisting of two representatives of the employers and the employees and a government nominee. Separate committees have been established for each of the. five trades. I am hopeful that the committees which- functioned during the operation of the dilution scheme will continue to function without change of personnel. The members of those committeesprofited by their long experience of theindustries in. which they have been' interested. The Government cannot dictate to organizations of employers and' employees what representatives they should elect to the committees. The amendment seeks to place a representativeof an ex-servicemen's organization on each of the committees. It is quitewithin the bounds of 'possibility that all of the five members of each of the committees may be ex-servicemen. It 'ismost likely that the Government nomineeswill be ex-servicemen. Every officer' dealing with rehabilitation is, as far as I am aware, an ex-serviceman, and at least two of the chairmen of the existing committees are returned soldiers-.. {: #debate-25-s32 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- The' -explanation offered by the Minister **(Mr. Holloway)** is fair and reasonable, and -should appeal to ex-servicemen in this chamber. Honorable members opposite have displayed a certain amount of insincerity in connexion with this matter, ft is interesting to find out how they themselves have given expression to the principle of preference to ex-servicemen, -about which they have said so much during this long and tortuous debate. The biblical quotation, " Oh, that mine -adversary had written a book ! ", may be aptly paraphrased to read, " Oh, that mine adversary might be recorded in *Hansard !''.* On the question of how the principle of preference is applied by "honorable members opposite it may be pertinent tq read a passage which appears in *Hansard* of the 8th May, 1930. In a statement relating to the question of preference to returned soldiers, made by leave of the House, the then ' honorable member for Ballarat, **Mr. McGrath,** said, *inter aim - '* t wish also to refer to something that con- earns the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr.' White)- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! I ask "the honorable member to connect his remarks with1 the clause or the amendment. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- My remarks are relevant to the amendment which deals with preference to ex-servicemen. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The question of preference is not involved either in the -amendment or the clause. The amendment seeks to provide for appointment to each of the committees one representative of an ex-servicemen's organization. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: **- Mr. McGrath** con- tinued - >Early last year, C. J. White and Sons, hardware merchants, of Post Office-place, Melbourne, advertised for a bookkeeper. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- I rise to order. I ask whether an attack which was made upon me by a member of this House, and which was. successfully answered by me in 1930, has any relation to the clause .or to the amendment? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- No point of order is involved. The Chair will hear what the honorable member for Parkes has to say, but I warn him that he must connect his remarks with the clause or with the amendment. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The passage whichI am quoting has relation to the credibility of an honorable member opposite. For many hours now we have discussed the question of appointments- to the committees, and, in particular, preference to ex-servicemen in such appointments. I contend that I should be allowed to continue. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The question of preference is not involved. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The *Hansard* report continues - >The applications were- narrowed down to two, one a returned soldier and the other a non-soldier . . . The returned soldier applicant for the position possessed the .following qualifications:- A.F.I.A.; A.C.A.A."; F.C.I. : ho also had practical experience of the trade . . . The non-returned mau apparently had similar qualifications; he was doing, or had done,, the commerce course at the uni versity. He was. engaged by the firm -at £5 10s, a week. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- I ask leave to make a persona] explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is not entitled to make a personal explanation while ' another honorable member is on his feet. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- We have only to go back over the history of the past to see how insincere some honorable members opposite are. *Sitting suspended from 11.58 p.m. to 12.25 a.m. (Thursday).* *Thursday, 8 August 1946* {: #debate-25-s33 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava -- It is a pity that matters of the kind raised by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** should be introduced in this debate. I am, perhaps, slightly surprised that he has delved so deeply in order to carry out the dirty work of other people; but when we know the standard of his journalism and the apology he had to make for an article in the *Standard* one could conceive of hie doing anything. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- The remark of the honorable member is offensive to me and I ask that he withdraw it. He referred to an apology I have nevermade, and never will make. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -I withdraw; but I think that the honorable member should withdrawall that he has said about me. He referred to an incident in 1930 when the motion to discuss the action of theScullin Government in withdrawing preference to returned soldiers was under consideration. This was the answer to a question, which I received from the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin),** who was Prime Minister at that time- >In view of the distress because of the widespread unemployment the question of distribution of labour has given the Government serious - {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I rise to order. The statement being made by the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** has no connexion with the question before the Chair. {: #debate-25-s34 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** referred to an incident in which the honorable member for Balaclava was concerned and I understand that the honorable member for Balaclava is replying to those statements. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The following apology was made by. the *Standard,* of which the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** was the editor - >The *Standard* tenders to Consolidated Press Limited, the publishers of the *Daily* and *Sunday Telegraph* and the *Australian Women's Weekly,* an unqualified apology for unfounded statements regarding that company which featured on the front page of the *Standard* in its issues of November 25 and December 9. 1943. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- The honorable member has already apologized for a lying statement which he has made.I want an unqualified withdrawal of it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Parkes says that the statement made by the honorable member for Balaclava is personally offensive to him. I ask the honorable member to withdraw the statement. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I was reading a newspaper paragraph. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- That quotation is personally offensive to the honorable member for Parkes, and I ask the honorable member for Balaclava to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -I withdraw ; andI want the honorable member to apologize for the despicableattack he made upon me, and to which I am replying. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member to proceed with his speech. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member for Parkes quoted from *Hansard* report of a debate in this House in 1930 relating to the action of the Scullin Government in withdrawing preference to returned soldiers. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The government of the day put up- {: .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr Burke: -- I rise to order. The honorable member for Balaclava is making a statement about an alleged incident in which he himself was concerned. I submit that whilst he would be in order in replying to the remarks of the honorable member for Parkes he is not in order in recapitulating the whole of that debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Balaclava is entitled to reply to the statements made concerning him by the honorable member for Parkes; but he is not entitled to introduce extraneous matter. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member for Parkes quoted from a *Hansard* report remarks to the. effect that a firm . with which I was associated sixteen years ago had not given preference to returned soldiers; and I was about to say that those remarks were made by the late **Mr. McGrath,** the then member for Ballarat, who attacked me and other members of the Opposition at that time in an endeavour to put a smear on me. I have always given preference in employment to returned soldiers. Unlike the honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Bryson),** who said that he was too young to go to World War I., and too old to go to World War II., I served in the forces for ten years inthe last two wars, and of that period I spent seven years on active service overseas. {: .speaker-JSW} ##### Mr Bryson: -- I rise to order. I submit thatthe honorable member for Balaclava is not in order in introducing into this discussion remarks which he attributes to me. Personally, I shall be happy to discuss the matter with him at the proper time. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Balaclava is entitled to reply to any statement made by the honorable member for Parkes, but he is not entitled to introduce extraneous matter. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- In reply to the honorable member for Parkes I shall read what I said in the debate to which he refers. I take the following from *Hansard,* of the 8th May, 1930, page 1573- >The honorable member for Ballarat has drawn attention to the fact that I gave employment on one occasion to a man who was not a soldier. It is perfectly true that I did so, and I shall now give the facts of that case. The policy of the firm of which I am managing director has alwaysbeen to give a direct preference to returned soldiers. Sixteen or eighteen men who are in the employ of my firm at present are returned soldiers and there is not one who was eligible to serve who is not also a soldier. I practise the principle of preference to returned soldiers not only in connexion with my firm, but in connexion with all my family and domestic arrangements. I always trade with diggers, even though it might be for the smallest domestic requirement. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The honorablemember's firm ought to have paid award rates of wages. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- We paid wages above the award rates. I ask that the Minister for Transport withdraw that statement. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- As the remark is offensive to the honorable member for Balaclava, I ask the Minister to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: **Mr.. Ward** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- There was a choice between an ex-serviceman, who had a good job, and another man who wore a badge of unfitness, and was out of work. I gave the job to the latter, at a wage above the award rate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member has gone far enough in his reply to the allegations of the honorable member for Parkes. He must now confine his remarks to the clause under consideration. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I do not desire to speak further to the clause. The people know what transpires in this Parliament in preventing debate. I am sure that they will soon sweep the present Government from office, and replace it with a clean decent and democratic administration. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr. Holt's)** be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. W. J. F. AYES: 21 NOES: 35 Majority . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 13 to 40 agreed to. Clause 41 - (1.) If a Local Committee is satisfied, upon application by any person, that that person {: #debate-25-s35 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Fawkner .I intend to move an amendment to the clause, but, before doing so, I should like to outline the effect that it would have if accepted. The clause contains one of the key provisions of Part VII. - Incorporated Provisions. It applies to all the different committees that are proposed to be set- up. it contains the requirement that an applicant for training must have acquired his trade experience during his service in the forces. I dealt with the matter at some length in my secondreading speech, but I wish briefly to repeat my criticism of the clause as it stands. In 'the first place, it automatically excludes the right to participate in the trainee tradesmen scheme all the men whose experience was gained before the war - assuming that they were neither apprentices nor full fledged tradesmen - if, in the course- of the war, they were members, of a fighting unit and could not continue in their trades. My second comment is that, far from this bill widening the right's available to members of the forces with some trade- experience, it restricts the right that they previously had, if they had trade experience during the war but not necessarily in the forces, because if makes it obligatory on them to have obtained that experience in the forces. I move1 - >That, in sub-clause (1.), paragraph (6), the words ' ", during the period of the war, acquired, by reason of his service in the forces " be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word ''"' acquired ". The effect of the amendment would be. that if a member of the forces had trade experience, whether or not it was gained as a member of the forces, he would be' eligible for training. The honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. Sheehy)'** quoted what was said by the federal president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, **Mr. Millhouse.** Therefore I bring ' to the notice of the committee a copy of a communication sent by him, in his official capacity, to the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Holloway),** because, in the course of that letter, he gives a few instances of men who will be adversely affected if this bill becomes law in its present form. The first case he cites is that of a man who enlisted on 4th July, 1942, at eighteen years of age. He was discharged on 25th May. 1946. Before enlisting he worked at Messrs. Eglinton and Company, engineers, Kent Town, as a general shop machinist. He was there for one year: Before that he worked for Ward Bagshaw Limited and Simpson and Sons Limited. He made application for training on the 25th May, 1946,' and was told that if he found an employer, he could be trained in the occupation that he had on his enlistment. He could not find an employer, and changed his application to cover the trade of a motor mechanic. He was again told to find an employer, but he could not find one. Then he changed his application to coVer fitting and turning, and the Kerry Engineering Company Limited accepted him, but his .application was rejected by the local committee on the 11th July, as he had had no trade experience in the forces. As he enlisted in an infantry battalion, he had no chance of gaining experience. He is receiving a 20 per cent, pension for a war disability. The next case is that of a man who enlisted on the 2nd February, 1942, at eighteen years of age and was discharged on the 14th June, 1946. Before enlistment, he was an electrical improver with Battery and Electrical Service Limited. Before that he was for two years an electrical improver at the Croker Electrical Company, 39 Franklin-street, Adelaide. He was a driver in a battery for the most of the time he was on service. He was told that he would not be accepted for training owing to the central committee's ruling, which is similar to the proposal in the bill. He had two and a half years of experience in the electrical trade, but cannot be accepted, except as a labourer, but, under the National Security Regulations, he would have been accepted. The third case that I wish to place before the committee concerns 'a. man who enlisted on the 17th December, 1942, at the age of eighteen years and was discharged on the 11th June, 1946. This lad, who is <a former employee of the Municipal Tramways Trust, Adelaide, desired to resume duty with the trust. He was employed by the trust as an apprentice fitter and. turner on the 5th January, 1942. It is the practice of the trust to employ such lads for at least three months before the indentures are signed. He, however, notified his intention to join the Royal Australian Navy, with the result1 that his. indentures were not signed ; but the Navy did not call on his services until the 7th December, 1942. Meanwhile, he attended the school of apprentices for three terms, and obtained a pass. The apprenticeships authority, because he has not been indentured, cannot place him in the scheme whereby apprentices are assisted by the Repatriation Department, but it suggests that he might be taken on as a trainee fitter and turner by the trust, gaining his certificate in due course and being assisted by the Repatriation Department. The general manager has approved his 'joining the staff of the trust in those circumstances. His case was placed before the authorities. This lad, through no fault of his own, was inadvertently unindentured {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- He is entitled to apprenticeship under the Reestablishment and Employment Act. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- I am glad of that, but there are many other similar cases. The cases that I have cited are those of people in Adelaide. I daresay they could be multiplied in the other capital cities. They are disqualified because war service interrupted their trade experience. But for that service they could have become added tradesmen or qualified as trainee tradesmen under this scheme. It is intolerable that the Government should exclude them because they went on active service .in combatant units. I do not believe that any government could hold its position in this Parliament, if the people knew what was being done. Now that the position ha3 been placed before him and the committee, I ask the Minister to accept, the amendment which is reasonable. It does not seek to prejudice recognized tradesmen, but it does seek to bring within the ambit of the trainee tradesmen scheme men whose trade experience was interrupted by war service, but for which they would have been eligible to come within the scheme. Under the regulations which the Government originally promulgated to deal with this problem, they would have been admitted. 1 have been informed officially that if this provision in the bill had operated from the outset, 50 per cent, of the persons who have already been accepted as trainee tradesmen would have been excluded. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- Under what regulations would they have been admitted? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- The National Security (Engineering. Trades) Regulations. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- Those .regulations were based on the agreement made by the previous Government. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- The regulations were promulgated by this Government, but the bill imposes the restriction that I have mentioned. I urge the Minister to . accept the amendment. {: #debate-25-s36 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth -- The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Holloway)** must know that it was not until the beginning of this year that an award was made whereby .a .lad could be apprenticed to metal-spinning. Therefore, within the metal trade itself, we have the anomaly that for a number of years improvers, recognized by the - union, have been trained in metal-spinning. All those men will not be entitled, under the definitions clause to be regarded as " rer cognized tradesmen ", .and their, interests must be safeguarded. Their number includes men who are not ex-servicemen. {: #debate-25-s37 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP -- The particular class of worker to whom the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Harrison)** referred is not included in the engineering, boilermaking, blacksmithing, electrical and sheet metal trades, to which the bill applies. Those men have never worked in a diluted trade. However, that does not mean that they do not have rights under the Re-establishment and Employment Act. The instances cited by the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt)** as the reason why the amendment should be accepted, have been grossly exaggerated. I agree that some borderline cases will occur. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Of those already accepted for training, 50 per cent. would have been excluded had the restriction imposed by this bill been operating. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- The men who are accepted for training have had some experience in the services in these particular trades. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Not necessarily in the services. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -I am sure that the Government has not departed from the pro,per interpretation. Take the case of a young man, aged eighteen years who prior to serving in the infantry, had been employed for a year in a machine shop, but had not been apprenticed. It is . claimed that he should be covered by the provisions of this bill. The answer to that submission is that the young man could not have become a tradesman in the ordinary course. He would have become an adult process worker. He was not indentured. When he desires to return to the industry, the committee will examine his qualifications. If it decides that he is 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. efficient, it may send him to finish his training. Otherwise, he will be entitled to re-establishment as a process worker; but he is not entitled to come into the dilution scheme. We have now discussed this matter thoroughly for two or three hours, but I see no reason to alter my original decision. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- The bill does not follow the regulations. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- The employers, the employees and the chairman agree to this interpretation. I cannot accept the amendment. Question put - >That the amendment, **(Mr.** Holt's) be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr. W. J. F. Riordan.) AYES: 21 NOES: 35 Majority . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: #debate-25-s38 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Fawkner .There is another amendment that I intend to submit. I regret that honorable members opposite should be inconvenienced by my persistence; but the committee has the responsibility of studying the provisions of this measure. If my amendment be accepted, the period of eligibility conferred by the bill will be extended. Some honorable members may not have analysed the bill closely. If they do so, they will be as astonished as I was to find that the period of eligibility of those who are to receive the benefits which the Minister has said the bill wll confer, will terminate six months after the date of discharge of the member of the services, or after the 22nd March, 1946, whichever is the later. In other words, the period of eligibility of the great majority of the members who have been discharged from the services has already expired. Only a very small proportion of those who are eligible, according to the limited operation that is given to. their right under this legislation, have as yet applied, or would have known of their right, 'to apply in time to make application within the prescribed period. {: #debate-25-s39 .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI:
