House of Representatives
28 October 1954

21st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2404

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In- view of the reported statement made yesterday by the Minister for Immigration to the federal congress of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia that difficulty was being experienced in obtaining suitable immigrants from Germany, is the Minister of the opinion that the number of unemployed persons in “Western Germany, reported last month to be approximately 1,000,000 workers, has been substantially reduced, that the flow of refugees from Bust Germany which totalled 2,100,000 at the end of 1953 has slowed down, and that other empire countries such as Canada, which last year took 30,000 immigrants from Western Germany, are experiencing similar difficulties?

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

– I was referring to the immediate situation. We are obtaining quite a useful flow of immigrants from Germany in the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled categories: My reference to this matter arose from the recent agreement that was reached in Europe for the rearmament of Germany and the enlargement of the German army. The expectation is that once those processes are put into effect, the German army will absorb a good deal of Germany’s surplus manpower. There are already indications of reluctance on the part of the German government to have its skilled personnel immigrate, and it was that particular aspect to which my remarks were directed. I believe that we shall still be able to get a certain number of unskilled immigrants from Germany, but of course it is the more highly skilled workers who are more valuable from our viewpoint.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Immigration. On a previous occasion I asked the Minister whether there is any - means by which a Chinese citizen of Australia may obtain permission fur his mother to come here and take up residence with her son, who is established in business in Sydney. I. have received from the Minister a very short reply, which does not fully set out the reasons for which permission has been refused.

Mr HOLT:

– I shall have prepared a statement which will cover the policy aspects and which will be supplied to the honorable member.

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Immigration say when the immigration agreement recently signed between Australia and Denmark will become operative? Can he give details of the type and number of immigrants that we may expect, and will there be a high proportion of rural workers among them?

Mr HOLT:

– No agreement has been entered into between the Australian Government and the Government of Denmark on immigration. I previously announced that we are prepared to assist approved Danish nationals to settle in this country. I do not imagine that there will be a substantial flow . of immigrants from Denmark, but we are anxious to secure settlers from .that country and are willing to assist those whom we regard as suitable, by contributing to their passage money. No’ official objection has been raised by the Danish Government to our .proposal, but there is no agreement between the Australian Government and -the Government of Denmark.

page 2404

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Mr JOSHUA:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister acting for the Treasurer. In view of the very satisfactory profit of the Commonwealth Trading Bank this year, of £660,000, and in view of the fact that the Commonwealth Trading Bank charges i per cent, less than other banks, will the right honorable gentleman recommend to the Commonwealth Bank Board that it should reduce the interest rate a further J per cent.? If that were done the reduction would absorb only about £200,000 of the bank’s very satisfactory yearly profit.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– .No, I am not disposed to offer any advice to the Commonwealth Bank. Board about how it should deal wilh thai matter.

page 2405

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Social Services inform the House whether the legislation to make £1,500,000 available to approved organizations for providing accommodation for aged persons will be introduced this session ? If not, will it, when it is introduced, be made retrospective to provide for building operations at present being conducted, which would benefit if the legislation were introduced in this session of the Parliament?

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The bill will be introduced during this session of the Parliament.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Social Services whether the Government is contemplating, or has already made, a decision to give effect to the ruling recently given to it by its legal advisers concerning motor cars owned by pensioners, by placing a limitation of £1,250 upon the value of such cars?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– That matter involves difficult problems of legal interpretation. I am not in a position to say more about it than I have already said in this House. The honorable member obviously knows that opinions of members of the legal profession nan differ, and that courts can also differ among themselves. For that reason I am not prepared to put myself in a position where I am asked questions of legal opinion and have to answer them in this House.

page 2405

REPATRIATION

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the report of the deliberations of the thirtyninth annual congress of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia which was held this week in Canberra, in which strong criticism was directed to the Government’s administration of the Repatriation Act and . a motion was carried unanimously calling for the rigid enforcement of section 47 of the Repatriation Act, which is the onus of proof section-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member appears to be giving the House a lot of information in his question.

Mr MORGAN:

– A previous speaker on the other side-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! There was no previous speaker. A question was asked.

Mr MORGAN:

– Has the Prime Minister observed the statement of a prominent member of the league that only 10 per cent, of the applications for pensions are being granted in New South Wales, and that thousands of ex-servicemen and war widows and their dependants are thereby deprived of the benefit to which they are legally and justly entitled?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will not get on to the second page of his question.

Mr MORGAN:

– My question continues

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The same question was asked yesterday in respect of section 47 of the Act.

Mr MORGAN:

– I am asking about those statements made–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is not entitled to base a question on a statement. Please resume your seat.

Mr MORGAN:

– .Why?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will take his seat.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! No point of order may be taken while I am on my feet. The position is that honorable gentlemen clearly understand that they are not entitled to base questions on newspaper reports.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not say that it was based on a newspaper report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I know that. I remember perfectly well.

Mr Morgan:

– What right have you to say-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If you utter another word, I shall name you.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Please yourself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I name the honorable gentleman.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

—Order! No point of order is involved . I have named the honorable member forReid. The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat.

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) put -

That the honorable member forReid be suspended from the service of the House.

The House divided. (Me. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr.SPEAKER. - Order ! The honorable member forReid is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. He will leave the building forthwith.

That this House no longer has any confidence in Mr. Speaker.

Government Supporters. - No

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the fact that the honorable member for Reid, whom you asked to be removed, is still within the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Reid will leave the chamber forthwith.

Mr Morgan:

– May I ask you a question before I go, Mr. Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will leave forthwith or I shall name him again as soon as he comes back.

The honorable member for Reid thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Reid.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member had better not proceed on that line. He should ask his own question.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Then I ask the Prime Minister a question in my own right. In view of the printed and established fact that only 10 per cent, of applications in relation to repatriation pensions under section 47 of the Repatriation Act - the onus of proof section - are successful, will the right honorable gentleman recon sider the request made to him by the Opposition that, in the interests of returned soldiers generally, a select committee of this House inquire into the operation of section 47?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The matter referred to has already been dealt with at ±he annual federal congress of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia by my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation, and by one of the deputy repatriation commissioners, who was formerly a prominent official of the league. On the facts known to my colleague and to myself, I see nothing to suggest that any investigation is needed. The law is plain. It is, I think, universally agreeable to the members of this House, and there is no reason to suggest that it is not fairly applied.

page 2407

QUESTION

AMERICAN INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Mr WARD:

– Has the Prime Minister any knowledge of an organization operating in Australia known as the American Investigation Agency, which has its head office in the United States of America? Is it a fact that official Australian recognition is given to the officers of this agency, and that all Commonwealth governmental facilities are made available to them in carrying out their duties? Is it also a fact that the officers of the agency carry identification cards containing personal particulars, including their fingerprints? Will the Prime Minister state whether the agency is a United States Government, semigovernment or private organization, and will he also furnish information in relation to the particular type of work or activity upon which the agency is engaged in this country?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I do not know of this body, but I shall find out about it.

page 2407

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the honorable member for Warringah as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Has the Government yet referred the question of the £1,200,000 of unallocated expenditure in the accounts of the Australian Aluminium

Production Commission at Bell Bay in Tasmania to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation? If so, will the committee give the matter urgent consideration? In any case, when will it commence its investigations and when may honorable members .expect it to present its report?

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The .committee has received a letter from the Minister for Supply, but it must take its directions from, the House, not from the Government. The letter from the Minister for Supply asked the committee to go into the matter mentioned by the honorable member as soon as possible. The committee had already taken steps to make preliminary investigations, and those steps are proceeding. It will undertake the investigations as soon as it is free from its- existing commitments, which will not be until the beginning of next year.

page 2408

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr BRYSON:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Interior aware that the street lights between Parliament House and Hotel Kurrajong are regularly turned off at night at approximately the same time as this House adjourns, although the street lights in all other parts of Canberra continue to burn brightly for a considerable time after that hour ? In view of the fact that there are many obstacles between Parliament House and Hotel Kurrajong, such as the numerous high kerbs, will the Minister ensure that the street lights will be left on until honorable members have had sufficient time to return to their hotels after the rising of this House at night?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I am not certain of the time at which the street lights between Parliament House and Hotel Kurrajong are turned off. I do know that many honorable members leave Parliament House at an hour much later rhan that at which the House adjourns. T shall inquire into the matter and ascertain the hour at which the street lights in question are switched off.

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for the Interior been directed to the very bad condition of the surface of the footpath between Parliament House and Hotel Canberra, and to the fact that the street lighting on that footpath is extremely poor and that it is very dark when honorable members are returning to Hotel Canberra from Parliament House on nights that are not moonlit? Further, has the Minister’s attention been directed to the fact that it is credibly reported that a gentleman of Scottish descent, who is a member of this House and of proved sobriety, not very long ago tumbled on his face, a3 a result of the combination of the factors to which I have referred, to the great detriment of his dignity and comfort? If the Minister’s attention has been directed to those facts, and in any event, will he take action to ensure that conditions shall be improved so that the dignity and safety of honorable members shall be preserved?

Mr KENT HUGHES:

– I am certain that the Department of the Interior will do anything within reason in relation to the condition of the pavements and the street lighting in Canberra. But a great number of projects in Canberra are far more important than the matters that have been mentioned by the honorable member for New England and the honorable member for “Wills. I shall discuss the subject-matter of the question with officers of the Department of the Interior. However, I do not think it needs much high-stepping to dodge the odd displaced paving blocks. The honorable member does not hail from Victoria. In Collins Street, Melbourne, which is tree-lined, many paving blocks are as much displaced as are pavements in the streets of Canberra.

page 2408

QUESTION

KOREA

Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for External Affairs state whether, in view of a recent decision by the Peking Government to return seven divisions of troops to Korea, there has been any indication of a build-up of Communist forces in that area which would suggest ‘ that Korea could again become the scene of a conflict ?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– I have no recent information on the subject, but I shall have the matter investigated, and shall furnish the honorable gentleman with a reply.

page 2409

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of Australia’s great interest in the area that is covered by the Colombo Plan, will the right honorable gentleman give favorable consideration to making available to the States a special grant to stimulate study in the history, geography and social conditions of the South-East Asian countries ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The Commonwealth already makes substantial grants to the States for university studies. At present, those grants total approximately £1,500,000 a year. In any future consideration of this matter, the points that have been raised by the honorable member will be borne in mind.

page 2409

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, as leader of the House, whether, with the grace and courtesy that surround his handling of the business of the House, he will postpone the debate on the Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill 1954, or, alternatively, prolong it so that the honorable member for Lalor may have an opportunity of participating in the debate at 9.20 p.m. to-night. I make this request because of the importance of primary industry, and particularly of the wheat industry, to Australia, and because the honorable member has produced some arguments which honorable members would like to hear, and which represents one view of the wheat problem

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

– The Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill is before the House. I intend to proceed with the bill until it is passed.

page 2409

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Health when I may expect an answer to a question that I placed on the notice-paper on the 25th August. I point out that every other question that was placed on the notice-paper by other honorable members up to the 29th September has been answered by the Ministers concerned. My question, bearing the date of the 25th August, has remained in lonely isolation on the notice-paper.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member asked whether various local organizations passed certain resolutions. Those local organizations, which are situated all over Australia, are very numerous. As I wish to give the honorable member a correct answer, I have endeavoured to ascertain the position from the organizations concerned. I hope that, before very long, I shall be able to furnish him with an answer.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Can the Minister for Health state why medical benefits entitlement cards are not being issued to persons who have become entitled to pensions or benefits since the amendment of the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947-1954? Is the delay due to some physical difficulty, or is it due to some stubbornness or recalcitrance on the part of the British Medical Association in Australia ?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– Yesterday, the Minister for Social Services gave a complete answer to this question, in which he pointed out that, because of the altered conditions of entitlement for pensions, more than 90,000 people would receive an extra amount of pension. So far, the Department of Social Services has not been- able to deal with those pensioners, ‘ but I understand that to-day it will be able to attend to those pensioners who already have entitlement cards. Applications for medical benefits entitlement will be determined only after the applicants have signed their application forms, and after they have been accepted as pensioners. That will take some time, but as soon as the department can handle the matter it will do so.

page 2409

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Air inform the House of the position in relation to the use of the Caversham air strip at West Swan, Western Australia? This airstrip, which has been under the control of the Royal Australian’ Air Force, has been used recently for sporting car racing purposes. Does the air force intend to retain the strip, or does it intend to declare it surplus and to dispose of it?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The aerodrome at Caversham has already been declared for disposal, and it has been handed over to the Department of, the Interior for that purpose.

page 2410

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General ensure that if possible more technicians and materials will be made available, so that the many scores of people who have applied for telephones, particularly in Port Pirie, Port Augusta, ‘Whyalla and Port Lincoln, will have their applications expedited?

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– There are a large number of applicants for telephones who cannot get services now, or in the immediate future, but I assure the honorable member that everything possible is being done by the Postal Department to have services connected for subscribers in the order of the priority of their applications.

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General explain why delays of up to two hours occur when trunk line calls are lodged in Canberra for Newcastle? Can he also explain why it is often impossible to hear in Canberra aperson speaking from Newcastle.? Will the Minister have inquiries made to see whether the CanberraNewcastle service can be improved ? I recently received a call from Newcastle and could not understand the message at all, and I have previously found that it is almost impossible to hear people speaking on the telephone from Newcastle to Canberra.

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:

– I shall have inquiries made about the telephone service between Canberra and Newcastle, and ascertain whether it can be improved.

page 2410

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr. Menzies having asked that further questions be put on the notice-paper,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Ministers are not compelled to answer questions.

The answering of questions is completely within the control of the ministry, and question time can be ended whenever the ministry sees fit to end it.

Mr Tom Burke:

– I rise to order. You . had called the honorable member for East Sydney before the Prime Minister had asked that further questions be placed on the notice-paper. Therefore, is it correct procedure for the honorable member for East Sydney to be prevented from asking his question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Prime Minister can intervene at any point during question time.

page 2410

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill 1054.

Flags Bill 1954.

page 2410

HOUE OF MEETING

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday next at 3.30 p.m.

page 2410

FLAX FIBRE BOUNTY BILL 1954

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for the payment of a bounty on the production of flax fibre.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Sir Eric Harrison and Mr. Francis do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Sir Eric Harrison, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment of bounty on scutched flax fibre produced from flax grown in Australia. The fibre is used by the Australian spinning industry to produce yarns suitable for the manufacture, primarily, of flax canvas and sewing threads. It is proposed that the bounty will operate from the 1st November, 1954. This is the date on which the Flax Commission, established under the Flax Industry Act 1953, takes over the direction and control of Commonwealth flax undertakings, which produce the major part of Australia’s requirements. The bounty will, of course, be payable on the same basis to the only other producer, the Blackwood Flax Cooperative Company Limited, of Boyup Brook, Western Australia.

It will be recalled that the Flax Industry Act received the Royal Assent on the 15th April, 1953. Before it could be brought into operation, however, a sharp fall occurred in the overseas price for flax fibre. Users of Australian flax fibre were thus placed in a difficult position in regard to meeting competition from overseas. It was found necessary, therefore, to reduce the price paid by spinners of Australian flax fibre to the level at which comparable grades of fibre could be imported. Pending examination of the industry by the Tariff Board, establishment of the Flax Commission was deferred. The Tariff Board in its report on the flax industry, which was tabled in the Parliament last month, recommended that a bounty should be paid on flax fibre produced during the next two years. There was, in the Board’s opinion, scope for some improvement in costs of production of the local industry by the introduction of modern plant and machinery. The board considered that the position should be examined in two years’ time, when the economies expected to result can be measured and the need for assistance to the industry re-assessed. The Tariff Board also considered that, if these economies are effected, the industry has sound opportunities for success. In order to ensure sufficient pro duction of flax to supply the requirements of the Australian spinning and weaving industries, some assistance is necessary. Assistance by subsidy is granted in most overseas countries enjoying a good standard of living.

The Blackwood Flax Co-operative Company Limited, a grower-owned organization operating in Western Australia, is at some disadvantage with the Flax Production Commission, as all the spinning mills, which use the flax fibre, are situated in the eastern States.. The board has recommended that flax fibre produced by the co-operative be ‘ purchased by .the commission at a price which will take into account the pooling of freight from Western Australia^ and its spread over the cost of the whole of the flax fibre produced and sold in the Commonwealth. The .Government will ensure that equitable treatment is afforded to the Western Australian section of the industry. Bounty is more appropriate than import duties as a method of assistance to this industry, particularly while it is re-organizing. In addition, import duties on flax fibre would require corresponding increases in the duties on finished products and would .be unsuitable and ineffective because of the frequent wide fluctuations in world prices of fibre. The Tariff Board has recommended, and the Government has adopted the recommendation, that a bounty of .£35 a ton of flax fibre would he appropriate at a parity price level of about £330 c.i.f.e. a ton for standard grade B “fibre. This rate is to be adjusted according to fluctuations in that price level.

I need not stress the importance from a defence point of view of ensuring an adequate supply of flax fibre and of maintaining the facilities to enable it to be processed. The Government considers that the provisions of this bill will materially assist the economic and efficient production of Australia’s requirements of flax fibre.

It is proposed to again refer the question of assistance to this industry to the Tariff Board for further inquiry at the appropriate time. I commend the bill for favorable consideration.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Allan Fraser) adjourned.

page 2412

QUESTION

ORDER’ QF BUSINESS

Motion (by Sir ERIC HARRISON proposed -

That Order of the Day No. 1, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this’ day.

Mr. CALWELL (Melbourne) [11.12J. - The Opposition will vote against this proposal of the Government to deprive honorable members of the opportunity to bring before this House matters which they have no opportunity to ventilate other than on “ Grievance Day “. L point out that “ Grievance Day “ occurs once every three weeks, but we have not had a “ Grievance Day “ debate for a long time. Members on the back benches on the Government side, and all Opposition members are prevented by the repeated postponements of “ Grievance Day “ from bringing to the. attention of Ministers matters of urgent public importance. The Government does not provide an opportunity for private members to raise those matters on the motion for the adjournment of the House at the end of a sitting. Last night, the Government made a gesture, and proposed to allow honorable members to raise certain matters on the adjournment, but Government supporters had the House counted out. In the past reasonable opportunities have been provided ‘ for honorable members ever since the establishment of the Commonwealth Parliament to bring matters’ to the attention of the Government, but when “ Grievance Day “ is postponed repeatedly, the Parliament becomes, merely a machine for registering support .for Government decisions. Honorable members opposite roll into the chamber when the division bells ring, but they have no opportunity to raise matters on behalf of their own electors. Most honorable members probably desire to get away from Canberra as quickly as possible, but the Opposition believes that “Grievance Day” should not be postponed this morning. I do not wish, to delay the proceedings any longer, but I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison), who is in charge of the House, to inform me when the Government proposes to provide an opportunity for honorable members to state their views on matters which they consider arc of importance. We shall divide the House on the motion.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.-! support the protest of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) against . the proposal of the Government to postpone “ Grievance Day “ once again. Opposition members desire to raise many matters of vital importance to their electorates. W e have no opportunity to raise those matters on the motion for the adjournment of the House at the end of the day. I, personally, have a number of problems which I intended to air this morning in the “ Grievance Day “ debate. It now appears that I shall not have the opportunity to refer to those matters. The Government may have urgent and pressing problems to ,brine before the House., but the fact remains that the only opportunity that private members have to bring matters of importance to the notice of Ministers is on “ Grievance Day “. I do not know whether all Government members are satisfied with the state of affairs in their electorates but when all is said -and done-

Mr Leslie:

– ‘Will the honorable member take his tongue from his cheek?

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) talks more and says less than any other member of the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr DALY:

– The fact remains that if Government supporters are satisfied with conditions in their electorates, Opposition members are not satisfied with conditions in their electorates. I desired this morning to discuss the price of tea, and a number of other subjects which have an important bearing on the lives of the people, and particularly the people in my electorate, but I am to be denied the right to raise those matters to-day. You, Mr. Speaker, will recollect that the Labour Government showed a sympathetic understanding of and respect for the rights of private members, and we were given an opportunity on “Grievance Day” to discuss matters which affected our electorates. The record of the present Government is significant in this respect that private members have been given little opportunity to raise matters which affect their electors. Like the honorable member for Melbourne, I believe that we on this side of the House should register our protest against the proposal of the Government to deprive us of “ Grievance Day “. I invite Government members, who claim from time to time that they believe in the rights of private members, to say a few words in support of the fight that we on this side of the House are making to preserve the rights of all private members. If Government members think that the postponement of “ Grievance Day “ does not matter, let them say so. I believe that this Government is consistently whittling away the rights of honorable members to debate matters which affect their electorates. We are unable to raise these matters on the adjournment because the gagmaster who is sitting at the table, refuses to allow us to do so. With other members of the Opposition 1 register my protest against the Government’s decision. During the current sessional period, which is now about to close, not one “ Grievance Day “ has been allowed to honorable members to discuss matters of importance to their electors and to the people generally. Undoubtedly, the Government is anxious to cover up its inability to face up to certain problems, and its shortcomings in matters on which honorable members desire to raise questions which, obviously it does not wish to answer. I trust that during the next sessional period the Government will do justice to the minority in the Parliament and afford the opportunity presented by “ Grievance Day “ to debate matters of great importance to the people. I again emphatically protest against the Government’s decision. I regret that justice disappeared from the Parliament with the advent of this Government. With the connivance of honorable members opposite the Government has whittled down the rights of members on this side of the chamber. Government supporters should realize that even though we on this side are in a minority in the Parliament, nevertheless the Opposition represents a majority of the electors in both this chamber and the Senate.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Mr James:

– That is very unfair; you are the gagmaster-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr James:

– I withdraw it, and say that the Vice-President of the Executive Council restricts debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is a division desired ?

Opposition Members. - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I direct attention to the fact that a quorum has not been present since questions without notice concluded.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mk. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 43

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2414

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th October. (vide page 2403), on motion by Sir Philip McBbide -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LAWRENCE:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · LP

– When the debate was adjourned last evening, I was expressing my pleasure at the fact that honorable members opposite supported the bill; and, in those circumstances, I suggested that the measure should have a speedy passage. However, I wish to deal briefly with a few aspects of the bill. Before doing so, I should like to say that I am proud to represent one of the greatest wheatgrowing areas in Australia, which was described recently as the “bread-basket of Victoria “. I congratulate the wheatgrowers of that State and, indeed, the growers in many other parts of Australia, on the recent excellent rains which will again ensure an excellent crop. I congratulate them even more so on having in office in this Parliament, a government which is interested in their problems and which has for its leader a man who was born in the heart of the Wimmera. Tomorrow, I shall travel with the right honorable gentleman to Jeparit to participate in the celebration of “back to Jeparit week”, where I know the people ‘ will voice appreciation of all that the Prime Minister and his Government and honorable members who support him have done in their interests.

This measure should have been introduced twelve months ago. Its introduction was delayed by the Victorian Government, and that delay has involved great loss of time, money and patience. The Victorian Government held out on the proposed guaranteed price which had been agreed to by the other five States. Having regard to the result of the ballot that was taken among the growers on the proposed stabilization scheme, the Victorian Government must now feel that it has taken a knock-out blow in this matter. The vote in favour of the stabilization plan represented a majority of 8.5 to 1 in Western Australia, 11.7 to 1 in South Australia, 15.4 to 1 in New South Wales, 42 to 1 in Queensland and 47.2 to 1 in Victoria. The last figure indicates that the wheat-growers of Victoria disapproved strongly of the action of their Premier in delaying the introduction of this legislation. The attitude of Victorians was reflected also in the voting at the last general election, when the Government parties received magnificent support. In fact, Victorian voters returned an additional member to this side of the House. Although most of the blame has been laid at the door of the Victorian Government, I believe that it was merely the ready tool of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party, which selected the Victorian Government to veto the proposal because Labour held none of the wheat-growing electorates in that State and knew that the use of the veto would not prejudice the chances of any of its sitting members at the next general election. It realized, of course, that it had no chance of winning any of the Victorian wheat-growing electorates away from the Government parties.

There are many clauses in the bill which deserve commendation, but I shall refer to only a few of its provisions. The first of these will authorize the Australian Wheat Board to continue to acquire and market Australia’s wheat. Although I do not know much about the members of the board from other States, I am able to pay a special tribute to the two growermembers from Victoria, Mr. Nick Pearse and Mr. Cliff Everett, who have done a remarkably good job for growers in that State. I refer also to the Commonwealth guarantee, which may be called upon if the amount of the stabilization fund at any time is not sufficient to meet the needs of the plan. During the last 30 or 40 years, the wheatgrowers of Australia have been assisted only in a small way by the Commonwealth. Over the period from 1931 to 1935, successive governments had to provide financial assistance to the growers to enable them to continue in the industry. These are the sums that were granted -

At first sight, that may appear to be a large measure of assistance, but it is really minute in comparison with the wonderful contributions that the wheatgrowers have made to Australia’s economy through concessional sales of wheat to other countries and the low home consumption prices that they have received when world parity prices have been high. I do not need to go into details because the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton) has on many occasions in this House told of the huge contributions that the wheat-growers have made to the economy in those ways. Although various sums have been mentioned, we can safely say that such contributions have exceeded £200,000,000. I shall not discuss the bill any longer Mr. Speaker, because I agree with you that, when both sides of the House are in agreement on a bill, it should have a speedy passage.

Mr LEMMON:
St. George

.- I rise to support the bill. I do so because the Labour party realizes that the wheat industry is the second most important primary industry of Australia. It is second, of course, only to the wool industry, and it plays a significant part in building up our overseas trade balances, which are vital to the trade and commerce of Australia. I have pleasure in supporting the bill alsobecause I am one of those who for many years have endeavoured to have a stabilization plan placed on our statute-book. It is very interesting for members of the Labour party to see a Liberal-Australian Country party Government for the first time bring before this Parliament a comprehensive wheat stabilization plan. I vividly remember hearing my father speak of the birth of the Country party. It was formed 38 years ago, and one of the main planks of its platform from the outset was a proposal for a compulsory wheat pool. The party came to life in the queen State of Victoria and successfully nominated candidates for the State Parliament in wheat-growing districts.

Those first Country party members of the State Parliament said that they would endeavour to have legislation enacted for the purpose of establishing a compulsory wheat pool. That was the No. 1 plank of their platform. What happened? The natural ally of the new party was the Labour party, and the Labour party said to it, “ We will support your proposal for a compulsory wheat pool. We realize that the merchants like Dreyfus, Bunge and John Darling stand between those who produce the food of the country, and the workers, who constitute the great mass of the consumers “. That is why the Labour party held out the hand of friendship to the Country party 38 years ago. It wanted to enact a plan like the one which is now to be put into effect, 38 years later, by a Government in which the Australian Country party is a partner. But the Nationalist party Premier of Victoria at that time said, “ This scheme is worse than socialism. These Country party representatives are nothing but a band of syndicalists. They are worse than the socialists “. Apparently at that time the interests that are now represented by the Liberal party considered the Country party to stand somewhere between the socialists and the communists. In fact, the Nationalists were so gravely concerned at that time that they dissolved the State Parliament. But the wheatgrowers of the State returned to the Parliament a strong little band of representatives of the Country party.

What did the Nationalist party do next ? It said, “ This is no good “, and it invited the Country party to come into its parlour, like the spider and the fly. It welcomed the Country party members in and said, “ We shall give you so many portfolios in the Cabinet provided that you sell so many of your principles “. And so, for 38 long years, the party that now bears the name of the Liberal party has been able to swallow up the Country party by offering it a few portfolios as prizes. The Country party has continued to surrender its principles for place and pay. But our friends who rode into Parliament on the back of the unfortunate wheat-growers 38 years ago have now seen the light ! The great socialistic experiment of wheat stabilization is to become the proclaimed law of the land under a combined Liberal-Australian Country party coalition! What a great influence the Labour party has been for the good of the wheat-growers. It was the Labour party which first introduced wheat stabilization in the immediate postwar years. The Country party again sold out its principles for pay on that occasion and stumped the country, throughout the wheat-growing areas, endeavouring to persuade the farmers to have nothing to do with this socialistic scheme.

Mr Turnbull:

– That is not true, and the honorable member knows it.

Mr LEMMON:

– It is true. The records prove it is true. The fact is that the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), who is now deputy leader of tie Australian Country party, stumped the country in an attempt to organize opposition to Labour’s wheat stabilization scheme.

Mr Turnbull:

– The honorable member cannot name one meeting at which the Minister opposed that stabilization plan.

Mr LEMMON:

– The honorable member for Mallee may be one who saw the light earlier. If he is, I compliment him. The Minister stumped the country in an attempt to persuade the wheat-farmers not to have anything to do with the socialist scheme that the Australian Labour party proposed. In their wisdom and experience, the conservative wheatgrowers, who produce the wealth from Australia’s wheat lands, have decided, by a majority of approximately 48,000 to 2,000, that Labour’s socialist scheme was good. So strong has been their pressure, not only upon the Australian Country party, but also upon the Liberal party, that the members of those two parties have now seen the light and have decided to adopt this form of practical socialism by which the nation’s wealth shall guarantee the stabilization plan. It is for that reason that Labour supports the bill. The Australian Labour party was the first political party in Australia to introduce a wheat stabilization scheme and to guarantee to wheat-growers returns at least equal to the cost of production. Labour was the first party to take legislative action to give effect to the principles on which the Country party was founded 38 years ago.

I do not support several features of this bill. I believe that the term of five years for the stabilization scheme is too short. I recall the time when the Labour Government submitted to the Parliament a five-year stabilization plan. The present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who was then a member of the Opposition, roundly condemned that scheme on the ground that it was for far too short a term. He expressed it as the opinion of experts that at that time, which was soon after the conclusion of World War II., the fertility of Australia’s wheat lands had declined because the land had been neglected and superphosphate had been in short supply during the war. He argued that the world carry-over of wheat was small and that it was logical that the stabilization scheme should operate for ten years. At that time prices in the world’s markets were rising, but no one foresaw that they would attain the heights to which they rose in the post-war years and that buyers would pay 15s., 16s., 17s. and at times as much as 21s. a bushel for wheat. If there was logic at that time in the argument that a stabilization plan should operate for ten years, there is far more logic in a similar argument to-day, because stabilization is now far more necessary to give the industry time to adjust itself to the downward trend of prices in the world’s markets.

The wheat industry has been a political football for a long time. It has suffered tremendously from variations of prices. I began, growing wheat in 1932, and I know that good farming practices do much to overcome the problem of droughts, and that proper scientific methods of cultivation do much to eliminate disease in the crops. Wheat farmers are still subject to the ravages of fires, droughts and floods, but the greatest hazard of all is the danger of a fall in prices. I have sold wheat at ls. 8d. a bushel and at more than 12s. a bushel. I did not enjoy the recent very high prices because I left the industry about the time farmers began to receive them. The hazard of price reductions threatens the industry again, and I warn wheat-growers that there are danger signals in the world’s markets and that they should take a reef in their sails and be very careful not to pay excessively high prices for wheat properties. Obviously, the argument that the scheme now proposed should operate for ten years is much more logical than were the arguments of the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture when Labour first introduced a wheat stabilization scheme. “We are now trying to sell wheat on a falling market. The stabilization scheme would give greater benefit, not only to wheat-growers, but also to the Australian economy generally, if it would ensure stable prices for ten years instead of five years. The stability of prices in the wheat industry has an important influence on the stability of Australia’s economy.

I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill, because the Australian Labour party is anxious that it should become law, but I wish to mention one other matter. If the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture should ever lose his seat in this chamber he would have no difficulty in obtaining a position with Wirth’s circus or Bullen Brothers’ circus, for he is one of the greatest political acrobats that I have ever seen in action. He turned not one somersault, but two or three. The Minister waxed eloquent, at the time the Chifley Government introduced the first wheat stabilization scheme, in protesting that the Labour Government intended to acquire all the wheat produced by the growers and put it under the control of a Minister of the Crown. He asked why Labour did not intend also to put all boot and shoe factories under ministerial control and to force them to sell shoes to the workers at half the normal prices. He argued that Labour’s stabilization scheme would force wheat-growers to accept prices half as high as they would otherwise be able to obtain, and he stated that the stabilization scheme should be entirely under the control of the wheat-growers. But what do we find in this bill? It provides not only that the Government may take £20,000,000 from the wheat-growers to finance a stabilization fund, but also that the scheme shall be completely under ministerial control. This is to be done in accordance with the wishes of the very Minister who attempted to amend

Labour’s wheat stabilization legislation in an endeavour to remove all ministerial control from the Australian “Wheat Board. The Minister has turned a double somersault, rolled over to the side of the House opposite to that on which he then sat, and prepared a measure to provide for complete ministerial control and for contributions from wheat-growers at the record total of £20,000,000. The Australian Country party has taken 38 years to turn one somersault, but its versatile deputy leader, in the last two years, has turned a double somersault and sponsored a wheat stabilization scheme completely contrary to the principles in favour of which he argued when Labour introduced the first stabilization scheme for the wheat industry.

I conclude by saying that the bill is a good one, and that the Government has been wise to introduce it, because it will help to give stability to the wheat industry and to Australia’s economy: As I stated earlier, the wheat industry is the second in order of importance of Australia’s export industries. An industry of that importance demands the attention of all members of the Parliament. It is for that reason that the Australian Labour party has much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr FAILES:
Lawson

.- At the outset, I point out that the introduction of this bill represents a very definite personal triumph for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen). The right honorable gentleman has been criticized by honorable members opposite, who now state that they will support the bill because they believe it is the right thing to do for the wheat-farmers.

Mr James:

Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the state of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I again direct the attention of the House to the fact that there has not been a quorum since approximately one minute after the last division. [Quorum formed.’)

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must direct the attention of the House to the fact that it seems to be thought, in some quarters, that it is the responsibility only of the Government to maintain a quorum. That is not my view. The responsibility rests equally upon the Opposition. Excluding myself, there are 21 Government members and nineteen Opposition members in the chamber. If the Opposition is not interested in maintaining a quorum, T suggest to the Government that there is no point in proceeding with the discussion. I could not call it a debate.

Mr FAILES:

– I stated that the introduction of this bill represents a personal triumph for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who has worked indefatigably to produce a measure that will give to that industry the stability which it deserves. When the honorable, member for St. George (Mr. Lemmon) criticized the Minister’s efforts on behalf of the wheat-growers, surely he entirely overlooked the fact that he, himself, who was a practical wheat-farmer for approximately twenty years, was dumped by the wheat-growers of his electorate in Western Australia, and that, to ensure reelection to the Parliament, he nominated for a metropolitan electorate that comprised mainly commercial interests. Such an occurrence is relatively common. The interests of the wheat-growers are not upheld in this chamber, except by those honorable members who are fully acquainted with their problems. The support that is now offered by the Opposition is limited by only two criticisms of the bill. One of those criticisms is that the term of the proposed scheme is too short. The other criticism is that the Minister proposes to take to himself certain powers of direction. It is a wellknown fact that, before this measure wa3 introduced, the question of stabilization was the subject of continued discussions with representatives of the wheatgrowers’ organizations over many years. It was the subject of complete investigation by those organizations, by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, and by the Minister. The bill is the outcome of a ballot that was conducted by the States so that the wheat-growers could indicate whether they were prepared to accept the scheme or to continue under the existing system of trading.

I do not wish to discuss the history of the negotiations. That has been dealt with very adequately by the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Lawrence), who reminded honorable members that it was because of the defection of the Victorian Labour Government that the bill was not introduced a long time ago. At about that time, namely, October, 1953, the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) stated that when the Australian Labour party was returned to office - he assumed that it would he returned - it would have difficulty in reaching agreement with the States and the wheatgrowers’ organizations. He further stated that the Labour party would be trusted to a greater degree than was the present Minister. The remarkable thing is that, when the ballot was taken, 97.9 per cent, of the Victorian growers voted in favour of the proposal. In that State, 12,280 growers voted in favour of the proposal, and 260 growers voted against it. If that is not sufficient reason for stating that a very great tribute has been paid to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, I ask honorable members to examine the figures for the other States. In Queensland, 97.6 per cent, of the growers voted in favour of a wheat stabilization scheme; in New South Wales, 93.9 per cent.; in South Australia, 92.1 per cent.; and, in Western Australia, 89.5 per cent. There is a reason for the lower vote in Western Australia. That State has not as much to gain, because it does not produce, for export, a similar quantity of wheat to that which is produced by the eastern States. Consequently, the growers of that State, probably, are not as interested in the stabilization proposals as are the growers in the eastern States. The total percentage of growers who voted in favour of the proposed scheme was 94.1 per cent.

A comparison of the vote that was taken on this occasion with that which was taken during the regime of the Labour Government is rather interesting. Although approximately 46,000 growers of a total of 70,000 were prepared to vote in favour of a stabilization scheme that has been formulated, and which will be administered, by this Government, in 1948 only 29,900 of approximately the same total number of growers were prepared to support the scheme that was then proposed. The honorable member for St. George stated that the scheme that was formulated by the Labour Government was opposed by the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. I challenge the honorable member to indicate any meeting at which the Minister opposed that scheme. The Labour party received very little support for the scheme that it proposed, out the scheme that has been formulated by this Government, in cooperation with the wheat-growers’ organizations, has received the remarkable support of 94.1 per cent, of the growers.

During this debate there has been almost no discussion about the bill itself. Most, if not all, of the discussion has been in relation to matters that are incidental to the bill. For instance, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) stated that the Government had been dilly-dallying over this scheme for the last three years, although he stated that possibly, to a certain degree, one State was to blame. I remind the honorable member that there has been no dillydallying. There has been nothing but a concerted effort by the Minister, and the Government, to bring into line those States which claimed that they were supporting the wheat-growers - the Labour States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. The task of the Minister has been to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable, and to try to bring into line those people who gave lip service to the growers, but used ‘their positions to hold out so that the wheat-growers could not get the benefit of a stabilization scheme. It is well known to the growers, the House and the public that, we cannot have an Australia-wide wheat stabilization scheme unless each State agrees to pass complementary legislation to bring it into effect. Every State in Australia except one, together with the wheatgrowers, approved of this Government’s stabilization proposals; but Victoria, purely for party political purposes would not co-operate. Then the famous Pollard scheme was put to the wheat-growers at the last general election, and comple’tely rejected by them. At that stage the Victorian Government capitulated, and accepted the scheme. The fact that 97.9 per cent, of the wheat-growers supported the Government’s scheme, indicates the support that they afforded to their repre sentatives who were trying to bring the scheme into operation.

The honorable member for Parkes said that every silo and every bulkhead in the country was swollen with wheat. That shows how little he knows about the wheat position at the present time. In fact, he has no conception of the present position. The true position is that almost every silo and bulkhead in New South Wales has been cleared of last season’s wheat, in preparation for the handling of the new crop. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has put a scheme into operation immediately, without getting the concurrence of the States, in order to increase the storage space available for wheat. He made money available from the Commonwealth Bank under guarantee to the Australian Wheat Board, so that emergency bulkheads could be built to provide for a possibly large harvest this year. Three million, five hundred thousand pounds has been supplied for that purpose. The States were asked to indicate the storage space that they required, and when they supplied their figures the necessary allocations were made. The honorable member for Parkes has not, told us that when the scheme was introduced, the Labour members of State parliaments were going around their electorates telling the wheat-farmers that they would give them a bulkhead here and another there, but not explaining ‘that those bulkheads would be built because this Government had provided the money necessary to build them.

Mr Curtin:

– What rot!

Mr FAILES:

– The honorable member for Watson, who interjected, represents an electorate composed of some of the inner suburbs of Sydney. That will indicate how much he appreciates the difficulties of the wheatgrowers. It is only the members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party in this House, who understand the problems of the wheat-growers and are prepared to help solve them.

I now desire to refer to some matters that have cropped up in connexion with the stabilization scheme. They have been mentioned in Muster, the official organ of the Graziers Association of New South Wales. An article published in that newspaper on the 26th October may convey the wrong impression, and I therefore wish to correct it. The article reads, inter alia -

The new features are:

Any .money remaining in the Wheat Stabilization Fund at the end of the five-year stabilization period will be held by the Commonwealth Government.

The Government is to have power to issue directions to the Australian Wheat Board on wheat selling policy.

It is quite apparent to honorable members that ministerial direction has existed in previous stabilization schemes, but the difference between previous schemes and the present scheme is that under other schemes the Australian Wheat Board could do certain things, only providing the Minister was agreeable. It is true that in the new bill the Minister will have wider powers, and may give directions to the board about its functions. However, the wheat-growers’ organizations were aware of that provision before they voted for the introduction of the stabilization scheme. They knew tha: the Minister was insisting that no responsible Minister could pledge his government, and the country, to guarantee money to the Australian Wheat Board for, perhaps, 100,000,000 bushels of export wheat, unless he had some control over the operations of the board. Therefore, it is quite logical that the ministerial direction should be continued during the currency of the new act. Indeed, the honorable member for Lalor commented on that feature when the wheat marketing legislation was introduced last year. I believe that provision for ministerial direction is quite proper, but I do think that it should be limited to that period of the operation of the act when the Government’s actual guarantee is involved. If the board is selling wheat at a price for which the Government has no responsibility, say 16s., 17s. or 18s., I do not see why the Minister should have any direction over the sales.

Honorable members have an unpleasant recollection of a certain sale made under ministerial direction to New Zealand. However, the Minister told a meeting of representatives of the Australian Wheat Growers’ Federation, that if the Commonwealth wished to arrange a sale at. concessional” prices, the Commonwealth would make up the difference to the Australian Wheat Board. That is the point. If the Minister is prepared, for governmental reasons, to direct the board, it is reasonable that the Government should be prepared to make up any loss on those concessional sales. It is not a matter of giving the Minister power to direct the Australian Wheat Board; it is entirely a matter of how he may exercise the power so given. The growers have confidence in the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and that confidence is expressed in the vote that they have given in favour of the scheme that ho has put forward. As long as he remains Minister, the growers will not have any worries about his administration of the scheme.

The next matter to be dealt with is the price of wheat. I believe that the representatives of the people who buy wheat for stock feed, such as the representatives of the poultry, pig and dairy stock farmers, may believe that their industries should be getting wheat at a cheaper price than they are now paying. Well, there is merit in their desire to buy stock feed at the cheapest possible price, but I point out to them that the Australian Wheat Board is prepared to sell to them wheat at the International Wheat Agreement price, or .14s. a bushel, whichever is the less, provided that the price is not less than the cost of production. It is not reasonable that the wheat farmers should subsidize any other industry by selling at less than the cost of production of wheat, and as the cost of production is 12s. 7d. a bushel, the difference between 12s. 7d. and 14s. is very small. I do not believe that a difference of a few pence one way or another will make or break any industry concerned. However, that is a matter for further discussion between those industries and the Australian Government. I suggest that the price arranged is quite fair, and I do not believe that there should be any complaint on that score from the representatives of the stock feed industry.

Mr Hulme:

– Provided it is good quality wheat.

Mr FAILES:

– That is so. But the price I have quoted is for bulk fair average quality wheat on rail at ports, and if the poultry industry buys wheat that is not of fair average quality it should not pay that price for it, because there is no provision in the bill and there has been no suggestion that that price should be paid for anything other than fair average quality wheat. There is a tendency on the part of stock feeders to buy their wheat from merchants. If they do so, they must pay something extra for the handling that it receives. I point out to them that they can buy direct from the Australian Wheat Board in truck lots, and it is logical that they should arrange some co-operative buying scheme to get their wheat at the lowest possible price.

I now wish to deal with clause 2S of the measure, because a similar clause has not appeared in any previous wheat measure. That clause deals with the disposal of funds which have been built up, and indeed is the meat of the whole bill. The Government believes that if it is prepared to guarantee some money for export wheat, the growers should participate in building up their own funds. The growers have indicated that they are prepared to do that, up to £20,000,000, by a levy or tax on export wheat, under certain conditions. One condition is that the tax should not be more than ls. 6d. a bushel and should be the difference between the cost of production and the export price. Therefore, the amount might vary from year to year between nothing and ls. 6d., according to the export price. The fund may exceed £20,000,000, and so provision is made in the bill for repayment in the form of a revolving fund so that the principle of first in first out will apply. If. at the end of the five-year period, it should be decided not to continue with a stabilization scheme, the means must be arranged to repay the funds to the growers. In Muster of the 26th October, it was stated that at the end of the period the money in the Wheat Stabilization Fund would be held by the Australian Government. T point out that it is made specially clear in the bill- that if there is more than £20,000.000 in the fund, the Minister may, upon the recommendation of the board, and after consultation with the Treasury, approve the payment of the whole of the excess for the benefit of the growers. After a scheme has been agreed to, it would be foolish to disperse the money in the fund, and it would be more sensible to retain it for a following scheme. In the event of the scheme notbeing proceeded with, the money must be refunded to the growers.

I am in conflict with other honorable members about the method by which the money should be refunded under the bill. The bill sets out that the money will be refunded so as to establish a revolving fund, and a revolving fund will occur provided there are no withdrawals from the fund. However, the bill provides that if contributions are made, say, in the first and second years, and in the following year the export price does not reach the cost of production, it will be necessary to withdraw some money from the fund and put it into that particular pool. It could happen, after money had been paid into the fund for one or two pools, that there would be a collapse of the market and the total amount in the fund at that time could be withdrawn to bring the price of wheat in the third pool up to the cost of production. Later, as the fund builds up and payments became necessary because it exceeds the £20,000,000, or because it completely expires at the end of the five years, one would expect that those repayments would be made first to the No. 1 pool, then to the No. 2 pool, and so on. But as the first and second amount which had been paid in would have been absorbed in making up the loss on the third year, growers who participated in those two pools would not receive anything from this fund. I consider that the wheat growers associations should fully understand that position, because, in my opinion, it is in conflict, to some degree, with what they believe is to apply. Many wheat-growers believe that if there is a distribution from this fund, it will be on some proportionate basis to the growers who have contributed to it; but the bill indicates definitely that there is a cut-off period if the fund is drawn upon to make up a loss caused by the sale of wheat in the pool of a particular year. All the contributors before that date will have lost their money, or a part of their money, and only those who have contributed later than that date will get any advantage from the later distributions.

I raise those points only in passing. They are matters of very great detail, and may never arise for consideration at all. They are not ones that should delay the passage of the bill. I have such confidence in the Minister, the Department of Commerce and Agriculture and this Government that I know that a hill would not be introduced which had not received their full consideration, because throughout, an attempt has been made to produce a measure which conforms in every respect to the desire to the wheatgrowers themselves. I mention those matters because, whilst they may have been considered by the wheat-growing interests, they may not he fully understood. However, I believe that when they are fully understood, they will be appreciated and accepted.

The provision for a Ministerial direction which must inevitably follow a bill providing for a Ministerial guarantee, is reasonable, but I think that, perhaps, we are depending, and must depend, on retaining in office the right Minister to administer that direction. I believe that the administration of the fund, at the end of the five-year period, will have been so successful that the matter of repayments will not arise in the conditions which I have indicated, and that the fund will continue, possibly indefinitely, to the benefit of the growers and the people of Australia as a whole.

Mr Haylen:

– I rise to order. I desire to refer to a most important pronouncement which you, Mr. Speaker, made at the commencement of the speech of the honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes) in relation to maintaining a quorum in the House. I understand that you have said that it is part of the duty of the Opposition to keep a quorum in the chamber. I should like you to inform me of the authority that you have for that statement. It is the unwritten law that the Government must maintain a quorum for its own business, and whilst the interest of the Opposition is essential, it is not the duty of the Opposition to assist the Government to maintain a quorum in order that progress may be made with the consideration of legislation. If your statement, Mr. Speaker, implicates the Opposition, I should like to point out to you two differences of opinion on the matter-

Mr Francis:

– I rise to order. The Standing Orders provide that a point of order must be taken immediately the matter in question arises. The honorable member for Parkes is referring to a matter that has no relation to this bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron) - Order ! The honorable member for Parkes is out of order. He should have raised the matter when I made my statement.

Mr Haylen:

– This is the penalty of courtesy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is nothing to prevent the honorable member from raising the matter at a future time, when no question is before the Chair.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

.- I intend to speak briefly on this bill,. as there seems to be general agreement on it among honorable members on both sides of the House. I support the honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes), who has congratulated the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) on his success in obtaining the agreement of all the States to this stabilization plan. He has had a most difficult joh. I was interested to read that the Minister for Agriculture in New South “Wales, Mr. Graham, is now claiming that the stabilization plan should be called the Graham plan.

Mr Fuller:

– Quite true.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– All I can say is that I am very surprised indeed, because Mr. Graham did not support the plan during the last general election campaign. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller), if he will read the statements made by Mr. Graham during his election tour, will find that he advocated support for the plan put forward by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard). As we all know, that plan could have cost this community a tremendous amount of money, which has been variously estimated at anything from ?20,000,000 to ?25,000,000 in one year, if the world market price had dropped by a considerable amount. I merely say that it is peculiar to find that Mr. Graham now supports the stabilization plan under consideration.

However, I desire to refer more particularly to the problem of the large surplus of wheat on hand in Australia. That matter was mentioned by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) last night. In passing, I congratulate him on making such a fine speech, because we know that it was prepared at very short notice. The honorable member mentioned the frightening surpluses of wheat which are threatening not only Australia but also many other countries. Wheat has had its ups and downs probably more frequently than any other primary product in Australia. In fact, there is a story which aptly illustrates those fluctuations, and I shall tell it to the House. A woman in England was saying goodbye to her daughter who was about to travel to Australia. The parting words of the mother were, “ If a woolgrower proposes to you, by all means accept him, but do not in any circumstances become entangled with a wheatgrower “.

The present wheat surplus is caused by various factors, including the favorable seasons in Europe. France and Sweden have become exporting nations, and even Turkey has exported a considerable quantity of wheat. The United Kingdom has grown more than 100,000,000 bushels of wheat, which is one of the largest harvests that country has ever had. India, which is generally a good market for Australian wheat, has also produced far more wheat this year than normally. In addition, the United Kingdom has released to the millers, certain stocks of wheat which it had held for a long time, and that has caused a further glut. But by far the largest contributing factor to the situation is the United States of America. Few of us realize now that before World War II., the United States of America was only a small exporter of wheat, and that in two of the ten years before the outbreak of hostilities, actually imported wheat. Since the introduction of the price support plan, the growing of wheat in the United States of America has increased enormously, and that country now has tremendous stocks on hand. Canada and the United States of America have a combined total of 1,500,000,000 bushels, which will be difficult to dispose of, and because of that situation, the United States of America has restricted wheat acreages by 20 per cent, in the last year. Australia had an advantage compared with the United States of America in some of the sterling markets in the past, but even that advantage has disappeared, because the United States Congress recently passed legislation which permitted the acceptance of payment in the currency of the country to which the wheat was sold. The effect of that legislation is that people without dollar funds can now purchase American wheat with their own currency. I have no doubt whatever that this enormous surplus was responsible for the big affirmative vote cast by Australian wheat-growers in favour of the stabilization plan. Most wheat-growers are wondering what is to happen, and whether the bottom will fall out of the market.

The honorable member for Lawson mentioned that the Government acted very wisely when it made a loan of £3,500,000 to the Australian Wheat Board for the construction of additional storage. This has made certain that the crop can be handled quite effectively this year. But we must take a long-range view of the problem, and as the honorable member for Parkes mentioned last night, we must set out to improve the quality of our wheat. The honorable member mentioned that the protein content of wheat grown in the Riverina is low, and I am in complete agreement with that statement. One of the difficulties is that a farmer is paid for his wheat, not on the basis of its quality, but simply on a bulk basis. If woolgrowers were paid the same price for 56 quality as for the best 70 quality superfine wool, every one would grow 56’s. Exactly the same thing has happened in the wheat industry. There is a small premium on quality wheat grown mainly in the electorate of Gwydir and southern Queensland. Farmers can produce high-quality wheats in those districts, and they get a little extra payment for them. But by and large, it does not pay a farmer to grow better quality varieties because he does not get anything more for them. Therefore, a farmer continues to grow the good old Bencubbin variety, which will fill his bins for him.

How we can overcome this difficult problem, I do not know. It is even more difficult as we continue to convert to bulk- handling from bags. It is possible to keep different varieties of wheat separate from one another when they are put into bags, but it is not possible to do so when they are handled in bulk. But until the farmer is encouraged to grow wheat with a higher protein content and until he is paid more for such wheat, we shall continue to produce a soft and poor wheat which will not compete in the markets of the world with the better quality wheats grown in the United States of America and Canada.

We must reduce the number of varieties of wheat grown in Australia. We have an awful lot of varieties, and a lot of awful varieties. I think it is true to say that even that great old wheat, Federation, is still being grown in Australia. Certainly, there are a large number of varieties of wheat which State Departments of Agriculture have repeatedly declared to be out of date. They should be scrapped. I do not know how the necessary action can be done. Perhaps the Commonwealth and the States could pass complementary legislation, which would limit the number of varieties of wheat. We must produce good wheats, yet it takes something like fifteen years from the time we begin to produce a new variety until there is any quantity of it throughout the country. We have to ensure that these wheats are available, and that farmers know that certain varieties are suitable for certain areas. Then we should limit the varieties to a reasonably small number, either by legislation or by a decision to pay a bonus to a farmer who grows the improved types of wheat. For example, if a. person grows Gabo in the Riverina, lot him be paid a bonus of so much a bushel in excess of the payment to a farmer who grows Bencubbin. The whole problem is definitely most difficult. In various forms of animal breeding, people use the best bulls or rams that they can obtain, but very often a farmer just sows the wheat that happens to be left in his bin. We must eliminate the “ scrub bulls “ from the wheat industry.

Mr Turnbull:

– Metaphorically speaking!

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Of course ! Quite apart from the better types of wheat, there is an increasing tendency for farmers to engage in better methods of farming. I refer particularly to ley farming. There is no doubt that the use of ley farming’ improves the fertility of the ground, and it is often possible, by growing a wheat crop after clover ley, to get an extra quantity of wheat, with extra protein quality.

I now wish to draw the attention of the Government to an unsatisfactory aspect of the present marketing arrangement. I refer to the long delays which occur between the time a grower puts his wheat into the silo and the time when he receives full payment for it. Unfortunately, that is one of the most difficult problems associated with stabilization. I delivered wheat to the No. 17 pool but the only payment that I have received from that pool is a payment of 10s. less freight. In my electorate, that would be a net payment of approximately 8s. It is estimated that the cost of production of that wheat was 12s. 7d. a bushel, but although the wheat was harvested nearly ten months ago that is the only payment that has yet been made to growers from the pool. Obviously, the growers cannot continue to carry on under those conditions. Only the fact that they have engaged in other primary industries, such as wool and meat, has enabled them to stand over that loss. I do not know the answer to this problem, but I suggest that the Government must say to the growers either that it wants them to grow wheat on the understanding that it will attempt to pay for it within a reasonable time after delivery, or that it does not want them to grow wheat. Wool is sold shortly after it is delivered to store and payment is made to the growers within twenty-one days, whilst a person who sells stock receives payment within a shorter period. Why should wheat-growers have to wait for periods of up to two years before receiving payment for wheat that they deliver to pools? Of course, wheat takes a long time to sell; and it will take longer still. The honorable member for St. George said that in pre-war years merchants had taken down the growers. We should remember that in those days there was a voluntary pool and growers had the option of making deliveries to it or selling their wheat to merchants or millers, and, by and large, 95 per cent, of the growers sold to merchants or millers because they knew that they would receive payment in cash immediately and would not be obliged to wait for payment for periods of up to two years. I trust that the Government will consider the points that I have raised in conjunction with the State governments through the Australian Agricultural Council. That body should endeavour to evolve ways of making additional payment for better quality wheat, of reducing the number of varieties that are produced at present and of paying growers for their wheat within a reasonable period.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The Opposition supports this measure which embodies a plan for the stabilization of the wheat industry. From the comments that have already been made in the course of this debate, it is apparent that the bill has the unanimous support of honorable members. I do not intend to offer any criticism of it, but I should like to make a few comments upon the present position of the wheat industry which is of such great importance to our economy. The honorable member for St. George (Mr. Lemmon), in his splendid speech, dealt with the industry about which he has considerable knowledge. He discussed its ramifications and the fluctuation of prices over the years. He reminded us of the time when wheat was sold for ls. Sd. a bushel. Having regard to present prices, the industry has come a long way since that day. Those who were engaged in wheatgrowing at that time found it impossible to sell wheat at the price that I have indicated and enjoy security in the industry. We must stabilize the industry by assuring the grower of a fair- return and also by assuring protection for the consumer in respect of the price of wheat.

Whatever degree of stabilization the industry has enjoyed in the past has resulted from legislative action taken by Labour governments in this Parliament and in the State parliaments. The Chifley Government stabilized not only the wheat industry but also other primary industries with the result that those industries in which such plans are still in operation are flourishing.

Mr Roberton:

– Rubbish!

Mr DALY:

– The records are available for all to read. The wheat industry was stabilized as a result of legislation which was passed during the regimes of the Curtin and Chifley Labour Governments. The Minister for Defence (Sir Philip McBride), in his secondreading speech, said that the plan embodied in this bill has been endorsed at a referendum by a majority of growers. That is true. Undoubtedly, this plan has the overwhelming support of growers, but let it not be forgotten that the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), when he was Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in the Chifley Government, introduced a similar plan which also was endorsed at a referendum by a great majority of growers. Therefore, the fact that this plan has been endorsed by the growers is nothing new in legislation of this kind. Indeed, this measure follows the lines of measures that were introduced by the Chifley Government. The Minister also said -

A new wheat prices stabilization fund will need to be established, since the Government has returned to growers the balance of some £9,000,000 which stood to the credit of the fund from the last stabilization plan.

It should be remembered that the Government was forced by the Opposition, practically at bayonet point, to return that money to the growers. A by-election for the Gwydir Division was about to be held and but for that fact and the pressure that the Opposition exerted in this chamber, the Government would have withheld that money from the growers who owned it. However, the Government was obliged to capitulate on that point in order to win votes and, undoubtedly, that was one of the factors responsible for the election by a narrow majority of the candidate of the Australian Country party at that by-election.

Whilst all parties agree on this measure, the Government cannot claim all the credit for its introduction. At all times, Labour, whether it has been in government or in opposition, has realized the tremendous value of the wheat industry to the nation, and has always done its .best to ensure security for those engaged in it. Some honorable members opposite may think that I do not know much about the wheat industry. I was born and bred in a country district. My people were on the land. They grew wheat when its price was as low as ls. 8d. a bushel. They were unable to sell their crop because of the inability of governments of the same party political colour as this Government to do anything for the industry and, consequently, they were obliged to leave the land. The same fate befell thousands of families because no effective plan was evolved to stabilize the industry. It would be idle to say that this plan is perfect or that the Government has evolved it. Indeed, it is generally acknowledged that it was evolved by Mr. Graham, who is Minister for Agriculture in the New South Wales Labour Government. Honorable members opposite should remember that fact when they are inclined to bask in the sunshine, claiming that they evolved this plan. However, as I have already said, the plan does not go as far as the Opposition in this Parliament, if it had been returned to office, would have gone. During the recent general election campaign Labour announced that if returned to office it would introduce a stabilization plan for a period, not of five years, as is proposed under this measure, but of ten years, and that it would guarantee a price of 14s. a bushel for all wheat and not limit the guarantee to a quota of export wheat.

Mr Turnbull:

Mr. Turnbull interjecting,

Mr DALY:

– Where does the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) stand in respect of the plan that the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir John Teasdale, announced recently? This Government says that it has the interests of the wheat-growers at heart, yet Sir J ohn stated that the only effective policy that could be offered to the industry was to restrict acreage. Neither the

Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), nor any other Minister, has yet denied that that, ultimately, is the policy of this Government. This Government appointed Sir John Teasdale as chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, and one is entitled to conclude that he expresses its policy with respect to surplus wheat. Why should honorable members opposite,’ particularly members of the Australian Country party, sponsor a policy of reduction of acreage when millions of people in other countries, particularly Asia, are starving? I repeat that the policy embodied in this bill does not go far enough. The Opposition supports the bill, but it believes that it could be improved in many respects. As I have said, this plan has been evolved by a’ Labour Minister in a Labour State government.

We should not forget that, to-day, the United States of America has a surplus of over 900,000,000 bushels of wheat, whilst our own surplus exceeds 100,000,000 bushels. Those engaged in the industry realize that the margin between a glut and a famine is narrow and that a glut may occur in any year. Under this or any other plan, surpluses could continue to mount. Therefore, steps should be taken to safeguard the industry against gluts. I also remind the House’ that, due to the failure of this Government to agree on the price, Great Britain is not a party to the International Wheat Agreement. The Government must give urgent consideration to these matters. Whilst honorable members on this side approve of the measure in principle, we submit that the period of the plan could be extended to ten years and that a guaranteed price of 14s. a bushel should be provided in respect of all wheat. A number of improvements could well be made hi the measure if the Government was prepared to adopt the wheat policy that was enunciated by Labour during the recent general election campaign. I trust that in the future, in respect of not only the wheat industry but also all primary industries, honorable members opposite will adopt policies that will guarantee security to those engaged in them and will not again leave them victims of the system of open bargaining which prevailed when the price of wheat fell as low as ls. 8d. a bushel. The Government has a responsibility not only to ensure stability to the producer but also to protect the consumer against exorbitant prices. If it does that, it will enable the industry to operate in the interests of our economy as a whole. I trust that the Government will give urgent consideration to the constructive suggestions which I have made and which were set out ‘in the Australian Labour party’s policy during the recent general election campaign.

Sitting suspended from 124-5 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– Knowing that honorable members on both 3ides of the House support the bill, in normal circumstances I should just rise, say that I support it, and sit down again. I had thought of doing so, but, after hearing the few members of the Opposition who have discussed the stabilization of the wheat industry, I thought that I should rebut some of their remarks. It is well known that the Opposition has only one member with any knowledge of the workings of the wheat industry, and, through unavoidable circumstances, he is not in the chamber to-day. I shall discuss some of the statements made by his colleagues in his absence. The first I shall mention is the honorable member for St. George (Mr. Lemmon), who formerly was the honorable member for Forrest, in Western Australia. He said that the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) had said, when a Labour government was in power, that, if the Labour Minister had power to control the wheat industry, wheat would be sold cheaply. That is exactly what the right honorable gentleman did say, and his prophecy was proved to be absolutely true because, not very long afterwards, the Labour Government negotiated a contract for the sale of wheat to the New Zealand Government at a very low price. Of course, it was denied in this House for a long time that the Government had made a cheap sale to New Zealand, until the Opposition of the day forced the truth of the matter from it.

We admit that the right honorable gentleman made the statement in the first place, and every honorable member of the Opposition should admit that it was an accurate prophecy. The conditions of that sale may have been due to a misjudgment on the part of the Labour Minister for Commerce and Agriculture at that time. I hesitate to suggest that he made the cheap sale in order to bolster the New Zealand economy, as has been suggested in the past. Perhaps the Government of that day acted in what it believed to be the best interests of the Australian wheat industry, in the expectation that the price of wheat would fall. If so, its judgment was woefully wrong, because the price of wheat rose subsequently to the highest level recorded in Australia’s history. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) has said that the Chifley Government re-established the wheat industry.

Mr Daly:

– That is right.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honorable gentleman went further than that and said that the Chifley Government had re-established other primary industries. I could not imagine anything more ridiculous than that statement, especially as it was uttered by a man who has no knowledge of primary industries.

Every intelligent Australian knows that high prices and good seasons brought about the re-establishment of our primary industries. Governments do not rehabilitate rural industries, but people do with the assistance of governments. However, everybody should know that the wheat industry has had eight excellent seasons in succession. I have never known better seasons in the electorate that I represent. The price of wool has reached levels that were undreamt of by Australians years ago. I know of a Mr. Gill, who formerly owned “ Runnymede “ station, near Casterton, in Victoria, in the electorate of the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. McLeod). At the end of a wool season many years ago he invited all his friends to have a few drinks with him because he had topped the wool market with a price of is. per lb.!

Mr Bryson:

Mr. Bryson interjecting,

Mr TURNBULL:

– If honorable members opposite want to interject, I shall listen to them and then reply.

Mr Bryson:

– How much for rabbit fur?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryson) will apologize for that statement.

Mr Bryson:

– I apologize.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must ask for silence. Every honorable member is entitled to a fair hearing when he addresses the House.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Only this week, lambs’ wool sold at Geelong at over 400d. per lb.

Mr Haylen:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any reference in the bill to lambs’ wool, or even bulls’ wool?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) is a man well above the average in education and intelligence. I think he will agree, upon reflection, that he should not have made that remark.

Mr Haylen:

– May I revise my point of order, sir? The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) is discussing a bill which deals with wheat, but he has referred to lambs’ wool and the vagaries of the wool market over the last 50 years. I contend that such remarks are not relevant to the bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Comments of that kind are not relevant.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I agree with the point taken by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen). I rose to discuss the wheat industry, but I was answering, in passing, the proposition of the honorable member for Grayndler that the Chifley Government had re-established the wheat industry and other primary industries, including the wool industry. That statement was not correct. Prosperity was brought to the man on the land by high prices and good seasons.

Reference was made by the honorable member for Grayndler to the repayment of £9,000,000 to the wheat-growers by this Government prior to the last general election. The honorable gentleman said that the Government had repaid the money because the election was approaching and it feared that, if it did not do so, it would lose its representation in some of the wheat-growing electorates. Unfortunately, many members of the Opposition are not aware of the truth, even though it is recorded in Hansard reports of debates in this House. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture had announced six months previously that, unless the wheat-growers at a ballot approved of a stabilization scheme within six months, the money held by the Government on their behalf would be returned to them. At the expiry of the specified period, a ballot had not been held. The State governments had not been able ‘to reach agreement on a home consumption price because the Victorian Premier had held out against the proposal. Therefore, the Government merely fulfilled the promise that the Minister had made and repaid the money to the growers. That is the reply to the ridiculous statements that are made from time to time by members of the Opposition who represent metropolitan electorates.

Mr Greenup:

– The people of those electorates eat a lot of bread.

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is so, but that is about the extent of the knowledge of honorable members opposite who represent such electorates in relation to the wheat industry.

The honorable member for St. George described the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture as a great acrobat. He said that the right honorable gentleman had turned a few somersaults and rolled from the Opposition to the Government side of the House. The honorable member for St. George rolled out of the House altogether because of the way in which he and his colleagues in the former Labour Government treated the wheat industry. He was returned to this House only because he moved to an electorate where there were no wheat-growers. Honorable members cannot just roll from one side of this House to the other in the picturesque manner suggested by the honorable member for St. George. They have to present a solid policy to the people before they can be elected to office as a government, and then they have to continue to enact legislation like the bill now before the House if they wish to remain, in power. Surely to goodness the fact that this Government is pleasing the people has been burnt into the minds of the Opposition by recent events!

The honorable member for Grayndler said that the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir John Teasdale, had advocated the restriction of wheat acreage, and then he tried to attribute that declaration to government policy although the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had announced, immediately after Sir John Teasdale’s declaration had been published, that the Government did not favour any restriction of acreage. The truth is that we want as much wheat as possible to be grown. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said the same thing. The opinion expressed by Sir John Teasdale did not represent government policy, notwithstanding any assertion to the contrary by the honorable member for Grayndler.. In fact, although I have been in this House for a long time, I have never heard a more fantastic statement. If honorable members want to hear about the restriction of wheat acreage, I remind them that in Western’ Australia, when the honorable member for St. George represented the electorate of Forrest, wheat-growers were paid not to grow wheat. I have been informed, on the good authority of the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie), that some of the people who were to be paid for not growing wheat have not been paid yet for the wheat they did not grow.

Mr Greenup:

– Nobody would expect them to be paid for wheat they did not grow.

Mr TURNBULL:

– But the truth of the matter is that they were paid foi1 it-

Opposition Members. - Ha ha !

Mr TURNBULL:

– Let me finish the sentence. Wheat-growers in Western Australia were paid for wheat they did not grow, with the exception of a few men of whom I have knowledge through the honorable member for Moore. Honorable members opposite should realize that it does not always pay to jump to conclusions from a half completed statement. It did not pay them on this occasion. I can tell them something more about the restriction of wheat acreage. Just after World War II., at Sea Lake and other places in the electorate of Mallee, the

Labour Government would not allow people to strip self-sown wheat crops. Growers were allowed, under that Government’s legislation, to sow a certain acreage with wheat under licence. I remember one man who had an additional 50 acres under self-sown wheat. He was refused permission to strip it. He appealed against the decision and was again refused permission. He explained that the crop would yield seven or eight bags to the acre, and the authorities told him that he could strip it provided that he left unstripped an equivalent area of his licensed acreage. That was no good, of course, because the crop he was growing under licence was yielding ten bags to the acre. He then asked it he could strip the self-sown crop and use it for stock feed, but the answer was, “ No “, That is the sort of thing that happens when a Labour government restricts wheat acreage.

Under the Labour Government’s stabilization plan, there was no limit to the amount that could be accumulated in the stabilization fund. This bill specifies a maximum limit of £20,000,000 for the revolving fund. When the amount in the fund reaches £20,000,000, any surplus will go back to those who have contributed to it. The wheat-growers, of course, heartily approve of this method of administering the fund, because they will receive from a revolving fund any excess of contributions over the amount actually needed for the plan. Stabilization is not a cure-all for the troubles of the wheatgrowers, although I strongly support the system as I have always done. One honorable member spoke of the benefit of the plan in time of drought. The fact is that stabilization is of no help to growers if they suffer from drought. In Victoria, for example, there could be a drought in the northern wheat-growing districts but not in the rest of the State. In such circumstances, if the price of wheat fell below the cost of production, the fund would be drawn upon to increase the return from wheat acquired by the Australian Wheat Board to the minimum price specified under the plan. Bus the growers in the drought area would not benefit because they would not have any wheat. The money that they had paid in would be used to raise the price to the cost of production for the benefit of growers in southern districts where there had not been a drought. Nevertheless, stabilization is of great benefit to the wheat industry. I have always advocated it, and therefore I support the bill.

The honorable member for St. George said that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture had stumped up and down the country and opposed the Labour Government’s first stabilization plan.

Mr Greenup:

– That is true.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Of course it is true, but I point out that the Labour Government did not implement its first stabilization plan because the wheatgrowers objected to it. That plan was not in the best interests of the growers. Honorable members opposite can read in Hansard the reports of speeches in which I, and every other member of the Australian Country party in this Parliament at the time, opposed that plan. Labour threw it out and produced another plan based on our proposals. That was a sound scheme for the stabilization of the industry. It is only a half truth to say that the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in the past opposed Labour’s wheat stabilization plan. Labour’s first plan was abandoned, and when the second one was proposed, members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties pointed out that it contained anomalies, especially in relation to the amount of the stabilization fund, which are corrected by this bill. The members of those parties said at the time that, in spite of the anomalies, Labour’s second scheme would benefit the wheat-growers. New members of the Opposition should not be led astray, and should not think that the first plan that was suggested by the Australian Labour party was the one that operated for five years and ceased at the end of the 1952-53 wheat season.

Labour’s first, plan was not wanted by the wheat-growers. In the first place, it provided for funds to be taken from a pool that would not have been covered by the scheme to build up the stabilization fund, and that was one of the things that we who were then in Opposition opposed. The Australian Country party fought that scheme and, as a result, Labour adopted another scheme that was accepted by a unanimous vote of this House, and that scheme proved satisfactory, although the wheat-growers did not in fact get a penny out of the stabilization fund. A wheat stabilization scheme is somewhat similar to an insurance policy. A man who insures his motor car every year does not grumble because he gets nothing from the insurance company if nothing happens to his car. He is happy to know that in the event of his car being burnt he will be paid the amount for which it is insured. The wheat-growers paid contributions to the stabilization fund, hut received nothing in addition back from it. They were thankful to have the security of the guaranteed price for wheat. This plan will guarantee prices for another five years, and if it is successful, as I am sure it will be, it can be extended for a further five years, with continued benefit to the wheat industry.

Mr BRYSON:
Wills

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Davis:

– Surely the honorable member is not going to speak on wheat stabilization.

Mr BRYSON:

– I am not a country member, but I grow as much wheat as does the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull). Therefore, I have equally as much right as he has to speak on wheat stabilization. In fact, I probably grow as much wheat as do most honorable members. After having witnessed the display of verbal gymnastics that was given .by the honorable member for Mallee, I consider that I should answer several statements that he made. The honorable member has a very short or a very convenient memory in relation to the struggle to stabilize the wheat industry in Australia, the action that has been taken in this Parliament and the activities of the Country party in Victoria and the Victorian Farmers Union. I think that organization was the beginning of the Victorian Country party, although that party to-day is something entirely different from the Victorian Farmers Union, which organized to protect the interests of the farmers against the rapacious middlemen and brokers in an attempt to ensure that the wheat-growers should receive adequate returns for their wheat. It appears that the mem’bers of the Australian Country party are more interested in allowing wheat manipulators to make profits than in helping the wheatfarmers. I have heard a number of debates about wheat stabilization in this House, and I have a distinct recollection of the strong opposition of the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) and other members of the Australian Country party to Labour’s proposals for the stabilization of the wheat industry.

If my memory serves me right, the chief ground on which the Australian Country party opposed Labour’s wheat stabilization plan was that it was a socialist proposal and that it involved the socialization of the wheat industry. Another ground for opposition was the suggested price for wheat. Members of the Australian Country party took the attitude that the wheat-farmers should be able to sell their wheat at the highest possible price, that they were entitled to world parity price for homeconsumption wheat, and that some form of stabilization would ensure that in the event of the world parity price falling below the cost of production in Australia they would get at least the cost of production. They wanted to toss a two headed-penny on every occasion.

I welcome the stabilization of the wheat industry, and I welcome the fact that this Government has at long last recognized that stabilization is necessary and has introduced a measure somewhat similar to that which was introduced by the Labour Government in spite of the opposition of leading members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party. The wheat stabilization scheme is a little socialization, but I have no objection to a little socialization if it will improve the lot of any section of the Australian people. For that reason I support the measure. At the same time, I wish to comment upon the somersaults that have been turned by members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party over the years on the question of wheat stabilization. Their present attitude is the result merely of a death bed repentance, because they have realized that primary producers are no longer willing to allow themselves to be exploited by middlemen, that they are entitled to the fruits of their own labour and that they should not be forced, as they have been forced for many years, to share the returns from the sale of wheat with the middlemen who buy it from them at a low price and sell it on the market at the highest possible price. With the passage of the years the primary producers have been educated, though the process has been very expensive to them, and they now understand the economics of the wheat industry better than they used to do. In consequence, they now demand a fair and reasonable return for the wheat that they produce. Because the farmers have made that demand, the so-called political representatives of the primary producers who are the members of the Australian Country party, have decided that some sort of a sop must be thrown to the wheat-growers to ensure that they shall vote for the Government at election-time. That is the reason for the change of front on the part of members of the Australian Country party and of the Liberal party in relation to wheat stabilization.

On this occasion, the Government has considered the interests of one section of the community and has completely disregarded the interests of the consumers, who constitute the greater part of the population. The growers are to receive a guaranteed price of 14s. a bushel for wheat sold on the home market, and anything additional that can be obtained from sales on the overseas market. Labour’s wheat stabilization scheme was very fair. It provided that the ascertained cost-of-production price should be paid for all wheat for home consumption. The ascertained cost-of-production price allowed a reasonable profit to the farmer and gave him a fair return for his labour and the capital that he employed. But the scheme now proposed departs from the cost-of-production price basis. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain show that the costofproduction price of wheat is 12s. 7d. a bushel. I give that figure subject to correction if it is inaccurate. Although the cost-of-production price, which allows a reasonable profit, is 12s. 7d. a bushel, it is proposed that under the new scheme the wheat-grower shall receive a minimum return of 14s. a bushel, which, in effect, will allow him an excess profit of at least ls. 5d. a bushel.

We are being asked by act of Parliament to give one section of the community a greater profit on their product than they are entitled to. I do not suggest that primary producers are the only people who will be allowed to make excess profits. Daily we may read in the press that excess profits are being made at the expense of ‘the community by various business undertakings. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) repeatedly has promised to take action to draw off a proportion of those excess profits by imposing an excess profits tax, but nothing has been done. On the contrary, the Government now says, in effect, that it considers that all forms of industry and all producers should be allowed to make the highest profits they can obtain, irrespective of whether those high profits are justified. Because the Government believes that industrial enterprises should be allowed t.o make excess profits, it now proposes by act of Parliament to allow wheat-growers to make excess profits of at least ls. 5d. a bushel. It is true that, by comparison with the profits made by large industrial concerns, those excess profits will not be large. However, we must consider the position of the poor unfortunate consumer who is at the wrong end of the stick all the time. He is compelled ‘to do all the paying, but is allowed only the smallest possible return for his labour. The great mass of the wage-workers and salary-earners in Australia are employed under awards of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or of State tribunals, and there are some who are not protected by any award.

I am delighted that the wheat industry is to be stabilized and kept on a sound footing. I am anxious that primary producers shall receive adequate returns for their products, but I also am greatly concerned about the vast majority of the Australian people whose wages and salaries are pegged. The basic wage has been pegged for a considerable time. The return of at least 14s. a bushel to wheatgrowers for wheat sold on the home

Ifr. Bryson. market will increase the price of flour, and the difference between 12s. 7d., which is the ascertained cost-of-production price, and the price of 14s. a bushel will have to be met by the wage and salary earners, because the higher price will increase the cost of living. The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has determined, and this Government supports its decision, that the basic wage must remain pegged. “For the basic wage earner to buy as many loaves of bread as he used to buy, he will have to go short of some of the other necessaries of life, if the price of bread is increased as a result of the new minimum price for wheat under the Government’s stabilization scheme. The only alternative is to reduce his consumption of bread. Workers who receive margins above the basic wage are in a similar position. Their margins have been pegged. The only section of the community that is not receiving a fair deal from the Government are the people who are called upon to do the hardest part of the work. They will be hit by the additional cost, and by the additional costs that have been imposed upon them as a result of other legislation that has been passed during this session.

I do not wish to refer to other legislation, but I feel that I should direct attention to the fact that, although provision is being made to ensure that quite large sections of the community shall have a more comfortable living and that their profits shall be protected and, in many cases, increased, the section of the community that deserves th.j greatest consideration is not receiving any consideration. I do not begrudge the wheat-former a reasonable standard of living. I think he is entitled to every encouragement, and to as much protection as the Government can afford him. If the Government does not afford him protection, he will be exploited by one section or another section of the community. While the Government is protecting the interests of sectional groups, it should also afford protection to those persons who have the least chance of obtaining anything like reasonable profits. Honorable members are told that the Government has stabilized this industry and that industry, and that now it seeks to stabilize the wheat industry. I ask the Government whether it intends to stabilize the economy of the people of Australia, or whether it intends to stabilize the economy of one particular section. My opinion is that, although it seeks to stabilize things for the wheat-farmer, it will make the position much more difficult for another section of the community. It is time that the Government decided to protect the interests of that other very big section.

When a general election is held, the Government supporters are ever ready to go on the hustings and tell the workers of Australia that they belong to the real workers’ party, that they are the real representatives of the workers, that they will ensure that the workers receive a fair deal, and that their lot in life will be improved. Although we hear such statements in every corner of Australia during an election campaign, the fact remains that, as soon as those persons are returned to office, they forget completely all the promises that they have made. They proceed to introduce bill after bill, all of which tend to give greater privileges to the privileged sections of the community, and to give the wealthier sections more profits than they bad previously. We discover at the same time, however, that they are in favour of pegging the basic wage.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will the honorable gentleman please get somewhere within range of the bill?

Mr BRYSON:

– I am keeping as close as I can to it. I am sorry if I got too far away from it, but I think that, when the House is debating a measure which seeks to give a little more comfort and a little more profit to one section of the community, attention should be directed to the needs of the other sections which need Government assistance also. Generally speaking, the measure is a very good one. I point out, however, that the profits that will accrue to the wheat industry are more than reasonable in view of the labour and capital that are involved. Although I do not object to the wheatgrower receiving a little more than an average profit, I must protest when that profit is derived from a section of the community that is unable to recoup the extra cost to it. I know that the measure represents a step towards socialization. Although the Opposition is condemned, both inside and outside of the chamber, and on every public platform upon which supporters of the Government stand, as being a socialist party, the fact remains that, when those honorable members are responsible for the government of the country, they are compelled to accept, to a degree, a policy of socialism in relation to some of the measures that are introduced. I am pleased to note that the Government is becoming a little educated in that respect, but I hope that it will remember to tell the people that, in relation to some matters, socialization is not a bad thing for this country, and that measures of a socialist nature are of great assistance to the community. I hope that members of the Australian Country party, in particular, will realize that, because, by their utterances, they have shown themselves to be the greatest team of antisocialists to whom honorable members have been compelled to listen.

Government Supporters. - Hear, hear !

Mr BRYSON:

– I heard some cries of “ Hear, hear ! “ Members of the Australian Country party agree with me entirely. But, in actual practice, they have been the greatest socialists who have sat in the chamber. It is almost time that members of the Australian Country party reconsidered their position and asked themselves, “Where is our advertised policy leading us? Are we doing the things that we have advocated before the people, or are we adopting a policy that is entirely foreign to that which we have printed and which we have advocated on public platforms?” The Australian Country party advocates one policy in public and applies another in this chamber. The debate on this measure has given us an example of the queer thinking of the members of that party. The majority of them are not primary producers, but, when they meet primary producers, they should explain to them that the policies that they have been enunciating in public for many years are not in the interests of the primary producers, but that policies which are partly socialist in character are the policies that will bring more profit, more satisfaction, more comfort and more success to them. If they did that, they would be sailing under their true colours, and they would begin to realize that the policy that the Australian Labour party has been advocating for a number of years, and which it still advocates, is a much better policy than that which they have been preaching but which they have not been following. I do not mind members of the Australian Country party stealing a little of our socialist policy. I should like to see them steal a. little more when they do so, but let them be honest and let them admit that they are practising a little bit of socialism themselves, and that the socialist policy of the Labour party must be a good one, because at regular intervals they find themselves compelled to support some part of that policy. If they did that, there would be a much better Australian Country party in this chamber, and a much better government.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– I should like to reply to the statement of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryson) that this measure represents a step towards socialization. The scheme has not been imposed by the Government but has been voluntarily agreed to by the farmers. Let the honorable member, and the House, remember that the stabilization scheme has ceased to operate and that, following a majority vote in favour of it, this bill seeks to renew it, for a certain period of time only. The Government does not seek to impose control upon people, but our friends on the other side of the House would do so permanently if they had the opportunity. If the plan that has been formulated by the Labour party were put into effect, it would apply for at least ten years. This measure that is now before the House has been adopted by a group of primary producers who have discovered that world markets, world speculators, and world conditions such as the differences that exist between the Communist block and the Western free countries, could react against them in a manner that would put them out of business, and which would spoil the world’s chances of obtaining food. It is necessary to have an expedient such as the proposed stabilization scheme until world markets and conditions become more stable.

Adequate storage is necessary for primary products. Although some storage is provided, it is important to ensure that growers are willing to grow wheat every year. I think you, Mr. Speaker, know your biblical history fairly well. You will remember the story about the release of Joseph from prison because he wa3 able to furnish an answer to Pharoah’s dream. Pharoah dreamt that seven fat kine came out of the river, and that then seven lean kine came and devoured the seven fat kine. Pharoah asked whether anybody could furnish th, answer to his dream. Joseph said, “ Yes. The answer is that, if you look ahead, you will observe that there will be seven good seasons, and that there will be corn and oil in Egypt. If you neglect your opportunity of storage for those seven years, there will be starvation and famine in Egypt in the seven lean years. It will be necessary to store corn and oil in Egypt so that you will not starve during the seven lean years “. Pharoah was impressed by that story. He got rid of the other politicians who made mistakes in interpreting his dream, and he placed Joseph in charge. Even to-day, archaeologists are finding in Egypt, the old vats and storage containers in which the grain and oil was placed in those days. It behoves us, if we are to become more civilized and more fully developed, to examine the question of storage so that we shall be able to store the fruits of good years over the bad years and be able to feed, not only our own people, but also the people of other countries.

The honorable member for Wills has stated that he is anxious to support the bill because the scheme would prevent a fall in the price of wheat. On another occasion, he opposed a bill because it might cause a rise in the price of a certain commodity. Unfortunately for the honorable member, at present there is a slightly higher demand for wheat on the overseas markets. When the honorable member rose to support the political aspect of Labour’s policy, which is that of trying to attract votes in those electorates that are represented by supporters of the Government, he did not know that the demand for wheat on the world markets was rising, that the countries which import wheat have exhausted their stocks, and that they are forced to buy. I think it was the same honorable member who stated last night that he opposed the Hide and Leather Industries Act Suspension Bill. We know that in some countries the demand for leather is falling and that, by removing a control of the kind that was proposed, there should eventually be cheaper boots and shoes and of a better quality. In general, it is of no use to listen to the claims of the Labour party in relation to wheat, because, historically and traditionally, that party is the enemy of the primary producer. I wish that the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) was able to place his plan before the House, so that we might see it in all its defects. That plan contained a straight-out bribe of ls. 5d. a bushel in an effort to supplant the honorable member for Lawson (Mr. Failes), the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton), and other honorable members. It was a straightout bribe which would have cost £4,500,000 a year for ten years - a straight-out raid on the Treasury for £45,000,000. The scheme that has” been formulated by the Government need not cost the Treasury anything if present price trends continue. To the contrary, the growers will contribute ls. 6d. a bushel to a fund that will nourish the industry if the overseas price should fall later on. It is a very hollow thing indeed for the Labour party to change its attitude towards rural industries. Yesterday, the honorable member for Wills stated that he opposed another measure because, if it were accepted, prices might rise. On this occasion, he supports the measure, which is an important measure politically, because he fears that prices will fall. What are the Labour principles on rural prices ? In both instances he was wrong, because the price of leather may shortly decrease, whereas the price of wheat may increase. This bill has not received the recognition that it deserves, because it deals with wheat. Wheat is now, and always has been, one of the most important things in the world. As long as 2,000 years ago, a disciple of Plato, who wanted to enter politics, asked Socrates what he should do in order to become a politician. Socrates asked him whether he knew how much wheat it would take to feed the inhabitants of 10,000 houses. When the disciple was not able to answer him, Socrates told the young man that he was not fit to be a politician if he did not know the answer to that question. Of course all honorable members know how much wheat it takes to feed the people of Australia.

Mr Curtin:

– How much does it take?

Mr JEFF BATE:

– Apparently the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Curtin) is the only member of this House who does not know how much wheat Australia requires. For his information, I shall tell him that it takes between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 bushels of wheat to feed 10,000,000 people. Consequently, we may say that the people of Australia require approximately 4 bushels of wheat each annually. If some of the dreadful things happen to us that we are constantly reminded about by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), the will of the people to resist attack will depend to a great degree on the amount of wheat that we have stored up. If we hold enough wheat in store to feed our people and stock for a few years, I suggest that we can withstand many of the troubles with which we may be faced. Moreover, the breakfast table economy depends practically wholly on wheat, and so if honorable members believe that wheat,, and measures that deal with wheat, are not important, they are greatly mistaken. People in the pig, poultry and dairy industries also depend greatly on wheat and its offals to feed their stock.

Wheat is important to the Labour party, because honorable members of the Opposition all represent consumers of wheat, and if Australia had to import wheat the price of bread would increase greatly and our pig, poultry and dairy industries would be almost forced out of production. Many years ago we had to import wheat, but we found that the price of doing so was almost prohibitive. If we had not wheat in this country and had to bring it in, I have no doubt that it would be so expensive that the people would go hungry and their hunger would have repercussions on the honorable members of this House. As a result of this Government’s policy, the wheat-farmers are now becoming a little better off, and are gradually obtaining the amenities of civilization. Honorable members should realize that only a few years ago wheatfarmers battled against drought and floods and all the vicissitudes of a harsh climate. Moreover, just before the war, the price of wheat was as low as ls. 2d. a bushel. Under those conditions the. wheat-farmers and their families lived very hard lives, but now they are obtaining a few well-earned amenities. Some of them are even able to have a holiday in the salubrious parts of the electorate of Macarthur, on the south coast of New South Wales.

I remind honorable members that in the recent by-election campaign in the wheat electorate of Gwydir, for four weeks the maximum daily temperature was never less than 100 degrees. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) held three political meeting a day in that overwhelming heat. That indicates the sort of conditions that the wheat-farmers have to live and work in, but now their conditions are becoming better, and I suggest that all honorable members will be glad to hear that, because of the difficulties with which these men battled for years. They are also able to use modern machinery, much of it developed in Australia. Our wheat industry is more modern than that of many other parts of the world, because recently I saw farmers in Cyprus harvesting their wheat by hand and winnowing it by the power of animals. Moreover, in this country wheat-farmers can change production from wheat to wool and fat lambs. After a period of pasture improvement for the benefit of the sheep, old wheat lands that have been pasture improved and fertilized become even better than they were previously, and grow much heavier wheat crops with higher protein content improving the baking quality of our flour. There is a wonderful future for improved pastures in many parts of our wheat areas, and so we can expect the conditions of Australian wheat-growers to continue to improve.

The wheat-grower has always made an important contribution to our economy, and during the last ten years wheatgrowers have sold wheat for home consumption at much less than the prices ruling in the rest of the world. Therefore, they have contributed hundreds of millions of pounds, over those years to our economy, and have also assisted in building up our export earnings. Unfortunately, sales and prices have meant a big fall in wheat export returns recently. The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Dean) and the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler) represent many poultryfarmers, and they are quite satisfied to offer gratitude to the wheatfarmers on behalf of the poultry industry. But poultry-farmers now have to pay 14s. a bushel for wheat, and we know that 26,000,000 bushels a year are consumed by our stock-feeding industries. I believe that the poultry industry will be in serious difficulties because of the relatively high price of wheat, and I hope that the Government will consider the position of that industry. The wheat industry can receive its costs of production, but the poultry industry cannot do that because it is mainly dependent upon the price of feed wheat. In 1954 wheat cost poultry-farmers about 15s. 7d. a bushel, bought in 5-ton lots from cooperative societies. But in 1945 they bought wheat for 3s. lOd. a bushel. Bran and pollard are produced from wheat milled for human consumption, and whereas the poultry-farmer paid £6 8s. 6d. a ton in 1945 for bran and pollard, he now pays £22 10s. a ton. The price of other feed used in the poultry industry has also increased, but I cannot address myself to those matters in this debate. The poultry-farmer paid £8 5s. a ton for wheat meal in 1945, and he now pays £28 23. a ton for it.

Therefore honorable members will see that poultry-farmers are paying three to four times as much now for their feed as they paid in 1945. However, the poultry-farmer gets 4s. 5d. a dozen over the counter for eggs, although in 1945 he received 2s. a dozen. Therefore, the price of eggs has just about doubled, although the price of feed has more than trebled. The poultry-farmer, who is a good customer of the wheat industry, does not face a very cheerful prospect. Even to-day about 100,000 cases of eggs are held in ships in strike-bound areas, and cannot be unloaded. It is anticipated that they will sell for about 3s. 5d. a dozen in Great Britain. If the poultryfarmer has to pay 4s. 3J)d. to produce his eggs and receives about 3s. 5d. or perhaps as low as 3s. 3d. with Egg Board charges at 11½d. a dozen for them, honorable members will see that he is losing ls. a dozen on eggs that he produces. I suggest that although we now have a wheat agreement between the State governments and the Australian Government, honorable members should not forget the industries that depend on wheat, of which the poultry industry is the most important. Of course, egg consumption has increased by 15 per cent., while egg production in this country has increased by about 8 per cent., which is quite satisfactory, nevertheless, increasing costs must be seriously considered. I hope that the Government will urgently consider the position of the poultry industry and assist it to get out of its difficulties. It is my earnest hope that those difficulties will be only temporary, and that the world trend in respect of prices will not continue. The poultry industry is dependent on the wheat industry, and poultry-farmers should get a fair return for their products. I also express the hope that while the survey of the industry is being conducted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, immediate temporary assistance will be given to keep the industry out of difficulties.

I feel that the Labour party will be generous enough to recognize the invaluable work performed by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) in securing an agreement with the State governments, after protracted negotiations, to the stabilization plan. Every person who saw him in the chamber, or in the precincts of the House, knew that he was working late into the night in order to obtain a stabilization plan for the wheat-growing industry. He knew that it was most important to formulate such a plan. We are well aware of the dreadful thing that was done to him by politicians on. the other side who concocted an alternative scheme. They probably said to the Victorian Pre mier, who had held out against the stabilization plan, “ You hold out on this plan, so that we shall be able to defeat the Government at the general election “. They prevailed upon the Victorian Premier to stubbornly refuse to be a party to the scheme, and, consequently, a stabilization plan could not be brought into operation. Then Mr. Graham, the ubiquitous Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales, whilst he apparently agreed that the Victorian Premier should deliberately sabotage the plan, went round the countryside, and said that he was a good fellow because he had formulated an alternative plan. He subsequently changed his mind, and supported the Pollard plan during the general election campaign. The Labour party was defeated in the election, and the Victorian Premier came into line with the other States. He realized that it would be a waste of time for him to hold out against the stabilization plan any longer. An overwhelming majority of wheat-growers then agreed to the plan and Mr. Graham decided to claim the credit for it. He promptly threw over the Pollard plan, which he had supported during the general election campaign, and any secret support that he may have given to the Victorian Premier. He probably advised the Victorian Premier to agree to the plan. He now claims that he is the author of the plan. If politicians can continue to get away with that sort of thing, the gullible electors must get their deserts. Surely the action of this gentleman, who opposed the plan for so long, should be exposed to the light of day, and the truth be made known. I hope that the House will express its gratitude to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and pay a tribute to him for his persistent, and finally, successful efforts to formulate this stabilization plan.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Sir Philip McBride) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue lie made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to the stabilization of the wheat industry.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee (Consideration resumed) :

Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2438

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 20th October (vide page 2146), on motion by Sir Philip McBride -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- This bill provides the machinery for the implementation of the wheat stabilization plan. The Opposition wishes the legislation to have a speedy passage, and will refrain from making any comment on it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- I direct attention to the fact that the maximum charge to be imposed on wheatgrowers in order to establish the fund is to be1s. 6d. a bushel, which is much lower than any charge levied in connexion with previous stabilization funds.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2438

NORTHERN TERRITORY (LESSEES’ LOANS GUARANTEE) BILL 1954

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2438

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 2204), on motion by Mr. McMahon -

That the billbe now read a second time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The salient feature of this bill is the implementation of the policy decided upon by the Government in relation to exservicemen who seek homes under the war service homes scheme. The proposal for the increaseof the assistance has been outlined by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. McMahon), who is in charge of the administration of the War Service Homes Division, in his rather lengthy secondreading speech, and that proposal has the approval of the Opposition. I shall recapitulate those matters very briefly. The maximum loan to finance the purchase of a home which has not been built under the war service homes scheme, but is what is loosely called an existing home, is to be increased from £2,000 to £2,750. We approve of that increase. The second purpose of the bill is to extend the provisions of the act to eligible persons who reside in the territories of Papua and New Guinea and Norfolk Island. The Opposition wishes this bill to be passed speedily for one important reason, which , is that in the battle for housing throughout the whole continent, one of the quickest ways in which an exserviceman can obtain a home to-day is to buy an existing house, and then take his application and plea to the War Service Homes Division for quick action upon the purchase. Even when the processes of examination, inspection and financial arrangements have been observed, a new home will not be added to those already available to the community but accommodation will be provided for an ex-serviceman and his family. There is great activity at the present time among ex-servicemen who are eligible to negotiate for this type of existing home, and the increase of the assistance by £750 will go a long way towards solving the problems of. those men. I hope that this bill will be passed within a reasonable time, so. that the frustration, anxiety and concern that ex-servicemen feel because they have been held up for so long, will be allayed. This bill was delayed for some weeks, because the machinery of the House was evidently occupied with more pressing business, and could not handle it. In those circumstances, our best course is to facilitate the passage of the bill.

The Minister for Social Services, by his lengthy second-reading speech, has given us an opportunity to discuss almost anything under the sun. I bring that fact to your notice, Mr. Speaker. He bared his economic breast to defend the Government, he discussed rent control, the fixing and pegging of wages, and current economic difficulties in relation to inflation. He handled them, in the main, with great .skill. But I wondered why he dealt with such a variety of subjects on this bill, which, after all, is a simple measure that makes provision for the housing of ex-servicemen under specific conditions. The invitation to discuss all those other matters is almost irresistible, but I shall leave it to the good judgment of honorable members on both sides of the House to determine whether or not we should concentrate, at this stage, firmly on the proposed amendments to the act, and the distinct benefit that is to be given to ex-servicemen.

The bill, of itself, is a good one. Its objectives are excellent, and will be supported by honorable members on both sides. However, the Minister has raised certain matters which we, as an Opposition, wish to discuss. The problem of building houses speedily is still with us. The sense of frustration which an exserviceman feels when he has waited seventeen months for a house, must be allayed. The figures issued by the Minister, which give the time-lag in building, are truly alarming. The Minister discussed economic conditions, and spoke about credit restrictions, in the large, and their impact upon the building of houses. He said that there was a general tendency for demand of all kinds, particularly for housing, to edge forward. He also said that whether or not an exserviceman would get a home in a shorter space of time than previously was conditioned by that growing demand, and he expressed the opinion that much depended on our income from the 1954-55 wool sales. What a shocking position we have got into ! I admit that a lot depends upon that factor, but it should not be the basic consideration. The Government continues to ignore the basic consideration which is the availability of money for homes ; and that is conditioned by the availability of goods and services. The Government has talked about having broken through the barrier of socialism but, at the same time, it has erected a greater barrier in the control of credit and in the deployment of it throughout the community. That policy has hadfrightful repercussions. Instead of homes of workers and ex-servicemen dotting the suburbs, as a result of the valiant work of the War Service Homes Division, Ave find that in the inner areas of Sydney and Melbourne, as a result of increased facilities to obtain money, big institutions and firms are putting up like smoke, in practically every street, structures of five and seven stories. On the other hand, in the suburbs, there is a slowness. The home for the worker and exserviceman is going up more slowly than are those edifices in the inner areas of the cities. If the Government plans to adhere to credit control, while abhorring other kinds of controls and saying that the law of supply and demand should be a conditioning factor, it is a victim of its own strategy. Persons who can command credit have been able to build edifices and the materials required for the buildings, such as bricks and tiles, reduce the supplies available for the construction of homes. The real need is to supply homes for the worker and the ex-serviceman. The Government likes prating about the amount of money that it has provided for the construction of homes but, at the same time - this is the first charge I make against it - it has placed frustrations upon the use of that money because it allows the pool of available building materials to be drawn on for other purposes.

The simple task in this matter which Labour is always prepared to face up to is that the Government must exercise some sort of control in order to ensure that ex-servicemen of the last war will be able to obtain a home before the third war breaks out For the ex-serviceman, it is a case of pie in the sky, something that he will get when he goes to fight in the next war and will- still be waiting to get long after he returns from that war. For him it will always be pie in the sky. This policy of financial stringency and curtailment of credit for home building is completely and utterly frustrating. It is useless to provide for this purpose funds that are insufficient to enable the division to put its plans into full operation. We are told that the backlog is 130,000 houses and that this is being overtaken at the rate of 15,000 houses annually. But the division admits that it will never be able completely to cater for the needs of ex-servicemen under this legislation. The Minister, I believe, will admit that the Government is only paltering with this problem. His grand phrases illustrate, that he has provided a formula for his own destruction. He has taken time to pen his conclusions about the economic setup. It is useless for the Government to babble about trends and that sort of thing unless it is prepared to honour the specific promises that it made in its election policy. I admit that the Government has honoured its promise so far as the amount of money that it is providing for this purpose is concerned, but the present financial provision for housing is not an answer to this problem.

More assistance is to be given to the ex-serviceman who wants to buy an old home, but that policy does not provide new homes. The Government must turn a blitz on to achieve the building of new homes. How many potential diggers’ homes are there in the new Woolworth building, or the new insurance office building, in Sydney, or in the structures that are being built by five, or six, industrial organizations at North Sydney ? Those operations will mean a shortage of materials, which, to an increasing degree, are being used in the provision of apartments, hotels and other accommodation. These materials are being taken from the common pool with the result that the supply becomes less and less because the demand becomes greater and greater. In these circumstances, where is the ex-serviceman to get a home ? “ Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” Deferred hope sours the soul of the ex-serviceman. We find frustration among the men who see the edges of their optimism curl up under the impact of these frustrations. Every year, we provide millions for the building of homes, but we then find that because of new applications and the increased potential that must be served^ we are merely like a dog chasing its tail. The Minister must admit that the answer to this problem is that the Government must exercise some control over these things. When we talked in the past about preference for ex-servicemen we should have given them preference in respect of the things that they prefer, such as preference in the supply of materials for homes and commodities in short supply because they , missed those things when they were on war service. We cannot eat our cake and have it. The War Service Homes Division is rearing to go, but it finds that there is a shortage of materials. So long as the Government is not prepared to control these things, that position will exist.

The next question is whether bureaucracy is retarding the provision of homes for ex-servicemen. Or is it part of th? machinery that these things must be done slowly? I agree that, in some instances, slowness may be of benefit to the exserviceman in search of a home. If he sees an existing property and does not know its age and is not really acquainted with the matter as a’ sound proposition in which to pour his* money, it may be to his benefit that these transactions proceed slowly. But need they proceed as slowly as they do? Is it not a fact that somewhere between the approval of a transaction and the actual giving of the money a great deal of heartache is caused to the applicant because he cannot obtain the money quickly? The Minister should have a look at that aspect and see if it is not possible to have such transactions completed much more quickly than is the case at present. The real purpose of the War Service Homes Division is to build new homes for ex-servicemen. What is the position in that respect? Usually, we are given figures to indicate what has been done. The greatest alibi of the statistician is to quote what happened in the past and compare it with what is happening to-day, but the circumstances existing at different periods are never related. I am reminded of Disraeli’s reference to statistics as being the damndest of all things. On this occasion, we have been told that whereas in 1948-49 there were 52,684 houses completed the number completed in 1952-53 was 79,000. Those happen to he years in which controls were removed, and when we faced the difficulties of financial restrictions and the balancing of the economy. That programme has not been brilliant or magnificent. It has not been a careering plan. In fact, it has been stumbling and just getting along.

What are the basic reasons for the present position? First, there is the economic reason which I have just explained. Secondly, there is a shortage of materials. And there is a third and equally serious reason which directly affects contractors. Last year, the War Service Homes Division let over 7,000 contracts. That means that many hundreds of contractors would be doing work for the department. They have complained, and their complaints have been bruited abroad and, by and large, circulated against the War Service Homes Division. The reason an ex-serviceman cannot get a home built is that after the contractors have completed the construction of a home and have thrown all their assets into the venture and are practically on the breadline, they are forced to wait for a cheque. In due course, in keeping with the leisurely manner of the department, an inspection is made and because some very trifling thing has not been carried out there is a further delay. The result is that the next time a contract is offered by the division, the contractor is definitely not a starter. The present system may suit established firms which can afford to wait considerable periods for payment for the work that they do. However, even those organizations tell me that their payments are very slow and that they have to wait in some instances for periods up to several months before it is even alleged that a cheque is at some point of clearance, which is always difficult to discover. But it still takes weeks and weeks to reach the contractor.

Many quite enthusiastic young contractors who are prepared to undertake the building of homes for ex-servicemen have been brought into the game, and their enthusiasm, possibly, is increased when they know that they are doing something for a former mate in the armed services. But at present, many of those contractors quickly get browned off and sick of the system and prefer to return to the more prosaic business of building for private individuals. When dealing with the latter they know that they can stand over some one for payment, that there is some office with which they can deal directly and that no one can fob them off when they ask for payment. The contracting side of this matter is not a happy one for the division. In the days when it was the practice to let rise and fall contracts every one wanted to get into the business, but to-day, when contractors have to struggle to get their cheques, they are completely frustrated. That position also has a frustrating influence in the division itself. I do not know the full ramifications of this matter: Perhaps considerable time must inevitably be absorbed in the preparation of plans and the settling of preliminary matters between the division and applicants. But when such matters have been attended to, the transaction should npt.be held up. When a house is built, the departmental inspection should be expedited and payment made as quickly as possible to the contractor. I assure the Minister that the complaints I have mentioned are widespread. Having accepted the inhibiting factors associated with all classes of building, let us try, within the limitations of those frustrations, to expedite the provision of houses.

Summing up, will the Minister tell me whether he believes that the division can continue to build houses for ex-servicemen at an accelerated rate unless the Government exercises some sort’ of control, or prescribes priorities, in respect of the existing ,pool of materials? Is it not a fact that bureaucracy operates within the division? I say nothing in criticism of the splendid work that is being done by the division. I greatly admire the deputy-directors in New South Wales who have given me great assistance. The overall problem is too much red tape. We are not getting speed.

Is there a lack of drive when tenders are slow to be considered and claims are kept for too long? Is there too much of the brush-off at the counter? Why should almost every second constituent come to me and say, “Will you give me a letter to the director? I saw the man at the counter but I got nowhere”. There should be a pipe-line to enable applicants to have access to the man at the top. The other matter concerns contracts, expenditure and the speedy payment of debts. Let the game start smoking. It seems to be dead, or, if not dead, at least moribund. I admit that there will be conditioning factors against building all the homes that are needed. Indeed, on the figures supplied by the Minister, he will never be able to complete the task he is sworn to perform because there are too many demands for houses to be built within the next ten years. He will not be able to complete the task unless circumstances change considerably. The only answer to this problem that the Labour party is prepared to accept is some method of control which will give the benefit of the war service homes system to those whose need is most urgent, the working exserviceman.

I shall not delay the House unduly because other honorable members on both sides of the House want to discuss the bill, but, before I finish my speech, I should like to say that the move by the Minister which will enable homes to be provided for ex-servicemen in the territories is a very good one. I assume that these homes will be provided for civil servants and other such workers rather than for planters and settlers under the land settlement scheme. Are they to be built at Port Moresby and in other settled areas of the territories? In other words, will they be cottages in streets, and not homes on plantations?

Mr McMahon:

– They will be homes in the genuine sense of the word.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The number of exservicemen in our territories is rapidly growing, and the extension of the war service homes scheme for their benefit is an excellent idea. I know that there were constitutional difficulties in the way of the proposal and that hurdles had to be surmounted. The Labour party, when it was in power, tried to overcome those obstacles, and I congratulate the Minister upon the fact that he is now able to announce that the scheme can be extended to the territories so that men who go on far-flung service to Australia may be adequately housed. I hope, however, that they will not be frustrated by the extremely high expense of building houses in the territories. Perhaps some formula to remit the extra costs may be devised.

The Opposition heartily approves of the bill. The strictures, criticisms and comments that we offer are intended to help the Government in its plan to get as many houses built as quickly as possible for those who are eligible under the terms of the “War Service Homes Act. The Minister must not allow himself to be blinded by his own frustrations. It is not sufficient for him to defend himself against criticism. He must find a formula that will help ex-servicemen, and, if he does, the Opposition will be prepared to assist him. I emphasize that he must find a financial formula with more fluidity than the present one, and also the bricks, mortar and other materials that are needed to build the houses that exservicemen need. Finally, he must have a more electric and thrusting public service behind him to see that the work of the War Service Homes Division is dealt with promptly and got out of the road. He must not allow a back log of applications to accumulate. If you let public servants build up a back log, they will live with it and love it for ever. They will go on telling the old tale to applicants - “We are 15,000 behind. Go away and don’t come back for months “. It is up to the new and energetic Minister to see what he can do. I have confidence in him to the degree that I believe he will not allow that to happen. The Opposition supports the bill because it sets out to do what the Labour Government set out to do immediately after the war. It is designed to preserve and advance the right of ex-servicemen to obtain homes as early as possible. These men must get homes in their lifetimes. War service homes should not be just a heritage for their sons or their grandsons. On the figures provided by the Minister, I do not think he can do the job that he wants to do, but at least he can go some way towards his goal, and we would like to see him start at once.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Dawson

.- Like the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), I want this legislation to be enacted as quickly as possible because, in the main, it deserves our support and the Minister for Social Services (Mr. McMahon) merits our applause for having introduced it. Therefore, I propose to confine my remarks simply to two points associated with the administrative control of the War Service Homes Division. I refer first to the provision hy the division of finance for the lifting of temporary mortgages on existing properties. At present, as most honorable members know, an eligible ex-serviceman who sets out to find a home for himself often finds an existing house that is already being lived in which suits his needs well. He is usually told that there will be a considerable delay before the War Service Homes Division can make finance available to him. This has not been so during the last two months, but we understand that delays will become general again. In- such circumstances, when the vendor is told that he must wait for, say, six months for the sale price, he promptly says, “ I cannot afford to wait, and therefore I cannot sell the house to you “, and the ex-serviceman loses that opportunity to obtain a home.

The situation is slightly different if the ex-serviceman sets out to buy a house that has been newly built and is not being lived in. In that case, the division tells the ex-serviceman that, if he can obtain temporary finance, he may go ahead with the transaction on the understanding that, when his turn comes on the waiting list, it will take over the temporary mortgage. Thus, he is enabled to purchase the property. In other words, the division differentiates between the purchase of a house that is already being lived in and the purchase of a new house which is not being lived in. I cannot see any merit whatever in that differentiation, because the first method of obtaining a house that I have described provides an excellent way for many ex-servicemen to obtain homes quickly. If an ex-serviceman who is otherwise eligible for assistance finds a house that will be within his financial capacity to buy, why should he not be able to obtain temporary finance, after consultation with the division, to enable him to complete the purchase and take over the home? By this means, the division would carry out its main purpose which, I maintain, is to provide homes for ex-servicemen.

The honorable member for Parkes said that the main purpose of the division was to provide new homes for exservicemen. I do not accept that as a correct statement of the basic policy of the War Service Homes Division. I say that its basic policy is to provide homes for exservicemen. If, in the pursuit of that policy, it can provide new homes for them., that is all to the good because that means that, not only will its basic policy be carried out, but also, at the same time, a contribution will be made to the solution of the overall housing problem. Nevertheless, I repeat that I will not concede that the provision of new homes is the basic task of the division. The practice that I have described, in fact, operates against the basic policy of the division as I see it. If applicants were allowed to obtain temporary financial accommodation from a bank or some other alternative source in order to enable them to pay cash immediately for houses that are being lived in, on the condition that the division would take over the mortgage later, a considerable impetus would begiven to the war service homes programme. However, the division says “No”, even if the house involved has been lived in for only two months. It maintains that, under any arrangement such as I have suggested, the mortgage would become an existing mortgage, and it will not advance money on an existing mortgage. I cannot see any virtue in the differentiation between the purchase of an existing house that has been lived in and an existing house that has not been lived in. Many houses that were built prior to World War II. are better security than some of the jerry-built houses that are being erected now. Furthermore, I say that the policy of the division in this respect tends more to assist “ spec “ builders than ex-servicemen, because they are the ones who obtain the major advantage from it.

I understand that one objection to my proposal is that, if the division agreed to take over existing temporary mortgages, there would be an exorbitant demand/for financial assistance with the result that “ other aspects of its operations would be hampered. I cannot agree with . that., objection. In some instances, at any rate,- an ex-serviceman who fails to obtain the home he wants will keep on trying until eventually he finds some other place for which he can obtain finance from the division. Thus, he must draw on the division’s funds eventually, and consequently the provision of money to take over an existing temporary mortgage on the house that he wanted in the first instance would not have adversely affected the total demand on the funds that the division has available. Therefore, I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter with a view to changing the present policy of the division so that an ex-serviceman who can obtain temporary financial accommodation to enable him to purchase an existing house, whether it is occupied or not, may doso and then obtain an advance from the division when his turn comes on the waiting list. This will enable many ex-servicemen to obtain homes quickly, which is the purpose of the division.

The other point that I wish to raise refers to the determination of the date of priority of an ex-serviceman’s application. Many ex-servicemen who are trying to obtain homes with the aid nf the division make several stabs at the matter. For example, a man may inspect a home which, at first sight, he thinks will suit him, and then, after entering into negotiations and making a proposal to the division, he may change his mind, possibly after two or three months. Then he may start again to look for a suitable home. This may happen two or three times until, finally, he succeeds in arranging a proposal which meets with the division’s requirements and which goes ahead. At that stage, he finds that the date of his application, for the purposes of priority within the division, is the date of his last application, instead of that of his original application. I submit that that is hardly fair. It is not necessarily his fault that there was a time lag before he could finalize a firm proposal which the division was able to handle. Sometimes, for instance, a man is delayed because a house that is suitable to him is not acceptable to the division, so that, in fact, the proposal is knocked back by the division.

The Minister could well give some attention to this matter with the object of remedying an injustice. These are relatively minor matters, but the changes I have suggested would considerably improve the already very effective work of the division if they were carried out. As I understand that the House wishes to proceed with the consideration of another matter, I conclude by reiterating my original statement that the Minister is to be congratulated for having introduced the bill. If he will consider the two points that I have raised he will have done a very good job.

Debate (on motion by Mr. J. R. Fraser) adjourned.

page 2444

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1954

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2); Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1954, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the eighteenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the twentyninth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the AustraUan Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1954 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1. of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That the Minister of State for Trade and Customs may, from time to time, upon receipt of a report from the Tariff Board on the question whether a deferred duty should or should not operate on and after the date to which it has been deferred, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette defer the duty to such date as is specified in the notice.
  6. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ deferred duty “ mean a duty which, in relation to any goods, is expressly described in the Schedule to these Proposals as a deferred duty ; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff”, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used ; “ the Tariff Board “ mean the Tariff Board appointed in pursuance of the Tariff Board Act 1921-1953.

[Excise TARIFF Amendment (No. 2).]

That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1953, as proposed to be amended by Excise Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the eighteenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the twentyninth day of October One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, at five o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1953 as so amended. The tariff proposals which I have just introduced relate to the Customs Tariff 1933-1954, and the Excise Tariff 1921-1953. The proposed customs tariff amendments are, in practically all cases, based upon recommendations made by the Tariff Board in recent reports. I shall, at a later stage, avail myself of the opportunity to table the relevant reports. The proposed amendments will take effect as from to-morrow morning. A summary of alterations which has been circulated to honorable members shows, in convenient form, the proposed rates of duty as compared with those at present in operation. In the main the proposed amendments are designed to afford increased protection to a number of Australian industries such as those engaged in' the manufacture of cotton tyre cord fabric; viscose rayon tyre yarn, cord and fabric ; hand and breast drills ; carpenters' braces; forged table, dessert and grill or steak knives; forged carving knives, forks and steels; plain safety pins; methyl chloride; filter paper; plastics of the styrene type; and wristlet watch cases of base metal. Reduced duties will operate with respect to heavy distillate for use in the production of petroleum products other than mineral lubricating oil; cinematograph films produced especially for viewing by children; and certain classes of lithographic printing paper not produced in Australia. Another important customs amendment relates to crude petroleum and enriched crude petroleum. At present, duty-free admission is extended to those raw materials only when they are used in the production of petroleum products by distillation. As modern petroleum-refining techniques now include processes other than distillation, it is proposed to widen the existing provisions to accord similar treatment to companies producing petroleum products by cracking or other similar processes. For administrative reasons it has been necessary to vary the wording of the item covering chain pulley blocks. However, the rates of duty have not been varied. The only excise amendment proposed relates to the duty-free delivery of spirits for use in approved technical colleges or other education institutions. At present, this spirit is subject to an excise duty of 25s. a proof gallon and its removal in the interest of lowering the cost of higher education in technical colleges and like education institutions will, I am sure, be endorsed by the committee. Honorable members will, as soon as practicable, be afforded an opportunity to discuss these proposals fully. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- We should like to know what the Minister means by the sentence - >Honorable members will, as soon as practicable, be afforded an opportunity to discuss these proposals fully. Does that mean this session? {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- As the honorable member knows, there are certain reasons why honorable members should be given time to consider schedules of important tariff proposals so that they may be satisfactorily discussed. He will recall that when Labour was in office the Opposition of that time had no opportunity to discuss any tariff proposals. This Governmenthas already afforded the Opposition the opportunity to discuss tariff proposals, and we shall take the first available opportunity to allow the committee to discuss these proposals. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Shall we be able to discuss them during this session ? {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The committee will certainly not be able to discuss them during this sitting, but possibly an opportunity will be available during this session. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2449 {:#debate-23} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-23-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Alkali, chlorine and chlorine products. Cotton tyre cord, cotton cord fabric and cotton tyre fabric. {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Cutlery Films for children. Filter paper. Hand and breast drills and carpenters' braces. Petroleum products. {:#subdebate-23-1} #### Polystyrene Rayon tyre yarn, rayon tyre cord and rayon tyre fabric. Safety pins. Vitreous enamels. Wristlet watch cases. {: .page-start } page 2449 {:#debate-24} ### WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1954 {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 2444). {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- The provision of homes for ex-service men and women is not a subject that embattles the Government and the Opposition, and it is pleasing to note that the debate has proceeded in a spirit of amity and temperance in which suggestions for improvement of the war service homes scheme have been made to the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon).** I propose to speak on behalf of single men and women who have had war service. The War Service Homes Act, from its inception in 1918, has limited the provision of war service homes to certain eligible persons, who must satisfy the director of the War Service Homes Division that they are married, are about to marry, or have dependants. The single man or woman without dependants, therefore, is debarred from participating in the scheme, and has been so debarred since its inception. I have read the debates that ensued when the original measure was considered in December, 1918, and I can see no reference in them to that restriction or to any objection to it. I sometimes wonder how a limitation of that kind came to be included in legislation. Was it felt originally that homes should not be made available to single persons because that action would encourage immorality, or was there a more valid reason? Were building materials in short supply, or was finance not readily available, and was it, therefore, considered necessary to limit the availability of war service homes? The reasons are not made apparent in the debate on the original measure, so far as I have been able to ascertain. I can see little reason now for the retention of that limitation. In time of war the armed forces are keen to obtain the services of single men. We all recall the recruiting posters which depicted beautiful young ladies calling to passing men in civilian clothes, " Hey, mister, here's your hat ". Those posters obviously were not directed at the married men, because I am sure that the services would not have lent themselves to such an appeal unless it were directed at single men. The bachelor - and I am sure the Minister will be in sympathy with the spirit of my remarks on this matter - was the cheaper serviceman, because, unlike the married man, he had no wife or children to whom allowances would have to be paid. The single soldier might have returned from war service to civilian life with his hopes of marriage destroyed by his service or his experiences in the conflict of war. Having returned to his former vocation or to a different occupation, he became subject to income tax at the highest rate prescribed in the Income Tax Assessment Act for the particular income that he receives. From the income tax that he pays he receives fewer benefits than are available to married men. Obviously, he does not qualify for the benefits that are available exclusively to the family man, such as child endowment. He does not make such demands upon the public purse for health and hospital benefits and other allowances as are made by the family man and his wife and children. The provision of homes for exservice men and women is a financial obligation undertaken by the Commonwealth for the benefit of Australians who served their country in time of war. There is no reason why single men and women should be debarred from obtaining financial help to establish themselves in homes. It is true that some women prefer not to marry. It is equally true that some men find it is impracticable to marry because after all. some consent must be obtained. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- The honorable member sounds disappointed. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I am not speaking personally. The people to whom I refer should not be prevented from achieving the ambition to own their own homes, when the Australian Government accepts the financial obligation to provide homes for ex-service men and women. I trust that, at the committee stage, or at a later stage, the Minister will see fit to make the necessary decision to give effect to the suggestion that I have made, or that he will make a suitable recommendation to the Cabinet for the removal from the act of the limitation that debars single ex-service men and women from benefit, whichever may be the appropriate course. The single man is entitled equally with the married man to financial assistance from the Commonwealth to obtain a home, because his war service normally would have been equal to that of the married man. It might be said that the single man, when he goes to war, does not make so great a sacrifice as does the married man, who must leave his wife and children when he goes on service. But it may be true also, as I have pointed out, that the single man's war service might have deprived him of any prospect he had of achieving married status. The definition of the term " eligible person " in section 4 of the principal act, which states the qualifications required of applicants for advances from the War Service Homes Division, includes the following words: - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . and who satisfies the Director that he is married or ie about to marry . . . That is the only obligation imposed by the act. Certainly, the regulations under the act empower the director to withdraw an advance or to end an arrangement if it is found that the applicant in fact is not eligible for assistance. A single ex-serviceman whom I know applied in the ordinary way for an advance, completed the requisite form stating his intention to marry, and has been accepted, as eligible for an advance. He received from the War Service Homes Division a letter, the final paragraph of which reads - >After the celebration of your marriage it will be necessary for you to produce a certificate thereof to this office for perusal. The act gives no authority for such a request, and the division should not be allowed to make it in an official letter. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the proposal that I have put forward. It may be thought that the limitation should be retained so that there will not be speculation in, and the making of profit from, the erection of war service homes, but I think that the act contains adequate safeguards. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Boothby · LP .- I am pleased to have this opportunity of supporting the bill. After having listened to the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. B. Fraser),** I think that, if we can get together, it would be in the interests of all sections of the community. I commend the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** for the temperate manner in which he dealt with the measure that is before the House. I must state that he did not make any political propaganda out of the position of the ex-servicemen. On the other hand, I cannot agree with his comments in relation to the speech of the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon).** The Minister's speech, which was the first second-reading speech that he has delivered as Minister in charge of war service homes, displayed a great deal of thought and energy. If the honorable gentleman continues in the same manner during his occupancy of that portfolio, we shall have the same confidence in him that we had in his predecessor, who did a really good job in relation to the provision of war service homes. One of the interesting features of this measure is the proposal to remove the ceiling price for existing homes. I commend the Minister upon the inclusion of that provision. I think it is quite fair to state that, during the life of the last Parliament, and of this Parliament, a section of the Government parties' ex-servicemen's committee has pleaded for the proposed amendment of the act. I should like to pay a tribute to the former member for Sturt, **Mr. Wilson,** for the part that he played in the activities of that committee. This measure will give a great deal of pleasure to him, and to all ex-servicemen and ex-servicemen's organizations throughout Australia. I agree with the statement of the honorable member for Parkes that the sooner this legislation is passed the sooner the position of all who are concerned will be improved. A great number of persons are withholding applications and waiting for the benefits that will accrue as a result of the passing of the proposed legislation. This Government has an obligation to honour the promise that it made to exservicemen to provide them with homes of their own choice. I hope that the raising of the amount of the loan in relation to homes already erected will not be delayed by a pruning, by the Treasury, of the sum that has been made available this year for war service homes loans. It is the has been made available this year for war service homes loans. It is the duty of the Government to make available more money to the War Service Homes Division so that it may honour the obligation that it has to those men who have returned from service in defence of their country, and who are now .desirous of building a home, or of living in a home of their own choice. The restriction that operates against a man who wants to buy a home already erected is unjust and unfair. Supporters of the Government who arc ex-servicemen are very proud of the record of the Menzies Government in relation to war service homes, and of the tremendous strides that have been mad" since it assumed office. At the same time, they all are prepared to admit that, during the early post-war years, the then government was confronted with great difficulties and that, under those circumstances, it did not have the opportunities that have been available to this Government. In view of questions that have been asked, and statements that have been made, from time to time outside the House, I shall quote certain figures to establish exactly what has happened in the past and to refute any charges of a lack of interest by the Government. In the last four and a half years that the Labour Government was in office, it was responsible for the erection of 5,898 houses and for the financing of 11,04S houses. In four and a half years, the Menzies Government has been responsible for the erection of 22,021 houses, and for the financing of 39,162 houses. I think supporters of the Government who are ex-servicemen are justified in claiming that, in association with members of the Australian Labour party, they have watched the interests of exservicemen, and that the Government has honoured the promises that it made to overcome the problem associated with the provision of war service homes. The Labour Government, in the period of four and a half years to which I have referred, made available £22,650,000 for the construction of war service homes. During the four and a half years that this Government has been in office, it has made available £116,537,000. The records show that the Government has always had the interests, and the welfare, of tho ex-servicemen at heart. From time to time, members of the staff of the War Service Homes Division are subjected to a great deal of criticism by ex-servicemen and ex-servicemen'1! groups. I can speak only from my own personal experience. Since I first became associated with the Government, I have found the responsible officers in South Australia to be very co-operative and understanding. They have been only tpo willing to do all they could do, without of course, going beyond the bounds of their instructions. In the electorate of Sturt, much difficulty was experienced in the erection of homes on Bay of Biscay soil. The responsible local governing authority should nave known better than to agree to the erection of homes on that soil, and it should have informed the War Service Homes Division of its problem, lt is to the credit of the War Service Homes Division that it has honoured, to the satisfaction of the ex-servicemen's association, every obligation that it had in relation to the repairs and renovations that were necessary in that area. The division has done a really grand job in overcoming that great problem. I think a note of praise should be sounded also for the manner in which the War Service Homes Division handled the problem that arose following the earthquake in South Australia in February of this year. Honorable members who do not come from South Australia may not know the magnitude of the problem that was associated with the payment of insurance. It is estimated that the cost to the War Service Homes Division of effecting repairs will be in the vicinity of £250,000. So far, I have had to attend to only one complaint in relation to this matter, but when the position was explained to the person who complained, the difficulty was removed. The War Service Homes Division has handled a very great problem very efficiently and very effectively. The War Service Homes Division has done a good job in relation to women who were resident in war service homes when their ex-servicemen husbands passed away. The term " war widow " is very loosely applied in relation to the activities of the War Service Homes Division. Too many movements, and too many people, are trading on the term "war widow ". It should be made clear that the term " war widow " applies only to widows whose husbands were killed in action or who died as a result of war service, and who are accepted as such under the Repatriation Act. The fact that the Minister ' for Social Services was responsible for the removal of an anomaly in relation to the deposits that were payable by accepted war widows will always stand to his credit. Unfortunately, the price of the average war service home is completely beyond the capacity of any war widow. I have always been disappointed with the manner in which Australian governments of any political persuasion have failed to discharge their obligations to the housing of war widows. The responsibility of ensuring that this section of the community is given pensions that are adequate to provide for the acquisition of war service homes, or of ensuring that conditions relating to the acquisition of war service homes are in keeping with the pension that is granted, is a responsibility that any government should be proud to accept. In the past, Australian government:' have left it to the State governments, in the main, to honour the obligations that are really the responsibility of the Commonwealth. I should like to pay tribute to the Premier of South Australia for the real part that he ha3 played in making provision, in the State housing arrangements of that State, for accepted war widows. Honorable members from South Australia have always found him to be very co-operative and willing to help, and I think he has set a very good example for this Government to follow, even at this late hour. Although the Australian Loan Council, which comprises six State Premiers and two members of this Government, decided upon the payment of a higher rate of interest on loan money, the War Service Homes Division is able to make its finance available at per cent. Efficiency within the division, the service that has been extended to ex-servicemen's associations, the length of period of the loan, and the low rate of interest have made war service homes very popular. The Government has done a very good job in holding the interest rate at 3$ per cent. I commend the Minister for the manner in which he has approached the problem. I am sure that honorable members on both sides of the House who are exservicemen will co-operate with him in the interests of ex-servicemen. I have no doubt that the honorable gentleman will be as equally efficient as his predecessor. I hope that, in the years that lie immediately ahead, some pressure will be brought to bear upon those in authority in the Treasury or elsewhere to make available more money to the War Service Homes Division to satisfy the number of applications that are being made, and thereby enable it to honour the obligation that the Government, and the Parliament, have towards those who served their country. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill, in commending the Minister for what he has done, and in expressing my appreciation of the efforts of officers of the War Service Homes Division, who have done a really grand job for the Australian ex-serviceman. {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat .- I wish to express considerable disappointment with the speech of the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon),** fo;which lie has been the subject of considerable congratulation by other honorable members. I read the speech, and I must say that I felt that it was a speech to which we should all give full consideration, and which we should not pass by lightly. It was the Minister's first speech as Minister for Social Services on a war services homes bill, and he put the subject on a broad foundation. I am glad that he did so, because housing in the community, whether it be made available through the War Service Homes Division, the State governments or private enterprise, is the most important matter that we can deal with to-day. However, the Government is gradually losing sight of that fact. Very few people realize that we must have a greater work force in order to progress, and that the first requirement in building up a greater work force is to have houses in which the people may live and bring up their families. We need houses for immigrants and for our own people, and in order to increase our work force we must increase the number of houses available to the people. Moreover, people are socially and physically improved if they live in good houses. This bill will take its place in our great national organization for housing the people. There are houses for rent that have been provided by housing authorities, and houses provided by the Department of Defence for the members of the forces. Houses have been built for private owners largely through cooperative housing societies and under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act. Also much private home-building has been carried on through the provision of finance by banks and private financial institutions. However, we require many more houses at present, and that fact should not be denied by the Government. Yet, it was denied, in a very quiet way, by the Minister, in his second-reading speech. He told honorable members his ideas of our housing requirements, and then he said that it is estimated that at present about 60,000 new dwellings are required to meet the needs of new families and immigrants. Sixty thousand is a large number of houses, but it is not nearly large enough to meet our requirements. The Minister said - >About 1)0,000 new dwellings are required to meet the need arising from new families and immigration, apart altogether from the backlog caused by the war, replacement of substandard houses and some slum clearance. I think that indicates that he has not come to grips with the whole problem, because there is plenty of evidence to show that the demand for adequate housing is much greater than 60,000 dwellings a year. It has been mentioned by the Minister, and also in the report of the Director of War Service Homes, that in one State ex-servicemen have to wait about fourteen months to obtain their homes, and that in Victoria they have to wait eleven months. Those delays will give honorable members an idea of the tremendous demand in this country for houses. The maximum sum that may be advanced through the War Service' Homes Division" for existing houses will be increased from £2,000 to £2,750 under this bill, and the Minister said that all applications lodged after the 1st November, will not be fulfilled for about six months. I suggest that there is no doubt that many applicants will have to wait for six months. The Minister should consider the clamour by co-operative societies for more money. Every day questions are asked in this House about that subject, and that very fact, together with other indications, show the tremendous demand for houses in this country. But rather than face the problems of the community, the Government has approached the matter in fear and trembling, lest the purely incidental and temporary state of stability that we are at present enjoying should become unbalanced. The Minister took some credit for the present situation, but then adopted a defeatist attitude. He said - >Evidence of the success of the Government's policy is shown by the C series index of retail prices. Then he said that our present state of affairs is quite satisfactory and that our economy is stable. He maintained that everything must be done to make sure that that state of stability would not be upset. He said that there is a great need for caution, and that unless caution is observed the factors that tend to unbalance our economy could become more pronounced, and undesirable delays could occur in the completion of houses. He completely forgets that at present there are most undesirable delays in the completion of many houses. He also said that if inefficiency and inflation are to be prevented, restrained and careful management will be needed; and he applied that generalization particularly to the War Service Homes Division. Great caution permeated the whole of his speech, and he showed that he fears lest something should occur to unbalance our stability. We all like to see stability, but there is not a member of the Opposition who would be prevented, by fear of overbalancing our stability, from doing what he thought he should do to provide houses for the community. It is quite wrong tobe afraid of the future, and I hope that the Minister will approach the matter differently as he proceeds in his administration of the Department of Social Services, and will realize the enormous need for houses and for a change in the Government's approach to housing. The Government has power to organize a better housing arrangement than exists at present. The materials are available, and it can plan to produce many more houses. But there is no plan in this measure. The original plans were laid down by the last Labour Government at the conclusion of the war. The honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay)** put figures before the House to show how much better the record of this Govern? ment is than is the record of the last Labour Government, but we all know that such comparisons are hardly worthy of consideration. We must consider which government laid the plans that have developed into a great movement to house the people. The Labour Government laid the foundations with a whole series of measures designed to increase the flow of materials, and thus increase the number of houses. The socialistic Joint Coal Board has produced all the coal that we require, but the same thing cannot be said about the steel industry which has remained under private control. In his report, the Director of War Service Homes stated - >Shortages in materials such as bricks, tiles, galvanized iron, gas and water piping and reinforcing rods became apparent. As a result of the shortage of materials, it has been necessary to extend the time for completion of homes with a consequent reduction in the rate of expenditure on each and a greater carry-over to 1954-55. The longer period of construction has also caused a reduction in the number of contracts signed as it is not considered desirable to enter into contracts too far in advance of the date by which construction can be commenced. The shortages of galvanized iron and gas and water pipes, indicate that there is not sufficient steel produced in this country. Surely the Government should have attempted to increase that production. Indeed I am sure that the Government has not done as much as it could in that regard. Not only has it done nothing to increase the production of steel, but also I believe, it has been exporting our steel overseas in order to bring some dollars into the country, because it desperately needs dollars. The Government should ensure that the steel we produce is made available to the housing industry. The war service homes scheme will relieve the general shortage of houses to a certain degree, and the bill is to be commended on that score. However, I consider that the Government does not properly appreciate our housing needs, and has not planned, in conjunction with the State Premiers, to meet them. I disagree with the honorable member for Dawson **(Mr. Davidson)** who has said that housing is not our foremost need. I certainly believe that we should endeavour to build many more houses. The Government should not be afraid to face the future, and it must appreciate the need for more intensive planning to provide the great number of houses that the people still need. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** pointed out that huge five-story buildings, which will cost thousands of pounds, are being erected in this country, and that each one of them probably represents, in money, materials and labour, the cost of 100 small houses. The Government should restrain the building of such huge edifices and discourage plans such as those put forward for new buildings for the Victoria Racing Club. We should wait for another day when we have a bigger labour force, before we attempt to construct buildings that are not designed to house the people. The speech of the Minister seems to indicate that the Government's policy on housing is like a spring that is wound up each year by another issue of credit or money, and then runs down. But that spring is getting weaker and weaker. The War Service Homes Division has a very important duty to perform as a custodian of good building methods. The inspectors of the division inspect many houses, and they insist on a very high standard of building. They have always done so. I have had the best of reports about the building inspectors of the War Service Homes Division. They have an important duty to perform. The division is a big employer, and a good sense of responsibility on the part of an employer is just as helpful as a sense of responsibility on the part of an employee. I was somewhat disappointed to read in the latest report of the Director of War Service Homes the following statement : - >An unsatisfactory position developing is that collective and unreasonable pressure in groups, resulting in political and other representations on matters in respect of which the applicants have neither legal nor moral rights, is causing some of our good builders to discontinue building under the act. I understand from the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** who is not present, that some well-meaning people - I think that they were members of ex-servicemen's organizations - had been requested to inspect certain houses which were being sold to exservicemen under the. scheme. Those wellmeaning people revealed certain defects in the cottages, and made representations to the division with the object of ensuring that the dwellings would be properly erected, and the defects in them remedied. That was a perfectly proper course for them to take, and I commend them for having done so. I cannot understand why the report of the director contains the statement which I read a few moments ago. I think that the director should have been right on their side, and said, " If there are any defects in war service homes, I am in favour of having them fixed, and I am grateful for having the defects brought to my notice". I believe that the division has a great responsibility and I am glad to know that, with this small exception, it carries out that responsibility very well indeed, with great benefit to the community. I hope that it will continue to do so. {: #subdebate-24-0-s3 .speaker-KQJ} ##### Mr McCOLM:
Bowman -- The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua)** seemed to take it upon himself to give a lot of credit to members of the Labour party for work that had been done bv the War -Service Homes Division. The honorable member asked, " Which government do you think did the planning for the erection of war service homes ? " I should say that credit should be given where it is really due. I do not consider that governments do the planning in a matter of this kind. The War Service Homes Division does the planning, to a large degree, and should be given credit for it. If credit for war service homes building is to be apportioned among governments, some of it should be given to the Hughes Government, which began the erection of war service homes in 1919. Every government since that time has supported the idea of war service homes, and I deplore the notion that one government deserves the entire credit for the scheme, and I tend to resent an attempt by one particular political party to make a political football of a matter of this kind. Two important points arise in this bill and in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon),** who is in charge of the administration of the War Service Homes Division. I shall touch on one of those points briefly, because it is extremely important. I congratulate the Government on having extended war service homes assistance to persons who reside in Papua and New Guinea. Anybody who has been to those territories quickly becomes aware of the acute shortage of housing there, and the difficulties that residents experience in obtaining finance from private banking institutions to build homes. Residents of Papua and New Guinea are placed in more difficult circumstances, in that respect, than are persons in Australia, although the position here has been grim enough. This extension of assistance will be of great value to many ex-servicemen who have gone to Papua and New Guinea. I congratulate the Government on its decision to increase the maximum loan that may be granted for the purchase of an existing dwelling from £2,000 to £2,750. That increase is well warranted, and it will serve a useful purpose. At the same time, I am afraid that, under the policy laid down by the Minister in his speech, it may not have an opportunity to serve that useful purpose. I note, that some 2,600 existing dwellings will be purchased in the course of next year. The money will be available for them. However, I doubt whether vendors, if they have to wait six months for their money, will be prepared to put their houses on the market for purchase by exservicemen through the War Service Homes Division. We must face that problem, and I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to change the policy enunciated by the Minister. That change may be effected in several ways. One is a budgetary matter. I do not believe that the difficulties in the way of granting the division some extra moneys would be insuperable. I consider that had the Government adopted the financial policy put forward with some vehemence by the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** and myself a few years ago, and increased the amount available for war service homes, some difficulties would not have arisen, and most of the difficulties would have been overcome by this time, probably for the expenditure of an additional £3,00p,000 or £4,000,000 a year. We make money available to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, and we later learn that some States have not used all that money, and, indeed, have millions of pounds in reserve. The money would have been used to better purpose had it been made available to the War Service Homes Division. It would, at least, have been used for housing. While I am discussing the possibility of obtaining more money for the division, I mention, in passing, that it was with great regret that I noticed in the Estimates that approximately £1,250,000 had not been spent by the division in the last financial year. I realize that some difficulty cropped up, but, at the same time, I feel that it was a great pity that the money was unspent. We say that we want more money for war service homes, yet last year approximately £1,250,000 of the allocation was not expended. Another way in which the problem of the purchase of existing buildings can be tackled is for the Government to offer the same assistance that it is prepared to give to finance the purchase of a new dwelling, and that is to allow a person to obtain finance from a private source or a bank to cover the period until the division can accommodate him. I realize that such a method could lead to an accumulation, and that only a limited amount of money is spent during the year. I notice that there are approximately 3,000 new homes which can be purchased this year, and 2,600 existing dwellings. I cannot for the life of me see why the division should differentiate between a house that it has not built, and an existing dwelling. When all i3 said and done, the object of this act is to provide homes. The division, in conformity with Government policy, is prepared to grant finance temporarily for the purchase of 3,000 new houses, and J do not see why some of that *money* cannot be provided, if necessary, for the purchase of existing dwellings. Such a policy would tend to alleviate slightly the position regarding new dwellings. After all, people really want homes. They do not necessarily want new dwellings. If they wish to build, the act makes provision for them to obtain the necessary finance. So I would not be unduly concerned if the period for which private finance had to be arranged were extended from six months to nine months, or even, a year. The policy regarding the provision of war service homes will continue from year to year, and from government to government, and I cannot see any reason why we should not say to an ex-serviceman, " Bight, during the course of the next year, we shall give you the finance you require. In the meantime, you can arrange to obtain your finance from a private source and get the home now when you want it ". I urge the Government very seriously to give further consideration to this matter, and I hope that it will change its mind. It could be claimed that my suggestion is in conflict with existing Government policy, because the Government said in 1951-52 that it would not take over existing mortgages. However, I do not consider that there is a real conflict of policy. When the Government said that it would not take over existing mortgages, it had in mind persons who had never approached the War Service Home3 Division for assistance, and had no apparent desire to purchase or build homes through the division. Those persons had bought houses, and they found that, by getting the division to take over the mortgages, they would pay a reduced rate of interest, and that the period for repayment was longer. The intention of this act is to assist a person to obtain a home, and if a man has a home, I do not see that the department has a further interest in it. I have no quarrel with that idea that the Government should not take over existing mortgages, except in certain cases of extreme hardship. I understand that existing mortgages are taken over in those circumstances. I commend the War Service Homes Division, as a whole, on the work that it has done. The matter to which I have just referred is not a departmental matter, but a matter of Government policy. Itis something for which the department itself cannot be blamed. The Government must shoulder the full responsibility for that position. However, I do not consider that the officers of the division in Queensland should be led to believe that a general commendation of the work done by the division - and it has done some very good work - means that people who come in contact with the division in that State are necessarily satisfied with the way in which it has been conducted in the past. I make that statement because I personally have not -been satisfied with it. I realize the difficulties that the office of the division has encountered in Queensland, but some people - possibly a small number by comparison with the great number dealt with by the division - have made complaints and have not received any satisfaction. They say that they have pointed out certain defects in houses within the specified period of three months after they have gone into them and, in some instances, years have passed and those defects have still not been remedied. I realize that those are small things to the division as a whole, but to the individuals concerned, they are some of the most important things in life. It is difficult to deal with every case on its merits, but it is essential that such should be done. I trust that, in the course of the next year, the improvement which has been taking place in the division in Queensland will continue. . {: #subdebate-24-0-s4 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Before I comment on the remarks of the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm),** I wish to join with those honorable members who have complimented the War Service Homes Division on the way in which it has discharged its functions in the various States. I have had a good deal to do with the office of the division in New South Wales and, apart from the way in which it is restricted, I consider that it has done a very fine job. We in New South Wales may be fortunate in this respect, that the officer in charge in that State has just returned from overseas, and possibly has some new ideas about home building. We may be lucky in that regard in the immediate future. That officer, wherever he might be, would take a keen interest in housing construction. Perhaps, he has brought back new ideas to the division which may encourage it to go on to greater things. The main complaint that has come to my notice with respect to the relationship between master builders and the division in New South Wales is the timelag in the making of payments to contractors. I trust that this complaint will be rectified as soon as possible, because under present conditions the division will require to attract master builders to this field of activity. However, I say to the honorable member for Bowman that all the blame for these complaints cannot be placed on the shoulders of one person. At the same time, there is a need to establish contact between the builder of a home and the prospective occupier of it. There seems to be a tendency for red tape to intrude between those two persons. For instance, at present, if an occupier after taking over a new home has reason to complain about some structural defect, he must make his complaint not direct to the builder but to the division, and a departmental officer takes up the matter with the builder. The practice is that the division determines whether the builder has fulfilled his contract, and if complaints about structural defects are made later the lack of contact between the occupant and the builder adds to the difficulty of rectifying such complaints. The division would be well advised to establish direct contact between the builder and the occupant of a home. Probably, such a procedure would help to overcome the difficulty that the honorable member for Bowman mentioned. All honorable members are concerned about the provision of adequate homes in the community. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that in 1952-53 the number of houses under construction was 72,928, compared with 86,504 houses under construction in the preceding year. That decrease is a cause for grave concern about our overall housing programme. In this matter, it is useless for honorable members merely to lay the blame at the door of a State government on the ground that it has not expended all the money that has been made available to it for housing purposes. It is also useless for honorable members to content themselves by saying that the State governments are not doing a good job in this matter. This is not a question of criticizing any housing authority. It is not even a question of whether a particular housing authority is capable of meeting its requirements. The time has arrived when we must alter our whole approach to this problem of housing. {: #subdebate-24-0-s5 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES -- What does the honorable member suggest? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We cannot continue to live in a fool's paradise. At present, we seem to be content merely to ramble along and to leave the job of providing adequate housing in the community to various organizations which are not subject to coordinated supervision. I believe that a toplevel authority- {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- Not another. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I submit that we require to establish a joint Commonwealth-State authority to determine the allocation of available materials among the various spheres of building construction. That authority could be charged with the responsibility of determining from time to time the proportion of available building materials that should be allocated for housing. We shall not deal with this problem effectively merely by providing a certain sum for the War Service Homes Division and certain sums to the States for housing purposes and then taking no steps to co-ordinate the production and distribution of building materials. When I learned that 14,000 fewer houses were constructed in 1952-53 than were constructed in the preceding year, I became convinced, having regard to the substantial back-log of houses and the increased demand that will arise for the housing of immigrants, that the time has arrived when priorities must be determined for the production and distribution of building materials. The only way in which that can be done is to entrust the task to a joint Commonwealth-State authority. Usually I do not agree with the honorable member for Bennelong' **(Mr. Cramer),** but I agree with his statement that at present no yardstick is available that would enable us to assess the actual number of houses that are required from time to time. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- And that requirement will never be satisfactorily assessed. {: #subdebate-24-0-s6 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister set that requirement at 60,000 houses a year and he said that from 15,000 to 20,000 houses are being constructed annually. Having regard to the overall back-lag we must do better than that. In those circumstances, I emphasize the necessity for the establishment of some authority to assess the actual housing requirements of the community and to allocate the building materials available among the various spheres of building construction. That is the first step we must take if we wish to deal with this problem effectively. The honorable member for Bennelong, in the course of a previous debate, said that our people are better housed to-day than they were some years ago. I invite the honorable member to inspect housing conditions at Regent Park and at tho immigration settlement at Chullora, as well as the accommodation provided in that area for employees at the Chullora railway works. Most of those railwaymen are permanent employees. If the provision of housing was organized on an effective basis, they should expect to obtain a house within a period of two years at the outside. In passing, I am pleased that this measure will at least encourage home-ownership. However, if the honorable member for Bennelong inspects the accommodation at the centres that I have mentioned he will readily appreciate that unless decent houses are provided for those persons they will, within a short period, become accustomed to the sub-standard conditions under which they are now housed. Those conditions are completely foreign to the Australian way of life. We shall never tackle this problem effectively until some autho- rity is provided to assess the actual housing requirements of the community and to allocate the building material available to the various spheres of building construction. We must make that our starting point in the construction of houses of all kinds. Every day, persons seek my assistance in obtaining a house for them. The first question I ask is whether they are ex-servicemen, because I recognize that a war service home is the best proposition that is available to any prospective home-seeker in the community. Earlier this week, the War Service Homes Division helped me to finalize the purchase of a home by an ex-serviceman, and when I informed him and his wife that the matter had been finalized they were overcome with joy. It is useless for honorable members to attack the shortcomings of State governments in the provision of houses. This Parliament must accept its share of responsibility in this matter. But would any honorable member say that, at this moment, the Parliament is capable of assessing the nation's actual capacity to provide houses? Are we prepared to say that such and such a proportion of available building materials, say 80 per cent., should be allocated to houses? We must be realistic in this matter. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** directed attention to the construction of huge buildings in Sydney. As he said, the construction of those buildings could have been postponed until more houses had been provided to overtake the backlog in the community. I refer to the Woolworth building and new buildings in the vicinity of Martin-place in Sydney, where there seems to be no difficulty with building materials or artisans, But the Minister says that the waiting period for war service homes cannot be shortened ! That means that a young couple must wait for at least two years from the time they decide to build a home before their wish can be accomplished, even if everything runs their way. That is not good enough. If we believe in a policy of home-ownership, and in the national pride that is developed by homeownership - and I believe we do - there should be no delays in financing the construction of homes. I agree with the honorable member for Bowman that, if there is to be a waiting period of six months after a man applies for financial assistance before anything can be done for him, four out of six applicants will never be able to buy homes. Owners who are ready to sei! houses will not wait for six months. It is of no use for the Government to say that it believes in homeownership while applicants for war service homes are unable to obtain immediate financial assistance. The case that I mentioned earlier is a classic example of what ought to be done. I am alarmed to learn that the number of war service homes under construction has decreased by 14,000 since last year. Perhaps the reason is that more money is available for the building of offices for insurance companies, picture theatres, hotels and so forth than for homes. If so, we are not doing justice to the Australian people. Most people in New South Wales know that the breweries in that State plan to spend millions of pounds on hotel construction and alteration this year. Those projects will absorb most of the man-power and materials available, and that is why exservicemen will still have to wait two years from the time they decide to build a home until they can occupy it. That is a cock-eyed system for a country that wants to become a real nation. Having considered the difficulties of exservicemen, my mind turns to the situation of those who are not ex-servicemen - those who have become old enough to need houses since the end of World War II. Are they to be condemned to live in slums ? Must they be forced to rely upon the State housing programmes to which the honorable member for Bennelong objects so keenly, merely because they were not old enough to take part in the war? The provision that is made for exservicemen in this bill should be taken as a pattern for all Australians who want homes. The Government, if it sincerely wants to provide houses for the people, will approach this matter from the top and establish an organization that can assess the home-building capacity of the nation. There is no reason why the war service homes scheme should not be applied to all Australians who want to buy homes. The Minister has said that he expects the War Service Homes Division to receive 25,000 applications a year but that, when they have been examined, probably only 15,000 will be acceptable. I join with the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R. Fraser),** who had something to say on behalf of single men. I have on my desk at the moment details of the case of an unfortunate man whose application for a war service home has been rejected. I know that the Minister for Social Services is not happy about the situation which obliges the authorities to refuse such applications. This unmarried man has an aged father and mother, both of whom are in receipt of pensions. Because he knows that they have difficulty in paying rent, he is anxious to provide a house for them. However, because they are his parents and because he is not married, his application cannot be accepted by the War Service Homes Division. I recommended this young man's application to the Minister, who sent me a reply in which he explained that the young man was not entitled to a war service home. I ask Government supporters, and especially the honorable member for Bennelong, to explain, if they can, why there should be any differentiation of this sort under the war service homes scheme. Indeed, why should there be any differentiation between Australians who want to buy homes? I believe that our homebuilding programme could be extended to provide for the needs of everybody. If we cannot achieve the degree of cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth that could make such a programme possible, it is time that we reviewed our Constitution. If we have faith in Australia's destiny, it is essential that we provide homes for those who will shape the nation's future. The Commonwealth Bank has closed down completely on finance for home purchase. This has placed almost beyond the realms of reality the aspirations of thousands of young Australians who were not old enough to serve during World War II., but who are now seeking to establish homes and families and who will share in moulding Australia's future, which is of such importance to us and to them. Therefore, I urge all honorable members to put aside criticisms based on party political prejudices and to consider our housing needs with the object of finding some way out of the vicious circle in which we appear to bc trapped. We should not be talking in terms of ten or fifteen years as the time necessary to overtake the housing lag, and we should not admit that we do not know how many homes we can build each year. We should obtain an authoritative estimate of Australia's building resources and then evolve a practical scheme that we can present to the people. Surely the system of building war service homes can be extended on a national scale. If we do that, we shall be able to give a stake in the country, not only to exservice men and women, but also to younger Australians on whom we depend for our future welfare. I commend that suggestion to the Government, and I hope that, before this House next debates the war service homes programme, it will make a realistic assessment of our resources of man-power and materials for the purposes of a general home-building programme for everybody. Every young Australian couple should be able to obtain the financial aid and the materials necessary for home construction tinder conditions that are not, less favorable than those which will be offered under this bill for the benefit of ex-servicemen. {: #subdebate-24-0-s7 .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin -- I desire to speak very briefly on this bill, not because I am disinterested in war service homes, but because, on the contrary, I am very interested in the subject and I know that many ex-servicemen are waiting to take advantage of the extra financial accommodation that will be made available to them under the bill. Before I proceed to the main substance of my speech, I want to correct a state ment that was made by the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison),** who said that a single person with dependent parents could not obtain a house through the War Service Homes Division. That is not true. There must be some special circumstances associated with the case that he has mentioned, because any unmarried ex-serviceman with dependent parents is entitled to receive assistance from the division. I commend the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon)** and the officers of that department upon the amendments of the War Service Homes Act for which the bill provides. It is highly desirable that the amount of the permissible advance for the purchase of existing homes should be increased from £2,000 to £2,750 and that the provisions of the act should be extended to ex-servicemen in Papua, New Guinea and Norfolk Island - an amendment which, I am bound to say in all honesty, is overdue. It should have been made a long time ago. However, I commend the Minister on the fact that it is now to be made. A third provision of the bill is of special interest to me, as I have discussed the subject several times previously. I refer to the lifting of the price ceiling limit in relation to the purchase of existing homes. That is another improvement of the war service homes scheme which is overdue. I was very interested in the following passage in the Minister's second-reading speech : - >Whilst the provision of new homes, as distinct from financing old ones, is a greater contribution to a reduction of the general housing shortage, the stage hae now been reached at which the inflationary trend has been arrested and an optimum building rate achieved. It is now desirable to give persons who are not able to have new homes built for them an equal opportunity of becoming homeowners by purchasing existing properties. The change will also reduce the demand for building materials and building labour. However, I was somewhat disappointed with the following statement later in the speech: - >It is not practicable to re-introduce the discharge of mortgages on old homes as a general policy. The argument that a man who owns a home, even if it is encumbered by a mortgage, is better off than the man who does not own a home cannot be refuted, and it is essential that the money available should be used to help those who do not own homes. I am bound to say that I disagree with that statement. Many ex-servicemen have bought homes on mortgages because they were not able to obtain, financial accommodation from the War Service Homes Division. This means that they have been precluded from obtaining terms which are obviously better than they have been able to obtain under the mortgage system. The preamble to the act, which the Minister quoted in his second-reading speech, plainly states that its purpose is to make' provision for homes for Australian ex-servicemen and female dependants of Australian ex-servicemen. Clearly, that is the job of the War Service Homes Division, regardless of the conditions under which the homes may be provided. It is not. the duty of the division to concern itself whether a man has a mortgage on a new home or an old home, or whether he wants a house built under the war service homes scheme. I strongly object to the refusal to allow the division to take over existing mortgages. As I observed at the outset, I do not want to speak at great length. I wanted to make the point to which I have referred,' and to refer to two other matters that have been mentioned by previous speakers. The first was the question of priority. That matter was adequately discussed by the honorable member for Dawson **(Mr. Davidson).** The second matter was the question of temporary finance, which was very adequately dealt with by the honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm).** I must say in all honesty that I have received the most cordial co-operation from all the officers of the War Service Homes Division, in both Canberra and Hobart, and I pay tribute to the work that is done by the deputy director in Hobart. He has done a very fine job, and I am grateful for the co-operation that I have always received from him. I wish the bill a speedy passage, and I commend the Minister, the Government and officers of the War Service Homes Division on it. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Daly)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2462 {:#debate-25} ### LEIGH CREEK NORTH COALFIELD TO MARREE (CONVERSION TO STANDARD GAUGE) RAILWAY BILL 1954 Motion (by **Mr. Townley)** - *by leave* - agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the conversion to standard gauge of the railway from Leigh Creek North Coalfield to Marree in the State of South Australia, and for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation · Denison · LP -- *by leave* - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to approve an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia relating to the' conversion to standard gauge of the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway between Leigh Creek North coal-field and Marree, and to provide for the conversion to be effected by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. A standardgauge railway is at present under construction between Stirling North, near Port Augusta, and the Leigh Creek North coal-field, over a distance of 163 miles. Authority for this work is contained in the Stirling North to Brachina Railway Act 1952 and the Brachina to Leigh Creek North Coalfield Railway Act 1950-1952. The conversion provided for in this bill would extend the standardgauge line to a length of 219 miles, and would provide a continuous 4-ft. 8--in. gauge track between Port Pirie and Marree - a distance of 275 miles. The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner in 1949 recommended to the former Minister for Transport that, as soon as the standard-gauge railway to Leigh Creek had been completed, the conversion of the Leigh Creek to Marree section to 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge should be commenced. It is provided in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia, authorized by the Railway Standardization (South Australia) Agreement Act 1949, that the Commonwealth shall undertake, among other things, the conversion to standard gauge of the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge lines of the Commonwealth railways from Port Augusta to Alice Springs. The railway referred to in this bill is part of that railway. South Australia, by legislation, has approved the agreement, and has thus given the consent to the proposed conversion which would be required by the Constitution if the conversion were effected on the existing route. However, in order to ensure that the new standard- ' gauge track shall have the most economically efficient gradients and curvature, the Commonwealth RailwaysCommisioner requires power to make deviations not exceeding 5 miles on either side of the existing route. This is a necessary and standard procedure, and the State has executed an agreement with the Commonwealth in which it undertakes to give its consent to the proposed conversion with power to make deviations up to the limits defined. The agreement referred to in this bill provides, also, that the State shall grant to the Commonwealth, free of charge - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. any Crown lands and any leased lands of the Crown in respect of which the Commonwealth shall have acquired the rights of the lessees', and 1. any stone, soil and gravel, upon any Crown lands or leased lands of the Crown from which the State has a right to take the same ; certified by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to be requiredby the Commonwealth in connexion with the conversion of the railway or the maintenance or working of the railway upon the altered gauge. These samerights were granted to the Commonwealth by South Australia in respect of the railway at present under construction to the Leigh Creek North coal-field. The need of this conversion is best demonstrated, first, by consideration of the economics of retaining the existing line in 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. If the standard-gauge track were terminated at Leigh Creek North, the position would be as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It would be necessary to establish a transfer depot at Leigh Creek incorporating locomotive fuelling, watering and servicing facilities; stock-trucking yards, goods shed and transfer platform, railway sidings, train crew resthouse accommodation, water supply, water treatment plant and electric lighting. This work would cost £128,000. 1. The Leigh Creek North section of the existing railway was constructed in 1884 and is not ballasted. More than half the rails are in 50-lb. material and the rest in 60-lb. Most of the rails and sleepers are due for immediate renewal, and it will ultimately be necessary to ballast the track. The estimated cost of renewing the rails and sleepers is £533,000, and the provision of a minimum of six inches of ballast would cost £160,000- a total of £693,000. 2. Cattle loaded at Marree and Farina would have to be transferred to standard-gauge trucks at Leigh Creek after travelling only 56 or 24 miles respectively. Nearly one-third of the cattle conveyed on this railway is loaded at Marree and Farina. I should like to refer to the most important physical advantages that this conversion would bring. Essential facilities for the establishment of a transfer station already exist at Marree. These include stock-yards, water supply, locomotive running shed, goods shed, resthouse accommodation for train crews, and railway sidings. There is at Marree a good underground water supply, controlled by the Commonwealth railways and adequate for all requirements. At Leigh Creek, on the other hand, the watersupply, which is controlled by the State, is becoming increasingly inadequate with the expansion of the coal-fields and the township. It would ultimately be necessary for the Commonwealth railways to provide a water supply for their own purposes - a costly undertaking, requiring a 16-in. pipeline. Cattle loaded at Marree and Farina, which, as I have said, represent nearly a third of the total number transported over the railway, would be conveyed without transfer or spelling to Port Pirie Junction in seven hours or less. At the present time, the journey from Marree, including spelling at Stirling North, occupies nineteen hours. Marree is a much more suitable place foi transferring and spelling cattle than is Leigh Creek North, where the noise of trains, mining operations and aircraft would disturb them. Railway expenditure would show a saving of over £22,000 a year because of the lower operating cost of standard-gauge as against narrowgauge equipment. The railway service to Marree, Farina and places further north would be greatly improved. A direct standard-gauge connexion between Port Pirie Junction and Marree, operated with diesel-electric locomotives, should do much to stimulate development in this area. In addition to all this, of course, the conversion would be a further step towards the fulfilment of the Commonwealth's undertakings in the railway standardization agreement of 1949, with the State of South Australia. The cattle industry is of primary importance in the development of the inland, and the best transport system that can be economically justified should be provided for its development. A royal commission was appointed under the provisions of the Port Augusta to Alice Springs Railway (Alteration of Route) Act 1950, under the chairmanship of His Honor, **Mr. Justice** Wolff. I should like to read the following extract from the report of that commission: - >It is estimated that Australia consumes about 88 per cent, of its beef production. Of the surplus about one half is suitable for export as carcass beef, and the remainder is canned either for export or for the retail trade. > >At the present time between 80 per cent, and 90 per cent, of the cattle coming down from the North are so badly bruised that they are not fit for export. > > **Mr, W.** A. Beattie, Agricultural Economist and Senior Research Officer attached to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Hesearch Organization, expressed the opinion that poor transport facilities are responsible for great numbers of cattle being sent to the abattoirs as fat cattle when they are only in store condition. Cattle loaded in fat condition reach the market with loss of bloom through the long and arduous journey and are only suitable as stores, yet they pass as " fats '». The export of the carcass does not enhance Australian prestige abroad. So, even cattle which escape injury in transit are prejudicially affected by the journey. > >Northern cattle should be spelled at Marree or Farina - preferably Marree. Suggestions were made that Telford would be suitable, but the noise of trains, mining and aircraft would disturb these wild cattle. In America there has been a rule in vogue since 1902 that cattle must be spelled once in every 28 hours unless the journey can be completed in 36 hours. > >The time taken in travelling cattle by rail from Alice Springs to Stirling North is 47 hours. This is far too long without a spell. Add to this the time the cattle are waiting in trucks after loading at Alice Springs, which may be some twelve hours, and an appreciation can be got of the severe effect which the rigors of the .journey have on their condition. The total time from Alice Springs to Dry Creek is 85 hours. This includes a 24-hour spell at. Stirling North, two and a half hours travel from Stirling North to Port Pirie, two hours occupied in transfer at Port Pirie Junction, and nine and a half hours travel from Port Pirie to Dry Creek. These times are the best that can be expected under present conditions, and in practice they are often exceeded. > >The North-South line now carries approximately 100,000 head of cattle a year for the Adelaide markets. Since the line was extended from Oodnadatta in 1929 the cattle traffic from Alice Springs has more than doubled. It can be demonstrated that while the average number of cattle in the Alice Springs district has increased to approximately 300 per cent, more than pre-war, the average in the Northern Territory is only about 12 per cent, more. This virtual stagnation may be traced to lack of transport. > >The probable increase in cattle traffic from Alice Springs alone would warrant serious attention to better and more speedy transport. > >We think the foregoing remarks show how necessary it is to ensure that adequate, $<*' and speedy transport is provided to foster this important industry. A great deal of the bruising of cattle occurs during loading and unloading into and from railway vehicles. The elimination of one transfer point between Alice Springs and Adelaide will very materially reduce the incidence of bruising, and, of course, the time for the journey. The standard of construction proposed for the conversion is as follows: - Ruling grade, 1 in 120; ballast, a minimum of 6 inches, consolidated; rails, 94 lb. to the yard, welded. The conversion of this railway, if authorized by the Parliament, will be undertaken in conjunction with the completion of the railway now being constructed to Leigh Creek North coalfield. Plant, materials and men will be used to the best advantage on the two projects, and it would be inconvenient and of no value to account for expenditure on the two works separately. Funds totalling £11,000,000 have been appropriated under the Stirling North to Brachina Railway Act 1952. Provision has been made in the bill for this appropriation to be amalgamated with the appropriation of £1,241,000 required for this conversion; so that the maximum appropriation for the two projects would be £12,241,000. The existing narrowgauge track is urgently in need of rehabilitation, and the cost of that work and the provision of transfer facilities at Leigh Creek would total £821,000 if the extension to Marree were not authorized by Parliament. If this bill be passed now, it will be possible to effect appreciable savings in construction costs by the use of men, plant and equipment now in the field for the work in progress, and by extending current contracts for the supply of ballast and for rock-cutting, concrete work, and so on. This project is thoroughly justified economically, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Chambers)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2465 {:#debate-26} ### BILLS RETURNEDFROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - Loan (Housing) Bill 1954. Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1954. {: .page-start } page 2465 {:#debate-27} ### WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1954 {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 2462). {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER:
Bennelong .- The debate on this bill has been somewhat tame, and that fact does not appeal to me, because I thought that Opposition members might advance arguments into which I might be able to get my teeth. Nevertheless, it is good that they should sometimes agree with the Government, and congratulate the appropriate Minister on a measure and do all the things that good friends ought to do together. That is a healthy sign. However, some opposition to the bill that was voiced by Opposition members, though not as criticism of the Government, calls for comment. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** obviously had not prepared his speech. I do not know whether it had been intended that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** should lead for the Opposition in this debate, but it seems that the Opposition has fallen down on the job because two of its experts in this field are absent from its ranks to-day - the honorable member for Lalor, and the honorable member for Reid **(Mr. Morgan),** who always makes an interesting speech on housing. The honorable member for Parkes referred mainly to the control of money. He mentioned also, as did one other honorable member, the construction of big commercial buildings in Sydney, with particular reference to a building that was constructed recently on the north side of Sydney harbour by an insurance company. The stage has been reached in this country when it is essential that, irrespective of the housing shortage, certain commercial buildings should be erected in the major cities. People cannot live in a civilized community without houses, nor can they do so without some attention being given to the erection of commercial buildings. In many of the large cities, including Sydney, not a major building of any kind has been built since the outbreak of World War IT. It is essential that the need for such accommodation in big cities should be met, otherwise commercial people will be faced with serious difficulties in their search for accommodation. I am not suggesting that materials and labour should be used for the construction of big buildings rather than for houses. I think that the greater part of materials and labour should be utilized in the erection of homes. We cannot simply shut the door to the construction of commercial buildings, because the affairs of a country cannot be conducted unless the construction of commercial buildings keeps pace with the growth of the community. The honorable member for Parkes referred also to the frustration that will be caused by limiting to £30,000,000 the funds proposed to be made available under the provisions of the bill. It isnot, as I have stated before, the limitation of money that causes such frustration; it is the limitation of labour and materials. Although I agree that every ex-serviceman is entitled to a home, and that the "War Service Homes Act makes that fact clear, the question arises as to who should be the first and who should be the second, to receive assistance. Everybody cannot, obtain assistance for the construction of such homes at once, because construction is limited by the availability of materials and labour. If financial assistance were made available to every applicant at once, not only would inflation be caused, but also the extra demand for homes would create a price structure that would injure the exserviceman. He would be obliged to accept greater liabilities as a result of the forcing up of the price level of existing homes anc! new homes. It is a question of proper economic judgment. The honorable member also stated that the Government's programme was not a brilliant one, and that he could not congratulate the Minister upon it. If ever a government has had a record that could be regarded as splendid, it has been the record of this Government in relation to war service homes. Although some of the figures relating to this matter have been quoted before, they are worth repeating. During the period of 30 years and nine months between March, 1919, and December, 1949, 54,541 homes were built or purchased under the war service homes legislation, at a cost of £52,795,522. During the four and a half years from the 1st January, 1950, to the 30th June, 1954, this Government provided 61,183 homes for ex-servicemen at a total cost of £116,537,652. Those figures speak for themselves. During the four and a half years from the 1st July, 1945, to the 31st December, 1949, the Labour Government provided 16,946 homes. Those figures, which cannot be denied, completely refute the honorable member's statement that progress has not been brilliant. Progress has been brilliant; it has been magnificent. Nobody in this country can deny that fact. It is a great pity that the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua),** who, I understand, is an ex-banker, and who has learnt his economics in the proper way, should have become so contami- nated as to become absorbed with socialist ideals and to turn his back upon traditional banking policy. It is a pity that he should have made some of the statements that he made. He was the only Opposition member to state that he was disappointed with the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon).** He charged the Government, and the Minister, with being afraid of upsetting the economic stability of the country. The honorable member would not be afraid; he would expend millions of pounds on Avar service homes and other benefits! His attitude is, " Darn inflation. Do not let us worry about that. Do not let us worry about the cost structure. Do not let us worry about the effect these things will have on the cost of living. Let the stability of the economy go hang ! " The honorable member was speaking as an ex-banker. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- The honorable member was not a banker. He was a ledgerkeeper. Mi-. CRAMER- Then I was at fault. He admitted that the Government had made great progress, but he stated that it had done so by implementing Labour's plans. What kind of plans? Let us examine some of the plans that were formulated by the Labour party. What did the Labour Government do in relation to the training of young operatives? It allowed the Building Workers Industrial Union to be placed under the control of a prominent Communist, and allowed that Communist to place limitations upon the number of young men who were allowed to learn the building trade. That was Labour's contribution! {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- It is definitely true, and it can be proved to the hilt. Young men were discouraged from becoming carpenters and bricklayers. Let us also examine Labour's plans in relation to coal production. The country had never before been in such a deplorable condition in relation to the available quantity of coal as existed when the Labour Government left office in 1949. Some twelve months passed before this Government was able to ensure that adequate supplies of coal were produced. It was not until this Government assumed office that full supplies of coal were available, that difficulties associated with the production of electricity were overcome, and that the production of steel rose. Labour just could not do these things, but this Government did them. I have not any need to cite the relevant figures; they are available to every honorable member. The honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison),** who, I must say, is a very reasonable and responsible man, and who, in my opinion, made the best contribution to this debate on behalf of the Opposition, made some very temperate statements, and enunciated some splendid principles. I believe that he is one member of the Labour party who is in favour of home ownership, and he expressed his opinion to-day in a very sensible manner. But it is a great pity that a man like the honorable member should still think it is necessary to impose controls to overcome the difficulties that have been mentioned. He is one of those persons who think that it is necessary to take a measuring stick, and to measure the number of people who want homes, to measure this, that, and the other thing. He stated that the Government should establish a materials control board to ensure that sufficient materials shall be produced to overcome the shortage that is revealed by the measuring stick. Shortages cannot be overtaken in that manner. Was the success of our forefathers, or the success that has been achieved in America, achieved by the adoption of a system of control, or was it achieved in a free economy by the intensive use of the initiative of the individual ? That is the method by which success is achieved ; not by the imposition of controls.If we were to use a measuring stick, we would get a completely lopsided state of affairs. It is not long since I spoke to the honorable member for McMillan **(Mr. Brown)** about the housing commission scheme in Victoria. Until about a year ago, there were 200 vacant houses in the La Trobe valley, because the authorities had failed to assess the position properly. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. *Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 2467 {:#debate-28} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-28-0} #### ROYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE Motion by **(Sir Eric Harrison)** - *by leave* - agreed to - >That the maximum period for which the mover **(Dr. Evatt)** and the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** may each speak on the motion to print the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Espionage shall not exceed 40 minutes with no extension of time. {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: **-(Hon.** Archie Cameron). - I feel that I should trespass on the time of the House to state my definite views on the proposed motion of the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt).** The interim report arose out of the finding of a royal commission appointed by this Parliament to inquire into certain things. I have previously stated from this chair that it is my considered opinion that a member of this House, having spoken and voted on a measure before this House, is thereby precluded from taking part' in any court action arising out of that act of the House. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition appeared as a barrister for some time before the royal commission. I hold the view that a member of this House has no right to appear before that royal commission, except in the capacity of a witness, and, it is my further view that, having so appeared, as the right honorable gentleman did appear, he should not discuss in this House any reports or matter that arose out of the proceedings of the royal commission at the time when he was there as a barrister. I leave the matter to the judgment of the House. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- As to the first part of the ruling that you have just given, **Mr. Speaker,** I say nothing, because perhaps the whole thing is merged in what you said in the second part of your statement about the capacity of a member of this House who has appeared as counsel, to discuss a case in this Parliament in which he has appeared. I am bound to say that, broadly speaking, I think that the ruling is quite correct. I believe that you have stated a very sound principle indeed. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- The principle that the Leader of the Opposition be gagged. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- On the contrary I am about to ungag him. The Leader of the Opposition has already complained in this place and that, about not being allowed to speak, and therefore I believe the right way to deal with this matter is not to question your ruling, **Mr. Speaker,** with which I agree, but for me to move that the Standing Orders be suspended on this occasion and under these circumstances so that the Leader of the Opposition may proceed with his motion. I therefore move - >That so much of the Standing Orders he suspended as would prevent the Right Honorable the Leader of the Opposition from proceeding with his motion. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Of course, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** but I have never heard such a statement at a time like this, and such a comment from the Prime Minister who, after he had appeared before the Privy Council in the case of *James* v. *the Commonwealth of Australia,* came to the House and discussed the law that it was contemplated should be altered as a result of that case. Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority of the whole number of members of the House. {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- I move - >That the following paper, laid on the table of the House on the 26th October, be printed: - Royal Commission on Espionage - Interim Report, dated 21st October, 1954. I have moved that motion in order that the House may have a full opportunity, and I hope that it will be a full opportunity, of discussing this most important document, the interim report of the Royal Commission on Espionage. The document, of course, is an interim report of the commission which was set up in order to investigate certain matters which were set out by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** in a speech delivered in this House on the 13th April. The report needs special attention, because one of the features of the evidence referred to in the report was an absolute contradiction between the facts as stated by the Prime Minister on the 13th April, and the facts as proved in evidence before the royal commission. On the evening of the 13th April, the Prime Minister informed the House and the people, on the eve of a general election, that he hated to bring up a matter such as the one that he was putting before them. It was purely coincidental, he said, that the Petrov affair happened to explode just at that time. He said that Petrov had come to our security people only a few days before the 13th April. He tried to put the case to the Parliament and the people, as though it resembled the famous case of the man named Gouzenko, which occurred in Canada in 1946. There was a royal commission into the case of Gouzenko, and that commission set out the facts of that case as it saw them. Gouzenko, in peril of his life, and fearing that people from his own embassy were about to track him down and perhaps destroy him and his family, rushed for assistance. He went first to newspaper offices, and when they would not listen to him he finally appealed for help to an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Just in time, he obtained asylum; and I remind honorable members that asylum is what a person gets when he is in danger. A person who seeks asylum fears that people within the country where he is living will do something to injure him; and such seeking of asylum is always a sudden emergency. But that was not true about Petrov. Petrov had been known to the security service not for only a few days before the 13th April. I cannot forget this matter, because on the very night of the 13tb April, when the matter must have been known to the Prime Minister because he had met the Cabinet in the morning and knew that he was to make a statement in the evening, he did not say a word to myself as Leader of the Opposition. At 5.30 p.m. on the 13th April I caught an aeroplane to Sydney to attend an important function. If I had known that a statement was to be made, even if 1 bad known it only in general terms, I should have stayed here. However, I was kept in the dark and went to Sydney and the first I heard of the Petrov matter was during a statement over the radio at 10 minutes to 9 o'clock. I desire the House to bear with me tonight, because this is one of the greatest cases in the history of Australia, as that which is involved in it is fundamental to our lives. It is not a question of the particular man Petrov; he matters little or nothing. It is a question of justice. What is the truth of the matter? Why can we not get at the truth of it? The Royal Commission on Espionage has done its best in most difficult circumstances to find out the truth, but counsel in the case has appeared practically entirely in the interests of what is called the security service, but what, in truth, is an intelligence organization established by **Mr. Chifley** and myself six years ago. The truth has not yet come out, but it is coming out. Instead of the Petrov case being a Gouzenko case, it is the very reverse. Instead of Petrov seeking asylum and being in danger, he was under security observation for two years before April of this year. That emerged in the evidence before the royal commission that dealt with exhibit J. For that enormous space of time of two years, the security service had known Petrov. Petrov did not have any real intention of going back to Russia for two years before April. I regret that the evidence given before the royal commission is not available to honorable members together with the report of the commission. The evidence is so voluminous that the relevant parts cannot be easily sorted out; but I ask honorable members, and those throughout the country who can get access to the evidence, to study it. It shows that the man Bialoguski - a doctor if you please - was a security agent charged with the special care of this man Petrov, watching him, trying to get information from him while Petrov stayed at a Sydney flat over long periods of time. Petrov was anxious to stay in this country because he liked our way of life, but he began to like it long before the 13th April. I say that it is not a case, on the admitted evidence of Bialoguski, of a person really seeking asylum in this country. The documents in the case merely give effect to the arrangements already made. Petrov's life was never in danger. Imagine it being in danger in Australia ! That is absurd! The Petrov case is nothing like the Gouzenko case, but Petrov was determined to come, under appropriate circumstances, and live in this country. There is nothing significant in that, except when we turn back to the Prime Minister's story of the 13th April. Does anybody believe any longer that this matter occurred suddenly a few days before that date? Did the Cabinet know about it or did it not. The Prime Minister said that he mentioned it to the Cabinet only that very morning of the 13th April. I am not going into the contradictions in what the Prime Minister said first on the 13th April, and then on the 12th August. On the 12th August, according to the *Hansard* report, he said - >Therefore, T say to the House and to the country, that the name of Petrov became known to me for the first time on Sunday night, the 11th April, I think, or the preceding Saturday night. As a matter of fact, the sworn evidence before the commission shows that it was at least a week before that. Above all, it was not a case of the Gouzenko character at all. Moreover, the fact is, as was admitted in August, that the payment of £5,000 to Petrov was made under extraordinary circumstances. Did anybody in the House know that on the 13th April? Of course not. It was carefully kept back from them. The Prime Minister was asked by me last August when he did know, and he said some time early in May. That answer was good enough for me, because it showed, that when the royal commission opened in Canberra, not a word was said in the opening address that this man had been paid £5,000. The Prime Minister, in hi? answer to my question in August, made i(. clear that the instructions that he gave to counsel precluded that fact from being brought out before the general election. But the Prime Minister said in August, that if he had told everything I would not be here. He said that to me across the table. What he meant to say was that people on my staff might be implicated. If he had said that in April, it would have had a disastrous effect, he supposed upon myself and the party that I lead. That is probably true, but if he had said it he would have been saying something which has been proved in most cases to be completely baseless.- I cannot understand this charge. The Prime Minister used to be a great advocate of civil liberties, justice and fair dealing. In December last he said of security matters - though he forgot it in August- that the Leader of the Opposition receives the confidence of the Director-General of Security, and is as much entitled to it as is the Prime Minister. He knew at the latest on the 4th April that names of persons on my staff were mentioned in exhibit J, but he knew more than that; he knew that page 35 of exhibit J - and this was one of the documents that the Prime Minister read on the 4th April - was a special page headed with my name. There it was. The physical evidence showed that that document was not attached to the other documents, but was inserted separately. It also showed that one or more documents were attached to that document. They have disappeared. There is no trace of them. It may be a wrong description of them, and not a complete description, but, in a sense it was a " ring-in " document so far as the subject-matter was concerned. At the same time, something had been eliminated, or so the physical evidence suggested. But let that go. What did Exhibit *J* say? The commissioners say that it was false. That means not true in fact. What was the statement in it? I never asked for the statement in the court proceedings at all. It was thrust on me. The purpose of it, I can imagine; but it is unnecessary to examine it. It was handed to me, and it dealt with me. The matter seems unimportant, and it is unimportant, in one sense. It deals with the subject of a vise, and it says, in effect, that I, as Leader of the Opposition, on a mission to the Coronation, had difficulty in obtaining a vise, through the United States of America. It suggests that the present Prime Minister met the difficulty by seeing that I secured the vise. Each statement was untrue. There was no difficulty about the vise. It was issued automatically, and. as a matter of fact, that was stated by the United States Ambassador. The President of the United States of America treated ma a.= a special guest in that country. I do not wish to say any more about that. The statement about the vise was false; the statement or the suggestion that the Prime Minister had intervened to get the vise was false; and the concoction of reasons given that the United States of America was "very angry with **Dr. Evatt"** were false, too. It was just an absurd statement. There was one lie, a second lie, and a concoction that was worse than a lie. That was on page 35 of exhibit J. I ask the Prime Minister to tell us, when he replies, what he thought when he read that statement on the 4th April, when 100 minutes were spent at the Lodge discussing the document. Why did he not say to Richards and Spry, " Damn it, that is false. I shall see that this man, the Leader of the Opposition, knows it". He should have done so. The Prime Minister knows in his own heart that he should have done so. There was a false statement. I am not now dealing with the person who was responsible for the falsity. It was not a mere lie. It was a fabricated reason, and I need not deal with the reason here. That is not the end in regard to exhibit J. I came to the conclusion, because of the style and because of evidencebefore the commission, which is not referred to, that a person on my staff, a press officer, O'sullivan, had known of an incident in which it had been suggested that the United States of America was closing down on certain applications for vises if they had worked in any way against the referendum of 1951. There was evidence, uncontradicted, that I said, " What nonsense ! That cannot be the American view. Get this application for a vise to the consulate ". The vise was issued. That was known to the person I mentioned, who was a press officer on my staff. I do not wish to say much more about it except that there is no criticism of him in this report. There is no criticism of the attitude he took. When he was a member of the staff of the *Sydney Morning Herald,* he wrote a document, which the Russians became possessed of, which indicated the weakness or strength of character of each member of the press gallery. It was a perfect guide for a person who might wish to put pressure on any member of the press gallery. One cannot read it without horror and disgust. I never knew of this legal misconduct till the 4th June, after the election, when the man came to me and told me. Within an hour, I had dismissed him. This Government allowed him to remain on my staff for months after it knew. Perhaps that is politics. Perhaps that is the way the Government wants to play it. I wonder whether any of the great Prime Ministers of this country would have done that to anybody, no matter how much they were opposed to him. But let that go !. I hope that the House will follow me as I deal with the next point. Having given that document, this pressman was the slave of the people who got the document from him. The evidence of **Mrs. Petrov,** Petrov, and the man was an admission, not that anything was done, but that pressure on him could be overpowering. Because of the matter in the document, the revelation of the fact would be his ruin, and he could not remain for a moment on my staff. Therefore, when I saw page 35, I came to the conclusion almost immediately, from the style and the language of it, that that portion of it was really attributable to that particular man; in other words he had to do what they said, or be destroyed. I need not elaborate that point. There is no time for me to elaborate it. But, as a matter of fact, the preparation of this document seems to have been commenced at the time when I was overseas at the Coronation. After I had come to that conclusion, what followed ? At an earlier stage in Melbourne, the case went along without any real test of it, and this report practically suggests that the members of the staff for whom I appeared, **Mr. Dalziel** and **Mr. Albert** Grundeman, had no real trouble. They only had to go to the commission and deny it, but their names were bruited forth from Melbourne by the chairman to all Australia and all the world as possible spies. I know that people differ on this matter. They say, " Oh no, do not do it". I would have been shamed before my fellow countrymen if I had not defended them. But then, how does one defend them? The commissioners say in this report that they do not object to that. Not at all ! They understand that. No objection came from them. But they do say, in a paragraph in the report, that all the members of the staff needed to have done was to say that they did not give the information. That is true. That is characteristic of this commission. Individuals are named, and there should be some one watching the interests of justice generally as opposed to the particular interests of the security service. On this occasion, the clients for whom I appeared wanted to go further, and find who put their names into the document. Was not that natural? Was it not a proper thing to find out the facts? That is the position I took in this case. Who did it? Who put their names in the document? Was it Lockwood, or was it somebody else? Was that document entirely Lockwood's, or were other persons authors or co-authors? Now, I have already stated my view about page 35, and I shall not repeat it, but that was not the end of the case. I cannot give much of the contents of the document. This is one portion I can refer to. It took me ten days or a fortnight to get it out. I did not get it out because it was of any great importance, except as showing the nature of the problem. There was no factual investigation of document J by the security service, after it got the document in April. The document dealt with 100 names of people, and 70 informants were stated. Two good detectives, with that wealth of information before them, must have been able to discover the authors. It referred to name A, and said that the informant was so and so. Some of it was information of a grossly defamatory character, criminal libel perhaps, and some was not so serious, but there it was a perfect mine for the work of skilled investigators. What for? To find out, the author. It has not been done yet. The only witnesses called as alleged informants in this case are members of my staff. Two out of 70! No one else! There it is, the file of names. I do not wish their names to be dragged into the commission, or anybody to be hurt, but surely the security service must have said, in effect. "Will we have a check at name 'A'? It says the informant is so and so. . We will check it with that person, and. see 'if he could not be the informant. It may be true, it may be partly true". It was the kind of stuff that, if it had been factually investigated, the truth could not have failed to be brought out. That was never done. And this is a great fallacy in the report. The report says that the security service did not act with neglect. I suggest that the security service acted with gross and culpable neglect.- Who was the author ? From my study of the document, I thought that the style - what might be called the fingerprint of authorship of this document - did not indicate this man Lockwood as the sole author. He is a Communist, of course, and there a re some people in this country as in every country, who say in times of excitement, " Well, he is a Communist who probably is guilty ". He may be charged with any crime, and he starts behind scratch. I think that the most important thing in the world, quite certainly in the British world to-day, is to insist that no nian should be convicted or found responsible for something in circumstances of that character. Communist, fascist, whatever he may be, let the truth prevail ! I believe that this case will gradually emerge, as the evidence goes on, into a great case, and I think that it will be found in the end that this man Lockwood is not the author of this document. He did a very wrong thing, and, in some respects, a very wicked thing. He furnished information at the Russian Embassy. It was, to a large extent, material that he had already written, but there is no doubt that he gave additional information, and subsequently wrote an explanation of it called "What is in exhibit J? " There is much in the document which is not referred to. There is only the summary that he gave, and that summary contains matters which are not in exhibit J. The fallacy, I submit with the greatestrespect to the finding of the learned judges, is their undoubted failure to remember that Lockwood's information was a source of this document, exhibit J. There is no doubt about that, and the fair inference from all the circumstances, as I saw it, was that other people came along and. on the basis of what he did, they made a new and revised document, with all the character that they thought would make it more attractive, more sensational, or more defamatory. Understand, I am not excusing Lockwood. But if he was not the sole author of the document, who were the authors? If he was not the sole author, and it was the Petrovs' story that he was, it is perfectly clear that they and the authors entered into an agreement for the purpose of producing this document. It is of no use for Government supporters to laugh at that statement. It all follows. Honorable members opposite may not . agree with that conclusion. I just ask ' them to hear it. I think, on that point, that the great trouble about the commission was that it failed to hear the case. An expert witness was called. There was lettering in handwriting on exhibit J. Evidence was given by an expert that the handwriting was that of Lockwood. The handwriting has been photostated. It has nothing to do with exhibit J. I do not wish to arouse anybody's curiosity but the actual lettering has been photostated, and shows the comparison between the writing on the contents of exhibit J, and many specimens of Lockwood's handwriting. The judges did not attach much importance to it. I do not wish to read all of it, but I shall refer to what seems to be the weakness of the report. The commission makes the following statement: - >While this evidence as to handwriting supports the conclusion that Lockwood did produce Exhibit J, it is of very little importance in view of the strength of the other evidence. My view is decisive. There is no clear finding that it was Lockwood's handwriting. If the commissioners had gone into the matter they may have made such a finding, but they have not done so. Counsel for two members of my staff asked that an expert witness, **Dr.** Monticone, be called. For two days it seemed that he would be called, but on the third day the learned commissioners said that as an expert witness had already been heard it was not necessary to call another expert. I read the following from page 631 of the transcript of evidence : - 1073. The Chairman. - **Dr. Evatt,** you asked the Inspector to make a great many investigations in the last fortnight. We have been listening to this for a fortnight you know. 1074. **Dr. Evatt.** - I do, your honour; but on limited material. But I arn certainly not going to be put in the position of accepting that evidence, which I submit should not be followed. 1075. Ligertwood *J.* - You do not have to accept that evidence, **Dr. Evatt.** 1070. **Dr. Evatt.** - I want an opportunity of putting that before the Commission by expert evidence, and incidental access to the documents for that purpose. 1077. The Chairman. - The first thing you would have to do, **Dr. Evatt,** would be to tell us the name of the expert you wish to employ. It looked as though as long as the witness was suitable that would be done. **Mr. Justice** Ligertwood indicated as much. Three days later, when the name of the witness was mentioned - he was one of the most distinguished experts in this field in the courts in New South Wales for many years he appeared in those courts - the commissioners said they would not hear him. In my opinion, if this had been a court of justice - and that was a relevant fact - if the point was taken to a court of appeal, it would have said that this judgment could not stand and that the court must hear the other side. It was as simple as that, but it was not done. But **Dr.** Monticone analysed the handwriting on a photostat of exhibit J. On the- 15th .September, in a statement that was handed, to the commission **Dr.** Monticone said - >The absurdity of that work may be exposed by this illustration . . . With that method, one could prove that a horse and a cow are identical animals, because both have one point of " similarity " a black tail at the back. > >All these alleged " similarities " can be deflated by expert tests: nay, they can be nullified even with a mere critical glance by any man in the street. The table was the one. I have in my hand on which the expert based his evidence. **Dr.** Monticone reported - >Therefore that table can only be described as a document absolutely worthless as a handwriting analysis, entirely false and utterly dangerous as evidence. He made a subsequent report in October to the same effect after analysing the handwriting in a photostat of larger dimensions again comparing the handwriting of Lockwood with the writing in Exhibit J. He paid special attention to Lockwood's method of writing the capital letter " Y " and the way in which that letter was written in exhibit J, . Lockwood's handwriting being to the right in the word " Sydney ". That handwriting was completely different from that in the other documents ; and I submit that it was a complete and absolute forgery. In respect of the second document **Dr.** Montieone said - >After considering these facts, one is compelled to the conclusion that the photostats represent a sinister performance, discreditable tn its author and devoid of any proving value. That does not necessarily mean that the commission should have accepted **Dr.** Monticone's report. But should it not have heard that evidence? What is the basis of these matters? Is it not hearing both sides? That is so elementary that there is no need to argue it. I repeat that if there had been a court of appeal this judgment on the question of the. authenticity of the handwriting could not stand. If **Dr.** Monticone had convinced the commission that it was not Lockwood's handwriting, then all the charges which are described as " fantastic " in the commission's report would have been proved automatically. A song and dance has been made about my use of the term "conspiracy ", but what does that term mean ? It simply means that two or more persons combine to do something that is unlawful. If the writing was forged there was a conspiracy in what the Petrovs did. They had these documents and handed them over, and money was obtained. That action involved fraud. That was the whole case. I know that many people will take a different view, but the Parliament should pay some attention to that matter. I wish that these photostats, which I have in my hand, could be embodied in *Hansard.* However, they are available to honorable members. They are indeed conclusive. They remind me of the famous case, which convulsed French tribunals for many years, when, on the evidence of one of the greatest handwriting experts in history, Bertillon, a. document was attributed to Dreyfus, and, later, it was proved that it was the handwriting of another person. A great mistake has been made in separating this portion of the case from the rest of the case. This decision by their Honours has been separated completely from the evidence of the Petrovs; and there is many a fallacy in that approach. The commission, on page 6 of its report, stated that if the handwriting was not Lockwood's, the whole case against Lockwood broke down. It failed to see that the writing was not Lockwood's. I repeat that we were not interested in Lockwood except as a step in ascertaining the truth, because our clients wanted to know who put their names in the document. I say that that fact could have been found out by detectives, and could still be found out by detectives. I would never rest content if I thought persons were- suffering any injustice. The commissioners had a difficult task, but I submit that they have not approached it correctly. A different approach was made in the Lynskey tribunal. Of course, their Honours thought that this case would not be difficult and that here was the Gouzenko case of 1954. Instead, it was the Petrov case. Counsel assisting the commission seemed to accept that view. Certainly, no contrary view has been put as it should have been. Having proved the first part of the case, that my staff had not been implicated - that opinion was accepted by the commission openly with respect to Dalziel, and I think, it was their view in respect of the other member of my staff - we could have withdrawn from the commission. But was it not important to discover the' villainous people who put their names into the document in order to injure them? What was the purpose of putting their names at the end of the document? What was the purpose of the reference to me? I am not, at the moment, speaking about the security officers, and still less about the Government. What was the purpose of such action ? It was not a document of espionage at all. I do not believe that the document was sent to the .Russians. In she Gouzenko case the position was different. In that case, the Russians admitted that their own people had exceeded their authority. Here, the position is different. The commission has given its finding, and it cannot be appealed against, but detectives could find out the whole truth. This is a case of fascinating interest in which the truth must come out in full. A lot of it has come out. I have substantiated what I said in August that this case was not like the Gouzenko case. In this instance documents were produced on the eve of an election. For two years previously, Petrov was under observation and study, and he had all that time to prepare. So it is not a question of sudden disclosure and sudden asylum in April. We have to go back to an earlier date. We have to study the witness **Dr. Bialoguski** and see how security works. Richards, as security officer actually dangled £5,000 in ' notes before Petrov weeks before the documents were handed over. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He was a hopeless drunkard, anyhow. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- Never mind about that; he was not so drunk, for he knew the value of £5,000. What happened? On Friday, the 2nd April, the head of security, Colonel Spry, with **Mr. Richards,** his assistant, saw the documents in the morning; and, long after the notes had been shown, they handed the documents back to Petrov. Imagine security officers giving back those documents to, supposedly, a spy! They should have retained them at all costs. The next day, the money was paid and the documents were handed over. They say that the payment of the money had nothing to do with the documents. What would be wrong about their doing that? I think that the heads of security acted negligently and did not act with justice and propriety, as they should have done. There is too much evidence to indicate the lack of any impartial attitude on the part of security. That is true; and that fact is becoming increasingly clearer. The observation applies to **Mr. Richards,** the chief man under Colonel Spry. Above all, I come back to the position of the Government and to the story that was told on the night of the 13th April. That story did not disclose the whole truth. Who was the adviser to the Prime Minister? Instead of this being a Gouzenko case, it was a Petrov case. There is no espionage in document J. But it may show Russian espionage methods, which are similar to those employed by all countries in seeking information. "We must guard against such espionage. **Mr. Chifley** and I established the security organization for the very purpose of preventing the disclosure of official information and, in that matter, we acted on the best advice that was available in the world - the English intelligence system. But I regret to say that in this case I feel that the tradition set by **Mr. Justice** Reed has not been followed by subsequent security officers and that the disclosures which took place on the night of the 13th April were not recent but old disclosures, and that the time of making the disclosures was fixed so that they would give electoral advantage. The security people must have known that it would assist the Government, as it did, in the election. I feel that I could not say less than that. I think that it is my duty to say it, and I believe that, as the facts become more and more clear, the truth. of my conclusions will emerge more and more clearly. I hope that the debate will continue and that there will be no attempt to curtail it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The right honorable gentleman's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I second the motion. {: #subdebate-28-0-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP -- The House has had a very uncommon privilege to-night. It has heard counsel who has unsuccessfully advanced certain arguments before a tribunal have the opportunity to advance them for the second time before a tribunal which has not heard the witnesses and has not read the detailed evidence. That is something that I cannot remember in my fairly long experience of public affairs. I listened very carefully to the right honorable gentleman in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition. I read very carefully, day by day, the transcript when he was acting in his other capacity as **Dr. Evatt,** one of Her Majesty's counsel, and I am bound to say that he has to-night said nothing to this House that he did not say to the royal commission. Of course, it would be a task entirely beyond my scope to assume the role of opposing counsel before the royal commission and seek to deal with the mass of evidence contradicting the view that he has put to this House, and I do not propose to undertake that task. He has said to us, " It is a great pity about document J " - a document of very little intrinsic importance I gather - " It should not have been separated from the rest of the case ". All that I can say is that one person,' and one person only, separated it from the rest of the case, and that was the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition, who came in at a time, as the royal commission pointed OUt when the charges - but " charges " is not the right word - when the reference to Dalziel was completely innocuous and was merely to the , effect that somebody had told him something, not that he had told somebody something, and when the reference to Grundeman, or the identification of Grundeman, was in relation to a bit of petty political gossip not associated with the Leader of the Opposition. The right honorable gentleman came in at that stage, when the veriest junior at the bar could have brought those two people off, and he elected ' to .put before the royal commission something that he had foreshadowed in this Parliament before- he had ever seen or read document J. He elected to make this a great case of conspiracy. Conspiracy against his clients? Oh dear no ! They were of no moment. Conspiracy against himself! And from that moment the royal commission found itself compelled, against every sensible, instinct it had, quite obviously, to devote weeks and weeks to investigating this document and its authorship. Now the right honorable gentleman has invited this House and the country to prefer his impartial judgment on the facts - facts which, for the most part, have not been studied by one of his listeners - to the considered and impartial judgment of three of the most distinguished Supreme Court judges in Australia! Because all this is, properly considered, an attack on the royal commission, and amounts to saying to us and to the people, "Don't take the view of the royal commission. Take my view, the view of the defeated counsel ", I feel compelled to say something, about the royal commission. I did not feel compelled to say it before. These three distinguished judges - **Mr. Justice** Owen, **Mr. Justice** Philp, and **Mr. Justice** Ligertwood - were named in the schedule to the act which this House passed unanimously. It is all right having these little Communist tricks, which I have read about, of smearing judges, but these three distinguished men were named in the letters patent in the schedule to an act passed by this Parliament without one dissentient voice. Later on, after the right honorable gentleman felt the pressure of circumstances and began to make attacks on the royal commission - he being the only attacker except the Communist party of Australia - I began to say to myself, " Should I say something about the royal commission?" But I did not do 30 because I knew that the object of the exercise was to distract attention from the royal commission and convert the whole thing into a party political argument which would destroy the royal commission. However, having regard to what we have heard to-night, and what has fallen from the right honorable gentleman quite recently, I want, to say something about these three Supreme Court judges. I hope that 1 do not need to say it for the information of the House, but I shall say it, if not for the information of honorable members, for the information of the people of Australia. **Mr. Justice** Owen, who is not the first judge of his family in New South Wales, has been for seventeen years a justice of the Supreme Court of that State, and I undertake to say in the presence of any New South Welshman that he enjoys an impeccable reputation among both lawyers and the general public. So highly were his ability and character regarded that **Mr. Curtin** appointed him from the Bench to be chairman of the Central Wool Committee, a great undertaking. **Mr. Justice** Owen held that office from 1942 to 1945, when **Mr. Chifley,** himself no mean judge of men, sent him abroad to lead the great wool disposals mission. Here is a man who has served his country in two wars. He served in World War II. in the way I have described, and in World War I. as a member of the Australian Imperial Force. He has a reputation as a judge which will survive the reputation of any of his detractors. The second member of the royal cornmission, **Mr. Justice** Philp, is no inexperienced novice. He has been for fifteen years a justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland. He also was a soldier of World War I. I think that all Queensland members will agree that he stands very, high in public and professional esteem in that State. The third of these maligned people, **Mr. Justice** Ligertwood, has been for nine years on the Supreme Court of South Australia. He also has served this country in war. He was president of the Law Society of South Australia several times, and on two occasions he was appointed a royal commissioner by a Commonwealth Labour government - one of those occasions will be remembered by honorable members. I have never heard any suggestion against him of political bias or judicial incompetence. I am not re-arguing this case. This is not a court of appeal. This is a parliament which is considering an interim judgment. I am rather sorry that it should be considering an interim judgment. It is not our business to do so at this moment, but still, that is the situation. The Leader of the Opposition has promoted it. Here we have three Supreme Court judges of great experience, of unquestioned ability and of untarnished character, who have heard every word of the evidence, seen every witness and every document, and listened to tape recordings to which the right honorable gentleman has never listened. Having had all this material before them, they have made an interim report - a calm, cold, logical, judicial report, in which they find the facts without hesitation. In the result, they are treated with hysterical abuse and their findings are submitted to examination by an audience which, I very respectfully submit, has no material before it on which it could dare to disagree with those findings. Having said that, may I trespass on the time of the House to remind honorable members of what it was that the royal commission reported about. lt made an interim report only because a special scries of charges had been made in relation to document J. That is all. Because document J - a document of no great moment from all I have read in the transcript - was challenged and made the vehicle for a charge of fraud, the royal commission said, " We ought to dispose of this thing because, after all, we are a royal commission investigating grave matters from the point of view of the safety of Australia. We are investigating, not some political charges and countercharges, but matters which relate to espionage and the safety of our country ". And, as I have said, no three men are better entitled to consider the safety of their country. What allegations were made before them? Here is document J. I am sorry to say that, even at this moment, I have not read the whole of document J. I did not realize how important it was going to be until I began to read the report of the royal commission. This document has been the subject of some allegations, and I want to remind the House of the nature of those allegations because the report contains a judicial finding upon one matter, which was attended by several charges. That is all I am concerned with, and all I have to do is to remind the House of the judicial finding. I am old-fashioned enough to prefer the cold judgment of the judge to the heated allegations of the advocate. Now the right honorable gentleman, not as the Leader of the Opposition, but in another capacity, alleged, for some reason which I shall never understand and which certainly had no relation to Grundeman or Dalziel, in a series of charges described in this singularly detached report as being made with bewildering variations, first of all that Lockwood had not typed document J. Lockwood, of course, is a Communist. There is no question about that. He is an admitted Communist, a practising Communist. As to that allegation, the royal commission, after weeks and weeks of examination, has found that Lockwood undoubtedly did entirely compose and type document J in the Soviet Embassy on the 23rd, 24th and 25th" May, 1953. Knowing of the strange and phrenetic remarks that were being made elsewhere about the Petrovs, they added, for good measure, that in unhesitatingly making that finding they did not find it necessary to rely upon or to refer to the evidence of the Petrovs. The second charge was that Fergan O'sullivan, who was formerly press secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, and about whom the Leader of the Opposition was given a warning by the security service- {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- No. A warning against some one else was given. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- Yes, a warning about some one else whose company Fergau O'sullivan kept. That way of putting the matter suits me. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- But- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- I have heard about that matter since. I do not have the fascinated interest in the staff of the Leader of the Opposition that he attributes to me. Indeed, I heard about most of them at a much later date. The second charge was that Fergan O'Sullivan who was the press secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, was the author of or a collaborator in the preparation of document J. The Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as counsel, stated that O'Sullivan was the author of part of document J. That was a good charge for him to make, because O'Sullivan was the confessed author of document H, which was a rather scurrilous, or, at any rate, picturesque, account of members of the parliamentary press gallery. All I wish to recall to the House about that charge - and it is all in the report of the royal commission, in sober and detached language - is that the commission found that there was not a tittle of evidence that O'Sullivan typed, or was the author of, any part of document J, or that he had collaborated in its compilation, as had been suggested 'by counsel for Grundeman and Dalziel. That is what came of the second charge. What was the third charge? The third charge was that Grundeman and Dalziel had been falsely accused of contributing to document J. On that charge, the royal commission, in terms that I hope all honorable members have read, has stated, first, that there was never any evidence legally admissible against Grundeman and Dalziel, as the right honorable gentleman knew prior to his appearance before the commission. He knew that the contribution alleged against Dalziel was quite innocuous, and that the part of document J attributed to Grundeman clearly had no relation to **Dr. Evatt.** The commissioners stated that as each of those gentlemen had denied the charges on oath, the matter could have rested there as far as each was concerned, but for the extraordinary course taken by **Dr. Evatt.** I refer to the right honorable gentleman as **Dr. Evatt,** because he was not appearing before the royal commission in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition. The fourth charge was that there was a political conspiracy against him and the political party of which he was the leader. This must surely have been the most futile conspiracy in the world. What a mess we made of it as a government! This conspiracy, for some weeks, remained quite unformulated. In the long run, having been formulated, it involved, as the royal commission records, blackmail, forgery, uttering, fabrication and fraud. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Frightening words ! {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- I do not describe them as frightening words. But they would frighten an honest man if used against him. The royal commission has found all those charges - and I again use the commission's words - to be fantastic and wholly unsupported by any credible evidence. The royal commissioners, in fact, went on to say that the only supporting evidence was given by the Communist, Lockwood, and that his evidence was rejected. The fifth charge made by the right honorable gentleman who now asks us to sit in appeal from the three experienced, skilled and detached judges who have formed their opinions, was that, as a result of the conspiracy, the production of document J was to be so timed that it should be published on the eve of the 1954 general election. The royal commission did not need to find on that charge, because every honorable member knows that document J was never pub lished before the general election and that no portion of it became known until it was revealed in the proceedings of the royal commission long after the election had been concluded. Charge No. 6 - and this, if I may say so, was a particularly wicked charge - was that **Mr. Richards,** of the Australian security service, was guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in accepting from Petrov the " fabricated " document. The royal commission has found that that charge was fantastic, because it was conceded by all counsel who appeared before the commission that if document J was typed wholly by Lockwood, the charges of conspiracy and dereliction would fall to the ground. The royal commission found, without doubt or hesitation, that document J clearly was prepared and typed by Lockwood. As I have just said, the only evidence to the contrary was given by Lockwood himself, and the royal commission found him to be a prevaricator, an evader and not a witness of truth. Yet, as it turns out, he was the entire sheet anchor of the case of the Leader of the Opposition. The seventh charge - and it has been repeated here this evening by the Leader of the Opposition, and repeated daily by the Communist press - was that Richards had paid £5,000 for fabricated documents and had not taken proper care to examine their authenticity. On that charge, the royal commission found, not only on the oral evidence given before it, but also on the basis of a mass of contemporaneous security reports and wire recordings of conversations - and her, again I use the *ipsissima verba* of the royal commission - that the bargaining for documents to which reference was made so often by counsel existed only in imagination. The royal commission added - >Such charges are calculated not only to cause disquiet in Australia but also to shake the confidence of other friendly nations in the integrity of that Service and should not be lightly made. Still less should they be persisted in when the evidence shows them to be unfounded. In spite of what we have been told this evening by counsel for Grundeman and Dalziel, the royal commission found that the security officers acted with high intelligence and complete propriety in difficult and delicate circumstances. I feel bound to say that there can have been few instances in the whole history of judicial investigation in which charges so wildly made without reference to the character of the people attacked, have been found to be so utterly without foundation. Therefore, they were presumably made without real instructions, wantonly and recklessly. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition has tried to make sonic capital out of the situation and has made repeated statements about it. When he was before the commission he was told by its chairman that if any other counsel appearing in the inquiry- had made such statements about the commission and about witnesses who gave evidence before it, the commission would have committed that counsel for contempt. The right honorable gentleman has gone on believing, so far successfully, that there is one law of contempt for the rest of the people of Australia and another law for him. I cannot recall, in my professional experience, which is long, such a scandalous series of remarks made about a. tribunal by a man appearing before it. But, as we all know, the right honorable gentleman's mind has been wrought upon by something in connexion with the royal commission, and he has consequently gloriously muddled the whole of his legal capacity and his political capacity. He has demonstrated this repeatedly, as I have just stated. Finally, the right honorable gentleman took upon himself - and this is one of his great grievances now - the task of attacking the French Government, the French Ambassador in Australia, the royal commissioners and every one else in sight, in a sort of high-noon performance in relation to Madame Oilier, who is now within the jurisdiction of the French courts, and will unquestionably be tried and given justice according to the law of her own country. Therefore, when the right honorable gentleman made a terrific outburst - I would not undertake to say what place it occupied in the long series of outbursts made by him of which we have heard - the royal commissioners felt it incumbent upon them to cancel his right to appear before them. The grievance of the Leader of the Opposition has been sympathetically received by some people, and I want to say that the chairman of the royal commission, speaking for all three of the judges, after weeks of patient listening to wild charges, in which the allegations were strong and the evidence non-existent, said, first of all, that the judges liked to have professional advocates appearing before them and that the commission was greatly assisted by counsel. He stated, secondly - >On more than one occasion during the past three weeks we have pointed out to you, **Dr. Evatt,** that a position seemed to be developing in which you, as counsel for **Mr. Grundeman** and **Mr. Dalziel,** were really appearing for yourself, since you have claimed that a conspiracy has been entered into to injure you politically. Wo had hoped that you yourself might have come to realize the embarrassing position which was gradually becoming more manifest. A climax has been reached by the statements made by you. . . . He referred to the Oilier case - . . . it has become apparent that you cannot dissociate your function as an advocate from your personal and political interest. The commissioners therefore revoked the right of the right honorable gentleman to appear, and from that time his clients were represented by two other learned counsel from the Sydney bar. The next matter, to which I shall refer briefly because my time is running out, is the astonishing concentration of the right honorable gentleman's mind on a **Dr.** Monticone. Obviously, one of the things that he has tried to establish to-night is that if **Dr.** Monticone had only been called as a witness, justice would have triumphed and the royal commissioners would have rejected the evidence of Inspector Rogers whom they all regard as the greatest authority in Australia on these matters. All of the evidence of Inspector Rogers and all of the other matters to which they referred in their report as being conclusive evidence in support of their findings would have been wiped away, and a conspiracy, with fraud and uttering and all of those other things toddling in its train, would have been upheld. I merely want to remind the House of the facts, all of which are contained in the report. I am not arguing about the validity of findings. It is too silly to argue about the validity of findings by three eminent judges who have heard all of the evidence, when we have not. Therefore, all I do is to present, against the heated, defeated advocacy of the Leader of the Opposition, the cold findings of the tribunal. After an application or two had been made by the right honorable gentleman for permission to look at exhibit J, which was a secret document, the chairman of the royal commission made the following statement: - >My colleagues and I have considered the suggestion that we should make available to **Dr.** Monticone certain materials in evidence before us, including Exhibits H and J. Some time before the opening of the Melbourne sittings on the 30th June, we made materials, including those two Exhibits, available to **Mr Rogers** for expert examination as to handwriting and typewriting. We did so because we knew **Mr. Rogers** to be an expert of outstanding qualifications. His service* have since been made available to counsel- Representing all parties. {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . He has given his opinion upon them and has been cross examined at length. We do not think that our inquiry . . . will be assisted by calling- More people. " Ah ", states the right honorable gentleman, " That is terrible, that is a miscarriage of justice because here, he states, is the heart of the case. I' am not without some experience of legal actions, and I must say that, if ever I had the heart of a case that I was presenting, I hoped it would turn out less shrivelled than this one. When the royal commission made its report, having found in terms which I earnestly adjure all honorable members to read step by step, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, they reached the irresistible conclusion that this scamp Lockwood wrote exhibit J. The chairman then observed - >Our Judicial experience causes us to view opinions of handwriting experts with reser- vh tion- That is an interesting remark, is it not. having regard to the statements that have been made? He further observed - and we prefer to rely upon the evidence nf our own eyes in such a matter. The similarities between Lockwood's letterings and those of Exhibit J are obvious, and we can see no significant dissimilarities, nor can we see anything else in the nature of the handwriting which suggests a forgery. While thi* evidence as to handwriting supports the conclusion that Lockwood did produce Exhibit J, it is of very little importance in view of the strength of the other evidence. I repeat to honorable members that the only evidence that they had to the contrary was the evidence of Lockwood, who when he was called in Melbourne, refused to answer questions, who ultimately agreed to answer questions, who was given exhibit J, who read it and did not deny that he was the author of it but lapsed into a stony silence, but who, after the Leader of the Opposition appeared in Sydney, decided that he would give evidence and deny that he wrote the document. Therefore, the royal commissioners - and one can hardly blame them- state that all of the evidence, masses of it, is in favour of the conclusion that he wrote it. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Only the evidence of an obvious liar, Lockwood himself. My time has almost expired. I conclude by making this statement : The right honorable gentleman has had the opportunity, not because of the Standing Orders, but because of the suspension of the Standing Orders, of standing up in this place and of reproducing some, of his attacks on the security service and on the royal commissioners - attacks on their character or their capacity. The right honorable gentleman may have it either way. But he renews his attacks, attacks which have come from only one other quarter in this country. In short, ever since his inglorious and discreditable performance before the royal commission, he has engaged, to use his own favorite words, in a smearing campaign, a campaign in which he has had the enthusiastic support of the Communist press. Why has he attacked these judges? Because they disagree with him, because they do not share his own curious, excited, illbalanced view on these matters. That is the only reason, unless, of course, he has come hack to the good, simple, oldfashioned ground that you always should attack the judge when you have lost. Nothing could do more harm to the safety of the people of Australia than attacks on the security service. I would not have believed it possible, until the last few weeks, that the leader of a political party in Australia should have worked so hard to destroy the confidence of our people in these men, who are our guardians and our friends. That the Communists should engage in such attacks is, of course, elementary, as the security service is their enemy. But I cannot help wondering how many of the great army of Labour supporters in Australia, who fear and dislike communism, and who are its pledged enemies, have enjoyed the spectacle of their leader, in his dual capacity, playing the Communist game on a public platform, and therefore with public influence, to a degree that the Communists, by their unaided efforts, could not have reached in 100 years. I think that this business of debating an interim report is deplorable. I think the royal commission ought to be allowed to proceed with its work without political interference. I think it ought to be allowed to make more and more detached investigations and findings for the benefit and safety of the people of Australia. I have agreed, much against my will, that there should be some debate on this matter, but, although I found myself called upon to answer some of the astonishing remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I think the debate is not one which will assist the work of the royal commission, or which will give any aid to the safety of the people of Australia. Therefore, I move - >That the debate be now adjourned. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- You are nothing but a coward, Menzies! You are nothing but a coward! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member for East Sydney will apologize for making that remark. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I apologize. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- I rise to a point of order. Is the Prime Minister in order in moving that the debate be adjourned? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why does the Prime Minister not tell us where his statement to the House differed from Richards's evidence ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney will maintain silence. The Prime Minister may not move that the debate be adjourned at this stage, because he has not completed his remarks. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- I move- >That I have leave to continue my speech when the debate is resumed and that the debate be now adjourned and made an Order of the Day for the next sitting. Opposition Members. - No! {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is a reflection on the Chair. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Anyhow, the right honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-28-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The right honorable member's time has not expired. There is still half a minute to go. Order! The question is that the Prime Minister have leave to continue his remarks later, that the debate be adjourned, and that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Those of that opinion say " Aye " and to the contrary " No ". *Honorable members having called accordingly,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I think the " Ayes " have it. Opposition Members. - No ! {: #subdebate-28-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Ring the bells. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What is the right honorable gentleman afraid of? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The division will be conducted without interjections. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr Kent Hughes: **Mr. Kent** *Hughes interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable gentleman must not interject. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- It is on a par with his war service - another run-out. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: **Mr. Curtin** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for Watson must maintain silence. Question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.) AYES: 52 NOES: 39 Majority . . . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2482 {:#debate-29} ### WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1954 {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 2467). {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER:
Bennelong .- Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I had spoken for some time on the measure before the House. It is a bill to provide £30,000,000 to the War Service Homes Division in order that homes may be provided for ex-servicemen. This Government, in its short period of office of about four and a half years, has provided more houses for ex-servicemen than were pro vided by all other governments in the 30 years before this Government came to power. That is a record that we are all proud of. I congratulate the Minister for taking a great step forward by deciding that ex-servicemen shall be able not only to build new homes for themselves but, if they prefer it, to buy existing homes. *[Quorum formed.]* It is a great pity that the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Curtin),** who called for a quorum, did not endeavour to have enough members of the Opposition present to form its share of a quorum before he called for one. Apparently, he is trying to waste the time allotted to me for my speech. Previously, loans through the War Service Homes Division for the purchase of existing homes were limited to £2,000, but under this measure exservicemen will be able to obtain advances up to £2,750 to purchase such homes. When this measure becomes law a maximum of £2,750 may be obtained by an ex-serviceman either to build a house or to buy an existing house. I believe that through the very fact of his being an ex-serviceman, a man is entitled to all the benefits that he can obtain by borrowing through the War Service Homes Division. Of course all ex-servicemen cannot get advances at the same time through the division, because there is not enough money available; but I suggest to the Minister that he might permit exservicemen to borrow money from other sources while waiting for their advances from the War Service Homes Division, so that they can begin their building operations or their house purchases immediately, and then pay back the original loans after they have received their advances from the War Service Homes Division. Because of the discrimination in applying the major portion of new money in favour of loans for new houses, all sorts of housing difficulties have been caused. This applies to the Commonwealth Bank, building societies and the division itself.' Moreover, I suggest that providing money only for new homes is not such a great benefit to the people and the country as many honorable members might believe. Indeed, the reverse is the case; but many people do not understand that, because they do not know how money flows through the building industry. If the major part of the money available is diverted to building new homes, many old homes are unable to be sold. Consequently, they remain as frozen assets and their value is out of circulation. If advances are made for the purchase of older homes, then the asset in the old homes becomes fluid and in many instances the price paid for them flows back into the building industry when the owners of the old homes that have been sold build new ones for themselves. Moreover, the concentration of loans for new buildings puts great pressure on the central Government, which has to provide more and more money for building, whereas there is an enormous amount of money in the hands of private persons which could be available to flow into the building industry. The relaxation of the restriction of finance on old homes allows that money to flow out. Under a discriminatory finance policy, many people come to believe that the Government is the only organization that can provide money, whereas there are millions of pounds that could be released, tied up in property. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister for altering a system which is so manifestly wrong. The lifting of this discriminatory restriction will allow persons to have a wider choice of types of homes, locations and accommodation. In the report of the War Service Home? Division, it is stated that in 1951-52 the number of applicants for assistance to build, was 9,106, and for assistance to purchase, 10,628. In the following year, applications for assistance to build totalled 14,218, and for assistance to purchase 8,871. Those figures do not prove that people prefer new buildings, they merely indicate that money was not available to purchase older buildings, and it is quite wrong to believe that people always prefer to purchase new buildings. They have likes and dislikes as to various districts, types of houses and accommodation. I suggest that it is a great advantage to them to have a light of choice, and to be able to exercise some freedom of action which is so sadly needed in this country. I desire now to say something about group building by the W ar Service Homes Division. I hope that the division will gradually diminish its. group building schemes. I suggest that the greatest benefit will not accrue to ex-servicemen under group building schemes, although I know that in some cases where the Government has, for many years, held the land used, a good case can be made out for group building. But in other circumstances group building is not so attractive. It destroys individuality, and great numbers of people are brought into some areas to live in large numbers of similar houses. Each cottage bears the stamp of a governmentbuilt home, and that is bad. I know that some splendid homes have been built in the group system, and that the system has enabled people to get houses cheaply, but tenders cannot be obtained for the group scheme on a basis which is competitive with individual builders. The builders do not like some of the interference that they encounter, and I agree with some of the statements that have been made about interference, or perhaps I should say red tape which is used by government organizations of this kind, and is embarrassing to the contract builder. The establishment of a big government department to carry out group building is bad, and I hope that the Minister will soft pedal on group building, and ensure that complete freedom shall be restored to an ex-serviceman to choose the style of home he wants, and engage his own builder. He should be allowed absolute freedom of choice in the whole matter. Any one who has any knowledge of this business will appreciate that governments cannot build as efficiently and economically as the individual builder. I shall now refer briefly to a great mystery in New South Wales, and I ask the Minister to examine it, and possibly allocate a little more money to that State for the purpose of rectifying an anomaly. New South Wales is the most populous State, and has the largest number of exservicemen, yet the total number of homes built and sold by the War Service Homes Division in that State is 28,132. In the less populous State of Victoria, 32,882 homes have been built and sold by the division- {: .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr Haworth: -- We in Victoria have shown more initiative. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- No, that is not the position at all. The remaining homes in New South Wales on which money is owed to the division number only 18,010, compared with 26,704 in Victoria. The position in other States is comparable with that in Victoria. I mention that matter because it is an anomaly, and there must be a reason for it. I shall tell the House what I think the reason is. A building society movement was established in New South Wales by the Stevens Government in the 1930's. Indeed, New South Wales was the only State that had building society money available- {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Through the Bank of New South Wales. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- Yes. That bank was the prime mover in the matter. The trading banks generally have a magnificent record of achievement ; but the truth is that homes purchased at that time through the building society movement were bought, in the main, by exservicemen. Tens of thousands of ex-servicemen in New South Wales obtained money to purchase homes, not from the division, but from the building society movement. They were able to get the money as soon as they made their applications. There was no waiting time, and no red tape. They had only to make their applications to the building society, and select the house they wanted, or build a home, and there it was. The whole matter was very simple. They did not get the money on such advantageous terms as they could have obtained from the War Service Homes Division - the rate of interest was not so low - but they were prepared to waive that matter because of the freedom that was offered to them through the building society movement. I think that is the explanation of the mystery to which I have referred, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take it into account. 1 ask the Government to examine the possibility of enticing money for this purpose, and for other purposes, from the people themselves, and to guarantee the loans, in a similar way to the method adopted in the United States of America through the Veterans Asso ciation. We should investigate that possibility, because we look too much to the Government, and do nothing to encourage, or give incentives to private citizens to invest their money in home-building. I believe that there is a considerable amount of money available for housing, and if encouragement is given in the way I have suggested many people will be glad to help this cause. **Mr. THOMPSON** (Port Adelaide) [9.501.- **Mr. Speaker-** Government Members. - Oh, no! {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- I deeply regret that honorable members opposite apparently do not wish to hear me. I point out that the honorable member for Bennelong **(Mr. Cramer)** took full advantage of the time at his disposal- {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Three honorable members behind the honorable gentleman also rose. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I am not concerned whether or not they are behind me. I do not require honorable members behind me to enable me to speak on a bill. I have risen because I consider that this legislation contains some useful provisions, and I wish to compliment the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon)** on it. At the same time, I wish to take the opportunity to let honorable members who represent the people in this House, and also the people outside it, know some of the gross exaggerations which have been stated by speakers on the Government side. They have claimed that this Government has increased beyond all bounds the number of houses that have been built. The honorable member for Bennelong said that in four and a half years this Government has built more war service homes than the combined total built by the State governments in that period. I do not query that statement, and I do not say that it is wrong, but I shall use the figures given by the Minister himself to dispose of the claim that the Labour Government failed to provide homes for the people, and that this Government has met with such wonderful success. I think that most honorable members know that I had the honour to be a member of the Commonwealth Housing Commission which recommended to the Curtin Government the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. That commission also reported to the government of the day what it considered the needs of the people would be in the years immediately following the cessation of hostilities. Our report was made in 1944, and we considered that in the year following the conclusion of the war, 50,000 houses should be either built or be in the course of construction, and that in three years that number should be stepped up to S0,000 houses or housing units a year. I cannot understand, in view of the figures given by the Minister, why honorable members opposite take such pride in the housing record of the present Government. In 194S-49 no fewer than 60,947 houses and flats were commenced, but that was the year before the present Government assumed office. The last year for which the Minister has given figures is 1952-53, and he claims that 65,512 homes were erected in that year. That was about 4,400 more than the number that were completed in 1948-49, the last year of office of the Chifley Government. At the end of that year, 65,65S houses and flats were in course of construction, compared with 72,92S at the end of 1952-53. There has been a great increase of the work force in this country since 1950. Many carpenters have come here from Great Britain, and many building workers of all kinds have emigrated to Australia from Europe. Many buildings have been constructed at Cooma by new Australians. On the figures that were cited by the Minister, the claim that this Government alone has been responsible for the wonderful increase of the number of houses built, falls to the ground. Of course, the Minister did not himself make that claim. The commission of which I was a member in 1944 estimated that S0,000 building units a year would be required after three years, and stated that, after ten years, the programme could be tapered down to current needs. I was very proud to learn from the Minister's statement that that estimate of probable requirements was fairly accurate. The Minister stated that, apart from overtaking the back-log, we now need to construct about 60,000 houses a year to satisfy current needs. Accepting the Minister's estimate to be accurate, and taking into consideration the necessity to catch up on the back-log at the rate of 15,000 or 20,000 housing units a year, the commission's estimate that 80,000 housing units a year would be needed at this time was a very good forecast. Of course, that estimate did not take into account the number of additional housing units that became necessary subsequently for the tremendous number of immigrants that have come to this country. The Australian Labour party deserves great credit for the success of the immigration scheme. It was not until 1949 that an appreciable number of immigrants was brought to this country to swell our work force.- The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell),** who was Minister for Immigration in the Chifley Government, was responsible for the initial arrangements to bring a large number of immigrants to this country from Europe in 1950. Many of those immigrants are now working in the building industry. My son-in-law, who is in charge of carpenters on building construction work for a government department, has told me that he is the only Australian-born carpenter on the job. A man who is working in a joinery shop, where window sashes and doors are made for houses and schools, told me recently that the majority of the joiners in that shop are immigrants from European countries. These facts prove that the foundations to increase our work force, particularly in the building industry, were laid by the previous Labour Government. The honorable member for Bennelong **(Mr. Cramer)** referred to restrictions that have been imposed in connexion with the provision of war service bornes. The War Service Homes Division was established, not for the purpose of merely increasing the number of houses being built in Australia, but to provide homes for exservicemen. The Minister stated that, in previous years, emphasis has been placed on the construction of new homes, and the greater portion of the money provided for war service homes was applied for that purpose, but that now it is possible to vary that practice. The amount of a maximum advance for the purchase of an existing home or for the construction of a war service home, either by a government authority or a private builder, has been increased to £2,750. That is a step in the right direction. As some honorable members know, I have always been keenly interested in housing. I do not think that many honorable members take as great an interest in building activities in Canberra as I do. I am very interested in the progress of Canberra, and I seize on every opportunity to inspect houses in course of construction here and observe the way in which the land has been subdivided and streets provided. The commission to which I have referred devoted considerable attention to such matters. The honorable member for Bennelong advocated the provision of money by the Government for the building of homes to sell, rather, than for letting. The War Service Homes Division is well equipped to adopt that principle. It is quite competent for the division to lend money for the construction of war service homes only to exservicemen who intend to live in them. I point out that many ex-servicemen have obtained homes under the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The honorable member for Bennelong stated that more war service homes have been built in Victoria than in New South Wales. That is not the fault of the New South Wales Government, because the War Service Homes Division is not subject to State governmental control. Many ex-servicemen have been unable to purchase homes. It is all very well for Government members to say that ex-servicemen can obtain homes on easy terms through the War Service Homes Division, but so many ex-servicemen still need homes that it would be impracticable for the division to satisfy all applicants for a long time to come. In the mean.time, therefore, homes should be rented to them by other housing authorities. I concluded from the remarks "of the honorable member for Bennelong that he considered that the group system of building homes, which has been applied by both the housing commission of New South Wales and the War Service Homes Division in that State, is not in the best interests of the community. I point out that that method is not favoured by only Labour governments. Ever since the South Australian Housing Trust was established, it has built homes on the group system for both renting and sale. Anti-Labour parties have maintained majorities in both Houses of the South Australian Parliament during the whole of that time. I read a report in an Adelaide newspaper of yesterday's issue to the effect that large numbers of timber-framed houses constructed for sale in South Australia have been rented, because many people are unable to buy houses. The report showed that 50 per cent, of that type of house built in that State has been made available for rental. In some instances, people are unable to obtain finance to purchase homes, whilst in other cases, they prefer to rent houses of a certain kind of construction rather than pay high prices for them. For many years after the South Australian Housing Trust was established, it built houses only for letting. The honorable member for Bennelong blamed the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for the fact that houses are being constructed for letting rather than for sale to home-seekers. We know that, generally, that is the position; but the same position prevailed up to two or three years ago when, although a Liberal government was in office in South Australia, that government built houses for letting entirely independent of any agreement with the Australian Government. It raised its own finance for that purpose from the State Savings Bank and from other institutions, and it built houses entirely for letting and not for sale. State governments which have endeavoured to meet the housing needs of their communities by building houses entirely for sale have failed to satisfy that need. Honorable members opposite constantly gibe the Australian Labour party that it does not believe in home-ownership. When I was a member of the South Australian Parliament, I requested the Premier of that State to make money available to the South Australian Housing Trust in order to enable as many persons as possible to purchase homes. He replied to the effect, that persons who were not able to get money from financial institutions for the purchase of homes could rent a house from the housing trust. 1 have shown that under Liberal governments in various States the bulk of the people were able to obtain homes only under the rental system, and that the majority of homeprovided for sale were provided through the "War Service Homes Division, cooperative building societies and private financial institutions. We must encourage home-ownership. Throughout my experience in both this Parliament and the South Australian Parliament 1 have been a strong advocate of homeownership and have urged the provision of facilities to enable persons to purchase their homes. The gibe that the Australian Labour party does not believe in homeownership because that tends to make little capitalists is at variance with the policy and programme of Labour governments in the housing field. Labour's policy has always been to enable as many people as possible to purchase their homes. At the same time, I admit that we should not overlook the claims for assistance by persons who cannot afford to purchase homes. Whilst it is proposed under this measure to increase the amount of loan to be made available for the purchase of war service homes from £2,000 to £2,750, the Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that at present the Government could not make money available for the purpose of paying off mortgages on existing homes. I agree with that view. I have no doubt that individual cases will be dealt with on their merits. Generally speaking, it should be emphasized that the money to be made available under this measure must be used principally to enable persons to purchase war service homes and not for the purpose of paying off existing mortgages. However, I do not think that that provision will debar the giving of assistance to persons who desire to pay off a mortgage as a part if the purchase price of a house. I refer, for instance, to persons who want to purchase a war service home on which a mortgage exists. . In such instances, it should not be incumbent upon a person to take over a mortgage. Such a policy would discriminate unfairly against persons wishing to purchase war service homes. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to give assistance to a person to pay off an existing mortgage. For instance, an ex-serviceman who has a mortgage on a house, which may be due for repayment, may want to purchase it as a war service home. Provision should be made to meet cases of that kind. I said that I did not intend to speak on this bill, but I believe that the matters f have raised are worthy of consideration. I also rose to refute some of the allegations that honorable members opposite have made against Labour in respect of its housing policy. I trust that this measure will be implemented as quickly as possible and that persons who can afford to purchase homes will be enabled to do so. The Minister also said that persons desirous of purchasing an existing home may be obliged to wait for a period of six months. I trust that that waiting period will not be made hard and fast, because it may operate harshly in a number of instances. A person may have been trying for years to get a suitable house. If the opportunity is presented to him to do so, and he is able to provide the difference between the maximum loan of £2,750 and the official valuation of the property, he should not be obliged to wait if the delay threatens to rob him of the chance of 'getting the house that he desires to purchase. Although the provision of a waiting period of six months may be justified on general grounds, I trust that exceptions will be made in cases of that kind. I trust that when this measure is implemented, persons will be able to obtain war service homes more quickly than they have been able to obtain them in the past. {: #subdebate-29-0-s2 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · Lowe · LP -- *in reply* - I congratulate honorable members on both sides of the chamber for the helpful suggestions that they have made in the course of this debate. *[Quorum formed.]* One or two questions were asked by honorable members which I thought should be answered. The first was whether those people who have had their applications for assistance in the purchase of existing properties deferred as a result of the promise of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** that the amount of such advanceswould he increased from £2,000 to £2,750, would he given the full amount of the advance. That question arises because a time limit of six months will be imposed on applications that are received subsequent to the 1st November. It has been decided that any application postponed during the course of the last few months, that is, from .the date of the Prime Minister's policy speech to the 1st November, will be treated as completed applications and the applicants will be entitled to receive an advance of £2,750. I thought it wise to make that fact public because many people have been waiting for the information and I hope that many will benefit by receiving the increased advance. The Director of the War Service Homes Division has assured me that he will deal with applications as quickly as possible and it is hoped that most of them will be dealt with within the next few weeks. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** asked a question related to the time lag in completing the existing number of applications. He asked the Government to give an assurance that the back-lag would be overtaken, I now give him the assurance that the back-lag will be overtaken in about five years. Taking all things into consideration, this will be a very good performance. About 60,000 applications will be dealt with at the rate of 12,000 a year. The second point raised by the honorable member for Parkes concerned the payment of contractors. It was suggested that there was an undue delay in the payment of claims received from contractors. It is difficult to substantiate that point of view. Tenders for the construction of 7,000 houses are received annually by the division and most of those tenders are lodged by master builders and private builders. It stands to reason that if 7,000 people are prepared to lodge tenders to build houses there cannot be a great deal of delay in paying them and they must be reasonably satisfied with the terms and conditions under which they are employed by the division. The Master Builders Association has complimented the division on the rapidity with which it settles claims. Except that small amounts may be withheld to cover contingencies, the moment that proof is furnished of the completion of a project or part of a project the claim is paid. No one settles debts more quickly than does the War Service Homes Division. The honorable member for Bowman **(Mr. McColm)** pointed out that from the 1st November, when applications are lodged to purchase an existing house, a lag of six months will have to take place between the date of application and the date on which the person can purchase the house. In the meantime the prospective purchaser would not be able to obtain an advance from a trading bank or other private organization on the security of the house and have it paid off by the division at the expiration of the six months' period. The honorable member for Bowman and various other honorable members suggested what they considered to be a method of solving this problem. They suggested increasing the waiting period in which an application could be dealt with, for example, from six to twelve months and then permitting the applicant to obtain private finance during this waiting period. I think that this suggestion has a lot to commend it. I have asked the Director of the War Service Homes Division to give itthorough consideration and as soon as I receive his submission I shall place it before the Government for decision. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Will the honorable member come in and land? {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- What does that mean? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Finish quickly. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- That is a nonsensical suggestion. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- The Minister is breaking an arrangement. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- I said before that every one who had spoken in this debate had done so sensibly and had not tried to make political capital out of a most important subject. I give the House an undertaking that the matter to which I have just referred will be thoroughly considered and a decision will be made as soon as possible. I thank all honorable members for the suggestions that they have made in this debate. Those that I have not dealt with in the course of my remarks will be considered as soon as I can examine the *Hansard* proofs. I thank honorable members, one and all, for the help that they have given, and I am very glad that this, my first bill on war service homes, has been so well received by supporters of the Government and by members of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* The bill. {: #subdebate-29-0-s3 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- I consider that it would be unjust to allow this bill to pass through the committee without paying a tribute to the officers of the War Service Homes Division who will administer the amended act. The amount of money that those officers will allocate during this year for the purchase of homes by ex-servicemen is almost equivalent to the amount that has been appropriated in connexion with the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The staff of the War Service Homes Division numbers less than the total employees of the New South Wales Housing Commission. Yet, with the proposed vote of £30,000,000, these people will provide more homes than the housing commissions will provide throughout the length and breadth of Australia. These homes will be a higher quality with a higher re-sale value, and the ex-servicemen will be allowed to purchase them instead of being forced to become tenants and pay rent. Furthermore, they have the option of having houses built to their own designs or purchasing existing houses. Unfortunately, because of the limitation of finance, the scarcity of houses and the shortage of building materials and other resources required in the building industry, a delay of six months must occur before an application for the purchase of an existing property can be considered by the War Service Homes,. Division. I suggest that the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon)** give special consideration to the fact that this delay deprives many ex-servicemen of an opportunity to become home-owners. I understand that 3,468 applications for the purchase of existing properties are now awaiting attention, and I suggest that, because this legislation will increase the amount available to an ex-serviceman for the purchase of a house from £2,000 to £2,750, the number of applications for permission to build war service homes will decrease and thenumber of applications for the purchase of existing houses will increase. The delay is likely to increase as the number of applications for the purchase of existing properties grows. Therefore, the Government should make arrangements for the transfer of existing mortgages if the applicants notify the War Service Homes Division that they can obtain financial assistance from a bank or some other authority pending approval of their applications. If the Government permits transfers under those conditions, it will assist many exservicemen who are now precluded from purchasing houses because of the delay. This would not put any inflationary pressures on the building industry, because most of the existing properties that are available for sale are owned by people who have alternative accommodation and do not require the finance that would be provided by the sale of their houses to purchase new homes. I rose specifically to urge the Government to give every consideration to the possibility of obviating the unnecessary delay in dealing with applications. I conclude by repeating that the War Service Homes Division will expend the £30,000,000 that will be provided under this bill so efficiently that it will provide more houses than will all the housing commissions in Australia, which will have £32,000,000 at their disposal. Furthermore, the war service homes will be of a higher quality than the other houses. This should indicate to the Government the importance of pursuing a policy of advancing money to people so that they may build and own their homes, instead of a socialistic policy which allows governments to become landlords and administer inefficiently the money made available to them for housing. {: #subdebate-29-0-s4 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon)** has been supported by the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** in his diatribe on the socialistic policy of making people tenants of houses rather than owners. Well, there is nothing very socialistic about that. It has been going on for a very long time, and all governments, including this Government, which has renewed the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement under which it provides money for the States to build houses, have subscribed to it. Therefore, if the charge of socialism' is to lie, it lies against everybody. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- The Government has not renewed the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It has provided money for the States under the agreement every year, and, of course, it will renew the agreement. The honorable member for Lilley has been flogging his own joss. He has been telling us how we can provide every ex-serviceman with a home if only some re-arrangement of the financial position can be effected. The delay of six months, twelve months, or eighteen months - it is nearer eighteen months these days - for an ex-serviceman to get a home under the war service homes scheme will not be obviated merely by juggling financial arrangements. What we have to do for the people is build them homes, and the War Service Homes Division has been building homes for ex-servicemen, and allowing them to buy homes, ever since World War I. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: **Mr. Cramer** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I know the honorable member for Bennelong **(Mr. Cramer)** has probably made a few shillings from some of those deals, as other people have done, but I am not concerned about that. That is all part of our economic set-up. What I want to emphasize to the committee is that there are 1,000,000 people who served in one or other of our three services in World War II., and they are all eligible for assistance under the War Service Homes Act according to the High Court definition of our defence powers. Perhaps some government some day will take the responsibility of providing homes for all those people. Any Commonwealth government that does so will solve all the housing problems of all the States. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I 3aid that there would be 60,000 applications and that the lag would be overtaken at the end of five years. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It ought to be overtaken in one year. Housing is our No. 1 problem. You can give a man clothing, food and the highest basic wage imaginable but, if you do not give him decent shelter, he will be an unhappy social being, and so also will be all those who are dependent upon him. Communism will sweep this country if we do not solve the housing problem. I say to the Minister in charge of war service homes that the best way to solve the problem is for the War Service Homes Division to tackle the job of housing exservicemen on the biggest possible scale. It should make the joh equivalent to a military operation if necessary. The honorable member for Lilley, who plays around the subject as though he were playing noughts and crosses, has said, in effect, " Of course, we cannot do very much, because of the limitation of finance and of man-power and materials ". Well, that just poses a problem to us. It is a challenge. If there is a limitation of materials and labour power, let us bring more people into the country so that we shall have the workers needed to produce the materials. Their presence may create an inflationary trend for a time, but, to the extent that they provide the needs of the community, they have a deflationary influence. And nobody caa point the finger at me in regard to bringing people into the country. Let the galled jade wince; my withers are unwrung. I have never urged diminution of the immigration flow. We shall never solve this problem unless we get enough people to provide for our needs. If it is a financial problem, let us see **Dr. Wilson, Dr. Coombs,** and other graduates of the London School of Economics and other universities where doctorates and other degrees for academic knowledge are conferred, and ask them whether money is not the servant of the people. If the community needs credit, it ought to be made available to the fullest extent possible, and certainly to no less an extent than the quantity of materials and labour power available demands. The honorable member for Lilley has suggested that there may be a limit on finances, quite apart from these other questions. His statement is open to that conclusion. I suggest to the Minister that he might try to make a name for himself in his new portfolio by summoning all his chiefs to-morrow morning and saying, " Operation housing is the No. 1 programme in this country. "We are going to do something about it ". Do not merely tell us that the lag of 60,000 houses is to be overcome in five years. "Who can say what will happen in this country in five years ? Who can say what will happen in the Pacific region in five years? This problem should be solved as quickly as we can possibly solve it. It is always later than we think, and time is of the essence of this contract. It is of no use making speeches that we think may appeal to the sophisticated, or may tickle the ears of the groundlings. Action is the order of the day, and the Government ought to do something about overcoming this lag of housing, now. Fancy 60,000 houses in five years ! Fancy ex-servicemen, nine years after the end of the war, having to wait six months or even up to eighteen months before they can get a house! Fancy people being told, "Do not ask the War Service Homes Division to build a house for you, or to provide the money for you to build a house. Go and find a house to buy " ! Houses are very hard to get anywhere. That is due to our growing population, for which we should all be thankful, and to our expanding industries, for which we should all be thankful. Our population has increased by 2,000,000 since the outbreak of World War II. Our problems are growing. We have to face up to those problems and solve them. Soothing words will not solve problems. Only hard work and grit on the part of governments and people - everybody in the community - will solve this problem of housing. I repeat that if we do not solve the housing problem, we do not solve anything, and unless we solve it very soon, we shall have a new growth of communism in our midst because of dissatisfied and disgruntled people who, after serving their country in war, cannot find decent habitation. {: #subdebate-29-0-s5 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I do not propose to allow an attack such as that made by the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** to go unchallenged. The Housing Commission of New South Wales has done a remarkably good job. The honorable member for Lilley compared that organization with the War Service Homes Division in such a manner that hi3 obvious intention was to destroy the prestige of people who are rendering a good service to the community. If the honorable member wants to make comparisons, he should be more realistic. To compare the War Service Homes Division as a constructing authority with the Housing Commission of New South Wales is quite unrealistic. The honorable member was condemnatory in his references to the commission, but he did not tell the whole story. I say quite frankly that, but for the work of the Housing Commission of New South Wales, hundreds of ex-servicemen would not have homes to-day. If the honorable member had said, " This is a good scheme, the servants of the War Service Homes Division are doing a remarkable job, and their organization is something that well might be emulated in other spheres of housing ", he would have been rendering a service, not only to ex-servicemen, but also to the community generally. Surely he must realize that thousands of young men now being married had no opportunity to serve in the war, yet they are just as good Australians as he is. I repeat that if the honorable member for Lilley had appealed to the Government to adopt a home-ownership plan as a State-Commonwealth programme, on the lines of the work of the War Service Homes Division, he would have been rendering a service to the community. The Housing Commission of New South Wales has merely attempted to fill a gap in the housing programme generally, and the honorable member's criticism is a disservice to the people that he represents. Housing should not be the plaything of politics. {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The honorable member said that before. {: #subdebate-29-0-s6 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I know I did, but apparently I was not understood by the honorable member for Lilley. "Why did he not say, " It is a pity that the Postmaster-General's Department cannot collect the rents for housing commission dwellings as it does for houses owned by the War Service Homes Division " ? When one compares the manpower of the War Service Homes Division with that of the Housing Commission of New South Wales, the honorable member's argument appears foolish in the extreme. He did not dare suggest that the Postmaster-General's Department should get some credit for the rent collecting service that it provides for the War Service Homes Division in each State. If honorable members opposite were honest in their approach to the housing problem, they would say to the Government, " The War Service Homes Division has proved capable of providing homes for those who rendered service to this country during the war. Now that the war has been finished for a number of years, there are thousands of other Australians who should be looked after on the same basis. We are determined that the War Service Homes Division, which has been so successful in the past, shall be made available to carry out work on the lines of the programmes of the housing commissions, at its present interest rates, and providing the same opportunities for home-ownership that it now offers ". If the honorable member for Lilley had said that he would have been rendering a service to the workers and the community at large instead of unfairly attacking an organization which has been merely filling a gap that the War Service Homes Division cannot fill. His bitterness towards the Housing Commission of New South Wales is unwarranted in a debate such as this, particularly after the Minister had thanked those of us who tried to make a worth-while contribution to the consideration of this measure. Obviously, the honorable member is not capable of understanding the real housing requirements of the Australian people. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave-* read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2492 {:#debate-30} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate, without amendment: - >Hide and Leather Industries Act Suspension Bill1954. > >Public Service Bill 1954. {: .page-start } page 2492 {:#debate-31} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Public Service Act - Appointment_ Department of Works - V. L. Sykes. > >Repatriation Act - War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal No. 3 - Report for period ended 30th June, 1954. House adjourned at 10.45 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2492 {:#debate-32} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Aborigines {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie:
WILMOT, TASMANIA e asked the Minister for Social Services, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the aboriginal population on official State-controlled reserves throughout Australia ? 1. How many aborigines in Australia are receiving Commonwealth social service payments such as age and invalid pensions, and widows' pensions, and what is the approximate annual cost of such payments? 2. How many aborigines are under Commonwealth control? 3. How many of them receive social service payments ? {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Accurate numbers are not available, but it is estimated that there are some 40,000 Australian aborigines, including full and mixed bloods, living on official State-controlled reserves. 1. Information regarding the number of aborigines in Australia receiving age, invalid and widows' pensions is not readily available. Information as to the number and annual cost of such payments could not be obtained without an unreasonable amount of work. 2. Approximately 15,000, including full and mixed bloods. 3. See answer to *No. 2.* - Taxation Branch. Mr.Ward asked the Minister acting" for the Treasurer, upon *notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that officers of the Taxation Branch have been engaged for some months on the preparation of a book covering the activities of the various sections of the branch? 1. If so, what is the purpose of this book! 2. How many officers arc engaged upon its compilation in (a) Canberra and (o) in each of the States! 3. What are the salaries of the officers engaged on this work and from what duites have they been seconded? 4. What is the estimated cost of producing this book? 5. Is it a fact that the Taxation Branca, particularly in New South Wales, is shortstaffed, and that investigation officers have been engaged upon the work of assessing instead of their normal duties of detecting tax evasions? 6. Is he satisfied that the officers working upon the preparation of this book are more usefully employed than they wouldbe if they were engaged in the collecting of taxes? {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP s. - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - 1 to 5, and 7. In accordance with the decision of the then government that the *Australian War History* (1939-1945) should include volumes which will deal with the war effort on the home front, the Taxation Branch has prepared a record of war-time taxation policy and administration to be used by ProfessorS. *J.* Butlin as a basis for these volumes in its relation to the war-time activities of the branch. With the approval of the then Treasurer, the Right Honorable J. B. Chifley, the work was carried out after his retirement by a former Commissrioner of Taxation, **Mr. L.** S. Jackson, with the assistance of various officers of the Taxation' Branch. These officers have, from time to time, during the past few years spent portion of their official time and a larger proportion of their spare time on this work. From time to time, the Taxation Branch produces other publications either for sale to the public or for official use. Last year a handbook on sales tax was published. It brought up to date for public information rulings given and changes made since the last publication of its kind in 1048. Ready reckoners are published whenever rates of income tax are changed, and manualsof office procedure essential to efficient administration are prepared as required. No record has been kept of the official time or the officers' spare time which has been spent on this work. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Investigation officers are at times temporarily diverted from their normal duties to assessing duties in order to keep the issue of assessments up to date. As well as relieving pressure in assessing sections and, to an extent, avoiding overtime, the experience tends to maintain the efficiency of investigation officers in the duties of assessing.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1954/19541028_reps_21_hor5/>.