View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
14 November 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING
QUESTION
- NEWSPRINT
QUESTION
- BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- KOREA
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- LEPROSY
QUESTION
- COMMUNISM
QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATE
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- STATISTICAL INFORMATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- FISHERIES
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION
QUESTION
- DOLLAR IMPORTS
QUESTION
- BASIC WAGE
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- SABOTAGE
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- PRICES CONTROL
WOOL SALES DEDUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1950
- Second Reading
GRAZIERS’ “ GROWING “ INDIGNATION
STATES GRANTS (ADDITIONAL TAX REIMBURSEMENT) BILL 1950
ADJOURNMENT
- New Guinea - Naval Guards - Road Safety - Newsprint - Dramamine - Parliament House
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Commonwealth Advertisements

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. C. F. Adermann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2308

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills re ported : -

Loan (Housing) Bill 1860.

Customs Tariff Bill 1950.

Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill 1050.

page 2308

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) on the ground of ill health and to the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth), the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden), the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds), the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins), and the honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Fitzgerald) owing to their absence from Australia.

page 2308

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

Mr HUGHES:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the war position in Korea and elsewhere, will the Prime Minister make a statement setting out the policy of the Government on compulsory military service and give honorable members an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– A bill to deal with national service will shortlybe introduced into the House. Upon the presentation of that hill, the Minister for Labour and National Service will fully explain the Government’s position and the whole matter may then be debated within the terms of the bill.

page 2308

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the acute shortage of newsprint as it affects suburban newspapers? Does he know that such newspapers are almost without supplies of newsprint and that warehouses have refused orders for forward buying, with the result that journalists and other employees are threatened with dismissal? Is it a f act that heavy purchases by the great metropolitan daily newspapers have left little newsprint for country and suburban newspapers and that this newsprint can be purchased onlyby paying £50 a ton above the ruling English price? Have the Country Press Association and the suburban newspaper proprietors asked the Government to ration newsprint on the basis of fair shares, and has the Government made a decision in relation to this matter?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The matters into which the honorable member has inquired have not engaged my attention, but I shall get in touch promptly with the Minister for Trade and Customs, who normally deals with such matters, and ascertain whether he can provide me with information on them.

page 2308

QUESTION

BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Mr DAVIDSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for National Development say whether any progress has been made with the further investigation of the Burdekin

Valley development scheme? If so, what is the nature of such progress, if any?

Mr CASEY:

– The Burdekin Valley project has been under active examination by the Government, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, for some considerable time. It is very complex in that it envisages the development of power on a considerable scale, the irrigation of a number of varieties of soil, and the mitigation of flooding in the Burdekin area. A number of those problems has not yet been solved. The matter is being attacked as vigorously as it can be, with Commonwealth officers working in conjunction with State officers. The use to which the land can be put in due course, and the manner in which men can earn a living on the areas proposed to be irrigated, are matters of first-class importance that have to be determined before the project as a whole is proceeded with. There is no point in engaging in large developmental projects unless it has been reasonably proven in advance that they will be of economic advantage to Australia, particularly when the total cost of a project is likely to be considerably more than £30,000,000. The Government would be extremely pleased if those problems could all be solved at a very early date and work on the Burdekin project could, be started. Speaking personally, I should be delighted if the matter could be decided at an early date, but I consider that it would be unwise to make an early decision in advance of gaining a reasonable certainty, at least, in respect of the matters that are still in doubt.

Mr Calwell:

– That is a repudiation of the previous Government’s undertaking.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

– There was no undertaking. Nobody could be more anxious than I am to see this project brought to a reasonably early and successful conclusion. The Government also desires such an outcome. However, as I have said before, I think it would be folly to proceed with the project before all the remaining problems have been solved. This country is not in a position to throw tens of millions of pounds about on such a project unless it has some reasonable certainty, that it will be successful. Speaking personally, I have every hope that the project will eventually be proven to be one that the Australian Government and the Queensland Government can engage upon. I hope that th<3 time will be reached before very long when a decision can be made.

page 2309

QUESTION

KOREA

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

– In view of the number of Australians now serving with the United Nations forces in Korea, and the desire of many Australian organizations to send Christmas parcels to them, will the Minister for the Army consider making arrangements to forward parcels free of cost to our forces in Korea and arrange for their prompt distribution at the receiving end ?

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Immediately after our forces went to Korea at the request of the United Nations to participate in the war there, I issued instructions that arrangements should be made for the provision of adequate Christmas cheer for them and for the substantial number of reinforcements that would follow them.

In the last two days I have received requests that the Government should make available facilities for the transport of parcels which private organizations might desire to send to members of the forces in Korea. I regret to say that no ships are expected to leave Australia for Korea in time to arrive there on or before Christmas day. I have examined the question of providing aerial transport. One consignment which the Fathers Association of South Australia wished to send would have cost £600 - about £4 10s. per parcel - to transport by air. The same consignment, if sent by ship, would cost £10. I’ shall arrange that all parcels which private organizations wish to send to Korea shall be sent upon the first ship available at the expense of the Government.

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a statement by Judge Berne, of the New South “Wales District Court Bench, about the fighting in Korea? Is it the intention of the Government to make a statement about that matter? Judge Berne seemed to be in a quandary whether or not Australia is at war, and I think that it behoves the Government to make a statement to the House on that situation.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– It would not be appropriate for me to make a statement in the House or elsewhere on matters which are now being heard by the learned judge in the ‘proceedings referred to. The Commonwealth is represented before His Honour by counsel. Certain questions having been presented to counsel by the judge, they were considered last night by the law officers of the Crown. Answers were prepared, and those answers have to-day been presented to the judge by counsel for the Commonwealth, subject, of course, to all matters relating to the relevancy of either the questions or the answers in the proceedings being dealt with in court. That is the appropriate way in which the Commonwealth can answer such matters as are put forward by the court. It would not be at all appropriate for me to discuss the matter in the House.

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In submitting a question to the Prime Minister I remind him that, in response to a question that was directed to him by the Leader of the Opposition, he promised to make a statement on the position in Korea, but later indicated that the statement had been delayed because of certain discussions that were taking place before the Security Council of the United Nations. I desire to ask the right honorable gentleman now when it is expected that the particular discussions to which he referred will be concluded or will be sufficiently advanced to permit him to make the promised statement to the House?

Mr MENZIES:

– Very important aspects of the matter referred to by the honorable gentleman are at present under discussion by the Security Council, and I regret that I am not in a position to say when those discussions will conclude. I point out that some discussions of that body proceed, more rapidly than others. However, as soon as those discussions have concluded and it becomes possible to make a statement to the House on behalf of the Australian Government, I shall do so.

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for the Army a question which arises out of the very poor response to the recruiting campaign. Is the Australian battalion in Korea at present at full strength or wa9 it at full strength when the last statement was returned? Are there sufficient reinforcements to maintain the battalion at its full strength? Will the Minister, in order to allay public fears on this point, state that the unit will not, under any circumstances, be committed to action unless it is at full strength?

Mr FRANCIS:

– I am happy to say, without any reservation whatsoever, that the battalion in Korea is at full strength and has the equivalent of another battalion as reinforcements. The reinforcements available to date ave in the vicinity of 900. I have no anxiety that the battalion will be committed to action without it being at full strength.

page 2310

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that according to figures supplied by him to me in his letter of the 9th instant, the total amount of income tax and social services contributions outstanding in respect of both individuals and companies at the 30th June, 1950, was £51,000,000 in round figures, including £15,000,000 not due and assessable at that date. Is he aware that the balance owing to the nation is £36,000,000? Does not the Minister think that this is sufficiently important to warrant some statement to the House on what he proposes to do? In these times of prosperity surely his department should, not be behind in the collection of taxation?

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The matter of arrears of taxation is receiving the continuous attention of my department. Arrears have been materially reduced in the last financial year compared with previous financial years. There was a big delay in the issue of assessments due to staff difficulties and war disabilities generally. The matter is under the strict and constant .vigilance of the department, which fully appreciates the necessity to collect this money, if only to withdraw its purchasing power in an over-inflationary period.

Mr CALWELL:

– In view of the fact that there is no indication in the budget papers of the yield expected from the excess profits tax, which the Treasurer indicated in his budget speech that he intended to introduce, I desire to ask the right honorable gentleman whether the Government still intends to introduce the legislation this session. In the absence of information about the probable effect of the imposition of the proposed tax, will the right honorable gentleman say whether it is intended that it shall apply in the current financial year or in the next .financial year? Will it* apply to all public companies as well as to private companies, and particularly to those private companies that are at the apex of the pyramid of the financial structure of this country?

Mr FADDEN:

– I intend to introduce during the current session legislation which will provide for an excess profits tax. Details of the measure will bo made known to the House when it is presented.

Mr WARD:

– I direct to the Treasurer a question that is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Melbourne. Is the Treasurer able to give the House an estimate of the expected return from the proposed excess profits tax, and can he say whether that estimated return was taken into account in his revenue estimates for the current financial year? If it was taken into account, will he indicate where the item is shown in the Estimates of revenue contained in the budget papers that were circulated to honorable members?

Mr FADDEN:

– Legislation to deal with the proposed excess profits tax will be introduced this session. Its nature, effect, and the date from which it will operate will also be disclosed to the House when I present the measure.

Mr CALWELL:

– I ask the Treasurer whether the amount that i9 likely to be received as a result of the passing of the excess profits tax legislation will equal the amount that will be received as prepayment of tax by wool producers? If so, will he consider abandoning the proposals for the collection of those prepayments and proceed immediately to introduce the excess profits legislation?

Mr FADDEN:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is “ No “.

page 2311

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Lunacy and Venereal Diseases Regulations

Dr NOTT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he will take action to have the present lunacy laws and venereal disease regulations in the Australian Capital Territory amended to bring them into line with those operating in more advanced States. If a person in the Australian Capital Territory is charged with being suspected of being of unsound mind he is brought before the court by the police only after he has been examined by two medical practitioners. The certificates of those practitioners are placed in the possession of the magistrate, but the unfortunate individual i9 still compelled to enter the witness-box. I should like to know whether that practice can be abandoned and whether the right honorable gentleman will endeavour to have the law amended to bring it into line with the laws which exist in New South Wales and possibly other States?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I shall have the substance of the honorable member’s question brought to the notice of the AttorneyGeneral and ask him to give it his particular attention.

page 2311

QUESTION

LEPROSY

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In the absence of the Minister for Health, I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior whether he has seen the report that 52 new cases of leprosy, all involving aborigines, have been admitted to the Channel Island Leprosarium at Darwin in the last twelve months, and whether he is aware that this has made a total of 132 inmates suffering from the disease of leprosy ? As the accommodation at this station is severely overtaxed, and as the position becomes more serious as time goes on, I ask the Minister whether the Department of the Interior has finalized its search for a more suitable site for a leprosarium? If so, can he give any indication when a start will be made to build a new leprosarium? In view of the alarming increase in leprosy and other diseases among the aborigines, will he take steps to set up a special native medical service so that doctors can specialize in health matters as they affect the natives, and attend to their requirements through medical patrols wherever necessary?

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As the honorable member has correctly indicated, this is a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health, in whom is vested jurisdiction in respect of health in the Northern Territory. I shall take the matter up with him and refer to him the questions raised by the honorable member. I shall let the honorable member have an answer as soon as possible.

page 2312

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– “Will the Minister for Immigration inform the House whether any Australians were included in the large number of Cominform agents posing as delegates to a so-called peace conference who were refused permission to land in England last week? Will he also say what steps the Government will take where Australian citizens, travelling under the protection of British passports issued in Australia, exceed the authority given by those passports by going to Warsaw?

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am not aware that any Australian citizen has been refused admission to the United Kingdom, and I should be surprised to learn that that is so. The position, if so-called delegates to the peace congress travel to Warsaw or attempt to travel to Warsaw on passports issued by this Government, is quite clear. On the 1st September this year the Government made a policy pronouncement to the effect that the Iron Curtain and orbit countries would be excluded from the scope of passports issued from that date onwards, and that travel to those countries would be prohibited unless specific permission were obtained from Australia. Of the nineteen delegates whose names have come under my notice, sixteen had their passports issued after that date and, therefore, those passports would have the limitation written into them. Of the remaining three delegates, I have not been able to get the details as to one, hut as to the remaining two, they hold passports which were issued prior to the 1st September, and they have a general validity. I have informed the London office of the Department of Immigration to contact those people and ask for their passports to be handed in so that the limitation may be written into them also.

Mr Peters:

– Who are the two?

Mr HOLT:

- Mrs. Street and a Mr. Kaiser. A very serious view will be taken by the Government of the action of any delegates who, in wilful defiance of the limitations placed on their passports by the Australian Government, go to one of those prohibited countries. The action available would be to recall the passport dr upon return to Australia of the passportholder to withhold subsequent .travel facilities for such periods as we may determine.

page 2312

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– At present an acute shortage of superphosphate supplies in Western Australia is restricting normal agricultural production and prohibiting any expansion of it. I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is possible to relieve that position by increasing the quota of phosphatic rock at present allotted to Western Australia, or by increasing supplies of sulphur to that State for use in the manufacture of superphosphate at Norseman?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The Government is aware of the acute position that confronts primary producers in Western Australia owing to the present shortage of superphosphate. It is estimated that for the current year superphosphate supplies will fall short of the demand by approximately 30,000 tons. However, the difficulty is not due to a shortage of phosphatic rock. I am informed that stocks of phosphatic rock on hand in Western Australia at present are almost sufficient to meet the demand for the 1950-51 season. The other principal element in the production of superphosphate is sulphuric acid. This is derived from sulphur, brimstone and pyrites and is in short supply at present in practically every country. But this is not the limiting factor in the production of superphosphate at present nor will it prove to be the limiting factor in production for the forthcoming season. The present shortage of superphosphate in Western Australia is due to limited plant capacity. The demand for superphosphate is increasing rapidly. I am informed that it has increased from an average of approximately 270,000 tons a year pre-war to 386,000 tons in the 1949-50 season. In respect of the forthcoming season it is estimated that the demand will be of the order of 430,000 tons. As the honorable member is no doubt aware, plant for the manufacture of superphosphate is being erected at Albany. It is anticipated that construction of that plant will take four years from the date of commencement. Two or three years will elapse before it can be put into production. In the meantime, the Government will do all it can to facilitate supplies to Western Australia of the elements needed in the manufacture of superphosphate and will press on with the completion of that plant.

page 2313

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to comments made by the president of the Returned .Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, in which ho has asserted that builders are reluctant to undertake contracts for the construction of war service homes because of the delays, due to red tape and other causes, that are associated with such contracts? If so, will the right honorable gentleman consider the appointment of an all-party parliamentary committee to investigate the administration of the War Service Homes Division with a view to streamlining the construction of war service homes ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have not seen the report of the remarks to which the honorable member has referred, but I “know that the amount of money which was expended during the last financial year by the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Works and Housing on the provision of houses, either by direct building or by financial assistance, was approximately £16,000,000, and that the Minister for Works and Housing expects that the expenditure for those purposes during the current financial year will certainly not be less than £25,000,000.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Works and Housing what proportion of prefabricated houses that are being imported is the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth, and what proportion is the responsibility of the States? If a substantial proportion of the number of prefabricated homes imported is the Commonwealth’s responsibility, what preparations have been made for the checking and storage of parts pending the erection of the houses by the Government?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– By far the larger proportion of prefabricated houses is being imported by the State governments. Offhand, I should say that of the proportion of prefabricated houses on order at the moment, probably onefifth or one-sixth are for the Commonwealth, and the balance are for the. States. I can let the honorable gentleman have more precise information later.

Mr Rosevear:

– The important point upon which I wish information relates to the arrangements being made for the checking and storage of materials pending the erection of the houses.

Mr CASEY:

– I know that the honorable gentleman is very interested in this matter because he has asked me many previous questions on the subject. Every possible precaution is taken by way of inspection overseas by both the Commonwealth and State authorities. I can give the honorable gentleman more precise information if he so desires. I shall be glad to write to him about the matter and also to provide him information about the storage of the parts.

page 2313

QUESTION

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Mr HANDBY:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to address a question to the Minister for Supply, and, by way of explanation, I point out that it has been customary for manufacturers to forward a statistical return each year to the various State Statisticians, in which complete figures are given of all aspects of the year’s production. A further return is forwarded each month to the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, and manufacturers consider that such information is of no use or assistance to anybody at the present time. Can the Minister inform the House whether the requirement to supply those returns to the Commonwealth Statistician is necessary? Will he consider the advisability of abandoning that practice in view of the duplication that arises between Commonwealth and State statistical authorities, thereby eliminating the work of compiling and recording unnecessary data?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

New Zealand are now in a position to begin gradual relaxation of dollar import restrictions? Will the right honorable gentleman tell the Parliament whether the Australian Government intends to relax the restrictions on the importation of dollar goods?

Mr FADDEN:
CP

– The report of the International Monetary Fund that was mentioned in the press item was prepared by the fund in response to a request from the organization responsible for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, an organization which is known as G.A.T.T., arising out of the consultations between representatives of the sterling area on the intensification of dollar import restrictions which was effected in July, 1949. The full text of the report was received only this morning, and it is now being examined. However, it is clear that nothing new has happened which would affect in any way the decisions that were made by the Australian Government at the time of the conference of Finance Ministers in September last and at the time of the Cabinet committee’s last consideration of dollar import ceilings. In other words, the press is incorrect in stating that the situation has now changed in a manner that permits of either the elimination or the substantial relaxation of dollar import restrictions. I shall introduce legislation in the near future in connexion with the dollar loan, and the Government’s policy in relation to the general dollar situation will then be made known.

page 2316

QUESTION

BASIC WAGE

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Can the Minister for Labour and National Service tell the House whether the Government intends to pay to all of its adult male employees the full amount of the basic wage increase of £1 a week, which was recently awarded by the Full Court of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, or whether it intends to leave the decision to the court? Does the Government intend, to present argument to the court in opposition to the payment of the full amount of the increase to its employees?

Mr HOLT:
LP

– The honorable member’s questions involve certain aspects of policy, which it is not customary to deal with during question time. However, I shall examine the questions in detail in order to determine how much of the information that he seeks can be given to him.

page 2316

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to the remarks of the chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers Board to the effect that Australia had made a “ horrible mess “ of selling meat to North America and that -

Australia had 1,000 tons freed from the British market and hawked it around getting low prices and upsetting American farmers.

Is it a fact that, in August last, private exporters were granted a government release of 1,000 tons of frozen meat for export on a trader-to-trader basis and that the private exporters had the opportunity to supply only 850 tons of that quota ? Was the balance of 150 tons supplied by the Australian Meat Board, which exported to Canada a quantity of meat that was originally supplied for the British Ministry of Food at the British Ministry of Food rate? If so, what reason was given by the Australian Meat Board for supplying 150 tons of meat out of a quota of 1,000 tons that had been allocated originally to private exporters, and what happened to the profit that resulted from the fact that the British Ministry of Food rate was about 300 per cent, lower than the Canadian export rate?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– At the conference to which the honorable member has referred, which was held on Friday last, State Ministers in charge of prices control did not ask the Australian Government to assume the prices power. In spite of speculations to the contrary, that was not put forward by the Ministers. As to the conference generally, I propose at the end of question time to ask for leave to make a statement on the matters that were debated.

Later:

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - On Friday last, the 10th November, at the request of the State Ministers in charge of prices, I attended a conference with them in Melbourne. Present with me on behalf of the Commonwealth were the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), and the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay). As matters of importance were discussed, it seems proper that I should convey to the Commonwealth Parliament a brief account of the proceedings. The State Ministers, through Mr. Finnan, their chairman, presented a case which contained four proposals. As I said a few minutes ago, these did not include any proposal that the Commonwealth should take over the power to control prices. The first was that -

The Commonwealth Government should participate directly in price control policy by appointing a senior Minister to sit with the State Ministers at their conferences, which would then be recognized as conferences of Commonwealth and State Prices Ministers.

This was, in substance, a proposal that the Australian Government should appoint a Minister in charge of prices. In view of the fact that in 1948 the people of Australia, by vote at a referendum, had indicated that they desired that permanent powers of prices control should be exercised by the .States and not by the Commonwealth, I said that the Commonwealth could not agree to the proposal. I further indicated that it was not a practical political course for the Commonwealth, by the appointment of a special Minister, to assume what might turn out to be a major responsibility for a matter in relation to which the Commonwealth had little, if any, power.

The second proposal was that -

The Commonwealth reconsider its policy that a general extension of subsidy payment would not bo a satisfactory or workable solution of the problem of arresting a rise in thi cost of living.

This was also rejected by mc on behalf of the Commonwealth, for reasons to which I will refer later.

The third proposal was that -

The Commonwealth co-operate in establishing and maintaining reasonable ceilings on home-consumption prices and quotas for major foodstuffs, particularly meat.