ALP -- If the honorable member considers that the bill has no merit, why does he want any of its provisions to be extended? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- Some benefit will be conferred by the bill, even though it be to a very limited group of persons. I am determined to put the Government to the test of showing whether it genuinely desires to give an opportunity to those persons to come under the scheme. If it dees, it will not fix a period of eligibility which, in respect of most of the men, has already expired, but will fix a period that has some relation to the circumstances in which those men are placed. One justification for the- period 'that I shall propose is that the Government, in connexion with the general ' reconstruction training scheme under the Re-establishment and Employment Act, has extended the period of eligibility. If it be sound, and fair to make that provision in respect of . the general reconstruction training scheme, it must be fair also in respect of this scheme. Honorable members opposite who profess to have some regard for the1 rights of ex-servicemen can prove their bona fides on this issue. If they are genuine, they will not support a proposal which would automatically place beyond the allotted time many of the persons whom the- bill purports to benefit. I therefore move - >That, in sub-clause (4.) the words "six months after the date of discharge of the member of the Forces or after the twentysecond day of March, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six (being the date of commencement of the National Security (Trades Dilution) Regulations (No. 2) ", be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - "twelve months after the date of discharge of the member of the Forces or after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven ". {: #debate-25-s40 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP -- The committee that has been handling the dilution scheme throughout has not apprehended .any danger from or difficulty in respect of the provision made by the bill. In the words of its members, they are anxious that exservicemen shall inform, as quickly as possible, the committees which will assess the value of their claims, in order that the exact picture may be discernible. Every man will have six months from the date of his discharge in which to make application. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- What about those who were discharged more than six months ago ? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- Some of them have been undergoing training. They are back in their old trades, or at whatever they were doing before the war, or they are going through their training course, and are half way to becoming tradesmen. That is the interpretation I have received from the committee. Of course, the committee may extend the time in exceptional circumstances. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- What are those circumstances ? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- If a man has been sick, or if for some other good reason he has failed to apply, the time may be extended. I do not want to accept the amendment because I do not think there is any need for it, but I should not like to think that any one will be deprived of an opportunity to receive training simply because, by mischance or oversight, he has failed to apply in time. I shall confer with my colleagues to see whether the time prescribed ought to be extendedbefore the bill goes to the Senate. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- A man who was discharged six months, and failed to apply, would now be excluded. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -No, it means six months from the22nd March last, or six months from to-day if the man were discharged to-day. {: #debate-25-s41 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Fawkner .I agree that there is some ambiguity in the clause as drawn. It reads " within six months after discharge from the forces, or after the 22nd March ". It is not clear whether it means six months after the 22nd March. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- It means the date of the beginning of the scheme. It could not be put further back than that. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- Does the Minister interpret the clause to mean six months after discharge or six months after the 22nd March ? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- Six months from the 22nd March or six months from the date of discharge. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- The Minister has promised to discuss the matter with members of the committee, and to direct that, in special circumstances, the time provided may be extended. On the strength of that assurance I shall not press the amendment to a division. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. . Clause 42 agreed to. Clause 43 (Employment of tradesmen). {: #debate-25-s42 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936 .I wish to ask the Minister why, under this clause, which gives employers the right to dismiss an employee for malingering, neglect of duties or misconduct, it does not provide that he may be dismissed for inefficiency. It was stated earlier that the purpose of the hill was to restore pre-war conditions, and it is my understanding that employers previously had the right to dismiss an employee on the ground of inefficiency. The dilutees agreement did not deprive the employer of any right which he might have under any existing award, determination or agreement. Why, then, has this ground of dismissal been omitted? {: #debate-25-s43 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne. PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP . -In the first place, this is not a dilutee's scheme, it is something different. Provisions which appear in the old scheme do not automatically appear here. I think the real reason for the ommission of this provision is that the. scheme applies to trainees undergoing short periods of training. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- It refers to recognized tradesmen. Clause agreed to. Clause 44 agreed to. Clause 45. (Certain proceeding under Re-establishment and Employment Act). {: #debate-25-s44 .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER:
Warringah -- I dealt with this matter in my second-reading speech. In substance, the clause withdraws from the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act all those employed in the various trades set out in the schedule to this bill. The clause provides. (1.) A person shall not be entitled tomake an application to a court of summary jurisdiction under section twenty-eight of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1045 in respect of a failure to engage him in employment in a trade to which this Part applies unless the matter has first been considered by a Local Committee.. (2.) In any prosecutionof an employer for a contravention of section forty-three of this Act, and in any proceedings against an employer under section twenty-eight of the *Reestablishment and Employment Act* 1945, it shall be a defence for the employer to prove that the act or omission with which he is charged or which is called in question was directed, approved or consented to by a Local Committee duly or, on review or appeal, by the Central Committee or a court, and that the decision of the Local Committee or Central Committee, as the case may be, does not stand reversed as the result of review or appeal. The result is to exclude the persons specified from the operation ofsection 27 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act which provides that an employer shall,in the engagement of any person, engage one entitled to preference, unless he has reasonable grounds for not doing so. Section 28 provides that a person whom an employer has refused to engage may make application to a court of summary jurisdiction, which may order that he be given preference. Clause 45 of the bill says that the persons previously entitled to preference under the Reestablishment and Employment Act shall no longer enjoy thatright unless they go before a local committee. Such a committee is not bound to observe the provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act, and if the committee says that the applicant is not entitled to the rights he claims, that is the end of the matter. Thus, the result is a foregone conclusion. This clause contains a fundamental principle. We solemnly passed the Re-establishment and Employment Act to give preference to ex-servicemen in all employment. By this clause we are taking their rights from them. {: #debate-25-s45 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP -- I shall not dispute legal matters with the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Spender),** but my advice is that the purpose of this clause is to avoid an ex-serviceman wasting his money, and giving himself unnecessary trouble,by going to a court without first endeavouring to have his grievance settled by a local committee. The clause does not prevent him from having his case heard by a court eventually. We want to make it easy for an ex-soldier to get his grievance rectified, and we think that in most cases that can be done best by having him approach the local committee in the first instance. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -- If the committee says that he is not entitled to preference, that is the end of the matter. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -I do not think so. He can still go to the central committee, or the court. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -- A right once givento a man should not be taken from him in this way. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- There is no conflict with existing legislation. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr. W. J. F. Riordan. ) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority . . . 15 . AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 46 to 52 agreed to. Schedules agreed to. Preamble and Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3941 {:#debate-26} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate: - Without requests - Income Tax Bill 1946. Social Services Contribution Bill1946. Without amendment - Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1946. Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill 1940. Widows' Pensions Bill 1940. Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Bill 194G. Nationality Bill (No. 2) 1940. Aliens Deportation Bill 1946. Parliamentary Papers Bill 194G. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1946. {: .page-start } page 3942 {:#debate-27} ### WOOL INDUSTRY FUND BILL 1946 {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 23rd July *(vide* page 2869), on motion by **Mr. Chifley** - >That -the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin -- I regret that I have to discuss this bill at this unreasonable hour, but I suppose the " show " must go on. This is a small bill, the -provisions of which are printed on one sheet of paper, but like many other small things it is of considerable importance. The bill provides for the application of certain moneys which had accumulated in the hands of the Central Wool Committee during the war in respect of activities outside the provisions of the wool purchase agreement with the United Kingdom Government. The total has been estimated by the Government to be £7,000,000, but from advices I have received, it appears-that it is more likely to be £8,000,000. The bill proposes to dispose of moneys which rightly belong to the wool-growers of Australia, but of which the Government has now' taken control. The moneys are now to be placed to a trust fund which no doubt will be used on some future occasion to bolster subscriptions to a government loan so that once again the proud announcement may be made that a loan has been over subscribed. The Central Wool Committee has now been replaced by the Australian Wool Realization Commission. The bill has no. relation to the wool purchase agreement by which the United Kingdom Government agreed to purchase the great bulk of the Australian wool clip for the period of the war and one year thereafter. However, I propose to refer briefly to that agreement because of certain provisions in it which are relevant to the discussion of the measure now before us. Although the price fixed under that agreement represented a considerable ad vance: on- the pre-war price it was nevertheless a little below the payable price *as.* determined by a committee which investigated the industry in the 1930's. The principal credit for the conclusion of the agreement with the United Kingdom belongs to the Prime Minister of the day, now the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies),** who made personal representations to the Prime Minister of Great Britain with a view to obtaining a price which would put the industry on a payable basis. Later the price was increased to 15£d. per lb. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- By this Government. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON: -- That is so. This Government took advantage of the provision in the agreement that the price should be reviewed' from time to time in the light of increased costs of production. Costs in all industries have risen since the present Government took office, and they are still rising. The price of 15 1/2d per lb., however,, was only the average price received for Australian wool sold to the British Government under an almost identical agreement during World War I. That the Australian wool industry has been able to continue on a basis of 30 years ago, speaks volumes for the enterprise and initiative of the Australian wool-growers. Provision was also made in the agreement whereby Australia would share in any profits derived from the sale of wool to foreign countries. I direct attention to that because it was one of the factors that made the agreement acceptable to the Australian wool-growers who1 recollected what happened after World War I. They had every reason to expect that on the termination of World War II. they would receive a substantial dividend from the sale of wool to foreign countries. That dividend, however, was not earned during the war largely because of the collapse of France, the overrunning of. Europe by Germany and, later, the entry of Japan into the war. These events prevented the marketing of Australian wool abroad, with the result that we accumulated a huge stock pile, which we are now in the process of liquidating. Part and parcel of the agreement relevant to the price of wool was this undertaking given in the first instance by the Minister for Commerce in the Menzies Government and renewed by the late Prime Minister, **Mr. Curtin,** that Australia would, receive a share of the profits of all wool sold to foreign countries. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Visible profits.. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON: -- That is so. The wool-grower looked forward to a profitable return from such sales to compensate him for what he had put into the wool pool during the war. At the conclusion of hostilities there was a profit of £20,000,000 of which the Australian share was £10,000,000 ; but the Australian share was invested in the purchase of portion of the huge stock pile of wool not sold when the war ended, which is estimated to be worth £100,000,000, and so became merged in the new scheme. The woolgrowers, therefore, will not receive a penny from the sale of wool to foreign countries, at least until the present scheme ends. The sum of£8,000,000 came into the hands of the Central "Wool Committee mainly in three ways; first, by a difference in skin values between the" table of limits " average and the flat rate adjustment price. The flat rate adjustment was really the average price at which the United Kingdom bought the season's clip, namely, approximately 15½d. per lb. Running below and above that average was the " table of limits ", which defined prices for different qualities of wool, and was designed to bring up sales of a season's clip as near as possible to the flat rate price. The "table of limits" was framed on a conservative basis; and its average never approached the flat rate price. Consequently, there was a gap between the " table of limits " average and the flat rate price, which' was bridged by supplementary payments to growers. Those payments which are made in July ranged from 16 per cent. to 13 per cent. per lb. This year, the flat rate adjustment represented an increase of the wool cheque of 13 per cent., on last year's cheque. If this. £8,000,000 were distributed to the growers they would receive a little more than the flat rate adjustment they have received this year. Now I come to the sum of £2,400,000, which comes into the hands of the Central Wool Committee from the sale of skin wools. How does that money come into the commit tee's hands? The flat rate adjustment and " table of limits " average call for examination under this item because not flat rate adjustment was to be paid on skin wools. Consequently, the fellmonger knows that when he bought skins all he could expect was the value of that wool according to the " table of limits ". The Treasurer made this clear in his second-reading speech when he said - >When the wool purchase arrangement was commenced in 1939 it was announced by the then Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** that wool derived from skeepskins would not participate in any adjustment over and above the appraised price, which was to he the final and only price paid for such wool. The fellmonger knew that the only value he would receive for the wool on skins was according to the "table of limits"; but this arrangement had the significant effect that the woolmonger, being paid only on the " table of limits ", valued the wool on that basis. The fellmonger necessarily offered a lower price than if there had been a flat rate adjustment. {: #subdebate-27-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I remind the honorable member that the bill deals with the distribution of the moneys to which he refers, and not with their origin. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON: -- As the Treasurer, in his second-reading speech, dealt with the origin of these moneys, I submit that I am in order in dealing with the same matter. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Treasurer may have referred incidentally to those matters; but the bill deals with the disposition of certain sums of money. The honorable member is entitled to make passing reference to the origin of those moneys ; but the essence of the bill is the disposition of them, that is, the application of the fund as provided by clause 6. {: .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -I rise to order. Although clause 6 deals with the application of the fund, is it not important, for the purpose of determining whether the bill should be passed, and in order to determine, in particular, the application of the moneys standing to the credit of the fund, to know how those moneys came into being, and in whose interests, accordingly, they should be disbursed? Assuming that a large pro- ' portion of the moneys, in equity, belonged to the wool-growers, is it not permissible for an honorable member, in discussing the application of the fund, to show why he believes it should not he applied as proposed in clause 6, but in another way? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have already indicated that the bill deals with the investment and application of the fund. We must assume that the fund has been created ; and the bill deals with its application. I have already said that the honorable member may refer in passing tot the origin of the fund. I point out that the honorable member has already exhausted nearly half his time in dealing with the origin of the fund. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON: -- The Treasurer, in his second-reading speech, gave the amounts involved in this bill as follows : - This money has all come from the woolgrowers of Australia. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- That is not a fact. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON: -- It has certainly come from the flock-owners. Was the Central Wool Committee acting as a trading agent for the Government or as a realizing body for the wool-growers? If" the Government was trading in wool which was not subject to the agreement with the United Kingdom Government,' it is entitled to keep the money, but the wool-growers desire admittance of that fact. If the Government was not trading in wool, the Central Wool Committee was a realizing body. The Menzies - and Fadden Governments did not set up. a trading agency in wool, but the Central Wool Committee was' utilized as a realizing body. The Government will not hand th'is money over to the growers; but it accepts the principle that the money does not belong- to it. It states that it was not trading in wool, but it will not take the money into Consolidated Revenue. It proposes to place it in a fund and use it in the way it thinks best. The Government claims to be better, able than the wool-growers to determine what should be done with it. Stock-owners suffering from the effects of drought, who require money to restock their holdings, will take a poor view of the Government's claim that it knows better than they do what should be done with their money. The Government will use portion of this money for wool research purposes, and is supplementing the existing provision of £300,000 a year. I doubt whether the money available could be wisely expended, because there is a worldwide shortage of technicians for research regarding the problems of the wool industry. The proposed expenditure on research will be supplementary to that being incurred by private manufacturers. What is meant by the granting of temporary relief to the industry? If wool prices fell some relief could be given, according to the Treasurer, in respect of the contributory charge under the wool disposals plan. Most of the growers admit that that charge is .abnormally high. The Australian Wool Realization Commission has a habit of granting to its staff much larger salaries than those paid in the past. This new body seems to be indulging in a good deal of extravagance. The Wool Industry Fund is being built up so that the contributory charge may be reduced when the price of wool falls. Provision is therefore being made for that contingency. In his second -reading speech the Treasurer remarked - >The bill .also contains a provision that some part of the moneys referred to may be applied in meeting wholly or partly any ultimate loss the Commonwealth may incur undethe wool disposals plan. When the wool agreement with Great Britain was under . consideration in this chamber I dealt with the matter on- behalf of the Opposition, but I heard no suggestion that the wool-growers should bear any lo.?s that might occur as a result of the ramifications of the scheme. At that time I thought the Government was at least acting courteously in carrying out the agreement, but nothing was said about any money to which the growers could lay claim being used to offset any loss arising from the wool disposals plan. From whatever aspect we may view the matter, the money has come from the wool-growers. The fellmongers have no claim to it at all. They bid only at a low price for skins on the sheep's backs. The tops and noils were exported and the. money . went into the fund. If any one has the right to it, it is the wool-growers, because the top makers get their due profit in the combing. In fact, they were assured of it before they started combing. So they are satisfied. The only people who will lose are the wool-growers. The money should be repaid to them. If the Government does not pay it to them, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party, if returned at the general elections, will ensure they shall get it, because it is their due. {: #subdebate-27-0-s2 .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT:
New England .- 1 support the remarks of the honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Hutchinson)** about the distribution of the accumulated fund of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 in the hands of the Central Wool Committee in respect of activities outside the provisions of the Wool Purchase Agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. I also direct attention to the amount of £700,000, stolen from the wool-growers of Australia, which is in addition to the fund with which this bill is concerned. That money was stolen from, them because of the failure of the Commonwealth Government to get from the Australian woollen manufacturers the money due from them on the sale of wool to Australian manufacturers. In opening his second-reading speech the Prime Minister and Treasurer **(Mr. Chifley)** said - >The purpose of the hill is to provide for the application of certain moneys which had accumulated in the hands of the Central Wool Committee during the war in respect of activities outside the provisions of the wool purchase agreement with the United Kingdom Government. A strong body of opinion exists, among the wool-growers themselves and their organizations, the Australian Wool Growers Council and the Australian Wool Producers Federation, that the growers are entitled to the profits on the sales which the Prime Minister claims were made outside the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. However, that seems doubtfuland, consequently that money should be distributed in accordance with the arrangement proposed for the distribution of the profits from the sale to the" United- Kingdom of r,4-* wool that was subsequently sold outside the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom surrenders its share of the profits, those profits should go to the Australian wool-growers. We believe that they are the property of the woolgrowers and are held in trust for them by the Commonwealth 'Government. Under the agreement between the United Kingdom .and the Commonwealth