House of Representatives
2 June 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1552

QUESTION

HOUE OF MEETING

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

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

It is proposed that the House shall sit on Tuesday of next week and on Wednesday of the following week, in which Monday will he a public holiday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1552

QUESTION

BENTS AND PRICES CONTROL

Referendum RESULT - -Propaganda

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

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to a very interesting event which occurred quite recently. Has the Government consulted the respective State governments with regard to the Cabinet’s decision to surrender controls over rents, prices and land sales almost immediately in order to ascertain the States’ preparedness to assume the controls within .the time limit set by the Cabinet? If not, does the Prime Minister intend to consult them? Has any request been made to him to call a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers to discuss the matter? If so, is a conference to be held? Will he indicate to the House what form of assistance the Government is prepared to afford to the States in the initial stage of taking over Commonwealth controls within a matter of months?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have had assurances, including some, I think, from the honorable member himself, that the States are fully prepared at any time to take over these controls. This matter has been the subject of discussion on previous occasions with the States, but no discussion has taken place since the referendum was held on Saturday last as to the ability of the States, physically or administratively, to take over these controls. However, I judge from public statements made by various State Premiers that within their constitutional limits they would be prepared to undertake this particular task, and, therefore, the Government has decided to ask the ministerial party at its meeting to be held the week after next for approval of the decision it reached yesterday. The assistance the Government has in mind is administrative assistance which will be necessary in order to effect such a transition.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, as control of rents and prices now seems certain to be returned to the States, the Australian Government intends, because of the operation of . uniform -taxation, to make available further financial assistance to the States to meet their increased administrative expenses or, alternatively, in view of the substantia] saving to the Commonwealth resulting from the relinquishing of the control of rents and prices, will the Government pass that saving on to the. people of Australia by means of a reduction of taxes?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States can well be left for consideration by conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers. I have heard quite a lot about that matter at these meetings during the last six years. The other points raised by the honorable member relate to government policy, and he oan hardly expect me to make a statement upon them at present.

Mr HAMILTON:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have in my hand a copy of a sheet which was circulated in the metropolitan area in Western Australia during the recent referendum campaign. The sheet is headed: “ The Yes-No Jackpot, or The Innocents Abroad - An Extract from the play, ‘ The Great Australian Bight’ by Prof. I. Teer “, and it deals with a meeting of three State Premier’s, Messrs. McLarty, Hollway and Playford. However, the people did not swallow the propaganda. The sheet makes a large number of false statements about the meeting of the Premiers, and it purports to have been authorized by one, T. G. Davies, of the

Trades Hall, Perth. One-quarter of the space of this publication is occupied with a Commonwealth loan appeal advertisement. Will the Treasurer inquire what proportion, if any, of the cost of publishing this sheet was borne by the Commonwealth loan authorities?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Nothing was paid by the Government or the Commonwealth loan authorities towards the cost of any such publication.

page 1553

QUESTION

COAL

Mr THOMPSON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister had brought to his notice the continual complaints about the shortage of coal in South Australia and the efforts to place the blame for such shortages upon the Australian Government? Can the right honorable gentleman tell the House what control the Government exercises over the allocation of coal supplies to South Australia, and whether it is intended to oblige the South Australian Government to mate its own arrangements to obtain supplies of coal?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Coal supplies in New SouthWales, Victoria and South Australia and, to a lesser degree, Western Australia, are matters of constant anxiety, because the production of coal, particularly black coal, in New South Wales is insufficient to meet all demands, even those of New South Wales itself, where stocks are only a couple of days ahead of requirements. There has been continual difficulty in South Australia, particularly in respect of black coal, because of the small reserves, which have been caused by shipping delays. The collier Trident was three days late in arriving at Port Adelaide, but other colliers are arriving according to programme. The Joint Coal Board, which is a Commonwealth and State organization, ensures as equitable a distribution of coal as possible. Every effort is being made by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, the Director of Shipping and the Joint Coal Board to maintain the delivery of coal to South Australia notwithstanding that production of coal is insufficient to meet all demands.

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the right honorable and imperturbable Prime Minis- ter–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr JAMES:

– In view of the vote on the referendum on rents and prices and the desire of the Liberal party Premiers of South Australia and Victoria to get rid of what they term Canberra controls, I ask the right honorable gentleman whether consideration will not have to be given to abolishing the Joint Coal Board in order that the Premiers may make their own arrangements with the New South Wales coal “ barons “ for the supply of coal to their States at a price determined not by the Joint Coal Board but by those coal magnates, after the needs of New South Wales have been met ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I remind the honorable member that the Joint Coal Board was set up under Commonwealth and State legislation and is not controlled by the Commonwealth. Its policy may be the subject of general agreement between the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, but it is administered in Sydney and not from Canberra. The board was set up in an attempt which, I believe, will be ultimately successful, to completely rehabilitate the coal industry. It is constituted under joint Commonwealth and State legislation, and, in that respect, is almost unique. The States, I am informed, have ample power to fix prices, and the State legislation under which the board is set up should, I imagine, though I have no knowledge of the legal and technical side of the matter, give the board full authority to carry out that work. The Australian and New South Wales Governments believe that the coal industry requires complete rehabilitation. It has been neglected for a long period, and we propose to do everything possible to enable the board to function successfully, and to exercise the powers with which it is now clothed.

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Prime Minister inform me who was responsible for the establishment of the Joint Coal Board and when it was constituted ? Is it a fact that, if the Joint Coal Board had not been established, the South Australian Liberal Government would be called upon to deal direct with the coal “barons” of New South Wales?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Joint Coal Board was established as a result of consultation with the Government of New South Wales. It was legally constituted by legislation which was enacted by this Parliament and by the Parliament of New South Wales and proclaimed in the normal way. That was to enable the Joint Coal Board to exercise the powers that can be exercised by the Government of New South Wales, and also such powers as the Australian Government was able to confer upon the tribunal. Without the board, the coal-owners would be able to distribute coal in any way that they liked, but the board has power to ensure that the coal shall be distributed as equitably as possible. I dealt with this matter in a general way when replying to questions asked by the honorable member for Hunter and the honorable member for Hindmarsh, but if the honorable member for Boothby desires any details about the powers and functions of the board, and the date on which it was established, I shall obtain them for him.

page 1554

QUESTION

WHEAT

Cornsacks - International Wheat AGREEMENT

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether contracts have been made by Australia for the purchase of cornsacks for the forthcoming wheat harvest? At approximately what price a dozen will they be available to wheat-growers?

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– Negotiations for the purchase of cornsacks from India have been going on for a considerable time. It will not be possible to determine the price to be paid for them by wheatgrowers until the Government has ascertained the average price of the whole of the supplies that will be required for the forthcoming harvest.

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether the American legislature has ratified the International Wheat Agreement? Can he say further how many of the wheatimporting countries have done so?

Mr POLLARD:

– I have not received any notification from the United States of America regarding the ratification of the International Wheat Agreement, but I understand that the whole matter is under consideration by the American Congress. I have no information with regard to ratification by wheat-importing countries.

page 1554

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S HOSIERY

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Throughout Australia, there is a great shortage of children’s hosiery, and in parts of the Commonwealth, even in this cold weather, some children are without socks and stockings of any kind. I am informed by the director of a certain knitting mill in my constituency that production of children’s hosiery is restricted severely by three major factors, one of which is the absence of adequate labour and that even constant advertising brings little result in this direction. In view of this difficulty, will the Minister for Immigration consider the advisability of bringing to this country male and female migrants specially suited to the textile industry, and ready to be absorbed immediately in this work? Can the Minister say whether any of the migrants already in Australia would be suitable for this industry? If so, could they be transferred to it from other less urgent work?

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

– The responsibility for determining the importance of work required to be done under the agreement made between the Commonwealth and the States lies with the States themselves. If Victoria requires factory workers for the textile industry in preference to, say, engineers or nurses whose skill is particularly valuable, it will mark its priorities accordingly, and Australia House in London will endeavour to meet its requirements. So far, Victoria has not expressed any preference for textile workers. Displaced persons are allocated by the Department of Labour and National Service in conjunction with the Department of Immigration, after consultation with the State authorities. We have not rated textile operatives as highly as those required for housing, hospital work, &c, but if the honorable member will ask the proprietor of the mill to which she has referred to write through her to me, or to me direct, the claims of that particular organization will be given consideration.

page 1555

QUESTION

CHARGE AGAINST CABINET MINISTER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a case which was recently before the courts in which grave charges were made compromising the honour of one of his Ministers? Does the Prime Minister propose, in order to maintain public respect for ministerial positions, to relieve the Minister concerned of his duties pending the investigation by a royal commission of the allegations referred to?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The question which the honorable member has addressed to rae has, I think, some relation to certain litigation, and a case in connexion with the same matter is still before the court, [n the circumstances, I do not think that [ would be justified in making any further comment.

page 1555

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that Taroona, the only passenger ship plying between the mainland and Tasmania, is to be docked early next month for overhaul, after which there will be no passenger service by ship for at least three weeks, will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel do what he can to arrange with the shipping company concerned for the provision of an interim service?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall ask my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, to consider the matter.

page 1555

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS

Mr MCDONALD:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say what arrangements, if any, have been made to give lighthouse keepers and their assistants the benefit of the 40- hour week ? At present, they are working a 56-hour week, despite the fact that other federal employees are working a shorter week.

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I shall ask my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, to inquire into the matter, and the honorable member will be furnished with a reply later.

page 1555

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Social Services arrange for the publication of a list of “those doctors who are prepared to co-operate with the Government in its pharmaceutical benefits scheme so that people may know whom to patronize, and may also know what doctors are striking against the Government’s proposals?

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

– I shall bring the suggestion to the notice of the Minister for Health, and let the honorable member know his opinion of it.

page 1555

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON, FENCING WIRE AND WIRE NETTING

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Seeing that Victoria has not received its quota of galvanized iron, fencing wire and wire netting because, it is said, insufficient shipping is available, will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether any attempt has been made to remedy the position, and to see that supplies are made available?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I assure the honorable member that the Department of Shipping and Fuel is doing its utmost to ensure thai; shipping Ls made available to carry goods from New South Wales to Victoria. However, I point out that interstate shipping has been de-controlled for quite a long time. The responsibility for seeing that shipping i9 available does not now rest solely upon the Minister for Shipping and Fuel. Indeed, it rests primarily upon private enterprise.

page 1555

QUESTION

ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer’s attention been directed to the affairs of the Associated Dominions Assurance Company Limited? Is he aware that an actuarial valuation of liabilities revealed policy liabilities totalling about £543,000 ? Is he further aware that, according to the last balance-sheet, the total value of the assets was only £409,000, of which £102,000 was shown in the Establishment Account leaving net assets of a value of only £307,000 to meet policy liabilities? Does the right honorable gentleman know that Mr. William H. Lamb, Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, is shown as secretary and director of the company in the company’s last balance-sheet? Has any action been taken by the Treasury to safeguard the interests of policy-holders?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– As a result of investigations which it was suggested the Government should make, I do not think that I should attempt to answer the honorable gentleman’s questions in detail at this stage.

Mr Lang:

– Investigations by the Australian Government ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Yes, by the Insurance Commissioner under the Life Insurance Act. I have been given to understand quite recently that court action is likely. I believe the company mentioned by the honorable gentleman to be the one concerned, therefore, I do not wish to make any statement which might prejudice the hearing of the case. However, I shall furnish a detailed reply to the honorable member’s questions as soon as possible.

page 1556

QUESTION

TASMANIAN PEAR CROP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– In view of the great wastage of the present pear crop in Tasmania, resulting from the fruit not having been acquired by the Australian Apple and Pear Board, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether any action has been planned to save at least a portion of the crop, and put it to a useful purpose?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– It is a function of the Australian Apple and Pear Board to endeavour to market as much of the fruit crop of Tasmania as is practicable, and I am confident that the board is exploiting every avenue with that end in view. However, I shall ask the chairman of the board whether any additional steps may be taken to meet the position.

page 1556

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Cambridge Aerodrome

Dr GAHA:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I understand that Cabinet recently arrived at a decision in regard to the expansion of Cambridge aerodrome, the chief aerodrome for the city of Hobart. Is the Minister for Civil Aviation able to furnish any details of the proposed expansion?

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

– The Government has decided to build a new aerodrome within a reasonable distance of Hobart, and a short distance from Cambridge aerodrome, which will thereby be eventually replaced. The first major work will be the construction of a long runway. The airport and terminal facilities will be built as soon as possible. The total cost will probably be more than £750,000. The decision was made only yesterday. Survey work, and the acquisition of the necessary land, should begin within a reasonable time. The new aerodrome, when completed, will have an important defence value. Aircraft of the largest type now in use by British-speaking peoples - the Lincoln - as well as the D.C.4 type, and, if necessary, Constellations will be able to land and take off with ease. Difficulties which now attend the operations of aircraft at Cambridge aerodrome will, it is hoped, be overcome when the new aerodrome has been completed.

page 1556

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION ABROAD

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– On the 5th May I asked the Treasurer a question concerning the total dollar expenditure on Australian diplomatic and other representation in the United States of America and Canada, on Australian consulates in North America and on missions by Commonwealth public servants to North America, for the financial years 1944 to 1947, and for the current year. The right honorable gentleman then promised to supply me with an answer as soon as possible. A considerable time has since elapsed during which the right honorable gentleman has been wandering around the countryside to no effect. Is he now in a position to supply the information sought by me ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The preparation of detailed replies to some questions asked by honorable members involves a great deal of work. Instructions were issued that, as early as practicable, without interfering with other urgent work, answers to the questions to which the honorable member has referred should be furnished. As the honorable member knows, I have been busy and I can only express my regret that it has not been possible to supply the information he sought. I shall endeavour to supply it as early as practicable.

page 1557

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

SS. “ Mish “ Incident.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Towards the end of the last sittings of the Parliament the honorable member for New England addressed a question to the Minister for Immigration relating to a newspaper report of the arrival in Australia aboard the vessel Mi&r of 44 men of criminal type described as “ well-known gangsters “. The Minister promised to inquire into the allegation. Have his investigations been completed, and, if so, what was the result?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– My inquiries have shown that there is not the slightest foundation for the allegation that passengers of criminal type were carried to Australia on the Egyptian ship Misr. The report published in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial was the result of one o.f the most glaring and ignorant pieces of misreporting ever perpetrated by that newspaper in its long career of irresponsible news reporting. Captain Drexel the master of MisT, explained to officers of my department that he had told the Sun News-Pictorial that he had carried 44 well-known gangsters on a previous voyage, but that voyage had been from Alexandria to Genoa. The gangsters he had been warned about had been destined for Austria and not for Australia. The gangsters were now in Austria and not in Australia. Captain Drexel had thus been made the victim of a classic example of ignorant and obtuse misreporting by the Sun News-Pictorial. To confuse Austria with Australia betrays an almost incredible carelessness, which would be laughable were it not for the fact that readers of the Sun News-Pictorial were so grievously misled. The Sun NewsPictorial made no effort to correct its epic blunder, despite the fact that I issued to it on the 7th May a statement of the facts. As it later turned out, that newspaper was less concerned about correctly informing its readers than in making a last ditch attempt to save its face. That night, or the next day, the Sun News-Pictorial cabled to Brigadier Lush, the chief of the Middle East Sector of the International Refugee Organization, seeking from him confirmation of its incorrect story.

Mr McEwen:

– The censorship is still applied.

Mr CALWELL:

– There is a newspaper censorship of facts, and the greatest possible distortion of facts. The newspaper’s last hopes were shattered when Brigadier Lush contradicted the published story and confirmed the statements made by Captain Drexel and myself. So, on the 11th May, the Sun News-Pictorial published a halting paragraph which read -

44 GANGSTERS DID NOT MIGRATE. HERE.

Brigadier M. S. Lush, chief officer of theInternational Refugee Organization in theMiddle East agrees with the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) that central: European gangsters have not come to Australia, in the migrant ship MiNT. In response to am inquiry from the Sun, Brigadier Lush, cabling: from Cairo, says: “There is no truth in thereport that gangsters were among the Mis, passengers for Australia. This must have been confused with a group of rough characters transferred on the Misr from Palestine to Europe “.

There, for the benefit of honorable members, is the sorry story of the Sun NewsPictorial’s stupidity. I trust that that story will prove to be a caution to those who are a little too ready to place their faith in the ramblings of a rabble-rouser.

page 1557

QUESTION

MURDER IN NEW GUINEA

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for External Affairs aware, as I have been informed, that recently in New Guinea an Australian citizen - I think he was a police officer named Scott - was murdered by an American Filipino soldier and that when proceedings were taken by the New Guinea authorities to have a magisterial inquiry into the case, American officers flew from the Philippines and made a claim of extra territoriality that the soldier in question should be tried, not by Australian courts according to Australian law, but by their own tribunals according to American law, and that, when that was resisted, the magisterial inquiry did proceed for some distance, but then the soldier in question. suddenly disappeared from New Guinea soil? Are these facts stated correctly? If so, what steps have been taken to assert beyond all doubt Australia’s right to exercise sovereignty within its own borders and also to bring the murderer to justice?

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware that there was a dispute as to jurisdiction in that case. The view that my department took was that, the crime having been committed within Australian trusteeship territory, the trial should take place there. Those were the general instructions which were given. I shall ascertain the full facts of events which the honorablemember suggests occurred at a later stage. The point arose because of a decision of the United States authorities to remove the bodies of American soldiers who had fallen in New Guinea and had been buried there, to the United States of America. For that purpose, the American authorities had a special Philippine contingent in New Guinea and they claimed that those soldiers were within the jurisdiction of the United States Army. Ishall look into the facts and restate the position for the information of honorable members.

page 1558

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Conditions of Public Servants

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I have received a telegram from the Councils for the Combined Public Service Associations of Papua and New Guinea, and I understand also that the Prime Minister has received a similar communication. To explain my question, I shall read a portion of the telegram -

Meeting combined Councils Papua New Guinea Public Service Associations 25th May, vitally interested your statement of personal concern with administration External Territories as broadcast national news. Consequently desireyour urgent attention following matters. Grave general dissatisfaction and unrest in Public Service caused by conditions here and persistent continuous lack of action by Territories at Canberra. Despite numerous urgent representations . . .

After listing a large number of grievances, the telegram proceeds -

We submit in all sincerity that persistent frustrations and disappointments combined with numerous resignations and failure to recruit new members in Australia make maintenance of efficient Public Service quite impossible. Whole matter now referred to you in sheer desperation anticipating definite information on matters contained in this telegram and not merely formal acknowledgment.

I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received such a telegram? If so, does he intend to take any action about the matter ? In view of the seriousness of the position and the general dissatisfaction which has been expressed, will the right honorable gentleman say whether he now considers that a parliamentary select committee or even a royal commission should be appointed to inquire into the affairs of these territories?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I do not remember receiving telegrams dealing with all the matters referred to in the telegram which the honorable member has just read. From time to time, representations have been received about salaries and allowances, and matters like educational allowances, and certain decisions have been made in regard to them. I should imagine that if the public servants concerned have not yet received word of them they should do so shortly. If a telegram similar to that which the honorable member has read has been despatched to me, I shall examine some of thematters raised therein. The Public Service Board is the advisory authority on such matters as salaries and classifications, but as the honorable member knows, the final decision must be made by the department or the Minister in regard to Papua and the trustee territory. The Minister for External Territories and I have had a number of conferences for the purpose of considering these particular matters, and I shall endeavour to supply a detailed statement about them. The answer to the last portion of the honorable member’s question is “ No “.

page 1558

ARMED FORCES

Australians in Japan.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I lay on the table the following papers: -

Japan - British Commonwealth Occupation Force - Report of Committee of Investigation -

  1. 1 ) by the Chaplains-General.
  2. by Major-General C. E. M. Lloyd, C.B.E., and Mr. Massey Stanley.

Honorable members will recall that this committee inquired into allegations concerning the conduct of members of the

Australian component of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. The report is in two sections. The first is that of the three ChaplainsGeneral, the Reverends T. McCarthy, A.. T. Stewart and A. Brooke, and the second is that of Major-General C. E. M. Lloyd and Mr. Massey-Stanley. The report, which is complete, is very lengthy, and includes many maps and other .relevant documents and photographs. Because of its size, it would take a considerable time to have copies printed. Therefore, I propose to leave the question of printing the report for consideration by the Printing Committee. “However, I point out that if it is desired to discuss the report on the conditions of Australian members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan honorable members will have every opportunity to do so during consideration of the Supply Bill, which will be introduced in the near future.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As the Minister for the Army is aware, this is a matter of extreme importance, and one which has caused the public considerable concern. Opposition members would appreciate it if the Minister were to submit a motion for the printing of the report, subject to confirmation by the Printing Committee.

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

– The honorable member’s suggestion raises a procedural difficulty. The Minister for the Army has suggested that the House might discuss the subject-matter of the report during the debate on the Supply Bill. I point out that the presence on the notice-paper of a motion for the printing of the report would preclude any discussion of it during the consideration of that measure.

page 1559

VACUUM CLEANERS AND PARTS

Tariff Board Report

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

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

Vacuum Cleaners and Vacuum Cleaner Parts

Ordered to be printed.

page 1559

QUESTION

BANKING

Nationalization: High Court Decision - Gallup Poll

Mr JAMES:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral indicate when the High Court is likely to arrive at a decision on the recent banking case? Is the time taken up in reaching a decision connected in any way with the 40-hour week ?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– As the honorable member knows,. I cannot give any information in regard to that matter.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Prime Minister is doubtless aware that at the referendum held on Saturday last a “ No “ vote was recorded by approximately 60 per cent, of the voters. In a statement made since then, the right honorable gentleman has said that he will observe that decision by the people. I point out that, prior to the referendum being held, a public opinion poll taken by the Gallup organization forecast approximately that result. I also point out that a poll of public opinion taken by the same organization in regard to the Government’s banking legislation revealed that an overwhelming majority of the people are opposed to it. Will the Prime Minister pay the same attention to public opinion in respect of banking as he now proposes to do in respect of rents and prices control ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I am surprised that an honorable member with the intelligence of the honorable member for Richmond should detain the House with a question of this kind. My statement in regard to rents and prices control was in response to a vote by the people and not to the forecast of an irresponsible body with no jurisdiction or legislative authority. Surely this Parliament is not expected to pay attention to such an outside body.

page 1559

QUESTION

PALESTINE

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Has the Minister for External Affairs any statement to make in regard to the situation which has developed in Palestine since the 15th May, when the British forces were withdrawn? Has the Government taken any action in the matter?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– As honorable members realize, the position in Palestine is one of the utmost seriousness, and the Security

Council is at present endeavouring to arrange a truce between the parties. Cabinet has been considering the matter in consultation with other members of. the British Commonwealth, and as soon as I am able to make a further statement to the House I shall do so.

page 1560

QUESTION

EE-ESTABLISHMENT

RECONSTRUCTION Training Scheme.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– On the 6th May last I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he would investigate a complaint that one of the industrial committees supervising the operation of the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme had reached a ^deadlock because of the attitude adopted by a member representing the building trades section. The Minister promised that he would cause investigations to be , made and I now ask whether he has any information to give to the House?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– I carried out my promise and discussed the matter with the officers of the appropriate section of the Department of Labour and National Service. They decided to raise the issue at the next meeting of the committee which deals with trainees and their placing. I have not yet been informed of the results of that discussion, but I shall endeavour to obtain the information rerequired by the honorable member by tomorrow or the day after.

page 1560

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Promotions

Mr WHITE:

– I have raised several times the matter of the non-recognition of the rights of soldiers of the 8th Division who were taken prisoner by the Japanese and were promoted, either just prior to capture or while in captivity, to ranks that were recognized by the enemy and for which the men assumed responsibility and received punishment. Although nearly three years have elapsed, the Government has not paid the men concerned at the rates appropriate to their ranks. The Minister for the Army has several times promised to investigate the matter. Can he say when it will be finalized and, if so, whether the decisions will be satisfactory to the men?

Mr CHAMBERS:
ALP

– I have not been dealing with this matter for three years. I gave an assurance to the honorable member that I would try to hasten a decision. I am doing that, and when the investigations are complete I shall inform the honorable member of the result.

page 1560

QUESTION

RABBITS

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that in many parts of the country there is a considerable increase in the rabbit population and that there is a great shortage of rabbit traps and poison? Can the Minister say whether the Government is prepared to take any steps to see that traps and poison are available or whether, alternatively, it is prepared to hand that responsibility to the States?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I am aware that due to a very prolific season there has been a large increase of the rabbit population. However, I am also aware thatfirst winter skins fetched 175d. per lb., and I assume that that is sufficient incentive for trappers. The Government is not prepared to conscript labour to rid farms of rabbits; but it will give every assistance to farmers to enable them to purchase poison through private enterprise.

page 1560

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Mr McEWEN:

– Reports published in the press during the last few days indicate that negotiations have taken place for the purchase by Japan of Australian iron ore, arid that Japanese authorities after having examined alternative sources prefer to buy their iron ore requirements from Australia. I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any substance in the report that representations have been made to the Government on this matter, and whether the Government intends to discuss it with Japanese authorities or any Japanese private enterprise with a view to permitting the sale of Australian iron ore upon the export of which the Lyons Government imposed an embargo? If the right honorable gentleman is not already acquainted with a report which is in the possession of the Government indicating that a most exhaustive examination has shown that Australia does not possess sufficient iron ore for its own requirements on a long-range basis, will he peruse that report?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– No negotiations have taken place on that matter, and it is not intended that any such negotiations shall take place. Private individuals may have been interested in the matter. Representations have been made to me by private firms, I think in Adelaide and elsewhere, for permission to open up new iron ore leases and for licences to export the ore. It is also true that it has been intimated to the Government that even on a governmental level a number of countries desire to import iron ore from Australia. However, the Government takes the view which was taken by the Lyons Government that our iron ore reserves are among our most valuable national assets, and, looking a long period ahead, it believes that it is absolutely essential that we conserve those reserves. From time to time small quantities of pig iron and steel have been exported, but no iron ore has been exported. As the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction clearly indicated at the Havana Trade Conference, the Government regards our iron ore reserves as a national asset which must be conserved.

page 1561

QUESTION

WOOLLEN KNITTED GOODS

Mr SHEEHAN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that it is almost impossible to purchase in retail stores woollen knitted goods although there is a tremendous exportation of these articles from Australia? Will he arrange to allocate a quota of such goods for sale to the people of Australia?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– Personally, I am not aware of any particular shortage of woollen knitted goods in this country. It is not true to say that there is tremendous exportation of these goods. Exports are severely restricted in accordance with the Government’s policy of conserving dollars.

page 1561

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Deferred Pay Regulations

Mr HOLT:

– The Minister for Air will recall the representations made from this side of the House for the restoration to certain airmen of deferred payments which were taken from them as the result of the operation of a government regulation some years ago. Has any finality yet been reached in this matter which I understand has been considered recently by the Department of Civil Aviation, the Attorney-General’s Department andthe Treasury ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I shall answerthe question. The honorable member raised this matter on the motion for the adjournment one evening and requested on that occasion that I, as Treasurer, might go into the details. I have spent some time examining the particular case he raised. I am not able to say that finality has been reached because some very involved questions are associated with the matter.I have perused all the relevant papers. Three classes of claimants are involved, and whilst it is not so difficult to justify payment in some cases it is very difficult to do so in certain cases. I shall endeavour to give the honorable member a. full reply as early as possible.

page 1561

QUESTION

MEAT

Rationing: Breach

Mr TURNBULL:

– Recently, in War- racknabeal, a town in my electorate, a lady - though I do not know whether I should call her a lady - entered a butcher’s shop and, appearing to be extremely agitated - she was a good actress and might have a part in the “Old Vic” company - said to the butcher, “ I am in dire distress. I am travelling by caravan with my aged mother andshe has taken a sudden turn and is in a low condition. Can you give me some steak to make beef tea ? I think I might be able to restore her strength sufficiently to get her home; but as I am travelling by caravan I have no coupons, but I will send them to you on my arrival home “. The butcher, who was a good Australian, gave the lady a pound of steak. However, she proved to be an investigator and the butcher was charged at the local court and fined for selling steak without receiving a coupon. Does the Prime Minister condone such tactics by departmental officers who are under his control? If not, what is he doing to protect good Australians from such tactics ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member has not asked a question, but has recited a somewhat disconnected story. If he knows of any action by departmental officers which he deems to be wrong, and if he will let me have the details,I shall examine the matter. The honorable gentleman has not made a connected statement; in fact, he appears to have told almost a bedtime story.

page 1562

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Representation Bill 1948.

Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1948.

Supply and Development Bill 1948.

Superannuation Bill 1948.

Transferred Officers’ Allowances Bill 1948.

page 1562

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Acoustic Laboratories Bill 1948.

Representation Bill 1948.

Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1948.

Supply and Development Bill 1948.

Superannuation Bill1948.

Transferred Officers’ Allowances Bill 1.948.

page 1562

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1948

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5); Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motions (by Mr. Pollard) proposed - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1948 beamended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the third day of June, One thousand ninehundredand forty -eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs becolected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1948 as so amended. [Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 4).] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1948 be amended as hereinafterset out, and that, on and after the third day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian CapitalTerritory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1948 as so amended. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. That, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding paragraph of these Proposals,where - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. it is provided that an item or portion of an item inthe Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1948 shall be omitted on a date to bo fixed by Proclamation, the Governor-General may, by Proclamation, fix a dateon which that item or portion of an item is omitted : and 1. in respect of any goods covered by an item or portion of an item in these Proposals, it is provided that the rates of duty inrespect of those goods shall be imposed on and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation, the Governor-General may,by Proclamation, fix a date on andafter whichthe rates of duty in respect of those goods shall be imposed. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1564 {:#debate-31} ### DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1948 {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 5th May *(vide* page 1427), on motion by **Mr. Dedman** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN:
Flinders .- This bill, which provides for the payment of retirement benefits to members of the permanent defence forces of the Commonwealth, is long overdue. Like all other British nations, Australia is a thoroughly unmilitary country. True, when called upon to fight, our men fight second to none, as we have proved in two great wars. When the fighting is over and the emotions raised by it are alive in our breasts, we not only honour our fighters but also provide generously for them in repatriation benefits. The Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act is as generous of that of any other nation and is more generous that those of most nations, but hitherto we have shown little concern for the members of the permanent forces whose service is given in time of peace as well as in time of war. The conditions under which they have served have been bad and the payments made to them on their retirement have been miserably low. It is time that we put our house in order in that respect, and this measure is a great step in that direction. The officers and men in the permanent forces have served .us well. They are the nucleus around which our Army, Navy and Air Force are formed when war breaks out. That will always be their role. So it is our obligation to ensure that after their retirement they shall spend their remaining years in comfort, and not in penury. Generous retiring allowances should not be regarded merely as a means of attracting young men to serve in the armed forces. As a rule, a man who joins the permanent forces is young and thinks little of the future, being concerned mainly with the present and having the desire to serve his country in a role that he regards as both pleasant and adventurous. But in the course of time he becomes mature and probably assumes family responsibilities. It is essential therefore that we should do as this bill proposes to do and ensure that, notwithstanding his own disregard of the future, he shall have his future assured after his retirement. With those general remarks, I pass to the provisions of the bill itself. As the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** explained in his second-reading speech, the bill sets out to do three things. First, it seeks to abolish anomalies in retirement benefits for the three services - the Navy, the Army and the Air Force - which have .been a hotchpotch. The retirement benefits for the three services are to be on the same footing. Secondly, as conditions of modern warfare demand, it seeks to provide for the retirement of men from the services at an early age. Thirdly, it provides that the amounts of benefit shall, on the whole, be increased. About the three things that the bill proposes to do I have three comments to offer. My first comment relates to the complexity of the bill. It consists of 87 clauses and five schedules, and it makes hard reading. I do not know that the Minister himself understands the implications of all the clauses. One would need to be a supermathematician to understand them. For instance, clause 32 sets out an algebraic problem like *a - b + c.* Doubtless, its meaning is clear enough to those who deal in that sort of thing, but it is obscure to those that do not. Then the seventh schedule deals in decimals. There may be experts who understand what it means, but I have not met any of them. Why has this complicated system been adopted for the fixing of pensions for men retiring from the services? The system in the United Kingdom is clear and easy to understand. I do not see any necessity for algebraic formulae or calculations that might almost involve the use of the differential calculus such as is in operation in the United Kingdom. Surely we could have a system under which pensions would he granted in accordance with years of service and rank. I know that the Minister will answer that the system to be adopted in respect of the defence services follows that adopted in respect of the Public Service, but I do not regard that as a satisfactory answer. If the system adopted for the payment of superannuation to retired members of the Public Service is complicated, let it be simplified, but let us not follow it just because it is a complicated system. It would be as easy for the Government to adopt the practice followed in the payment of age pensions. That system involves no mathematical calculations. Indeed, it is straightforward-, and, when a man reaches the age of 65 years, he becomes entitled, within certain limits, to the age pension. The system proposed to be adopted for the services is archaic and should not be approved. My second comment is that whilst pension rates, on the whole, are being increased, the bill does not go far enough in this direction. Compare for instance, the pension and gratuity rights of officers of the Royal Australian Navy, with those of their colleagues in the Royal Navy. Pensions payable to officers of the Royal Navy are higher than those proposed for officers of the Royal Australian Navy in this measure. In addition, Royal Navy pensions are non-contributory. It is true that officers of the Royal Navy receive family allowances smaller than those payable in the Royal Australian Navy, but the Royal Navy system is simpler, provides higher benefits, and has been considered satisfactory for many years. I have consulted several of my friends now serving in the forces in regard to this matter, and I suggest that in respect of not only the Royal Australian Navy, but also the other services, pension rates should be higher than they are to-day, and that dependants' allowances should be proportionately less. This would enable officers to make provision for their dependants by way of life assurance. Such a move I know would be popular. The scheme now under consideration is unlikely to please the lower ranks of the services, particularly ratings in the Royal Australian Navy. The scale of benefits is satisfactory only to those whose length of service exceeds 22 years, and as few members of the service achieve this length of service, the proposals will not have general approval. One of the objects of all schemes such as this should be to induce members of the forces to enlist for further service when they have completed their original term. These proposals are unlikely to do any more than the present scheme does in that direction. Pre-war re-enlistments in the Royal Australian Navy totalled only 10 per cent, compared with up to 40 per cent, in the Royal Navy. The reason is that the conditions for re-enlistment in the Royal Australian Navy are not nearly so attractive as those applying in the Royal Navy. Under the system at present operating in the Royal Australian Navy, a member who retires after twelve years' service receives a gratuity of £450 or £500. Should he re-enlist he becomes eligible for a further £500 after another ten years service, making approximately £1,000 in all. In the Royal Navy, a man does not receive anything at the end of his twelve years' service, but if he re-engages for a further period of ten years he becomes eligible for a pension at the end of that time. Under the measure now before the House, it is proposed that after twelve years' service a member of the Royal Australian Navy shall receive £360 instead of £450 or £500. However, if he wishes to re-engage for another ten years, he will not receive anything at the end of his first period of service, but he will be entitled to a pension when his term of reenlistment has expired. If we want servicemen to re-enlist, the course to adopt is to offer them at the end of their original twelve years' service a small gratuity, say £200, and some leave. In these circumstances, many of them would be quite willing to remain in service and so become eligible for a pension after 22 years' service. I urge favorable consideration by the Government of this suggestion. The cost of recruiting and training a man to-day is roughly £1,000. That could be saved by getting men to re-engage for an additional ten years' service. I come now to the rate of pension payable at the end of 22 years' service. At the end of that period, an able seaman or a private in the Army is entitled to a pension of £96 a year compared with the age pension of approximately £110 a year. Out of that sum he has to provide for himself for the remainder of his life. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr Riordan: -- How many men would not have risen above the rank of able seaman after 22 years' service? {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- I do not know, but I assume that quite a number of servicemen would be in that position. They cannot all be admirals or generals. The Minister has estimated the total costs of these proposals at £2,000,000 a year. That sum is very small indeed in relation to our total defence expenditure. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- A free medicine scheme will cost more. {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- Yes, the cost of free medicine in the next few years is likely to be three or four times that figure. We are not treating our servicemen as we should, and the Government could well consider increasing their benefits, particularly the retiring allowances of the lower ranks. My third criticism is that no provision is being made in this measure for men who have left the services and arcexisting on their service benefits. It is remarkable and most regrettable that regardless of what government has been in power, this country has given so little thought to these men who, after all, serve their country well indeed. In GreaBritain thousands of retired servicemen are on the Government pension pay-roll. As the cost of living increases, pensions are increased, so that the recipients are able to live in some degree of comfort. Here no such adjustment is made for the benefit of officers who retire on gratuities. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Does the honorable member believe that pensions should be related to the purchasing power of money? {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- Yes, I do, but for the moment I was discussing gratuities. Pensions have been increased by 25 per cent., but nothing has been done for those who have retired on gratuities, and are now trying to eke out a miserable existence on income from interest. I cite the following example in order to illustrate the. hardship which some retired men are suffering. This is the case of an officer who served in the Navy for 37 years. He was for ten years an electrical engineer in the Postmaster-General's Department, which he joined in 1899. He was appointed to the Royal Australian Naval Militia in 1907 as engineer sub-lieutenant for electrical duties. Four years later, he was appointed to the permanent naval forces, with seniority dating to 1907. He had a distinguished career during the 1914-18 war, during which he fought at Rabaul and other places, and was mentioned in despatches. In 1922, he was appointed Director of Signals and Communications. In 1925, and again in 1934, he represented the Commonwealth at a conference held at Singapore to discuss radio and electrical matters. He was chairman of the Defence Communications Committee for some years and was also a member of the Australian Radio Research Board. In 1937, he retired from the position of Director of Signals and Communications, being then 57 years of age. {: .speaker-JLL} ##### Mr Abbott: -- "What was his rank? {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- He was a commander. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- A non-Labour government was in power when he retired in 1937. Why did it not do something *more* for him ? {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- I am not discussing this matter on party lines. One would think that a nian who had served his country so long and effectively ought to be entitled to live in reasonable comfort upon his retirement. After 37 years service he received deferred pay amounting to £2,126. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Some of which was his own money. {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr RYAN: -- Yes, he had himself contributed half that amount. He built a small home to live in, leaving £1,000 out of his deferred pay, which, at present rates of interest, returns him £30 a year. As he is the owner of property worth £1,500 he cannot draw the age pension. The only way in which he can carry on i= to let his house for six months of the year, and go to live with relatives. This is not an isolated case; there are several others. L mentioned the matter to the Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Riordan),** and asked that such cases should be considered when the present pension scheme was being drawn up, and the Minister was good enough to tell me that it would be done. However, there is nothing in the bill to meet such a case as this. The bill is designed to deal with the future, not with the past, but when we are considering the requirement of those who have served their country well over the years, we should try to make things a little easier for those who have already retired. Some provision should be made for them, if not in this bill, then in some other way. Their number is not large and only a small sum of money would be involved. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · Adelaide · ALP -- As one who has consistently advocated a general improvement of the conditions under which members of the defence forces perform their duties, I have a particular interest in supporting the bill now before the House. It is my opinion that if recruits of the best type are to be attracted to the services, every encouragement, including payment of allowances, living conditions, barracks and quarters, and other amenities should be given to those citizens who volunteer to serve their country. In the past, too little consideration has been given to this section of the community, which plays a vital part in ensuring the security of the nation. Little thought has been given to the men in the services until the nation is faced with a state of emergency, and they are called upon to defend Australia. Unlike other governments which shirked their responsibilities in the past- {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON: -- The Minister should not have introduced that issue. {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS: -- I am not referring to any particular government. The fact remains that all -past governments have neglected the matter, and this bill represents the first attempt to do the right thing by the members of the fighting services. As was stated by the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** when introducing the bill, this measure provides a schedule of retirement benefits for members of the armed forces. The Government has been actuated by a desire to make service careers more attractive, and to encourage recruiting for the three services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. It should be obvious to honorable members that when private enterprise is offering high wages and salaries and attractive working conditions to employees, conditions and pay in the armed services will have to be improved if we are to maintain a satisfactory intake of able and intelligent recruits. For many years, particularly within the services, there has been a strong agitation for a pension scheme along lines similar to those schemes that are available to Commonwealth and State civilian employees under the respective superannuation* acts. The benefits under the bill now before the House are designed to achieve that objective. Under these proposals, members of each of the services will be required to contribute according to their salary range, and on a basis similar to that of the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme. As has been pointed out, improved conditions were provided generally for servicemen by the introduction of the new pay code which came into effect for the services in July, 1947. This measure proposes to establish retirement benefits for members of the services when their term of service ends. The necessity for the provision of retirement benefits is increased, in view of the problems which modern warfare has created involving retirement at comparatively early ages. That was demonstrated in no uncertain manner when Field Marshal Lord Montgomery was in Australia. I had many talks with him, in which he stressed the importance of retiring officers at an early age. We all accept him as an authority. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Does that apply to Ministers, also? {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS: -- Yes, he seemed to think that youth was important in present-day affairs. This means that citizens choosing one of the three services as their career are faced with the prospect of retirement at comparatively early ages in relation to other civilian occupations, after devoting the best years of their lives to the interests of their country. For that reason, I am certain that even members of the Opposition will agree that every consideration must be given to servicemen when they are called upon to retire from service. The problem of early retirement in the armed forces is not peculiar to Australia; it has also to be faced in the United Kingdom and other countries of the British Commonwealth. Modern methods of warfare are continually demanding new technical processes and advanced scientific developments which call for highly-skilled tradesmen and artisans in every branch of defence. For this reason, it is essential that the highest degree of efficiency shall be maintained by attracting suitable recruits to the services. The scheme, as in respect of the existing Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme, will involve the Commonwealth in substantial, contributions from Consolidated Revenue, and because of the provision that must be made for retirement at earlier ages than is the case under the superannuation schemes, these contributions will be far more extensive. In formulating plans for the new scheme, special attention was given to ensuring that the retiring benefits payable to members would, as far as practicable, be uniform throughout the services, the idea being to prevent rivalry between the services in recruiting. The proposed scale of retirement pension in respect of officers ranged from £200 a year for an army lieutenant or equivalent Navy or Air Force rank retiring at or about the age of 47 years, to £845 a year in respect of a lieutenantgeneral or equivalent ranks in the other services, retiring at the age of 60 years. Basic pensions for members below commissioned rank who are to be discharged after the age of 40 years, after serving not less than twenty years, will range from £95 a year in respect of a private cr equivalent Navy or Air Force rank, to £155 a year for a warrant officer class I., or equivalent ranks in the other services. A previous speaker made reference to the pension of £95 a year, but I believe there would be very few members who had served for twenty years in the Army and had not risen above the rank of private ; there would not be many commencing as privates and remaining on that rank. {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr Ryan: -- Why keep the pension so low if there will be so few? {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS: -- If a man spends twenty years in one of the services and fails to gain at least non-commissioned rank, can it be contended that he is entitled to more than £95 a year? The honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Ryan),** as a result of his own experience during an extensive period in the Army, will, I believe, agree with me that there would be very few men who, after twenty years' service, had not gained at least one or two stripes. That was my experience, both in compulsory military training and during the last war. Provision is being made for additional amounts of from £6 a year for a private to £8 a year for a warrant officer class I. to te provided for each service year beyond twenty years' service, served after the age of twenty years under a definite engagement. In each of the instances I have just cited - that is, commissioned ranks and other ranks - a half pension will be payable to the widow of a contributor. Pensions for naval warrant officers and for Army quartermasters will range from £300 a year for a warrant officer, Navy, and lieutenant and quartermaster, Army, to £450 a year for a lieu.tenantcommander or warrant officer, Navy, and major and quartermaster, Army. Members below commissioned rank, enlisted for full-time service, upon completing their current term of engagement, who do not qualify for a pension, will receive refunds of any contributions they have made, and also will be entitled to a gratuity of one and a half times the amount of their contributions. It has been estimated that when the forces are at full strength the new scheme will cover benefits in respect of approximately 5,000 officers and 40,000 other Tanks. In respect of officers, retirement will commence at the age of 41 years for a flight-lieutenant in the Air Force, at the age of 45 years for a lieutenantcommander in the Navy, and at the age of -47 years for a lieutenant in the Army. Senior ranks will retire at these ages: A captain in the Navy, at the age of 55 years ; an air vice-marshal in the Air Force at the age of 55 years; a majorgeneral in the Army at the age of 57 years; and a lieutenant-general in the Army at the age of 60 years. From these examples it can readily be seen that retiring ages in each of the services are to be early in comparison with those that are applicable in respect of senior public servants and business executives in civilian employment. As in respect of the development of the new pay code for the services, now in operation, considerable investigation was carried out in evolving a formula for computing the rate of pensions, in order to arrive at a basis of equality between the Navy, Army and Air Force rates, at each well-defined stage in the various grades from the recruit upwards. That should prevent uneven competition and rivalry between the three services. Allowing for differences in the special needs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, the financial returns offering under the new conditions are now similar in each- service, and these have been carefully reviewed and reconciled in the final determinations which have been approved. Provision is made for a retirement benefits fund, into which shall be paid contributions of members and payments made by the Commonwealth, and from which all benefits under the scheme will be paid. Provision is also made wherein a member of the defence forces may elect to have any portion of full-time war service taken into account for the purposes of assessment of the amount of pension for which he may subsequently become entitled. In respect of a member who has previously contributed to other schemes under the Superannuation Act, provision is made whereby his contributions in respect of units of pension under that act may be transferred and deemed to be contributions under the new retirement scheme. Officers of the forces who do not complete a period of service sufficient to enable them to qualify for pension benefits under the act will be entitled to a refund of their contributions if their period of service is less than ten years. An important aspect of this provision, however, is the safeguard which provides that, during this period of service, the member will be covered against death or invalidity. In the case of death before retirement of a married member who is a contributor to the fund, a pension shall be paid to his widow at the rate of £16 5s. a unit per annum. In the case of death a pension at the rate of £13 per annum shall be paid in respect of each of the member's children under the age of sixteen years. In the case of the death of a widow, who was in receipt of a pension of the character I have just quoted, a further payment at the rate of £13 per annum shall be made in respect of each of her children under the age of sixteen years. On the death of a male pensioner, a pension equal to one-half of the ambunt that would have been payable to her husband at the time of his death shall be payable to his widow, and in respect of each of her children under the age of sixteen years, a pension at the rate of £13 per annum will also be provided. As was stated bv the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** in his secondreading speech, the Commonwealth will meet its liability in respect of pension payments or gratuity as the individual ease arises. The ultimate cost of the defence forces retirement scheme cannot, at this stage, be accurately determined. Based on the present approved strength of the forces, however, it has been estimated that the annual commitment may reach £2,000,000 in fifteen years' time and may increase comparatively slowly thereafter. It is stressed that this commitment will be far in excess of the liability of the Commonwealth in respect of deferred pay and superannuation of the forces. This proposal has been carefully considered by all sections of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Every conceivable approach to the problem has been explored. This is the first time that a sound superannuation scheme has been formulated for the forces. Realizing that very attractive employment was offering in civilian walks of life, the Government decided that some encouragement should be given to those attracted to the fighting forces as a career. The members of the service which I have the honour to administer - the Army - have spoken in very high terms of praise of the bill now before the House. In this measure, the Government has embodied a superannuation scheme which will give to the members of the fighting forces some sense of security, and will attract to the forces men who wish to pursue a military career. Until this proposal was made known, there was a feeling of frustration among not only the members of the forces but also those who may have desired to serve in them but were reluctant to do so because of the unsatisfactory conditions of service. That feeling of frustration was particularly noticeable in the parents of cadets of the Duntroon Military College. Naturally, they wanted to know what the future held for their eons and whether, if their sons had to retire at an early age, the Commonwealth would make adequate provision for them. The benefits of this legislation will undoubtedly be manifested in a heavier enlistment rate in the fighting forces and many lads now contemplating a military career will be able to make a final decision as to their future. The bill represents the earnest wish of the Government to protect the members of its fighting forces. I commend it to the House, and urge that it be considered on non-party lines. {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- To the degree that this bill constitutes an improvement in respect of the basis for pensions or gratuities for the permanent forces I commend it. I also commend the final appeal of the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Chambers)** that the bill be discussed in a non-party spirit. The honorable gentleman, however, opened his speech by saying that previous governments had shirked their responsibilities and that this was the first superannuation scheme that had been evolved for the fighting forces. It is a pity that the Minister did not study his brief more closely. He apparently allowed his enthusiasm to outrun his appreciation of the facts. In his second-reading speech on this measure the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** said - >Permanent personnel ofthe Army are contributors to the Commonwealth Superannua tion Fund and have the same pension cover for themselves and their dependants as have members of the Commonwealth Public Service. As the Minister for the Army continued his speech he began to quote a few facts, but apparently he was fearful of departing from his notes. {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr Chambers: -- The honorable member is not telling the truth. I said that this was the first comprehensive superannuation scheme that had been evolved for the forces. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Minister said that previous governments had shirked their responsibilities in this matter. The Minister's words will be recorded in *Hansard.* It is unfortunately the history of the British people that in times of peace the fighting forces are forgotten. As Kipling said of "Tommy" Atkins - >For its Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Chuck him out, the brute! " > >But its " Saviour of 'is country " when > >The guns begin to shoot. That has been true for all time. The pensions and gratuities provided for our fighting forces have always been hopelessly inadequate. It is true that repatriation benefits are somewhat better but they, too, could well be improved. Never at any time has this subject been dealt with adequately. In ray few observations on this bill :L propose to suggest some improvements which might commend themselves to the Minister. I ask him to consider them in the spirit in which they are offered. First, I support the plea of the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Ryan)** for simplicity in the scheme. There is good reason for that request. If officers serving in the forces knew that at a certain age they would be retired - this Government has recently dispensed with the services of a number of permanent officers before they had reached the retiring age - they would know where they stood, [f the British system of retirement had been adopted they would be better off all round. Clause 4, which, *inter alia* defines the authority which is to determine who shall receive pensions, provides that " Service Board " means the Naval Board, the Military Board, or the Air Board as the case may be. The Military Board has recently been improved by the addition of an officer of the Citizen Forces in accordance with a proposal which I made in this House about eighteen months ago. I have since asked why such an improvement has not been made to the Air Board, and only to-day I received an answer containing the following information : - >Iti the Army, 72 per cent, of the total planned strength will be Citizen Forces. In the Navy, the comparable proportion is 6 per cent, and in the Air Force the proportion is 3 per cent. A table then sets out figures showing plans for the strength of each service. The answer continues - >The Citizen Naval Forces and the Citizen Air Force are a small but valuable component of the Navy and Air Force respectively. They are integrated with permanent personnel in a different manner and form of organization from that followed in the Army. Having regard to this and the foregoing comparison of relative strengths, the Government feels that there is no real need to afford them special representation on the service boards which are responsible for the administration of those forces as a whole. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- And a very good answer, too .' {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- If the Minister knew something about the Air Force - and I contend that he does not - he would realize that it is a very feeble answer. I point out, and I am sorry that the Minister for Air **(Mr. Drakeford)** is not here to listen to me, that during the war the numerical strength of the R'iyal Australian Air Force was approximately 180,000. The proportion of permanent members in that huge force must have been small. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- What has this to do with superannuation? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I am sorry that the Minister is so dense that he cannot see the connexion. If there is room for a citizen force representative on the Military Board, there is room for such a representative on the Air Board. Should war unfortunately occur again, the services boards would have to deal with problems in the solution of which the knowledge of citizen force representatives would be helpful. That is ray first suggestion - that a citizen force officer should be appointed to the Air Board as soon as possible. Another proposal arises from the definition of " rank " in clause 4 of the bill- " rank " in relation to a member of the Permanent Naval Forces, means confirmed rank and, in relation to a member of the Permanent Military Forces or Permanent *Air* Force, means substantive rank; In case honorable members are not aware of the fact, there is a pronounced distinction between substantive rank and temporary or acting rank. Honorable members may not know that many thousands of men who reached high rank in the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II. had a substantive rank only of flying officer, the equivalent of lieutenant in the Army. Many such men commanded squadrons and held important administrative posts. If they were members of the Citizen Force, their substantive rank was that of flying officer, no matter how high their temporary rank might have been. That condition applied when the war ended, and it still applies to the permanent forces to-day. However distinguished his previous career may have been, a former wing-commander or squadron-leader could probably enlist only as a flying officer in the very attenuated permanent Air Force that we have to-day. That is another reason why there should be a citizen force member of the Air Board. I repeat that the pensions should be straight-out pensions and should not have so many strings attached to them. Many distinguished Australians have remained in the United Kingdom forces because, in their native land, they would receive little consideration when they reached the retiring age. That is definitely true of the Air Force. Some of the senior officers of the Royal Air Force during the war were Australians who took short-service commissions in the service and remained in it. I asked a number of distinguished Australians whom I met in Great Britain whether they contemplated returning to their own country. They told me that they wanted to come back to Australia because they would always be Australians, but that they would not do so because the conditions of service in the Royal Australian Air Force were not so good as those in the Royal Air Force. I admit, of course, that other considerations affected their decisions to remain in the United Kingdom. For instance, the Royal Air Force offered them chances of wider commands and greater experience. Amongst these officers were such men as Air-Marshals Coningham, Drummond, Bennett and Mitchell. They might have served in the Royal Australian Air Force if it had offered them opportunities for service equal to those offered by the Royal Air Force and an assurance of adequate pensions upon retirement. I submit these suggestions for consideration by the Minister for Defence. I ask him to examine them carefully, putting aside the fact that they have come from the Opposition. Under present conditions, very little inducement is offered to young men who gained seniority during the war, as the Minister will realize if he studies the subject. The very small defence forces that this Government is providing for Australia are so small as to be totally inadequate. Young men of the type I have mentioned who enter the service at very junior ranks will retire at those junior ranks, because any higher rank to which they may attain will not be taken into account upon retirement. A man in the Royal Australian Air Force might gain promotion to the rank of group-captain, but his substantive rank might still remain that of flying officer. In the Army he might become a brigadier, but his substantive rank, upon retirement, could be that of colonel. Such men would retire at the lower rank. The Minister for Defence has a responsibility to do the fair thing for the three armed services. Up to date the Army and the Air Force have been provided for under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act, albeit inadequately, a fact for which all former governments, of whatever political colour, must accept responsibility in varying degrees. A gratuity system has provided for the Navy. This bill is intended to secure uniformity for the three services. In some respects it is a good bill; in other respects it falls short of justice. I repeat emphatically that there is a grave disability due to the fact that an officer, over many years of service, may rise to an important and responsible .position but, when the age of retirement arrives, he obliged to retire with a -mere pittance because of his low substantive rank. I know that it would be useless for me to submit an amendment with the object of giving effect to my suggestions because the Opposition lacks the numbers that would be necessary to enforce its acceptance. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Defence to consider my proposals in the hope that he will agree to them after more mature consideration. If he does not, I hope that a subsequent government will do so. Such an amendment is necessary. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-KHY} ##### Mr HOWSE:
Calare .- I commend the Government for bringing forward this scheme, which is long overdue. Some form of pensions scheme for the armed services is very desirable. However, after examining the measure, I consider that the Government has missed a wonderful opportunity to introduce a plan as attractive as any in the world. I do not suggest that it should increase benefits for members of the permanent forces on a competitive basis with other countries, but it could mould its scheme along the lines of that which applies in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government has issued a White Paper dealing with the details of its retiring allowances for members of the fighting services. This document deals very fully and fairly with all of the problems involved. The Government could have followed the lines of the British scheme set out in that White Paper. Instead, it seems to have copied the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme. Should we use that as a yard stick? Can we honestly say that its terms are absolutely perfect? Has it operated with complete satisfaction? Is it flawless? Of course not! There are many anomalies in the scheme. Therefore, surely it would be better to base this new pensions scheme for the services, which is very desirable - and welcome, on the one which has been instituted for the United Kingdom forces rather than to fall back on the Public Service superannuation scheme. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated that the maximum pension payable would be £845 per annum. He explained that that figure was selected because it was also the maximum pension payable to a member of the Commonwealth Public Service. I- ask: Why should the Government use that basis in order to determine the highest pension to be paid to members of the armed forces? I know that I shall not be in order in referring to Public Service pensions, and I am not trying to make comparisons between the Public Service and the armed services, nor do I wish to imply that members of one service are worthy of a higher pension than are members of the other, but I do say that members of the armed services are worth a higher pension than the amounts provided in this bill. When I compare the rates in the third schedule to the bill with the pensions payable to retired members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom, I find big disparities. Under the United Kingdom scheme, no contributions are payable, so far as I can see, by members of the services, yet they enjoy a higher scale of pension than do members of the Australian services. I select a few instances. After twenty years' service, a vice-admiral or rear-admiral in the Royal Navy receives a pension of £1,300, but the highest pension payable to any member of the Australian armed forces is pegged at £845. A captain in the Royal Navy, a colonel in the British Army or a group captain in the Royal Air Force receives a pension of £825, but officers holding similar ranks in the Australian forces will receive pensions of £610 - a difference of nearly £200. Whilst a lieutenant-commander in the Royal Navy, a major in the British Army or a squadron-leader in the Royal Air Force receives a pension of £475, officers holding similar ranks in the Australian services will receive a pension of £360. In each instance, the rates payable under the Australian scheme are substantially less than the rates payable under the United Kingdom scheme. The most senior officers of the Australian services upon retirement receive a much lower pension than officers holding similar positions in the United Kingdom services. When I was on loan " over the other side ", I felt very happy that my pay was a little higher than that of officers of similar rank in the Royal Navy, and we Australians used to argue that that margin in our favour was quite right. Officers of the Royal Navy did not agree. Now, the whole situation has been reversed. Although the rates of pay of members of the Royal Navy were very low, the pensions scheme which the United Kingdom Government introduced for members of all the services is, I am led to believe from my discussions with British servicemen, very fair. By comparison, the Australian scheme looks poor. Can the reason be that our servicemen are not so good as are the United Kingdom servicemen? Is it that our servicemen do not render such good service as they do? That is not the answer. The Government has taken a purely mercenary view, and said, " This scheme will cost us £2,000,000", quite overlooking the fact, that it has already budgeted for the expenditure of £250,000,000 on defence during the next five years. Surely this pensions scheme should be included in the general defence scheme. It should be regarded as a means of encouraging the right type of individual to enter the armed services and remain in them. I am afraid that in the Australian services there are too many men who are spending their time wondering how they can obtain their release and get other employment, so that they may have a chance to educate their children and make a start in n different vocation. If we are to have sound defence services based on efficient officers and men, we must offer to them the security which they deserve and which their years of service demand. When introducing this pensions scheme, the Government should not place it on a niggardly basis, as it is doing by fixing the maximum pension at £845 simply because that is the maximum pension payable to any member of the Public Service. The Government should say, This is a wonderful opportunity for us to set an example, and build up the armed services by making the rates of pension at least comparable with those offered to members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom ". {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- It is not often that members of the Opposition have occasion to express approval of bills which this" Government introduces, but my own reaction to this measure is that it is a very welcome piece of legislation. T make that statement after having closely studied the bill, and after having submitted it to members of the forces with whom. I came into contact during the last few weeks. This is the first attempt to place retirement benefits for serving members of the forces on a methodical and over-all basis. The need for this legislation was, and, indeed, still is, very great. As the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. Howse)** said, in order to attract the best type of individual to the forces, we must offer the best material advantages that we possibly can. The life of the professional soldier, sailor and airman does carry certain great disadvantages. Although their salaries and allowances, on paper, may not appear to be bad, the standard of living, particularly of officers, is necessarily higher than they would choose if they were not obliged to keep up certain appearances. In addition, it is almost impossible for a member of the permanent forces to save, or, as other people in civilian life do, make provision by insurance and. other methods for their old age and for the maintenance of their families in the event of their death. In the circumstances, they have to rely upon a scale of retirement benefits which the Government is prepared to grant to them. We have seen the distressing spectacle of most able men, serving in the forces, being faced with the constant worry about what they would do when they retired, or what their wives and families would do if they happened to be killed. It is a wellknown and widely-recognized fact that in the past both allowances and pensionshave been unsatisfactory. Doubtless the Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Riordan)** has read the book, *The Price of Admiralty,.* which is a fine tribute to the Royal Australian Navy. To my mind, this story is also rather tragic. Throughout thissplendid narrative may be detected theconstant struggle of the man who gavethe highest standard of service to thiscountry, to make ends meet on an inadequate salary. It seems to me rather a disgrace to Australia that such a splendid1 type of man should have been placed in such a difficult financial position all bisserving life, and when, in the execution, of his duty, he was killed, his wife and family should have had to exist on a mom inadequate allowance. At no stage in his career did this man have what we arepleased to call " security ". It behovesus, therefore, to be generous to those whogive so much to their country. In any case, if we were to stint them we should do so at our peril, because we should probably fail to attract the type of men we need in our defence services. Although I commend the bill I do not consider that its provisions are sufficiently generous. In particular, the provision made for the widows and children of officers who die on active service is inadequate. The bill provides that on the death of a serving member one half of his entitlement shall be paid to his widow, and that a sum. of £13 shall be paid annually in respect of each child. Obviously £13 a year is not nearly sufficient to enable a woman to rear a child. She will not have much to spare from her own pension, because she will receive only half her husband's entitlement, and one can only term the provision for children niggardly. A widowed mother must bear the expense not only of feeding and clothing her children and. providing other material necessaries,, but: also of educating them. The maximum pension payable under the scheme is £845 per annum, which will be paid to vice-admirals, lieutenantgenerals and air marshals, which are thehighest ranks to which members of our regular forces can attain. Widows of officers who attain to those ranks will be- entitled to a pension of half that amount, and will receive approximately £420 per annum. Taking into consideration that men who attain those ranks have reached the summit of their profession, the amount of pension payable to them, or their widows, is not inordinately high. However, 1 stress the inadequacy of the pension provided for officers of the lower rank of commander, lieutenant-colonel or wing commander. The pension proposed to be paid to them is only £475, and although that rank may not be regarded as a very senior one, the officers who hold it in war-time are more likely to lose their lives than are those -who hold higher rank. Presumably the pension paid to their widows will be only approximately £230 per annum. I base that calculation on the remarks made by the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** when he introduced this measure. If my understanding of the Government's intentions in this regard be correct, then I think that the scale of pension provided is quite inadequate. I remind honorable members that only £13 a year is payable in respect of each child of a deceased member. In determining the amount payable in respect of children, the Government has undoubtedly had in mind the fact that widows will be eligible to receive child endowment for the second, third and any succeeding children. However, I suggest that such a consideration is quite irrelevant, because child endowment is payable even in respect of children whose fathers are alive and earning money. The scale of pension provided for dependants of deceased members of the services should be such that they can enjoy a standard of living similar to that which they enjoyed previously. Although I have mentioned specifically the inadequacy of the provision made for officers, my criticism of the Government's proposals applies equally to the provision made for noncommissioned officers and other ranks. However, the Government is to be commended for making some effort to improve the treatment of members of the armed services, and my only regret is that it has not been more generous. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for the Navy · Kennedy · ALP -- This measure was introduced as a corollary to the improved rates of pay recently granted to members of the armed forces, and should be considered in conjunction with those rates. When the Government decided to improve substantially the lo.t of members of the armed forces it had in mind many of the considerations mentioned by the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. Howse)** and the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett).** It realizes quite clearly its obligation to make proper provision for the .remuneration and security of members of the armed forces, and it knows that men who are contented are more likely to display the maximum efficiency in their careers. It is a fact that for some years past members of the Royal Navy have enjoyed a pension on retirement, but although members of the Royal Australian Navy were not entitled to pensions on retirement it should be borne in mind that they received lump sum payments. Unfortunately, many who received such payments and invested them in commercial, agricultural "and other undertakings lost their money because they were not fitted by either training or experience to succeed in the particular venture in which they had invested. The Government recognizes its obligation to provide for those who have served the country faithfully and well, and that is why it has introduced the present proposal. So far as members of the service which I administer, the Royal Australian Navy, are concerned, I am confident that officers, petty officers and ratings will appreciate the provision made for them in this measure. The honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Ryan)** referred to sub-clause 2 of clause 42, which provides - >In the case of a member who on retirement - (ft) bus completed twelve years' service for pension - the gratuity shall not he less than Three hundred and sixty pounds. However, it is proposed to amend that provision by omitting the words : " Three hundred and sixty pounds ", and to insert in lieu thereof the words: "a sum calculated at the rate of thirty pounds for each completed year of service for pension ". If the proposed amendment is accepted, a member of the services who has completed more than, twelve but less than twenty years' service will receive far more than £360. The honorable member for Calare mentioned that the proposed scheme is related basically to the Public Service superannuation scheme, and that is correct. However, I point out to honorable members that the pension scheme provided for members of the Public Service is based on the salaries paid to them. The pension scheme proposed for members of the armed services differs from that provided for members of the Public Service in that the Government's contributions to the armed services fund will be much greater than those made to the Public Service fund. The Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** estimated that the Government would contribute 60 per cent, of the funds of the armed forces' scheme, and that after a period of fifteen years the Government's annual contribution would amount to approximately 2,000,000. However, I consider that his estimate is rather conservative, as in my opinion the annual amount paid by the Government to the fund in fifteen years' time will be much greater than £2,000,000. The honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Ryan)** referred to the pension of £95 for an able seaman. By way of interjection, I asked how many men would not have obtained a rank higher than that after twenty years' service. If my information be correct, there are in the Royal Australian Navy at the present time only two men who have served for twenty years and have not got beyond that rank. In the main, a man who is interested in the service - and he must be interested if he remains in it for twenty years, because his original enlistment would be for only twelve years - would, at the end of twenty years, have attained a rank much higher than that of able seaman and in consequence his retiring benefit would be much higher. {: .speaker-L0G} ##### Mr Ryan: -- "Will the Minister deal with the question of retrospective payments to those who have already left the service and received gratuities? {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- It would be better if the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** dealt with that matter, as it affects the three services. I am pleased at the way in which this bill has been received in this House, and I am sure that it will receive the same welcome by the members of the three services. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth -- This bill is complementary to what has been described as the new pay code. Because of that, and because it can be looked upon as a kind of service insurance, we can take it as an indication that the Government proposes shortly to introduce some form of national insurance under which contributions will be paid by every person in the community in order to purchase benefits similar to those referred to in this measure. If that be so, I commend the bill, because I believe it is a necessary preliminary step to the introduction of some form of national insurance. This measure, as has been pointed out, is designed to co-ordinate the system of retirement benefits for members of the permanent defence forces and to place members of the three services on a uniform basis. In general, it is intended that they shall be treated in the same way as members of the Commonwealth Public Service so far as superannuation is concerned. The Minister for Defence **(Mr. Dedman)** said - >The contributions of members of the services will be precisely the same as in the case of the Commonwealth Public Service, and relate to a member's rate of pay and the age at which he becomes a contributor or obtains pay increases. In another part of his speech, the Minister drew attention to the fact that, under this new system, contributions will be refunded by the Government if a member of the forces is retired before he has served for ten years and that if he has served for more than ten years but less than twenty years he will be entitled to a refund of all the contributions he has paid plus a gratuity equal to one and a half times the amount he has contributed. That is very interesting, but it must be realized that these superannuation benefits will be paid for by the servicemen. Under the system of deferred pay where a lump sum was paid on retirement, no contribution was made by the member, but under this system contributions will be payable. It will be noted that, in an endeavour to combine the principles of the old and new systems, the member is to be given the opportunity to transfer the deferred pay he has accumulated in order to reduce his future contributions to the scheme. He will, however, want to know whether he will thereby get fair value for his money, and I am wondering whether officers are to be made available to advise men whether it will be better for them to retain their rights under the deferred pay system or to purchase an annuity under the new system. If not, it means that possibly some high-ranking officer will have to engage an actuary to calculate the benefits that will accrue under one or other of the systems. The question of placing members of the fighting services and members of the Commonwealth Public Service on the 3arne footing is one upon which I hold definite ©pinions. I believe that they should not be treated in the same way. There is a wide difference between members of the armed forces and members of the Commonwealth Public Service. The difference now is almost as great as that which existed in war-time between people in protected industries, such as munitions workers, and fighting men. Honorable members will remember that the men who made the implements of war were drawing large salary cheques, whilst the men who used those implements, and in so doing, risked their lives, were asked to do so as a matter of national duty. This bill deals with men who are being trained in the art of war and will, if war breaks out, risk and possibly lose their lives. They are to be placed in exactly the same category as members of the Commonwealth Public Service, who, because they occupy purely administrative positions, will not have to face the same risks or be involved in the same difficulties as members of the fighting services. I believe that some preferential treatment should be given to these men who are being trained in the art of war and may be called upon to make great sacrifices in order to preserve all those things that we now enjoy. I am impelled to make that observation because we are apt to lose sight of the great sacrifices made by our service personnel in time of war. Under this measure, the Government has not been sufficiently mindful of the different categories in which retired members of the regular armed forces are placed. As a general rule the serviceman retires while still in the prime of life, whereas the public servant remains in the service until he reaches the age of 60 and thereby is enabled to consolidate his financial position. The Minister said that early retirement of members of the armed services was a human problem. I cannot understand why it should be encumbent upon members of the armed services to retire at a comparatively early age whilst public servants continue in employment to a much older age. This anomaly is accentuated when members of the armed services and members of the Public Service contribute to superannuation benefits on the same basis. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- That is not so. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The Minister himself said that contributions of members of the services would be precisely the same as those of members of the Public Service in relation to a member's rate of pay and the age at which he commences to contribute. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- The Government will subsidize the fund. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON: -- I am speaking about the contribution; I have no doubt that the Government will utilize deferred pay standing to the credit of members of the services in subsidizing the fund. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- At the individual's option. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON: -- Actually it is difficult to see how the new system of benefits will work out in practice having regard to the different conditions of service of members of the permanent armed forces and members of the PublicService. As I have said, retirement from the defence forces will generally occur when a member is still of middle agewhereas a member of the Public Service usually continues in the service until heis 60, or 65, years of age. That fact demonstrates the need to differentiatebetween the treatment of members of thearmed services and public servants. Themeasure, which is comprehensive, contains a number of anomalies. Pension benefits are based on length of service,, but adequate consideration has not beengiven to the need to liberalize benefits in respect of short periods of service The- honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** has dealt with that anomaly. The Government is definitely against compulsory military training. In October last, the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Chambers)** said - >History proves that Australia does not have to consider compulsory military training. All her best fighting men have been volunteers. If that view be correct, the tendency will be towards short periods of service, and, therefore, 'benefits in respect of short periods of service should be made more attractive. The Government's disregard of this aspect of national defence is exemplified in clause 42 of the bill which reads - (1.) Subject to this section, a member (not being an officer) who is a contributor and who, on retirement after completion of his engagement, or, if he has had successive and continuous engagements, after completion of the last of those engagements, is not -entitled to a pension under the provisions of the Inst preceding section, shall, on retirement, he entitled to a refund of the it mount of any contributions paid by bini under thi*? Act and in receive a gratuity equal to - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. one and one-half times. the amount of those contributions; or {: type="1" start="6"} 0. an amount of Twenty pounds fol each completed year of service for pension, whichever is the greater. (2.) In the case of a member who on retirement 1. has not completed twelve years' service for pension - the amount of the gratuity shall not be greater than One hundred and twenty pounds; and {: type="1" start="6"} 0. has completed twelve years' service for pension - the gratuity shall not not bc less than Three hundred and sixty pounds. (3.) If a member to whom this section -applies, is on retirement requested by the Service Board to serve on the Reserve maintained by the Service of which he was a member, and docs not agree so to serve - 2. in the case of a member who on retirement has not completed twelve years' service for pension - he shall not be entitled to be paid any gratuity under this section; and {: type="1" start="6"} 0. in the case of a member who on retirement has completed twelve years' service for pension - the gratuity to which he shall be entitled under this section shall be a sum calculated at the rate of Twenty pounds for each completed year of service for pension. I understand from the remarks of the Minister for the Army that an anomaly has been disclosed in sub-clause 2 of that clause and that that provision is- to be amended. I submit that a corresponding amendment must be made to sub-clause 3. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- No. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON: -- I fail to follow the Minister's reasoning. Under sub-clause 3 a member who, on retirement, has completed twelve years' service for pension is penalized if he does not agree to serve on the reserve, whereas under sub-clause 2 n member who, on retirement, has notcompleted twelve years' service for pension will receive a gratuity not greater than £120, and in the case of a member who, on retirement, has completed twelve years' service for pension, a gratuity of not less than £360. As the difference between the periods of service in the two instances may be only a few days, the disparity in the pensions benefits is too great. Should a member, on retirement, fail by only one day to complete twelve years' service for pension, he will receive only £120. As the Minister admits that an anomaly exists in sub-clause 2 as drafted, it is clear that a corresponding anomaly exists in sub-clause 3, and the Government must rectify it. {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- The language of subclause 2 (5) is being amended to bring it into conformity with that used in subclause 3. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr HARRISON: -- In one case a member of the services who does not agree to serve on the reserve will noi be entitled to be paid any gratuity, but a member who, on retirement, has completed twelve years' service for pension, that is, he may have served for twelve years and one day, or for a few days more than the member to whom no gratuity is to be paid, shall, even if he refuses to serve on the reserve be paid a gratuity of £240. Clearly, an anomaly exists in this clause; and if the Minister cannot give a satisfactory explanation .1 shall have something further to say on it at the committee stage. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that those who did not qualify for pensions would be entitled to a refund of their contributions if they served less than ten years " although throughout that period they will be covered against death or invalidity ". A period of service of up to ten years would bring a man to the age of nearly 30 years. Yet, if he does not complete ten years' service, the Government refuses to contribute towards his pension. We have every. reason to believe that the next war will he a scientific conflict, in which the need for trained scientific personnel will be vital to the Affectiveness of our defence preparedness. A provision like that is not likely to attract technicians to the permanent service, particularly because of the more lucrative' attractions of civilian service. In the interests of national defence the Government should concentrate upon recruiting men for short service periods, and, to that end, make attractive the conditions of service and retirement after that service. Another matter needing clarifying is clause 23 (3), " Commencement and cessation of contributions ". Under it any other rank serving an initial period of less than six years shall not contribute to the Defence Forces Retirements Benefit Fund. Will he receive deferred pay on termination of service? Will he contribute to any fund in the nature, of a provident fund? A man in that category will be faced with what the Minister referred to as " the intensely human problem of fitting into civilian life ". If he has learnt a trade while in the services his difficulty will be somewhat mitigated, but if he has served in a branch of the forces in which he has not received skilled training his problem will be acute. He may have married and have raised a family while in the services. One phase of this legislation that is not only indicative of indifference to retired members of the forces but is also vicious in its application in clause 69, which covers re-employment of pensioners. En a niggardly fashion the Government demands it3 pound of flesh from the ex-serviceman settling into civil life. The clause provides, in effect, that if the pensioner is' employed by the Commonwealth and is paid in respect of that employment for more than 28 days in a year, the Government will withhold its contributions to his pension. That is regardless of the kind of work in which the pensioner is engaged, and, apparently, regardless also of whether or not he is a permanent or casual member of the forces. The difference is very important, f or, unless the man becomes a permanent employee, he cannot contribute to superannuation funds. This is the negation of the very principle expressed by the Minister in his second-reading speech when he said - >The Government has a clear obligation to provide a special scheme of retirement benefits which should be sufficient to tide the member over the period of adjustment and to supplant substantially his earnings in his civil occupation. Other clauses in the bill that could be liberalized relate to the widow and dependants of an ex-member of the forces. For instance, clause 57 provides for a one-half pension to be paid to the widow of a pensioner. Is there to be a capital contribution to the widow because of the death of her husband ? If not, the payment of the half pension only is a poor reward for the services of her husband to the country. The half pension, even on the maximum scale, would not be sufficient to pay rent. The clause apparently assumes that the widow of a pensioner is physically capable of earning her own livelihood, has no family responsibilities that would preclude her from doing so, and has had at some time, sufficient business or other training to fit her to do so. But that assumption is unjustified. Clause 58 provides for a pension payment of £26 a year in respect of an orphan of a retired mem-, ber of the forces. That is inadequate. The child may be boarded out as a ward, and if placed with people who restrict their expenditure on the child's upbringing to the meagre amount provided by this bill, the orphan would have a hard life. The provision for commutation of pensions also needs examination. Clause 74 provides that at the discretion of the board in certain circumstances 50 per cent, of a pension may be commuted. In what circumstances will commutation be approved ? What would be the position of a pensioner who may see the only prospect of his civil rehabilitation in the purchase of a business or an interest in a business, and may need all the funds he can raise? This legislation makes no' provision for adjusting pension payments to accord with the rising cost of living. Australia is a highcostofliving country, and the tendency will be for our costs of living to soar as they have in the United States of America. Although purchasing power in this country is showing a tendency to decrease, there is not yet anything like the approximation between wages and costs that exists in the United States of America to-day. In any scheme such as this, provision should be made for the maintenance of stability in the purchasing power of the benefits provided. Pensioners should have some guarantee that their remuneration will he worth as much, say, five years hence, as it is now. One of the great weaknesses of our social services schemes is the lack of any provision for a variation of payments according to a rise or fall of the cost of living. Here is an opportunity to make such a provision. I recall that during the war subscribers to war loans were told that when the money that they invested was finally returned to them, the £1 would be worth, in terms of purchasing power, £1 "plus". That, of course, was nonsense. The purchasing power of the £1 to-day is far less than it was when those loans were floated. I maintain that if a man purchases certain superannuation rights the return for which he subscribes should be guaranteed to him in the years to come. In fairness to all the people who would be affected by this measure, some provision of that kind should be made. This is an excellent scheme, and I welcome its introduction. I do not condemn it. I commend it ; but I emphasize that it contains anomalies, as is often the case with a new venture such as this. It is the duty of the Opposition to draw the attention of the Government to these weaknesses and to encourage the Government to make a better bill out of what we may very well term a good bill. The criticism that I have offered of the measure has been directed towards that end. *Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8.S0 p.m.* {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · Corio · ALP -- *in reply* - The purpose of this bill is to provide retiring benefits for members of the permanent defence forces of the Com.monwealth, and for other purposes. I introduced the bill just before the recent parliamentary recess, and the debate was resumed to-day. My two colleagues, the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Chambers)** and the Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Riordan),** have spoken ia support of the measure, and five members of the Opposition, including its Deputy Leader **(Mr. Harrison),** have also spoken. It is interesting to note that all five members of the Opposition who have spoken paid a tribute to the Government for having introduced the bill. The honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Ryan)** began by saying that the bill was long overdue, and he and the other members of the Opposition said that it should not be dealt with as a party measure. One can well understand why. Their statement that it was long overdue was an admission that previous governments, which they supported, had failed to provide for members of services in the way in which this Labour Government is doing. It is important to bear in mind that all the provisions of the bill were exhaustively examined, while they were in the formative stage, by representatives of the services concerned, as well as by the permanent heads of the service departments. The scheme covers only serving and future members of the forces, so that it cannot be expected to make provision for cases such as that mentioned by the honorable member for Flinders when he asked what was to be done for an officer who had retired on a gratuity in 1937. Obviously, it was the responsibility of the government then in power to provide for him. Some honorable members complained of the length and complexity of the measure, but this is unavoidable because of the varying conditions of service in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force. Navy personnel have no superannuation cover at present. In the Army, permanent members contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Those who are not permanent, - and they comprise a large majority - have no superannuation cover. " Other ranks" of the Air Force contribute to the superannuation fund. Permanent officers are covered in respect of death or invalidity during service, but have no retiring pension. Apart from these differences, conditions within the three services also vary. There is no real complexity in the schedules, as some honorable members opposite have suggested, nor is it difficult to understand them. The formulas are necessary in order to indicate just what a member of the forces can, on his pay, purchase in paid-up superannuation units, and they are easily understandable by those officers who will be required to interpret them. The honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Harrison)** asked whether the Government would make available officers to advise members of the forces regarding the relative benefits of deferred pay and pensions. The officers attached to the forces are fully competent to advise members regarding these matters. The honorable member also suggested that superannuation benefits for members of the forces should be more generous than for members of the Public Service. I have already pointed out that honorable members have commended the Government for bringing this measure down, but it is obvious they do not understand just how generous it is. If they understood this they would be moved to bestow even greater praise. In the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme, the Commonwealth subsidizes members' contributions to the extent of 60 per cent., but in the case of the armed forces the Commonwealth contribution is much greater. The actual figure cannot be stated, but it will certainly be much more than 60 per cent. For example, the pension purchaseable by a lieutenantcommander at the age of 45, from his own contributions, would cost him £63 a year. If his own contributions were subsidized to the extent of 60 per cent., as in the Public Service, the Commonwealth's contribution would be £94 a year, making a total of £157 a year. Under the Government's proposal, however, there will be a further Commonwealth contribution of £203 a year, entitling the recipient to a pension of £360 a year. Thus, of the pension of £360 a year, only £63 is purchased by the member, and £297 is paid from public funds. It is obvious, therefore, that the scheme is much more generous than is the ordinary Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme. The reason is that the conditions of service are entirely different, and those conditions have to be taken into account. That is the answer to the criticism of the honorable member for Wentworth. It must be remembered that part of a member's pension is intended to provide for his wife. I am dealing now with the point raised by the honorable member for Wentworth regarding the right of a member to commute his pension. If a member commuted the whole of his pension, and lost the proceeds in an unwise investment, or in any other way, no pension would be payable to his widow in the event of his death. The provisions relating to commutation of pensions are generous as they provide for commutation on the application of a member, with the approval of the board, of up to 50 per cent, of his .pension. Thus, of a pension of £360 a year, a member could commute £180, while continuing to draw the other half. On his death, his widow would be paid her full half share of the original pension, .amounting to £1S0. Had the member commuted the whole of his pension, nothing would be payable to his widow or family dependants in the event of his death. The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** complained of the inadequacy of the pension payable to the widow of an officer killed om service. In such a case, the widows' pensions would not be half the amount payable to the husband upon retirement. He mentioned the case of a lieutenant-commander, and said that a pension of £180 would not be enough for his widow. If an officer of that rank had been killed, or had died during his service, his widow would receive a pension equal to one-half of the pension for which he had been contributing during his service. The pension payable to the widow would be approximately £325 per annum, not £180 as suggested by the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett),** plus £13 for each child under sixteen years of age. The rate of pension is based on the number of units for which the member was contributing, and not on the rate of pension provided for upon retirement. In addition to the pension receivable from the superannuation fund, the widow would be eligible for any war pension payab'le to her if her husband had been killed on active service. It will therefore 'be seen that the provisions of this measure are very much more generous than honorable members opposite have realized. That they have commended the measure without realizing bow generous it is means virtually that they have not been able to find in it anything to oppose. There are one or two minor matters regarding which I shall move some amendments in committee. I pay a tribute to the officers who prepared the measure. Originally, I had hoped that it would be dealt with before the Parliament went into recess recently, because it was believed that it might have some bearing on recruitment for the various services. I was advised that there was some dissatisfaction because it was not known what the superannuation conditions would be for the various services. However, the fact that I was able to make my second-reading speech before the Parliament went into recess meant, in effect, that the necessary information was provided for any one who had been hesitant about joining one of the services until the provisions of the superannuation scheme were announced. Because I wished to have the drafting and preparation of the bill, which honorable members opposite have described as very complex, dealt with before the Parliament went into recess, a very great deal of work was thrown on to .certain officers at short notice. I pay a tribute of appreciation to them for having had the bill ready for presentation to the House at such short notice. If there are any matters that I have failed to cover, they can be dealt with in committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed *I'-ro forma;* progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1582 {:#debate-32} ### INTERNA ATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT BILL 1948 Second Reading. debate resumed from the 22nd April *(vide* page 1066), on motion by **Mr. Pollard** - That the bill be now read a second time. {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Indi .- This is a resumption of the debate that was initiated by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** when introducing the bill to ratify the International Wheat Agreement. Almost the whole of the last Australian wheat crop has been sold under legally binding contract terms. There is still some flour that has not been committed. This is a piece of. legislation introduced on the initiative and with the full backing of the Australian Labour party to reduce the price on the contracts of sale to the United Kingdom and India by between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 ; in other words, literally to take thai amount, the property of the Australian wheat-growers, out of their pockets. The Australian Government's representatives have already signed the International Wheat Agreement, which effects that price reduction. This legislative proposal to give final effect to the agreement would not now be before this Parliament if the Labour caucus had not already approved of it, so already it is quite clear that whilst one may make a speech about it, nothing said in the course of the debate upon it in this Parliament will change that decision. The wheat affected was grown by the Australian wheat-growers. Each grower had to get a permit from the Government, but was not warned that, the Government might enter into an international agreement arbitrarily to reduce the value of his product. The growers bought the land on which the wheat was grown, and the equipment that was used to produce it, and financed its production. They took seasonal and price risks, and delivered the wheat under the conditions prescribed by the Wheat Regulations made under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act. The Government compulsorily acquired their wheat, and without consulting either them or the Australian Wheat Board - upon which the growers are represented - entered into contracts to sell to the United Kingdom at 17s. a bushel, and to India at 18s. 6d. a bushel. The Australian Wheat Board has been freely selling the available residue at 20s. 6d. a bushel and upwards. The Australian Wheat Board felt so strongly that its responsibilities had been abrogated by the Government that, at its meeting following the announcement of the governmental sale to the United Kingdom, **Mr. Everett,** the Acting Chairman, stated that the board had unanimously expressed grave concern at the action of the Government in whittling down the board's responsibilities. The board, in a resolution, expressed profound regret at the action of the Government, and declared that the Government should pay to it on behalf of the growers, the difference between the prices to which the Government had agreed and the prices at which the board would ordinarily have sold the wheat. Then, again without consulting either the growers who had produced this product at their own risk or the Australian Wheat Board, the Government made an arbitrary adjustment of the sale. That is being effected in this bill. In respect of wheat not delivered by the 1st August of this year, the effect is to cancel the previous contracts, so reducing the price further by about onethird. As I have said, this will reduce wheat-growers' returns -by from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 this year. That is the short story of this year's wheat harvest and the immediate effect of this agreement on growers' returns. Whatever pretence the Government may have attempted to maintain in the past about recognizing the rights of producers in their own product, its arbitrary conduct in respect of this year's wheat crop has torn away completely any camouflage of words which it may have hoped would hide its attitude towards the private property of individuals. This Government stands exposed, beyond question or argument, as a government which has no compunction in seizing the private property of individuals and bartering with that property in accordance with its policies. The Government has shown itself so contemptuous of the Australian Wheat Board, the statutory body established ostensibly, as we were told by the Minister who introduced the measure, to manage the affairs and guard the interests of the Australian wheat industry, that for over twelve months following the death of the chairman, the board has been left without a. properly appointed chairman, and for the same period has been left without a member to replace **Mr. Ernest** Field, a member elected by the growers of New South Wales who died in July last year. All of these things show that the Government is not only not using the board as the executive authority to control the wheat industry but also that it is now contemptuously not even using the board in an advisory capacity. The Government's policy appears to be deliberately aimed at allowing the board to languish and die. No group of. people in this country is more encompassed by laws than are the wheat-growers. There is a law to say who may grow wheat; there is a law to say how much a wheat-grower may grow, and a law to say what wheat-growers must do when they have grown their crop. A thousand laws encompass the wheatgrowers, every one of which they must observe under threat of dire penalties. Included in this maze of laws are to be found occasional provisions which appear to establish rights for the growers as well as to impose obligations upon them. The grower who has a permit to grow wheat on 200 acres may not tell the Government that he has decided to sow 250 acres; but the Government, which has formerly sold his product for 18s. 6d. a bushel may tell him it has decided to reduce the price to 12s. a bushel. The Government does not appear to regard itself as in any respect bound by what, after all, is a code of laws establishing a 'business relationship between it and the wheat-growers. Under Wheat Regulation 192a it is stipulated that the whole of the net proceeds of realization shall be paid to the farmer. The Government is no more entitled to abrogate that right, established for the wheat-grower, by cancelling a contract of sale of produce already in its possession and substituting a lower contract price, than a grower would be entitled to decide to break the law under which he engages in his industry. I shall examine presently whatever arguments may be advanced in an attempt to show that this is a meritorious transaction, either on sentimental grounds or as a business deal. The overshadowing fact to be recognized is that in this industry, the product of which this year has a realizable market value greater even than that- of the Australian wool clip, the Government has had no hesitation in absolutely denying all right of private ownership. The Government has evidenced such contempt, not only for the owners of the wheat, but also for public opinion in this not yet socialized country, that it has not even pretended to go through the motions of consulting the statutory body, the Australian Wheat Board, or the growers who are very well organized and whose leaders are easily accessible for consultation. I asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, in a question without notice, whether the Australian Wheat Board had been consulted before the Government decided to become a party to this agreement. The Minister replied - I feel entitled to use the term " brazenly replied'" - that the board had not been consulted-, but that he would have been interested to learn its opinion of the agreement. He then cynically admitted thathe had not put the board' in possession of a copy of the agreement. If the rights of other industries - or for that matter, of individuals - in their property, are denied in future by Labour, at least it will not be possible to say that due warning has not been provided by this transaction. I issue that warning and- this protest before proceeding to examine the transaction itself. The Minister in his explanatory speech has not left a very clear impression of what we are expected to accept as the motive for this transaction. In the kind of world1 we live in ait the moment, food supplies furnish the diplomats with one of the most powerful instruments of diplomacy. I shall not argue that our Australian surpluses of basic foodstuffs should' not be made available through- governmental or international agencies along lines which will show that the western democracies are not indifferent to the needs of humanity; and I certainly shall not argue that we should exploit our opportunities to- wring the- last penny out of the United King1dcm in its moment- of economic crisis; but I shall, and do, argue that whatever it is proper for the- Australian Government to arrange in either of these respects should be carried through by, and at the cost of, the Government, and not by seizing the property of private individuals and carrying out governmental policies at the cost of a limited number of private persons who happen to have chosen one industry as the scope for their activities. Even considerations of sentiment cannot override this as a general principle, and certainly national generosity should not be practised at the cost of any one section. Meat, for instance, could be. supplied cheaper to the United Kingdom by the Government reducing the wages of employees engaged in the processing or handling of meat for the United Kingdom ; but no one would, ever dream of suggesting that. Yet the price of wheat, meat or butter is as much, the wages of the producers of those commodities as is the fortnightly pay cheque of a slaughterman or a wharf labourer. It is of no use for the Government to deny that it does engage in the supply of. certain foodstuffs, at attractive prices, for the purpose of influencing international relationships because there is the stark example of the notorious New Zealand wheat transaction to- prove, it.. I d.o no.t wish to reiterate the odious history of that transaction, but it is apropos this discussion because- this agreement varies the New Zealand wheat agreement. That is set out" clearly- in Article XVII. of this agreement. It is well known that the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, now Vice-President of the Executive Council (Me. Scully) denied, in the most unequivocal terms on- the floor of the Parliament, that he or his Government had engaged' to make a sale of wheat at a cheap price to New Zealand and that, after an election had intervened, it was revealed that at the time he made these denials he had not only conferred but also exchanged correspondence with the responsible New Zealand Minister engaging to make the sale. One would need to be very simple-minded not to believe that it was only the exposure of this sale at a cheap price when an Australian election was imminent which brought about the provision under which the Australian Government carried the cost of the sale rather than the wheat-growers. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- The honorable member knows that no announcement was made ' regarding tha t until after- the election. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I know very well that no. announcement was made. On the contrary, there were denials. However, the New Zealand Minister declared in the Parliament of that dominion that there had been conferences and an exchange of correspondence at the time when the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture stood in his place in this Parliament and denied that he had made any engagement for a sale of wheat at a cheap price. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- He denied a contract. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- The Minister is merely playing with words. I do not know whether we have come to a pass at which Britsh governments have to sign contracts in order to ratify verbal undertakings at conferences and exchanges of correspondence between responsible Ministers. The truth of the matter is, as events showed, that, whether a. contract then existed or not, the arrangement was interpreted by the Australian Government and by the New Zealand Government as a contractual obligation. That was not exposed until an Australian election had intervened. That incident warrants one making the closest examination of the motives behind this transaction. If this transaction were limited to supplying the United Kingdom, and even other very closely associated countries, with wheat at a reasonable price, I should be prepared to agree - and I have confidence that I would not be in disagreement with the growers - that such a course would be proper and that growers might forgo a part of the extraordinarily high price prevailing and that the Australian Government might make good a portion of some such concession. However, a glance at the schedule will show that the benefits of the agreement extended to the United Kingdom are to be shared equally with countries with which we have no sentimental attachment -Afghanistan, Brazil and Cuba - and such ex-enemy countries as Italy and Austria. I consider that any immediate financial concession to be given to these countries ought to be borne, if the concession is made as an agency of diplomacy, by the Australian Government. If the conces sion is to be borne by the Australian! wheat-grower, as this measure proposes,' then I should certainly want to be convinced that it represented, in the long run, good business for the wheat-grower; in short, that it could be justified as a commercial transaction. Lest there should be any misunderstanding or, worse still, misrepresentation of what I am saying insofar as this transaction benefits the United Kingdom, I repeat that I believe that the Australian wheat-growers would not wish to wring from the United Kingdom the highest price which world demand at present would establish. Growers, I am sure, would be prepared to have their product sold to the United Kingdom at a measurable discount. A further concession could and should be provided by a subvention on the United Kingdom sales by the Australian Government. Surely, if there isnothing else we agree upon, we at least are agreed upon the necessity to aid theUnited Kingdom through its crisis and help in its re-establishment. At this point, however,. I feel that it is not inopportune to remind the United Kingdom itself that when it was not so hard-pressed but when this great industry of ours was in desperate straits at the outbreak of war - I mean literally at the outbreak of war and before it developed to serious proportions - the United Kingdom drove with Australia what I have always thought to be an intolerably hard bargain in contracting to buy our surplus wheat at that time. The United Kingdom Government's complete control of shipping at the outbreak of war left us with no freedom to seek alternative purchasers, and the measuring stick which was employed to determine the price at which it could buy from us was the competitive price at whichneutral Argentina and the neutral and "cash and carry" United States of America were then prepared to sell. Another shilling or two a bushel would have made a tremendous difference to our wheat industry, and would have had practically no measurable effect upon the price of bread in the United Kingdom. I hope that, if anything approximating those circumstances ever repeats itself, this country will not again be left with the memory which it still carries of absolutely harsh bargaining by the United Kingdom when we were in a cleft stick. For many years prominent members of the Labour party have publicly argued that, if the Australian Government should enter into an international agreement, the fact would automatically invest this Parliament with constitutional authority sufficient to carry through its undertakings under such agreement. As many of us know, it has been argued by influential members of the Labour party in this House that, to become party to an international agreement which included commitments in respect of hours of labour, would authorize this Parliament to so legislate. That is an authority which it does not at present possess. No Australian Government in the history of federation has tried so repeatedly to increase the constitutional .powers of this Parliament as has the present Labour regime. There are those who believe that the Government has had in its mind, in entering into this agreement, the belief that this contract, once concluded, could be legally and constitutionally construed as investing this Parliament with all that authority in respect of wheat production and the wheat industry which it has exercised so fully under its defence powers, which are now on the point of passing from it back to the jurisdiction of the States. For my part, I cannot believe that the existence of an external affairs agreement, the subject of this bill, will give the Australian Parliament power over internal trade to any greater extent than that required to implement the agreement. The relevant part of clause 9 .of article VI. of the agreement is only permissive, not obligatory. I do not pretend to read the mind of the Government on this issue. I do point to the absence of any declaration by the Government that it is in part motivated this agreement by considerations of international relationship in becoming a party to or, in short, diplomacy. Further, if it can be shown that to an ordinary business man this agree- ment represents bad business for the Australian wheat industry, then we are entitled at least to ponder on whether this other issue of additional constitutional powers for the Commonwealth, so achieved, does not provide an explanation of a very extraordinary commercial transaction. Examining this agreement as a commercial transaction, one is guided by the preamble embodying the declaration that high prices resulting from the present shortage, and low prices which would result from future surpluses, are harmful to the interests of both buyers and sellers, and that, therefore, the agreement is to be recognized as an arrangement to rationalize the world wheat trade. Complete confidence in the agreement as such an instrument of rationalization is, from the outset, shaken by two factors. First, some of the most important actual or potential exporting countries, including Argentina, Soviet Russia and the Danubian countries, are not parties to the agreement. Secondly, those countries which are parties to the agreement as buyers are not bound to it. Whatever may be said of this agreement, there is probably a general impression that the three exporting countries which are parties to it are at least on equal terms generally, as they are in the price ranges stipulated. A knowledgeable examination of the situation, however, will quickly show that they are noi on equal terms. To make my point, 1 must produce some statistics indicating the export surplus of each of the three exporting countries, and, as a matter of interest, I add to these the comparable figues for Argentina - the only other great exporter which allows the world to know its statistics. I have prepared a table of figures showing in millions of bushels, including flour equivalent, the export figures of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and the Argentine. . These figures reveal the average export surplus for the period J 934-38, and the actual export surplus for the years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. For purposes of comparison, I include a final column setting out the contractual export obligations of each of the countries which are parties to this agreement. A second table sets out the Australian wheat 'production, consump-sent of honorable members, I shall incortion and export surplus. With the conporate these tables in *Ilansard -* The figures in the first table show clearly that, while there is an export obligation in the terms of - this agreement amounting to 185,000,000 bushels per annum imposed upon the United States, that country last year had an exportable surplus of 500,000,000 bushels available, showing that the United States will have a tremendous surplus above the obligations of this agreement, giving to it a vast business mobility to pick up casual trade in wheat and particularly in flour. How important is this capacity of America to quote for export flour I shall discuss at a later stage, but I now compare this American export obligation of 185,000,000 bushels as against its current export surplus of 500,000,000 bushels with the obligation imposed upon Australia. The contract requires us to have an annual surplus of 85,000,000 bushels available, a figure which is 12,000,000 bushels in excess of the average export surplus which this country had available during the decennial period 1936-1945'. On top of this annual obligation . of 85,000,000 bushels, Australia is called upon to build up a security stock of 25,000,000 bushels. This is done notwithstanding the increased local usage of wheat by the pig and poultry industries, and the inevitable increased usage by those industries if our undertakings to supply additional food for Britain are to be treated seriously. The more one examines the statistics associated with this agreement, the more extraordinarily difficult it becomes to understand why the Government committed us to .this agreement without permitting the Australian Wheat Board or the producing industries dependent upon wheat to have an opportunity to express their views. Our obligations will, I am sure, be taken seriously and treated as binding. But, as I pointed out, this agreement under which we immediately forgo £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, does not really bind the parties to it. No penalty is provided or envisaged for non-performance, and the agreement contemplates withdrawal, and sets out quite positively the intention to spread the remaining wheat available among buying countries if one seller should withdraw, and, alternatively, to inform buying countries of the additional quotas allotted amongst the remaining buyers if one or more buying countries should withdraw. The agreement, therefore, appears entitled to be regarded more as a planned objective to drastically reducer current wheat prices for political reasons than a contractual instrument of commerce. If it is correct to place this very much reduced importance upon the document, then that must be borne fully in mind when measuring the benefits immediately to be foregone by Australia against problematical advantages. The present struggle for political power between the Soviet and the Western Democracies is being waged in no small part by employing the diplomatic artifice of providing essential needs to countries being wooed. I have no doubt that if the Soviet counts it necessary to make cheap wheat available, cheap wheat will be forthcoming. I also have no doubt that a change to a Leftist Government in Italy or any one of a number of countries which come to the minds of all of us, would show a ready delivery of cheap wheat from the Soviet or its satellites of the Danube, with the inevitable withdrawal from this agreement of the countries thus being alternatively supplied. That is a contingency which no one can foresee with certainty, and which, I do not think, should of itself dissuade us from becoming a party to this agreement, but I am now examining the merits of this proposal as a business transaction, and I state that this is one contingency that leads me to the conclusion that it is not good business for the wheatgrowers, out of their own pockets, to underwrite unpredictable developments in the international arena. Amongst other things, this agreement requires growers to do that. Argentina has stated its grounds for not entering the pact, declaring that it would not reduce its price for wheat except as part of -a broad plan, including some accompanying reduction in the cost of farm equipment and other associated costs of production. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has uttered no word to indicate that as a corollary to this tremendous concession by us to India, that country has even been asked to reduce the price of jute to us. To contract to forego £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 out of contracts already signed, without attempting to get some compensating concessions, may have some merit in the ' intangible quality of international goodwill, but as a business proposition it is without precedent. This country endured desperately hard times when the price of wheat was low. In those days, when wheat was cheap enough to be considered as a fuel, the buying countries still demanded full adjustment for the long Australian freight haul to Europe, which, as the Minister said, reduced the value of wheat on some Australian farms in 1939 to not much more than ls. a bushel. While we still have to endure some freight disadvantage when selling to European destinations, it might reasonably have been expected from this agreement that we would at least have been protected to the point of benefiting from the freight factor when selling wheat to those areas in the Far East and Middle East where we have a freight advantage over the principal exporters of North America. In fact, the Minister made some reference to this issue, declaring that although it caused a lot of controversy, it was ultimately resolved in our favour. I do not attribute to the Minister the intention to mislead the Parliament or the wheat-growers on this, which we shall see presently is a very important point, and I can only conclude that he and his advisors have been treated as " innocents abroad ". Upon examination that will be quite obvious. The basic valuation in the agreement is for first grade No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat in store Port William, Canada. The whole tradition of the Australian wheat industry is to quote f.o.b. The Australian f.o.b. .price under this agreement i.° a price related to Manitoba wheat in store Fort William, and it is quite important for us to understand how this price relationship is worked out. Add to the " in store Fort William " price, costs of delivery to the point of sale in, say, the United Kingdom and we get the price of Canadian wheat delivered in the United Kingdom. Subtract from that price, freight and charges from Australia and we have the f.o.b. Australian price equivalent. The agreement sets out one other standard for price quotation, which is, 'by working on the same lines of Canadian wheat " on wharf Vancouver ". Examining a sale of wheat to the United Kingdom or western Europe on the basis of 2-dollar wheat in Canada, this will produce a 12s. f.o.b. Australian price when selling in competition with Fort William wheat, or 12s. 5d. a bushel when selling in the Pacific and Indian Ocean ports in competition with Vancouver wheat. There is, therefore, retained in this wheat agreement still the competitive element of freight in which, with our longer haul to Europe, we still carry our full disadvantage. No one that I know of has ever complained of that; it is simply a matter of geography. However, when we examine a quotation by Australia for sale to India in competition with 2-dollar " on wharf Vancouver " wheat, it will be found that, by adding the costs from Vancouver to India in order to arrive at the landed cost, and then subtracting from that, as we have done in the earlier calculation, and as the agreement itself envisages, the freight from' Australia to India so as to arrive at the exactly comparable Australian f.o.b. quotation, the figure is revealed at 14s. 5d. Australian a bushel. But, amazingly, the agreement .provides that the maximum which we can receive for sale to any country is that based upon a sale to western Europe, which, at its highest, is 12s. 5d. a bushel. This is the subject matter upon which the Minister said there hai been considerable controversy, but which, he told the House, had ultimately " been resolved in our favour ". This agreement would have some merit if it purported to be a document of our benevolence, but as a business transaction it beggars description. In the name of the Australian wheat-growers I ask the Government why it has seized their wheat and contracted to sell it in Europe, subject to all the cost disadvantages of' long haulage, and in the same documentcontracted away advantages which thesame conditions of geography have given to us in respect of sales to the Middle,East and the Far East? For the purpose of this discussion, I have assumed that our f.a.q. wheat has the same value as No. 1 Northern Manitoba, which is the standard wheat for the purposes of this agreement. Of course, our f.a.q. wheat has npt the same value and, in addition to the other factors which I have mentioned, all of our sales will be subject to whatever price discount is calculated to produce the equivalent milling quality to No. 1 Northern Manitoba grade. Up to this point I have been discussing the effect which the agreement will have upon the wheat-grower directly and immediately. I now wish to refer to the effect which this so-called commercial instrument may have upon the export flour trade. In a year when the Australian flour mills are kept in full operation, about 73,000,000 bushels of wheat are turned into flour. Of this quantity 33,000,000 bushels are required for flour for home consumption and the balance goes into the export trade. It is vital to the internal economy of Australia that this trade should be maintained. We require all the bran and pollard which can be produced by full-scale milling operations to cope with the demand in pig, poultry, dairying and similar indus-' tries. Even with three-shift milling, which has- applied during the last year,. the supply of offals has not equalled the demand. And yet, strange as it may sound, although Australia has hypothecated almost every bushel of wheat it may expect to have available for export, there is no provision in the agreement whereby the exporting countries can compel the importers to take a percentage of their guaranteed purchases in the form of flour. It is true the agreement provides that where flour is supplied to a willing buyer of that commodity, the council may calculate just how many bushels of wheat are represented in any given shipment of flour. However, that does not apply compulsion to the buyer to take flour instead of wheat. The fact is well-known that countries with a well developed milling industry invariably prefer wheat to flour. The reasons are obvious: not only are their own mills kept fully employed, but in addition the offals are available for their own local industries. In every State in the Commonwealth, the transportation of wheat constitutes such a grave problem that the railways can bring the harvest to the coast only provided a continuous movement is maintained week by week for the whole year. With quite limited storage capacity at ports and mills, it becomes imperative to arrange sales and shipments corresponding to the movement of grain from the country. If Australia tries to compel any of the countries scheduled in the bill to take flour despite their desire to secure wheat, then inevitably delays will occur in transacting business dealing with export. When such delays take place, all we can do is to appeal to the council to assist us in getting on with the business of export. Of course, the council cannot force the position in the last issue and can, in fact, only apply pressure at the minimum price for the year in question. While all these delays are unsolved, Australia will not be able to seek buyers outside the schedule to the agreement, simply because the whole of our available supplies are hypothecated and each of the buyers knows his total volume is not in jeopardy. That is where America comes into the picture with its free wheat, but even America is alarmed that there is no provision in the agreement to compel buyers to take flour, as the following extract from the *North Western Miller,* Minneapolis, of the 16th March, 1948, will show : - >Numberless points, in themselves minor but of great importance to those certain to be affected by this surrender of control of' the world wheat crop to an international council, are not made clear in the text of the agreement. Notable among these is the clear implication that any country may elect to take all of its allotment in wheat. While this is not specifically covered anywhere in the agreement, it is clearly implied in the footnote ( page 3 ) reading " Without prejudice to the preference of any country for imported flour of any extraction rate, &c", which can mean nothing but that any and every country could take all of its allotment in wheat, leaving the future of America's export flour trade wholly subject to rulings by the council. > >However, there is little point in the present situation to finding fault with particular provisions in the agreement in its present form or, indeed, in any form. The scheme asa whole requires approval by all of the governments party to it, particularly including the Congress of the United States. In view of the clear fact that America's participation would be a case of selling our wheat-growers down the river or subsidizing them in the amount they would lose by arbitrarily depreciating the price of wheat the world over, it is inconceivable that Congress will authorize so wild eyed a scheme in violation of every tenet in the Constitution and in the people's enduring faith in free commerce, both in this nation and throughout the world. I understand the flour-millers of Australia have made representations to the Minister on this vital matter, but I have not heard of any satisfactory solution being forthcoming. There is another aspect of the export trade. The apparent intention of the agreement is to organize prices to producers in Canada, UnitedStates of America and Australia on a comparatively uniform level. If the agreement does not result in that basic trend, then it fails altogether. My discussion at this point is on the hypothesis that we are on common ground with the Government in wishing to maintain the Australian export flour industry, both from the aspect of employment provided and the other important aspect of offals made available in Australia for the pig, poultry and dairying industries. Our ability to maintain an export flour trade within the terms of this agreement must rest on our ability to quote competitively for flour as against quotations from other producing countries. In the past, circumstances, sometimes of geography and sometimes of the comparative local economy of Australia, have enabled our export millers to buy their wheat more cheaply than the American flour millers. This agreement, however, is designed, so we have been told, to bring the price of -wheat into line in the three exporting countries, so that for the future our export flourmillers will buy their wheat for processing at substantially the same price as Minneapolis millers. Once having bought the wheat, the export miller becomes dependent for his capacity to carry on his business upon the margin left between the C03t of wheat, plus the cost of processing, &c, and the price received for his flour and offals. All this is elementary, but at this point we discover that the Minneapolis miller, purchasing his wheat for processing for export within the terms of this agreement at the same price as his Australian export miller competitor, is revealed as having a tremendous advantage over the Australian miller. The American miller has a ready market right at his mill door for the offals produced - pollard and bran - at £22 10s. a ton, whereas the Australian miller receives only £7 10s. a ton for his offals. I know there are differences in labour costs between the two countries, but in the modern, almost automatic, processes of flour-milling these are almost minute differences a ton. The obvious result of this international agreement will, . therefore, be either that the American flour miller will make much more profit than the Australian miller - and upon this I shed no unnecessary tears - or, what is certainly more probable, the higher return for American offals will permit the American miller to underquote the Australian miller for export flour and still have a handsome profit. Far-reaching consequences of the utmost seriousness can result from this. If our export flour trade, through these circumstances, is lost or seriously reduced, the Australian poultry and pig-meat industries, and also the dairying industry, which are already in desperate straits, as every one knows, through shortage of all grain feeds, will be dealt a final and decimating blow. The Government must speak immediately, and in quite unequivocal language, on this issue. It chose to engage in the negotiations which resulted in this agreement without calling in the aid of the practical members of the Australian "Wheat Board, without taking into its confidence the Australian flour milling industry, and without consulting these other export industries - pig-meat, poultry and dairying. Are all these industries to carry the cost of the blunders of the Government which gained the support of many thousands of primary producers on the strength of its promise that it would put the affairs of every primary-producing industry in charge of a board on which there would be a majority of elected producer representatives - a promise which has been shown to be nothing more than a confidence trick, because never previously in the history of primary production in this country have primary producers been so completely stripped of every vestige of ownership or right of decision in respect of their own produce? {: .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman: -- They have never been so well off as they are under this Government. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943 -- There is something in what the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction says. They have never been sp, well off as they have been under this Government; but does the Government, take credit for world prices for wheat-,' wool and tallow? The Minister does not answer me. He knows that the Govern-, ment has nothing whatever to do with the fixation of world prices. , Does the Government seriously think that, when anything approaching normal, supplies of wheat are again available, Australian export millers, buying wheat at the same price as Minneapolis millers, will be able to quote and gain trade against the latter when the American miller is getting £15 a ton more for *hi&* offals ? This agreement appears to contain the germs of utter disaster for the Australian poultry, :pig-meat and dairying industries, which are built up around a dependency upon flour-milling offals. A very big proportion of the hitherto available flourmilling offals has been the by-product of flour gristed for export. As" this agreement embodies no obligation upon any party to it to buy flour, and as it is most natural that any buying country would prefer to buy wheat and give employment and profit to its own nationals in flour-milling, and have available for its own livestock industries the offal byproducts, I repeat that this agreement, upon the closest scrutiny, appears to embody the elements of utter disaster for our poultry, pig-meat and dairying industries. These industries are of tremendous importance in themselves, but, in addition, they are the industries upon which Britain is depending for increased food from Australia. I do not want to be a prophet of gloom. Nor do I want to stampede the producers in these industries "into an expectation of disaster. Therefore, in their names, I demand that the Government make clear any protection which it has provided for these industries because no such protection has been revealed in the Minister's second-reading speech. I -suppose that, with the history of this Government to guide us, we shall ultimately find the Government using some of the wheat-growers' money to subsidize the flour-millers in order that the poultrymen and pig-raisers shall not turn in their wrath on the Government. *[Extension of time granted.~* Discussing this agreement as a business transaction, there still remains what is by far the most important " sacrifice " which the present Government has made on behalf of the Australian wheat-grower. To-day, in the whole economic arena, one factor dominates all other considerations. It is that, to an overwhelming degree, the countries which have surpluses of either foodstuffs or manufactured goods for sale are in the dollar area, whilst the countries which are desperately anxious to buy are in the sterling area. So, the lives of millions are affected by the shortage of dollars. Some countries, like Italy, and to a lesser degree Prance and other European war-ravaged countries, including the United Kingdom, are hard up in any currency, but others which have profited vastly by the war in terms of money, like India, Egypt and Middle Eastern countries, have tremendous surplus sterling balances inconvertible to dollars. In this basic foodstuff, wheat, Australia at present is the only seller for sterling, and to this degree we enjoy an unprecedented and tremendous advantage. For humanitarian and diplomatic reasons, the flow of North American wheat is directed to Europe. What dollars any of the countries can accumulate will be spent on goods which can be purchased only with dollars, using their sterling credits for the purchase of goods which are available in sterling areas. This unfortunate but, nevertheless, real condition has produced the result that Middle East and Asiatic countries, bloated with sterling wrung from the United Kingdom during the war, have considered it good business to be willing to pay us shillings a bushel more in sterling for our wheat than the quotation for wheat from dollar sources. In not a few cases - I cite Egypt as an example - this price premium in our favour has been paid, and without this agreement would have continued to be paid, by countries which have made no concessions to us or to the United Kingdom, but which, on the other hand, had used the exigencies of war to wring vast tribute from the United Kingdom. The facts of the agreement in this respect disclose that our negotiators have been outsmarted by at least some people who are very well able to pay and, as in respect of jute and tea, are evidently going to continue to wring every shilling out of us. Thus, the case against the agreement on the present and short-term view is overwhelming. This devastating case could only be offset by some factual evidence from the Government warranting expectation of a sharp fall in prices before the agreement expires. The Government has not even attempted to make out a superficially plausible case to show that such a fall might reasonably be expected, and be offset against the immediate, tremendous financial sacrifices. The Government has made so many false prophecies of a "slump in prices in two years " that it has no credulous audience left anywhere in the land. It must come as a stunning blow to Australian wheat-growers who were wooed to support Labour as much by the promise that they would be given a wheat board including a majority of elected producers as anything else, to find that the Government has treated them with utter contempt and has not only failed to consult the wheat board in this gigantic and long-tel:m business transaction, but also has studiously prevented the board from being allowed to know even the details being discussed in Washington. The cynicism of the Minister was revealed when, answering a question of mine, he said that he would have been glad to learn the opinion of the board, but that the board had not been furnished with a copy of the agreement either when it was under consideration or immediately after it was signed. The Minister said there was a representative of the Australian Wheat Board at Washington during the negotiations. It turns out to have been a **Mr.** Tadman Does that name mean anything to any Australian wheat-grower? It transpires that he is an official of the London selling broker's office. He did not go to Washington at the behest of the Australian Wheat Board or under instructions from it. He was merely an officer to advise **Mr. McCarthy** regarding technical matters such as shipping freights, quality differentials, &c. He had nothing whatever to do with the principles of the agreement. Those rest squarely upon the shoulders of the Government. That was the total representation of the board in Washington. The board itself was kept in complete ignorance of what was transpiring. We hear many criticisms of bureaucrats these days. I hope that it will be widely understood far outside the ranks of wheat-growers that a government which is so contemptuous of the rights of private property as to contract to sell for five years in advance all the exportable surplus of the whole wheat industry is not likely to boggle at the most drastic intervention in the private lives or interests of individuals or interference with the private rights of other sections less politically important that are the wheat-growers. A great section of the people of this country is aroused to the menace of communism. I freely admit the important difference in the means to their respective ends of socialism and communism, but I point out that the ends themselves are practically indistinguishable. This agreement and the process by which Australia became a party to it are giant strides on the road to socialism in this country and to serfdom for primary producers. Lest it be said in reply to that statement that the anti-socialist United States Government is equally a partner, I point out that, whereas our Government proposes to acquire wheat for the purposes of this agreement. the United States Government on the contrary declares that, insofar as any wheat which is exported in the terms of the agreement is sold for less than its domestic value, the difference will be made good to the American wheat-grower. Moreover, the United States has only tied up about one-half of its current exportable surplus to the services of the agreement. The Australian Government has gone the whole hog. The case in opposition to the conclusion of the agreement is complete. I am sorry to have no hope that it is possible to defeat the agreement, but the Opposition parties will not be failing in their duty to point out to the wheat-growers and, indeed, all the people of Australia, that they have a lesson to learn from the socialistic experiments of the Government. {: #debate-32-s1 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
Minister for Works and Housing · Forrest · ALP -- As one who has been associated with the wheat industry for 26 years and whose sole means of livelihood for sixteen years was wheat-growing, I say that the International Wheat Agreement will become known as the charter of the wheat-growers of Australia. When I hear the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. McEwen)** describe the agreement as socialistic and communistic I take my mind back to the days of 1931 when an international wheat agreement was first mooted, not by a Labour government but by a government composed of men like honorable gentlemen opposite. Then, in 1933, the former member for Parramatta, **Sir Frederick** Stewart, who could not be described as a Communist, tried, to a degree successfully, to have an international wheat agreement, which dealt mainly with surpluses, brought into effect. Unfortunately that agreement broke down. That is briefly the history of previous efforts. Now, this Government has, with 36 other countries, got down to a form of orderly international marketing of wheat. The people who wrote the speech delivered by the honorable member for Indi- {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I wrote it myself. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- I know that that is not true. I also know some of the people who prepared a lot of the honorable member's speech. They are the people who are fighting to break down the system of orderly international marketing of wheat. They want to get back to the system of open markets, merchants and State pools. [ know the wheat industry, and the poverty and despair that has been suffered by people engaged in it. Organizations were once formed throughout Australia for the advancement of two basic principles. The first, was security of tenure for the wheat-farmers. They wanted assured shelter for the farmers and their families. Secondly, so low were conditions of the industry that they asked foi" an assured £3 a week, a mere £150 a year, from their own proceeds. Now that we have entered into an agreement under which the wheat-growers will be assured of a profitable market for five years, we are accused of being benevolent to other countries. Only two years have passed since the honorable member for Indi told a conference of wheat-growers in Victoria that the policy of the Australian Country party was that wheatgrowers should be assured of 5s. 2d. a bushel for their crop. When a delegate said, "Will that be for the whole crop ?", he said, "No treasury will give you that ". We have assured the wheatgrowers of 6s. 3d. a bushel. Yet we are accused of being benevolent to other countries. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- That is right. {: #debate-32-s2 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! There is too much interruption from honorable members of the Australian Country party. I demand that the Minister for Works and Housing be heard in silence. Interjectors will be dealt with by the Chair. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- The honorable mem- ber for Swan **(Mr. Hamilton)** talks about the conditions of the wheat-farmers. I remember when he spoke from public platforms telling the wheat-farmers to burn their crops rather than let the banks have them, but it was not long before he was stumping the country putting up a fight for the banks. I shall remind him of certain things that happened in the wheat industry. I know the poverty that existed not many years ago. During the last sittings of the Parliament the honorable member said in this chamber that the wheat-farmers were so financial to-day that they were prepared to pay any price for* wire-netting to save income tax. Under the rule of Labour Governments, the wheat-growers have risen from complete poverty to a condition of sound finance - sounder than ever before in the history of the industry. 1 shall quote to honorable members the opinions, not of members of this Government, but of wheat-growers who, although they have been fed by the press with interminable propaganda regarding the problems that will arise under the International Wheat Agreement, show that they appreciate the true position. The memories of the wheat-growers are not short. The conditions that obtained on their farms not many years ago are still fresh in their minds. I have before me extracts from letters that have appeared in the press regarding the International Wheat Agreement. The first comes from South Australia, and the writer says - >I am not alone when I say the treatment farmers are receiving to-day (although the proposals are not perfect) are like heaven compared with the earthly hell we went through in the depression years with interest at 74 per cent, and wheat at ls. 3d. per bushel. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- What is the writer's name ? {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: **- Mr. T.** H. Dunsford, of South Australia. The writer of the next letter is **Mr. C.** Griffin, of Lake Grace, Western Australia, and he says - >After carefully studying all points, I am of the opinion that our Government did the right thing in joining with the United States of America and Canada in getting a world stabilized price for wheat. The Government would have deserved all the censure that its opponents (both inside and outside of Parliament) would have been quick to level at it if the agreement had not been signed! I come now to the opinion of an elected representative of the wheat-growers on the Australian Wheat Board - >It was not necessary for Russia and Argentine to be included in the International Wheat Agreement for its successful operation, said **Mr. Pearse,** Victorian member of the Australian Wheat Board. > >This was in reply to a question asked at a growers' meeting in the Victorian wheat belt. > > **Mr. Pear** se said that the 33 importing countries concerned have made great strides in lifting their standards of living. To-day they were committed to take certain quantities of wheat, and with the increase of living standards there would be an increased demand. This increased demand even to-day could not be met by either Russia or Argentine or other countries outside the- agreement. > >If the exchange rate anomaly is ironed out then Australia will bc assured of sales, without loss, to those countries outside the sterling block, and may even earn more dollars with wheat than at present. " The Agreement is set up on Christian lines and is a gigantic trial ". said **Mr. Pearse.** " If it breaks down, then, to protect ourselves, I again stress the necessity of having a stabilization scheme". My final quotation is from a letter written by **Mr. G.** H. Herbert, of Nungarin Western Australia, a director of the Co-operative Bulk Handling Company, the largest bulk-handling organization in Australia to-day. lt is as follows : - {: .page-start } page 1595 {:#debate-33} ### WHEAT AGREEMENT {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Farmer's Endorsement As a farmer who was ruined by. one slump 1 have no desire to see the same causative conditions re-appear. If these and other critics had their way the " open market " would be re-established, and " world parity " prices rule again. Then the skids would be under the wheat-grower once more and the industry would richly deserve the inevitable crash. The ceiling limit quoted in the reports on the agreement indicates not only a long-range sanity but also reminds us that we should, for our own ultimate good, if not our self-respect, curb our cupidity when fantastic prices are offered by those who must have food or perish. The prices of the socalled open market to-day are diabolically »ro (Steering. The world's wheat-growers are to-day accepting prices that are utter ruin to those who, of stark necessity., are compelled to pay. A ruin that will inevitably overtake their exploiters. Every thinking' wheat-grower knows that when wheat production is highly profitable, production expands and soon so-called overproduction turns a sellers' market into a buyers' orgy. The last buyers' orgy took wheat from 4s. Cd. to less than 2s. in a matter nf days, leaving the industry bankrupt with a trail of misery and destitution from which numbers never recovered. To-day the ravages nf war and its aftermath alone sprag rapid vcr-production The International Wheat Agreement is the first hesitant step actually taken along the road we must follow or perish. Tn my opinion, the great virtue of the International Wheat Agreement is that it will prevent a repetition of tho actions taken by many countries in the late 1920's and the early 1930's to restrict the importation of wheat. There is evidence today of some of the trends that produced a slump in the wheat market in those days, and unless they are curbed, they will cause another slump. Of the countries which imposed prohibitive tariff on imported wheat, the greatest offenders were Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Sweden, and Switzerland. Pursuing their policies of economic selfsufficiency, those countries endeavoured to make themselves independent of grain imports. Every one of them placed a high tariff upon imported wheat. In the case of Germany the duty va9 6s. lOd. a bushel on wheat, and the equivalent of 13s. Sd. a bushel on flour whilst Italy imposed a tariff of 4s. 6d. and France adopted a similar figure. A recurrence of these actions is inevitable in the absence of an international agreement of some kind. Excessive prices will compel many nations to -foster grain production within their own borders by paying substantial subsidies, guaranteeing prices, or, as they did before, placing a prohibitive tariff upon imported wheat. This interference with the free flow of wheat on the world's markets would reproduce the " boom or bust " conditions of twenty years ago. Adoption of the International Wheat Agreement would bring about an understanding between nations by ensuring to importing countries an adequate supply of grain at a reasonable price. If we do that we shall ensure lasting stability in the wheat trade. It has been said that we are introducing this scheme in order to compel the growers to sell their wheat at between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 less than they ought to receive. It may be that if the world price for wheat remains much above the agreed upon price of 12s. 3d. a bushel the loss to the growers will be considerable, but it is easy to be wise after the event. As a matter of fact, nothing is harder to forecast than the wheat market. The Imperial Economic Committee, which was *set* up in 1931 to report upon the wheat trade, issued a report which contained the following passage: - >The fact that most North American traders and students, early in the crop year were Anticipating a general high level of prices in 1929-30, and perhaps a rising course of prices as in 1924-25, is so readily apparent from, the trade journals as hardly to be open to dispute. Errors in judgment and in forecasting were made. It should be said, however, that the errors were not mere blunders. The outlook for wheat prices is never altogether clear; and the course is always easier to explain after the event than it is to anticipate. That was after most of the experts in the United States of America had stated in 1929 that there would he a growing world demand for wheat. Just as their judgment was astray at that time, so it is possible for people to be mistaken again. Indeed, mistaken judgments in the past have cost Australia £40,000,000. The fact that land was over-capitalized in anticipation of the continuation of high prices for wheat made it necessary for successive governments to assist the wheat industry to the amount of £40,000,000. Thus, whilst it is recognized that whatever government may be in power has a certain responsibility to the wheat industry, it is also true that, because of the assistance the industry has received in the past, it should, when possible, itself make some contribution. Since 1932, there has been only two periods during which the Commonwealth Treasury has not been compelled to assist the wheat industry. When it was pointed out that prices for wool and wheat were never better than they are at present, the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. McEwen)** asked whether this Government had anything to do with it. I say that, but for the policy of this Government, which resulted in keeping down interest rates and prices, wheat and wool producers would not be nearly so well off as they are to-day. Commodity prices which affect the cost of .producing wool and wheat have risen by only 48 per cent., but prices for wool and wheat have increased by 180 per cent. I very much regret that the decision of the electors in the recent referendum will have the effect of reducing the benefit which wool and wheat producers have been deriving from present high prices. I trust that this agreement, which is for a period of five years, will be so successful that the period will be extended. It is, in effect, a new charter for the wheat industry of Australia, and of the other producing countries. It will mean security for producers and will free the channels of international trading from import duties and other hindrances which depressed industry during the nineteen thirties. It will also promote goodwill between the signatory countries, and will benefit the hungry peoples of the world. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Abohie** Cameron) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1596 {:#debate-34} ### ADJOURNMENT {: .page-start } page 1596 {:#debate-35} ### TRACTORS Motion (by **.Mr. Holloway)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. Mi-. HAMILTON (Swan) [10.26].- Before the recent parliamentary recess, I brought to the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** the claims of Western. Australia to a larger share of the consignment of 1,021 tractors which is being brought to Australia under the final lend-lease arrangement. It was originally intended that they should arrive during the war, and they were to be distributed, for the most part, along the eastern sea-board where food production for war purposes was being carried on, and where most of the troops were concentrated. Western Australia, as its contribution towards the prosecution of the war, agreed to accept fewer tractors than what would otherwise have been its just proportion. It will be remembered that, during the war, farmers in Western Australia were paid at the rate of 12s. an acre not to grow wheat, largely because of the scarcity of tractors. Under the lend-lease agreement, we accepted the arrangement by which the American authorities told us where the tractors were to go, because it was they who made them available. Now that tractors have again become available. I claim that we should return to normal distribution methods. I am informed that representatives of manufacturers and distributors approached the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in the belief that he would be the distributing authority. If the 1,021 Chalmers lease-lend tractors were distributed on the tractor population basis, Western Australia would receive 13.T per cent, of the total number of tractors and New South Wales about 28 per cent. However, it was agreed that no State should receive more than 25 per cent., or less than 5 per cent., and consequently the percentage was altered slightly to allow of New South Wales receiving not more than 25 per cent. When that agreement was placed before the Trade and Customs Department - and the Minister is fully aware of this arrangements - the proposed distribution was disagreed with, and the department has been adamant in its determination that these tractors shall be distributed on the original lend-lease arrangement. I brought the matter up in the House and I hoped to see the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator Courtice)** about it. However, he had left Canberra, so I saw the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley),** and he sent a memorandum to the Minister for Trade and Customs. I say plainly that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture was definitely in favour of the allocation being made on the basis of the tractor population. He said later that he had washed his hands of it. I then had a conference with the Minister for Trade and Customs and a departmental official. The Minister said little, but the official seemed to consider that we must adhere to the lend-lease arrangement. I suggest that it might be possible to get the various distributors and factory representatives together and I asked whether, if they were able to agree to a rearrangement of the distribution, he would sanction it? The Minister said that he would. I immediately got in touch with the factory representative and he eventually informed me by telegram that he would .be able to divert 30 tractors of one type and eight of another type, making 38 in all to Western Australia, thereby increasing that State's allocation of tractors from 42 to 80, which would increase percentage from 4 per cent, to 8 per cent., conditional upon the Minister for Trade and Customs issuing an instruction to a finance company in Sydney. I imediately sent a lengthy lettergram to the Department of Trade and Customs, pointing out the position, and requesting reconsideration of the matter with a view to giving Western Australia more of these tractors. The Minister knew the position very well because I had explained it to him. I know that Western Australia is still referred to as the " Cinderella State ", but although it was prepared during the war to forgo tractors as a contribution to the war effort, now that we are returning to normal times I consider that its requirements should be acknowledged by the eastern States. Nothing transpired until I received a telegram from the official in the Trade and Customs Department to say that the negotiations as they had been explained to me, would stand. I then sent a further telegram to the Minister asking him to reconsider the matter, and received a telegram to say that he would investigate it. I have received no further word. I am concerned that sufficient tractors for Western Australia shall be made available. That State has been without them for too long. The Minister should take steps to see that each State is fairly treated, by issuing an instruction to over-ride the lend-lease arrangement, because the war has been over for a considerable time. It must be borne in mind that this country is paying extra for these tractors, owing to the industrial troubles. We are honouring the contract and the tractors will be sold for the same price in each State. I trust the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs will endeavour to see whether, even at this late hour, something cannot be done, because the whole of these tractors have not yet reached Australia. I feel inclined to say that it only needs the approval of the Minister for Trade and Customs to be conveyed to an official in the department for our wishes to be met, particularly when the factory representative has been able to make arrangements, conditional on the Minister's approval, for the supply of an extra 38 tractors to Western Australia under the conditions I have outlined. These tractors are not required for wheat-farmers but for orchard and dairy work, and they are urgently needed; in fact, hundreds of orders are waiting to he satisfied in Western Australia now. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1597 {:#debate-36} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - Air Force Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 51. Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1948 - No. 31 - Australian Third Division Telegraphists' and Postal Clerks' Union; Commonwealth Telegraph Traffic and Supervisory Officers' Association; and Fourth Division Postmasters, Postal Clerks and Telegraphists' Union. Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department - Interior -F. A. Daw. E. J. Desmond. G. M. Duncan, R. C. Hoath, A. F. Hurren, J. J. McGann, J. W. Nicholas, H. G. Oliphant, S. K. Raw lings, J. W. Roberts, B. D. Robertson, H. G. Rosman, J. A. Sandow. G. B. Todd. V. de P. M. Wilkinson, J. G. Windsor. Supply and Development - K. A. Summons. Dairy Produce Export Control Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 53. Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 59. Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (95). National Security (War Damage to Property) Regulations - War Damage Commission - Report for 1947. Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 55. High Commissioner Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 58. Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Banking purposes - Melbourne, Victoria. Commonwealth office accommodation purposes - Hobart, Tasmania. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research purposes - Trangie, New South Wales. Defence purposes - Livingstone, Northern Territory. New Farm, Queensland. Newcastle, New South Wales. Oaklands, New South Wales. Department of Civil Aviation purposes - Bowen, Queensland. Bundaberg, Queensland. Carnarvon, Western Australia. Condamine, Queensland. Mascot, New South Wales. Department of the Interior purposes - Onslow, Western Australia. Department of Social Services purposes - Clovelly, New South Wales. Department of Trade and Customs pur poses - Forbes, New South Wales. Overseas Telecommunications Commission purposes - Broome, Western Australia. Postal purposes - Balaklava, South Australia. Dromana, Victoria. Fremantle, Western Australia. Newport, Victoria. Parkes. New South Wales. Ultima, Victoria. Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1948, No. 24 (substitute copy). Passports Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 52. Pharmaceutical Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 56. Re-establishment and Employment Act - Regulations - Statutorv Rules 1948. Nos. 54, 57. House adjourned at 10.27 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1598 {:#debate-37} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Government Policy : Statement by Mr. R. T. Pollard, M.P {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: n asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he seen the statement reported to have been made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard),** at Ballarat. on Saturday, the 24th April, as follows: - "We (meaning the Government) will go on and on until eventually, in Australia, you will have a great co-operative Commonwealth. Its wealth will be owned by the people and will be operated in a socialistic manner for our people as a whole." 1. Will he either confirm or deny thatwhat his colleague stated is the planned objective of the Government, and that the coming referendum proposals are an integral part of that objective? 2. Did the Minister make the statement with the approval of the Prime Minister or of Cabinet? {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP -- I refer the honor- able member to my reply to his question without notice of the 28th April last.I have nothing to add to my remarks on that occasion. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Commonwealth Prices Branch : L. R. Horsey {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr Harrison: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was L. R. Horsey one of four officials who were dismissed from the Prices Branch, and was his name mentioned in this House in regard to the dismissals? 1. Were investigations made into his service with the Prices Branch, and was he found guilty of any malpractices? {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard:
ALP -- The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Investigations were made into his services with the Prices Branch, but there was no evidence to support a charge of malpractice. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Civil Aviation : Qantas Empire Airways Limited {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr Bernard Corser:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND r asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that a proposal by Qantas Empire Airways Limited to operate air services to the north of Australia has been approved in principle by the Government? 1. Have private airline operators applied to operate similar services? 2. If so, what decision was reached regarding such application or applications? 4.Does Qantas Empire Airways Limited nowoperate services to Singapore and to Japan ? 3. Were applications to operate these or similar services made by private airline operators? 4. Were they refused; if so, why? {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr Drakeford:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Assuming the honorable member is referring to services to places in the Far East such as Hong Kong the answer is "Yes". 2 and 3. One such application for a service to the Philippines and China was received in 1946 but was not approved. 1. Yes. The service to Japan is not a civil servicebut is operated on behalf of the Royal Australian Air Force for the transport of military loadings designated by the Air Board. 5 and6. There is no record of any such Applications in recent years. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Colonel Sheppard {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-JPT} ##### Mr Blain:
NORTHERN TERRITORY n asked the Minister for the A rmy, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been directed to handbills circulated in Sydney advertising the intention of Colonel Sheppard, recently arrived from overseas and lately with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and the British Economic Mission in Greece, to speak against the Marshall plan in company with E. Thornton, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist party, under the auspices of the Eureka Youth League, an organization founded by the Communist party? 1. Has he also seen a pamphlet written by Colonel Sheppard and issued and on sale at Communist head-quarters in Sydney, in which he aims to popularize the regime of Marshal Tito? 2. Is Colonel Sheppard identical with the Director of Operations and Assistant Adjutant-General in General Blarney's headquarters at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, during the war? 3. Did Colonel Sheppard then represent himself as an old scholar of Winchester and Oxford, a member of the bar in both England and Australia, and an officer of the English territorials? 4. Did he in fact hold those qualifications and is he now entitled to describehimself as a colonel? 5. Will he order an inquiry to determine Colonel Sheppard's bona fides and whether he now has, and did have during his term of service at head-quarters in Melbourne, an official connexion with the Communist party or with the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics or its agents ? {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr Chambers:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Since the honorable member's inquiry. Ihave seen a copy of a handbill advertising that Colonel Sheppard was to speak with **Mr. E.** Thornton and others on the subjectof " Dollars versus Democracy ". I understand that Colonel Sheppard did not attend the meeting. 1. Yes. This presumably refers to a pamphlet entitled "Australian Officer in Greece", which has been brought to my notice as a result of the honorable member's question. 2. He was formerly Director of Organization, Army Head-quarters, during the war. During the evacuation from Greece in April, 1941, he served with " distinction, courage and determination ", for which he was awarded the Military Cross. 3. He represented himself as a former scholar of the King's School, Winchester, a Bachelor of Laws at Melbourne University and a Barrister at Law. 4. Inquiries reveal that he was not a graduate of the Melbourne University, and that he was nota Barrister at Law. The King's School, Winchester, is not known. He was placed on the Reserve of Officers on 25th April, 1945, in the rank of colonel and accordingly was entitled to describe himself as a colonel. 5. An inquiry has been made with the result indicated in No. 5 above. Army records do not indicate that this officer has had any official connexion of the nature mentioned. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Tobacco Pipes {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-KQK} ##### Mr McDonald: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that in the year 1946-47 the number of smoking pipes imported was 66,291 dozen, less than in the base year 1938-39? 1. What were the imports of smoking pipes in value for 1938-39, 1945-46 and 1946-47. and the six months ended the 31st December, 1947, from (a) United Kingdom, (b) Italy, (c) United States of America, and (d) other countries ? 2. Have Australian pipe-makers been assured by Customs officers from time to time that imports of foreign pipes would not exceed in value the base year imports? 3. What is the number and value of outstanding import permits from foreign countries ? 4. Will the Italian imports be restricted to the 1938-39 import value on this year and subsequent years? {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP -- The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In the year 1946-47 the number of smoking pipes imported was 66,348 dozen, less than in the base year 1938-39. ?- {: type="1" start="3"} 0. They were informed that such procedure would be followed as from January, 1947. 1. To obtain the information desired would necessitate an examination of the import licences that have been granted throughout Australia. It is considered that the time and labour involved in such a survey would not be justified. 2. As merchants may import against their quotas from any non-sterling country with the exception of the dollar areas, the imports from Italy under the present licensing procedure could be greater or less than in the base year. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### Commonwealth Disposals Commission {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP y. - I refer to the questions which the right honorable the Leader of the Australian Country party **(Mr. Fadden)** asked, *upon notice,* on the 8th April last concerning investigations by the audit authorities into certain transactions associated with the disposal of equipment, formerly the property of the United States Army Air Corps, which was located at Eagle Farm, Brisbane, and Garbutt, Townsville. In reply to earlier questions, I advised the right honorable gentleman that certain irregularities at Eagle Farm, Queensland, which related in the main to departures from approved disposals procedure, were under investigation by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission before the audit report was received, and the commission arranged for the Commonwealth Investigation Service to conduct an inquiry into the matter. I also stated that arrangements had been made for the reports of these authorities to be reviewed by an independent committee, and that, when the findings of the committee had been examined, an appropriate statement on the matter would be made to the House. I now desire to inform him that the Audit Office and the Commonwealth Investigation Service made an exhaustive investigation of the transactions, and after close examination of their reports, the committee, which comprised **Mr. C.** G. Brown, Deputy Director, Posts and Telegraphs, Melbourne, as **chairman, Mr. A.** J. L. Wilson, Department of the Treasury, and **Mr. O.** J. Sweetland, Senior Inspector in New South Wales of the Board of Business Administration, found that certain sales had been processed in a way which was contrary to the instructions issued for the disposal of these goods. There was, however, no evidence that the sales in question were influenced by wrongful intentions. I. might mention here that the United States Army Air Corps stocks were in a different category from normal surpluses in that they were purchased by the Commonwealth from the United States Government and were not declared to the commission by holding departments in the ordinary way. The equipment was purchased with the definite object of meeting the post-war requirements of the developing Australian aviation industry. The disposals plan for aeronautical stores, which constituted the bulk of the stocks, provided for preselection by the airline operating companies and then the aviation trade at pre-fixed prices. With regard to non-technical stores, these were to be disposed of in accordance with normal procedure. The position was complicated, however, by the fact that numbers of items including certain nontechnical stores were in the hands of private firms which had been associated with the maintenance of the United States forces. The magnitude of the operations is indicated by the fact that sales to date have realized some £600,000. Departures from instructions consisted mainly of the sale by private treaty, in certain specific cases, of non-technical items, other than those held by private firms, without obtaining competitive prices or the approval of a senior officer to complete the transaction, and failure in some instances to first offer such items to government authorities. These departures occurred almost entirely during the absence of the regional manager on sick leave. Upon his return to duty, the regional manager took prompt action to rewiew pending transactions and to issue instructions to ensurecompliance with procedure. The transactions which have been queried represented a small proportion of the total volume of sales effected in the disposal of these particular stocks. While no evidence arose from the investigations that these transactions were influenced by wrongful intentions, the. Disposals Commission decided that, as departures from instructions had taken place, the services of the officer concerned should not be retained by the Commonwealth and his services have been terminated. It is not possible to state whether there was. a. financial loss or gain due to. saleshavingbeen effected because ofthe departures from approved disposals procedure. The transactions concerned have been examined by officers of the commission, who reached the conclusion that the overall loss or gain would not exceed a few hundred pounds one way or the other. I would like to assure the right honorable the Leader of the Australian Country party that, so far as the case under discussion is concerned, I have examined the papers and, although there have been departures from instructions, I consider that these have occurred in a set of unusual circumstances. All of the commission's operations are subject to the review of the Audit Office, and I fully agree that all transactions must be open to the fullest inquiry, particularly if there are any grounds for suspicion. I might add that, in all cases where there is suspicion of malpractice the matter is immediately placed in the hands of the Commonwealth Investigation Service, and this practice will continue. I would like to emphasize that this action had been taken and the investigation concluded before the matter was raised in Parliament. I think it will be conceded that the task of disposing of surplus war assets generally has been carried out in a most commendable manner. Not only was the problem facing the commission at its inception one of great magnitude and complexity, but it was fraught with difficulties, not the least being the engagement and retention, on a temporary basis, of suitable staff. It is a matter for considerable gratification that in the accomplishment of this gigantic task there has been so little inthewayof criticism. Therehave only been isolated instancesof irregularities and when they have, come to notice they havebeen thoroughly investigated and every precaution takento prevent theirrecurrence. Iwould add that in threeand a half years proceeds from war surpluses have reached afigure approaching $120,000,000. This figure affords some indication of the full dimensions of the disposals problem. Sales are now tapering off and the commission's activities were completed in New Guinea some months ago and are nearing finality in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Substantial sales, are still being made in other States, however, and present realizations approximate £1,500,000 per month. A consideration which, perhaps, is of even greater importance is the contribution made to the national economy by the orderly manner in which goods,many in short supply, have been made, available to the community. At the same time the Commission has avoided any dislocation of industry which could have resulted had the task been discharged with less care. I feel that great credit is due to thecommission and to its officers for their unsparing efforts and the outstanding results which have been achieved. I have the utmost confidence in the Commonwealth Disposals Commission and am satisfied that the investigation, which was very thorough, has adequately covered all aspects of the matter. Prices Control. {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-A48} ##### Mr Chifley:
ALP y. - On the 5th May, the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** asked a question regarding a statement made by the Leader of the Australian Country party on prices prevailing between the two world wars. I have had the matter investigated and find that in the years following Armistice Day, 1918, retail prices in Australia rose even more steeply than during the years of actual fighting. From 1914 to1918, retail prices rose by 32 per cent. After the Armistice they rose sharply, and by 1920 had risen another 28 per cent. - or 70 per cent. higher than 1914 level. They were not, in fact, kept within the reach of the average citizen. There were no black markets, known as such, because the word had not been coined then. There were, however, bodies of speculators and cornerers who reaped a profitable harvest by selling commodities in short supply at excessive prices. Prices in 1920 were only slightly cheaper than they are to-day. The high cost of living caused much misery among working-class people, but it was nothing like the misery caused later when prices began to slump causing a minor depression. The low prices of those days were not of much consolation to the housewife whose husband was unemployed, or who had failed in business. It is this boom and slump that caused so much misery in Australia, that the Government is trying to avoid by the continuation of price control. United Nations: Appointment of **Mrs. P.** Podbielsky. {: #subdebate-37-5-s2 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt:
ALP t.- On the 6th May, the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Rankin)** asked the following question: - >Willthe Attorney-General informthe House whether **Mrs. P.** Podbielsky - also known as Miss Schneider - whom he said recently was an Australian nominee of the staff of the United Nations, at a salary of £2,500 a year, is the wife of a man who was interned in Australia during the war as a dangerous alien? Will the right honorable gentleman also say by whom this woman was nominated, and what is the nature of her duties? I now inform the honorable member as follows : - > **Mrs. Podbielsky,** whose maiden name was Miss Schneider, was not sponsored by the Government in her application for a position with the Secretariat of the United Nations. In answer to a question bythe honorable member for Richmond, **Mr. Anthony,** on the 11th March (question No. 34, notice-paper No. 199 ) , **Mrs. Podbielsky's** position was described as Economic Affairs Officer in the Research and Reconstruction Division andher salary range was given as $4,410-$6,700 a year. This information was obtained from a United Nations publication. **Mrs. Podbielsky** is not connected in any way with the Department of External Affairs and it is presumed that she applied for a position direct to the United Nations Secretariat from outside Australia. With regard to the first part of the question, Miss Schneider was married on the 25th June,1946, after **Mr. Podbielsky** had been granted permanent admission to this country. On the 4th July, 1946, he applied for naturalization, which was granted. Defence: Appointments to Boards. {: #subdebate-37-5-s3 .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman:
ALP n. - On the 18th February, the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** asked a question regarding the appointment of a Citizen Force officer to the Air Board and the Naval Board respectively. I now inform the honorable member as follows : - >After consideration of this proposal in conjunction with the service Ministers concerned, it is not proposed to make any such appointments. In reaching this decision, regard has been had to the recent appointment of a Citizen Force officer (Major-General G. F. Wootten) as a member of the Military Board, to which the honorable member referred also in his question. The position of the Army in this respect is quite different, however, from that of the Navy and Air Force. The Citizen Forces have always been and will continue to be a substantial component of the total Army strength, but they comprise only a small proportion of the Navy and Air Force strengths. In the Army, 72 per cent. of the total planned strength will be Citizen Forces. In the Navy, the comparable proportion is6 per cent. and in the Air Force the proportion is 3 per cent. The figures of planned strengths for each service are shown in the following table: - The Citizen Naval Forces and the Citizen Air Force are a small but valuable component of the Navy and Air Force respectively. They are integrated with permanent personnel in a different manner and form of organization from that followed in the Army. Having regard to this and the foregoing comparison of relative strengths, the Government feels that there is no real need to afford them special representation on the service boards which are responsible for the administration of those forces as a whole. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Building Materials {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, *upon notice -* >Will the Government make a statement concerning the output of materials for the building industry, so that some adequate assessment may be made of the need for building tradesmen, and some clear indication given of the need or otherwise for reduction in the number training under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme? {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr Dedman:
ALP -- A statement on training for building trades, which dealt with the matters raised by the honorable member for Moreton, was made by me in the House on Thursday, the 6th May, 1948.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1948/19480602_reps_18_197/>.