As to the general proposal, I indicated that price ceilings were practicable during war because of two circumstances. One was that both export and import prices between 1942 and 1945 remained substantially unaltered. The other was that during the war price ceilings were associated with controls of the various price factors including wages, capital investment, and man-power ; and that in a time of peace the people of Australia could not be expected to accept such controls.

The fourth proposal was that -

The Commonwealth should pursue a flexible policy under which import duty, excise duty and sales tax will, where necessary, be adjusted to assist in offsetting cost increases; and that the Commonwealth consult the State Prices

Ministers before increasing duties or taxes where such increases will result in higher costs for everyday consumption goods

To this I replied that the Commonwealth always considered such duties and taxes in relation to cost increases, but that consultation with State authorities before altering taxes or duties was not practicable. Clearly, it would involve divulging fiscal changes which, if known in advance of their operation, could have a very disturbing effect upon markets and could also facilitate a great deal of speculation and profit-taking.

I went on to say to the Ministers that the Commonwealth did not regard itself as uninterested in their problems ; that in spite of their difficulties they had, in our opinion, done a great deal of effective work; and that the best proof of this was that the rise in the price level in the periods so far recorded had been substantially the same under State prices control as it was during the last year or two of Commonwealth prices control. The “ C “ series index figures confirm this statement. In the last complete year of Commonwealth price control, that is the year ended June, 1948, the percentage increase in the index figures was S.8. In the twelve months ended June, 1949, it was 9.8. In the twelve months ended June, 1950, for one-half of which the present Government was in office, the percentage increase actually fell from 9.8 to 9.4. In the sixmonths ended June, 1950, the percentage increase was under 4.7. I then went on to point out that though the Commonwealth could not agree to appoint a Minister to assist in administration of prices control, it would be happy to do everything possible to improve the extent and efficiency of the liaison between the State Ministers and departments and the Commonwealth departments concerned.

I therefore offered on behalf of the Commonwealth (1) to appoint as a liaison officer, a senior officer of the Prime Minister’s Department, who would attend meetings of the State Ministers in charge of prices and State prices commissioners would, ‘therefore, be in a position to know whether the matters being considered had relation to possible Commonwealth action; would nave direct access to me as Prime Minister; and would report to me directly and promptly after each such meeting; (2) to send on request to the meetings of the Ministers a representative of any Commonwealth department or board handling any particular commodity likely to come up for discussion; and (3) to have regular periodical meetings, which I indicated might occur every quarter, between the chairman of the State Ministers in charge of prices control and the Prime Minister to discuss matters of general policy.

In answer to a question, I was told that the State Ministers met about three times a year. I offered a meeting four times a year ‘between the chairman of the Ministers in charge of prices control and myself. This offer, which would undoubtedly greatly improve and quicken consultation upon these important matters, was not accepted by the States at the conference. The State Ministers present decided that they would discuss it at their next meeting on the 24th November. As to subsidies, I pointed out to the State Ministers that though the Commonwealth did not accept the subsidy system as the answer to the rise in the cost of living, it would, in fact, be spending in the financial year 1950-51 over £44,000,000 on subsidies, and would always consider individual cases on their merits. In addition to the matters to which I have referred, a discussion occurred upon prices of meat, lead, and certain commodities in common use such as cigarettes, beer, tobacco and petroleum, upon all of which further consideration was promised. The woollen goods subsidy plan formulated by the Commonwealth was explained at the meeting and the State Ministers were informed that a prompt discussion would occur between a senior officer of the Commonwealth Treasury and the State prices commissioners, I assured Ministers that the views put forward by the State prices commissioners in such discussion would e fully considered by the Australian Government.

The whole conference was conducted in what I thought was a friendly and mutually helpful way. At its conclusion I stated to the representatives of the press, in the presence and with the concurrence of Mr. Finnan, the chairman of the State Ministers, the substance of the matters which had been debated. Under these circumstances it is a matter for great regret that Mr. Finnan should have thought it necessary thereafter to take the opportunity of attacking the Commonwealth and of seeking to create the impression that its views were either unconstructive or meaningless. I should point out that much of the value of these conferences between the Commonwealth and the States will be destroyed if they are to be made simply a vehicle for political, and sometimes party political, propaganda. The Australian Government believes in the federal system. It believes that the States have great powers and responsibilities, and that the Commonwealth has its own powers and responsibilities. It believes that the exercise and discharge of these matters require a high degree of mutual respect and co-operative effort.

Having said this, I crave leave to put before the House some observations on the problem of the effect upon price levels of price stabilization subsidies in a peacetime economy, without war-time controls. It is true that we are as a Government budgeting for a number of substantial subsidies. But each has been based on its own special circumstances. Thus many honorable members will recall that the superphosphate bounty is designed to increase the .use of superphosphate; the subsidy on the importation of prefabricated houses is designed to increase the importation and therefore the supply or prefabricated houses ; and the woollen subsidy is designed to offset to some extent the effects of an unprecedented and spectacular increase in wool prices. But the adoption of subsidization as a general answer to price rises cannot be accepted. In general, subsidies are only a means of treating the symptom of inflation, not its causes.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is not what the Prime Minister said during the last general election campaign.

Mr MENZIES:

– It is precisely, although in a more expanded form, what I said in the course of the last general election campaign. Cost increases primarily arise in association with increases in export and import prices, the standard of working hours, and the level of wages. The payment of subsidies to offset the effect of such cost increases on the price of goods bought by the final purchasers does not in any way eliminate the cost increases. It merely disguises those increases in a budget appropriation which must continue so long as the cost increases continue. It is quite clear to the student of recent Australian economic history that in the first part of the post-war period it was expected that world inflation would come to an early end, and that Australia would be faced with a decline in export and import prices. With this expectation it seemed sensible to continue subsidies for a period in the hope that Australian prices and costs could be prevented from rising, and thereby a difficult adjustment in Australian prices and costs avoided when overseas prices turned downwards. Up to date this expectation has been falsified. Indeed it seems probable that inflationary conditions in major overseas countries, whatever their form of government, will become more pronounced in the future. The successful war-time experience of a stabilization policy involving subsidies is no longer relevant, since the subsidies were only a minor and incidental feature of the war-time apparatus of controls, an apparatus quite clearly no longer acceptable to the Australian people or, for that matter, relevant to peace-time conditions.

For example, during the war an elaborate system of wage and production controls was established to counteract cost increases. This, with a fortuitous but fortunate stability in export and import prices, made possible a general price ceiling, and subsidies were brought in to neutralize the effects of those minor cost increases which could not be avoided. But let me emphasize that the basic element in war-time policy was the prevention of the cost increases themselves and not the payment of subsidies. Conditions to-day are entirely different. Export and import prices have been, and are, rising rapidly. Wages are entirely uncontrolled and are rising as a result of pressure upon the price level. Production is uncontrolled. Except in special circumstances subsidies can do nothing to improve the supplies of goods and services in Australia. For example, no subsidy directed to shipping freights can do anything to improve the deplor able state of affairs which has resulted in the increase of shipping freights on the Australian coast. Before the war, coastal ships in Australia spent one-third of their time in port and two-thirds of their time at sea earning revenue. Today, largely as the result of Communist influence, the same ships spend two-thirds of their time in port and one-third at sea. To subsidize freights under these conditions will not affect the rising cost of shipping, but will merely conceal it. I want to make it quite clear that the Australian Government does not propose to encourage the kind of thing that is occurring on the Australian waterfront by making the taxpayer the burdenbearer.

Similarly, except in special circumstances, subsidies can do nothing to reduce the demand for goods and services. Let me explain this more clearly. If subsidy payments are not provided by additional tax collections, but are merely added to revenue deficits, their effect is positively inflationary. That is because government deficits have to be financed by the Commonwealth Bank, by the creation of credit unrepresented by corresponding production. To the extent to which subsidy payments make the subsidized goods cheaper, they set free purchasing power for expenditure on the general aggregate of goods and services available to the community, and, therefore, while they protect certain items, they lead to additional upward pressure on the cost and price structure as a whole. True, if the subsidies are provided for out of additional tax collections, there will be. to that extent, a reduction of purchasing power; but honorable members may decide for themselves whether higher taxation will have an adverse effect upon incentives to reasonably hard work and productive efficiency.

I now turn to another aspect of this much misunderstood subject. The policy of trying to arrest the rise in prices by payment of subsidies would involve an almost unlimited liability on the budget, which would occur at an increasing rate. I am now, of course, considering the proposal which is made vi some quarters that we should set a ceiling to prices and deal with all possible increases by subsidies. The budget liability could be limited if there were a reversion to a comprehensive system of war-time controls. But no honorable member of this House has been heard to say that he wants in 1950 to peg wages or to control man-power.

The possible order of magnitude of the budget liability to which I have referred may be indicated quite clearly. Total expenditure by ali consumers in Australia is about £1,700,000,000. Prices have been rising by about 10 per cent, per annum. The subsidy bill required to stabilize all prices to consumers directly, assuming a continuation of this rate of increase, would therefore reach an annual rate of £170,000,000 within twelve months. It may be that this figure should be discounted because the subsidies would themselves tend to reduce the rate of increase of costs. But the actual subsidy bill would still be enormous; nor could any limit be set to its increase in subsequent years. There is another factor which is deserving of earnest consideration by all thoughtful Australians. If it were known that the cost of increases were to result in increases of subsidy rather than increases of price much of the incentive of business firms to produce efficiently would be lost and trade unions, even under the most responsible leadership, would be under a strong temptation to press for wage increases, secure in the knowledge that this could not lead to higher prices and thus to a reduction in the demand for their output; nor would business firms have any serious incentive to resist such increases.

I shall now say a few words about a matter which is of very great importance to trade unions whose periodical adjustments of wages are based upon what is called the “ C “ series index. It is argued by some that to pay subsidies upon certain basic commodities would -be a relatively inexpensive way of holding down the “ C “ series, since the.se commodities play a great part in the calculation of the items in that series; and that this would have an impressive effect upon, for example, the wage of the basic wage-earner. There are various answers to this argument, but I shall confine myself to one to which ifr. Menzies

I invite the close attention of all honorable members. Any large-scale subsidy payments on basic commodities, simply because their weight in the “ C “ series is high, will necessarily tend to make the “ C “ series unrepresentative of the movement of cost of living of consumers. The items which are taken into account in the “ C “ series are not fixed like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. The “ C “ series does not pretend to be a comprehensive measure of the living costs of any particular group of consumers. It is purely representative. It is a sort of sample. It can remain truly representative only so long as the particular prices it measures are not forced out of line with the general bulk of the prices which ‘t represents. As honorable members who have followed this problem with keen attention will know, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the groat trade unions are very much alive to this point. It has been discussed in court hearings on many occasions, and in particular during the recent basic wage hearing. In the course of this hearing an assurance was most properly given on behalf of the Commonwealth Statistician that the integrity of the “ C “ series, that is its truly representative character, would be maintained in any circumstances, if necessary by changing the weights or introducing new commodities.

The conclusion from all these considerations, and I put it to the House as something which possesses an intrinsic merit which stands entirely outside party controversy, is that in the absence of a complete series of economic controls of capital, of wages, of man-power - controls which in time of peace are intolerable to a free country - subsidies cannot be an effective answer to rising prices. In short, in the present situation of inflationary pressure, which has prevailed for some years, the considerations which I have stated lead to the conclusion that a general policy of price stabilization subsidies is not a satisfactory or workable solution of the problem of how to arrest the rise in the cost of living1.

In a statement which relates particularly to the recent conference with the State Ministers, I have not thought it either reasonable or practicable to deal with the prices problem as a whole. That problem was quite recently made the subject of two special broadcasts by me, in which causes were examined and practical measures indicated. All I need to say at present is that there can be no answer to rising prices in the absence of substantially increased supplies of goods. No such increased supply can be made avail-‘ able unless we have either a substantial importation of capital and other goods that we require - a problem one aspect of which will be discussed when the dollar loan contract is placed before the House - or a great increase in our own productive effort at home, particularly in those basic industries upon which other industries depend for continuity of materials supply and therefore for efficiently organized productive effort; or, as the Government believes, both. I lay on the table the following paper: -

Control of .Prices - Conference, Melbourne, 10th November, 1950 - Ministerial Statement, and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Chifley) adjourned.

page 2323

WOOL SALES DEDUCTION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th November (vide page 2260), on motion by Mr. Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo

.- The purpose of this bill is -

To provide for the Collection and Recovery of Amounts payable under the Wool Sales Deduction Act (No. 1) 19S0, and the Wool Sales Deduction Act (No. 2) 1950, and for the Application of those Amounts.

Reference is made specifically in the bill to a wool sales deduction, but a more appropriate description of that impost would be a wool tax. To call it a wool sales deduction is a masterpiece of understatement, because the specific purpose of this bill is to deduct 20 per cent, from the proceeds of the sale of wool, and to apply those moneys as tax collections. In fact, the intention to treat receipts from the wool sales deduction in the same way as tax collections are treated is clearly expressed in the measure.

The Government proposes, although the bill does not clearly indicate the method to be adopted, to appoint a commissioner to administer this legislation, but it is discreetly silent about whether that official will be appointed by regulation, and whether it has in mind a particular person for that highly important position. I, personally, am not able to visualize clearly how the commissioner will be appointed, and I can only hazard a guess about his duties, other than the administration of the provisions of this measure. The bill provides that the commissioner shall be empowered to take action to relieve any hardship that may be inflicted upon a wool-grower by the operation of this legislation. Apparently, that official will have authority to reduce, or even waive the collection of the wool sales deduction in such cases.

The important feature of this bill, which should be stressed, is the introduction of a new principle in legislation, because a severe disability will be imposed by it upon a section of Australian industry. The responsibility for meeting the financial obligations of this nation devolves upon all its citizens, and one section of the community, because it is enjoying prosperity, should not be called upon to bear more than its reasonable share. Unfortunately’,’ -that principle has been discarded in this bill. The wool industry is deemed to be receiving for its products prices considerably in excess of the average values for them over a period of years, and, indeed, some of those returns in recent times have been described as fantastic. Therefore, the Government has selected the wool-growing section of the community to make a special contribution to the welfare of Australia.

It is almost unnecessary for me to point out to honorable members that the wool industry is not the only section’ of the Australian economic life that is enjoying unprecedented prices for its. products. Certain metals are being sold in the markets of the world at prices considerably in excess of the average values for them over a number of years.

Various businesses are also receiving returns which considerably exceed those obtained in the past. It seems remarkable that, of the various industries in this country which are now securing considerably more for their products than they obtained in the past, the wool industry should be singled out for special treatment. I point out that the wool industry occupies a particular and important place in our economic life. Almost from the dawn of Australian history? wool has been our principal export. It is the outstanding commodity which, year in and year out, has consistently earned for Australia in the markets of the world a large proportion of the income that is required for the development of the national economy. Other commodities have assisted to swell our wealth from time to time. Gold, for instance, has played a most important part in establishing credits for Australia overseas, and wheat has also been most valuable in that respect; but the wool industry, in good seasons or in bad. seasons, in times when prices have been high and on other occasions when they have been low, has regularly earned a large percentage of our income.

It should be pointed out, when the Parliament is considering the advisability of imposing a special burden upon the wool industry, that probably no other industry has been able to improve the quality and increase the quantity of its products to the same degree as has the wool industry. It has been extremely efficient, and has considerably improved the breed of Australian sheep, and the type of Australian wool. It has been able, as a result of scientific breeding and of the observance of various factors which are necessary for the successful production of wool, to improve the standard of wool considerably. I remind honorable members that the average weight of greasy wool obtained from a sheep in 3876 was 4 lb., whereas the average weight last year -was 8.8 lb. The average on one occasion actually reached 9 lb., but during the last twelve or thirteen years, it has remained steady at about 8.5 lb. I mention those matters, because I consider that it is necessary to direct attention to them when the Government proposes to extract from wool-growers during the current

Mr. Clarey financial year an amount of at feast £103,000,000, and possibly as much as £110,000,000. Honorable members should ask themselves whether they should agree to that proposal in the interests of the community itself, because a great disability will be placed upon a section of Australian industry which, consistently throughout out history, has made a greater contribution to the national economy than has any other section of industry. A great deal has been said about the very high prices that are now being received from the sale of wool. Dalgety’s Annual Wool Review indicates that prior to the very high prices received for wool during the last two or three seasons, the record price for Australian wool was that obtained by John Macarthur for his wool in 1828, when 196d. per lb. was received. Since 1946-47 the price of wool has continually increased, until at present more than 240d. per lb is received for certain grades of fine wool. It is suggested that because such high prices are now being received the additional money, which, of course, belongs to the wool-growers, should be withheld from them in order to minimize the effect upon the present inflationary trend of the expenditure of that money by the wool-growers. Under this measure the Government proposes to adjust the position by imposing what is, in effect, a tax upon wool-growers. Of course, the effect of this measure will be that the sum of approximately £100,000,000 that will be withheld from the wool-growers will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue and expended by the Government. It is clear, therefore, that this measure will not prevent the passage into our economy of approximately £100,000,000. Of course, the Government professes to believe that the expenditure of this money by the woolgrowers would accentuate the demand for certain goods that are at present in short supply, and I shall deal with that contention at a later stage of my remarks.

The Government contends that if it expends the money on the provision of necessary services, the expenditure will have only a limited impact upon our economy, whereas if the money is expended by the wool-growers it will continue to change hands and the effect upon our economy will be cumulative. That contention is quite unsound, as I shall demonstrate presently. The point is that if the Government really believed that the present state of our economy was such that no more money should be pumped into it, the proper course for it to follow would . be to impound the £100,000,000 and “freeze” it. That would certainly have the effect of preventing any inflationary reaction. However, the Government is not prepared to do that. It hopes that by withholding the money from the wool-growers and expending it from the Consolidated Revenue fund for its own purposes, it will minimize the inflationary effect of the release of such a large sum. However, it does not matter whether the Government expends the money upon such necessary purposes as the payment of war gratuity, the implementation of defence projects, or the payment of the salaries of the public servants, the ultimate effect must be that the additional money will find its way into the currency stream, and aggravate the present inflation. Any such expenditure must have the effect of making the present scarcity of goods and services even worse.

Mr Eggins:

– Does the honorable gentleman suggest that the payment of war gratuity should be delayed?

Mr CLAREY:

– I do not suggest that payment of war gratuity should not be made. I am merely pointing out that the expenditure of £100,000,000 by the Government must inevitably aggravate the present inflationary trend.

Mr Fadden:

– How does the honorable gentleman suggest that war gratuity can be paid without increasing the currency?

Mr CLAREY:

– At the moment I am not making any particular suggestion to the Government. I am endeavouring to show that the present proposal will not have the counter-inflationary effect that the Government has claimed for it.

Adverting to the point that I made previously, which was that it does not follow necessarily that if wool-growers’ are permitted to retain the sum of £103,000,000, they will expend it almost solely on goods that are in short supply. After all, who is to say that the money will not be expended by the wool-growers in order to protect their legitimate economic interests, to buttress themselves against the recession of prices that is bound to take place in the future, and to enable them to withstand the economic consequences of seasonal fluctuations, to say nothing of the occurrence of floods and droughts? Whilst there are undoubtedly many wool-growers with huge flocks and great wealth, there are also many thousands of individuals of very limited means who engage in mixed farming and run small flocks of sheep. The effect of this legislation will be to deprive those deserving individuals of some hundreds of thousands of pounds in the aggregate. Many of those small farmers and selectors are struggling to pay off mortgages and to contend with the ravages of the recent floods. The opportunity that is presented to them by the present high prices of wool to make themselves economically secure is to be taken from them by the Government’s decision to withhold a susbtantial portion of their earnings. Our farmers have a greater need of financial reserves than have the manufacturers, merchants and other businessmen in the cities and larger country centres, because they are subject to all the vagaries of seasonal conditions, with their attendant hazards. By depriving them of the opportunity to discharge their financial obligations and to set aside something against those hazards the Government is treating them most unjustly. Furthermore, the Government is making no allowance for the hardships and misfortunes which so many of our farmers have had to overcome in order to remain on the land. On the contrary, instead of this Government, in which the Australian Country party is so strongly represented, endeavouring to safeguard the interests of primary producers, as it professes to do, it is going to take from them the right which persons in every other section of the community have to enjoy the fruit of their labours.

I suppose that almost every member of the Parliament has received letters condemning this proposal of the Government, and I shall now read to honorable members a letter which I received this morning from the Maryborough District Agricultural and Horticultural Society, in the electorate that I represent, which is probably typical of many of the letters received by other honorable members. The letter is as follows : -

At the last meeting of the Committee of the above Society, I was instructed to write to you and protest against the Wool Tax introduced by the present Federal Government.

The society has no doubt that it is a tax ! The letter continues -

The opinion oi members is that such a tax, although it may be held in a fund for the future benefit of the taxpayer, is unwise, in us much ae it creates a precedent for the withholding of part of the income of a taxpayer because a particular industry is enjoying a prosperous period. The present high price of wool is due to the operation of the rule of supply mid demand and w not rigged by the producer. The attention of the Government might well be directed to fields where high prices prevail and where the operation of supply and demand does not apply.

In particular, the retention of part of the proceeds of wool sales is a hardship to new settlers, ex-servicemen and others, who have purchased properties at high prices, and to whom high prices and returns are necessary to enable them to meet their commitments for the purchase of stuck and the reduction of mortgages. I shall be pleased if you will note the objections stated above and be able to use them should the opportunity arise.

That is typical of many letters in which individuals who will suffer from the effects of the impost point out very clearly the hardships that they are called upon to withstand and the unfair share of the task of supporting the national economy that will be placed upon them by this measure. Much has been said about the “ pay as you earn “ tax deduction scheme. Some honorable members appear to believe that this measure will merely apply to the wool producers the same principles as are applied to the workers in industry under the “pay as you earn “ scheme. That is totally incorrect because this year the wool-grower will be required to make three distinct payments into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Under the “pay as you earn” scheme, the wool-grower and every other primary producer have been required to make tax contributions according to provisional assessments based upon the income of previous years. The woolgrower will be required to pay provisional income tax as usual this year. In addition, he will be required to pay the 7$ per cent, levy for the wool stabilization scheme.

Mr Eggins:

– If he decides in favour of stabilization.

Mr CLAREY:

– There is little doubt about that. Finally, 20 per cent, of the gross proceeds from the sale of his wool will be deducted and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Therefore, a tremendous burden will be placed upon his shoulders.

One aspect of the measure deserves special consideration by the Treasurer with the object of including in the bill some safeguarding provision. Last week the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) referred to the difficulties that would beset primary producers who had to restock their farms and, as a consequence, had to buy sheep that would afterwards have to be shorn. I bring to the attention of the Government the situation of the sheep dealer, who will suffer from the same difficulties. Although the amounts deducted will eventually be repaid to such men, the immediate effect of the charge of 20 per cent, upon the returns from wool from shorn sheep may very seriously hamper their dealing operations. In certain circumstances, dealers purchase sheep when they are ready to be shorn. They must pay the full price for the sheep and the margin of profit on resale is usually not very great. Under the provisions of the bill, a dealer who purchases sheep in that condition and then shears them will be. treated as a wool producer under the terms of the bill. As soon as he sells the wool from the sheep, he will become liable to the 20 per cent, deduction. That deduction will temporarily deprive him not only of any profit that he may obtain from the transaction of buying and reselling the sheep but also of a considerable amount of the capital that he has used to finance the transaction. The bill should provide some ready means of relieving such persons of hardship. Their cases should be dealt with quickly.

Mr Fadden:

– The bill contains such a provision.

Mr CLAREY:

– I realize that it provides for action to be taken in cases of hardship. But what can be done to enable a quick decision to be made in such cases? If the administration is to be centred in Canberra, a great deal of hardship may be imposed upon dealers because months may elapse before rebates are paid. Special attention should be given to this problem. I imagine that the Government has no wish to cause great difficulty and extreme inconvenience to such persons.

The effect of the bill will fall harshly upon a very large section of the people. The ‘wool-growers have played a very important part in helping to establish the present economic greatness of Australia. One of the amendments that the Government has proposed provides that the 20 per cent, deduction shall continue year after year unless legislative provision to the contrary is made. That amendment will make the measure very dangerous to the wool-growers. In view of the protests against the iniquitous manner in which the impost will operate, which are being lodged by primary producers from all States, the Government would be well advised to withdraw the bill and . leave the wool-producers alone.

Mr. LA WHENCE (Wimmera) [4.231. - I support the bill. I want my attitude to the measure to be made perfectly clear to members of the Opposition and also to the electors whom I represent in this Parliament. The nature of the bill has been grossly misrepresented, not only by the Opposition but also by objectors outside the Parliament. The provision for the prepayment of income tax by means of a wool sales deduction must be considered in the light of two broadcasts that were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the subject of current high price levels. In those, broadcasts the Prime Minister dealt with the causes of the inflationary spiral and clearly stated the steps that the Government intended to take in order to arrest the spiral. He pointed out in the first place that the cure lay largely in the people’s own hands and explained that, although there were many means by which inflation could be checked, there could be no single remedy. The Government has already announced its intention to impose an excess profits tax. Only to-day the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) stated, in reply to questions that had been asked by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr.

Calwell), that the necessary legislation would soon be introduced. He rightly refrained from disclosing at this stage any details of the proposed tax. The Government has also announced that limited subsidies will be paid and that there will be a 20 per cent, reduction of national developmental works. All of those steps will be taken, in addition to the wool sales deduction scheme, in order to check inflation.

I turn now to the wool industry itself. We all know of the huge increases of wool prices that have occurred in recent years. This year we may reasonably expect the Australian wool cheque to amount to £550,000,000. With the continuing price rises, which were reported in the newspapers to-day, the total may very well amount to £600,000,000. This situation is undeniably good for the growers, and we rejoice with them in their good fortune. Incidentally, the situation is also good for the country. However, it will aggravate the already inflationary condition of the domestic economy. I pay a tribute to the wool industry because it. almost alone among the primary industries, has not called upon governments for help in the past. I agree with the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) that it has made wonderful contributions to the economy of the nation. Nevertheless, it has never been called upon, as many other industries have been called upon, to provide a cheap product for Australian consumers. Members of the Opposition, and the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) in particular, are in error in describing the proposed deduction as confiscation. The scheme merely provides for the prepayment of income tax. The money deducted from the returns from wool sales will remain the property of the growers and will be used as a credit against the taxes that will be assessed upon their incomes. Notwithstanding what the honorable member for Bendigo has said, this will be identical with the practice that has been applied to- nearly 2,000,000 wage and salary earners during the last seven years. I remind members of the Opposition and the wool-growers that the proposed deduction of 20 per cent, represents less than the amount of the wool price increases that have taken place this year. The growers are receiving more money for their wool than they expected to receive. It is money that has come to them out of the blue.

As the representative of about 3,600 wool-growers in my electorate, I have strongly opposed on every possible occasions all suggestions designed to control the price level of wool. It has been suggested that there should be a return to the system of appraisement. MY opinion is that controls should be applied to the wool industry, or to any other industry, only in times of national emergency, such as when we are at war. The honorable member for Lalor and opponents of the wool sales deduction scheme outside the Parliament have said that the withdrawal of funds from the wool-growers under the scheme will not have a decisive effect, upon the inflationary spiral. That is true. However, in conjunction with the other steps that I have already outlined, it will have a good influence upon the economic situation. Every true Australian much concede that to be a fact. The effect of the Government’s decision to reduce the proposed expenditure on developmental works will become increasingly apparent as the year progresses. However, I consider that no real progress can be made with any programme of national works, including undertakings such as the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric project, without some degree of resultant inflation. We cannot develop our immigration programme without producing some measure of inflation. We cannot have increased social services, such as the Government has provided, without having also some resultant measure of inflation. Who among us would wish to halt progress because it will have an inflationary effect? I believe that the risks entailed in progress are proper for us, as Australians, to take. Honorable members opposite have suggested that the Government has made no effort to save money. They have stated that the provision that the Government has made for additional expenditure on works and services is unnecessary. Their statements in that regard are even further from the truth than are their other assertions. The items of additional expenditure for which the Treasurer has budgeted in- elude an extra amount of £79,000,000 for defence and the provision of £67,000,000 for the payment of war gratuities. An additional £30,000,000 is to be expended on social services and an additional £12,000,000 is to be provided for the extension of postal services. Would any honorable member opposite suggest that any item of that proposed additional expenditure should be reduced ? If honorable members opposite believe that they should be reduced, they should say so now and then we all shall, know where they stand.

Opponents of this measure have stated that the wool-growers, who represent 2 per cent, of the population, will, as a result of its passage, supply 25 per cent, of the total revenue, thereby implying that the plan proposed in the measure is something new in the Australian concept of budgeting. In actual fact provisions such as are contained in this measure have been in operation for some years. For example, 130,445 people, or 1.67 per cent, of the population, paid 35.4 per cent, of the total amount collected in income tax in the financial year 1948-49. Honorable members opposite have also stated that the Government’s scheme will have no effect on inflation, because the Government will expend the money instead of its being spent by the wool-growers. It has been suggested that the money could be more economically spent by the woolgrowers than by the Government. But the question is not one of who should spend the money, or whether the Government should expend it this year and the woolgrowers spend it next year, or whether both the Government and the wool-growers should spend it in one year. The fact is that if the amounts with which the measure deals were not taken away from the wool-growers, but were left for them to spend the Government would still have to find another £103,000,000 to meet its commitments. It cannot be disputed that this measure is deflationary in respect of a large proportion of the sum of £103,000,000 to be collected under it. Honorable members opposite have asked why the Government should have singled OUt the wool-growers to provide this sum of £103,000,000. I repeat what I have said before, which is that the woolgrowers are now to be asked only to do what nearly 2,000,000 wage and salary earners have been doing willingly for the last seven years. They are to be asked to pay income tax on the pay-as-you-earn system. I doubt whether the wage and salary earners, who have been paying income tax under that system for years, would willingly go back to the old method of paying tax in a lump sum at the end of each year. The wool industry has been selected by the -Government to provide this necessary revenue because of the phenomenal increase of its returns, which will be nearly ten times as great this year as they were in any pre-war year, and will be about £250,000,000 more than they were last year. The increase of the returns to the wool industry that has resulted from world conditions is therefore a windfall. It represents nearly £300,000,000 more in circulation in Australia, hut that is not offset by a proportionate increase of the goods available for purchase. The collection by the Government of a large proportion of that windfall, through the prepayment of income tax by the wool-growers, will be anti-inflationary in its effect, and will benefit our people generally and the woolgrowers in particular. Normally, woolgrowers are the hardest hit by inflation because they are unable to pass on their higher costs owing to the fact that their industry is mainly an exporting industry.

The measure is to include several provisions for application in cases of hardship that may be caused to wool-growers by prepayment of income tax. A study of those provisions shows how adequately any wool-grower who is likely to suffer from the operation of the measure is to be protected. The proposed amendment to clause 11 reads, in part -

Where the Commissioner at any time receives from a producer a wool deduction certificate in respect of wool sold, disposed of or exported in a year of income, and is satisfied that the producer has suffered such a loss or is in such circumstances that the application of the provisions of this Act would entail hardship on the producer unless this section were applied, the Commissioner may -

credit the whole or a part of the amount of the certificate in pay ment or part payment of the income tax and provisional tax payable by the producer in respect of the income of any year of income preceding that year of income.

The Commissioner may do one of three things in a case of hardship. If he is satisfied that hardship is likely to be caused, he may apply the money that has been deducted in relation to a wool-grower’s sales to the payment of income tax for the year ended the 30th June, 1950, or for an earlier year, instead of holding it until approximately March, 1952, to pay the income tax for the year ending the 30th June, 1951. Or if he is convinced that the amount collected will be in excess of the amount that the producer will be finally required to pay in tax, he will be empowered to refund the amount by which it is likely to be in excess. On the other hand, he may apply the money in such a manner that it will be a combination of the two methods that I have mentioned of relieving hardship.

This bill has been grossly misrepresented throughout the country, and I have no doubt that that misrepresentation has been stimulated by the Opposition. Honorable members opposite now pose as the friends of the wool-growers, although at all other times they have spoken only in derogatory terms of wool-growers; they have described them as “wool barons “, the “ squatocracy “, and in similar disparaging terms. The bill has been described as discriminatory and also as an attack on woolgrowers, which it was never intended to be. Other Australian industries, such as the sugar industry, the wheat industry, and some of the metal industries, make a contribution to the national economy by accepting home-consumption prices that are much lower than the prices obtainable overseas. The figures in relation to the wheat industry in that respect would astonish every honorable member, as they certainly did me. They show that wheat-growers have been subject to indirect taxes far above the amount that they could reasonably have been expected to pay. The assistance given to them by governments over the period 1931-32 to 1949-50, by means of subsidies on superphosphates, bounties and other means of relief, amounted in value to £50,568,831. That may appear to be an enormous figure, but let us look at the contributions to the country’s economy that have been made by wheat-growers. Those contributions are represented by concessions to consumers in relation to the home-consumption price and to the price of stock feed supplied through the No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7 wheat pools. From the 1.941-42 season to the 1949-50 season, while this country was under Labour rule, those concessions by the wheat-growers amounted in value to the huge sum of £154,508,000, added to which was £7,250,000 worth of concessions to the United Kingdom and India in relation to the supply of 105,000,000 bushels of wheat fi om No. 11 pool. That makes the total of the concessions in that period £161,758,000. The difference between that amount and the contribution made by the growers is £11,189,169. Could a wool-grower, after having considered those figures honestly believe that he is being treated badly by being asked to prepay his income tax?

I welcome this opportunity to state that this measure is only one of the interrelated steps that the Government will take to put a brake on the inflationary spiral. I have already mentioned the other steps, which include the introduction of the excess profits tax legislation, and a decrease of government expenditure. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there is no short-cut to a solution of the problem of inflation. The Government cannot end inflation simply by the passage of a measure. It will watch the position carefully and will take every step that can usefully be taken to protect the average person or, in other words, the average family. It is our duty to protect them and their earnings and that can best be done by the Government taking steps from time to time of a general and not of a discriminatory nature. What are the alternatives to those steps? The Labour party has had its tongue in its cheek about this matter, but its spokesmen have made very clear just what steps it would take if it were confronted with a problem such as that which confronts the Government. It would draw off the excess returns that the wool-growers are receiving by imposing increased taxes. It would take over full control of ‘ the industry, first by introducing the system of appraisement and then by completely socializing it. Prepayment of income tax will not deprive the wool-grower of one penny except in relation to some slight loss of bank interest that he would otherwise have earned on his money. He will not pay any extra tax. The bill is designed to protect the growers’ position on the land and to enable him, along with other sections of the community, to make his contribution to the common weal in these difficult days.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- This measure is called the Wool Sales Deduction (Administration) Bill 1950 and provides for a deduction of 20 per cent, of the sale value of wool, which is to be paid to the Taxation Branch. In addition to that certain refunds in relation to wool bought are to be made on a 20 per cent, basis by the broker. The bill also provides for the relief of hardship caused by the measure, and will permit appeals to be made in relation thereto, lt is expected that the revenue that will result from the bill will amount to £103,000,000. I differ completely from those who gave the bill its title. I believe that it represents straight out confiscation and robbery under arms of the proceeds that are justly due to the woolgrowers of this country. All the apologies made by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Lawrence) will not convince honorable members on this side of the House or the wool-growers, that it is not designed to affect the income of wool-growers seriously, and that it is not a discriminatory measure that is unparalleled in taxing legislation in this country.

The Government has no mandate to enact it because its supporters made no mention of it during the last general election campaign. The bill must ultimately spell the doom of the Government, particularly of the Australian Country party section of it. Three years ago, when the Chifley Government’s banking legislation was introduced to this House, the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) vigorously criticized us for not submitting it to the people at a referendum, because, he said, we did not have a mandate for it. He claimed that no government should introduce legislation until it had a clear mandate from the people in relation to it, particularly if its effects were likely to be far-reaching. Yet we find the Treasurer, who has committed the Government, in his budget speech, to a policy of tax reduction, proposing to confiscate, without any mandate from the people, a sum of £103,000,000 from the wool-growers, simply because they at present enjoy a larger measure of prosperity than do the business and manufacturing interests in the community, by reason of high overseas prices for wool. I do not pose as a representative or a supporter of the wool barons of this country. I do not say that I am here to do or die for the primary producers. Personally, I represent in this Parliament the consumers of wool more than the producers of wool. What I and other Australians are concerned about is that if this discriminatory form of taxation is continued it will not be long before the Government will tell boilermakers and other workers that because they are earning £10 to £15 a week they are adding to the spiral of inflation and will have 20 per cent, deducted from their income in the way proposed in this legislation. The principle has been accepted. The Government proposes to take over and above its just due, 20 per cent, of the income of the wool-growers for this year. It is for that reason that I oppose this measure, apart from the fact that I believe that it will do an injustice to one section of the community. It is of particular interest to note that it is proposed by a Government that is pledged to reduce taxation and not to increase it as this measure will do. What justification has any Treasurer for imposing legislation of this type on one section of the community which may be unduly prosperous to-day instead of applying it to those who are exporting other commodities at a tremendous profit? The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) cited figures which indicated that the exporters of products other than wool have attained a level of profit which is unequalled in the history of this country. So why discriminate? Why not spread the taxation over all these groups? The wool-growers have been quick to react to the proposal embodied in this legislation. Protests against it are coming from all over the country. The legislation will he challenged in the High Court because primary producers consider that it is invalid and unjust. I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 26th October -

page 2331

GRAZIERS’ “ GROWING “ INDIGNATION

Indignation was growing every day among wool-growers, especially medium and small graziers, at the “ tax “ on wool earnings, the general secretary of the Graziers’ Association of N.S.W., Mr. S. S. Ick-Hewins, said last night.

I do not suppose that one can completely disregard the opinion of Mr. Ick-Hewins on this subject. Full-page advertisements that have been published in nearly all country newspapers indicate that this bill is looked upon by the wool-growers as a “ bush-ranging “ piece of legislation which they wish to see defeated. The Labour party has been blamed for those advertisements but it puts its money to more useful purposes.

This is compromise legislation. Some honorable senators opposite want to appreciate the Australian £1 but those who mingle in “ hill-billy “ corner on my left do not and this is the compromise that has resulted. This legislation proposes to confiscate the income of a section of the community in preference to appreciating the £1. Worse than that is the fact that the moneys to be derived from this confiscation have been included in the budget as revenue. The wool-growers of Australia have the doubtful honour, for what it is worth, of having paid for reductions that may have been made in other people’s taxes. The honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes), in a speech in which he apologized for the measure, said that if the Government did not take this £103,000,000 it could not possibly give effect to the promises that it made to the people of Australia at the last general election. If this is the Government’s policy, why did it not ask the people for a mandate to apply it ? Why did it not tell them that one of the methods to be used to put value back into the £1 would be to take £103,000,000 from the wool-growers so as to prevent them from spending it and to enable the Treasurer to expend it.

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Eggins) must think that I am very naive. As the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) said last Thursday night, it is a remarkable way of obtaining credit. When payment of the amount falls due in twelve months’ time the Government will borrow it again. It will give it away and take it back every year so that it will always have a £103,000,000 deficit in its budget. The Government’s proposal amounts to confiscation. On the 26th October, the Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial under the very appropriate heading of “Weaknesses of Mr. Fadden’s budget proposals “.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The House is not discussing the budget now.

Mr DALY:

– No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is just the heading. The editorial read as follows : -

The most vulnerable of the Budget proposals, both in respect of principles and of machinery, is the wool levy. Graziers are justly anxious that, if so extraordinary e. measure is to be adopted, there should at least be provision for immediate relief in cases of hardship, in place of a procedure involving long delays and consequent injustice. In view of the exceptional nature of this legislation, too, and the growing volume of protest against it, there is a strong case for limiting its duration to one season. There is no getting away from the fact that this is a piece of sectional, discriminatory, and generally objectionable legislation. The Prime Minister’s argument that the wool-grower is only being put on the 0ame footing as the pay-as-you-go salary and wageearner does not hold water. Under the existing taxation laws, wool-producers must pay, in 1.950-51, a provisional tax in respect of their incomes in that year. This provisional tax, adjusted by a further payment ut refund after returns have been completed, corresponds tn the instalment deductions paid by the wageearner. Any additional money collected from the wool cheque can only be to meet taxes on the income of 1951-52 or future years. Since the Government will have the use of this money a full year before it is normally due, the payment becomes a forced loan. There is no justification, in any event, for including it as part of current revenue, as Mr. Chifley rightly contends.

I commend that article to members of the Australian Country party to digest inwardly. A large section of industries is enjoying a great measure of prosperity. Honorable members of the Opposition have asked what the Minister intends to do in relation to the imposition of an excess profits tax. Would it not be more just to spread the excess profits tax over all sections of the community, including the wool-growers, than to impose this sectional taxation? I do not know what our shopkeeper friend from Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) would do if the Government took 20 per cent, of his income. If the Government must enforce confiscation of this nature in order to get money to c-:ry out its promises, surely the revenue required should be obtained from all sections of industry. It is only reasonable that the Government should say what it will do next on this discriminatory basis. It is not only the Labour party that objects to this legislation. Mr. Falkiner, a wellknown supporter of the Government, has said that it is more socialistic than was anything that any Labour government ever attempted and that the woolgrowers will obtain justice, if necessary, in the courts of law. Honorable members of the Opposition believe that this legislation should be opposed vigorously. If Labour is returned it will repeal it. Since the last general election honorable members have heard apology after apology from the Government. They have been told various reasons for the rising tide of prices, but the only measure that the Government has introduced in order to give effect to its promises to increase purchasing power is the confiscatory measure that is now before the House.. One cannot prevent inflation by transferring £103,000,000 from one group of people to another, and I cannot think of any better spenders of £103,000,000 than the present Government. I do not think that the effect of its disbursement by the Treasurer will be any less inflationary than would be the effect of its expenditure by the wool-growers. This legislation will add to the spiral of inflation. It is designed to discriminate and at some time in the future it will affect all sections of industry. It completely fails to stabilize the nation’s economy in any way because it will result only in a transfer of spending authority. Why should the woolgrowers be attacked in this way?

Over the years the Treasurer and honorable members who support him have talked about bad seasons, low prices and the hardships of the man on the land. I agree that the man on the land has passed through very difficult times. Although I represent a city constituency I was reared in country districts at a time when non-Labour governments were in power and the prices of wool and wheat were very much lower than they are to-day. I am able to appreciate the sufferings of the primary producers of Australia. I believe that the incomes of about 70 per cent, of the wool-growers are such that they may he termed “ small “ wool men. The small growers may have waited for years to get a good return for their wool, yet now that prices are high they find that a lump sum is to be taken from their incomes. This will prevent them from paying off their overdrafts and meeting other commitments.

It would he unreasonable for any government, particularly a government that is supposed to represent the country man, to say that it is unjustifiable for the wool-grower to complain about this tax, when it is apparent that he has been waiting for years for such a time of high prices in order to clear his debts. He has waited through times of trouble and tribulation, through times of drought and flood, yet now when he might expect to reap some reward for his patience the Government says, “Stand and deliver £103,000,000”. If the primary producers will not fight about this measure they will not fight about anything. If they will not tell the members of the Australian Country party in this House, and the supporters of the Government in another place that they do not intend to tolerate legislation such as this, then they are not worthy of support by honorable members on this side of the House. I have enough confidence in those people who constitute the bulk of the wool-growing section of the community to believe that they will fight against this injustice. To those who might be inclined to support the measure from the easy stand-point adapted by the Treasurer, that it is nothing but a charge to be taken as a loan for a year or so, I say that they should have harkened to the excellent speech of the honorable member for Lalor and realized that there are very good grounds for our claim that it is an unjust tax and one that should be imposed, if at all, on other sections of the community as well as the woolgrowers.

I know that my remarks do not make the Australian Country party, the Liberal party or the members of the Government very happy, because they know that I am striking at the basis of the reasons for the tax that they put forward. They are trying to force the argument down the throats of the primary producers and the people of this country that this measure only does to the wool-grower what has already been done to the ordinary wage-earner. They say that it is a collection of tax on account. The primary producer, when he comes to pay off his overdraft and improve his property, will find that the Government has ordered him to pay to it 20 per cent, of his earnings. I suggested that that is no more than a bare-faced hold-up. The primary producer should realize that other members of the community enjoy to the full the wealth that they earn, without any let or hindrance by their wealthy friends who comprose the Liberal party. Many members of the community are to-day making very great profits, just as the woolgrowers are. I refer to land agents, motor ear dealers, the motor industry generally, exporters and others. Yet this Government which is kept in power by the Australian Country party has sold out the wool-growers and let them “ take the rap if I may use the phrase, simply because the Liberal party wanted to appreciate the Australian £1 and the Australian Country party did not.

In effect, this bill is a compromise measure brought in by a compromise Government, and it must ultimately prove to be the death-knell of that Government because it will alienate the support of the rural industries. T reiterate the sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Lalor, that it is confiscatory, it is discriminatory, it is robbery under arms so far as collection of taxes is concerned, it has no parallel in this country and it is not the kind of legislation that one would expect from a Treasurer who is committed to a policy of taxation reduction. Above all it is a complete sell-out of all sections of the community who thought that this Government would take some effective anti-inflationary action in an attempt to keep prices down. For months, when answering questions put to him in this Parliament, the Treasurer has told honorable members, to wait for the budget which would answer all their questions. Pay after day honorable members have heard that reply, yet the’ one thing that he did not say would appear in the budget was this wool confiscation proposal, for which in fact he did not have a mandate from the people. “When we next go to the people we shall see to it that a promise shall be given to repeal this legislation. We state candidly to the Australian people, particularly to the primary producers, that we think that this legislation is unfair and unjust, and that that is the reason why we so vigorously oppose it.

Mr DRUMMOND:
New England

– I have listened with close attention to the various speakers from the opposite side of the House who have attacked this bill. I listened carefully to the speech of the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), a previous Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, to the address of the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey), which was not so well considered as his speeches usually are, and to the generously illogical speech of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly). Having listened to those speeches, I recall the saying, “ And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges “. For more than 30 years I have taken part in the political life of this country, and during my career in the New South Wales Parliament I witnessed the party, to which honorable members opposite belong, attempt on three occasions to bring down destructive and confiscatory proposals aimed at the great wool industry of this country. I have personally attended the funeral ceremonies of those three proposals which, fortunately for our wool industry, were defeated, and the great sheep studs of New South Wales were saved from destruction. The merino industry has evolved in a way that is peculiarly Australian, and it has given to Australia predominance in the wool markets of the world. I am prepared to admit that those honorable members who have objected to this measure are merely carrying out their responsibilities as members of the Opposition. The tradi tional role of an Opposition in a British parliament is that of opposing and of putting the point of view of those whobelieve that the Government’s proposals, are not all that they should be. It is the business of the Government to put forward reasons why its measures should be supported. When I find honorable members on the opposite side of the House, who normally have as much sympathy for the grazier as a crocodile has for the rabbit that it is about to swallow, supporting the graziers, then I quite realize that they are straining to the uttermost their role as an Opposition.

I think that the measure before the House is one that cannot possibly be considered in a vacuum. If this proposal is to be considered at all it must be considered in its relation to all the factors involved. If a government were heedlessly to bring down a proposal to tax any section of the people in any way at all without perfectly sound reasons, then that would be a mischievous interference with the ordinary processes of justice. Listening to honorable members debating this bill, one would think that this is the only measure brought down by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) that has moved certain sections of the community to great wrath and activity. Every honorable member in this House knows that recently our desks have been covered with letters of criticism from all sorts of people in connexion with all sorts of things. One would think while listening to honorable members of the Opposition, that no letters of protest against the budget proposals have been received from watchmakers, radio men, cosmetic-makers, men who peddle great and beautiful furs for ladies to wear at distinguished gatherings, and people in many other walks of life. One would fancy that people who sell motor cars have not been urgent in their protests against the Government’s proposal to try to curb inflation by certain methods which will operate against them. I shall not attempt to traverse all the ground that was covered during the budget debate. I merely mention that there are certain factors in the economy of the country such as the migration, defence and developmental programmes, which are absolutely vital to our continued existence as a nation, and which therefore have to be vigorously advanced by the present Government. Unfortunately these schemes have an inflationary effect. Nor can we forget that the demand for goods has increased tremendously through the determination of the Australian people to have a 40-hour working week. Noi; can we overlook the fact that forces exist in this community which deliberately and continuously try to destroy the productive effort of the country and thus add to the inflationary conditions. We know that high export prices, not only of wool but also of other commodities, have had their effect on our economy.

On the other hand, the world requires our goods and is prepared to pay for them. Moreover, pouring into this- country is the wherewithal to purchase from outside, without involving ourselves in excessive loan operations, the things that we need. But there is one nigger in the woodpile, and that is the fact that the world is so busy preparing for war that it is not able to sell us all the things that we require, even though we have the money to pay for them. Consequently we find the large credits, to which reference has been made, being established on the other aide of the world. These are the factors that we have to take into consideration when discussing this proposal which affects the great Australian wool industry. I am a wool-grower, and I know something about the vicissitudes of that industry and the difficulty of securing essential material to overtake depreciation, essential plant and even effective labour. The latter is one of the greatest troubles that besets the wool-grower to-day. I appreciate those difficulties to the full, and because of that 1 am able correctly to assess the effect of this proposal upon our wool industry. Yet the wool industry cannot consider its own problem in a vacuum, any more than this Parliament can consider any single proposal in a vacuum. We live in a complex economy, which is a part of a complex world in which the war clouds are gathering. We know that we got a good price for our wool last year but we thought that Father Christmas had certainly come along when that price was increased by about 70 per cent, at this year’s wool sales. We know that that increase was caused by no ordinary factors ; it was a direct result of the fear of war. A statement that I made on a previous occasion was recently confirmed by a leading figure in the wool industry in the United States. That is, that the Germans did not get to Moscow during the last war because they were not clothed in wool. In the recent war Hitler’s armies sustained tremendous losses on the Eastern front because his troops were clothed with synthetic wool whereas the Russians were clothed with real wool, much of which had been made available from Australia, and were thus enabled to survive the frightful rigours of the sub-arctic winter. The present abnormal demand for wool is directly due to the fear of various countries that they may be confronted with an emergency without stock piles of this essential and miraculous fibre for which man has not been able to devise a satisfactory substitute. Under the most stringent conditions of warfare wool, particularly merino wool, which is grown in this country, ig the only fibre that has stood up to every test.

The remarkably high prices that wool is realizing to-day arise from the extraordinary world conditions in which the very existence of countries is being menaced. Whereas in 1948-49 the Chifley Government expended approximately £56,000,000 on defence, last year the expenditure amounted to only £41,700,000. In the face of threats to world peace the present Government has been obliged to step into line with Great Britain and the United States of America and to increase its provision for defence pro rata with those countries. Consequently, the Government is budgeting for a defence expenditure of £134,000,000, or nearly £100,000,000 more than the Chifley Government budgeted for during its last year of office. If Australia is worth holding, it is worth defending. That being so, we must be prepared to incur the additional expenditure on defence that has been necessitated by present-day conditions. Members of the Opposition have had much to say about the hardships that would be caused to the wool-growers under the proposal now before us, but even that hardship, so-called, would be nothing compared with the hardships that would befall this country if it were occupied by a foreign power. We should remind ourselves of what the intentions of the Japanese were if they had succeeded in occupying Australia. We have it on the highest authority that they proposed to destroy every child and every aged person in this country, to make eunuchs of all our young men and to place the fairest of our women in brothels and to destroy the rest or utilize them as beasts of burden. I do not know whether that fact has previously been made public. I mention it in order to emphasize that those who have the most to lose in the event of war should be prepared to the limit of their capacity to help the Government to meet the threat that confronts us to-day. It may be said that I am an alarmist. Would any one “say that the United States of America is being alarmist in making the provision that it is making to meet the threat to world peace? Australia lives in the shadow of the same menace. The United States of America has already reimposed many war-time controls and has prohibited the use of certain materials for normal purposes whilst it has also in many instances increased taxes to wartime levels. Compared with what the United States of America is doing this proposal is of minor significance.

The people should be told the truth about this matter. We must discard the humbug that is indulged in in debates of this kind. Since the beginning of the year the American Government has increased the normal company surtax from 38 per cent, to 40 per cent, and that tax is now at a record level. When Australians realize that fact they will admit that they are not faring so badly. For instance, present tax rates represent a reduction of 84.2 per cent, on incomes in the lower ranges and a reduction of 20 per cent, on incomes in the higher ranges compared with the peak rates that were imposed during the recent war.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Mr DRUMMOND:

– I have been endeavouring to present the background against which this country now finds that it must gear its defences to meet the present threat to peace. Members of the Opposition have said that the Government’s wool plan is confiscatory in character and discriminates against one section of the community. What does the Government propose to do? It proposes to withhold from the wool-grower 20 per cent, of income from the sale of wool as a prepayment of tax in respect of his income during subsequent years. Although I have not worked out the figures, I understand that the amount to be withheld approximates the actual provisional tax for which the woolgrower would have been liable had the prices now being received for wool -been maintained and included in the calculation of last year’s provisional tax. I should like the Treasurer to explain that aspect of the proposal more fully.

I am a wool-grower and I do not wish more than does anybody else to pay increased taxes. Personally, I should prefer to receive the whole of the income derived from the sale of my wool and to have the use of that money for another twelve months. However, the Government must take measures to curb inflationary trends. Like Great Britain and the United States of America, Australia is not being asked to make sacrifices just for the fun of it. Whilst members of the Opposition are opposed to this proposal they have also said that they are not in favour of appreciating the Australian £1. Listening to- the remarks of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) I gained the impression that the Labour party would apply confiscatory measures in respect of every commodity that is produced in this country. Whilst such measures might be justified if the country were in extreme danger of invasion, no one can justify them as alternatives to the Government’s wool plan which will not inflict hardship on the industry or upon any individual wool-grower. I repeat that the object of the Government’s plan is to draw off excess purchasing power from the community in order to curb inflation. Some members of the Opposition said that the Government a9 an alternative to this plan should establish a homeconsumption price for wool. That would mean that from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 would be taken directly from the wool-growers. Such action would be confiscatory in character and would discriminate against the wool-growers. In conjunction with a home-consumption price for wool some members of the Opposition have advocated the imposition of an export tax on wool which would probably total £70,000,000 a year, making a total of £120,000.000 that would be extracted from the woolgrowers under those two proposals. The Government under its wool plan proposes not to take money from the grower but to withhold, a proportion of his income for the present year as pre-payment of tax that will become due in respect of his income in subsequent years.

Apparently, members of the Opposition are attempting to pose as the friends of the wool-growers. They would have us believe that ‘their hearts bleed for the growers. What is the explanation for their attitude? In the past they have called the wool-grower everything under the sun, and when Labour was in office they endeavoured to destroy his property by imposing upon him a confiscatory land tax. The honorable member for Grayndler made a quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald which he represented to be the champion of the Australian Country party. Most members of the directorate of that newspaper would, be shocked to see it presented in that role because it has been a strong advocate of proposals that would inflict grave injury upon the wool-growers. The Government has been wise to reject appreciation of the £1 as an alternative to its wool plan. If the currency were revalued to parity with sterling the small man and dealer who bought sheep at say, £12 a head would immediately lose 20 per cent, on his deal. Likewise, the wheat-grower who supplies wheat for domestic consumption at a price of 7s. Id. a bushel whereas the world price is 17s. 9d. a bushel would have to accept a price 20 per cent, below the present ruling world price. All primary producers including the dried and canned fruit-growers and the dairy farmer - who subsidizes the community to the degree of £10,000,000 a year in respect of the price of butter - would suffer a similar loss. Members of the Opposition say that they do not wish that kind of thing to happen. I repeat that under the Government’s wool plan the wool-grower will not suffer any loss whereas if the Australian £1 were revalued to parity with sterling not only the wool-growers but also all other primary producers would immediately be obliged to accept prices 20 per cent, below ruling world prices for their products. After 20 per cent, of the income from the sale of wool is withheld from the wool-growers under this plan they will still be liable to pay in tax on this year’s income an additional £60,000,000.

Clause 11 provides that relief may be granted to a wool-grower who would suffer hardship if he were compelled to pay all, or any part of, the wool sales deduction. I shall not elaborate on that clause, but I congratulate the Treasurer on having introduced what is, in effect, a provision for enabling this bill to be reviewed by the Parliament every twelve months. Actually, the Parliament will consider the rate of the wool sales deduction, but honorable members will be afforded an opportunity during those discussions to debate the operation of the act itself. If the Parliament should decide that the wool sale3 deduction should be discontinued, the necessary machinery will have been provided for the virtual repeal of the act. If the Parliament should decide that the rate of the wool sales deduction should be reduced, effect will be given to that decision. I emphasize that the Parliament will have an opportunity, year by year, to determine whether this experiment shall be continued.

I also wish to refer to the statement by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) that the amount of money that will be collected from the wool sales deduction, if left in the hands of the wool-growers, would not increase the present inflationary conditions. The honorable gentleman was not so positive about the effect of the injection into the national economy next year of £67,000,000, represented by the payment of the war gratuity, and of £50,000,000 for defence purposes, the decision on which matter, he said, was the responsibility of the Government. Well, the Government has made its decision. It believes that the effect of raising £117,000,000 by treasury-bills would be to accentuate the inflationary conditions. The honorable member for Bendigo usually advances most logical arguments, but he was inclined to skate round that problem. It cannot be emphasized too often that the wool sales deduction will withdraw from circulation an amount of £103,000,000 during the current financial year. If that money were placed in circulation in addition to the £117,000,000 the effect upon the cost of living would be most serious.

Another part of the so-called “hardship “ provisions of the bill is most important. According to my interpretation of Clause 11, a small wool-grower - and most small growers produce crops and have stock in addition to 200 or 300 sheep - may appeal to the Commissioner of Taxation, and obtain without delay a refund of the amount that he has paid by way of wool sales deduction. He will not be obliged to wait until he receives his income tax assessment. He may appeal to the Commissioner as soon as he pays the wool sales deduction, and if his objection is reasonable, the amount will be refunded to him. I view this bill through the eyes of one who is engaged in the wool industry, and I say to other wool-growers that I believe it to be the fairest, most equitable and least harmful way in which the Government can meet the inflationary conditions arising from the threat of war. The wool sales deduction will withdraw money from circulation in a manner that will have the least harmful effects on the community. The woolgrower, when he is required to meet his income tax assessment next year, will have the assurance that the great part of, if not all his tax will have been paid for that period. He will be able to proceed with his plans for developing his property in the knowledge that he will not receive a demand for tax for which, perhaps, he has not made provision in the meantime.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · Macquarie

– Perhaps the greatest condemnation of this bill is to be found in the attitude of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Drummond). He is an experienced parliamentarian and an astute politician.

– I apologize if I have misstated the position. However, it cannot be denied that the Government proposes to take from the wool-growers 20 per cent, of the total proceeds of the sale of their wool. In actual fact, tha woolgrowers will be required to pay income tax not. on their gross incomes, but only on .their net incomes. I shall not weary the House by going through the long list of deductions and concessions enjoyed by primary producers, although I am sure that many honorable members would be astonished if they learned the extent of the deductions and concessions given to primary producers. I took the trouble recently to examine a woolgrower’s tax return and the final assessment issued by the Taxation Branch in respect of that return, and I noticed the great number of deductions and concessions that he enjoyed. I am not complaining about that because when I was in office I was responsible for recommending the granting of many of those concessions. The point I am making is that wool-growers generally will not be called upon to pay nearly as much tax in the aggregate as the Government has led us to believe they will be liable to pay.

Of course, the real reason for the Government having introduced this measure is that, unless it obtained approximately £100,000,000 it could not balance its budget for the current financial year. In order to pay its way it decided to take £103,000,000 from the aggregate amount which the wool-growers will receive from the sale of their wool during the current financial year. However, the Government could not do so under the law, about which honorable members opposite speak so much when it suits them, and it was necessary for it to introduce this legislation. The wool-growers will pay 7£ per cent, of their incomes to the wool stabilization fund, and during the current financial year will suffer, in addition, a provisional deduction that will be assessed upon the income received last year. When the Treasurer introduced the measure he said -

The procedure to be followed by producers and by the Taxation Branch in relation to wool deduction certificates will bc precisely the same as the procedure which has been followed for many years in relation to group certificates which employees receive for deductions made from their salaries or wages.

Mr Handby:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The honorable member who has just interjected demonstrates that he does not know the real nature of the provisions . of the bill or understand our taxation laws. The ordinary wage or salary earner who has regular periodical deductions made from his income is paying tax in respect of the financial year in which he is earning that income.

Mr Wilson:

Government supporters interjecting,

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is of no use for honorable members opposite to attempt to run away from a simple, inescapable fact. I do not want to encroach unduly upon the time available to other honorable members who hope to make important contributions to this debate, so 1 content myself by pointing out that the honorable member for New England was wrong in stating that the Australian Labour party has not been considerate of the interests of farmers and small graziers. I think that the best proof that Labour has been fair to that section of the community is the fact that I have retained my. seat in this Parliament. In the electorate of Macquarie that I represent, which includes about 64,000 electors, only 20,000 are located in the industrial areas, which means that more than 40,000 of the electors are farmers. Of that number, more than 30,000 voted for me at the last general election, and, in fact, I received some of my largest sub-divisional majorities in wool-producing areas. My statements are borne out by the electoral returns for the electorate of Macquarie. I have lived in the country all my life, so that it is of no use for members of the Australian

Country party to accuse me of being unmindful of the interests of primary producers. I also remind honorable members opposite that many of the metropolitan newspapers have consistently criticized me on the ground that I allegedly spend too much time in the country and not enough time in the metropolitan areas. Furthermore, honorable gentlemen such as the honorable member for New England must admit that some of the finest representatives of the Australian Labour party in this House represent country constituencies.

I say that this proposal” will inflict a discriminatory tax upon the wool-growers.

Mr Fadden:

– I suppose the petrol tax which the Administration led by the right honorable gentleman levied could also be described as discriminatory?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Of course, any tax might be described as discriminatory. However, to show that this proposal will really discriminate unfairly against the wool-growers, I need only refer to the position of those who are making money out of the wool-growers. Consider the position of a commission agent who buys and sells sheep. Is it suggested that his income has not increased very substantially and in proportion to the increase of income enjoyed by wool-growers? Only recently a commission agent showed me his books and told me of the money that ho had made in the last few years. Is he called upon to pay his income tax in advance? Will he be deprived for an indefinite period of the use of a large part of his income? Honorable members must realize that there are many prosperous individuals in the community who never shear any wool at all but concentrate simply on shearing the woolgrowers, and large numbers of them are making big incomes because of the boom in wool prices. It might even be said thai the shearers are doing well. As a matter of fact, I read an article a few days ago which showed very clearly that every one who is in any way connected with the wool industry is doing well.

In conclusion, I say that the duty of the Government in a time of prosperity is to pay its way. It should collect sufficient money to meet its total expenditure and, if possible, enough to enable it to put something by for expenditure on capital works or to be placed in reserve. I cannot find any fault with that economic theory, which appears to me to be absolutely sound. Indeed, I think that throughout the world those governments that do not pay their way but incur deficits in a time of great prosperity will discover the error of their ways before long. The bill before us will enable the Government to collect money a year in advance, and so permit it to pay its way during the current financial year. However, that money will not be available for the succeeding financial year. What is the Government to do then? Another important factor of which the Government appears to have lost sight is that until now many farmers and small graziers have been supported by bank overdrafts. They have been looking forward to receiving the additional money earned by the higher price of wool to liquidate their indebtedness. Only a few days ago, in a small town not far from Canberra, I saw an order which a grazier had placed for £14,000 worth of German wire netting and posts. Apparently they can be procured, notwithstanding the current shortage of such goods, but, of course, the price is high. The wool-grower who placed that order probably hoped to pay for the fencing materials from the proceeds of the sale of his wool at the current high prices. This measure will prevent him, and many thousands of primary producers in a similar position, from paying for their supplies. The consequence will be that many of them will have to continue to borrow money from the banks on overdraft, on which they are compelled to pay interest. The Government will not, of course, pay interest on the levy that it proposes to make on the woolgrowers. It is idle for it to contend that this proposal is not discriminatory, because it will apply to only one section of the community. Finally, I repeat that the Opposition believes that this is a very poor measure to meet the economic difficulties that confront the Government.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Drummond:

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member consider that he has been misrepresented?

Mr Drummond:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) misrepresented a statement that I had made, though I am sure that he did so as the result of a misapprehension. He said that, during my speech in the current debate, I had said that the amount of £103,000,000 that the Government expects to collect under the wool sales deduction scheme in prepayment of income tax would represent the growers’ taxes for next year. What I said was that, if the provisional tax that will be paid during the current year had been calculated on the basis of present wool prices instead of on the basis of last year’s prices, the additional amount that would be levied would be equivalent to the amount that will be collected under the prepayment scheme for which the bill provides.

Mr TRELOAR:
Gwydir

.- 1 support the wool sales deduction scheme because I believe that it represents the only sensible course of action for the Government to follow under present conditions. The plan is fair and reasonable. The present inflationary economic situation, with the existing serious shortages of goods in the community, could be severely aggravated by the prevailing high prices of wool. We should rejoice that there is a keen demand for wool and that the growers are consequently able to obtain high prices in the markets of the world. However, if the Government remained inactive, all the advantages that can accrue from the current high values of primary products could be lost to the producers and to the Australian people generally. There are grave shortages of goods that are badly wanted by primary producers, home builders and the people generally. If such goods were plentiful, there would be no need for the Government to introduce this measure. However, as they are scarce, the Government has decided, in effect, to ask the woolgrowers to set aside sufficient money to pay for the additional taxes that will be levied on their increased incomes this year.

We have been told that everybody pays provisional tax. That is true. However, the sharp increase of the price of wool means that the growers have not paid sufficient to cover the full amount of tax for the current year on their unexpectedly high incomes. I am certain that the growers will accept the scheme when they understand that the Government does not propose to take anything away from them but merely asks that they contribute sufficient money, by means of the 20 per cent, deduction, to cover their income tax bill. The Government could have considered various alternatives to the deduction scheme. For example, it could have considered a revaluation of the Australian £1. Some wool-growers favour that course of action, but they do not appreciate the fact that it would involve them in the loss of 20 per cent, of their income for the current year. Whereas the wool industry might be able to withstand such a loss, a number of other industries could not afford it. Any argument on the subject of currency revaluation is dangerous. Many people have become cranks on the subject and, after arguing about it for a short time, they refuse to listen to anything that may be said in opposition to their views. The economists, the bankers and other financial experts cannot agree whether revalation of the Australian £1 would be good or bad. Therefore, the Government was wise to adopt the wool sales deduction scheme as a means of controlling the inflation that has been brought about by the high price of wool.

The scheme represents only one stage of the Government’s programme to counteract inflation. A number of other measures will be introduced later. This plan will not take anything away from the wool-growers and therefore it does not single them out for sectional treatment. Honorable members should realize that the wool industry is perhaps the only industry in which prices have never been fixed. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) told us that the metal industries had not been subjected to prices control, hut we know that metals are sold in Australia much more cheaply than they are sold overseas. The tin producers of northern New South “Wales, for instance, receive £A.540 a ton for their product whereas the world price is over £1,100 sterling a ton. A similar situation prevails in a number of other industries. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I do not advocate that the woolgrowers should be penalized in any way. I believe that many wool-growers who now oppose the Government’s plan will endorse it wholeheartedly when it has been fully explained’ to them. I am not a wool-grower, but there are many woolgrowers, both large and small, in this House. Only one of them sits with the Opposition. The others support the Government, and they, with a full knowledge of the situation and the possible alternatives, have accepted the scheme as being fair and reasonable. I believe that their lead will be followed by growers throughout Australia.

The main trouble appears to be that some wool-growers and members of the Opposition believe that the scheme is identical with the Copland plan. That is not so. The plan that was suggested by Sir Douglas Copland, who incidentally was one of the advisers of the Chifley Government, was to take from the woolgrower as a tax 33-J per cent, of the returns from the sale of their product. That would have been a sectional tax, and the wool-growers would have lost all of it. Judging by the form that members of the Opposition displayed when they were in power, I have not the faintest doubt that, had they remained in power, they would have adopted the Copland plan with the result that the wool-grower would have lost one-third of his income. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) talked about an excess profits tax this afternoon and suggested that such an impost should be applied to the wool-growers.

Mr Fitzgerald:

– To everybody!

Mr TRELOAR:

– The honorable member included the wool-growers. I remind him that such a tax would have deprived the growers of a much larger amount than will be collected by means of the 20 per cent, deduction, and that none of it would have been repaid to them.

Mr Fitzgerald:

– P-ut this Government will impose an excess profits tax on the wool-growers.

Mr TRELOAR:

– I am certain that this Government has no intention of imposing an excess profits tax on primary producers. Such a tax has been advocated only by members of the Labour party.

The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) has asked various questions in this House about the possibility of establishing a home-consumption price for wool. The Labour party definitely believes that the wool-growers should be made to suffer under a home-consumption price scheme.

Mr Pollard:

– That is not true.

Mr TRELOAR:

– It is absolutely true. The honorable member for Yarra has asked a number of questions on the subject. Again, judging by the past performances of the Labour pa*rty, I can visualize the clumsy way in which a Labour administration would enforce such a scheme. It would ultimately wipe out the auction system of selling wool, which gives to the growers and the people of Australia an opportunity to benefit from the best prices obtainable on the world’s wool market. The object of this Government is to retain that system. Members of the Opposition have said that the bill will not check inflation. They contend that the result would be the same whether the Government or the woolgrowers spent the amount that is proposed to be collected under the deduction scheme. J remind them that the Government is required to meet a bil of £67,000,000 this year for war ..gratuity payments. That debt is five years ‘old, and the necessary amount should have been set aside long ago by the Labour administration. Furthermore the Chifley Government neglected Australia’s defences so that this Government is now required to expend about £80,000,000 more than was expected. Of that amount, £50,000,000 will be used to purchase materials for stock-piling. That expenditure will not be inflationary because it will merely provide for the storage of essential defence materials.

I am confident that the wool-growers will support the bill when they realize that it bears no resemblance to the

Copland plan. The honorable member for Bendigo spoke in his usual reasoned style as though he were referring to the Copland plan and then, for good measure, threw in a reference to the proposed 1 per cent, deduction for the purposes of a stabilization fund. The wool-growers should know that the establishment of a stabilization plan was recommended to the Government by their own representatives, and that the Government has no wish to force such a scheme upon them. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) have already promised the growers that a stabilization plan will not be implemented unless the proposal is first approved by the growers at a referendum. Therefore, it is futile for members of the Opposition to use such arguments in opposition to this bill.

Mr Pollard:

– What about conducting a referendum on the wool tax? The Government has received no mandate for it.

Mr TRELOAR:

– I know all about referendums on tax proposals. Nobody likes being taxed. But there will not bc a wool tax. The bill merely provides for the pre-payment of income tax. The honorable member for .Bendigo referred to members of the Australian Country party as the representatives of the woolgrowers, but it appears to me that members of the Labour party are now beginning to claim that privilege. For my part, I contend that I represent all voters in the electorate of Gwydir, whether they be wool-growers, wheat-growers, bank clerks-

Mr Haylen:

– Froth-blowers.

Mr TRELOAR:

– -Yes, or railway workers. I represent the whole of my constituency, and it is my wish to do the job properly and look after all sections of the community without fear or favour.

The honorable member for Grayndler spoke heatedly about confiscation and bushranging at the point of a gun. I am certain that the wool-growers will realize that this bill does not provide for confiscation and therefore they will accept it without coercion of any sort.

Mr Fitzgerald:

– Is that why they are going to challenge the legislation in the courts ?

Mr TRELOAR:

– Somebody will probably use money supplied by the Labour party in order to challenge the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition gave the Government certain advice about loans and said that it could borrow all the money that will be collected under the deduction scheme. He talked about the great success that the Labour party had had in floating loans right through the war period. He did not tell us that before he, as Treasurer, floated a loan, he consulted the director of the Commonwealth loan organization about how much loan money the public could be expected’ to subscribe. After having obtained the necessary advice, he floated a loan for only as much as it was considered the public would take up. This Government has followed exactly the same procedure. It would be quite impossible for it to obtain an additional amount of £100,000,000 in loans this year. The Government has taken appropriate advice and knows what it is doing. The right honorable gentleman said that the rate of deduction provided by the measure was too high at 20 per cent. I point out that the Government did not just pluck that percentage figure out of thin air. It went to the trouble of taking out figures, arguing the whole matter out carefully, and checking it over with the Taxation Branch. The Government realizes that the amount proposed to. be collected under the measure will not quite cover the amount of tax that will be due to be paid by the wool-growers. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about refunds. He should know something about that particular subject. I remember announcements that were made just prior to the holding of the last general election about the amount of tax refunds that would be sent to taxpayers. Such tax refunds were made to a large number of people, but that fact did not persuade the people generally to vote for the return of the discredited Labour Government. Instead, the people threw it out of office.

I do not think that the wool-grower of this country will be misled by the crocodile tears of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. .Daly), the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), or the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey), because I am sure that he is a fair-minded man and that when he understands the true position and fully realizes the great job that this Government is doing for him, he will accept this arrangement loyally and cheerfully.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden

– I rise to oppose the bill, and I preface my remarks by saying that although the proposal contained in the measure is extraordinary, that fact is not, in itself, sufficient ground for opposing it. This proposal, after all, is intended to apply to an extraordinary situation. Unusual problems require unusual solutions. The question is not whether this is an extraordinary proposal, but whether it is a correct proposal to meet the existing situation. That is the real question which confronts the House. The problem with which this proposal sets out to deal is the sudden reality of prices for wool beyond all dreams, coming at a time of already dangerously heavy inflationary pressure in this country. If that pressure becomes too great the balloon will burst and all of us will come crashing down on the rocks. Therefore, any proposal seriously put forward to control that pressure warrants the serious consideration of the House. We are all being carried skyward in that inflationary balloon. We all have an interest and a responsibility in the manner of its return to earth, which is why this proposal for a special impost on wool warrants serious consideration. It is not to be condemned out of hand merely because it emanates from the side which opposes us in politics; nor merely because it is unpalatable to, or unpopular with, a certain section of the community. Indeed, if the inflationary evil is to be rooted out, whatever government is in power will have to do many things that will be unpopular with certain sections of the community. The Government will succeed in its attack on the inflationary situation only if it has a comprehensive programme, if it applies it courageously and resolutely, if it is not deterred by cries of anguish and rage from people specially affected, and relies for its support upon the good sense of the electors as a whole to recognize that even severe and sharp steps are well taken if they serve the interests of the community as a whole. I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that the Australian people as a whole will still respond overwhelmingly to honest and determined leadership of that kind.

The Labour party, or whatever party may come to power, will have to be ready with an all-round programme, and to be ready to apply it with unity and courage, let the chips fall where they may and irrespective of what sections of the community may consider themselves to be injured in the process. Assertions that this proposal is extraordinary and arguments about its unpopularity with certain sections of the community are not valid objections to a measure put forward to combat the menacing inflationary situation that threatens to swallow the prosperity of all of us in this country. Indeed, any measure to combat inflation must possess exactly those attributes. It would have to be an unusual measure, and it must be unpalatable to a section of the community or it would be of no value in combating the inflationary situation.

But here is the crux of the matter. Those are not the only attributes that such a measure should possess to command the approval of this House. There are far more important tests which it ought to be able to pass. It is not sufficient to ask whether the proposal is unusual or unpalatable to some of the people. The proper questions which have to be asked about this measure are as follows : - Is this measure effective for the purpose for which it is intended? Will it accomplish its object? That is the first matter to be determined. Then should come the following questions : - Is it part of a comprehensive plan for attacking the inflationary evil in all its aspects? Is it founded on sound and proper political principles? Is it just in its application? Surely those are the appropriate tests for a measure of this kind. If it fails to stand up to any one of those tests then I suggest that there is something very wrong with it, and that it should not be passed in that form.

This measure fails to pass all those tests. It is not effective, and cannot be effective in curbing inflation because it proposes to treat the whole amount of £103,000,000 that it is designed to collect, as current revenue in the current financial year; and also because it contains no comprehensive plan for tackling the urgent problem of inflation. This measure is merely, at the best, a fragmentary and isolated attempt to hold back a wave at one point while the same wave is breaking everywhere else along the shore. It violates accepted political principles for the sake of political expediency, as I hope to demonstrate; and in its method, as I hope to show by reading letters that I have received from small wool-growers in my own electorate, it wreaks savage injustice on a small minority of the community. At the moment the bitter irony is noteworthy, in passing, that the victims of this proposed injustice are to be wool-growers who have been, in the past, the staunchest workers and supporters in electing to the Parliament the very members of the Australian Country party who are now directly responsible for this legislation which is aimed at wool-growers. Surely that is the blackest piece of ingratitude that has ever been known in this country. The wool-growers asked, to be delivered from the Labour party. They have been delivered from it only to find that, whilst the Labour party whipped them with taxation whips, their deliverers are setting about to lash, them with taxation scorpions. I shall now read to the House some of the letters that I have received from small wool-growers in my electorate. The first reads-

I quote my own position to show you the effect on the small man of the bill to confiscate the wool-grower’s money - I cannot call it anything else.

T have never had more than 400 sheep. The winter before last I lost 50 young ewes in the big enow. This autumn I lost 26 two-year olds with the blowfly. In June this year I lost 30 one and two-year olds killed by a dingo. I shore 327 sheep and the wool, which has just been sold, should realize approximately £1,400 gross. Out of this Mr. Fadden will take £280 approximately in the terms of hie bill.

Last year my gross return from my wool was approximately £1,000. I had to pay £4 19s. social service tax, £3 of which was provisional tax. At present I can put on 200 young sheep, but if Mr. Fadden gets his way and by the time I pay m7 interest, rates, store account &c., I won’t have anything left to buy sheep.

Many other small men will be hit similarly, and soldier settlers will bc hit harder still.

The second letter reads -

I am writing to you in protest against the Government’s .proposal to impound one-fifth of the gross .proceeds from the sale of this year’s wool clip. The position of myself and many others in your electorate whose gross sales do not exceed £1,000 will be desperate. I shear 200 sheep and expect the gross proceeds of my clip to be from £700 to £800. Of this I owe my wool firm £250 on a wool lien and stock mortgage, being the balance of £375 I had to borrow two years ago to buy sheep. 1 am also, paying off a piece of land and have to meet my instalments on it and have topay £50 a year rent for another property on which I run my sheep. After deducting these payments plus all other expenses incurred in running and shearing my sheep I am not liable to pay tax, yet the Government proposes to take what should he my profit, namely £150, representing 20 per cent., plus another £50 to £60 representing 74 per cent.

The third letter reads as follows: -

The only way we carry on is through our storekeeper who is- good enough to carry usfor six to twelve months. If this bill becomes law many of us will bc forced to leave our sheep and property and go on wages to carry us over the next twelve months or as long as the Government likes to keep our money. It appears as though- the bill aims to put thesmall cocky hack on the labour market because the big grower will be able to do without his money for twelve months. Indeed, as heusually pays 15s. in the £1 or more he is only paying an. instalment of his tax in advance. But we will be paying many pounds, whichwe do not owe as tax, to be held by the Government free of interest as long as. it chooses.

A fourth letter states -

I know many people in this area of EdenMonaro grazing 600 sheep or less. Most of them are carrying fairly extensive mortgages and when this 20 per cent, levy is imposed I know that they will not be able to submit to it and at the same time meet all their other costs. I quote the case of a young exserviceman with wife and one child. Four years ago he purchased 200 acres, with a partly completed cottage on it. He was also obliged to erect some new fencing and to renovate the remainder of an old fence erected 40 years ago. Following this he employed a fellow ex-serviceman to ring-bark the area on which he now has 210 sheep grazing. He is 25 miles from the nearest town and therefore needs a car both for business and family reasons. Let us assume that this man sells his wool through the Goulburn agents for £600’ at auction. Can any one say that the retention, by the Government of £120 of that £600 would be justified? Yet it is proposed to take from him that 20 per cent, and another 74 .per cent, aa. well.

Those letters are simple documents that are not trying to make out a ease, but are plain recitals of fact.

Mr Gullett:

– I rise to order. I ask that the letters from which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) has read be tabled.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr FRASER:

– I shall be very happy to make the letters available to any honorable member who wishes to see them. They showthat this bill foreshadows wicked injustice on the man who realizes £1,000 or less for his wool clip. It will make an arbitrary inroad into his wool cheque that will reduce his net income below his frugal needs. It will deal this savage blow at him without the least cynical pretence that that money will be removed from his possession to prevent him from engaging in a wild spending spree. It would be absurd to suggest that any man in the category that I have mentioned would be able to engage in such a wild spree, because he has never had more than the basic wage.

Mr Turnbull:

-What aboutthe hardship clause?

Mr FRASER:

– Imagine a member of the Australian Country party advancing and supporting a proposal that a man must go to an official to plead a case, and having to lay all his financial affairs on the table and wait for months in order to regain possession of his own money !

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) is speaking and I ask for silence. That request applies to honorable members of his own party who are interjecting.

Mr FRASER:

– This tax will hit the small wool-grower without the slightest semblance of equity or fair dealing because it will leave his neighbour who derives his income from a different source entirely free from the levy. There is no equity or fair play in a proposal which treats those two men in two entirely different ways. The bill make no demand of this kind at all on men with ten times or 100 times the income of the small woolgrowers provided that such men do not obtain their income from wool-growing. A man may make a fortune bookmaking, and he is free from such a levy. A man may make a huge income from stock exchange gambling, and the Government bows him courteously by. Another man may obtain a large income from the distribution of luxury motor cars from opulent showrooms and the Treasurer says to him, “ Pass, friend “. But if a man dares to earn his living by the sweat of his brow, and by developing an isolated area of land, from which he produces the solid commodity of wool on which this nation’s economy depends then the Government says, “ He is our man. Let us hit him on the head with a 20 per cent. gross bludgeon “What comic opera scene is this ? By what Gilbertian reasoning does the Government reach a decision that the bookmaker, speculator and market operator can all be trusted to spend their money sanely and wisely but that the wool-grower will go on a spending spree? Is it a crime now to pay off a mortgage, to improve a homestead, to buy long-wanted machinery, and to put value back into the land since this Government will not put it back into the £1 ?

This bill violates basic political principles because it singles out men according to their occupation and not according to their income group. It therefore flies in the face of the principle that the law should be no respecter of persons - the taxation law as much as any other law. The Commissioner of Taxation will deal differently and more harshly with the wool-grower than with any other producer. If an observer of this discrimination were to ask the commissioner why he did so, he would have to reply that it was for no other reason than that the man was a wool-grower and that the Government had directed him so to do. This is obviously a wretched abuse of principle, and a dangerous abuse too. It can establish a precedent and open the way for the extension of a vicious form of sectional imposts. It is the wool-growers’ turn to-day but once this system is accepted whose turn may it not be tomorrow? No section of the community ought to feel itself safe from such a vicious singling out. If there was any section which had cause to feel itself safe from harsh and unjust treatment at the hands of this Government surely it was the wool-growing section which put the Australian Country party into Parliament. Yet the wool-growers are the first to suffer at the hands of the very party that they themselves created.

It has been argued from time to time that political principles are very fine things to study but that they must make way for practical step9 in a hard world of realities. It has similarly been contended that it is well enough to be concerned with injustices and hardships imposed on a minority but that the interests of the minority must be set aside in the interests of the majority. Here are two pieces of false and damnable reasoning which I believe are at the bottom of much of our trouble to-day. There is no real issue which comes before this House which is not an issue of principle. There is no injustice inflicted on a minority that does not carry the seed of injury to the majority. At this time, more than ever before, the Parliaments of the democracies should assert and uphold political principles and individual rights. Those are the very things which are being scorned to-day by the Communist enemies of democracy in this country. Nothing is politically desirable which is not morally right. That applies just as much to a government seeking a £303,000,000 budget grab at the expense of a few thousand wool-growers as it does to a government seeking a shortcut to deal with politically-inspired disruption on the coal-fields. By both these tests, this measure fails and ought to be rejected.

Equally it fails when practical tests are applied to it. Those tests are whether it will be effective for the purpose for which it is put forward, that is, to curb inflation; and whether it is part of a comprehensive plan to tackle all aspects of the inflationary evil. If it is asked whether this measure will curb inflation surely the answer is not far to seek. According to the ministerial apologists for the proposal it is merely a prepayment, by a few months, of taxes which the woolgrowers would, in any case, have to pay and for which they would have to have made provision. On that basis, the measure is no curb on inflation what- ever since it merely means that the Government obtains a few months earlier than it otherwise would have done the money which it would normally draw in taxation from the wool-growers. Of course that explanation is far too simple to meet the facts. If that were all that was involved, obviously this highly contentious legislation would not be before the House. No government would take the trouble and risk the odium involved for so negligible a result. But if far more is involved than that, as must certainly appear to any reasonable man who studies this proposal, and if the 20 per cent, gross levy is indeed an additional tax in. which the wool-grower will be mulcted indefinitely, and perhaps for ever, then the measure is still not a curb against inflation. On the contrary! It is to be assumed that the expenditure side of the current budget represents the inescapable obligations of the Government, and the Treasurer is using the whole of this £103,000,000 from the wool-growers as current revenue to finance those obligations in the present financial year when, otherwise, he would have had to raise that money from other sources. In other words, by dealing this sectional blow at the wool-growers he is certainly saving himself the political unpopularity of having to draw that great sum of money, by normal taxation, from all those income groups in this nation which are enjoying record prosperity. Therefore, as a result of this levy, not one penny more is to he taken from the whole community than would otherwise need to be taken and thus there will be no special withdrawal of total purchasing power.

Further, since the wool-growers would undoubtedly have saved some of the proceeds of their clip and invested much of it in useful and reproductive activity, and since the Treasurer proposes to spend the whole of it as current revenue, the effect will be to increase the total expenditure of the community in this financial year. The wool-growers would not spend this money in the wild spending spree which the Australian Country party imagines its supporters engage in at the slightest opportunity. On the very basis on which it was originally put forward, the 20 per cent, gross levy is seen to be an unsound proposition as a curb against inflation. I think it is generally agreed that no success can be gained from a piecemeal and isolated attack on the inflationary evil. There must be a comprehensive and courageous plan if the attack is to succeed. Since the Government has notably failed to produce such a comprehensive plan to attack inflation - the only kind of attack which can succeed - the present measure cannot possibly have the desired result.

From every stand-point of community benefit, this measure fails, but from one stand-point it succeeds. It is if we look at that stand-point that we see the real reason why this bill is before the House to-night. Despite its injustices, its violation of principle, and its ineffectiveness against inflation, this measure does get the Treasurer out of his financial difficulties for the present year. It saves him from having to face an awkward situation. Here is a Government which truly, in the eloquent words of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), was a victim of its own propaganda. Here was a Cabinet faced with the need to increase taxation on the big business interests which had supported it on its reckless promise that taxation on them would not be increased and, indeed, would be reduced. Here was a Treasurer obviously at his wits end to produce a workable budget, rejecting the fourth draft brought up to him by his harassed advisers, and on the point of nervous collapse in his efforts to reconcile the Government’s promises to the electors with the needs of the situation which confronted him. It was at this point that the idea was conceived of placing the whole burden on the shoulders of the prosperous wool-growers with the pious profession that it was a necessary step against inflation. From all accounts, there can be little doubt concerning the set-up between the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. Liberal Ministers, including the Prime Minister, wanted revaluation of the Australian £1. That would at least have been an honest and far-reaching step which would have had a sharp general effect on the national economy. Country party Ministers refused to agree to revaluation. “ Over my dead body” said the Treasurer. If the Government was to be preserved, if office and power were not to be lost, a compromise had to be found. It was found. Both sides gave away. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave way on the revaluation which he believed essential to counter inflation. The Treasurer made a political betrayal of the wool-growers to whom the Australian Country party owed so much and, at the same time, grabbed £103,000,000 of advance revenue. Of both men it might well be said that their honour rooted in dishonour stood. And so the wool tax was born.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · Wakefield · LP

– I am sure that honorable members were not disappointed at the very low standard of explanation given by the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Fraser) for opposing this bill. The honorable member has a record for making misleading statements in this House which is probably unequalled even by other honorable members of the Opposition. This evening he has done his best to befog the people about the real purpose and intent of the wool sales deduction legislation. The honorable mem be. was very good as raising bogies and magnificently knocking them down, but he did not tell the simple facts that face the Government of this country. The Government did not inherit the overflowing Treasury of which so much has been heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) who, when Treasurer, told the country that Australia had the soundest economy of any country in the world. Whether the Australian economy was sound or not, the Treasury was extraordinarily bare when this Government came to office. On a number of occasions, honorable members have been told about the trust funds that had been created, the suggestion behind that being that there were reserve funds which would be available to an incoming Treasurer should the need arise. On assuming office, all that the Government found in the trust funds were I O U’s to the Commonwealth Bank - redeemed treasury-bills. These obviously would have to be again issued when the money that was allegedly in the trust funds was brought forward for use. The Government faced an extraordinary position when it set out to prepare the budget. The Treasurer (Mr. Fadden”). who more than anybody else wished to refrain from imposing extra taxation, found himself in the position of having to obtain sums of money very largely in excess of the money needed by any previous Treasurer in peace-time. I ask the House to consider two particular items because they are non-recurring items, and therefore illustrate the problem that the Treasurer had to solve. The first is the sum of £67,000,000, which is to be paid as war gratuity. I know that honorable members and the public were told by the previous Treasurer that he had £37,000,000 in kitty to meet the £67,000,000 war gratuity commitment. As a matter of fact the previous. Government did not have one penny in kitty. The Treasurer had to find hard cash to be able to pay that £67,000,000. Treasurybills are of no use ‘because exservicemen are not impressed in treasury-bills. They want hard cash and therefore £67.000,000 in cash had to be found.

The second item I ask the House to consider is related to the necessity to increase defence preparedness, a matter which is engaging the attention of every prudent country. We were called upon to find, in addition to the ordinary sums for defence preparedness, which increased from £53.000,000 last year to £83,000,000 this year, an additional £50,000,000 for the stockpiling, of essential materials. We therefore had to find an abnormal amount of £117,000,000. Faced with the necessity of raising this money, the Treasurer had a number of courses open to him. He could have done what the previous Government had done under certain circumstances, which was to issue treasury-bills. I know that the Leader of the Opposition to-day stated that his Government had been able to borrow the whole of its requirements during its term of office. Although I do not question’ that during the war his Government could not borrow to meet the whole of its commitments, why he should come here and tell the House and the country that his Government was able to borrow from the public the whole of its requirements at all times is beyond my comprehension.

Mr Pollard:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) qualified that statement.

Mr McBRIDE:

– He made no qualification at all.

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Minister must be allowed to proceed without interruption. The running fire of interjections taking place must stop. The Minister cannot say one sentence at present without being subjected to interjections. These interjections must cease.

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I understand that under certain circumstances it was not possible for the previous Government to obtain the whole of its requirements from the public, and, consequently, it had to resort to the use of treasury-bills, which were issued to a total of £380,000,000. I do not question that action, but why was not the right honorable gentleman honest enough to say that on certain occasions his Government could not raise the money required from the public? The Leader of the Opposition also failed to tell the House and the public that during the period his Government was raising public funds very rigid controls of capital issues were in existence, and that these controls left no other avenue open for the investment of public funds in this country, and naturally they fell into the Treasurer’s lap. I make these explanations because it is not correct, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe, that all the Treasurer has to do is to go on the loan market and raise the money for this non-recurring expenditure. The call on the loan market this year, not only according to the Treasurer, but also according to those who advised the previous Government on its loan prospects, will be in excess of the amount public subscriptions are likely to yield. Therefore, it is futile to talk of raising by loan the extra £117,000,000 required for the nonrecurring expenditure to which I have referred.

The alternative to thus raising the money would be to increase taxation. The Treasurer and the Government dislike the idea of increasing taxation, and we shall stand four-square against it unless it is necessary for the proper administration of this country. We are not making any forecasts about the future, because with the increased defence expenditure and the increased costs looming ahead of us it would be unwise for any Treasurer or Government to make any forecast on the matter of taxation, but at this particular time it was not necessary to increase taxation to meet the non-recurring payments which now face us. In those circumstances the Government and the Treasurer looked about for some source from which they might reasonably be expected to obtain the necessary finance. It quickly came to notice that one section of the community, perhaps above all others, had received extraordinary benefits from world prices. That section was the woolgrowers.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How does the Minister know that?

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I have some idea of it because wc have figures before us on the value of the wool clip last year and its prospective value this year. “Wool is the one commodity which has increased so greatly in value that the wool-growers of Australia will this year receive something that they never expected in their wildest dreams. While we are pleased, as they are, because they have been able to get these extraordinary results from their year’s work, we also put it to them that in such fortunate circumstances they should be prepared to come forward and help the country and the Government in its time of difficulty. The Government decided, that in view of the fact that a very large proportion of the people of this country pay their income tax as they received their income, one section, although there are others, because of violently increasing prices, has not been making anything like its proper proportionate contribution to provisional taxation. The fact is that provisional taxation is based upon the previous year’s income. While it may have been imposed in complete conformity with the income of last year it is perfectly obvious that owing to the greatly increased price of wool the provisional tax will not come anywhere near covering the wool-growers’ taxation for this year. In those circumstances the Government puts it to the wool-growers that they should be prepared to make a prepayment of tax which would normally have been made through provisional taxation but which, owing to the greatly increased prices that they have received, is not nearly as high as their actual taxation will be. I recognize that this may be considered a rather unusual procedure, but it does not breach any political principle such as we have heard so much about, because if there is any political principle involved those people who are now paying as they earn are already governed by it.

Mr Pollard:

– What has the Minister to say about the 280,000 other business men?

Mr McBRIDE:

– I have heard a lot about other businesses, but at the ‘moment we are discussing the Wool Sales Deduction (Administration) Bill. We shall hear something about other businesses when the excess profits bill is before the House. I have no doubt that that bill will take care of some of the extra profits earned because of the great prosperity of Australia at present. It is true to say that on an average the amount to be deducted from the gross proceeds of wool will not approach the total tax due by the wool-growers on the 1950-51 income. In certain circumstances there may be people who, perhaps, would not pay the full 20 per cent, above the provisional taxes already paid. Provision has been made to meet those cases, of which the number has been grossly exaggerated for political purposes by honorable members opposite. Anybody who suffers any hardship at all on account of this deduction has a right to approach the Commissioner of Taxation.

Mr Pollard:

– They may go on a pleading mission.

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

This bill will accentuate the present inflationary conditions. The Government proposes to expend the amount, £103,000,000, that will be collected from the wool-growers, some of whom will be obliged to borrow money to finance their operations. This bill will fail to combat inflation and, perhaps, the Treasurer, who has stated that the Australian £1 will be revalued only over his dead body, is using this measure to justify his telling the Australian Country party and the wool-growers in the future, “ Now, boys, the wool tax has failed. The only alternative is to accept revaluation”. The people want the Government to disclose its real intention in introducing this measure. I am opposed to it, because it will not succeed in curbing the present inflationary conditions. The tax on excess profits, about which we hear so much, is to be .the “ other leg of the double “. If it is as ineffective as this measure, the inflationary conditions will not be curbed. The Labour party, when returned to office, will definitely repeal this discriminatory legislation.

Mr ANTHONY:
PostmasterGeneral · Richmond · CP

– Any one outside the Parliament who happened to hear the broadcast of the speech that has just been made by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) might imagine that the Australian Labour party, for the first time in its existence, is concerned about the interests of the primary producers and that honorable members on this side of the House, many of whom have devoted a lifetime to improving the conditions of country people, have suddenly abandoned the primary producers. Could anything be more farcical than the statements made by the honorable gentleman and other members of the Opposition who have taken part in this debate? They are posing now as the champions of the wool-growers. No doubt, in the course of the next few days we shall find them posing as the champions of the wharf labourers, the coal-miners, and any other section of the community that may feel aggrieved. Members of the Australian Labour party are adept when they are in Opposition at posing as the friends of almost every section of the community. However, they have a different story to tell when they are in office.

A great deal of criticism has been levelled at this measure on the ground that it will discriminate unfairly against the wool-growers, and that it will introduce a new feature into our taxation system. One after another, members of the Opposition have gone to extreme pains to point out the disabilities that the passage of the measure will allegedly inflict upon the wool-growers, but I noticed that they have not said one word about the similar disabilities suffered by the 2,500,000 wage-earners during the last six years. I was a member of the committee that considered the proposal to introduce the pay-as-you-earn system of taxation in 1943. That committee was presided over by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), who was then Treasurer in the- Curtin Administration, and it submitted its report and recommendations to the Parliament on the 22nd February of that year. That report was signed by the right honorable gentleman, by myself, by Mr A. “W. Coles, and by a number of other persons. The problem that confronted the committee was to relate the income of individuals in a particular year to the tax which they should pay. After carefully considering all relevant matters the committee came to the conclusion that it would be practicable to introduce the pay-as-you-earn system in respect of wage and salary earners because deductions could be made from their wages or salary week by week at the source at which it was paid. The principle embodied in our recommendation to the Parliament in respect of wage and salary earners was that regular deductions should be made by the employers of the taxpayers at every pay period, and that at the end of the financial year the difference between the total deductions and the assessed liability of the taxpayer would be adjusted, either by payment of refunds to taxpayers or by taxpayers making additional payments to the. Taxation Branch. I emphasize that that is the principle which the Government proposes to apply to wool-growers under this legislation.

The committee to which I have referred also considered carefully the position of those whose incomes were not derived from wages or salaries, and although it wished to apply the payasyouearn system to those sections of the community, it was considered inadvisable to do so because of certain complications- that would arise in the Taxation Branch. The taxing authorities in the United States of America have found it necessary to use certain automatic bookkeeping and accounting machines of extraordinary complexity and ingenuity in order to enable the pay-as-you-earn system to be applied to taxpayers generally in that country. However, the Commissioner of Taxation informed the committee that it would not be practicable to introduce the payasyouearn system in respect of taxpayers other than wage and salary earners unless machines similar to those in use in the United States of America could be used. At that time it was not possible to procure those machines, nor is it practicable to do so now. That is why the committee did not recommend that the payasyouearn system should be extended to cover all taxpayers. In the United States of America, where that system operates in respect of all taxpayers except companies, taxes are payable in contributions each quarter, and a similar arrangement operates in Canada. In this connexion I shall read an extract from the report that was signed by the present Leader of the Opposition. It is as follows: -

In Canada under the new system of payasyouearn taxation non-employees will pay four quarterly instalments a year based on the taxpayer’s own estimate of what his income and tax will be for that year.

Canadian taxpayers have to submit a return to the taxation authorities for each quarter, and in that return they estimate what their income will be. If a taxpayer under-estimates his earnings he is penalized by having to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent. on the amount of the underestimate. A similar arrangement applies in the United States of America. It is clear, therefore, that there is nothing new in the Government’s present proposal.

It has been said that wool-growers will be required to pay extra tax and it has even been suggested that they will have to pay double tax. I have obtained certain calculations from the Commissioner of Taxation that have been abstracted from the return and assessment of a typical wool-grower whohas 2,000 sheep and whose taxable income in 1949-50 was £3,750. The pro visional tax paid by the taxpayer would have been £832. In addition, he would have had to pay an assessment of £870. Because of the provisional tax of £350 that he had previously paid he would have had a credit for that amount. The provisional tax and the assessed tax would total £1,702, less £350 credit for provisional tax, so that he would actually pay £1,352. Under the assessment for the financial year ended the 30th June next the position of the taxpayer under the proposed scheme will be that his taxable income will have increased, because of the rise of the price of wool, from £3,750 to. £7,301. The sum of £750 will be deducted from his taxable income because that sum will be paid to the wool stabilization fund, and he will receive the full benefit of that deduction. He will not be taxed in respect of his contribution to the wool stabilization fund until he actually receives the money from that fund. Therefore he will be entitled to a deduction for tax purposes of £750. His position may be set out as follows: -

Against that sum would be offset his credit of £832, representing the provisional tax paid for the preceding period, and his net commitment to the Taxation Branch would be £4,510. Against that liability he would have credit certificates totalling £2,004, so that instead of paying £4,510, he would pay only £2,506. The remainder would be absorbed by credits in respect of the 20 per cent. deduction.

In view of the official calculations that I have set out, how can it be contended that the present measure will impose an additional tax on wool-growers? All that this measure will do will be to pre-empt the payment of tax by a few months. In this connexion I remind members of the Opposition that wage-earners are required to begin to discharge their taxation obligations for any financial year from the first pay that they receive in that financial year. The wool-growers have been very fortunate, and we congratulate them on their good luck. We hope, for the sake of Australia, that their good fortune will continue.I do not bemoan the fact that the current price of wool is very high. On the contrary, I regard it as a very pleasing feature of our economy, and I take even more pleasure in contemplating the present high prices when I recall the difficulties experienced by the nation when the price of wool was only ls. per lb. However, it is important for Australia generally that we all should make the best use of the wool-growers’ good fortune, and the wool-growers can contribute to the stability of our economy by co-operating, with the Government and accepting the proposal embodied in this measure.

– The Leader of the Opposition says that the point that he has mentioned is important, but I do not think that it is. Before the right honorable gentleman entered the chamber a few minutes ago I pointed out that he and I were members of the committee that investigated the pay-as-you-earn principle. One of the reasons for the introduction of provisional tax was to encourage all sections of the community to pay tax on their incomes as they received them. Therefore, when we find that the income of one section of the community has increased to five, six or seven times its pre-war level, we know first that a great many individuals in that section will have trouble in meeting their tax commitments as they fall due, secondly that so many millions of pounds of money suddenly flooding into the community will have a bad economic effect, and thirdly that it is good policy to take action to protect all sections of the community while, at the same time, rendering a peculiar service to the members of the favoured section in their own interests even though others may try to persuade them that the action is likely to have an adverse effect upon them.

The fact is that the wool -growers have not been subjected to discriminatory treatment. I shall cite a number of industries in Australia that have been forced to make substantial contributions to the economic stability of the nation. The export prices of lead and zinc to-day are six times the pre-war prices, but the producers contribute approximately 40 per cent, of their total output to the home market at prices that are less than half the export prices. Tin producers are prohibited from exporting even one ton of tin, although the overseas price to-day is £1,000 a ton, whereas the Australian price is £540 a ton. Call that discrimination if you like! Those embargoes were either imposed or maintained by the Chifley Government. The export price of hides, from which footwear is made) is five times the pre-war price, but the Australian price is held down to very little more than 150 per cent, of the prewar price. The hide producers are allowed to export only that portion of their output that is not considered to be necessary for Australia’s requirements. Therefore, a very small proportion of Australian hides is sent overseas at high prices. The remainder is sold locally at the home-consumption price which keeps the prices of footwear down to very little more than pre-war prices. The export price of tallow is about £100 a ton, but the Australian price is £30 a ton and only a miserable percentage of the entire Australian output is released for export. The export price of sugar to-day is four times the pre-war price, but the sugar producers are required to supply the Australian market at a price of 5d. per lb., which is very little higher than the prewar price. The overseas price is 16d. per lb.

The system of maintaining low homeconsumption prices and restricting exports was enforced by the Chifley Government. Members of the Opposition who talk about discriminatory legislation had better examine their own record and also study the economic facts. The export price of butter to-day is about two and a half times the pre-war price. Butter producers for many years have been making a signal contribution to the economic stability of the nation by accepting a home price for butter far lower than that which Great Britain has paid for our export surplus. The producers have sacrificed millions of pounds in that way. The world price of wheat to-day is four times the pre-war price, but the wheat-growers are not permitted to export the whole of their crop. They have to maintain a home market quota of about 70,000,000 bushels out ,of a total crop of 180,000,000 or 200,000,000 bushels. They receive only 7s. Id. a bushel for wheat consumed in Australia as against an open market price of about 18s. a bushel. Furthermore the surplus of the overseas price is not paid directly to them.

It is paid into a stabilization fund, which will be distributed to them after a long period and only if prices fall.

The price of wool to-day is nine or ten times the pre-war price. Members of the Opposition assert that, if we pre-empt 20 per cent, of that price for the payment of provisional tax, we shall commit a discriminatory act, do a great injury to the wool industry, and put small wool producers in a position from which they will never be able to extricate themselves. I remind honorable members that a wool producer who is not making £6,000 or £7,000 a year now is regarded as a very small man. The deduction of some of a’ grower’s income as it is earned in order to safeguard his tax commitment, which will fall due a few months hence, is not only a wise proceeding on the part of the Government, but also a very valuable precaution in the interests of the grower himself. There is no need for me to dilate upon the necessity for the Government to take action of this sort. Members of the Opposition have continually asked the Government since it was elected, “ “What are you going to do to put value back into the £1, and to stem rising prices ? “ One effective procedure is that of withdrawing from the purchasing power of the community a certain amount of money that is not essential to the livelihood of members of a particular section of it and to apply that money to special purposes. Failure to adopt that procedure would involve resort to the issue of bank notes. That is the sole alternative. Does any member of the Opposition say that the printing of £100,000,000 of fresh money without backing of any sort would be preferable to the course that the Government has decided the follow?

Mr Ward:

– Nobody has suggested the printing of additional notes.

Mr ANTHONY:

– But no member of the Opposition has suggested any other alternative to the Government’s action! Honorable members opposite have merely said, “ “We shall repeal this legislation if we regain power “. I do not think that anybody will fall for that deception because everybody must know that, if this legislation were repealed, some alternative would have to be implemented.

An examination of the financial situation of the wool industry over recent years should be illuminating to honorable members as well as to the wool-growers and the people generally. In 1946, the taxable income of the industry, after the subtraction of all expenses, amounted to £25,000,000. The figure increased progressively to £40,000,000 in 1947, £88,000,000 in 1948, and £120,000,000 in 1949. In 1950, it will be approximately £225,000,000. The estimate for 1950-51 is £372,000,000. Those figures were supplied by the Taxation Branch. Yet members of the Opposition say that, if we deduct from that income the small amount for which the bill provides, not as additional tax but as a prepayment of the tax that must normally be paid six months or nine months hence, we shall impose tremendous hardship on many small men. There may be some small men in the wool industry, but, according to the figures that I have examined, there can be very few wool producers - that is, men who have no side-lines such as the growing of wheat and other products - who earn less than £7,000 or £8,000 a year. Forty-five thousand of the 90,000 wool-growers are also registered as wheat-growers.

Should any small producers be unfairly dealt with under this legislation, they will be able to have their cases reviewed immediately. They will be able to make application to the Commissioner of Taxation and, if their applications are not con sidered within one month, they will be referred immediately to boards, which will be specially constituted for the purpose of determining the nature and degree of any hardship. The boards will be given a charter to treat all applicants with the utmost sympathy; There will be fourteen boards altogether. The people will not be deceived by the Labour party’s claim that it is the good friend of the woolgrowers after all these long years, because it was the party that failed to provide amenities of life for the growers when it had the opportunity to do so, that said that the dairy-farmers were “ whingers “ when they asked for an increased price for butter, and then called the wheatgrowers “ whiners “ whenever they asked for an extra bounty in order to keep themselves on the land. Within a single month, that party has attempted to pre sent itself as the champion of the woolgrowing industry, which is in the strongest economic position of any industry in Australia to-day. I know very well that the wool-growers will not be misled by such propaganda. They would not have made a success of their vocation if they were likely to fall for the sort of clap-trap that has been uttered by members of the Opposition during this debate.

The Government would have shirked its duty if, instead of adopting the wool sales deduction scheme, it had resorted to the expedient, which I have no doubt the Opposition would have employed-, of printing treasury-bills in order to find the money for war gratuity payments and the additional amount of £50,000,000 that will be required this year for the stockpiling of essential defence materials, such as metals, rubber, oil and aluminium. The issuing of treasury-bills would merely accentuate inflation and make the position of the pensioner, the superannuated public servant and other persons on fixed incomes much worse than it is to-day. But the printing of treasury-bills is the only alternative to the Government’splan. Not one member of the Opposition who has said, in order to attract the votes of the woolgrowers, “We shall repeal this legislation if we gain power”, has proposed any alternative.

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

.- The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) waxed eloquent in defence of the bill but. in his eloquence, he introduced many irrelevancies that had no bearing whatever upon the issue before the Parliament. The Minister referred to industries such as the sugar, butter and other primary industries that have always been heavily subsidized by the Commonwealth in difficult times. The sugar industry even to-day is subsidized by a levy imposed on the people of this community by way of the higher home consumption price that they have to pay for sugar. As a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland the sugar industry operates on an assured price for sugar.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– A low price.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am arguing not about the price but about the principle. The history of the wool industry right from its inception until to-day shows that it has never been subsidized by the Commonwealth but has had to stand on its own feet even at time3 when wool was bringing a price as low as Sd. per lb. Therefore, the PostmasterGeneral’s comparison of the wool industry with other industries that have received subsidies is unfair. He ended his speech by stating that members of the Opposition were uttering a lot of claptrap in relation to this measure. I regard a major portion of his own speech to-night as having been nothing but claptrap.

I say emphatically that the Government has failed completely to justify this proposed, sectional tax on the woolgrowers. It has used the figure of the expected revenue from the tax for the purpose of producing a balanced budget for presentation to this Parliament. It seeks, in fact, to balance its accounts by imposing an unprecedented levy on one industry while other industries, such as the manufacturing and distributing industries that were mentioned by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Fraser) have not been made subject to any similar measure. If the Government is genuine in the efforts that it promised the electors it would make to arrest inflation, let it produce a genuine, courageous scheme to do so instead of a scheme that will apply to only one section of the people. If it produces a scheme that will apply to all sections of the community it will find that the Opposition will give it some support. There is no justification for its singling out of the wool-growers as it has done in its present proposal. It is because’ they have been selected by the Government to provide a huge amount of revenue that the Labour party is adopting its present attitude, which I support. “Western Australia, the State from which I hail, runs 11,000,000 sheep, by far the greater proportion of which are owned by the small growers who have from 200 to 500 sheep. Those small growers will be hit the hardest by this scheme. I point out to the Government, and I hope that it will take some notice of the point, that those small wool-growers in “Western Australia are now engaged in a drive for increased production. They are taking advantage of the years of high prices that they have enjoyed to improve their properties and to extend their production. They are using their surplus money to turn lands that have been regarded for years as waste lands into good grazing and wheat-growing country. Yet the Government intends to impose a penalty on them through this measure. By doing so it will prevent the continuance of what is recognized in Western Australia as being one of the most progressive moves that has been witnessed in this country for many years.

Is there any wonder that the Labour party has adopted the stand that it has adopted in relation to this bill? I resent some of the innuendoes that have been levelled at members of the Opposition in relation to the Labour party’s attitude to wool-growers. Ever since the Labour party came into existence its members have supported the interests of the growers and farmers. Every piece of legislation, whether Commonwealth or State, that has brought any great benefit to the small farmer either emanated directly from the Labour party when it was in office in either the State or the Federal sphere, or came into being as a result of agitation by members of the Labour party.

I am fearful of the effects of this measure because it will compel the woolgrower to pay a 20 per cent, levy in addition to his current tax and also, in addition to the levy of 7^ per cent, that he is to make to the stabilization fund. I am disturbed about the possible results of the measure on the stabilization plan. During the recent recess I toured the wool-growing part of my electorate and I found that the small wool-growers were almost unanimously in favour of a stabilization plan. I .fear, however, that the imposition of this proposed levy of 20 per cent, will have the effect of defeating that very laudable plan. The small wool-growers of Western Australia, in addition to improving their properties, are fighting enemies that they have not been able to tackle before because of lack of funds. I refer to soil erosion and salt erosion, the latter of which is becoming a menace in the Midlands district of Western Australia which now lies within the electorate that is represented by the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie). I am sure that he will be able to tell the House about the attitude of these small farmers to this measure. I have received many letters from them in which they have appealed to me to use my influence with the Labour party to have this bill, opposed to the last ditch. I know that part of Western Australia very well and 1 suggest to the honorable member for Moore that the small growers in it, 80 per cent, of whom I know personally, are almost unanimously opposed to this measure. I believe that he is aware of that. We claim that this legislation, whilst sectional in its application, will provide no sectional benefits to the people who are to pay the proposed levy. Will the wool-growers receive sectional benefits in the form of freight reductions, assistance in relation to additional water supplies or in the supply of materials that wall help them to improve their properties? Of course not ! I say that this legislation will not be acceptable to the wool-growers irrespective of what attitude the so-called Australian Country party adopts in relation to it. That applies not only to the small growers but also to the large pastoralists of Western Australia who operate in an area that has most unreliable weather conditions. At the present time a large portion of that area is experiencing a severe drought. The producers of that area have to make provision in good seasons to carry them over bad seasons.

– 1 am here for a much better purpose than that of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) ; I can assure him of that. If honorable members opposite can convince rae of the practicability of providing for a termination period, I shall accept it. I consider that there should be a termination period to all legislation of this kind, which is accepted with some degree of reluctance. However, it would be tremendously difficult to make such a provision, and if a period were put to this legislation and by a terrific catastrophe the Labour party was again given control of the country, the result would be that in place of this legislation, which g,res the wool-growers a fair deal, legislation would be introduced which would permanently deprive the wool-growers of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of their wool. Eventually the woolgrowers would lose most of the benefits that they are now getting through the higher world prices for their product. The Labour party would increase the incidence of taxation and by removing what it suggests is a sectional tax and imposing one that would apply also to other sections of the community to the detriment of the wool-grower. At this stage I support the bill, but I accept it reluctantly. I am honest about that. Because such honesty is to be found on this side of the House, no doubt it is foreign to honorable members who sit on the other side.

I look forward to the committee stage of the bill, when the Treasurer will introduce the amendments that he foreshadowed which will clarify the position with regard to hardship cases and will remove the causes for complaint that have been mentioned by honorable members. If those honorable members read and carefully examine the proposed amendments they will find that all their objections have been fully met. The bill without those amendments does not meet the situation as I see it, but will overcome all the objections with regard to hardship. There will be no need for any grower to fear that he will be subjected to hardship, even in the most extreme and unusual circumstances such as have been mentioned by honorable members opposite during the course of the debate.

Mr CLARK:
Darling Downs

– I oppose the Government’s proposal to take more than £100,000,000 from the wool-growers of this country by discriminatory legislation that is contrary to the principles of taxation that have been observed in the past. The Government has claimed that the reason for this proposal is the changed budgetary position. I consider that that change is due to the Government’s neglect of the economy of this country since it took office. It has allowed matters to get out of hand. In the early part of my representation in the Parliament the present Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) was Treasurer in the Government that was then in office. When introducing his budget, the right honorable gentleman stated with pride that is was the first budget that had exceeded £100,000,000 in the history of Australia. The present Government is now budgeting for an additional £100,000,000 this year Supporters of the Government have pointed out that expected expenditure has risen by £117,000,000. The Government proposes to raise money to meet this additional expenditure by a sectional impost on the wool-growers, instead of by spreading the burden on all members of the community. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) has stated that the Government proposes to raise the additional money required by the proposed deductions from woo] cheques. Speaking in a similar strain, the honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes) gave as his excuse for his announced intention to support the measure, that the Government had to raise an additional £100,000,000. A similar reason was advanced by the Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride) to-night. The Government’s intended impost on a particular section of the community is most unjust. The present plan has its genesis in the scheme propounded by Professor Copland, which was not favorably received by the community. Professor Copland’s initial suggestion on the 31st August was that the wool incomes of this country should be subject to a tax of 33 per cent., and that the proposed7½ per cent. levy for the establishment of a stabilization fund should be included in that percentage. The present plan does not fall far short of that plan, because the Government proposes to deduct not only 20 per cent. of the wool-grower’s income, but also an additional 7½ per cent. of that income for another scheme, a total of 27½ per cent. in all. It appears that Professor Copland “ flew a kite “ to find out in which way the wind was blowing before the Government embarked on any proposal. The plan now proposed was evolved in the party room as a result of the inability of honorable members opposite to make up their minds. Conflicting statements appeared in each edition of the newspapers at the time.

Mr Fadden:

– Not unlike Labour’s attitude to the anti-Communist legislation!

Mr CLARK:

– One newspaper report claimed that the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) was prepared to support a tax of the nature now proposed in preference to a proposal that was made by the Liberal party. I emphasize thatthe measure now before the House grew substantially out of a compromise following a disagreement between the two factions of the present anti-Labour Government. By agreeing to the present proposal many honorable members opposite have “ ditched “ their friends, the primary producers. Had it not been for the difference of opinion between the

Government parties I am convinced that a measure of the discriminatory character of the bill now before the House would not have been introduced.

When honorable members who now sit on the Government side of the House were in opposition, during the regime of the former Government, they complained about the alleged growth of bureaucracy. I point out that the measure that we are considering is of a most bureaucratic type. Its scope goes beyond the established tenets of taxation legislation, and takes into account, not a person’s capacity to pay, but his gross receipts. The proposed scheme will apply very unjustly to certain sections of the community, particularly wool-growers in only a small way, to whom the holding back of a few hundred pounds may be a very serious matter. The electors in the division that I represent have already held meetings to protest against the implementation of the proposed scheme. I consider that it is most unjust, because it discriminates against one section of the community. For that reason it should not be implemented. The woolgrowers consider that they have been selected to bear this special impost, although many other sections of the community also are receiving enhanced incomes because of the present wave of prosperity. The proposal is a departure from established practice in connexion with taxation. The Government is seeking to obtain funds, not by taxing the people in the ordinary way, but by making a special impost upon the gross income of a certain section of the community. Honorable members on this side of the House view the proposal with suspicion. We fear that the Government, having established its fantastic scheme, may apply the principle in other spheres. For instance, there would be nothing to prevent the Government in the future from imposing a special tax on the wages of workers in a certain industry with the object of reducing the price of the commodity that they produced and thus meet the demand of another section of the community for a lower price. Furthermore, the Government could impose a special tax upon workers in certain industries in order to divert labour from what is considered to be non-essential to essential production. I fear that this measure may be the forerunner of similar measures that will apply to sections of the community other than the wool-growers. It will operate unjustly, particularly on wool-growers who require to reduce mortgages and to meet other commitments. As they will be obliged to continue to pay interest on overdrafts they will not receive any advantage under this scheme. Many new settlers, particularly ex-service personnel, were relying upon the present high prices of wool to enable them to meet substantial initial commitments but they will be deprived of that advantage under this proposal.

The Government’s plan also involves a bad budgetary principle in that the Government will collect and expend income tax before it falls due. Any individual who applied that principle in his financial operations would soon go bankrupt. The honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Eraser), in an outstanding speech, emphasized the many injustices of this measure. Any one who heard his remarks must agree that under the plan the Government will confiscate a proportion of the wool-growers’ income. I have received many protests against it not only from small men, who have complained that it is unjust, but also from growers who are more fortunately placed. The latter object to the proposal on the principle that they are entitled to receive all the income that is derived from the sale of their product. Many woolgrowers in my electorate suffered severe losses as a result of the drought and floods that occurred from 1946 to 1949 in the western portion of New South “Wales. During that period persons who have been on the land practically all their lives became financially embarrassed as the result of such losses. They were hoping that the high prices that have prevailed for wool during the last two years would ‘enable them to recover their position. Some of them lost the whole of their stock and were obliged to borrow money in order to restock their properties when prices were comparatively high. “Whilst provision i3 made in the bill in respect of cases of hardship, it is clear that individuals who seek relief will virtually be obliged to seek it on their hands and knees. Effective relief will be afforded in only a small proportion of the deserving cases. Persons who have mortgages should be enabled to pay them off, particularly when inflationary conditions exist.

I am concerned about how the scheme will affect not only those who are engaged in wool-growing but also those who are employed in the industry as well as residents and business people in country towns who depend indirectly upon the industry for a livelihood. The freezing of 20 per cent, of the income of woolgrowers will adversely affect the employment and business prospects of those people. The proposal will react unfavorably upon those who live in country districts. The Government should not discriminate against any section of the community in that way.

It is significant that very few supporters of the Government have taken the opportunity to participate in this debate. Many of those honorable members who were very vocal about the scheme when it was first announced have since remained silent. For instance, the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton) and the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) have failed to indicate where they stand on this measure. They have been conscripted into supporting the Government. The honorable member for Riverina made a long statement to the Canberra Times on the 19th September last in which he said -

The seller of wool is utterly important. How comes it then that the wool-grower, the most inarticulate of our entire community, are to he dealt with, if .public clamour is any criterion, for selling their commodity at the buyers’ price?

Undoubtedly, that honorable member is the victim of his party’s clamour. He opposed the scheme when it was originally announced, but he is not prepared to say where he now stands in relation to it. Many of his colleagues do not favour this proposal. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) has declared that he supports it, but members of the Australian Country party in his own electorate have expressed disapproval of his action in that respect. Consequently, he has lost considerable favour in his electorate. His supporters, in effect, are asking to be saved from their friends. In the past, members of the Australian Country party have played much the same role in relation to primary producers as the Communists have played in relation to workers in industry. Members of that party constantly preach class consciousness because their party thrives upon discontent among primary producers. When the primary producers realize that the Labouparty is their best friend, the Australian Country party will cease to exist. Members of the Australian Country party have sacrificed their principles and the financial interests of the farmers in order to hold their position in the Government. When I entered this Parliament in 1934, the Lyons Government had just been formed. In the course of a few days, it was dissolved in order that members of the Australian Country party might be taken into the Cabinet. They had threatened to defeat the Lyons Government unless a certain number of portfolios were allotted to their party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– All thi:lias nothing whatever to do with the bill.

Mr CLARK:

– The Labour party believes that taxation should not discriminate against any section of the corn m unity. The Government proposes to discriminate against the wool-growers However, the wool-growers do not need to be told that. Already meetings of protest have been held in all parts of the country. Never before has there been such a unanimous protest against any proposed measure. This legislation, if passed, will be challenged in the courts. Money due to the wool-growers will be withheld, and they will be unable to pay their accounts until the termination of the legal proceedings, which will be long drawn out if the matter goes to the Privy Council. Then there will be a hue and cry amongst the primary producers, to whose judgment I am content to leave the Liberal party and the Australian Country party.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Davidson) adjourned.

page 2370

STATES GRANTS (ADDITIONAL TAX REIMBURSEMENT) BILL 1950

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2370

ADJOURNMENT

New Guinea - Naval Guards - Road Safety - Newsprint - Dramamine - Parliament House

Motion (by Mr. Fadden) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Denison

.- I direct the attention of the Government to a further outburst from the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Dr. Soekarno. Such outbursts are becoming monotonously regular, but each succeeding one is more arrogant and more menacing than the others. It is time something was done to restrain the President. There are several things that we should remember in regard to Indonesia and the Indonesian sphere of influence. We are apt to forget how close we are to the areas in question. The islands where disturbances are taking place at the present time are only 500 miles from Australia. Timor is only 400 miles away, and Java itself only 800 miles distant, whereas Western New Guinea, which is the subject of President Soekarno’s outbursts, actually border-, on territories under the control of Australia. It has been demonstrated i.-. this chamber by the honorable member f Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes), the honorable member for Curtin (Mr. Hasluck), the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), and the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), that Indonesia has no right whatever to Western New Guinea. There is no racial or historical basis for its claim. It would be just as logical for Indonesia to claim Eastern New Guinea or Papua, or, for that matter, the Northern Territory of Australia.

It would be easy to answer Dr. Soekarno in his own terms, but it might not. be wise to do so. It would be easy to say, “If you want a fight, you can have it “. There would be plenty of support for such a statement amongst men in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, because they have no illusions about the claim of Indonesia. However, we have been trying to settle international disputes by law rather than by force. Therefore, it is time that the United Nations took some interest in this dispute over Dutch New Guinea. The United Nations has a peculiar right to interfere if need be in matters that affect Indonesia, because the existence of the Republic of Indonesia is directly due to the guidance and support of the United Nations. Australia, also, has a peculiar right to intervene, because it was at the instigation, of Australia that the Good Offices Committee of the United Nations was first appointed to investigate the dispute between the Indonesians and the Dutch when the question of whether or not Indonesia should have independence was in the balance. I suggest that Australia should take the lead, and bring this matter to the notice of the United Nations.

Mr PETERS:
Burke

.- I bring lo the notice of the Government a difficulty that exists in regard to certain employees of the Department of the Navy. There are two sections of security officers employed, those in the naval dockyard police, and those in the dockyard guard section. The duties of both are similar to each other, and similar to the duties of Commonwealth peace officers. Naval dockyard police receive rehabilitation leave, and also long service leave, as do peace officers, but members of the guard section receive neither rehabilitation leave nor long service leave. If the guard section was numerically strong, and had a powerful union to wield the big stick on its behalf, it would be able to get for its employees the same conditions as are enjoyed by others doing similar work, [f they had a financially strong organization they could approach the industrial court or some other industrial tribunal for improved conditions, but because they are members of a small section they have had to put up with injustice. The Government has firmly expressed the opinion from time to time that what counts is not the power of an industrial organization, or its ability to approach an industrial tribunal, but the justice of its claim. I consider that the .Government should ensure that those officers to whom I have referred shall be granted rehabilitation leave and long service leave. Many of them are growing old in the service in the Department of the Navy and are almost due to retire. They should be granted the same conditions of leave that are given to other sections, not only of the Department of the Navy, but also of the Public Service generally.

Dr NOTT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I direct the attention of the Government to the extraordinary position that is arising in connexion with uncontrolled transport within and without the confines of the Australian Capital Territory. I refer particularly to the granting of licences to persons who are not road conscious, who are not fully informed about the rules of the road and who, by their stupidity and desire for inordinate speed on high-powered machines, seriously injure themselves and, as a result, occupy hospital beds for long periods and thereby prevent more worthy persons from securing admission to hospitals. I believe that the practice in the Australian Capital Territory is that an individual who has previously held a licence to ride a motor cycle and is prepared to sign an affidavit to that effect, is granted a licence. I also believe that the authorities impose an inadequate road test of driving ability and that many applicants have an imperfect knowledge of the rules of the road. As a result, every week-end the hospital has to open its doors to admit persons who are injured in road accidents. Some of the victims remain in hospital for many months at considerable cost to the Government, and when they recover sufficiently from their injuries to be discharged they receive social services payments for a long time. Apart from the subsequent deformity and invalidity from which they suffer in consequence of their lack of knowledge of how to control their machines and of the rules of the road, they are putting the whole country to considerable expense. I ask the Government, or the responsible Minister, whether it would be possible to convene a conference of Ministers for Transport with a view to determining a uniform code for the licensing of riders of high-powered, speedy motor cycles, which are neither more nor loss than pulsating death on the road to-day. More people are killed each year in Australia than died in the Battle of Trafalgar, and certainly the number of Australians killed each month on the roads is greater than the number of Australian casualties in the war in Korea to date. If an individual is fatally mauled by a shark, the occurrence is regarded .as a dramatic matter and the whole country is agitated by it, but almost every day the metropolitan and country hospitals provide accommodation and treatment for persons who have been so seriously muti-lated in road accidents that many of them become a charge on the State for the remainder of their lives. I plead with the Government to consider the advisability of convening a conference of Ministers for Transport with a view to determining a uniform code for licensing the riders of motor cycles and the drivers of motor vehicles, and of traffic rules. It is an offence in the Australian Capital Territory for a person to drive a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 30 miles an hour. That ordinance is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance, even by almost every member of the Parliament. Strict enforcement of the ordinance for a few months would have a salutary effect and the number of fatalities and shocking accidents on the roads would be reduced.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- My purpose in speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the House is to direct attention to the plight of suburban newspapers and to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), who is concerned in the matter from the stand-point of the dollar allocation, to examine whether a better method can be arranged, even by the reintroduction of rationing, to ensure that they shall receive adequate supplies of newsprint. I understand that country newspapers also are involved in this matter. Representations have already been made to the Treasurer or to the Minister foi Trade and Customs’ (Senator O’sullivan) to re-introduce rationing because the plight of suburban and country newspapers as a result of shortage of newsprint is desperate. However, my brief is principally for the suburban newspapers. I understand that the country newspapers have made representations on their own behalf, although I do not know whether all of them have been associated with that request. I understand that a request has been made for the re-introduction of rationing as a last desperate measure ; not because the newspapers concerned believe that that would be the most satisfactory solution of their problem, but because they consider that only by that means will they be able to obtain an allocation of newsprint. I remind the Treasurer that when newsprint was rationed during World War II., one of the conditions on which a licence was issued was that the large newspapers should allot a quota to the small suburban newspapers. The publishers of small suburban newspapers have had a hard struggle. More often than not a suburban newspaper is published weekly, and is distributed without charge, although some of them have reached such a status that a charge is imposed. They render a distinct service to the community by reporting local items of interest such a 3 the proceedings of municipal councils and suburban activities, particularly sporting, such as the local hard-court tennis results. The suburban newspapers are not only valuable advertising media, but also agents of decentralization. As the large shops in the cities advertise on a big scale, local businesses find that for their own protection they must advertise extensively in suburban newspapers. Throughout New South Wales, particularly in the city areas and in the larger towns, there is a network of suburban newspapers which render a valuable service to the community, but their plight is most serious as a result of a shortage of newsprint. They are a worthy enterprise, and action should be taken to solve their difficulty. Their complaint, which I should like the Government to investigate, is that the system of “blanket-buying” in the soft-currency countries has resulted in the huge newspaper organizations purchasing the newsprint that they require. I suppose that, when rationing is not in operation, those purchases are valid from the commercial stand-point, but it would be most regrettable if the suburban newspapers were to go out of existence simply because the newspaper organizations with the largest resources are able to exhaust all sources of newsprint. Even when the suburban newspapers are in a position to secure supplies, they must buy in a dearer market. The newsprint is of an inferior quality, and costs £50 a ton more than do supplies from the usual sources.

The allegation has been made that the metropolitan daily newspapers are using newsprint extravagantly, but I repeat that, when rationing is not in operation, the use that they make of their newsprint is their own business, even if they publish commercial and sporting supplements. They are commercial enterprises, and they can do as they please with the newsprint that they purchase. I understand that a considerable allocation of dollars has already been made for the purchase of newsprint, and I should like to know whether the Government can take action to ensure that a part of the supplies that will be obtained with those funds shall be earmarked for suburban newspapers. If they are unable to obtain newsprint, they must inevitably go out of existence, and the effect would be to increase the growth of the large monopolist newspapers, and deprive suburban dwellers of a useful service. It is too much to ask small organizations that are just getting on their feet to pay an extra £50 a ton for newsprint, and I ask the Treasurer to examine the matter, and to give consideration to the useful service that is being done by small newspapers. If newsprint cannot be obtained, some of those newspapers will have to cease publication, with consequent unemployment among journalists and printing trade employees.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct the attention of the Government to the human ailment air-sickness, from which many travellers suffer, particularly at this time of the year. I hope, in the interests of sufferers from this malady, that what I have to say to-night will be given some attention by the press. Recently, there was discovered in America a drug known as dramamine, which is an absolute cure for air-sickness. I say that as one who is an extremely bad air traveller. On not one occasion has a dramamine tablet failed to cure me completely. Dramamine is a cure not only for air-sickness, but also for sea-sickness. It is readily available in America, and the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial recently published an article on its advan tages. Unfortunately, this Government has not taken action to permit the importation of this drug and I am advised by druggists in this country that it is impossible to obtain dramamine tablets in large quantities. They can only be obtained from air travellers who carry them for their own use, or bring them to this country by some means other than smuggling.

Mr Pearce:

– Did the honorable member get them on the “black”?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have only nine tablets left, and I need them. Until recently the tablets cost ls. 6d. each, but when I went to buy some in Adelaide yesterday, I was charged 2s. 6d. each. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) spent nearly half a day visiting various chemists’ shops in Sydney trying to obtain dramamine tablets.

Government supporters interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If honorable members do not cease interjecting I shall close the sitting.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Any one who, having seen women and little children suffer from air-sickness, can sit in this House with a supercilious grin on his face, as Government supporters are doing now, and not endeavour to do something to ensure that adequate supplies of dramamine shall be made available for air travellers, has absolutely no regard for the sufferings of his fellows, and is not fit to be classed as a human being.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– -Vasano is just as good.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is all very well to talk about vasano, and other “tripy” preparations. I have tried every alleged cure for air-sickness, and not one is nearly so effective as is dramamine, with me at least. I suggest to the Government that the Minister for Air (Mr. White) should consider requesting Trans-Australia Airlines to provide dramamine tablets free of charge on all flights to passengers who need them. The cost would only be ls. 6d. a tablet. Any one who has experienced the suffering caused by air-sickness will agree that he would pay 30s. rather than continue to suffer. In conclusion, therefore, I urge two things: first, that the Government should permit the importation of dramamine from America in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the travelling public in this country - requirements that will increase rapidly when people know that an effective cure for air-sickness is available - and secondly, that consideration be given to further improving the already great service of Trans-Australia Airlines by providing dramamine tablets free of charge to all passengers, or by selling them to those who need them in an emergency.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:

– During the debate- on the motion for the adjournment of the House last Thursday, the honorable member for Capricornia (“Mr. Pearce) complained that the lighting in this chamber was not sufficiently bright, and suggested that a check be made with a light meter. ! am informed that the lighting in the House is checked regularly by the House engineer by means of a light meter. A check taken at the week-end gave a reading slightly below normal. That was due to the fact that some globes had burned out. They have now been replaced and I think that honorable members will agree that the lighting is better to-day. The House engineer also pointed out that globes appeared to deteriorate rapidly. It is the practice to replace them regularly, but on each occasion, the deterioration seems to be more rapid, and the light soon falls below normal. However, I hope that conditions are better now.

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army and Minister for the Navy · Moreton · LP

– In reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Burke (Mr. Peters) about pay, leave and other conditions of service of guards and peace officers working in shore establishments of the Royal Australian Navy, 1 point out that when the honorable gentleman raised the matter quite recently, I undertook to make a statement upon it. I hope to make a final decision next Monday at Navy head-quarters, in Melbourne, and the inquiries that I have already made lead me to believe that my decision will be satisfactory to the honorable gentleman.

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

– in reply - I shall refer first to the matter raised by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Dr. Nott). I do not think that I can furnish a better reply to the point that he made than that by the Prime Minister to-day to a question upon notice asked by the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) concerning driving licences and the issue of certificates of registration for motor vehicles. That answer is as follows : -

On the 20th October the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) asked me a question concerning the issue of driving licences and the registration of motor vehicles in the respective States. I would now advise the honorable member that the whole question of uniformity in procedure for the licensing of motor vehicle drivers in all States and territories of the Commonwealth was the subject of discussion at a meeting of the Australian Uniform Road Traffic Code Committee held on the 1st to 3rd August, 1950. The committee, which was appointed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, comprises one representative from each State as nominated by the State Minister for Transport, one representative from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, as nominated by the Minister for the Interior, one representative each from the Australian Automobile Association, the Australian Road Transport Federation, and the Transport Workers Union of Australia, and one representative of the Commonwealth Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport, who is chairman. The committee’s functions are to consider and recommend uniform road traffic laws for the Commonwealth. On the particular aspect raised by the honorable member on behalf of the Swan Hill Chamber of Commerce, that there is nothing to stop a person who is debarred from holding a driver’s licence in one State from obtaining a licence from a neighbouring State, the committee submitted the following recommendation : -

Subject to a right of appeal to a court of appropriate authority - where a person has been convicted in some other part of the Commonwealth of an offence which, if committed in such State would have been grounds for disqualification of such person or would have rendered him liable to automatic disqualification, the licensing authority in any State shall have power to disqualify such person for holding a licence for such period as it thinks fit.

The committee’s recommendation, along with a number of others, will be submitted to the Australian Transport Advisory Council at its next meeting, which will probably be held early in the New Year. If approved by council, the recommendation will then pass to the State authorities for implementation.

However, I shall bring the specific point raised by the honorable member to the notice of the appropriate Minister.

I promise the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that I shall bring to the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and the appropriate committee on dollar allocations his request that dollars be allocated to suburban and provincial newspapers to enable them to purchase newsprint.

I was particularly interested in the suggestion made by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) in connexion with the cure of air and sea sickness. I shall certainly bring it to the notice of the Minister for Air (Mr. White).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2375

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Apple and Pear Organization Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1950, No. 74.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations - 1950 -

No. 48 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia; and Commonwealth Naval Storehousemen’s Association.

No. 49 - Boilermakers’ Society of Australia.

No. 50-Hotel, Club, Restaurant and Caterers Employees’ Union of New South Wales; and Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Employees’ Union of Australasia.

No. 51 - Postal Overseers’ Union of Australia.

No. 52 - Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen.

No. 53 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 54 - Fourth Division Postmasters, Postal Clerks and Telegraphists’ Union.

No. 55 - Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.

No. 56 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 57 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 58 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 59 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

No. 60 - Minister for Supply.

No. 61 - Customs Officers’ Association of Australia, Fourth Division.

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act - War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal No. 1 - Report for year 1949-50.

Commonwealth Debt Conversion Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 72.

Commonwealth Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department of Works and Housing - E. C. Brown, E. B. Crimmins, C. E. Giese, D. C. O’Connor, R. Pullen, R. V. Sullivan.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 73.

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No.65.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 75.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes - Kempsey, New South Wales.

Meat Export Control Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 76.

House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.

page 2375

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answersto questions were circulated : -

Commonwealth Advertisements

Mr Calwell:

l asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

How many advertisements, authorized by the Government, have appeared to date in (a) the daily metropolitan press, (b) the daily provincial press, (c) provincial papers and (d) weekly newspapers and periodicals?
What was the cost of each such series of advertisements ?
How many nation-wide broadcasts have been made from national and commercial radio stations by the Prime Minister to date?
Did all the commercial stations make time available free for all such broadcasts?

Mr Fadden:
CP

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

Advertisements authorized by the Government, in respect of more than 130 Commonwealth departments, agencies, authorities and branches, appear from time to time in over f;00 daily and weekly newspapers and periodicals throughout the Commonwealth. No record of the actual number of insertions is maintained.
Accounts for September and October, advertising in the metropolitan daily press, the daily provincial press, provincial papers and weekly newspapers, and .periodicals have not yet been received, but the cost of such advertisements from 1st January to 31st August, 1050, was £252,887.
According to information available, the Prime Minister made twenty broadcasts between 20th December, .1049, and 27th October, 1950. Some of these were over both networks; others were over either national or commercial stations.
No.

Insurance.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 19th October, the honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Fitzgerald) asked me a further question relating to industrial insurance. I would advise the honorable member that the statistics which the Insurance Commissioner may obtain from life insurance companies are prescribed in the Life Insurance Act 1945 and in the regulations made under that act. Neither the act or regulations require companies to supply particulars of the amounts of premiums paid in respect of policies which terminated by lapse, surrender, maturity or death and I am advised that these particulars are not recorded by the companies and could not be readily obtained.

Australian Association for the United Nations.

Mr Menzies:
LP

– On the 18th October, the honorable member for Hoddle (Mr. Cremean) asked me a question concerning the recent amalgamation of the United Nations Association and the Australian National Committee of the United Nations. I would now advise the honorable member as follows : -

That preliminary steps to merge the two organizations were taken by representatives of the United Nations Association and the Australian National Committee for the United Nations on the 20th March, 1950. At a federaconference of representatives from all States in Melbourne on the 28th April, it was decided to form one organization to be known as the Australian Association for the United Nations.

The inaugural meeting of the new body - the Australian Association for the United Nations - took place in Melbourne on the 14th July.

The Government was sympathetic to the merger as making for greater efficiency in the mobilizing of the support of the :people of Australia for the United. Nations.
Formerly the Government made an annual grant of £6,000 to the Australian National Committee for the United Nations and £1,000 to the United Nations Association. Pot the six months ending the 31st December, 1950, a grant of £3,500 is being made to the new association. For the first six months of 1051 the grant will be £1.500, after which the question of a grant will be again considered.
I would point out that, although the Government makes this grant, the association is, according to the terms of the constitution, a “ voluntary, independent body of citizens and organizations “. No journals have been published by the Australian Association for the United Nations, since its formation in July. The first object of the Association - as set out in the constitution of the Association - is “ to support the United Nations as the guardian of right, the organ of co-operation, the conciliator of differences and the supreme instrument for safeguarding the peace of the world”. I am arranging for the honorable member to receive a copy of the constitution of the Australian Association for the United Nations. The federal president of the Australian Association for the United Nations, Mr. G. S. McDonald, has informed me that the association as a federal body has on only one occasion issued a statement for publication. That was at the inaugural meeting, the 14th-15th July this year, and which was attended by representatives from every State division, when the following resolution was adopted unanimously : - “Korean Situation.

Resolved -

That the following statement, representing the unanimous opinions of this annual conference of the Australian Association for the United Nations be forwarded to the Australian Government, the Minister for External Affairs and the appropriate radio and press channels.

The Australian Association for the United Nations, representing a large number of affiliated organizations and individual members, expresses its support for the decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in calling for the assistance of the member nations to restore peace in Korea, and the decisions of the Australian Government in acceding to that request. It also welcomes the statement’ made by Pandit Nehru insisting that a settlement should be reached through the Security Council. The Association considers that the interests of the Korean people aTe of paramount importance and the return of the North Koreans to their original area is essential as a preliminary to the exercise by the Korean people of their right to determine their own future.”

Road SAFETY

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 26th October the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) asked me a question concerning the issue of driving licences and the registration of motor vehicles in the respective States. I would now advise the honorable member that the whole question of uniformity in procedure* for the licensing of motor vehicle drivers in all States and territories of the Commonwealth was the subject of discussion at a meeting of the Australian Uniform Road Traffic Code Committee held on the 1st to 3rd August, 1950. The committee, which was appointed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, comprises one representative from each State as nominated by the State Minister for Transport, one representative from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, as nominated by the Minister for the Interior, one representative each from the Australian Automobile Association, the Australian Road Transport Federation, and the Transport Workers Union of Australia, and one representative of the Commonwealth Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport, who is chairman. The committee’s functions are to consider and recommend, uniform road traffic laws for the Commonwealth. On the particular aspect raised by the honorable member on behalf of the Swan Hill Chamber of Commerce, that there is nothing to stop a person who is debarred from holding a driver’s licence in one State from obtaining a licence from a neighbouring State, the committee submitted the following recommendation : -

Subject to a right of appeal to a court of appropriate authority - where a person has been convicted in some other part of the Commonwealth of an offence which, if committed in such State would have been grounds for disqualification of such person or would have rendered him liable to automatic disqualification, the licensing authority in any State shall have power to disqualify such person for holding a licence for such period as it thinks fit.

The committee’s recommendation, along with a number of others, will be submitted to the Australian Transport Advisory Council at its next meeting, which will probably be held early in the New Year. If approved by council, the recommendation will then pass to the State authorities for implementation.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 November 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1950/19501114_reps_19_210/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives14 November 1950

ASSENT TO BILLS

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

Mr HUGHES:BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT

Mr HAYLEN:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

BURDEKIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Mr DAVIDSON:DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:

Mr Calwell:

Mr CASEY:Minister for Works and Housing · LP

QUESTION

KOREA

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

Mr FRANCIS:Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr MULCAHY:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:LP

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr FRANCIS:

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr MULLENS:GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr CALWELL:

Mr FADDEN:

Mr WARD:

Mr FADDEN:

Mr CALWELL:

Mr FADDEN:

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Dr NOTT:

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

LEPROSY

Mr NELSON:NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr ANTHONY:Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Mr OSBORNE:EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr Peters:

Mr HOLT:

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Mr LESLIE:MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:LP

Mr ROSEVEAR:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:LP

Mr Rosevear:

Mr CASEY:

QUESTION

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Mr HANDBY:KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEALE:Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:FISHER, QUEENSLAND

Mr BEALE:

Mr Calwell:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr BEALE:

Mr Calwell:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr Calwell:

Mr BEALE:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PUBLISHING INDUSTRY

Mr HASLUCK:CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:LP

House of Representatives
14 November 1950

Mr HUGHES:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr DAVIDSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:
Minister for Works and Housing · LP

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

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr HANDBY:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

Mr HASLUCK:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr EGGINS:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:
LP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr FADDEN:
CP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HOLT:
LP

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr PITTARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr TOWNLEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr FRANCIS:
LP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

Mr DRUMMOND:
New England

Mr CHIFLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · Macquarie

Mr McBRIDE:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954