Government, which' was made in 1939 and to which the right honorable gentleman drew particular attention in his secondreading speech, the United Kingdom acquired the Australian wool clips for the duration of the war and twelve months afterwards and 50 per cent, of the' profits on the sale of wool outside the United Kingdom was to he . paid to the Commonwealth Government to be held in trust for the Australian woolgrowers. The trusteeship was proved by the undertaking given on the 17th December, 1942, by the then Prime. Minister, the late **Mr. Curtin,** that the profits would be distributed to the growers. That promise has been renewed. It was also provided under the agreement that Australian woollen manufacturers should have the right to select, after appraisement, certain wools to meet their own requirements. They got those wools on the basis of a certain percentage loading to bring the price paid up to the flat rate paid by the Government of the United Kingdom. The Wool Purchase (War-time) Agreement, which really consisted of a series of letters and cables exchanged between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom, but it has been summarized by the Commonwealth Government in the document that the Prime Minister promised the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Menzies)** to produce. It. provided that Australian manufacturers should, pay; for their wool a loading on the appraised price of *1* per cent, in 1940-41; 15 per cent, in 1941-42; and 10 per cent, in 1942-43. In 1943-44 and 1944-45, the price paid by the Australian manufacturers was fixed by .the Prices Commissioner. Under that arrangement, the prices paid by the Australian manufacturers to the Central Wool Committee should have been equal to the flat rate paid by the United Kingdom to the Commonwealth Government and passed on to the Australian wool-growers. For years there has been a deficiency of £700,000 in the account in respect of the prices paid by the Australian manufacturers, but no mention in. the bill or the secondreading speech of the Prime Minister is made of its distribution along with the amount of between , £7,000,000 and £S,000,000 referred to in this legislation. That money is due to the Australian woolgrowers. One would have thought that, whatever the Government's views' might be about the accumulated fund of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, sheer honesty would have compelled it to ensure the payment to them of the £700,000 that should have been paid to them, apart altogether from the other money, in respect of sales made to the Australian manufacturers. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr Lemmon: -- Should that money not be placed in the same fund as that in which the money that is the subject of this bill has been placed? {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- No, because it was due from the Australian manufacturers to the Australian wool-growers, but it has never been paid to them. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- The Australian woolgrowers collected their money in full. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- They did not. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- They did. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- The records of the Central Wool Committee prove the contrary. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- There was an adjustment between the Central Wool Committee and the Prices Commissioner. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- But the wool-growers were paid in full. :Mr. ABBOTT.- The Prices Commissioner fixed the price of wool sold to the Australian manufacturers and the woolgrowers, are still owed £700,000. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- They were paid in full. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- They -were not. I was a member of the Central Wool Committee. After I left the price paid by' the Australian manufacturers was the appraised price plus a loading to bring the price up to the flat rate paid by the United Kingdom. An amount of £700,000 is outstanding as the Minister will realize if he examines the reports of- the Central Wool Committee. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Scully)** and his accomplice, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman),** can shriek and make whatever statements they like, but they will not convince me or the wool-growers that £700,000 has not been filched from them. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- It has not been. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- I know that, compared with the colossal amounts that have been filched from other primary industries, an amount of £700,000, in the eyes of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, is a bagatelle, but it represents a lot of money to the wool-growers. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! I ask the honorable member for New England to deal with the disposal of the fund referred to in this bill. ' {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- Yes, I am coming to that. I am following the lines followed by the Prime Minister, who, on page 2868 of *Hansard,* is reported as having said - >The Central Wool Committee, in addition to handling the wool purchase arrangement for the 'United Kingdom Government, has carried out other activities which have resulted in certain moneys being collected on behalf of the. Commonwealth Government. These moneys have mainly arisen from the following sources: - Only one payment was to be made to fellmongers for skin wools. I recollect that when I was a member of the Central Wool Committee in 1939 the regulations governing skin wools were so drawn as to prevent the possibility of a repetition of what happened between 1916 and 1920, when, the skin wool funds were the subject of litigation that lasted for years. I quote from the "Memorandum *re* profits earned by the Central Wool Committee 1916-1920 ". It states- > *Ite* PROFIT ON SHEEPSKINS ACCOUNT. The report states that - " there are no profitsharing conditions in regard to sheepskins acquired on account of the Imperial Government, but the Central Wool Committee Administration Account for sheepskins, for the various seasons shows the following credit balances through savings effected .in the. appraisement, handling storage and other charges from packers' warehouses to f.o.b. Australian ports: - After completion of audit for the season I!) 19-20 the total profits will be transferred to the wool pool for distribution to woolgrowers." That excellent precedent should have been followed in this instance. Unfortunately, it was not. The wool-growers will receive no additional payment for skin- wools. When the purchasers bought the sheep, they allowed for the skins only the appraised value. If, later, an additional payment had been made for the skins and if the fellmongers had known that they would receive the extra payment, they would have allowed for a higher skin value in the price that they paidfor the sheep. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! I ask the honorable member to deal with the disposition of the fund. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- I am referring to the speech of the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member may not take advantage of that. T have read the references in the Prime Minister's speech to how the- money was raised and whence it .came. That does not entitle the honorable member t to debate whether the money should have come from that source. The bill deals with the handing over of the fund to the Treasurer and the means by which he may apply it. The honorable member may not explore whether the fund should be created. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- The Prime Minister said that these funds had accumulated during the war in respect of activities outside the provisions of the wool purchase agreement with the United King: dom Government. Having dealt with skin-wools, I shall now refer to wool tops, noils and waste exported from Australia, the proceeds from which amounted to £2,700,000. The Prime Minister said- >Although this involved exports, the United Kingdom Government intimated that any moneys derived from these operations were for the account of the Commonwealth Government. Later, referring to the deferred price on wool content of manufactured goods exported from Australia, the proceeds from, which amounted to £1,550,000, the Prime Minister was very careful to repeat the same phrase - >Although this transaction related to exports, the United Kingdom Government stated that " it was agreeable to the whole of this deferred payment being retained by the Commonwealth Government. Those statements prove conclusively that these sums of money in payment for. our wools were not outside the arranger ment made with the United Kingdom Government for the purchase of Australian wool clips. If they had been outside the arrangement, the Prime Minister would not have drawn specific attention ;to the fact that the Commonwealth Government had consulted with the British Government, which was willing to forgo its 50 per cent, of, the- profits from the sales of those wools outside the United Kingdom. Those funds should have been disbursed in accordance with the undertaking given by the late Prime Minister, . **Mr. Curtin,** on the 17th September, 1942, when he stated that the 50 per cent, of the funds due to the Commonwealth from, the sale of wool clips to the United Kingdom would be disbursed to woolgrowers. The particular funds tq .which I have referred were obtained under that scheme, and should be paid to the growers. The producer representatives on the Central Wool Committee in 1939-40 did not doubt that these profits would be included in the total scheme. The late **Mr. A.** F. Bell, the first chairman of the committee, assured us wool-growers that the whole of those profits would become distributable under the scheme to the wool-growers of Australia. At present, when a disastrous drought is causing devastation in the greatest woolgrowing areas of Australia, I cannot understand the Government attempting *io* withhold from the wool-growers this large sum of money. If it were disbursed, the large wool-growers would not derive substantial benefit -from it because the Government would recover most of it from them in taxation. But the small wool-grower, who is desperately fighting the drought, would benefit from the paymerit. A 'few days ago, I was informed of a man in the electorate of Gwydir who expended 18s. a head for feed for some 1,500 ewes, but all of them died. The magnitude of the disaster which is now overwhelming the wool-growing areas of Australia is almost incalculable. The Government should distribute these profits as the growers believed they would be disbursed and in accordance with the strict letter of the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, in his speech, revealed that these moneys were derived under the arrangement for the sale of wool clips to Great Britain. No difficulties would arise in distributing this amount through the broker organizations which- have handled the whole of these appraised clips during the war. A percentage could, be given to the woolgrowers on the basis of the total proceeds for their wool received during the operation of the scheme. The bill provides that - >The moneys standing to the credit of the Fund may be applied in any manner approved by the. Treasurer, after consultation with the Ministers, for purposes associated with the W001 industry and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may be applied for any of the following purposes:; - >jq J ' ... . I consider that the wool-growers themselves should have been consulted regarding the expenditure of the funds. However estimable Ministers may be, they are largely " birds of passage " who change from year to year, and do » not know as intimately as the growers how the interests of the industry generally may best be served. The bill does not provide for the representatives of the wool-growers to advise Ministers on this matter. The Prime Minister, in his second-reading speech, said, in response to a request, that wool-growers will have an opportunity to make representations to Ministers through the Wool Consultative Council. I point out that the woolgrowing organizations have not a representative on the Wool Consultative Council. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- They have four representatives, two of whom are members of the board on which the honorable member sits; and recently, during consultations with the council of the Graziers Association, the agreement was reached that another two members 'should be appointed to the Wool 'Consultative Council. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- But they have not yet been appointed. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- There are on the Wool Consultative Council two members of the Australian Wool Board, of which the honorable gentleman is a member. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- That board has no voice in the disbursement of this money. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- Of course it has. The board has acted as an adviser to the Government in this matter. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr ABBOTT: -- One of the functions of the Australian Wool Board is the promotion of the use of wool throughout the world. In this bill, the consideration . is what the wool-growers believe should be done with the surplus proceeds from the sales of their wool. The honorable member for Deakin has pointed out that it will be impossible to use thi? vast amount in scientific, economic and cost research in connexion with the production and use of wool. The Government has undertaken to provide £300,000 a year for those purposes. The enabling act has been in operation for more than twelve months, and I should imagine- that a very small proportion of the funds provided has been expended. There" is ''no point in accumulating those funds for purposes to which they cannot be devoted. The Government is not in a position to proceed with an extensive 'building programme for research in- connexion with wool. It may be able to do so if it causes more of our citizens to live in caves and gunyahs, and out in the Open. The bottleneck in connexion with " the provision of all things' necessary for, or incidental to, the carrying out of such research" is that research scientists are not available to-day, and some years must elapse before there will be sufficient numbers. Nor can equipment or buildings "be procured. Therefore, what is the use of providing £300,000 yearly, which, within tthree or four years, will aggregate more than £1,000,000, and "taking" £7,000,000 of the accumulated profits of the wool-growers, which they urgently need? The bill also provides for "regulating or assisting the marketing, or stabilizing the price, of wool by the purchase of wool, or by other means ". When the Wool Realization Act was passed in 1945, those were functions of that legislation, and there was no provision that extra money would he taken from the wool-growers for such purposes. The Government gave that assurance at the time. That scheme was complete in itself. The amount of the carry-over wools was written down by £20,000,000, of which £10,000,000 was to be borne by the Australian Government and the .balance by the United Kingdom Government. Any profits were to be distributed among the wool-growers, and any losses were to be borne by the Governments of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. Yet it is how proposed that £7,000,000 belonging to the wool-growers shall be placed in a' fund to dp what the act of 1945 was intended by this Parliament to accomplish. Other purposes to which this money is to be applied are - >The provision of temporary relief for the wool industry in such circumstances and under such conditions as the Treasurer, after consultation with the Ministers, thinks just; and in meeting, in whole or in part, any ultimate loss to which the Commonwealth may be subjected by reason of its participation in the disposals plan set forth in the schedule to the Wool Realization Act 194S. That act prescribes that any losses shall be borne by the Commonwealth Govern^ ment, not by the Australian woolgrowers*Therefore, the Government is acting most dishonestly in taking this money from the" wool-growers, particularly as they need it so desperately to repair the damage caused by the drought that has afflicted Australia. **Mr.** RYAN (Flinders) [2.32 a.m.f!- - The purpose of the bill is to make a certain disposition of funds which to-day, according to the Government, are in the possession of the Australian Wool Realization Commission. The amount in question, in the view of the wool-growers and members of the Opposition, is large -between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000. It represents the surplus on the sales effected under the war-time wool purchase scheme. At the beginning of the war, the wool-growers were informed that one-half of any profits from the sales of wool exported to foreign countries would be paid to them when the operations were completed. They also believed that moneys accruing from any other source would be equally, their property. These funds have accrued in this way: £2,400,000 from the sales of skins; £2,700,000 from the sales of tops; and £1,550,000, representing deferred prices in respect of certain exports. There can be no doubt that the Government has a moral responsibility towards the woolgrowers in respect of this money. I am sure that it must admit that responsibility, because in all these wool transactions it has acted not as a principal, but as the agent of the- growers. Therefore, any surpluses that have accrued to it by reason of the operations that were carried out during the war and up to the present time should be handed to the real owners, namely, the wool-growers Who produced the wool. I am unable to understand the argument advanced by the Prime Minister in his second-reading speech, and by other speakers, that the Government should with-hold this money from the growers and devote it to a number of purposes. The woolgrowers, who believe that they are entitled to this money, are anxious'1 as to how the Government proposes to 'd'ispose of it. They fear that it will be disposed of unfairly. A large proportion of Australian wool is produced by small growers, who have suffered much as the result of events arising out of the war. Some of them have been engaged in mixed farming, either with the help of their families only, or with the help of hired , men. In any case, they suffered severely as the result of the call-up of men for military service. They also suffered because of the increase of the cost of production. Everything connected with primary production has increased in cost far above the official index figure. There has been a shortage of superphosphate, resulting in reduced production and increased costs. In recent years, there have been severe droughts, which have further reduced the profits of wool-growers. Therefore, it is only just that the Government should do everything possible to increase the price of wool, instead of taking from the growers money which is their due, and using it f or its own purposes. The a mount involved is between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, and it is proposed that it should be devoted to research into the production and use of wool, the provision of those things necessary for research, and the promotion by publicity and other means of the use of wool throughout the world. It is also proposed to spend some of the money on the regulation of markets find the stabilization of prices. It is impossible for the Government to make use of any large proportion of the money for the purposes set out. Already, large amounts are standing to the credit of organizations engaged in promoting research into the production and use of wool. Therefore, it is not necessary that the Government should use the money under discussion. It belongs to the woolgrowers, from whom it came and to whom it should be returned. I add my protest to those of the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Abbott)** and the honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Hutchinson).** The bill should be withdrawn and the money returned "to the growers. {: #subdebate-27-0-s3 .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP . -Reference was made by the honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Hutchinson)** and the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Abbott)** to the divisionof profits under the wool realization scheme. With the concurrence and authority of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley),** I propose to make a statement on the subject. The war-time wool, purchase arrangement, under which the United Kingdom Government acquired ' Australian wool clips during the seasons 1939 to 1945, provided that should the sale by the United Kingdom of acquired raw wool for use outside the United Kingdom produce a profit over the whole period of the arrangement, such profit would be divided equally between the two Governments. It was an essential feature of the arrangement that profits, if any, could only be determined at the winding up of the whole scheme. In 1942, the then Prime Minister, **Mr. Curtin,** in answer to a question in Parliament, gave an undertaking that the Commonwealth share of any such profits would be distributed to wool-growers in proportion to their contribution of woolto the scheme during its operation. The war-time arrangement was merged into the wool disposals plan, which is set out in the schedule to the Wool Realization Act. of 1945, and which forms the pattern for an orderly marketing of the huge wool stock-pile concurrently with current clips. The disposals plan, in turn, provides that, should a profit or a loss ultimately arise from the operations of the Joint Organization in Australian wool, it will be shared or borne equally between the Commonwealth and United Kingdom Governments. I now desire to make it quite clear that the Government intends that any ultimate profit which might accrue to the Commonwealth under the disposals plan shall be distributed to those growers who supplied wool for appraisement under the war-time arrangement, inthe proportion that the appraised value of their wool bore to the total appraised value of all wool over the operation of the war-time scheme. In this manner, the Government considers that the undertaking given in 1942 will be honoured and the equity of each woolgrower who supplied wool under the wartime arrangement will be safeguarded. However, the possibility of an ultimate loss under the disposals plan must be faced, and in the event of such a result there will, of course^ be no distribution to growers. I .should explain that the credit balance of approximately £20,000,000 which had accrued in the divisible profits account at the date of the merging of the war-time arrangement into the. disposals plan .must not be regarded as an indication that ultimate _ profits would have resulted from the sale by the United Kingdom of all acquired wool.' The wool sold for use outside the United Kingdom was of much higher quality than that which remained unsold, and heavy losses were inevitable on the remaining stocks. The stock-pile remaining to be disposed of cost approximately £100,000,000. The credit balance of £20,000,000 in the hands of the United Kingdom Government was utilized to write down the cost of this stock' to approximately £80,000,000, and the Australian Government, under the wool disposals plan, has purchased half of this stock for £40,000,000. This writing down has the same practical effect on the ultimate profit or loss as though the wartime arrangement had been continued until the whole stock-pile had' been disposed of. The stock-pile must be disposed of by the Joint Organization in conjunction with any portion of new clips that it may be necessary for the organization to " buy-in " in order to protect prices. Tt will be the net result of the ultimate sales of wools in both these categories t at will be shared between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments, whether it be a profit or a loss. Therefore, any distribution to growers would only be made from ultimate net profits arising out of the disposals plan, and in the assessment of any such profit a set-off must be made of any losses that may result from the resale of stocks taken in by the Australian "Wool Realization Commission operating under the plan. In all the circumstances, the Government believes that the late Prime Minister's promise of 1942 will be given effect in a reasonable _ and practical manner by the scheme just outlined, whereby any net profit that may accrue to the Government at the end of the disposals plan will be distributed *pro rata* to those growers who supplied wool under the war-time arrangement from 1939 to 1945. {: #subdebate-27-0-s4 .speaker-F4T} ##### Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs .- I am sure, **Mr.** Acting Deputy Speaker, that if **Mr. Speaker** had been in th'e Chair he, being conversant with the trend of the debate, and remembering the attitude that he adopted towards the honorable member for Deakin , **(Mr. Hutchinson),** would not have permitted the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Scully)** to read a sentence of the statement that he has just presented to the House. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the bill now before us. The measure is one to provide for the appli- cation of certain funds. In order to understand the Government's attitude towards the disposal of this money it is necessary to have some knowledge of the factors which brought about the accumulation of moneys in the fund. The Treasurer **(Mr. Chifley)** said that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the application of certain moneys which had accumulated in the hands of the Central Wool Committee during the war in respect of activities outside the provisions of the wool purchase arrangement with the United Kingdom Government. He said that the subject was dealt with at some length in a statement in this House by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** on the 11th April last. The Minister, after explaining how the moneys had accumulated, announced that the Government had decided they would not be taken, into Consolidated , Revenue and would not be distributed to individual growers, fellmongers, top ' makers and manufacturers concerned. They would, however, be used for thebenefit of the wool industry, particularly fo'r research and promotion of the use of wool. It is necessary to know something of the source of the £7,000,000 in the fund. The Central Wool Committee, in addition to handling the wool purchase arrangement for the United Kingdom "Government, has carried out other activities which have resulted in certain moneys being collected on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. These moneys have mainly arisen from the following sources : - These are provisional figures and. other transactions will probably bring the net accumulation to over £7,000,000. The Treasurer went on to explain how the profits arose. In regard to skin wools he said that when the wool purchase arrangement was commenced in1939, it was announced by thethen Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** that wool derived from sheepskins would not participate in any adjustment over and above the appraised price which was to be the final and only price paid for such wool. This was necessary in order to enable the fellmonger, when purchasing woolled sheepskins, to fix afirm price for the wool content of such sheepskins. This was confirmed each season to all concerned by the Central Wool Committee. That referred to the fellmonger. As the result of activities in connexion with wool £2,400,000 profit has been made. That sum represents the difference between the appraised price paid to fellmongers and the purchase price received from the United Kingdom Government, and covers the transactions of six seasons. On the subject, of wool-tops, &c., exported from Australia, the Treasurer explained that the control of the export of wool-tops, noils and waste was vested in the Central Wool Committee under National Security Regulations. The overseas market in wool-tops to be supplied from Australia increased mainly because of the inability of the United Kingdom to supply India during the war. Top-makers were paid the cost of raw wool plus other charges and profit, and the excess price obtained from overseas buyers was collected by the Central Wool Committee. There were certain profits from the export of manufactured goods. Although these trans actions related to exports, the United Kingdom Government said that it was agreeable to the whole of this deferred payment being reclaimed by the Commonwealth Government, which, as I have said, wasthe constructive trustee for the. owners of the wool. Honorable members know that it is the duty of a trustee to account for his trust. The £20,000,000 to which the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Scully)** referred resulted from the acquisition of wool. It is wrong for him to say that the present Prime Minister is carrying out an undertaking entered into by his predecessor. The £7,000,000 was a windfall, and it belongs to the wool-growers of Australia. During question time recently I asked the Minister about the disposal of the £7,000,000 and to-day I received from him the following letter : - >During question time on Thursday, you asked me without notice whether the accumulated funds, which had accrued from the activities of the Central Wool Committee in skin wools, wool-tops and noils, and the export of manufactured woollen goods, had been appropriated to a trust account within the meaning of section62a of the Audit Act. You also sought information as to whether the balance in such a trust fund had been used by the Government for general purposes. > >I desire to advise you that these moneys have not been used for governmental purposes nor have they yet been appropriated to a trust account. > >Clause 4 of the Wool Industry Fund Bill now before Parliament provides for the establishment of a trust account within the meaning of Section62a of the Audit Act, and for the appropriation from Consolidated Revenue of the moneys in question. When this bill is approved and becomes operative, the necessary action will be taken to give effect to the provisions which it contains. I should like to know where the amount of £7,000,000 is to be found. The Treasurer stated that the money has not been expended, nor has it been included in the ordinary funds which constitute the moneys required for the ordinary purposes of government. On the other hand, he stated that it has not yet been placed to the trust fund. Obviously, the money has been received by the Government, and expended in the ordinary way. The aim of this bill is to establish a trust fund which will lead people to believe that the money is actually in existence and availablefor the purposes set out in the bill. Clause 5 provides that moneys standing to the credit pf the fund may be invested by the Treasurer in securities of the Commonwealth or of a State. The definition of " securities " in the Audit Act - and the trust account will come within the provisions of the Audit Act - includes treasury-bills. At the appropriate time, I propose to move an amendment to clause 5 designed to prevent the Government from investing the proceeds of the trust fund in treasury-hills and to ensure that they shall be invested in Commonwealth Consolidated Stock. The fund should be invested most advantageously, namely, in 3¼ per cent. Consolidated Stock. The Government has no right to utilize, for the ordinary purposes of government, money which it has received as trustee for the woolgrowers. Like other trustees it must account for moneys coming into its possession. I voice my protest against the method adopted by the Government in the distribution of these moneys and I support the efforts of honorable members on this side of the chamber to ensure that it shall be accounted for strictly in accordance with accepted accountancy practice. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Lemmon)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3953 {:#debate-28} ### PAPER The following paper was presented: - >Canberra University College - Report 1945. House adjourned at 2.58p.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 3953 {:#debate-29} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated : -* Apples and Pears. {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Commonwealth Funds: Audit {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway:
ALP y. - On the 19th July, the right honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Fadden)** asked the following questions, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What account or accounts, fund or funds, special or otherwise, have been established or have existed since the 7th October, 1941, to date, in - (i) the Security Branch, (ii) the Crown Solicitor's Branch, (iii) the Commonwealth Investigation Branch, and (iv) any other branch of his department, from which (a) the Auditor-General has not been allowed to audit the disbursements in detail, and/or to which there is no Auditor-General's certification in detail, and/or (b) receipts for money disbursed are not either (i) kept and/or (ii) demanded from recipients of moneys therefrom, and/or (c) the disbursements were audited by a special auditor and not in the ordinary way by the Auditor-General ? 1. What amounts of public money have been (a) paid into and (b) disbursed from each of the above accounts or funds, seriatim, which have been kept secret from the AuditorGeneral or his officers in the manner mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), and paragraph (1) (b) . and paragraph (1) (c), respectively? 2. What are the names, if any, of all accounts mentioned in (1) (a), (1) (b) and (1) (c), respectively? 3. Have moneys from any of the abovementioned accounts and/or funds been used either directly or through any Commonwealth instrumentality or otherwise to control, police and/or investigate communism or communistic activities, and/or any persons, matters or things associated in any way whatsoever with the Communist party of Australia? I am now in a position to furnish the right honorable member with" the following answers: - 1 to 4. Three funds of the category referred to by the right honorable member have been in existence during the whole or portion of the period since the 7th October, 1941, namely - (i) Security Service Special Fund, established in March. 1942, and closed on the 31st December. 1945: (ii) Australian Democratic Front Fund, established in 1940 by the then AttorneyGeneral (the right honorable member for North Sydney) and closed in 1942. after its operations' had been the subject of a royal commission; (iii) Investigation Branch Special Fund, established over 30 years ago and still in existence. As to (i), during its existence, £8.66211s. 4d. was paid out of the Security Service Special Fund. These moneys were expended in securing information in all States on all matters affecting the security of the Commonwealth, including subversive activities. As to (ii), during its existence £4,903 6s. Id. was paid out of the Australian Democratic Front. Fund which, was ordered, to be closed by the present Attorney-General as soon as he knew of. the purposes for which the moneys yere being used. As to ( iii ) , when the present Government took office £646 . was standing to the credit of the fund and £9,000 has since been paid into the fund and £9,185 has been expended. Since the Government took office payments out of this fund have been as follows: - Portion of these moneys has been used in investigating subversive activities in all States. This Government takes no responsibility for. the manner in which the moneys made available through the Australian Democratic Front Fund were expended, but the disbursements from the Security Service Special Fund were,* and the disbursements from the Investigation Branch Special Fund are, at all times subject to audit by the Chief Audit Inspector. Common-wealth Services fob Newspapers. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-JSW} ##### Mr Bryson: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What services and facilities, by way of supply of Government publications and documents and the transmission of cablegrams and telegrams, are rendered to newspaper proprietors at rates less than those charged to the general public? 1. What are the differences in the rates charged to those proprietors and those charged to the general public on such publications, documents, cablegrams and telegrams? 2. What is the justification for the differ'ential rates? 3. What accommodation is provided for representatives of those proprietors in .Parliament House and in Commonwealth departments? 4. What charges are made for such accommodation ? 5. Is the accommodation used for the purpose of facilitating the acquisition of news items by press representatives in order to maintain or increase circulation, and, consequently, the profits of- the newspaper proprietors? 6. Do ' newspaper proprietors render any reciprocal services for those provided by the Commonwealth at public expense or at cheaper rates than those charged to the general public; if so, what is the nature of these reciprocal services? {: type="A" start="S"} 0. What is the estimated amount per annum saved to the newspaper proprietors through provision by the Commonwealth of services and .facilities including accommodation, (a) . wholly at public expense; and *(b)* at lower rates than those charged to the general public ; {: #subdebate-29-0-s2 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
ALP -- The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No publications or documents are issued by the Post Office to newspaper proprietors at rates less than those charged to the general public. Newspapers and broadcasting under-, takings enjoy- concession rates in respect of international and internal press telegrams containing news intended for publication or broadcasting, respectively. 1. Concerning publications and documents, see answer to No. *1.* The differences in the rates for ordinary and press telegrams between Australia and other countries, are as follows: - Empire countries (excepting New Zealand and Fiji), ls. 2d. per word; foreign countries, difference varies according to destination and represents up to ls. 8d. per word for messagesto the United States of America and 2s. 7id. to China. The difference for messages transmitted within Australia on the basis of the average press message is .8d. per word for intra-state messages and .02d. per word for interstate messages.' . 2. The practice of applying a differential ' rate to press messages is uniform throughout the world, and is in harmony with the provisions of the Telegraph Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunications Convention. In accordance with the Post and Telegraph Rates Act a similar principle is applied in the case of press telegrams transmitted within the Commonwealth. 3. Accommodation for the press is supplied, in Parliament House, Canberra. A room for the press is .also provided in the Commonwealth Bank Buildings, Sydney, in the Victoria. Barracks, Melbourne, and facilities are also available in the Federal Members' Rooms, Brisbane. 5 6 7 and 8. (a) Replies will be furnished to- the honorable member as early as practicable. 8. (6) The reduced rates which apply to press telegrams have resulted- in a large increase in the number of such messages. If the differences bet ween the rates for ordinary and press telegrams, referred to in the answer to question No. 2, did not exist, the Australian press would have to pay approximately £102,000 more in the case of "within the Commonwealth" telegrams and £708,000 more in respect to press messages from the United Kingdom which represent the bulk of the overseas press load. {:#subdebate-29-1} #### Public Service; Temporary Employees {: #subdebate-29-1-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to the decision to discontinue employment in the public service df civilians temporarily appointed in war-time. isit a fact that there is stilla number of officers employed by the Department of Works and Housing,Brisbane, who come under this category? 1. If so,isit a fact that thereare many efficientex-servicemen available to replace them? 2. Willthe Government take Immediate steps to correct this position! {: #subdebate-29-1-s1 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Then is alarge number of temporary employeesin the Department of Works and Housing. 2 and 3. The Department of Works und Housing is observing all the provisions of theRe-establishmentand Employment Act, No. 11 of 1945. unemploymentallowances . {: #subdebate-29-1-s2 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, *upon notice -* 1, How many personsin Queensland have received unemployment allowance to the 31st July, 1940, arising out of the Brisbane meat strike and the strikesinvolved therewith in the coal-mining industry and of the waterside workers? . {: type="1" start="2"} 0. How much was paid to such persons? {: #subdebate-29-1-s3 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway:
ALP -- The Minister for Social Serviceshas supplied the following answers:- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Withouta complete dissection of the individualfiles of the beneficiaries concerned, itis impossibleto give exact information regarding the number of persons who received unemployment benefit asa consequence of the Brisbane meat strike and other strikes involved therewith butthe approximate number is 12,300. 1. The approximate value of the benefits paid to such personsup toandincluding the week ended27th July. 1946, was£33,100 Treasury-bills. {: #subdebate-29-1-s4 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP n asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many pounds worth of treasury- bills werein circulation on the30th June, 1946? 1. What washeld by thenine trading banks? mr.chifley. - The answersto the honorable member's questions are as follows: 2. The treasury-bills issued for war purposesand circulationinAustraliaatthe30th June, 1946. amounted to £343,280,000. 3. £33,620,000. DairyingIndustry. {: #subdebate-29-1-s5 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP -- On the 18th July, the honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr. Adermann)** asked whether I had received a request from the Government of Queensland soliciting assistance to primary producers, in southern Queensland in eather the dairying or the grazing industries, and if not, whether I would indicate my attitude to the request for subsidy made to me by the Mundubbera Shire Council on behalf of dairymen in tha; district. The Minister for Trade and Custome has advisedme that there is no record of any such request in the office of the Prices Branch but that atan early date a case will be submitted to the Prices Stabilization Committee concerning the payment ofsubsidy to producers ofwhole milk in a large number of southern Queensland districts. The Shire of Munduberra is included is the areas at present under consideration. Housing. {: #subdebate-29-1-s6 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP y. - Yesterday, the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser)** asked whether consideration would be given to the use ofRoyal Australias. Air Force and military huts in Queensland for housing purposes. Steps have already been taken in the direction indicated. Nearly 100 buildings at Kalinga and Rocklea have been converted orare course of conversion, and 118 families have already been accommodated. More families willbe accommodated, as the work of reconversion, particularly at Rocklea, proceeds. In addition, Ekibin army hospital has been used as emergency quarters. The policy of the Commonwealth Government is to giveall State governments tha opportunity to use former service establishments for housing purposes as they become surplus to requirements. butterrationing. {: #subdebate-29-1-s7 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- On the 1stAugust the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Sheehan)** asked a question concerning butter rationing in relation to exservicemen desirous of establishing themselves in businesses. The Minister for Trade and Customs has now supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Itis not a fact that ex-servicemen are receiving little or no consideration for coupons from the Rationing Commission. Every consideration is given to applicationsby ex- servicemen who are desirous of establishing themselves in cafes and other food supply services. Instructions to Deputy Directors of Rationing allow them to give permits for rationed foodstuffs to ex-servicemen . wishing to re-establish themselves if they were in that line of business prior to enlistment. In other cases the instructions provide that no exserviceman's application is to be finally refused without reference to the commission, the members of which give personal consideration to each such case. It must be apparent, however, that while the necessity for food rationing continues it is impracticable to grant generally, applications received from persons who were not previously in the catering trades. All permits given to cafes, &c., represent additional consumption of rationed foodstuffs beyond the individual ration, and, if unrestricted, could noon dissipate the savings being made by rationing in order to make foodstuffs available to the sorely pressed people of Britain. Publicity is continually being given to the necessity for ex-servicemen not to incur any expense in connexion with a proposed cafe or catering business until their application for coupon permits has been approved. 1. In common with all other cafes and restaurants in Australia, butter permits issued to Prince's and Romano's representa considerable reduction of pre-war usage. One of the restaurants mentioned has been cut to approximately one-half of its pre-rationing usageof butter. . Theother, which formerly used an unusually large amount of butter, receives only 23.6 per cent. of the pre-rationing amount. 2. With regard to the honorable member's request that an equitable distribution be arranged to essentialcafés to be run by exservicemen, this, is already done, as explained inNo. 1 above. Canned Fish. {: #subdebate-29-1-s8 .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully:
ALP y. - On. the 31st July, the honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Sheehan)** asked a question concerning the importation of salmon from Canada. As this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Trade and Customs, I have conferred with that Minister and now inform the honorable member as follows : - >The Minister for Trade and Customs has no knowledge of any advices which may have been given by Canadian exporters to the trade in Australia, but he confirms that cannedfish, in common with most other important food items, is subject to international allocation and only such quantities as are allocated may be supplied to Australia. Late in. June, 1946, Australia was informed by the London Food > >Council of an allotment to Australia, which, being very limited, involved the determination of a quota for each importer. Details have now been completed and import licences are being issued. Cigarette Papers. {: #subdebate-29-1-s9 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde:
ALP e. - Yesterday, the honorable member for Martin **(Mr. Daly)** asked a question regarding press statements that 500,000 hooks, each containing 60 cigarette papers, are held in bond in Sydney. The Minister for Trade and Customs has now supplied the following information : - >An investigation of this matter has been made and there are 402,000 books, each containing60 papers, in a bond store in Sydney, which areheld on behalf of one of the merchants. The mannger of this company hat informed the Department *of* Trade and Customs that the stocks are those from which supplies of papers for Australian soldiers in Kure, Japan, are cleared. The residue act as a reserve in case there is any interruption in the flow pf supplies from the cigarette paper manufacturers in Melbourne. On the existing basis of distribution, the stocks held represent only seven to ten days' requirements of New South Wales consumers.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 August 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1946/19460807_reps_17_188/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 7 August 1946

HOUR OF MEETING

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FROST:Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

ARMED FORCES

Mr BRYSON:BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MENZIES:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr FORDE:

Mr Spender:

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr DRAKEFORD:Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Francis:

Mr DRAKEFORD:

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr HAYLEN:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FROST:ALP

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr BREEN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WHITE:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr DALY:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

JUTE GOODS

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

TAXATION

Decentralization of Offices

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr James:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

FILM “INDONESIA CALLING

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

NEW GUINEA

Trusteeship

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Article 5

Article 7:

QUESTION

House of Representatives
7 August 1946

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr BRYSON:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

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

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FROST:
ALP

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · Werriwa · ALP

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · Werriwa · ALP

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour, and National Service · Melbourne Ports · ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr LEMMON:
Forrest

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Riordan:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr FULLER:
Hume

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP