Senate
27 September 1944

17^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATE
QUESTION
- HAY CHAFF
QUESTION
- MAN-POWER
QUESTION
- WHEAT INDUSTRY
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
APPROPRIATION BILL 1944-45
QUESTION
- CUT IN LEND-LEASE COMMISSIONS BY AUSTRALIA SHARPLY CRITICIZED
HOUR OF MEETING
PAPERS

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1456

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

– In view of the facts that increased supplies of superphosphate are now available, and that some of the danger to shipping has been removed, insurance rates having fallen as a result, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate whether the Government will make representations to the British Phosphate Commission for a reduction of the price of superphosphate used for agricultural purposes?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall direct the question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, with a view to ascertaining if the honorable senator’s request can be acceded to.

page 1456

QUESTION

HAY CHAFF

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 15th September, Senator Allan MacDonald asked certain questions relating to the ceiling prices of hay chaff in Western Australia, and subsidizing producers of that chaff. I promised on that occasion that a further reply would be given to the honorable senator’s question within the next day or so. I have now to state that, on the 14th September, the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, announced an increase of £1 a ton in the maximum price of oaten and wheaten chaff in Western Australia, in keeping with increases in hay prices announced earlier in the same week. The Government agreed in principle to the payment of subsidy to producers of fresh milk, to compensate them against the increased prices announced. I shall forward a copy of the statement of the Prices Commissioner to the honorable senator for his information.

page 1457

QUESTION

MAN-POWER

Service Releases

Senator KEANE:
ALP

– On the 15th September, Senator James McLachlan asked the following questions, upon notice : -

How many A class men, who have served lit battle areas, have been released?

How many men have been released from the Militia for ‘civil occupations?

How many men have been released from the munitions factories and Defence Department for civil occupations.

What are the total numbers released for civil occupations in each State?

What ure the total numbers released for civil occupations in each electorate in Queensland?

I promised to obtain the information from the Minister for Labour and National ‘Service. The Minister has now informed me that neither the Army nor the Man Power Directorate keep statistics in a form which would enable answers to be given. Preparation of the material would require an exhaustive analysis of individual records, and it is not possible at present to undertake this work.

page 1457

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Senator GIBSON:
VICTORIA

– In view of the small sowings of wheat this year, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture state whether the Government will lift the present prohibition under which licences are granted for people to grow wheat on certain areas only, so that it may be grown on areas where superphosphate is not needed?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall refer that question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

page 1457

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Senator KEANE:
ALP

– I lay on the table reports and recommendations by the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Bounty on Tractors.

Bounty on Sulphur.

Bounty on Wire Netting.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1457

APPROPRIATION BILL 1944-45

FIRST Reading.

Debate resumed from the 26th September (vide page 1380), on motion by Senator Keane -

That the hill be now read a first time.

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

[11.7 j. - When the debate was adjourned1 last evening I was a,bout to deal with comments by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) with regard to the wheat industry. He referred to certain statements by Mr. Teasdale, a member of the Australian Wheat Board, and cited certain figures as to prices received by growers. Undoubtedly Mr. Teasdale has had a long experience of the wheat industry, both as a grower, I understand, and in other activities associated with the industry. B!e has been a member of the board previously, and has been re-elected. I have no doubt as to his wide knowledge of the industry, but he is not the only person with such qualifications. When the present Government came into office, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) rightly decided that a certain policy should be pursued, and he gave to the growers in the industry additional representation on the board.

Senator McLeay:

– The growers reelected Mr. Teasdale .to the board.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There are ways and means of putting a representative back on the board. It is true that he was elected by a ballot of the growers, but .1 shall cite figures supplied by another member of the board who disagrees with Mr. Teasdale. I shall first refer to the. prices given by Mr. Teasdale, which were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. They gave the price of wheat for local flour as 5s. 2d. a bushel, f.o.b. ; wheat for breakfast food, approximately 4s. a bushel bagged; wheat for New Zealand, 4s. 10 3/4d. a bushel bagged, f.o.b. ; and wheat for stock feed, after including the government subsidy, 3s. 9£d. a bushel bulk, and 3s. ll£d. a bushel bagged. As a matter of fact, Mr. Teasdale was incorrect in those figures. Another responsible member of the Australian Wheat Board contradicts him. I shall state the facts. The price of wheat for local flour is 5s. 2d. a bushel, f.o.r., equal to 5s. 2 3/4da bushel, f.o.b. The price of wheat for breakfast food h 4s. 2-d. a bushel, f.o.r., equal to 4s. 3d. a bushel, f.o.b. Wheat for New Zealand is 4s. 10 3/4d. a bushel bagged, f.o.ib. ; wheat for stock feed, after including the government subsidy, returns 4s. 0$d. a bushel for truck lota, bagged, f.o.r., and 4s. a bushel for wholesale lots, bagged, f.o.r., equal to 4s. 1 1/2d. and 4s. 0 3/4da bushel respectively, say an average of 4s. Id. a bushel. It will be seen that Mr. Teasdale’s figures are incorrect to the amount of $d. a bushel with regard to wheat for local flour. With regard to breakfast food, his “ approximate 4s. “ should be 4s. 3d. He is correct with regard to the price of wheat for New Zealand, whilst with regard to wheat sold for stock feed, he is incorrect by aproximately lid, a bushel. The difference between Mr. Teasdale’s price and the actual price is not great, but, when figures are given by a responsible member of the Australian Wheat Board, he shoud be fair to his fellow members of the board. He should not cite figures unless they are correct. The fact that his figures lean all one way appears .to indicate a desire on his part to discredit his fellow members of the board.

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– His attack was on the Minister for having told the board what to do.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– His attack was made not only on the Minister. I had experience of him when I attended a conference of the Wheat Board in order to endeavour to straighten out m’atters connected with the industry. I say nothing against Mr. Teasdale personally, but, when the Leader of the Opposition sets him up as an authority on wheat prices, he should be prepared to substantiate the figures used. When he was referring to the matter, an interjection came from Senator Gibson, who, I think, mentioned 52s. a ton in favour of Western Australia because of freight rates.

Senator Gibson:

– I have more sense than to have said that. I said 2s.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Even the figure of 2s. is wrong, because the freight advantage mentioned was the freight difference from Western Australia to some countries to which wheat -is exported. However, Australian wheat is sold for export f.o.b., and the freight is a matter for the huyer. In other words, the Australian Wheat ‘Board quotes on the Australian price for export, and the price in Perth is the same as in Melbourne or Sydney. It was stated that only a small portion of the wheat sold from our ports is going out under open market conditions. That is correct, and I do not deny it. But that is only another way of saying that a world market does not exist during a total war. The honorable senator knows perfectly well that we have had to adjust ourselves to the altered conditions. It is true that some small lots of wheat were sold at approximately 7s. a bushel. That, however, is not the average price.

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– It is sold for pig feed cheaper than for bread.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is true.

Senator Keane:

– ‘Bacon, too, is needed.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There are huge surpluses of wheat in the world. The crops in North America have been extraordinarily heavy, and it has been stated that supplies for all needs will be ample. Any one would be baffled if he were asked to say what the market price is, because there is no world market price. It is true that the Government is selling wheat cheaply for stock feed. That is a very good policy and is essential to our food programme. However, it became plain last year that an adjustment was desirable, and it is being made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully). It was decided that the return for feed wheat which is subsidized by 6d. a bushel shall be increased for Nos. 6 and 7 pools to the average return from those pools. ‘Some time must elapse before we shall know what the average will be, and consequently the amount of the increased payment. But sales will continue to be made, and the pool realizations will be found, as they have been with past pools. The necessary adjustment to raise stock feed sales to the pool return will then be made. This represents fair treatment of all concerned, and will ensure a reasonable return to the wheatgrowers for this wheat. The consumer, also, is being treated fairly. The great benefits conferred on wheat-growers, as well as on the rest of the community, by the price-stabilization policy, must be realized. Senator James ‘ McLachlan’s disagreement with Opposition members of Parliament who have condemned the Scully plan pleased me very greatly, because he knows the wheat industry far better than I do. During the stabilization period, the wheat-grower has had stability and an assured income. Senator

Gibson also commented on the position. I would mention only the absurdity of his statement that, by altering the wheat stabilization plan, we would have 13,000,000 bushels instead of 8,000,000 bushels under wheat. “When I was a member of the Opposition, I said that I would not approve of the reduction ‘of food production in this country. The Prime Minister declared late in 1941, or early in. 1942,. that if the question were one of saving this country from the enemy or ‘of producing sufficient food for export and for the civilian population, he would save the country first, and civilians would have to go without some of the things which they considered they needed. That was a wise policy. The honorable senator knows very well that, hut for the steps then taken for the mobilization of every man who could be spared for the defence of this country, our position to-day might be far different from what it is. “We took risks. As time passed and the danger receded, men have been released from the Army to engage in food production, in order to meet the requirements of not only the civilian population in Australia, but also our own forces and those of our allies, and the people of Great Britain. There should not be an attempt to make party political capital out of the reduction of food production.

Senator Gibson:

– That has not been my purpose. But unless care be taken, there will be a shortage of wheat before it is realized.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Maybe. But I remind the honorable senator that, despite the restrictions, the maximum acreage allowable under the stabilization plan has not been sown.

Senator Gibson:

– The honorable gentleman knows the reason.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The reason has been the shortage of man-power and superphosphate. The honorable senator has said that there is land in Victoria which would grow wheat without the use of superphosphate. His next request will he for the discharge of men from the Army so as to meet the requirements of the man on the land. As Senator Sampson has said : “ Are we to get out of this war? “ We have to do one of two things - either remain in or get out of the war. This nation has adopted a certain stand, and its full fighting strength will continue to be mobilized. I have stated that the Scully plan has the full support of the small wheatgrowers of Australia. I cannot say whether or not the big growers support it.

In reply to the remarks’ of Senator Brand, all that I need say is that when a question on the subject was asked 1 gave an appropriate answer in regard to the removal of the means test from social service legislation dealing with the pensions of soldiers. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who represents me in the House of Representatives, undertook that if an amendment that had been moved were not pressed he would have the matter reviewed. That offer was not acceptable and the amendment was pressed, with the result that the Parliament decided what should be done. I remind the honorable senator that he was one of those honorable senators opposite who opposed that legislation when it was introduced in this chamber.

Senator Brand:

– I rise to order, I submit that the Minister has misrepresented me as having voted as did the Minister for Labour and National Service in the House of Representatives.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order in an honorable senator considering that he has been misrepresented. Senator Brand will have an opportunity to explain his position later.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– To misrepresent the honorable senator would be the last thing I would wish to do. As1 the Minister for Social Services, I introduced in this chamber legislation to give effect to unemployment and sickness benefits. Every honorable senator opposite voted against that legislation in division after division.

Senator Brand:

– The Opposition submitted an amendment, but the Minister would not agree to it.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– More than one amendment was submitted. The Opposition opposed the legislation tooth and nail, for the reason that it was not on a contributory basis. It having become the law of this country, the honorable senator now wants it to be amended so as to abolish the means test under certain conditions for the benefit of demobilized service personnel. There might be some merit in the appointment of a parliamentary committee to decide what shall be done on behalf of the men and women who are demobilized. A gratuity has been mentioned. I hope that we shall not have a bidding competition in this matter. The honorable senator named a. sum, whether or not for the purpose of “getting in first” I do not know. I consider that no monetary consideration would be sufficiently great. Senator Brand is aware of that. We want to do the fair thing, and neither side should endeavour to make party political capital out of the matter.

Senator James McLachlan raised the question of discharges from the Army in accordance with the instruction of War Cabinet and contended that South Australia had not received its quota of these men. Applications for the release of rural workers should be made, in the first instance, to the District War Agricultural Committee in the locality in which the farmer resides. Printed application forms are available, and may be obtained from any District War Agricultural Committee or National Service officer. Each application will be examined by the District War Agricultural Committee, and then sent on to the Man Power Directorate with appropriate comment. Should the man-power authorities consider that the release of the soldier is warranted, they will inform the Army accordingly, and, subject to certain Army conditions as to eligibility for release, the soldier will be discharged. Certain other conditions have been laid down by the War Cabinet. The following table shows the proportion of releases to the population of each. State in respect of the first 20,000 men discharged from the Army for work in industry: -

Senator McKenna, whom I congratulate on his exposition of the activities of my department, referred to two important subjects, namely, the serum laboratories in Melbourne, and the decline of the birth-rate. I shall give to the Senate some information showing what has been done, and what is contemplated, by the Government to stimulate the birth-rate. The Government recognizes the importance of a diminishing birth-rate in a young country like Australia, and as it desired to know all the factors associated with that decline, I referred the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council, with a request that it should make a preliminary investigation and submit a report. The council now has this matter in hand, and will report on it at its next meeting, which will be held in November. The council has approached its task from several angles, and is obtaining from a committee, consisting of the Commonwealth Statistician, the Director-General of Post-war Reconstruction, and the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service, a composite report on the statistical, economic, and industrial aspects of the subject. It has also invited the women of Australia to state anonymously the reasons why they have limited their families. So far, about 1,400 replies have been received, and, speaking generally, the two most important reasons given are international insecurity and economic insecurity. The Government is attempting to grant some relief in the latter field by the introduction of legislation to grant greater economic security to the people. It has also requested the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) and Lady Cilento to prepare a joint report on the advantage to women, in both health and happiness, of having a family and of the social benefits arising from family life.

Senator Gibson:

– They are very competent women.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– An investigation is also being made of social disabilities attendant on family life. A strong medical committee has been appointed to investigate and report on the medical aspect of sterility, contraception and abortion, and the physical disabilities and dangers associated with child hearing. The assistance of the Australian Council for Educational Research has been invited, and a statement is being prepared on the educational aspects of .this problem. These reports will be dealt with at the next meeting of the council, and the Government will, after consideration of the evidence and the recommendations of the council, decide what further steps are necessary. This inquiry is by far the most comprehensive investigation which has been made into the subject, and it will doubtless prove to be a valuable contribution to this problem, which is probably the most important in the national life of this country. One of the questions which will arise will be the necessity for a complete review of maternity hospital accommodation and maternity services generally throughout the Commonwealth. The Government is also providing financial assistance to Dr. R. Mackey to proceed to the United States of America to undertake a course of study in obstetrics, and to become acquainted with the latest developments, with the object of introducing such improvements as are necessary and possible to relieve the physical distress of pregnancy, the suffering associated with child labour, and the prevention of injuries following on labour. He is under engagement to return to Australia and assume duties as medical superintendent at the Crown-street, Women’s Hospital, Sydney. The inquiries so far reveal that there is need to make some .provision for the considerable number of married couples who desire to have children but find themselves unable to fulfil their wish. The problem of involuntary sterility will need to be dealt with by such measures as are possible. In addition to these activities, the Government brought these matters before a recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. At the conference the State Premiers agreed to accept a contribution from the Commonwealth Government. This is another step in the social benefits programme of the Government which will be presented to this Parliament.

Senator McKenna referred also to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne. Honorable senators who have not yet visited these laboratories would be well advised to do so. I pay a tribute to the men associated with the laboratories for the great work they have done, especially during the war, not only to supply the requirements of the civil population as well as of the fighting services of this country, but also for their achievements in the production of drugs for export. In the preparation of antitoxins, and in other ways, the work of the experts has been most valuable. It may be well if I were to explain why the production of penicillin was transferred from South Australia to Melbourne. After I had investigated the position, I decided that, as the Commonwealth Government had its own well-equipped laboratories in Melbourne, the work of producing penicillin should be undertaken there, rather than in an establishment not under its control. A substantial building for the production of penicillin is now in course of erection in Melbourne. In addition, two officers have been sent to the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively, to investigate the most up-to-date methods of producing penicillin and also to obtain first-hand information regarding the best use to be made of this valuable drug. Recently in the House of Representatives, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) asked for information regarding the production of penicillin. He wished to know why the Commonwealth should have a monopoly of its manufacture, and he expressed fears that the requirements of the nation might not be met. The production of this drug in the Commonwealth commenced about ten months ago, and since then the progress made has been beyond our wildest dreams. Australia is now supplying penicillin to New Zealand and New Caledonia. Recently I relaxed the restrictions on its use in civilian cases. As honorable senators know, Sir Howard Florey has come to Australia at the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), and will give to us first-hand information with regard to the preparation and use of this drug. The Commonwealth Government does not wish to make a profit out of the production of penicillin, and, accordingly, the price of this drug in Australia compares most favorably with the price in other countries. It was in order to keep the cost of production down to a minimum that I disagreed with the South Australian venture for its production. No one is prevented from producing penicillin, but the decision to undertake this work in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was made in the belief that it was better to do so than to build up a large private business for its manufacture. The honorable member for Fawkner also referred to the cost of penicillin. The cost depends upon the quantities used, and the number of injections. A quantity of 100,000 units costs about 35s. Later in the week I hope to make a further statement on this subject. I pay a tribute to the men who, in the early stages of manufacture of this valuable drug, worked under improvised conditions and yet did a magnificent job. Already the lives of many of Australia’s fighting men have been saved by its use. I repeat the statement of Sir Howard Florey that this drug is not a cure-all ; it must be used in the manner that has been found to be most effective.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- Last night, some of us were privileged to listen to an explanation by the CommanderinChief, General Sir Thomas Blarney, of the activities of the Australian Imperial Force, and I commend him for the clear and concise statement which he made. I also commend him for the warning which he gave against what I regard as wishful thinking, that is, entertaining the belief that the war against Japan will end soon. I have never believed that we had before us anything but a long and hard task in order to defeat the Axis powers, and this has been confirmed by recent events both in Europe and in the Pacific. The warning of the Commander-in-Chief was long overdue, and a statement to the same effect might well have been made either by the Prime Minister or some other Minister a good deal earlier. Nothing could be more dangerous than complacency at the present time. My only regret is that, when he was justifying the existence of base jobs and the retention of behind-the-lines men, he was not able to give an assurance that there was no waste of man-power in such positions. We are continually hearing statements from men serving in various parts of Australia that they have nothing to do, and we cannot but believe that there is waste of man-power. There is also a good deal of dissatisfaction that some A class men have not found their way into the front line, but are filling sheltered jobs.

I desire now to refer to the problem which has been created by men going absent without leave from the Army in large numbers. I do not condone this practice, of course, but the action of the men is, in some measure, understandable. When the expeditionary force was overseas in the Middle East, absence without leave was confined to an odd man out for a bit of fun who overstayed his leave by a day or two. However, when the hard, initial fighting in New Guinea had died down, and the men came back to Australia, many were posted to lonely, isolated districts. It was then that the absent-without-leave figures became serious. I do not propose to state the figures, although I know what they are, and I know that they caused unit commanders much concern. In some instances, men went absent without leave just from sheer boredom. In others, they knew that their parents were having a hard time carrying on with the faim, and they stayed to help. The problem has been much more serious in the Army than in, the Air Force, because the set-up is entirely different. In the Air Force the men are on their station and are in full training, while in the Army some men have comparatively little to do while in rest positions or in staging camps. I am convinced that very few of those who have gone absent without leave have any desire to shirk their responsibility for the defence of the country. It was evident from a recent statement of the Prime Minister, and from what the CommanderinChief has said, that the rest period for the Australian Forces is drawing to a close. I suggest that most of the men who are absent without leave would rejoin their units now if they were given an assurance that their offence would be overlooked provided they did not “ blot their copybook “ again. I have spoken to some, of these men, and they have told me that they have such big debits in their pay-book due to fines for being absent without leave that if they returned they would be soldiering for nothing for the next six months, and many of them are now in employment outside.

Senator Clothier:

– Would their commanding officers accept them if they returned?

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– In most cases the commanding officers would be only too glad1 to have their men return.

Senator Clothier:

– I know one man who went back and they put him “ inside “.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– In every army there must inevitably be some black sheep. I am merely asking that men who have got themselves into an unfortunate position should be given an opportunity to start afresh. It may be asked, would this be fair to the man who has stuck constantly to his job, and never gone absent without leave ?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, that is the point.

Senator FOLL:

– Well, there has been, talk of paying service men a gratuity when the war is over. In this connexion, I entirely endorse what has been said about the desirability of the political parties refraining from bidding against one another in the matter of gratuities. I give an assurance that there will be no such bidding so far as I am concerned, and. I think the parties should reach an understanding now to avoid anything of the kind. I suggest that the amount of the gratuity receivable by a man upon his discharge might be in accordance with his conduct while in the service, so that those who have stuck to the job will be rewarded. I repeat that it is not difficult to find excuses for men who have been absent without leave during the dull and uninteresting period of their service. While the average Australian is an excellent fighting man, he is not a good garrison soldier. Generally, he does not like soldiering for soldiering’s sake; but he is always prepared to fight for his country, and, as .a fighter, is second to none. However, many soldiers, after being four years in the services, have not yet been outside Australia, and have not seen active service. I have in mind many men who were sent to Western Australia in the early stages of the war. They have been longing to have a crack at the enemy, but so far they have not been given that opportunity. This dissatisfaction, combined with the fact that the men know that their homefolk are working under difficulties for want of manpower, and other reasons, have led many to go absent without leave. Gradually, they have incurred substantial debits in their paybooks. They now conclude that it is useless to return to their units, when they must wait six or twelve months, or even longer, before they make up the leeway in their pay. Many of the men now absent without leave would be glad to return under the conditions I have suggested. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to get a lot of them back to their units. Of course, some of them are caught, but after doing their period of detention, again go absent without leave, and further increase the debits in their paybook. Under my suggestion, they would be given an opportunity to start afresh, and, now that the future holds definite promise of action for the armed forces, many of them will more readily return to their units.

Senator Keane:

– A soldier who goes absent without leave is really punished in two ways; he suffers detention and loss of pay.

Senator FOLL:

– He is fined, and sentenced to a period of detention; and he receives no pay during that period. Consequently, he is getting hopelessly into debt. Thus, a soldier may start off on front-line service with a debit of from £50 to £100 in his paybook. Generally speaking, of course, at the conclusion of the war, a King’s Pardon is granted in respect of all offences with the exception of very serious offences, and such debits as I have mentioned are wiped off. In any case, the Government is not likely to collect that money. Under my suggestion, it has at least a chance to obtain service from many soldiers now absent without leave. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this matter

I now wish to refer to the Second Victory Loan which has just been opened. With every other right-minded Australian, I sincerely hope that this loan will be as successful as each of the previous loans. I shall give whatever help I can in that respect by investing what I can afford, and by assisting in the campaign generally. I shall do so for two reasons : First, because I recognize that this money is absolutely essential to enable us to carry on the war; and, secondly, because I do not know of any better investment than that offered by Government inscribed stock which bears interest at a rate of 34 per cent. However, I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer to what I believe is a very foolish practice on the part of the Taxation Department in respect of people who subscribe to war loans. I have had brought to my notice the case of a patriotic woman, who was so moved by appeals that she withdrew money from her savings bank account and invested it in one war loan. After she sent in her income tax return, in which she showed this additional money as having been invested in a war loan, she received a very abrupt letter from the Deputy-Director of Taxation in the State in which she resides asking where she got the money which she had invested in the loan.

Senator GIBSON:

– Has the department the right to ask for such information ?

Senator FOLL:

– I do not know; hut it seems to me to be very foolish, when we are asking people to invest every spare penny in war loans, for officials of the Taxation Department to make inquiries of this kind. I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer to urge that such a practice be stopped. I can give the Minister the name of the person whose case I have cited. When it was brought to my notice, I rang up a senior officer in the Taxation Department, a personal friend of mine, and told him that I thought it was a very foolish practice when we were doing our utmost to encourage the people to invest every spare penny in war loans.

The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) and Senator O’Flaherty referred to the subject of land settlement for ex-service personnel. I was privileged to be a member of the Senate when the first Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill was introduced into this Parliament. I have an intimate knowledge of some of the problems which arose after the last War in respect of not only soldier settlement, but also other schemes, including those for the settlement of migrants. We cannot expect that every scheme will be a 100 per cent, success.

However, the point I made is that after the last war the Commonwealth utilized the machinery of the State government to the fullest possible degree, because the States possess the requisite power in respect of such schemes. It is not correct to say that the Commonwealth Government at that, time bought huge tracts of land. It did not purchase any land for that purpose. It advanced to the States a certain sum in respect of each settler, based on the costs of subsistence, plant and machinery, and improvements to property. The selection of areas was left entirely to the State governments. The Minister for the Interior knows perfectly well that in Queensland the Land Settlement Board was responsible for the selection of areas for soldier settlement in that State. The Commonwealth hud nothing whatever to do with the selection of the Beerburrum, or Stanthorpe, areas. It would be almost ridiculous to suggest that officials at Canberra could decide upon the best land for this purpose. We must depend upon State instrumentalities. However, the mistake made by the States after the last war was that in their haste to get the men on to the land they did not investigate local conditions thoroughly.

Senator Collings:

– The point is not who was responsible, but the fact that in many cases, the soldier was badly let down.

Senator KEANE:
ALP

– In Queensland the job was done fairly well.

Senator FOLL:

– One or two settlements were complete failures, but other settlements were outstanding successes. The real test was the suitability of the land selected. For instance, in the Stanthorpe district a large number of exsoldiers were put on the land to engage in fruit-growing, and many of the original settlers, who have done well, are still there. However, even in that area there were many failures which were not due to the unsuitability of the land, but to the fault of the individual. Many of those men were not of the type who were prepared to wait for six or seven years for their orchards to come to fruition. However, those ex-servicemen who stuck to the job have done remarkably well, and to-day many of them have sons serving in the Second Australian Imperial Force. Another1 success was achieved in the settlement of ex-soldiers on virgin scrub in the Mackay district to engage in sugar growing. The point I emphasize is that more care should be exercised in the selection of land for the settlement of ex-service personnel, because it is so easy for settlers to fail on unsuitable land. This problem, however, is not confined solely to soldier settlement. I have seen pastoral areas cut up for closer settlement in the western districts of Queensland, and because the individual allotments were too small, many settlers had no chance of succeeding. Later, it was found necessary to merge three blocks into one holding. I suggest that the Government might consider the appointment of a parliamentary committee to inquire into and report on land settlement projects. The members of such a committee must have had considerable experience in primary production. They must have no axe to grind to the degree that they may be anxious to benefit certain towns, or districts, apart from the suitability of the land in those areas. They must be men who can be relied on to give a fair and unbiased report to the Government. I realize that the Army is doing a good job under its education scheme whereby it is giving the opportunity to many men in their spare time in the forces to prepare for their return to civilian life. Let us, instead of bothering about who was responsible for the mistakes made in land settlement schemes after the last war, profit from experience and ensure that mistakes this time shall be reduced to an absolute minimum by first ascertaining whether applicants for land are suitable and are likely to stay on their holdings.

The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) was in great form last night when he took us on a journey back into the “bad old days”. The honor’able gentleman talked about the “ old order “, the “ new order “, and all sorts of other orders, and he reached his zenith when he lectured us on the ethics of Christianity. I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard the honorable gentleman quoting from the Lord’s Prayer. As my amazement fell from me, however, T realized that the only line quoted by him was “ Give us this day our daily bread “. Another line which the honorable gentle man ought to have quoted is “ Forgive us our trespasses “. The honorable gentleman’s speech was typical of many of his speeches in this Parliament in that he depicted employers as evil men intent on breaking down the conditions of the workers, whereas, as he knows perfectly well, no politician, regardless of his party affiliations, and no employer, wishes to see in this country the conditions of suffering on which he dwelt so harrowingly, because all know that happy, well-paid, well-fed and well-clothed workers ensure a far better return than do down-trodden, un-co-operative, hungry and shabby workers. As honorable gentlemen know I have some experience of industry. One great industry in which I am interested in northern Queensland has expended about £1,000,000 on housing, refrigeration, barracks, a co-operative store, a wellstaffed hospital, and everything else needed to make the lot of the worker as comfortable as possible in that part of the State. The wise employer has profited from the errors of the unwise employers of the past, and realizes that if industry is to progress and the country is not to have socialism foisted on it by a socialist ministry, it is necessary to make the conditions of labour as attractive as it is possible to make them by means of good pay and healthy working conditions. Regardless of our political beliefs, that is what we all want to see. No one wants to return to the days described in the “ Song of the Shirt “ - the “bad old days” so vividly described by the honorable senator. He Ls not alone in his desire to see conditions improved, because every one realizes that any man or, for that matter, woman, who wants work and cannot get work is an economic waste.

The Government, ought to make clear what its attitude will be in relation to man-power after the war. The prospects are causing grave concern to industry. Even protected industries are short of skilled hands owing to the fact that the services and the Allied Works Council have been compelled by the exigencies of war to take practically all the skilled labour in the Commonwealth. From time to time, we hear of the huge governmental undertakings proposed for the post-war period - standardization of the railway gauges, and housing schemes, and other big public works - not only from Ministers but also from newly appointed heads of new departments. Does that mean that the Government, immediately the war ends, will start those works and retain under its control the skilled men whom it has taken from private industry in order to prosecute the war?

Senator Keane:

– No.

Senator FOLL:

-=-The first thing that the Commonwealth Government should do after the war ends should be to return to private employment as quickly as pos-s/ible as many of the skilled men in the services, munitions factories, and the Civil Constructional Corps as is possible in order that the great industries of this country may get back again on to their feet. The industry in Queensland with which I am associated now has 800 men engaged, but could employ at least another 750 men as soon as the war ends. The position of private industry is becoming very grave for lack of labour, and the Government must take every possible step at the first opportunity to ensure that” the great private employers of this country, who stood by it in the’ early days of the war and supplied Australian requirements before the governmentowned munitions factories were in production, shall not be starved of labour for the benefit of government works. The Government should clarify the position by making a declaration of its intentions in regard to man-power in the post-war period. Its policy should be directed towards a return to private employment within the shortest possible space of time as many men as private industry can absorb. Only those whom private industry may not be able to absorb should be employed on government projects.

The Division of Import Procurement, which is administered by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane), has grown to enormous proportions. Ithas had a colossal task to do. But we are now reaching the stage at which the conditions which necessitated the establishment of that division to ensure that the Government’s war requirements should reach this country from abroad are disappearing, and I hope that the division will surrender- to private enter prise the importation of all commodities required by the civil population as quickly as possible. The Division of Import Procurement has developed into a huge government-controlled warehouse for the importation of everything needed, but there exists in this country a solidly based system pf private importation which should be allowed to import our needs in the normal way rather than by means pf lend-lease.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Division of Import Procurement has done the job well.

Senator FOLL:

– I do not detract in any way from the value of the division’s work. It has had a colossal task and it has done it well. This morning I was interested ito read the following article in Export Trade and Shipper-, published in the United States of America:-

page 1466

QUESTION

CUT IN LEND-LEASE COMMISSIONS BY AUSTRALIA SHARPLY CRITICIZED

U.S. Exporters Sat Government Action is out of Harmony with other Farts of Empire.

Sharp criticism has been aroused by the recent action of the Australian Government in arbitrarily cutting the rate of commission on lend-lease orders paid by American manufacturers to their regular, long established, authorized representatives in Australia, states American Exporter in its curent issue.

U.S. Government Rate

In the case of American hand, standard, small and precision measuring tools the American Government has decided on a flat rate pf only 1 per cent, pf factory cost as being the commission paid on lend-lease orders to representatives in Australia, far below the normal rate. American exporting manufacturers point out that Australia’s arbitrary action is out of harmony with the attitude of other parts of the British Empire. For when lend-lea.se was first inaugurated, most parts of the Empire, especially Great Britain itself, appeared to be fully cognizant of the necessity and justice of maintaining the legitimate position of the importing distributors or representatives of American goods. In view of the fact that a lend-lease order- is actually placed by the U.S. Government and represents an expenditure of money of the American taxpayer, naturally, the American Government can scarcely be expected to pay a commission or a profit to a foreign representative or distributor, for handling American goods supplied by the American taxpayer as part of the war effort. Therefore, at the beginning, the British Government, particularly, undertook to pay a profit or commission to the. regularly established representatives pf American manufacturers.

Senator FOLL:

– il am coming to that. The article continues -

In many cases bids made under lend-lease by American manufacturers specified, “ If this order is for shipment to the British Isles through lend-lease, the price is to be suchandsuch per cent, less “, it being understood that the percentage so deducted would be paid by the British Government to the representatives of the American manufacturer in sterling.

Criticism

The article criticizing the Australian Government’s action points out that the Australian Government is arbitrarily cutting the rate of commission stated, “ the lend-lease remuneration has been fixed at such percentage as will return the trade as a whole in one year, approximately twice the average annual commission earned during the years 1935 to 1939 and will represent adequate payment for the service rendered.”

That was set down by the Division of Import Procurement as a reasonable rate of commission for distributors in this country. The article continues -

But American manufacturers point out that there is a great discrepancy between the overall calculations made by the Australian Government regarding these commissions and the effect upon representatives of American manufacturers.

For example, one American manufacturer who paid his representative in Australia 74 per cent, commission in peace times and sold an average of $13,000 a year in that market, his representative thus receiving $975 commissions, has averaged $17,000 lend-lease orders, but his commercial sales have dropped to $200 a year. Thus on the basis .the Australian Government proposes this representative would earn $15 a year on commercial sales and $170 a year on lend-lease, or a total of $1 85. Instead of earning “ approximately twice the average annual commission earned during the years 1935 to 1939”, this particular representative will average only 19 per cent, of what he did previously.

In another case, the manufacturer’s total sales were only 1G per cent, last year of what they were in 1940, and this year they have been practically nil. Their representative has not even been given permission by the Australian Government to bring in necessary repair parts.

Interference with Commercial Shipments.

The feeling in Australia is, and this feeling is apparently shared by American manufacturers, that while some of the lend-lease figures are large, there has been such an interference with commercial shipments that the representatives cannot live on anything like a 1 per cent, commission paid on lend-lease orders.

Further objection is made in Australia, and again apparently shared in the United States, that inasmuch as British shipments are made entirely through commercial channels to Australia, and British manufacturers are permitted .to remunerate their representatives in the usual manner, the result of this situation is that American trade is discriminated against.

Thus, the Australian Government is placed in the position of accepting lend-lease aid from the United States and at the same time drying up the channels of American trade in Australia and turning the trade over to competitive manufacturers in Britain.

I direct the attention of the Leader of the Senate to that article, because I think that the statements it contains should be answered by him, particularly as it is suggested that we are using lend-lease in a discriminatory) way in relation to our trade as between Great Britain and the United States of America, whereas the Minister, who has administered the matter throughout, knows that an undertaking was given that nothing of the kind should occur under the lend-lease arrangement.

Senator FOLL:

– That is so. The article continues -

Another aspect of the situation is, of course, that agreements made in good faith between Australian firms and American manufacturers are being arbitrarily interfered with by the action of the Australian Government, and it is reported that in the machine-tool trade instituted to test the validity of this interference. “Politically”, the article states, “the situation is most unfortunate not only as regards the Australian Government’s seeming to throw its weight against American manufacturers in favour of British manufacturers by playing into the hands of those American legislators who are somewhat hostile to the lend-lease programme in general, since it places the American Government in the unfortunate position of extending lend-lease aid to Australia, which at the same time results in drying up our channels of trade there. “ The whole situation is so fraught with possibilities of friction and injustice as to jeopardize the good relations it is so important for the American and Australian people to continue in the difficult post-war era of reconstruction and return to normal trade.”

I shall make the magazine containing the article available to the Minister, who I know will welcome the opportunity of replying to the statements which it contains. The Minister could suggest to the Department of Information that an answer be sent to the same magazine, which is widely circulated in trade circles in the United States of America.

I trust that the Minister will give particular attention to the question which I raised at the outset of my speech regarding certain lads, many of whom could be saved from themselves and brought back into the Army. If the Government regards the matter 83 urgent, and does something to reclaim these young men, the nation will benefit greatly.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

.- My principal reason for taking part in the debate is to direct attention to the fact, which has so far not been mentioned, that ever since the Government assumed office on the 7th October, 1941, its policy upon all questions of major importance has’ been to have conferences and agreements, if possible, with the Opposition. I know of no government in the past that has done so much in that direction. There is first the Advisory “War Council, upon which ‘both sides are represented. In it, issues of major importance are discussed and decided, and recommendations are agreed to. .

Senator Collett:

– Does the council make decisions?

Senator CAMERON:

– It decides to recommend in regard to defence matters. That is as it should be, otherwise it would simply be a form of dictatorship to which I think both sides would be opposed. Failing to reach an agreement,, the Government has pursued the policy which I have described, rather than rely solely upon arbitrary or dictatorial methods of government. We, of course, know that the Government must make a decision if it considers that certain things ought to be done, and it has no alternative but to adopt arbitrary methods in order to give effect to its policy, and it must be prepared to stand or fall by the consequences of its own acts. That policy was tested as no other policy was tested before in the history of Australia, and the verdict of the people in August, 1943, was for all practical purposes unanimous. The people agreed that it was a good policy, not merely as the result of a process of abstract reasoning, but also in view of the satisfactory results achieved. That is why honorable senators opposite are in a minority. If it were not for that, the possibilities are that they would have a majority. Somebody said that we should use our heads. I agree, but some use their’ heads simply for the purpose of keeping their collars on, and consequently are not of much use, but when people use their heads for the purpose for which they are intended, they are generally able to show better re-, suits than others.

In December, 1942, the Government, continuing the policy which it laid down in 1941, organized a convention to discuss whether it was desired to include additional powers in the Commonwealth Constitution. It was unanimously agreed at the convention that the Commonwealth Parliament did not have enough powers to deal with what is known as reconstruction, and that fourteen extra powers should be included in the Constitution. Then the Premiers and Leaders of the Oppositions of the States, who were present, agreed to ask the State Parliaments to confirm those decisions. The obligations into which the representatives of all parties entered at the convention were not honoured by some, who repudiated their promises, or the decisions to which they were committed. Subsequently the provisions of the agreement were submitted to the people. We then found that those who had previously agreed to the proposed new powers being included in the Constitution were taking the platform and declaiming as vehemently as they possibly could against such powers being granted by the people. I had no illusions about the matter, because if the Opposition had its way we should not be in power to-day. We should not be in a position to exercise even the powers already in. the Constitution. It is, therefore, quite logical, and in conformity with the policy the members of the Opposition adopt, for them not only to prevent us exercising those powers, but also to oppose the granting of new ones. Honorable senators opposite have made all sorts of excuses in an endeavour to explain away their conduct in that regard. They have said that too many new powers have been asked for and that therefore the people could not give a reasonable decision. They do not take into account the fact that when the original Constitution was agreed to 39 powers were submitted to the people in one question, and agreed to.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) had something to say about “ political immorality “. I do not know exactly what he means by that term, but, if it means anything, it is that representatives of the people should honour their pledged word and their pledged promise.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:

– This Government has done more than any of its predecessors did to facilitate the smooth management of the ‘Commonwealth. The principle upon which its policy is based is governed by mutual agreement rather than by the enforcement of arbitrary methods. When a stand must be taken, a government is compelled either to take appropriate action or be discredited in the eyes of the people. When such an occasion has arisen, this Government has never hesitated to act. But before doing so, it has always endeavoured to achieve agreement!), particularly where strongly conflicting opinions or interests had to be reconciled. The Government’s policy has been successful under war-time conditions, which constitute the acid test. They make it necessary for the Government to delegate to officials and others holding responsible positions power to act, as they deem fit, in an emergency. Some of the complaints which have been voiced against censorship and the dictatorial use of power by subordinates were justified. But when the matters were raised, Ministers have done everything in their power, in the circumstances, to adjust grievances or rectify anomalies. There is a. difference between government based upon the principle of mutual agreement, and government based upon the principle of a dictatorship. That difference causes at all times a good deal of discussion.

When the Leader of the Opposition referred to what he termed “ political immorality “, he did not attempt to define precisely what he meant by that expression. I interpret the phrase as meaning “failure to honour an obligation, or the pledged word “. If circumstances make it impossible for a person to honour an obligation, obviously the proper thing for him to do is to admit that he made a mistake or that the situation has passed beyond his control. That was never done in connexion with the referendum proposals. Many of the opponents of the referendum agreed at the Canberra Convention in 1942 to support the proposals, but some time later, they repudiated their promise. That action represents political immorality of the worse kind. Those persons are influenced more by political bias than by reason. In the same way, many employers consider that their dignity is lowered and their prestige reduced if they are obliged to meet the representatives of the workers on equal terms for discussion. They endeavour to operate on the principle that “ the King can do no wrong”. Their word on a subject must be final. When they yield, as they have yielded at times, to the pressure of circumstances over which they have no control, and are obliged to meet the representatives of the workers, they regard them as their mental and social inferiors, and generally, all their criticisms directed against the workers are influenced more by political bias than by a reasonable consideration of the issues. Instances of this attitude have occurred in this Parliament. In the House of Representatives, members of the Opposition, disregarding the fact that Australia has been faced by dangers unprecedented in its history, have been concerned more about minor matters than about major problems. Actually, they are mental pigmies, compared with what they should be. They cannot rise above their political or personal prejudices and rather than attempt to make common cause with those who try to serve their country, they concentrate on making a nuisance of themselves. Some people have a nuisance value, possibly in the same degree as the flea on the dog has a nuisance value. Other people have a utility value. But I fail to see in what way some members of the House of Representatives have a utility value, because even in war-time they are concerned more about minor matters than about major problems.

I know of nothing that is so grossly immoral from the political standpoint than the policy which the opponents of the Labour party introduced, of reducing men, women and children to the breadline. I was interested in the speech of Senator Foll, who referred to the bad conditions that existed in the past. When the Leader of the Senate (Senator Keane), Senator Sheehan and I entered this chamber in 1938, we appealed to the government of the day to do more for the unemployed than it was then doing. We did everything, except go down on our knees and beg, to induce the Government to take action. But we might as well have appealed to a wooden god. Our pleas passed unheeded. The Government knew just as well as we did the conditions under which men, women and children were existing. It knew’ just as well as we did, the effects of. enforced idleness and inadequate food, clothing and shelter. It knew just as well as we did that it had the means to provide adequate relief for those unfortunate persons. But beyond a few beggarly grants and some expressions of sympathy, nothing was done. So when some honorable senators opposite speak about political immorality, I regard their indifference to the plight of the unemployed a few years ago as being grossly immoral, and therefore, I am not impressed by their protestations that the acts of some other persons are politically immoral.

The defeat of the referendum does not relieve the Government of the obligation to prepare to deal with post-war problems. What proposals have been defeated ? Our opponents secured the rejection, first, of a provision for the reinstatement and advancement of ex-servicemen. We can assume from experience and from the actions of honorable senators opposite what they intend to do. When the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill was under consideration, the Opposition submitted an amendment designed to grant preference in employment to returned soldiers. That amendment did not guarantee employment to an ex-serviceman, because it contained the proviso that he must be competent, in the opinion of the employer. The “ employer “ could be either the Government or private enterprise. Neither the Government nor private employers would have been obliged to engage returned soldiers if, in their opinion, they were not com- petent. Obviously, that form of preference was not worth the paper on which it was printed, because those who are competent do not require legislation to secure preference for them. Preference automatically gravitates to them. Employers are always looking for the most competent man, because he is the most profitable type of employee. The amendment made no provision for the less competent men who were willing and able to work, but who were not fully qualified to take various jobs. The Parliament of South Australia passed legislation granting preference to returned soldiers, but imposed the limitation expressed in the words, “ other things being equal “. Precisely what does that mean? No two men or women are equal in every respect. But that proviso was inserted in legislation by men who have the audacity to say, as representatives of the people, that they desire to do justice to exservicemen. The Government realizes that, and has said so; but it does not make the slightest difference. The Government’s referendum proposals in respect o£ the rehabilitation and reinstatement of ex-service men and women amounted practically to a guarantee that full responsibility for this work would be assumed by the Commonwealth Government; yet honorable senators opposite and those associated with them who, theoretically are overflowing with sympathy, patriotism, and altruism, assisted to induce a majority of the people of this country to vote “ No “, and in effect to repudiate the claims that ex-servicemen have upon this country, However, the Government is still under an obligation to do all that it possibly can, despite the defeat of its referendum proposals, and I have no doubt that every member of the Government will do his best to ensure that the interests of ex-servicemen shall be protected and advanced in every way possible consistent with the existing powers of the Commonwealth, unless an agreement for the exercise by the Commonwealth of increased powers can be reached between the Commonwealth and State governments. If I am any judge, there is little likelihood of any such agreement, and the Commonwealth Government will have to act within the limits of the existing Constitution. That may mean the more drastic exercise of certain powers, namely, powers relating to taxation and banking. Those are two of the 39 powers specifically provided for in section 51 of the Constitution. I believe that a fuller use of those powers is desirable.

At ‘ the referendum the Government also sought power to legislate in respect of employment and unemployment. Honorable senators opposite, in what they believe to be learned speeches upon this subject, demanded to know the precise meaning of the phrase “ Employment and unemployment”, and because the explanation given was not to their satisfaction, they advised the people of this country to vote “ No “. That indicates to me that among honorable senators opposite, and the interests which they represent in this chamber, there is no genuine desire to effect any improvement of social conditions in this country. Due entirely to the application of the policy of anti-Labour administrations which held office prior to the advent of this Government, a state of affairs was created in which we had an army of permanently unemployed men and women living on the breadline. What was the reason? That army was kept in reserve so that it could be used as it has been used in every other capitalist country to keep costs of production in terms of labour time and commodities at the irreducible minimum. It is argued that this was necessary to enable Australia to compete in overseas markets, and so build up a. substantial export, trade. That sounds quite well in theory, and the explanation, may be accepted by individuals who are not sufficiently discriminating or intelligent to understand what is really meant ; but if it were possible, the interests represented by honorable senators opposite would have the majority of workers working in return for the dole. However, that is not economically possible, because production cannot be maintained at a high level without increasing the purchasing power of the workers to some degree at least. I am quite convinced that the referendum proposals were rejected because there was no. desire whatever on the part of a certain section of the community, to improve our social standards. The war has had the effect of convincing people that many theories which hitherto they have accepted unquestionably, are entirely false. Evidence of that is to be found in the changed outlook of many members of the House of Commons, who have had no regard whatever for the 2,000,000 citizens of Great Britain who before the war were existing at a starvation level. It was left to Labour men and to public spirited citizens outside Parliament to draw attention to this state of affairs, but until the war came, successive governments in the United Kingdom did not do anything worth while to alleviate this distress. Man-power which in time of peace had been plentiful became indispensable almost overnight. Men and women who before the war had been neglected and ignored, suddenly became necessary to increase war production and to serve in the armed forces. A direct result of the war in Great Britain has been that millions of the working population are better housed, clothed and fed than they have been for many years. If that can be done in time of war, it can be done also in time of peace. If it is physically possible in time of war to . provide the food, clothing and shelter necessary to maintain health and strength, it is more than physically possible to do this in time of peace. That is the germ idea that has been implanted in the minds of the people, individually and collectively, of all the Allied countries, including Australia. As that germ grows, that feeling which we know as public spirit will make itself felt in the legislative halls of the world, just as it is making itself felt already in the legislative halls of this country. Even now, we find that some individuals who hitherto have been disposed to ignore the claims of semi-starved men, women and children, are prepared to concede some measure of relief to these unfortunate people. They will attempt to take some credit for that changed attitude, but no credit is due to them, because they are merely making a virtue of a necessity. At heart they are just as callous as they have always been. My philosophy is based upon the principle that all things will yield to pressure. Where there is no pressure, there are no results. The pressure of war-time conditions has had the effect of making individuals who in the past, have been indifferent and callous as to the fate of their fellow beings, do things which they have not been prepared to do in the past. In Australia men of this type are prominent and vociferous. Some of them are in this Parliament, demanding all kinds of concessions from the Government, and at the same time, endeavouring to discredit the Government. I have no objection to these demands being made, provided that they are reasonable and can be justified, but I have the greatest possible objection to acceding to any demand that we should adopt a specific policy merely to please our political opponents. That will not be done. I say again that despite the defeat of its referendum proposals the Government has an obligation to do everything in its power to provide for the rehabilitation and reinstatement of ex-servicemen, and to improve social conditions in this country generally. It may be as I have said that existing powers will have to be used more fully than, has been the case in the past, but I should prefer to see the problem resolved by mutual agreement with the States. There is no reason why political leaders in this country should, not get together again as they did in December, 1942, and so avoid arbitrary action. We must not provide mere theoretical preference in employment for exservicemen. We must provide jobs for them, and if they are unable to do these jobs, we must provide opportunities for them to undertake the necessary training. We must also provide employment for the large army of workers who will be demobilized from war industries. That is a task that confronts the Government. Honorable senators opposite would have us believe that they are prepared to make common cause with the Government on certain matters. I, for one, shall be prepared to give to them every opportunity to do so, and to consider any plans which they may have formulated. But we must not deceive ourselves. When peace has been declared, the trade war which was the cause of the last war, and of this conflict, will continue. So far as I am aware, no proposals have been made for the cessation or abatement of that war, and. should it become intensified as seems likely, we shall have to defend ourselves in another world war. We must be prepared. We should see that Australia is made as self reliant and as independent as possible of supplies from overseas. We should not be influenced by the views of people like those who, prior to the last war, claimed that if we could buy cheaper goods from Japan and other countries overseas, we should do so. Provided that we have the man-power and the material resources at our disposal to build ships, aircraft, and most of the other things that we need, we should produce them in this country and use them to the best advantage. The present Government, in a time of unprecedented warfare, has done more to give effect to the policy of mutual trade agreements among ourselves than any previous ministry. It has achieved results which previous governments have been unable to obtain. I do not reflect on the undoubted capacity of individual members of the Opposition, but I do say that they have proved unable to accomplish the teamwork necessary to achieve the valuable results secured by the present Government. I have tried, to show that even greater success could be obtained. If the problems with which we are now faced, and the greater problems that will arise after the war, are approached with a view to achieving the best results in the interests of the people generally, rather than for the purpose of making political capital out of minor matters, we shall be able to do. even better in future than we have done in the past.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– J am pleased that the grants to be provided for South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania are larger than those received previously, and show a slight increase as compared with last year; but the increase does not compensate those States for the loss sustained in consequence of the introduction of the uniform taxation system. The distribution made under that system was liberal to ohe State only. There was a slight tendency in favour of another State, but South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia were practically robbed of a few millions of pounds. Commonwealth grants to the States in respect of disabilities were instituted so that no State might suffer under the financial agreement. No doubt that was the objective of the gentleman who recommended the amounts to be paid to the States, but a readjustment of the payments should have been made when the uniform system of taxation was adopted.

I regret that a financial arrangement has not been made to provide for immigration. This is a matter of the gravest concern to Australia, because of its vast area and the smallness of its population. We” have talked a great deal about migration, and we are still doing so, but Canada has ceased talking about it, and is now taking action to increase its population. We should follow the example of that sister dominion. I remind honorable senators that the best immigrant of all is the Australian-born baby. I have before me a booklet entitled The Nation’s Forum of the Air, which was alluded to by a member of the Senate a few days ago. I am surprised that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should allow its network to be used for the broadcasting of remarks such as those published iii that pamphlet, although it admittedly contains a report of what was said over the air in a discussion between four citizens on the subject of “Population Unlimited “. That booklet states, inter aiia–

Most living issues are controversial, and the commission recognizes that, if these sessions are to be pungent and real, they must he conducted in an atmosphere of freedom. No restrictions of any kind are imposed upon the speakers, except those elementary restrictions necessary in war-time in the interests of security.

Therefore, people may say practically anything they wish over the air, provided that they do not, infringe National Security Regulations. I was under the impression that, before statements could be broadcast, the script had to be submitted to the commission for its approval, hut in the case to which I have just referred, no restrictions of any kind were imposed on the speakers. Any man who would call his mother an irritable, cantankerous old woman is despicable.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– H - He is not human.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.No: such remarks should not be broadcast.

Senator Keane:

– The commission is doing a good job.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I t I think not.

Immigration is a vital matter, because we are now engaged in a world struggle. Allies of various nationalities are fighting with us, and we are assisting them with men and war-like material. The position that will arise in that regard after the war should be defined. Are we to say to some of our Allies, “ We did not mind having your assistance while we were fighting for our existence, but we are not willing to have you in our country”. Our attitude to this issue should be decided, not in future, but now.

We hear a good deal about the housing of the people, and the prevalence of slums in the capital cities. Homes should be provided for the people at reasonable prices. About £9,000,000 has been allotted to the States for this necessary work. The time is most opportune for the Commonwealth authorities to grant assistance to the States in the building of homes for the people. Provision has been made for the granting of £1,500,000 for the establishment of hydro-electric works in Tasmania. The necessary manpower is to be made available through the Allied Works Council, which was established for the carrying out of necessary defence works. It was to build roads, aerodromes, and other essential defence works. Has that work been completed? Are no more roads or aerodromes needed? From 500 to 700 men are to be sent to Tasmania for the construction of a hydro-electric scheme.

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator Clothier:

– A3 a majority of the electors of South Australia voted “Yes”, it would appear that the honorable senator is out of step with the people of his State.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– South Australia has been favoured with sensible governments, and in the light of their experience of honest and straight-forward dealing, the people of that State were prepared to trust any government. The people of New South Wales know many of the members of this Parliament, and that is why a majority voted “ No “. The same can be said of the people of Queensland. The unsuspecting people of South Australia and Western Australia, who have experienced honest dealings by State governments thought that it would be all right to vote “ Yes “.

Senator Grant:

– The Government of South Australia did not advocate a “ Yes “ vote, yet the honorable senator says that the people of that State trust their Government.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I - Is that not the formula which has always been used?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The honorable senator himself enunciated a formula under which the business of the country could he done solely with the currency of the country. I should like to know how the business of the country, which amounts to anything from £2,000,000,000 to £3,000,000,000 a year, could be adequately transacted by relying only on currency which amounts to only £197,000,000?

Senator O’Flaherty:

– W - We are doing that now.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– No; the honorable senator also said that the Government should not permit the issue of cheques.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I - I said that the Government should control the issue of cheques, and that the private banks should not be allowed to issue them.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Apparently, the honorable senator was not quite clear about what he really wanted to say. Much has been said about the transfer of a broadcasting licence in respect of station SKA, Adelaide. I thought that the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) would have taken an opportunity long before this to clarify that matter. I shall be very interested to hear his explanation, because the issues involved concern the integrity of a very reputable citizen of Adelaide, Reverend Forsyth, who controls the Central Methodist Mission. That gentleman has raised considerable sums of money for philanthropic purposes, and I cannot understand why he should make a gift worth £1,700 to the Labour party, in addition to concessions associated with the operation of that broadcasting station, unless some pressure had been brought to bear upon him in the matter. I am sure that he would rather utilize so substantial an amount to help forward the objects of his mission than assist any political organization, regardless of its party affiliations. I shall be very interested to hear what the Postmaster-General has to say with regard to that transaction.

The Leader of the Senate was rather annoyed that honorable senators on this side should have the audacity to criticize the coal-miners. He is quite right. I do not think that any honorable senator should do so, because, as the Leader of the Senate has said, none of us has been a coal-miner, and therefore cannot really understand the arduous nature of the miner’s work. However, we are entitled to criticize what the Government and ite supporters say and do about the miners; and on this matter honorable senators on this side have criticized not the miners but the Government. The Leader of the Senate took me to task for something which he alleged I had said about the miners. Since I have been a member of the Senate, I have not criticized the coal-miners individually. Whenever I have dealt with the industry, I have invariably dealt with it on general grounds. Another honorable senator opposite gave us a lot of sob stuff about the misery and poverty associated with the industry, and said that the miners had passed the limits of human endurance, and were worn out. All that 1 did when I was speaking on this subject was to show that other sections of workers had laboured just as strenuously as had the coal-miners, and, although they were tired and worn out, they had not gone on strike. That comparison still holds good. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings), who had much to say last night, indulged his usual habit of branding honorable senators on this side as inhuman. He said in effect that we were monsters.

Senator Collings:

– I did not use either of those terms.

– I did not.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Did not the Minister tell the Senate that the man could pay off the arrears over a long period of years ?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– What nonsense! The man was drawing an old-age pension, and owed arrears of rent, which was only ls. a week. Why not deduct it from his pension, and save all this humbug?

Senator Nash:

– If the Minister had done - that, the Opposition would have raised objections.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– No, I should like to ask the Leader of the Senate the following questions : -

How does the Government propose taking £12,000,000 from the National Welfare Trust Fund, and leave a balance of £18,000,000 when that fund has a credit of only £25,500.

How does the Government propose paying out any claims for war damage insurance when -the whole of the funds amounting to £14,000,000 are invested in war bonds?

How can the Government justify the extra expenditure of £300,000 a year for war-time controls of prices, man-power, rationing, &c, at this juncture?

Will the Government release from the Allied Works Council all men not necessary for defence work, or ensure that they are employed in the building of homes or in assisting primary producers?

Is the Government prepared to admit as an immigrant any member of the present Allied Nations?

Senator Grant:

– Does the honorable senator include the Chinese, and the inhabitants of India?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I leave that to the honorable senator to answer.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The first reading of this bill gives to honorable senators an opportunity to speak upon many subjects affecting the welfare of the Commonwealth, whilst the second reading and committee stages will afford occasion for dealing with the items in detail. Everyone who has spoken in the present debate has taken the fullest opportunity to discuss many and varied matters concerning the Government, and its numerous activities. Last night Senator Collett delivered an excellent speech which could quite properly have been made by any member of the Opposition. It was not destructive, but was a fair exposition by an Opposition member who wished to review the Government’s actions. In criticizing the arguments of some honorable senators opposite, he was not at all offensive. He even commended the remarks of other honorable senators. J was, therefore, surprised at the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) criticizing Senator Collett’s speech in a most caustic manner. The Minister in dealing with the war effort referred to the workers of Australia. He accused us on this side of being always unmindful of our fellow citizens. He said that we had no interest in them, and that we had always shown an utter disregard for the workers. He asked whence the soldiers came who defended this country, and said that Australia had to look to the workers for its soldiers. He also said that we looked to the workers for people to develop our industries. It ill becomes a responsible Minister of the Crown to point to one class as having made the greatest contribution to the war effort. The inference to be drawn from his remarks was that others, who were represented by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, had not played an equal part in this great struggle. It is most repugnant to me to have to refer to this matter, because I object to drawing distinctions between persons, but I must point out that the highest in the land have made great sacrifices. In this war, as in the last, men holding the highest positions in Australia have lost those dear to them, as have honorable senators generally. We have all made our contribution. Are we so hard pressed for argument that we must try to find something hurtful, and savouring of, class hatred, to cast at our political opponents? In this National Parliament, at a time of great crisis, are we so devoid of argument that we must stoop to such contemptible tactics as to say that the fighting men of Australia come from only one class? There is not an atom of truth in what the Minister insinuated. The sons of all are taking part in. the war. All have made their contributions.

Senator Clothier:

– The honorable senator would do much better if he included the women of the services.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I refer to both men and women. Does any honorable senator believe that our fighting men, whether they serve on land, or at sea, or in the air, ask one another whether they are workers, or whether they come from the supposed capitalist class of which we hear so much? They do not ask one another : “ Are you the son of a worker, or of the Governor-General ?” Such remarks, therefore, should find no place in the debates of the Senate. We all know that our fighting men come from all sections of the people. During the last great war entire sons of families of the richest people were wiped out entirely, and no doubt the same applied to some of the poorest families. I dislike making these comparisons, but such statements must be answered when made by a responsible Minister, to whose utterances people perhaps pay some attention. A member of the House of Representatives who was defeated at the general elections last year has six sons, all of whom are in the fighting forces, yet he was supposed to be one of the leisured class. I do not pay any more tribute to the man with six sons than to the man with one son in the service. Each has given his all. Honorable senators opposite have made their contribution equally with others, and I pay the same tribute to them. The Minister should be ashamed to tell the people on ,this side of the chamber that the men who have defended Australia come from the working class. There may be a greater proportion of the workers in the services, because there are more workers’ families to draw from, tout we are all sharing one another’s burdens in this great struggle.

A great deal has been said during this debate concerning the treatment meted out to returned soldiers, with special emphasis upon those who were settled upon the land. What was the position after the last war? The Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) laid particular emphasis upon the alleged bad treatment of soldier settlers after the last war, and attributed the failure of many soldier settlement schemes to exploitation by land-owners and other so-called capitalists.

Discussion as to what supporters of the Government and members of the Opposition have done with regard to the referendum proposals will not get us far. It has been said by some honorable senators opposite that, had the proposed alterations of the Constitution been agreed to, the work of repatriating exservicemen would have been facilitated. If that be so, why did not the Government separate the proposals submitted to the people, and leave them free to make a decision regarding each of them? There is no doubt as to what the decision of the electors would have been on the proposal relating to the repatriation of ex-servicemen. But I do not believe that the Government will be embarrassed by any lack of power to deal with that problem. It has been said by supporters of the Government that the campaign was unfairly conducted by their opponents and that those who advocated a “No” vote adopted unfair tactics in order to bring about the defeat of the proposals. The Leader of the Senate (Senator

Keane) deprecated references during the campaign to rationing and other control measures resorted to by the Government, but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Is it not a fact that the advocates of a “ Yes “ vote told the people that, unless the proposals were agreed to, the Government would be unable to make proper provision for the repatriation of ex-servicemen, that widows’ pensions would be in jeopardy, that child endowment would disappear, and that the payment of invalid and oldage pensions would be endangered ?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– “We said that it was necessary to place the position with regard to widows’ pensions and child endowment beyond doubt.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– The Government does not say that to-day, for it has made provision in the budget for the provision of the usual social services. The invalid and old-age pensions, child endowment and the widows’ pension will be made available as before, and the Government will not be embarrassed with regard to their payment. Its difficulties, which were stressed during the referendum campaign, have disappeared like the morning dew, as they have on all previous occasions when proposals for alterations of the Constitution have been submitted to the people. I do not desire to pose as one who derives pleasure from saying, “ I told you so “. I do not claim to have the wisdom of Solomon. The Hansard record shows that I opposed the measure relating to the proposed constitutional alterations, and I had justification for doing so. I pointed out that no proposals for an alteration of the Constitution, except those of a minor character, had ever been agreed to by the people at a referendum since the inception of federation. Those proposals which were adopted related to an alteration to the date of Senate elections and the taking over by the ‘Commonwealth of State debts. The fourteen proposals last submitted to the people having been grouped together, I said that I doubted whether the Government desired their acceptance. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) remarked to me by way of interjection, “If the proposals are defeated, the honorable senator will be very happy “. I replied that I saw no cause for rejoicing, for the proposals would certainly be rejected by the people, who were to be divided into two camps,- and £250,000 would be expended on a useless campaign.

Senator LARGE:

– That was because the Opposition made it a party question.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– “We on this side were most generous to the Government. We advised it to separate the questions, instead of requiring the people to vote “ Yes “ or “ No “ to the whole of them. I prophesy that the Government will not introduce any further proposals to alter the Constitution for some time, and that, should it do so, it will act only after the fullest consultation with other political parties in an attempt to find a common meeting ground. I am confident that it will not again submit fourteen questions to the people to be accepted or rejected en Moe. The referendum was defeated, and all sorts of reasons have been given by the Government for its defeat. Opposition members have been paid a high compliment, in that Government supporters claim that the defeat of the Government’s proposals was due to their influence. It is strange that the same people who voted for the Labour party at tie last election rejected its proposals when submitted to them recently. When the people decided on a change of government about a year ago, we on this side accepted their verdict in the right spirit ; as good democrats, and as men who know how to play “ cricket “, we took our defeat as we would take a defeat in a game. Unfortunately, some honorable senators opposite are not “ sports “, and accordingly, they see something sinister in the defeat of the referendum proposals. It has been said that no experience is better than experience that has to be paid for, and I am confident that the Government will not again venture along the road that it travelled recently.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- On the 13th September, I directed attention to the case of a foreman in a government munitions factory in Melbourne. At a meeting of employees a resolution was passed for his removal, because he pressed for a fair day’s work. The case was investigated by a representative of the Amalgamated Engineers Union, and a decision made in the foreman’s favour. Further comments are unnecessary.

I make a plea on behalf of exservicemen for whom the “Repatriation Commission can do no more. They are a “lost legion “ of which every State, every big city, has its quota. Of course, they can avail themselves of institutions such as benevolent homes which are maintained by State governments and charitable citizens, but as age is usually the qualification for admission to these homes, the majority of the ex-servicemen, in whom I am interested, are not eligible for admission. In every State the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia has established a war veterans’ home. The accommodation is limited by the league’s resources, even when augmented by financial help from patriotic citizens. It appears to me that there is an opportunity for the Commonwealth Government to help these old soldiers by making a grant towards increasing accommodation in these war veterans’ homes. In connexion with each home there is a women’s auxiliary which is doing splendid work. The foundation has been laid for re-claiming ex-servicemen, and so giving to them a brighter outlook on life. The league is obviously the right organization to carry out this task. I have personal knowledge of the splendid work that is being done in Melbourne, where the accommodation in a home is limited to 72 inmates. The Lord Mayor of Melbourne has approved a public appeal next year for a war veterans’ home capable of accommodating up to 400 inmates. The league has already acquired from a well-known racing man, Mr. “ Sol “ Green, a property 30 miles from Melbourne. The existing buildings can be enlarged and made habitable, and there is ample acreage for growing vegetables, a large proportion of which could be marketed. Always interested in exservicemen’s welfare, Mr. Green has sold his property to the league at half the price he would accept from any other prospective buyer. No doubt, honorable senators have knowledge of veterans’ homes in other States, which, with some assistance from the Commonwealth Government, would be able to accommodate many more “ burnt-out “ war veterans who are in need of a helping hand. For every one soldier who is beyond reclamation, there are ten who will respond to sympathetic consideration. There is no justification to have a “lost legion” in this country, either from the war of 1914-18 or the present war. For many years the British Government gave an annual grant for the maintenance of a veterans’ home at Drysdale, near Geelong, and at La Perouse, near Sydney. The inmates of those two homes, which are now closed, were veterans of wars dating back to 1885. It may be too late for provision to be made in the Estimates for 1944-45, but my suggestion is worthy of consideration when the Estimates are being prepared for next year.

The speeches made by some honorable senators opposite indicate that their education in economics has been neglected. To say that because plenty of money can be provided for war, it can be obtained for peace purposes, shows that they do not pause to think. Holding that view, and proclaiming it, particularly during election campaigns, and not bothering to give any reasons, they merely lead the wage-earner up a blind alley. In the prosecution of a war such as the present, the surplus spending power of individuals and business concerns is transferred to the Government. The nation’s credit is extensively drawn upon. The money so expended has saved Australia from invasion, but the materials and goods produced for the prosecution of the war are so much waste. War is waste. In order to survive, we must keep on producing regardless of cost. Production costs for war purposes mean nothing. To win the war, the people of Australia will respond to any appeal for more money, provided it is wisely expended on our war effort. Does any sane person think that when peace comes, we can go on indefinitely pouring money into a war-time incinerator without disastrous results? Some honorable senators say that we can, and in so doing they deliberately mislead the working man. They overlook the fact that the production of peace-time consumable goods and the provision of services are at the lowest ebb. After the war the demand in this respect will be abnormal. The savings banks deposits of wage-earners and small salary-earners have increased by £246,000,000 since war was declared. What is wanted is not a continuance of the war-time flood of money, but a return to steady peace-time production. When money is plentiful to procure goods which are in short supply prices rise, with the result that the purchasing power of a working man’s pound note fails below its normal value. It is true that prices control helps, but too much of such controls leads to black marketing. Advocates of the expenditure of money in peace-time on the scale that it is expended in war-time mislead the people whom they claim to represent. Jobs are wanted, and for years there will be work for those who need it. With good prospects of Germany’s defeat, and with the Japanese driven well beyond even bombing range of Australia, the Government should be taking a bolder step in the direction of producing peace-time goods. At present the number of persons on Government payrolls is far too great; one-half of them are not earning their pay. During the referendum campaign, advocates of a “ Yes “ vote told listeners that if the referendum was not carried a depression was inevitable. I do not know the basis of their pessimism. If in the distant future jobs should not be as plentiful as in the immediate post-war period, that will be the time to draw upon the nation’s credit to undertake big national works, such as the standardization of railway gauges and the conservation of water on a large scale. There is no need for additional constitutional powers to carry out such undertakings. The States have no money for these projects, and would be glad to co-operate as a means to solve temporary unemployment. No difficulty was experienced in carrying out the Murray River water scheme, at a cost of £5,000,000. New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia each contributed £1,000,000 and the Commonwealth Government granted the remaining £2,000,000. Honorable senators opposite, who want to know why, if money can be provided in abundance for destruction, it cannot be obtained for construction, should have a talk with the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) on the subject. He could explain to them, better than I could, the fallacy of such a belief. On the whole, he and the Commonwealth Bank Board have done a good job, especially in keeping down war-time interest rates and ensuring the judicious use of the nation’s credit to finance our war effort.

The progress made in the European theatre of war has exceeded all our expectations. Those people in Australia who screamed for a second front two years ago, have had their answer. Those who marked down all British generals as second-raters, or looked upon the fighting quality of “ Tommy Atkins “ as a myth, have been well rebuked for their cocksureness and anti-British outlook. In conjunction with the United States of America and our Dutch allies, these same “ Tommies “ will, when the European situation permits, help to give Japan such a thrashing that for generations to come the Japanese will never think of invading Australia. The Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders will be there, also. So will our small but very efficient Navy, and the gallant members of the Royal Australian Air Force. According to a statement made by the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) on the fifth anniversary of the formation of the Second Australian Imperial Force, the Army is to lend a hand.. No indication was given in that statement as to whether the Government intended to amend the Defence (Citizens’ Military Forces) Act which imposes a limit beyond which the Militia may not operate. Many Militia units have met and beaten the Japanese in parts of New Guinea. These young soldiers are anxious to prove again their mettle alongside the more experienced Middle East units farther afield. The majority of the people of Australia would applaud the removal of existing operational limits. It will take many years to remove this blot on our national prestige. The Minister for the Army stated recently that 82 per cent, of Australia’s land forces were now in the Australian Imperial Force. If that statement be correct, there is little to cavil about. Are the thousands who are doing necessary home-front duties, and who wear the “ Australia “ metal .badge and the overseas colour patch on their shoulders, included? If so, the statement is very misleading, and has been made merely for some political purpose. Until this personnel is embodied in an

Australian Imperial Force unit, or in an Australian Imperial Force reinforcement camp, they should not be permitted to wear the insignia of overseas service. When the stage is set for more extensive operations against the Japanese, the Australian Imperial Force divisions will be allotted definite and difficult tasks, harder than any yet undertaken, but commensurate with their reputations. No one will have cause to fear that they will not maintain the high standard which they achieved in the Middle East and New Guinea campaigns. What is to be feared is that these divisions will not be kept up to full strength by a continuous flow of reinforcements. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that reinforcements are sent forward as required. Releases from the Army for food production and certain essential post-war reconstruction duties should be replaced by transferring employees of military age in munitions and other factories, and in services where full staffs are no longer essential to more important duties. After a certain amount of training, many could be allotted garrison duty in New Guinea, and thus give to the members of the Militia who have volunteered for service with the Australian Imperial Force an opportunity to serve where required. Apart from supplying the reinforcements required to fill gaps in the ranks caused by battle casualties and other wastage, the question of discharging from the Australian Imperial Force those who have served continuously for four years or more also arises. They have done their war job and arc entitled to rehabilitate themselves in positions which are at present “ collared “ by others who have not made any sacrifice whatever. Failure to maintain these divisions at full strength in the field will create an impression in the minds of the other Empire divisions, as well as United States of America troops, that Australia is not putting forth its maximum strength to defeat Japan.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- Honorable senators opposite appear to be very coy. At the beginning of this debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) made certain grave charges with respect to the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Depart- ment, but not one word has been said by any Minister in answer to them. I should have thought that any self-respecting Minister would have sought the first opportunity to answer charges of this kind, which are probably among the gravest that could be levelled against a Minister, and to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of honorable senators and the people. No graver charge could be made against the administration of an individual Minister than that he misused his ministerial position in order to benefit his own political party, but we have not heard one word from a Minister in answer to those charges. The Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) has not uttered one word to refute the charges made against him. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Keane) rose simultaneously with me, and I presume that had he received the call he would have closed the debate. I was hoping that I should not have occasion to repeat any of the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition, but that the PostmasterGeneral would be able to clear himself entirely. The charges made by the Leader of the Opposition form the very basis of the debate which has taken place, and the action of the Postmaster-General in ignoring them is one of the strangest I have experienced in the whole of my parliamentary career.

– Then why not accept us, seeing that the people placed us in power ?

Senator LECKIE:

– We accepted the verdict of the people, but I doubt whether the electors have realized the extent of their mistake, especially in the case of the honorable senator. Twelve months ago, a majority of the people were willing to take the advice of those who now occupy the treasury bench, but the results of the referendum disclose that they have now lost faith in them. These so-called democrats cannot acceptthe verdict of the people who put them in power.

Senator Grant:

Senator Grant interjecting,

Senator LECKIE:

– I cannot understand the honorable senator. Will you, Mr. President, act as an interpreter?

– The matter was brought to the notice of the Minister but he could not be prevailed upon to change his mind.

I return now to the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) against the action of the Government in granting a broadcasting licence to a certain South Australian station. In my opinion, the charges were sufficient to warrant an immediate reply from the Postmaster-General, but that honorable gentleman has not attempted in any way to justify his administration. Apparently the Government is adopting the same attitude towards the charges levelled against it in connexion with the expending of public money upon the “ Yes “ campaign at the recent referendum. lt says, ‘* We are in power and we shall do these things”. The crux of this matter is that the Labour party in South Australia received a one-fifth share in a broadcasting station, the purchase price for which, was £8,500, and in addition, free broadcasting time, worth probably £3,000 a year. So far as we are able to ascertain, the Labour party has not paid a penny for these concessions. If so, why were they given? Usually, valuable concessions such as these are not granted without some consideration being given in return.

Senator Cameron:

– Recognition for services rendered.

Senator LECKIE:

– Probably that is so. The gentleman who represented both the vendors of the station and the Government made some interesting statements. Obviously, an organization would not pay £8,500 for a broadcasting station unless it was certain that a licence to operate that station would be obtained. It appears that the purchasing organization was informed that if it were prepared to grant concessions to the Labour party the issue of a licence would be assured.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not. That transaction was no concern of mine.

Senator Leckie:

– The Minister did not know of it?

Senator ASHLEY:

– No ; I did not know of it. But had I known of.it, and also that the Central Methodist Mission had complied with the recommendations of the Gibson Committee, which was endorsed by its successors, I should have had no hesitation in issuing the licence, despite the fact that free time for the Labour party was provided for. I repeat that that is a matter between the companies and is no concern of my department or myself. Senator Leckie referred to the fact that the Solicitor-General, Sir George Knowles, commented unfavorably upon the agreement. I point out that the original licences for these stations, which had been withdrawn, were held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization. When the attorney representing that organization forwarded the agreement, dated the 7th February, the department submitted it to the Solicitor-General; and the reason for so doing was set out by the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs as follows: -

Reason for submitting to Sir George Knowles the memorandum dated the 5th February, 1043, covering the conditions of sale of stations SKA and 5AU was for the purpose of obtaining legal advice on the departmental position in the matter. The stations concerned were owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses which had been declared an illegal organization and at the time the agreement was submitted to the department the High Court’s judgment in the proceedings instituted in the Jehovah’s Witnesses against the Commonwealth had not been delivered!. In these circumstances, therefore, it was considered necessary to ascertain the precise legal position as consideration was -being given to the matter of the issue of licences to the stations concerned.

Pursuant to promise made by me to Richards early in February, 1941, following his wire to me in Melbourne in January, 1941, and following valuations and long discussions as regards price I gave written option to Richards on 5th October, 1942. That is before me now. I promptly informed several other business and religions organizations in Adelaide who had approached me about the station and to whom I had mentioned that Richards had been promised first option. Richards exercised option by wire from Adelaide to me in Sydney on 18th or 19th October, 1942 (wire not in front of mc) and I acknowledged receipt of that acceptance by wire dated 19th October, 1942, which is in front of me now. Thereafter Richards and various other interests negotiated direct and eventually Richards and Methodist agreed cm terms.

I point out that in February, 1941, in case the fact has escaped the memory of honorable senators opposite, the Menzies Government was in office, and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator McLeay) was the Postmaster-General. I had asked when the option was given, and I was particularly concerned as to when it was given in writing. I also contacted Mr. Richards with respect to the option. No honorable senator will deny that Mr. Richards’ reputation stands very high in South Australia. He has been Premier of that State, and at present is Leader of the Opposition in the

State Parliament. Honorable senators generally have eulogized Mr. Richards, the Reverend Mr. Forsyth, who is president of the Central Methodist Mission in South Australia, and the Reverend Mr. White, who is the secretary of that body. The two last-named gentlemen approached Mr. Richards to inquire into the possibility of securing these two stations. Mr. Richards has also told me that he was approached by the representative of a newspaper organization which was prepared to pay more than the sum of £8,500 for his option and, in addition, to give as much free time on the station to the Labour party as was to be given to it by the Central Methodist Mission, as well as a one-fifth share of the assets. But Mr. Richards declined to do business with that concern. I have only learned of these aspects since this subject was raised in Parliament. I repeat that the transactions between the attorney, acting for the shareholders of these stations, and Mr. Richards, who held the option, are of no concern directly to my department. My only concern as Postmaster-General in the issue or re-allocation of broadcasting licences is that the applicants be of good character, and undertake to fulfil the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee. In this case I have endeavoured to adhere strictly to the letter of those recommendations. The Leader of the Opposition said last night that the only church organization outside the Central Methodist Mission that had been considered in the matter was the Catholic Church. That is entirely incorrect. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition made that statement in ignorance of the facts. On the 21st April, 1943, the Bishop of Adelaide forwarded the following letter to the attorney of the Central Methodist Mission: -

Dear Mr. Waterhouse,

I am sorry to have kept you waiting for a reply to the proposal you made to me on 13th April. 1 have had to wait some days for an opportunity to consult the particular person whose advice I need.

My reply is as follows: -

In reply to the proposal made to me on Tuesday, 13th April, by representatives of the Central Methodist Mission in reference to a wireless station, I write to say that I as head of the Church of England in the Diocese of Adelaide, will raise no objection to the granting of ‘a licence for such a station to the Methodist Central Mission, and that the

Church of England does not desire to be in any way associated with the control, or management of such a station.

The Church of England can give no undertaking that it will not at some future time apply for a licence for a station of its own.

Meanwhile, the Church of England would wish to be given the right, on, a similar basis to that accorded to other denominations, to broadcast if it so desires, after due and satisfactory notice. to the management of the station, or on any or every Sunday evening from 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., or at some other suitable time to be agreed upon.

Yours sincerely, (Signed) Bryan, Adelaide.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The following letter was sent .by Mr. Waterhouse, the attorney for the Central Methodist Mission, to the Bishop of Adelaide: -

I wish to acknowledge and thank you lor your letter of the 21st April.

I note your reply with reference to the proposal made by me on behalf of the Central Methodist Mission concerning SKA wireless station.

In the event of a licence being granted to the company in which my clients are interested, the Mission undertakes that there will be made available to the Church of England, free of charge, a half hour for broadcasting on Sunday evenings from 9.30 to 10 p.m. or at some other suitable time to be agreed upon.

The bishop’s reply was as follows: -

Thank you for your letter of 7th May. I would like you to express to your clients, when opportunity offers, my appreciation of their readiness to make free time available on Sunday evenings for the Church of England in the event of their being granted a licence for the proposed wireless station. When the matter develops further we can confer again about this.

A letter was sent by the attorneys for the stations to the Director-General of Telegraphs, confirming the correspondence in the following terms: -

We refer to our letter of 23rd March herein and your reply of 29th March. Since that correspondence, we understand that the purchasers of the shares in the companies in question had an interview in Adelaide with the Minister and the Director-General.

As a result of the suggestions made by the Minister, discussions followed with the Archbishop of Adelaide and the Bishop of Adelaide. Agreement has now been reached with the two ecclesiastical authorities, whereby certain “ free time “ is to be made available to both churches and, as a result, no objection is being raised to the renewal of the licences.

These arrangements have been- committed to writing and we enclose for .your informa tion and for the information of the Minister the documents which evidence the arrangements.

So far as the Archbishop of Adelaide is concerned, there is a memorandum between His Crace the Archbishop and the representatives of the Central Methodist Mission and the Workers’ Weekly Herald. The arrangement with the Bishop of Adelaide is embodied in correspondence passing between His Lordship and Messrs. Povey and Waterhouse, the solicitors acting for Central Methodist Mission. The correspondence is enclosed. We might add our assurance that the arrangement with the Bishop of Adelaide has the ‘complete approval of Workers’ Weekly Herald.

Will you be good enough to let us know as soon as possible whether the licences in question will now he renewed?

Those letters bring the matter up to the stage at which the licence was duly issued. The Broadcasting Committee visited Adelaide on the 28th June, 1943. In confirmation of the statements which I made in the Senate this afternoon, I quote the evidence given by Mr. Alderman, beginning with this paragraph: -

The history of station 5KA is this: The Government put Jehovah’s Witnesses off the air. As soon as that happened, I went over to Melbourne. When I arrived there I had a telegram from the Leader of the Opposition in the South Australian Parliament, Mr. Richards, asking whether he could obtain the licence for the Labour party. I told him that I expected the station to go !back on the air, hut I promised him that if ever the shares in the, station were to be sold, and I was connected with the transaction, the sale would not be effected without an opportunity being given to him to participate in the deal.

He then went on to speak of Mr. Waterman, a motion-picture proprietor, in Adelaide, and continued -

For some time I took no steps at all to negotiate for the sale of the stations, hut many people approached me from time to time with a view to purchasing shares.

I quote that to show that I have documentary evidence in support of everything I have stated this afternoon. Mr. Alderman’s evidence continued -

To four of them if not five, including the Methodist Church, I gave a promise - each one knew about the others - that the station would not be sold without them having a chance of being interested. When I finally reached the stage of negotiations, I decided that the only way in which I could handle the matter was to give the option to one person at a figure, so I gave the option to Mr. Richards, who was the first person that I had dealt with, to purchase stations 5KA and 5AU - the subsidiary station at Port Augusta - for £8,500, provided that he should not exercise the option on behalf of or in collaboration with people who would not be acceptable to myself, to the Postmaster-General or to this committee.

One newspaper company was willing to pay me much more than £8,500 for the stations, and I understand that it was agreeable to allowing the Labour party a one-fifth interest in the stations, plus the same free time on the air that it had previously, but insisted that the company itself must control the station. However, I knew that newspaperowned stations were not exactly popular with this committee, and I visualized the possibility, if not the probability, of the agreement coming before the committee for ratification.

The Methodists said that they wanted the station and they agreed that the price was quite reasonable, not for the assets alone, but also for the goodwill of the station and for the increased chance they would have of obtaining a licence if they owned the shares. I point out that it is not merely a question of valuing the assets in cold blood, because T do not think that the Commonwealth would ever have power, even in war-time, to acquire the assets for the purpose of selling them to some other private concern.

After all, the only real test of value is what a purchaser is prepared to offer. Therefore, the valuing of assets alone as such is quite irrelevant.

I went to a lot of trouble in an endeavour to get other business people to come in. Some of them said that they would come in if they could control the station, and others were a little bit afraid of being publicly connected with a religious body. For instance, a furniture manufacturer feared that if he held equal shares with the Methodist Church and a situation arose in which public opinion was turned against the station, his business interests might be prejudiced.

The Central Methodist Mission then applied for consent to borrow the money. Approval was granted and we applied to the PostmasterGeneral for the renewal of the licence, or the issue of a new licence. The PostmasterGeneral wanted to be satisfied that all churches were happy about the arrangement, and, acting on his own initiative, he requested the Church of England, which is not a member of the Council of Churches, and the Catholic Church, to intimate their willingness. Eventually, these people agreed that no objection would be taken to the issue of that licence in view of the undertaking that certain free time would be given to them when required, and subject to their own freedom to apply for a licence. At the moment, it appears to me that the Church of England in South Australia is not inclined, immediately to make use of that time, but that the Catholic Church is very keen to use the. half hour from 9 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on. Sundays. When the High Court judgment was given, it was announced in the press in Adelaide that, with my consent and approval, this transaction was going to take place. Not a solitary word of protest was made in the press, to the PostmasterGeneral, or to me - not even by the Liberal party in South Australia. Therefore, the Postmaster -General intimated last Friday that the licence would be issued.

That is the position as I stated it this afternoon. After the deputation waited upon me in Adelaide, the memorandum of agreement which is already incorporated in Hansard was made. During the discussion on these licences a great deal of attention has been directed to the introductory paragraph of the agreement. It is significant that, although the agreement is already incorporated in Hansard, last night the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives had only the first paragraph inserted in Hansard. I will show the Senate his reason. That paragraph of the agreement provides -

In contemplation of the renewal by the Postmaster-General of the broadcasting licences for 5KA and 5AU, and in further contemplation that is what the Opposition is basing its case upon - of the completion of a certain agreement whereby Adelaide Central Methodist Mission and Workers’ Weekly Herald become the legal owners of all the shares (except one) in the companies to which the said licences were hitherto issued the parties hereto are agreed as follows: -

The obvious reason why the Leader of the Opposition quoted only the first paragraph was to suggest that the words “ in further contemplation “ referred solely to the agreement of the 7th February. To clear up this matter, I invited the Solicitor-General to my office this morning and asked him to give me an interpretation of that paragraph. He said that it meant the completion of the previous agreement of sale, that no money would be paid, and the other conditions would not be complied with unless that agreement was completed.

Central Methodist Mission and the Workers’ Weekly Herald in Adelaide. “While in Newcastle, the committee heard evidence from all sections with regard to station 2HD in that city. The people there were anxious to establish an extra studio for the purposes of a commercial station and also an extra studio for the national broadcasting system. It was thought that station 2HD should be put on the air so that an outlet would be provided for Newcastle broadcasting talent. There is a greater population within 25 miles of that city than in the whole of Tasmania, and in view of the number of stations in Tasmania, Newcastle was considered to be entitled to another. It was pointed out that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) had visited that city in order to broadcast in connexion with a war loan, but was unable to speak there because of the poor facilities provided. All kinds of people have asked the committee for a broadcasting licence, but it was pointed out that unless they possessed the necessary physical assets, their requests could not be granted. As time went on, the committee had to abandon the idea of further investigation with regard to station 2HD, because Mr. Alderman gave evidence in Canberra that he was endeavouring to dispose of the shares of the company to the Church of England authorities, and he was having difficulty in inducing that body to pay the price demanded by him. He pointed out that there had been an offer of £10,000 for the station and that Mr. Sheedy of the Newcastle Herald had offered him £1-7,500’. He had refused the offer by Fuller’s circuit because he was prepared to sell the station to the Church of England for that sum. He then reported that Bishop Batty was not interested, and that he had said that if given the licence he would not make time available, to the Labour party.

Senator McLeay:

– That is what put an end of the negotiations.

Senator AMOUR:

– Mr. Alderman refused to negotiate further with Mr. Sheedy of the Newcastle Herald, because he, too, refused to give time on the air to the Labour party. Mr. Alderman gave to the Broadcasting Committee his views in this connexion, particularly in relation to the Adelaide station. In giving evi dence before the present Broadcasting Committee on the 20th June, 1944, he said -

Holding the view that the Labour party is at least a very useful institution, even if it is not always right, it undoubtedly colours my view that the Labour party ought to have a voice on the air, but I add to that my belief that every major recognized and orthodox political party ought to have a voice on the air also. I think my view regarding the Labour party would be likely to influence my feelings with regard to the disposal of any station in Tasmania in which the Labour party is seeking an interest. When the station in Adelaide was to be sold, 1 stipulated that the Labour party should be’ given a chance to purchase an interest in it because there was only one station being sold at the time, and the Advertiser, which is Murdoch controlled already had station 5AD, probably the best Commercial station in South Australia. I say that at the risk of offending my friend, Mr. Randall White, of 5DN. Besides that SAD has also several regional stations. That station has shown that the political interests opposed to the Labour party have a voice in it, and the Premier of South Australia had a certain time on the air every Friday, a privilege which had never been given to the Leader of the Labour party, who was Leader of the Opposition.

There has been no complaint about Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, having the right to speak over the air to the people of South Australia every Friday night, but great concern is exhibited when a somewhat similar privilege is given to the Labour party.

Senator McLeay:

– Does not the honorable senator think that it would only be fair to grant to the Liberal party equal time to that to be made available to the Labour party?

Senator AMOUR:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) pays too little attention to facts. He merely says: “Don’t you think you ought to do this or that?” The report of the Broadcasting Committee which was tabled last week, recommended that, where licences were being transferred, equal opportunity should be given to all recognized political parties to secure an interest in them. The Parliament has decided that the report be printed, and it is now a matter for- the Government to deal with. I believe “that the Government will give effect to that recommendation.

Senator McLeay:

– As chairman of the committee, will the honorable senator see that that is done in connexion with the Newcastle station?

Senator AMOUR:

– The terms of reference to the committee do not cover that matter.

Senator McLeay:

– But as chairman of the committee the honorable senator has considerable influence.

Senator AMOUR:

– I shall refer to that matter later. To-day the United Australia party met and devoted some time to discussing the members of the Broadcasting Committee. Afterwards a statement was given to the press. I wonder how many members, past or present, of the Broadcasting Committee were at that meeting. A press report of the meeting reads -

The Prime Minister’s proposal that the questions that have arisen in relation to 5K.A Adelaide and 2HD Newcastle should he referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting is utterly unsatisfactory to the Opposition. The committee contains a government party majority, has already had some contact with these matters at an early stage, and is in no sense a proper body to conduct an impartial investigation into matters of the kind raised by me in yesterday’s debate. It is hard to believe that the Government can seriously intend to resist the demand for a royal commission.

The Broadcasting Committee was appointed to investigate broadcasting in Australia. Because of the desire of the Government to introduce legislation in connexion with broadcasting, the committee submitted an early report. That report was unanimous as has been every report submitted by the committee to Parliament. Since I have been chairman of the committee in only two instances have reports not been signed by every member. In one instance, the report dealt with a matter about which there was a division of opinion, and only five members signed it. The other instance was the report tabled last week. It was not signed by every member of the committee because, unfortunately, ex-Senator Darcey died, and Senator Allan MacDonald had resigned from the committee, before the report was ready for presentation. The last report was signed by every member of the Opposition who was associated with the committee. That report recommended the removal of a station from Derby to the Midlands district of Tasmania. The question that has been raised in the Parliament was ventilated before the committee, beeause there was an application by the

Labour party to purchase 50 per cent, of the shares in a particular station. The committee was unanimous that it had no power to deal with the physical assets of the company concerned, its view being that the company could dispose of its assets as it thought fit, provided that the purchaser was a reputable person acceptable to the Postmaster-General’s Department. When the committee was dealing with station 2HD, it recommended that the licence be granted to the Newcastle Federal Electorate Branch of the Labour party and the Trades Hall as joint licensees. In order to offset that recommendation, the then member for Boothby, Dr. Price, who was a non-Labour member of the committee, suggested the following amendment: -

If no religious or educational body is prepared to purchase the plant of station 2HD, and reopen the station forthwith, we consider that, in the special circumstances of Newcastle, the Trades Hall and the Australian Labour party should be given the opportunity. This recommendation is subject to the Post Office being able to make available the channel used by station 2HD or some other channel.

However, the committee adjourned, and the matter was not proceeded with further. Now it is said that the policy of the Government is “ spoils to the victors “ and that the committee is so biased that it does not deal with matters on their merits. I give to the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) and his fellow members of the United Australia party the lie direct. In all cases, the committee has paid due regard to the point of view of witnesses. However, we do not accept merely the say-so of any witness. We do not take evidence on oath; but we check up on all evidence given to the committee. In connexion with the Tasmanian case we called evidence from representatives of the Australian Labour party and the United Australia party.

Senator McLeay:

– Did the committee consider the United Australia party in the Newcastle case?

Senator AMOUR:

– No evidence was given to the committee on behalf of the United Australia party in that instance. However, the sittings of the committee in Newcastle were advertised a week ahead in all newspapers in Newcastle, and the surrounding districts, and over the national and commercial broadcasting stations. The United Australia party did. not respond to the committee’s invitation to give evidence. Therefore, all this talk about the Broadcasting Committee being a vicious body, unable to make a fair report, is so much twaddle. It makes me wonder at the mental makeup of honorable senators opposite who are prepared to insult their colleagues who are members of the committee in the way I have described. Using the same argument, one could say that the Advisory War Council and all parliamentary committees must be biased in favour of the party which has a majority on each of those bodies, and, therefore, each of them is unable to consider any matter fairly. However, that argument could equally be applied in respect of all committees which operated during the regime of antiLabour governments. This attack is an attempt by vested interests, through their representatives in Parliament, to discredit the Broadcasting Committee. Only yesterday Senator Foll asked the Government to appoint a parliamentary committee to consider the payment pf war gratuities to soldiers, and other matters affecting the welfare of ex-service personnel. Yet the honorable senator’s colleagues in their party room passed a resolution declaring that all parliamentary committees are biased because the Labour party has a majority on those bodies. I repeat that the Broadcasting Committee gave an opportunity to every party interested to secure a licence in respect of station 2HD, provided applicants were able to purchase the physical assets. Both the Gibson committee and the Calwell committee laid down the principle that religious bodies should have first priority in the issue of broadcast licences. Under our present system which provides for 99 channels for the use of commercial stations and 23 channels for national stations, it is not possible to provide additional channels. Therefore, any new licences granted must be given on the condition, that the recipient shares a channel which may be already shared by two or three stations. I trust that in the near future we shall be enabled to give to every section in the community, to each church organization and each political party, and public bodies, such as those representing returned soldiers, a separate station. That is what we aim to do, but it is not practicable to-day. However, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department is already making plans in that direction. I am not concerned with the making of profits by radio stations. My main concern is that each section of the community shall be enabled to .render .service to the community as a whole ; and I sincerely hope that all privately-owned stations will have as their primary objective the improvement of the cultural standards of the community. However, the Opposition in both this chamber and the House of Representatives has done nothing but sling mud in this matter in the hope that some of it will stick and discredit the Government. I listened with pride to the speech made this afternoon by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Ashley). He completely vindicated his department. The Opposition, in its vicious campaign of mud slinging, was not satisfied to attempt to discredit the Prime Minister, the Postmaster-General and the Treasurer ; it also sought to discredit smaller fry by attacking the Broadcasting Committee. The Opposition has declared that that committee is not capable of bringing in an unbiased report. I throw back the lie in the teeth of honorable senators opposite.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– The Leader of the Senate (Senator Keane), when speaking yesterday, was not his usual placid self. His speech was hot a happy one. I did not think the day would come when my old friend would squeal, as he has squealed about the referendum. His attempt to justify the expenditure of public moneys on the “ Yes “ case was very weak indeed. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) was, as usual, all sound and fury. The referendum is more or less dead and buried. Whether the Government likes it or not, the people have rejected its proposals. However, the Government’s action in expending public funds on the referendum campaign sets a dangerous precedent. Professor Dicey says- r

There are two things about which any government professing to govern impartially - that is to say to observe strictly the principle ‘of justice - must be scrupulous about: First, it must never use its privileged position to gain a sectional or party political advantage, and, secondly, it must never use, or allow to be used, public moneys for an end not intended by the electorate.

I agree entirely with that view. The legitimate expenditure sanctioned by Parliament in respect of the referendum campaign was confined to the publication of the official pamphlet setting out the cases “ For “ and “ Against “ ; but the expenditure incurred under the heading of “ Post-war educational campaign “ in these estimates cannot ‘be justified. In spending many thousands of pounds in presenting one side of the case only, the Government has ignored a safeguard for the preservation of public funds. It has opened the door to many abuses. Ministers have taken refuge in the sophism that because the parliamentary majority had decided to submit the proposals to the people, the Government was entitled to overwhelm the views of the minority by a lavish expenditure of public funds. That is quite unjustified, for once such a principle is admitted it is only another step to invoke it in respect of election campaigns. In establishing a precedent of that kind, the Government has done something which may have very serious repercussions. It is true that in the campaign the Government from its own viewpoint was very unlucky. Senator Clothier spoke about the new Messiah who had saved Australia. It was bad luck for the Government that its leader drew out of the campaign. He was reported in the press as saying, “ It is not my referendum “. In any case, the manner in which the Government’s proposals were submitted to the people was an insult to their intelligence. Had the people been given an opportunity to use their judgment and say in respect of each proposal whether it should be granted to the Commonwealth Parliament, many of the proposals would have been agreed to; but when the Government insisted that the fourteen proposed powers and the three alleged guarantees were one and indivisible, and must be agreed to or rejected en bloc, it insulted the intelligence of the people. That was a stupid blunder on the part of the Government. Apparently, the Government, after its great victory in 1943, swollen with arrogance and vanity, thought’ that it could get, away with any thing ; but it has learned its lesson, and the least said about the referendum now the better. “When I was learning to “box I was taught never to squeal ; but Ministers in this chamber yesterday gave a deplorable exhibition of squealing. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) twitted me with respect to my statement that I was not a socialist because I wished to be a free man. I said that in order to embrace socialism one must surrender one’s freedom. It will not work in any case, but to give it any semblance of existence it would be necessary to surrender our freedom. The great question is: Who is going to do the ordering and pushing about? The Minister for the Interior gave to the Senate a definition of socialism, but one can draft quite a number of definitions if he sits down with a pencil and paper and gives the matter a little thought. I jotted down these during the afternoon - “ Socialism signifies resolutions passed by a committee as a substitute for work “. “ Socialism is of necessity the creed of the disgruntled - a mile post on the road to confiscation”. “Nature is forever trying to eliminate the parasite, but socialism is eternally howling through the wireless for the survival of the unfit “. You, Mr. President, have taken advantage in days of yore of the opportunity to speak on the first reading of an Appropriation Bill. In fact, we have all done so. The first reading of a money bill is a great opportunity for the rank and file, because a speaker can roam from Shanghai to Peru. I believe that it is laid down, more or less unofficially, that one can talk about anything except the bill, if one so desires, but I wish to touch on one or two matters contained in the bill before I conclude my speech.

Quite apart from the war effort, the Government has insisted on doing a multitude of things which have nothing to do with the prosecution of the war. When one studies the Estimates and also the Commonwealth Bank returns he begins to do a little thinking. Many of the things being done by the Government are things which create potential and ultimately uncontrolled inflation, but I have not heard any Minister or supporter of the Government suggest a way of saving the people’s money, although it is being squandered in the most reckless manner in many directions. I happen to be a member of a committee which has been doing some investigations, which have brought home to us what is happening. The latest idea of the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), the Estimates of whose department contain the camouflaged business of the money recently expended by the Government on the referendum campaign, is to hire and let loose in Great Britain and the United States of America a swarm of press agents to expand overseas publicity, is one of the most stupid that I have heard of during a time of war. These press agents are to have fancy titles, and some £30,000 is to be “blown” on this very stupid proposal. We shall get plenty of publicity and advertisement in the United States of America and also in the Homeland from the hundreds and thousands of fighting men who have been in this country. Most of them will eventually return to their own lands, and will be great advertisers of Australia. The policy of the Government is to spend and go on spending. It should remember that one can bet on credit, but there must be a settling day sometime. One ominous indication of what 13 happening, as has been stated by other speakers, is the state of the National Welfare Trust Fund. The total cash balance was at one time £25,525,000. Of this, £25,500,000 has been invested in treasury-bills, which are I O U’s, leaving a cash balance in the fund of only £25,000. That is the socalled trust fund from which we are to finance our social services programme. Some inflation was unavoidable in our total war effort, and it is here to-day, but the most casual observer as he moves around the country can now see flagrant and unashamed waste of public funds in worked-out war-time jobs. I suggest that ihe expenditure and wastage of money is in excess of the taxation collected from the people for war C03ts, and the excess is being financed on borrowed money and on bank credit. That is the only way we can do it. up to a point, but it is the bank credit in particular which constitutes a danger to the whole of our price and credit structure, because it represents an injection of stimulating spending power into an economic system already supercharged with spending power in relation to the diminished quantity of goods and volume of services available. To-day it is not a question of shortage of money with many of us as it is a matter of a shortage of coupons. By means of coupons we are able . to restrict to a certain extent trading in certain lines of goods. The bank credit or treasury-bills debt on the 31st of August was £365,000,000 - a colossal sum. In addition the savings banks are holding great quantities of war bonds, much of which it might be necessary to sell later if the depositors after the war decide to withdraw their money wholesale and spend it. These savings bank investments in war loans have inflationary dangers not possessed by direct investment in war loans by depositors themselves. The Commonwealth Savings Bank alone has something like £234,000,000 invested in Commonwealth loans, an increase of £S0,000,000 since last year.

The Government talks quite a lot about the danger of inflation and the need for prices control, but I suggest that it has avoided all issues which have been brought up concerning the waste of money, man-power and materials in government undertakings and departments, as well as in cost-plus jobs. It still continues to make political appointments to the Commonwealth Bank Board, which is the centre of gravity of the financial side of our war effort. Not long ago the Prime Minister was recklessly urging the use of more and more bank credit after the war. I do not think that he is doing so to-day, but he was a little while ago, even though the existing bank credit represents the sharp point of our inflation danger.

Still full of cheek after its referendum hiding, the Government continues to talk of its need for control over prices in the post-war period. No doubt there is need for the continuation of certain controls for a year or perhaps longer after the war, but I suggest that those controls if administered in the wrong way will merely hide the swelling inflationary tendencies. It is here with us to-day, and it must be remembered that the artificial legal controls which may be exercised do not kill inflation, but merely delay or spread it more evenly over a longer period. To me there is not the slightest indication that the Government is aware of the fact.

One of the dangers of granting prolonged price-control powers is that a government which is really creating inflation is encouraged in its basically wrong financial policy for the time being. The result, by the time that prices control breaks down, as it must where the causes go unchecked, is that the stream banked up becomes a flood, and we shall find ourselves in a shocking mess through it.

The argument of the Government is that the people having rejected the referendum and refused to grant the post-war powers, have left themselves open to the ravages of post-war inflation. I suggest that the Government’s attitude throughout the referendum campaign was one of bluff and trickery. The AttorneyGeneral, the learned Dr. Evatt, put out one policy pre-referendum and another post-referendum. The Govern.ment’s motto was: “Heads, we win; tails, we can blame the people for not giving us the powers “. What was going to happen was obvious long before the campaign started. If the penny came down tails the Government would really win, because it would blame the people for its own incompetence. Any trouble that resulted could be put down to that, wonderful state chaos, about which we have heard so much.

Senator Keane:

– We shall not blame the people. We shall throw some of the blame upon the Opposition.

Senator SAMPSON:

– -We shall not worry about that. Personally, I had a most happy time during the campaign. T have never enjoyed one more. If the Government intends to blame the loss of the referendum proposals to the danger of post-war inflation, that is a line of propaganda which will be ineffective. The people rej.eot.ed the request for increased powers because they mistrusted the Government’s ability and sincerity. 1

Senator Keane:

– The honorable senator must not forget that, he was a member of the 1942 convention.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I know all about it. I shall not go over the old ground again, but if anybody wants to know what happened a copy of the report of the proceedings can be obtained. The decisions of that conference were misrepresented from start to finish during the campaign. Unless the Government shows that it fully realizes the dire urgency of our financial problems by cutting out political waste, which breeds inflation and helps it to grow, the sooner it is brought face to face with the country’s problems in the hard way, the better it will be for Australia in the long run.

We ave now embarking on another war loan campaign. I sincerely trust that it will be a much greater success than past loans. Apparently the Government believes that it is necessary to stop appeals on behalf of the Australian Bed Cross, the Australian ‘Comforts Fund, and other such organizations during war loan campaigns. I suggest that attention should be directed also to the suspending of lotteries. Last year 123 lotteries were drawn in New South Wales.

Senator Keane:

– I challenge the honorable senator to make that suggestion in Tasmania.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I have made it in Tasmania. I have never hesitated to say what I believe should be said. Ilost my seat in this chamber in 1937, possibly because of my outspoken views on compulsory military training. I am not worried about threats. The weakness of this Government, is that it is not game to do the right thing if it is unpopular. I am not in this chamber to tickle the ears of this fellow or that fellow. I have to live with myself, and if I cannot respect myself I cannot expect any one else to respect me. This Government has failed the country repeatedly by its concern for the vested interests of Labour politics. Politically, the rights of the individual are not rights at all unless they suit those interests. So, we have had the injustice of Portland, the flagrant strikes, the “ waiting time “ paid to unionists, the unrepentant waste of public money under the heading of “ wa r expenditure “, the necessity to work wharves with labour drawn from the services, the divided control of our Army, the lopsided taxation policy pursued early in the war with Japan which gave inflation its first impetus, and the dismal’ failure on the food production front.

Before concluding, I wish to refer to a matter which comes very near to the hearts of many of us. Events in Europe bring a flood of memories to we old ‘ diggers “ for they parallel in a host of different ways the events of 1918 when “ Fritz “ began to crumble ; but so far as Australia is concerned, there is one important difference which has many thousands of the Second Australian Imperial Force gnashing their teeth. In 191S, we were associated with worldshaking happenings. We had five divisions in France, and what divisions ! The Australian Imperial Force had been the rock on which the great German offensive of March, 1918, had smashed itself to a stand-still. It had been the spearhead of the counter-offensive of the Sth August - Germany’s “black day” according to Ludendorff, who at last clearly saw defeat looming for the German armies. To-day there is not an Australian slouch hat in France, and it is hard to understand why. All chance of the invasion of this country disappeared more than a year before “ D “ day. We could have shipped a force to Europe for the big show; but Australian Imperial Force divisions, thirsting for action, have been kept in Australia. - divisions like the Armoured Division which even now might have been racing across France in fulfilment of the role for which it was recruited, equipped and trained, but which it has never had an opportunity to play. Such participation in the European war would have had much more than a mere sentimental value to us. Australia cannot afford to forget the fact that to the principal adversaries in this war, Europe has always been the principal theatre of war. There is a strong body of opinion overseas which has never appreciated the Pacific war. This is one reason for the lack of publicity about which we complain constantly. These people are only too eager to forget the part played by the Australian Imperial Force in Greece, Africa, and, of course, Malaya. This lack of appreciation of what Australia has done in the war has been heightened by events which have been seized upon as proof that we are interested only in ourselves. Take, for instance, the departure from London of the Prime Minister almost on the ev& of “ D “ day. In effect, he turned has back upon- history and hied back home when his presence in Great Britain might have been at least some sort of an answer to those people who had noted the absence of Australian troops in the invasion. In America and Europe, the Anzac pact had repercussions which were anything but flattering. The net result of such actions has been that, because it suited Australian political leaders to hold themselves aloof from the final phase of the war in Europe, Australia has been forced to answer charges of isolationism which could never have been made had the Australian Imperial Force been handled with the vigour and insight which characterized Australia’s part in the 1914-18 war. The “diggers” are not in Europe now, but that is not the fault of the Australian Imperial Force, or of the Australian people. It is the fault of a Prime Minister devoid of imagination, vision and courage. That is a great pity, and it will not help us when we take our place at the conference table when the war is over.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The remarks of Senator Sampson brought forcibly to my mind the remarkable change that has taken place in this chamber since I had the pleasure and honour of making my maiden speech in it just six years ago to-day. At that time, the Labour party was in Opposisition, and honorable senators opposite were in occupation of the treasury bench. I said then that to me the event was a memorable one, because I realized that I was entering a legislature which since federation had had as its members men who at least were great Australians;, men who visualized the future of this country and who could give expression to its aspirations. ‘ I do not know of any time in the history of this Parliament when the tenor of debates was so low asit has been to-day. I have listened closely to the speeches made by honorable senators opposite, and I have not heard anything but reiteration. It hasbeen the same story for the past fortnight, notwithstanding the fact that every argument that has been advanced has- been exploded, not once, but a dozentimes. The- record of debates- in this* chamber during tie current period of tie session will show that the subjects under discussion have been very limited indeed. First, there has been the referendum and the reasons for its defeat. Honorable senators opposite have welcomed the defeat of the referendum proposals as manna from heaven. They realize, of course, that their own record as a government is so uninspiring that the people of this country will not be disposed to return them to power for many years at least. Because the people defeated the referendum, they seemed to gather fresh courage. JA was not surprising that the proposals were defeated. The Fisher Government submitted proposals for alterations to the Constitution soon after it was elected, and they, too, were defeated. Anti-Labour governments have held referenda at various times, and again the people have registered a negative vote. Honorable senators opposite suggest that the electors who voted for Labour -candidates twelve months ago have lost faith in us, but my opinion is that the people voted “ No “ at the recent referendum because of an unjustified fear of certain political action.

In considering the personnel of this chamber during the last six years, I had thought that men could be found on the Opposition side who could give expression to some original thought and that they would not be found reading extensively from notes obviously prepared by somebody else, but incorporated in the official record as expressing their own ideas. This practice has shown a marked increase in the last few days, and contrasts strongly with the practice of honorable senators on the Government side, whose telling speeches invariably express their own thoughts. “We have had the spectacle in the last few days of charges made by innuendo against Ministers who have been entrusted by the people to carry on the government of the country. I trust that the magnanimous attitude adopted by Senator Gibson, an exPostmasterGeneral, will put an. end to that kind of criticism once and for all. and that no further attempt will be -made to besmirch the characters of, not only responsible Ministers of the Crown, but also ministers of religion and the people whom they serve. The charges made in this and the other branch of the legislature with regard to broadcasting stations in South Australia and New South “Wales are the most paltry that have ever been ventilated in this Parliament. Last week, those who made the charges in the House of Representatives soon realized that their accusations were likely to rebound against themselves, and since that time they have been at great pains to manufacture arguments calculated to divert attention from themselves and their own political mistakes to the Government. Those who made the charges have had considerable assistance from certain sections of the daily press, which give political support to the Opposition, by the manner in which news of the proceedings of this Parliament is conveyed to the public. The fact that a- charge of corruption had been levelled against a great religious denomination and a minister who served it was skilfully concealed, and it was made to appear that the Labour movement was on trial. After the effective explanation given without heat or passion, and with great attention to detail, by the Postmaster-General, I trust that criticism of that kind will cease. One honorable senator said that there was a ghost which should be laid, but it has now been laid at the door of the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite can have its company for a considerable time, and they will regret having ever introduced it.

– That .is not so. On the contrary, a good start could have been made long before the present war began. Labour’s policy for the defence of Australia which the Curtin Labour Government is giving effect, will go down in history as the correct policy for this country. It is regrettable that at a time when we have reason to believe that Australia has been saved from invasion, Senator Sampson should engage in carping criticism of the Government and refuse to give credit where credit is due. Instead, he has indulged in petty party political tactics, and has allowed minor considerations to obtrude into big national problems. He has refused to acknowledge what the present Government has done. He has- shut his eyes to the fact that we met in this chamber free from liability to attack; that the lights are burning throughout the Commonwealth to-night because the resources of this country have been efficiently organized for war. Had not that organization been prompt and skilful, we should not be here in this chamber tonight. Unfortunately what I visualized in regard to this Parliament has not materialized. I expected to find here men prepared to do big things for Australia, but, instead, I have found only too many whose chief concern is to gain a party political advantage. Honorable senators opposite are desperate. They know that they’ have almost run their course, and consequently they charge others with inefficiency and corruption. They belong to parties which have masqueraded under many aliases. Within the last few days, in a desperate attempt to regain some of its lost prestige, an old name has been revived. I hope that in the near future there will be an amelioration of the conditions of many people in this country. I hope, too, that when next year’s budget is before us we shall find that great advances have been made in the conditions of the people generally. I believe that the people are satisfied with the present Government, and that its financial proposals will be readily agreed to. As the war recedes further from our shores, and we are able to return to more like peace-time conditions, we shall be able to concentrate on the problems of peace, which are just as vital as are those of the war. I ask honorable senators opposite to do something towards unifying the people, so- that, they may unitedly face the problems of peace. Although we are proud, of the success that has’ attended our efforts in the field, the war is not yet over, and it will be necessary f-or the Australian people to sustain their magnificent efforts’ of the last five years. They should support by every means in their power the efforts of the ‘Government, land, of the young manhood and womanhood of this country, to ensure that Australia shall’ remain inviolate. T. hope that while the Government is appealing to- the people- to play their part in. this- great struggle and in seeing that the war is prosecuted to a successful conclusion, there will be no further speeches like that of Senator Sampson.

Senator COOPER (Queensland) [10,14). - Senator Sheehan was labouring under- a- misconception when he criticized Senator Gibson’s speech on- the dairying industry. Senator Gibson was simply emphasizing the present serious position: of the dairying industry. He was not grumbling about the payment of a fair wage in the industry. Being a practical man, who has worked in the industry, he was able- to cite- costs to show that- it was impossible, with the price of butter at its present level, for the dairyman to recover his- cost of pro.duction, and, at the same- time, pay the award wage- of £5 12s. 6d. Therefore, it was impossible for the industry to maintain’ production. He estimated that one mam would be fully employed to look after seventeen cows ; and the wages’ for that one man would amount to £292: 10s. a year. A conservative estimate of the capital cost of the- seventeen- cows, and the land required to. run them, namely,, 34 acres in Victoria, would, be £1,000 ; and allowing for interest charges on that capital, at 4i per cent.,, the- farmer’s: total cost, including- rates,, would be £345 a year, and his total income from production £340> which is made up as follows :; - Milking seventeen cows bringing in £20 per cow pes year butter, fat, which- shows £$ less than the cost of production!. Senator Gibson, endeavoured to show that it was impossible- for farmers to. carry on under those- conditions which, would result in the employment in an ever increasing degree of child labour. That was the very evil which Senator Sheehan deplored. At present, about 50. per cent, of the dairy-farms in northern New South Wales are worked on the share basis. A share farmer, unless he employs his wife and family, cannot make his proposition pay on the present price of butter. Senator Gibson suggested that the price of butter be increased from 4d. to 4id. per lb. in order to enable the industry to carry on at a small margin, of profit. I recognize that this budget provides for the payment of subsidies to the dairying industry amounting to £7,500,000; but that is not sufficient. Honorable senators opposite have claimed that the Government has done- a wonderful job. for the workers, but the facts given by Senator Gibson show that the dairy-farmer does not enjoy anything like the conditions enjoyed by workers in secondary industry. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) warned the country that we shall be called upon to treble our present war effort in the production of foodstuffs. The dairying industry is absolutely essential to the successful prosecution of the- war. Without food a soldier is useless. Therefore, the food production front must be our primary consideration. However,, man-power has been allowed- to drift from rural industries to factories in the cities owing, to the attraction of higher wages , and better living, conditions^ whilst, at the same time, many thousands! of young men formerly employed in, rural industries’ are now in the armed- forces. The Government was warned, two years ago that this trend would result in a- serious decrease of production. Only to-day I asked whether, at an. aeroplane production factory, at Rocklea, in Queensland, it was not a fact that some thousands of men simply clocked on every morning and clocked off every night, and had practically nothing to do. . If that is, the case in one factory, a similar state of affairs can exist in other factories. Instead of directing man-power to essential industries’, the Government has allowed thousands1 to drift from- the country- to the cities. The latest summary issued by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, dealing with the position of the dairying industry is “both illuminating .and alarming, lt shows that since the outbreak of the war 5,700 farms have gone out of production, and of that number 3,700 have gone out of production since July, 1942. This represents a decline of one-third in milk production since the outbreak of the war.

Senator Grant:

– Does the honorable senator realize that the Australian farmer does not produce half as much butter fat from each cow as is produced in Denmark? The industry is inefficient.

Senator COOPER:

– I shall prove that the Government has shown itself to be inefficient in its handling of this industry. The decline in the number of farms since the outbreak of the war is due to the fact that, owing to lack of man-power, many dairy-farmers have changed over to grazing. In many cases, the fathers and mothers of boys now in the armed forces have felt the long hours and constant work involved in dairying to be too “great a strain. Consequently, they have turned their attention to grazing, going in for either calves or beef breeds. Milk production for butter making has declined from 983,000,000 gallons in 1939-40 to 737,000,000 gallons in 1943-44, or a loss of 246;000,000 gallons.

Sitting suspended from 10.30 to 11.15 p.m.

Senator COOPER:

It has been said that many dairies have switched from butter to cheese; but we find a similar position in cheese production. In 1943-44 the production goal for cheese was 45,000 tons, but the actual production of 36,000 tons showed a decline of 9,000 tons, or 25 per cent, below the goal fixed for the year. Everybody will admit that butter is an essential commodity.

Senator Keane:

– We are rationing it more severely than any other country except Great Britain.

Senator COOPER:

– Australians have a 6-oz. ration, as against 2 oz. in the United Kingdom. I do not think that anybody complains of the rationing of butter. I am trying to show that we can produce more and would have been producing more had the man-power position been handled differently. Had the Government heeded the warning given to it as far back as two years ago by members of the Australian Country party, the dairying industry would not have been in the present unsatisfactory position. It is not an. industry that can recover within six months. Many of the herds have to be built up again. The younger cows must grow before they can produce milk, and we are faced with probably a greater shortage next year than at present.

Another problem is the shortage of man-power in the sugar industry. That industry has been short of labour for the last three seasons and a serious decline has taken place in the output. Many men have been released from the fighting forces in the last few months in an endeavour to provide cane-cutters and other labour for this most important industry, but the position is still difficult and dangerous. I quote the following paragraph from The Australian Sugar Journal of the 12th September last: -

The man-power position has shown a slight improvement during the month, but is still far from satisfactory. Though the cutting strength has been sufficient to enable the mills to opera.te at an overall average crushing rate of approximately 70 per cent, of normal, and in some cases appreciably to exceed 70 per cent., there are a number of mills that have so far failed to reach that figure and, in two or three instances, the best performances have been between 50 and 00 per cent, of their normal rates. Only a few additional men have lately been available for cane-cutting, and as the wastage factor may be expected to increase with the coming in of the hot weather, the outlook is not promising. There seems no prospect of obtaining sufficient labour to establish the 85 per cent, crushing rate which was stated to be the objective of the War Cabinet in its direction to the man-power authorities.

I know that a number of men released for the industry have not turned up. The supervision has not been sufficiently strict to ensure that the men, on release from the Army or the Civil Constructional

Corps, report to and work in the industry. That is an instance where manpower has fallen down on its job. In other cases men have been released, and instead of being able to work on their own farms have been sent away to others farther north.

Senator Keane:

– “Whoever wrote that paragraph in The Australian Sugar Journal is lying. “We poured men, including aliens, into the sugar industry by thousands from everywhere, even from the centre of Australia.

Senator COOPER:

– Is the Minister certain that the men reached the industry?

Senator Keane:

– Of course they did.

Senator COOPER:

– The honorable senator is not quite sure of his facts. Many men released from the forces did not reach the industries for which they were released. I am giving the Minister for Trade and Customs a tip, and suggesting that closer supervision might be exercised in this regard. I have here a letter relating to the release of a man from the Army. It is as follows : -

To Mr. S. H. Tait,

Secretary, Chamber of Commerce

Dear Sir,

In yesterday’s report of the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce I read where you would like to know of a case of a farmer’s son being released from the Array and sent north to cut cane.

For twelve months I have tried to have my son, Private Weedon, Q3G247, B. Platoon, 127th A.C.T., Brisbane, released to work on my cane farm.

My application through the D.W.O.C. was refused.

I wrote appealing to Mr. Walsh, M.li.A.

His request for release was refused on the ground that my son was key personnel.

A fortnight after that refusal he was released and sent north to report.

On finding that he was to cut cane for Mourilyan Mill he refused and returned to his unit.

I wired Mr. Walsh again stating he was released and urged that ho he allowed to worK his own farm. My request was again refused as no individual releases were to be made.

I am a widow. My late husband left debts which I have promised to meet. The son concerned is the potential owner of this farm and desires to be at home to work it. Because I have not been able to keep the cane planted up I have lost 2 acres assignment when the farm was transferred to me.

This statement is true in every detail and you may use it in way you desire.

I may mention that this son has been released for the last twu crushings to cut my cane.

I remain,

– I cannot allow certain statements made by honorable senators opposite in the course of this debate to pass unchallenged. Much has been said about the dairying industry, particularly by Senator Gibson and Senator Cooper. To be fair, those honorable senators should have traced the history of this industry over ,a period of years. For a decade prior to the advent of a Labour government, the dairying industry in this country was povertystricken. All that has been said to-day about the use and exploitation of child labour in this industry is quite true. It is also true that no attempt was made by successive anti-Labour administrations to rectify that matter. That task was left to a Labour government. Production in the dairying industry to-day is declining for three reasons. First, when the Pacific war reached its crisis in 1942, every available man in this country was called up for military service so that there is now .a man-power shortage; secondly, other phases of mixed farming were more attractive than dairying, and, thirdly, as I have said, the industry was povertystricken. I can .speak with some authority on this matter, because I was a member of the Rural Industries Committee appointed by the Curtin Government to inquire into this and other rural matters. It was not until that Government received the reports of that committee, that anything was done to remedy the position. It was this Labour Government. which gave to dairy-farmers their first increase of Id. per lb. in the price of butter-fat for ten years. That increase was authorized by the Prices Commissioner. The next step was to grant a bounty of £1,500,000, and then one of £2,500,000. Later a bonus of £7,500,000 was paid, plus another £1,000,000 for whole milk, making a total of £8,500,000. But not one honorable senator opposite mentioned the relief given to this industry by the present Government in an effort to correct the drift which set in long before it assumed office. It is true that the drift has occurred during the war. The Government knew the position which faced the dairying industry in 1942 and that something had to be done to correct the drift in that industry. The Government and honorable’ senators opposite know that that drift started long before the Labour Government came into office.

– The honorable senator may have said it, but I have shown that something entirely different happened when a government of which the honorable senator was a member was in office. If he admits that a mistake was made at that time, I am glad. The only way in which to- keep ex-servicemen on the land is to guarantee them economic security and markets for their products at payable prices. Despite what happened after the last war, the- honorable senator claims that this Parliament now possesses all of the powers needed for the successful settlement of ex-servicemen on the land.

Senator Cooper referred to the position of the sugar industry, and Senator Foll said that he agreed that 500 men had been released to work in it; but Senator Cooper remarked that, although that number of men was supposed to have been released for that purpose, they had not found their way into the industry.

Senator Cooper:

– -Speak the truth. I referred to percentages only.

Senator AYLETT:

– If all industries had had as fair a deal with regard to the release of man-power as has the sugar industry, there would be fewer complaints than have been heard in this chamber.

Senator Cooper:

– Speak the truth.

Senator AYLETT:

– If the honorable senator had done that, I probably should not have mentioned this matter at all.

– I have never criticized Senator Sampson’s war record; I have never said anything against him as a soldier. I believe that he was a good soldier. I am dealing with the honorable senator’s remarks here to-day when he suggested that members on this side were implicated in some fraud in connexion with a radio broadcasting station. The honorable senator would do well to refrain from criticism of the Government, in view of his association with the Tasmanian Rights League, which be organized’. He should clean his own doorstep before he throws dirt at others. I remember the time when the honorable senator toured Tasmania and addressed various municipal councils in an effort to form a Tasmanian rights league. His slogan was “ Justice for Tasmania”. Membership of the proposed league was obtainable on payment of 5s. The honorable gentleman collected 5s. each from many citizens of Tasmania, aud from time to time he published a list of subscriptions in the press. The league was supposed to be nonpolitical, but before his tour was over, the honorable gentleman announced his candidature for the Senate as a representative of the IS’ :i;ionalist party. No one has ever seen a balance-sheet of the Tasmanian Rights League. What became of all the money that the honorable gentleman collected by way of subscriptions to that body? I do not think that any one is likely to hear what became of it. The only person who knows anything about it is Senator Sampson. Some day he may give an explanation of what became of the money he collected. Let us follow the honorable gentleman a little further. He complained of the Government offering I 0 U’s for £300,000,000 and said that inflation would follow its action. But he did not put forward one constructive suggestion to show how the war could be financed by other means. It is easy to criticize the Government. Whenever I do so I make a constructive suggestion. When Senator Sampson complains about the issue of I O U’s by the Government, I remind him that Lord Semple openly states that some form of credit will have to be issued free of interest after the war. Surely he knows something of what he is talking about. The only difference between the Commonwealth Government and Lord Semple is that the Commonwealth Government is two jumps in front. There will be no danger of inflation so long as the Government controls prices. The honorable senator, who professes to fear inflation, shows that he wants in- nation to take place. That is shown by the ridiculous argument that he used to defeat prices control. During the recent election campaign the honorable senator did everything possible to upset the control of prices and to belittle the Government and parliamentary institutions.

I desire to correct a statement of Senator James McLachlan, that the present Government was giving to Tasmania the sum of £1,500,000 in order to build hydroelectric works in Tasmania. I remind him that hydro-electric works have existed in Tasmania for many years ; they were carried out and financed by the State. It is true that, through the Loan Council, the State Government approached the Commonwealth for finance; but long before the Loan Council was established hydro-electric undertakings in that State were in operation, and I predict that they will continue for many years. The money is part of a State plan which has been in operation for many years, and is likely to continue. It is an entirely State project. The honorable senator should know that more money than is being given to Tasmania is being made available to other States. The sum involved is considerably in excess of £1,500,000. In Victoria, more money is being expended to establish the aluminium industry than is being expended in Tasmania on the hydroelectric power scheme.

I desire now to refer to the Department of War Organization of Industry, which shows an increased expenditure over that of last year. As the war recedes further from Australia’s shores, one would think that the vote for this department would decrease instead of increase. Therefore, I hope that a satisfactory explanation of the proposed vote will be given to us. Although the increase is small, I point out that certain expenditure, which I think is unnecessary, is forced on the public. For instance, if a person wishes to secure the release of certain articles it is necessary for him to get a doctor’s certificate and to produce it to the Deputy Director of War Organization of Industry, before a release will be granted. Although that officer may be convinced that the release is justified, he still says, “ If you supply a doctor’s certificate the release will be approved “. The onus should not be placed on the applicant, and he should not be required to pay 10s. 6d. to get a certificate from a doctor. Many persons can ill afford to pay doctors’ fees. It would be easy for some people to get 100 certificates from doctors. If the investigator were to go to a doctor, he would gain more information than is obtainable from any doctor’s certificate. Not only would the investigating officer benefit, but also the people who will be put to the expense of obtaining a doctor’s certificate would be helped. I suggest that the department may also give greater consideration to workers who want homes built. Instead of building luxurious mansions for a few people, the Government should do more to provide homes for ordinary people. In certain parts of Australia large houses ure being remodelled. These undertakings should wait until after people without homes have their needs met. I suggest that this is a matter which should be taken up by investigating officers. If that were done the department would not be subjected to so much criticism. I realize that the Minister must be guided by his officers, but the Minister is in a position to ensure that the public is treated fairly. We look to. him to see that the people generally are given a fair deal. Some of the money now expended by the Department of War Organization of Industry could be used to much better advantage. I suggest that Senator J. B. Hayes, who I understand is to follow me> should, instead of following the example of his colleagues in offering carping criticism of the Government’s efforts to help the dairying industry and the sugar industry, and holding a post mortem on the referendum, should offer constructive ideas which will help the Government to do even a better job than it is now doing.

Thursday, 28 September 1944

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Motion (by Senator Keane) put -

That Senator Foll be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.

The bells having been rung,

Senator Foll:

– I spoke under great provocation, but in deference to the Chair I am prepared to withdraw and apologize. If I am too late in doing so, I shall accept the decision of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the President is to be respected, honorable senators must obey his call to order. If they persist in interjecting after he has called them to order, he is in duty bound to name them, and the necessary action must then be taken. I realize that at this late hour honorable senators may become irritated, and do things which they would not otherwise think of doing. I accept the honorable senator’s apology, and hope that in future he will obey the Chair.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator COURTICE:

– Mr. R. C. Gibson, the president of the Primary Producers Union, which represents principally dairy-farmers, commended the Curtin Government for its decision in these words -

The new subsidy recognizes the principle of long-range stabilization of the dairying industry. We have been striving for this for many years.

Senator KEANE:

– The people of Australia have supported this industry for many years without complaint. Stories of grievances in the sugar industry are without foundation. Every possible assistance is being given to that industry. Senator Sampson made a most provocative speech. He said that in his opinion the men of the Australian Imperial Force should all be fighting, in Europe to-day.

Senator Collett:

– He did not say that.

Senator KEANE:

– Members of the Australian Imperial Force were brought back from the Middle East with the acquiesence of Mr. ‘Churchill and President Roosevelt, and we were only able to bring them back because of the magnificent work of the British Navy. They were transported in 63 ships, and the Government was very worried indeed whilst the men were on their way. It was a statesmanlike act. It is no use Senator Sampson indulging in that old sloppy stuff, and saying how happy he would have been if Australians had been in France, taking part in the final phase of the war against Germany. I remind the honorable senator that in the last war 66,000 Australians lost their lives and 100,000 were wounded. Does the honorable senator believe that the interests of the Old Country are the only ones to be considered? Our troops were recalled from overseas when this country was in grave danger. During the last war Australia was never in danger. Unfortunately, when our Australian Imperial Force men were brought back from the Middle East in 1942, many of them had to be sent to New Guinea almost immediately to defend the shores of Australia from invasion. Some of these men are still fighting there, and we hope to be able to give them early relief. Obviously, the Government cannot discuss future movements of Australian troops at an open session of Parliament; but I point out that there are 28,000 Australians in prisoner-of-war camps, and it is not our intention to permit the fighting forces of other nations to free these men whilst we still have an army. Apparently, Senator Sampson is bitten by the military bug. On this occasion he made wild charges without bringing specific evidence to support them. Almost every speech he makes in this chamber is a reflection upon some honorable senators and upon the Australian people. I challenge his statements, and say without hesitation that, in any field, Australians are equal to the citizens of any other country.

The charges made by Senator Leckie have been disproved satisfactorily, and I trust that to-morrow’s newspapers will give excellent defence of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Ashley), good publicity. . I regret that it was not possible for him to state his case in the House of Representatives where the charges originated.

Senator Collett’s speech was excellent, but I challenge the honorable senator’s version of the allegedly wonderful treatment given to returned soldiers after the last war. I was a member of the executive of the waterside workers’ strike when I was associated with a railways union. I have always fought against strikes, but when the waterside workers regulations were introduced the Bruce-Page Government put 1,200 “ diggers “ on the sidewalks for two years. Did Senator Brand or Senator Sampson raise a finger to assist those men? No; they let them starve with the rest of the unemployed. The only friends that those unfortunate men had were in the Labour party. As was the case after the last war, the great majority of men who have enlisted on this occasion are unionists, and will continue to be unionists when they return.

Senator Foil’s suggestion in regard to the treatment of soldiers undergoing punishment for absence without leave is a good one. These men are doubly punished. First, they undergo a period of detention, and secondly, their pay is stopped. As Senator Foll pointed out, at the end of a war the usual practice is to extend a pardon to these men, so why not say to them now, “ Get back to your units “. The Minister representing the Minister for the Army has noted the honorable senator’s suggestion, and will bring it to the notice of the Minister for the Array (Mr. Forde) at an early date.

Senator Foll read an article from a magazine in which it was stated that machine tool interests in America had not been paid an adequate commission on machine tools sent to this country. This matter has been the subject of discussion for many months. It is not only applicable to American suppliers, but also to Australian agents of both British and American machine tool makers. Prior to the war these agents handled the importation of machine tools and were paid a commission of 22-J per cent. “When the war broke out the machines were imported under the lend-lease agreement, but the agents still claimed a commission of 22-J per cent., despite the fact that most of the work was done by the Import Procurement Division of the Department of Trade and Customs. “We fixed the commission at 5i per cent., but that has not been acceptable, and for some extraordinary reason considerable agitation has developed in America. I point out that in the “White Paper providing for lend-lease supplies to Australia and forty-six other countries, President Roosevelt stated that profit was not to be made on those goods. I assure the honorable senator that I shall make a statement on this matter at the earliest possible date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure provides for the appropriation of revenue for the ordinary services of the various departments. The expenditure proposals of the Government have already been covered in the budget debate and it is not proposed to deal now with the various items in detail.

Any explanations that may be desired by honorable senators will be furnished at the committee stage. The bill provides for an appropriation of £130,904,000 for the services of the year 1944-45 to which should be added the amount already granted under Supply Act No. 20 of 1944, namely £51,959,000 making the total amount £182,863,000, which is the estimated expenditure from annual appropriations for ordinary services for the year 1944-45, as set out in detail in the second schedule of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Issue and application of £130,904,000).

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– The carrying of clause 3 will virtually commit the Senate to the total appropriation involved in the bill. What method is proposed for the consideration of the measure? In view of the huge sums of money involved, I suggest that the bill he dealt with page by page, and I ask that consideration of the clause be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

, - It would be most unfair to ask the committee to agree to the clause now, because that would involve agreement as to the total appropriation. The usual practice is to postpone clauses such as this until the schedules have been agreed to.

Senator Keane:

– That is not the practice, but I shall not object to the postponement of the clause.

Clause postponed.

Clause 4 agreed to.

First schedule.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– The first schedule sets out the total amount of the items in the second schedule, therefore consideration of the first schedule should be postponed until the committee has had an opportunity to discuss the second schedule.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The first schedule could be recommitted if any alteration of the second schedule were made.

Schedule agreed to.

– The Minister’s only defence against the case I am making is to say that for many years we did the same. I believe firmly that if the suggestion made by Senator J. B. Hayes for the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament were adopted, we should succeed in making the people of this country much more conversant with the work of Parliament, and when the electors were called upon to cast their votes at elections, or at referendums, they would know something of the issues involved. Senator J. B. Hayes, who is an ex-Premier of Tasmania, has had extensive political experience, and his suggestion is worthy of the most serious consideration. Honorable senators will recall the criticism made by Senator Amour of a broadcast on the subject of -birth control by Dr. Norman Haire. Surely, if the Australian Broadcasting Commission is prepared to devote valuable broadcasting time to such discussions, it will appreciate the far greater importance of making its facilities available for the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament. Such broadcasts would have great educational value.

Senator ASHLEY:
Postmaster.General · New South Wales · ALP

– It may interest Senator J. B. Hayes and

Senator Foll to know that representations have been received from various parts of Australia in regard to the broadcasting of proceedings of the National Parliament. The Government will give earnest consideration to the suggestion.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I draw attention to the fact that whereas the vote for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works was £1,800 for the year 1943-44, and the actual expenditure in that year was £1,898, the proposed vote for the current financial year is only £1,000. As this committee can save the country many thousands of pounds, and in view of the fact that vast post-Avar building projects are in view, I should like to know whether this reduced vote means that the activities of the committee are to be restricted in the future.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– One reason for the difference between last year’s expenditure and the proposed vote for this year is the fact that the sum of £760 had to be paid, to the retiring, secretary of the committee. I think that the honorable senator is aware that certain projects will be referred to the Public- Works Committee in the nearfuture. It is expected that the work of the committee will increase.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Prime Minister’s Department

Proposed vote, £1,200,900.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The sum of £260 is included in this vote for “National broadcast by the Prime Minister and other Ministers “. I should like the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Ashley), to tell the committee in what way this money will be- expended. The amount is small, I admit, but a matter of principle is involved. It is important that the Prime Minister should be able at any time to broadcast to the people of this country on matters of importance, and I see no reason why a payment should be made to anybody in respect of such broadcasts. I have felt for some time that our national broadcasting facilities have not been used as freely, as they should have been by the Prime Minister. From time to time, I have complained in this chamber that much more information in regard to Australia’s war effort could have been made known to the nation in national broadcasts. In my first-reading speech on this measure I referred to a most commendable broadcast made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Land’ Forces in the South-West Pacific Area, General Sir Thomas Blarney. I believe that much of the information given in that broadcast could have been made known to the people of this country by the Prime Minister in national broadcasts. What national broadcasts are we likely to have for the paltry sum of £250? My impression was that broadcasting stations, both national and commercial, were available to the Prime Minister at any time. In fact, I understood that provision for such broadcasts was included in the agreement under which licences are issued to commercial stations. The Prime Minister should not hesitate to use all available broadcasting facilities to tell the people of this country what is going on. However, we- should not be compelled to listen to broadcasts by Ministers on matters of relatively minor importance, as was the case when this Government first came into office. I am sure that the people of this country are prepared to listen to the Prime Minister with interest at all times. After all, he is the head of this nation and the leader to whom we look for information and guidance. In my view too little information has been given to the Australian people about our war effort. There has been too much “ hush hush “ in relation to our national affairs, and that policy is one of the prime causes of the complacency which was so much deplored by the Commander-in-Chief in his broadcast.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– Arrangements were made in October, 1939, for the cost of national broadcasts by Commonwealth Ministers to be- met from funds under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department, and the provision covers charges made- by the

Postal Department for the use of telephone lines and equipment and for the provision of staff for broadcasts.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– That explanation is unsatisfactory to me. The Postmaster-General’s Department is making profits amounting to millions of pounds a year, but when the Prime Minister of Australia uses the national .broadcasting network in order to deal with matters of international importance relating to the war effort, the Prime Minister’s Department receives a bill for the use of that service.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The remarks of Senator Foll are most unfair. He has had a long experience in this Parliament, and has been a member of a government. He must know that, irrespective of the fact that the Postal Department is making large profits, the usual practice is for one department to charge another for all services rendered, even though the charges involve only book entries.

Senator Foll:

– “I accept the Minister’s explanation.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– I should like to know why £140 is to be voted as a special allowance to a motor driver. That is rather a novel item. Another item to which I drawattention is a proposed vote of £15,724 for “ Officers on unattached list pending suitable vacancies “. Does that mean that men are being paid for being idle pending appointment to suitable positions?

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– A special allowance is paid to motor drivers for extra hours worked. Officers are made available for extra duties arising out of the war and to take the place of officers absent on war service. The officers to whom the honorable senator has referred are mainly required for work in the Cables Branch, and they are now on temporary transfer. There is no actual increase of expenditure.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– There is a proposed vote of £5,000 for “Payment to GovernorGeneral on retirement from office “ ; £6,900 for passage allowances; and £1,300 for incidental and other expenditure. Will the Leader of the Senate state whether it is customary on the retirement of a Governor-General to grant a retiring allowance as large as £5,000 and whether that was a grant to meet special expenditure which Lord Gowrie has incurred?

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– Provision is made for the payment of fares, car hire, travelling allowances, &c, for official travelling by the GovernorGeneral and his staff. The GovernorGeneral provides cars in connexion with many official functions, but it is often necessary to engage additional cars for the staff or in connexion with special functions. I shall now state the reason for the payment to the Governor-General of £5,000 on his retirement from office. Lord Gowrie was sworn in as Governor-General in January, 1936. On the 30th November, 1937, it was announced in Parliament that, with the concurrence of the Government, His Excellency proposed to proceed to England on six month’s leave commencing about the 20th March, 1938. When Sir Isaac Isaacs visited the United Kingdom after the termination of his office as Governor-General, the Commonwealth Government provided passages for Sir Isaac and Lady Isaacs, together with two servants, and also an allowance for expenses at the rate of £75 a week for approximately six months. In view of the special circumstances in the case of Lord Gowrie, namely, the extension of the term of his office from 1939 to 1944, and the absence of any leave outside Australia since 1938, some recognition was warranted, and payment in lieu of six months’ leave was granted.

In explanation of the item for passage allowances, I may say it was agreed at the Imperial Conference held in 1930 that the appointment of a Governor-General was a matter for advice by the relative Dominion Ministers, and expenses in connexion with the appointment may, therefore, generally be considered to be a matter for the dominions concerned, and not the United Kingdom. When passages of GovernorsGeneral were payable from the United Kingdom funds, basic rates were as follows : - Canada, £800 ; Australia, £2,000; New Zealand, £1,500; and South Africa, £1,500. But those rates were subject to an addition of 50 per cent, in consideration of increases of the cost of ocean passages since the war of 1914-18. The Government has agreed to contribute the following amounts : -

Department of External Affairs

Proposed vote, £233,900.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I believe that the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs is receiving a salary of £1,400 a year, which is considerably below the sum which should be paid to the head of a department of such importance, having regard to the nature of the work involved in connexion with foreign affairs.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– Recently a sub-committee of Cabinet considered the salaries of all of the permanent heads of the departments, including the head of the Department of External Affairs, who, we all recognize, is an excellent officer. The sub-committee made a recommendation to Cabinet which was adopted, in view of the fact that some of the officers had had allowances owing to the extra work undertaken resulting from the war; but, owing to the fact that the Government had pegged the wages of the workers, it was not prepared to grant an increase of salary to the heads of any department. The Government thought that that decision was necessary in order to be consistent.

Senator HERBEBT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Will the Minister explain the item : “ Temporary and casual employees, £21,000 at the Australian Legation in the United States of America”? This seems to he a large sum for temporary employees.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– This item covers the salary and allow ances of an acting Third Secretary, amounting to £970, and the salary of the locally engaged staff. The provision of assistance to the various attaches and delegations has necessitated an increase of the locally engaged staff of over 100 per cent, and the special nature of some of the work makes it essential to secure carefully selected Britishborn subjects. There is a keen demand for suitable staff, and consequently the legation has been forced to meet considerable wage increases. Moreover, the cost of living in Washington has risen considerably, necessitating salary increases. A recent statute of the United States of America makes payment for overtime obligatory for officers receiving less than $3,000 per annum and provision for such payments must be made. The Estimates provide for a staff of 28 locally engaged officers.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

That the Chairman do report .progress and ask leave to sit again.

It is highly improper that we should be asked to continue after having sat since 11 o’clock yesterday morning. If the motion be agreed to, we could, if necessary, resume the sitting at 10 a.m. to-day. Unless we adjourn now, we shall not have other business to do to-morrow.

Senator Keane:

– Other business has already reached the Senate from the House of Representatives.

Motion negatived.

– The The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Ministers should not become petulenbecause honorable senators on this side of the chamber seek information about these Estimates.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator has been given answers to his questions.

Senator FOLL:

– My complaint is that when Senator Leckie sought information about the Commonwealth Investigation Branch, the” Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) rose to order and complained that the honorable senator’s remarks were irrelevant. The Minister’s display of bad temper was ill-timed. Senator Leckie should be given the information that he seeks.

Senator LECKIE (Victoria) [3.5 a.m.J. - My request for information about the Commonwealth Investigation Branch - this department of snoopers - has not been satisfied. The big majority of members of that staff would not be permanent public servants, and I hesitate to think that a permanent staff would be employed fully on this kind of work. The proposed vote of £34,700 is only one-tenth of the expenditure incurred by this branch. The people are alarmed at the growth of its activities. I should like. to know whether the staff will be increased, and the total expenditure by the Government on it.

Senator ASHLEY:
Postmaster-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wale? · ALP

– I direct the attention of Senator Leckie to the fact that an additional £128,000 is provided in the Estimates of another department and with the vote for the

Commonwealth Investigation Branch, makes a total of £162,700. As I have already explained, the Prices Branch and the Rationing Commission have separate votes.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– The Censorship ‘Committee discovered immediately it began its inquiries that prosecutions were being launched against individuals for minor breaches of the rationing regulations. For example, a soldier in north Australia sent to his girl friend a few coupons to enable her to purchase a pair of stockings. His letter containing the coupons was intercepted by censorship and forwarded to the Rationing Commission. The “ offender “ was prosecuted. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) stated that proceedings would be instituted against people who committed breaches of the rationing regulations.

Senator Keane:

– That is correct.

Senator FOLL:

– One of the witnesses before the committee was Mr. Cumming, the Director of Rationing. He was a courteous witness., answered every question very clearly and did not seek to conceal any information. He declared that the Rationing Commission did not hesitate to use censorship for the purpose of obtaining evidence relating to breaches of the rationing regulations. The committee recommended, inter alia, that, this practice should be discontinued. I ask the Minister whether that’ recommendation has been given effect?

Senator KEANE:
Ministefor Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

Senator Collings:

– Nothing of the kind.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– The school has the same staff as if there were 15 or 20 cadets. What was the maximum number of cadets before the war? While the number of students is so low why cannot the members of the staff, or some of them, be detailed to assist the State Forestry Departments? Forestry will play a most important- part in the future of Australia, and anything that we can do to encourage the development of our forests should be done, but the Canberra branch has never been a very attractive one. We do not know whether the bureau has been held back because of the lack of desire on the part of the States to co-operate, but while it is at a low ebb it is a waste of energy and money to employ a full staff without trying to provide some other avenue of employment for its members.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– All I can tell the honorable senator now is that the number of students does not affect the number of different phases of forestry education which have to be dealt with. Consequently, there must be just as many lecturers to teach the different aspects of forestry education as if the number of students were two or three times greater than it is. It is a case of one teacher one subject, and all the subjects have to be taught to all the students. There is no sanity in the suggestion that the work should be farmed out to the forestry departments of the States. The Canberra school is recognized by all State departments as the principal forestry school in Australia.

Senator Foll:

– Are all the States “ playing ball “ now ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– All the States are co-operating, which is, I know, an improvement on the condition that prevailed when Senator Foll was Minister for the Interior. The importance of forestry is not .being overlooked. That the vote is not larger is due entirely to the fact that, owing to the war, we have had to pare the Estimates as much as possible.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– I shall be glad if the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) will give some idea of what is being done by the department in relation to the subject of migration. Within the last few days, an advertisement has appeared in the press and in the Commonwealth .Gazette, inviting applications for the position of Controller of Migration. In earlier debates reference was made to the need for a definite scheme of migration to this country, and the smallness of the vote was rather deplored at the time. There is adequate machinery in the department, although possibly it has not been used within recent years, for the handling of migration problems. While I was Minister, there were some very capable officers. Whether they are still in the department, or are engaged on other war work, I do not know. I hope that they will be available to the Minister when a scheme of migration is launched in the not too distant future. The honorable gentleman who succeeded me in the department will probably recollect that, just prior to the war, we had succeeded in making migration agreements with the Governments of Holland and Switzerland, and had also done a good deal, through various bodies, like the Big Brother movement, for the absorption of migrants from the Motherland. In the early stages of the war, the officers of the department handled a large number of British children who came to this country in order to escape from the horrors of bombing. I remember quite well that when an appeal was made through the department for housing of the children, the response of the people of Australia was magnificent; within a few days, accommodation had. been offered which would have met the needs of 30,000 children from Great Britain had we been able to bring them to this country. Unfortunately, a vessel carrying children was lost on the way to America, and ‘ the scheme was abandoned after one ship-load had arrived here. Whatever may be our politics or past views on the subject of migration, everybody recognizes that, if this country is to be held by the white races of the British Empire, its population must be increased substantially in excess of the natural addition, by the implementation of an adequate scheme of migration. It is not too soon for initial preparations to be made so that, when migration can be resumed, we shall not find that we are lagging and that many desirable settlers who wished to come here have been lost to us. I should like the Minister to state what preliminary preparations have been made in relation to settlement, and what encouragement has been offered to our own servicemen as well as to those from other parts of the Empire and Allied countries, who may be located temporarily in the SouthWest Pacific Area. I should also be glad to have an outline of the Government’s policy in regard to the introduction of people to this country. A good deal of discussion is bound to occur in connexion with the White Australia policy. That policy should be explained. It is not intended to offend any race whose colour is different from ours. We do not lack respect for such people or honour them less. Australia embraces a ‘ huge area, and contains only a com.parati very sm all number of white people. The problem is an economic one. Nevertheless, greater concessions should be offered to our comrades in China and India, than have been offered in the past, whilst retaining the right to develop according to the standards that have been observed since the inauguration of federation.

Senator COLLINGS:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · ALP

– I am sure that Senator Foll understands that migration has been at a complete standstill because of the war. It is impossible to bring migrants to this country so long as the present state of affairs continues in the world. Despite that fact, however, the matter is of such importance that an inter-departmental committee, consisting of representatives of the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, Post-war Reconstruction, Social Services, Labour and National Service, Information and External Affairs, has been appointed by the Government to consider every phase of it and to keep the Cabinet informed of the position so far as it can be ascertained. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) was abroad, I took occasion, as Minister for the Interior, to advise him of the degree to which the committee had arrived at definite conclusions. All phases of migration are being studied closely by the committee, and as it reaches conclusions on various aspects of the matter, its advice is made available to the Government. The Government’s policy in regard to the whole question of migration will bc announced as soon as inquiries essential to the formulation of a complete policy are completed.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I should like to know what instruction has been issued by the Government to the Migration Committee as to the lines on which its investigations should be conducted. I remind the committee that migration schemes were in operation in this country some years ago, and that many thousands of migrants were brought from overseas, particularly Great Britain. I understand, however, that 75 per cent, of the migrants who came to Australia in those years subsequently returned to their native lands, in some cases the money for their passages being provided by the Government. We must profit by experience and avoid a repetition of that state of affairs. The appointment of a committee to investigate migration problems generally is an excellent scheme, but I should like a little more information in regard to the terms of reference of that committee.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– I am well aware of the migration schemes to which the honorable senator has referred, but I am afraid that his percentage is a little astray. It is true that a large number of migrants did return to their own lands, but the figure is not nearly so high as 75 per cent. The events to which the honorable senator has referred occurred during the term of office of anti-Labour administrations. For reasons which I am sure will be appreciated by this committee, there is no further information on this subject which I am at liberty to disclose. Recently, I made a statement with regard to one phase of this work, hut it was misrepresented by the press to such a degree that there has since been a flood of correspondence relating to utterances attributed to me, but which I did not make.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– I have no desire to embarrass the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings), or the Government by seeking the premature disclosure of information. All I ask is that steps be taken to avoid a repetition of the unfortunate state of affairs to which I have referred.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Civil Aviation.

Proposed vote, £391,300.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– A statement of the Government’s policy in regard to post-war civil aviation should be made at the earliest possible date. The Department of Civil Aviation is a “ Cinderella “ department. Many of its activities are hidden. Recently, it was disclosed in the newspapers that an order had been placed with American aircraft manufacturers for the supply of airliners for use in this country. It came as a shock to the people of this country to find that air-lines in Australia were to be operated by aircraft not manufactured in Great Britain. There seems to be a general increase of expenditure on all branches of the work of the Department of Civil Aviation, and an explanation of the Government’s intentions at this stage would be timely. After the war, this department will be most important. Aeroplanes will provide the transport of the future. “We are all eager to know in what manner Empire Air Services will be conducted after the war, and what negotiations will be entered into with other’ nations for permission to fly over their territories, or to make intermediate stops at their aerodromes-. From the amount’ of the proposed vote it would appear that the Government has in mind considerable developments. Therefore, it is only right that the Minister should state the Government’s intentions. “We are asked to vote a very large sum of money, and the people expect us to scrutinize every item very carefully. This requires that we ask a number of questions, but I assure the Government that any representations which I make are not influenced by party considerations.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator Foll:

– Does the Minister refer to a mail subsidy, or to a direct subsidy on a mileage basis?

Senator CAMERON:

– I am advised that every company has received the subsidy on a mileage basis, but they are not all receiving it now. Others have been paid a subsidy for the carriage of mail.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Trade and Customs.

Proposed vote, £700,000.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) inform the committee of the future policy of his department with respect to the Division of Import Procurement? Will this instrumentality function as a huge Government warehouse, or will it merely be a distributing house for goods entering Australia? Persons and companies which in normal times are engaged in the distribution of goods from overseas fear that this Division may become a permanent warehouse instead of being a channel for the distribution of goods.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– The Division of Import Procurement undertakes three classes of work. First, it handles imports under lend-lease arrangements. These imports consist of various items such as clothing, machine tools, aeroplane parts and motor car parte. Wherever possible, these goods have been distributed through the ordinary trade channels, at a commission fixed by the Minister. That is necessary because under the White Paper relating to lendlease no profit may be made out of lendlease goods. Early in 1942 about 190,000 tons of refugee cargo reached Australia. The department took over warehouses in the various capital cities and transferred the goods from the ships to them, thereby releasing the vessels for the carriage of other goods. Some of the goods obtained in this way were not accompanied by invoices or manifests. That material had to be catalogued, priced and sold: and that was done through the ordinary trade channels. The licensing system which is worrying the community at present was introduced because no private importer, without the sponsorship of the Government, could obtain anything overseas. For instance, an importer who wanted 1,000 yards -of material could not place his order in the United Kingdom or the United States of America because in all countries the requirements of the services have first priority, and orders for anything outside those needs must be sponsored by a government, which placed them with the manufacturers, arranged for transport to the seaboard, and, when ships were available for loading from the United Kingdom or the United States of America, they were to be convoyed to Australia. That system must necessarily be abandoned as soon as Ave are able to do so. I agree with Senator Foll that the Government does not want to manage the business of private enterprise. It has a. tremendous job without doing that. Goods obtained under lend-lease, or imported under licence, are distributed to the people who, in 1939, were importing the particular class of goods. I assure the honorable senator that the matter to which he has referred is receiving careful consideration. I hope that, as the result of a journey which I shall make at a a’ery early date, the position will be cleared up at the other end.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Large quantities of synthetic wool are being imported into Australia. I recognize that we are short of material for making up. However. I wish to know the conditions under which synthetic wool is being imported, and whether it is being made up into wearing apparel. Is it compulsory to brand synthetic wool so as to enable purchasers to know what they are really buying? I should like to know whether any necessity to import synthetic WOOl really exists, and whether the volume of imports is in excess of our minimum requirements. Those are important questions, first, to prevent purchasers from being misled, and, secondly, because of the threat of synthetic Wool as a competitor in natural wool. Australia grows the best wool in the world

The clothing coupon scale is barely sufficient to meet the needs of the average citizen, particularly in the case of families. Because of rationing, it is all the more important that the material made available to the public be of the highest possible quality. However, I have received complaints that not only are clothing materials in short supply, but also they are of inferior quality. I have been informed by one of the leading clothes manufacturers in Melbourne that the greatest anxiety exists in the trade concerning the future for Australian tweed, which. he said, was previously made to a very high standard. I understand that, to some degree, the shortage of man-power is responsible for these facts; but the Government should realize that man-power would really be conserved by the manufacture of superior quality suitings having twice the life of cloth of inferior quality. The manufacturer explained that he desired to use Australian tweeds, and asserted that the policy of manufacturing poorer quality tweeds was detrimental to the best interests of the Australian industry.

Senator Ashley:

– A better quality material is being issued now.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– But only a limited supply. Action should be taken without delay to restore to the Australian market better quality tweeds for suitings.

My remarks about the quality of clothing apply equally to footwear, particularly children’s footwear. Coupons have to be tendered for boots and shoes, but the quality of the footwear has deteriorated considerably. Before 1939, Australian footwear compared favorably with that manufactured in any other country. I ask the Government to give attention to these matters.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– The allegation that synthetic wool was being sold in Australia was first made to me by some members of the Labour party. I asked them to support their complaint with evidence, because to my knowledge the only synthetic products coming into Australia are artificial silk and rayon, which do not contain any wool. Senator Herbert Hays urged that Australian wool shall be used in the manufacture of Australian materials. Wherever possible^ that is now being, done, but we are tremendously handicapped by the shortage of man-power and woman-Dower in the industry. I invite the honorable senator to give to me any information in his possession about the importation of synthetic wool.

Single weft cloth was made as tie result of shortages after the outbreak of the war. The Minister for War Organization of Industry (Mr. Dedman) was harshly criticized when this cloth came on the market. As a matter of fact, it is a very good cloth, but not so good as the double weft cloth. ‘The production executive of ‘Cabinet a month ago decided to authorize the manufacture of a better class of Australian cloth, equal in quality to that of imported cloth. In July, 1943, I placed a ban on the importation of English materials, but these materials continued to arrive in Australia for some time after that date because they had been ordered before the imposition of the ban. I see no necessity for purchasing any of these materials abroad, when Australia can manufacture excellent cloth.

The Controller of Footwear, Mr. Rosevear, has been called upon to provide boots and shoes not only for civilians but also for the three services. Within the next few months, 45,000 men will be discharged from the Army and will require clothing, footwear and hats from the civilian pool.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I complained not of the quantity but of the quality of the footwear.

Senator KEANE:

– A big percentage of our leather has been used in the normal bootmaking trade, but people are buying more boots and shoes than they did a few years ago. Many complaints have been received about the poor quality of children’s footwear. I warn honorable senators that if we cannot get man-power and woman-power for the textile and clothing industries, the ration scale for clothing must be further restricted. The shortage has been abnormal. Orders for 38,000,000 yards of textiles have been placed in the United States of America and we are getting a big issue each month. The quality of some of the material on the market requires a brief) reference. Some inferior linen goods were imported, not by the Government, but by private enterprise which acquired them in the .bazaars of India. The quality was dreadful, and the price was exor bitant. Some of the material obtained from the United States of America under lend-lease was below standard. Our inquiries in London disclosed that many women in Great Britain have no underclothing at all. The quality of most of the material on sale here is satisfactory in war-time.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I desire to make it clear that I made no complaint against rationing generally. My purpose in speaking was to emphasize that as restrictions have been placed upon the quantity of civilian goods that can be supplied, every precaution should be taken to ensure that purchasers shall get the best goods available for their coupons.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– Who was responsible for hundreds of dozens of pairs of flannelette pyjamas arriving in bales, unpressed, and quite unsuitable in their then condition for the Australian market, thus necessitating the Department of Trade and Customs to seek the help of steam laundries in the capital cities to press and clean them before they could be made available to the public ?

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– Owing to the shortage of man and woman power ito make men’s pyjamas inquiries were made in the Indian market, and this line was the only one obtainable. Frankly, we grabbed it with both hands. As the honorable member said, the garments had to be pressed when they came here and had to be sold at a reasonably high price to enable the department to recoup itself.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Have they been marketed?

Senator KEANE:

– It will be realized as they are finished, because there is a big shortage of men’s underwear, and there will be a bigger shortage when the men are discharged from the Army.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– Is it really necessary to continue the rationing of sugar in Australia? The rationing is so liberal, .taking into account the special allowance made from time to time for jam-making, that very few people would he likely to buy in excess of the quantity now allowed. Does the quantity of sugar saved justify the cost of the rationing?

The meat problem is causing grave concern to the public, because so many rumours are current and so many conflicting statements are being made. I read recently that one of the executive officers of the Master Butchers Association had stated that meat was so scarce that meat coupons would not be necessary, because the butchers could not have enough meat on hand to supply all the customers who came to them with ration books. He added that the butchers would have to ration their customers themselves. Another problem causing great concern is that the employees in the meat industry have decided for themselves how many days a week they shall work, even though their award prescribes the hours of labour in butchering establishments. In South Australia there has been a definite breach of the award by the butchers refusing to open the shops on Wednesday afternoons. An ultimatum has been delivered to the master butchers that the employees do not propose to work on Saturday, which is the only day on which many men and women in munition and other factories can purchase meat. The same applies to women who work five days a week. The meat situation is causing serious concern to the Minister and the public. What is the actual position regarding the serious threat of a meat shortage, and what is the cause?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Has the Minister any figures to show by what quantity the consumption of meat has been reduced since rationing was enforced? I am informed by a man in the trade in Tasmania that, although rationing causes additional inconvenience, all that it means to him is that he sells an additional beef carcass each week. He added that the position really was that those who had coupons were always ‘spending the whole of them, and thought it right and proper to do so, whereas in the ordinary course many of them would not purchase anything like the same quantity of meat. Is the department keeping a close check on the results of rationing for the twelve months during which it has been in’ operation? Has it any information to show whether the system has made available extra supplies of meat for export to our kinsmen overseas? Has there been any reduction of the quantity consumed in Australia ? Has the cost of the rationing system been justified by the results achieved? This is an appropriate time for the Minister to tell the committee the results of a year’s experience of meat rationing.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I understand that the Prices Commissioner has reduced the price of lambs to the producers. Owing to the disastrous drought now prevailing in many parts of Australia, there will be a great shortage of lambs, which will be much fewer in number than in normal years, and the farmers will want to get all they can for them. Why is the Government reducing the return to the grower when there is such a shortage of fat stock?

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The vexed question of rationing has caused the Minister a good deal of anxious thought, and the system has been received with much dissatisfaction by the public. Is it the intention of the Government to extend the principle that has been adopted in regard to clothing, by allowing a carry-over in the case of other articles which at the moment are rationed ?

Senator Keane:

– The answer to that question is “ Yes “.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am pleased to hear that reply. It will remove a good deal of the dissatisfaction which exists. If it is proposed to introduce that system, it should be done as quickly as possible.. Last week-end was the close of a period for the purchase of the essential commodity of butter. At such times, those who up till then have not used all the coupons available to them purchase to the limit and use the commodity more extravagantly than they would if they were assured of being able to purchase according to their needs. An excellent system would be one which assured the people of a specified quantity within a period of a year, because they would not be induced to deplete the market of foodstuffs that are urgently required, by making extravagant and unnecessary purchases.

The statement which the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) made concerning material for men’s suitings, namely, that there is now on the market a better class of cloth, may cause some confusion, because many persons may consider that their tailors are withholding this cloth until they have disposed of stocks of shoddy, which have been retailed for so long. I believe that an attempt is being made to provide cloth of better quality, but my inquiries have not proved that much of it is yet available. In the interests of the purchasers of suits, as well as of the tailors who make up the cloth, the quantity that is available should be disclosed by the Minister. Some tailors have declined to make clothes for clients, on the ground that it would not be fair to accept either their money or their coupons for the quality of material that they have had to handle. Some manufacturers have not been manufacturing cloth up to sample. Regardless of the future of the textile industry in this country, they have taken advantage of what they regarded as an opportunity to dispose of shoddy. All of us appreciate the difficulty of policing every manufacturer who is engaged in this trade. As a better class of material is now coming on the market, more information concerning it should be given in order that the position may be well known to every one affected. I shall be surprised if the bulk of the community will be able to obtain it in the near future, owing to the demand that there will be for it.

The complaint ventilated by Senator Herbert Hays in regard to boots, has largely been met by the action which the Government took against the manufacturers, and for this it deserves every credit.

I should like the Minister to state whether or not it will be possible to introduce the new system at an early date?

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– Senator Foll asked why the rationing of sugar cannot be abolished. That is not possible, because the sugar crop is con*siderably below requirements, and 100,000 tons has to be exported annually to the British Supply Commission, as well as to New Zealand and Canada. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) noticed the plight of the people of Britain during his recent visit to that country, he offered to supply 100,000 tons of sugar, but the offer could not be accepted because shipping for its transport could not be provided. Every Australian is entitled to 1 lb. of sugar a week, and there have been three additional issues for jammaking, each of 6 lb. I was amazed to learn that a check, made in six federal electorates in Victoria at the expiry of the last rationing year, disclosed that only 1 per cent, of the sugar coupons issued had not been used. So long as coupons are current, the owners will make use of them.

Senator Foll:

– Might not a saving be effected by not issuing coupons ?

Senator KEANE:

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Health.

Proposed vote, £202,100.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– During the debate on one of the bills dealing with social services, I drew attention to the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis and cancer. Attention has been directed recently to the serious shortage of hospital accommodation for these unfortunate people. I do not blame either the Commonwealth or the State Governments for this position, but action must be taken to meet their needs. The necessary funds and hospital accommodation should be provided by the Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth should give to the States the financial assistance required to enable them to do the work. A few days ago it was reported in Sydney that accommodation is required’ for both early and advanced cases of tuberculosis, and that in certain cases hospital treatment had been so long delayed that the patients had become incurable. This matter can no longer be left entirely in the hands of the States, but a general policy directed from the Commonwealth Health Department should be laid down. Incurable patients should be accommodated and made as comfortable as possible, and all possible steps should be taken to cure patients who are suffering from the disease in its early stages. Scientific research should be fostered, and suitable men should be sent to Great Britain, the United States of America, or any other country where the best training for the treatment of tuberculosis could be received. Close co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States is essential. We know that a limited amount of revenue is available to the States, and in view of the danger to the community arising from the presence of many people suffering from tuberculosis, the scourge should be under the direct control of the central Government. Will the Minister for Health indicate whether the Government has any plans regarding the matter ?

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I hope that legislation will be introduced during the next Parliamentary sittings to give effect to the Government’s policy in respect of hospital treatment. At the recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, certain proposals relating to health matters were submitted by the Commonwealth and accepted by the Premiers of the States. One of them was that the Commonwealth should provide a subsidy of 6s. in respect of each patient in a public ward in all hospitals, and that no means test should be applied. The Government will contribute that sum towards the cost of accommodating patients in intermediate and private wards, but they will have to pay the difference between the amount provided by the Government and that charged by the hospital. The Government also intends to give attention to the treatment of tubercular patients. It will advance to the States up to £50,000 on a £l-for-£l basis for diagnostic clinics, and the same principal as that applied to ordinary patients will be observed regarding the after-care of the tubercular patients. The Government has not yet decided what sustenance allowance will be paid to the patient and his dependants during the period he is accommodated in a sanatorium. At the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers next week more will probably be heard of this matter. Details of the scheme will probably be considered, and I hope that during the next period of this session, legislation will be presented to give effect to an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the States. The States themselves have a responsibility in the matter of hospital treatment. The Commonwealth Government holds the view that, having regard to the accommodation required in the States, the Governments of the States should co-ordinate their plans for the extension of existing hospitals, including maternity hospitals, and regarding priorities for some of the most necessary works, including the erection of hospitals other than mental institutions.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria:

– I appreciate that hospitals are under the control of the State Governments, but I understand that there is a tendency on the part of the hospitals to refuse to accept as patients those who may have protracted illnesses such as epileptic strokes. Such persons find it difficult to gain admission because, it is alleged, of the lack of staff. Seeing that the States have agreed to the Commonwealth’s proposal to pay a subsidy of 6s. a day in respect of each hospital bed occupied, I should like to know whether there is any way in which the Commonwealth Government can insist that hospitals which accept the subsidy shall also accept all classes of patients. Is it also possible for the Government to insist that hospitals which accept the subsidy pay fair wages and grant good conditions to nursing and other staffs? We hear a good deal about the disabilities that hospitals suffer because of the lack of staff, but I am satisfied that the main cause is the abominable conditions that have existed in public hospitals for a long period. Unfortunately, the nurses have not been helpful to themselves, because they have refrained from organizing in the same way as other workers have organized but I think that the Government, in view of the steps which it has taken and proposes to take, should insist in the interests of the patients and staffs, upon the observance of certain conditions before the subsidy is paid.

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was made clear at the conferences of Ministers for Health of Commonwealth and Spates that the ‘Commonwealth Government would not interfere with the administration of hospitals. All that the Commonwealth Government will do will be to set, in co-operation with the State Governments, a standard for public and private hospitals.

Senator Sheehan:

– That is in regard to buildings?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes. I believe that the wage and working standards of nurses should be raised, but that is entirely a matter for the State.

Senator Cooper:

– Provision is made for two senior medical officers, Grade I., and one senior medical officer, Grade II., whereas last year there was no provision for a senior medical officer, Grade II., and there were only two Grade I. What is the reason for the increase?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Probably extra medical officers will be needed to confer with the States on the standardization of hospitals.

– That is not so. The growers there are doing very well. I know that the Minister will say that apples cannot be brought from Tasmania because of lack of shipping facilities, but I remind him that apples are not difficult to transport. A refrigerating chamber is not required to bring them from Tasmania; they can be carried as deck cargo. The apple and pear marketing scheme is costing a vast sum of money. At the same time, the average person finds it difficult to purchase apples. Can the Minister give an assurance that this position will be remedied, and that in future apples will be reasonably plentiful and cheap, and of a better average quality?

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The apple and pear acquisition scheme was introduced by a government supported by Senator Leckie at a time when the export trade to the United Kingdom was suspended because of war conditions. In the first year of the scheme a loss of £1,500,000 was incurred, but that loss has been reduced to less than £500,000. The scheme has saved the industry in Tasmania and Western Australia, which are the principal exporting States. When I was administering it, on behalf of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully), certain interests endeavoured to gain control of the metropolitan markets to the exclusion of the growers who had lost their export market. One feature of that attempt was an extensive campaign in which unfavorable publicity was given to the retail prices of apples. The Apple and Pear Acquisition Board has done a remarkably good job. It saved the industry in Victoria. Admittedly, serious transport difficulties confront the industry. Senator Leckie’s suggestion, that apples could be shipped from Tasmania to the mainland as deck cargo, is too silly for words. However, despite transport difficulties, thousands of cases of apples havebeen shipped from Western Australia to the Sydney market I remind honorable senators that even in normal times, considerable waste in the industry was unavoidable. I draw his attention to the following passage in the Treasurer’s budget speech: -

Owing to good yields, the apple and pear crops in Tasmania and Western Australia aggregated approximately 10,250,000 bushels. It is estimated that because of shipping difficulties it will be impossible to place about 5,175,000 bushels of thesecrops in areas where they may be consumed, and this accounts for the estimated loss of £725,000 to the Commonwealth on the 1944 crop.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Social Services, £476,000; and Department of Supply and Shipping, £271,000 - agreed to.

Department of External Territories.

Proposed vote, £29,700.

SenatorFOLL (Queensland) [6.10 a.m.]. - I should like the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories to explain the policy of the Government regarding the future employment of native labour in the territories. After his recent visit there, the Minister stated that the recruiting system of labour must cease in the mandated territory of New Guinea and also in Papua. I am curious to know whether that statement means that the granting of permission to natives to enter into indentures for employment will be abolished. The indenture system affords a great deal of protection to native labourers. Strict ordinances have been passed relating to the employment of native labour, which is essential to the conduct of the plantations and mines. If the Government abolishes the system of indentured labour, does it proposeto allow only the casual hiring of native labour? If so, natives will be prevented from entering into a contract to serve a planter, mineowner or storekeeper for a prescribed period. If the Government is not careful it may find that its policy will not benefit the native population.

The indenture system affords a native the opportunity to “ sign on “ for twelve months, with the right of re-engagement at the expiration of that period. Some natives have worked for the same mineowners and planters year after year. One reason why objection is raised to the recruiting system is that too many young men have been taken from their villages to places some distance from their homes, and consequently, the native life has been upset. The opportunities provided for the employment of native labour in the territories have resulted in the improvement of the health, standard of living and morale of the population. Sometimes the “ boys “ are given a month’s rest and nutritious food to improve their physique before they are asked to work. The late Sir Hubert Murray, a former Administrator of Papua, dearly loved the natives, and would never have tolerated the infliction of any injustice upon them. That feeling towards the population of the territories has been inherited by his nephew, Mr. Leonard Murray, who succeeded him. I hope that Mr. Leonard Murray will soon return to his post as Civil Administrator. I suggest that before the Government makes a rash decision to change the present policy, it should conduct a full inquiry into the matter, and obtain the views of Mr. Murray and Brigadier-General Sir Walter Mcnicoll, who was Administrator of New ‘Guinea before J apan entered the war.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– The Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) has already announced in the House of Representatives that it is proposed to abolish indentured labour. The system to be substituted is under consideration.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Defence and War (1939-44) Services.

Proposed vote, £139,141,000.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– On a previous item, I found fault with the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) for saying that the vote for air raids precautions had been reduced. I thought that it had been increased, but I was misled by figures appearing in the vote for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and I wish now to apologize to the Minister for the Interior for what I said. I see by the figures in this division that the vote has been reduced, as the Minister said. I still think that the amount proposed to be expended, although it has been reduced, is a considerable sum to pay for air raids precautions. The sooner we can be relieved of that sort of service the better it will be.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I draw attention to the vote for Security Service, which this year is £12S,000, which is nearly £7,000 more than for the previous year. May I have any details of this matter 1 I understand that a good many of the internees have been released for work and other purposes. Why is the vote increased when the expenditure must have decreased?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– Although the war position has improved, extra expenditure is necessary because greater cost is incurred in supervising internees when they are scattered throughout the country than when they are in internment camps.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I draw attention to the vote nf £160,000 in respect of “Flax millsconstruction”. The amount expended last year was £87,970. The flax industry has been carried on for a number of years, and two or three years ago, approximately £500,000 was expended on mills and plant in various States. Is the amount now provided to be used for the further construction of mills or does it represent the loss on the flax industry?

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The amount of £160,000 is for the construction of new flax mills at a cost of £14,000 each, and for other miscellaneous items which are necessary in connexion with the mills, such as incinerators and accommodation for employees.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Where are the new flax mills to be erected? A colossal amount of money has been already expended on flax production in Australia, and from what I can understand the taxpayers of Australia are carrying a fairly big burden in consequence. We are producing flax for war .purposes and sending it overseas; but, if the industry is not to continue after the war, the taxpayers of Australia should not have to pay the whole of the loss. The Government should, in that case, ensure that those countries for which we are producing flax recoup Australia at least the cost of production.

Senator HERBERT HAYS (Tasmania) f6.2r7 a,m.]. - I direct attention to the proposed expenditure of £500,000 this 3 ear on the aluminium industry.” How is the money to be expended, and what is the purpose of increasing the vote?

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I understand that a bill is to be introduced in the House of Representatives dealing with the aluminium industry. The honorable senator will get all the information he requires when the bill is before the Senate.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I should like to be a little clearer on this matter. A certain amount of money has been expended’ on the aluminium industry in Victoria in setting up a plant or annexe. The name “The Aluminium Company of Australia “ is on the gates of the establishment, where I understand a considerable amount of money has been expended. Is this £500,000 additional money to be expended on that plant or is it to be used on a new- plant to be established in another State?

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This is a new division, and it is impossible at this stage to effect any dissection of the proposed vote. The estimate is intended to cover the cost of the purchase of land, the construction of buildings, and the procurement of plant. The total amount to be set aside for the establishment of the ingot aluminium industry is £3,000,000, one-half of which is to be provided by the Government of Tas mania. The amount of £500,000 is a token amount only, and is subject to considerable variation.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

– The general expenses in connexion with flax production are estimated at £1,488,000, less £1,064,000 which is expected to be recovered from the sale of flax fibre. Thus the loss for the year, it is estimated, will be £424,000. Last year, the estimated loss was £10,000, and the actual loss was £155,000, or fifteen times as much. Is the estimate likely to be equally inaccurate this year? The provision in respect of machinery and plant for the mills to process flax straw is £122,000. The question arises, whether or not it is wise to proceed with the installation of machinery and plant in mills for the processing of flax straw. Is the Government satisfied that the industry will be a permanent one after the war?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I hope so.

Senator LECKIE:

– Does the Government consider that our flax straw will be able to compete with that produced in other countries in which it was produced before the war? The information that I have - the correctness of which I do not guarantee - is that the cost of producing flax in Australia is so much greater than it was pre-war that the industry will not be an economical one after the war. I cannot criticize the Government for having established the industry during the war. Probably it has done “a good service in having supplied what was urgently needed. I make no comment upon the establishment of the industry, or even upon the loss that has been made, even though it may have been due to mismanagement. I should like to be assured that the Ministry is satisfied that the prospect of the continuance of the industry after the war makes worthwhile an expenditure of £122,000 this year on plant and machinery. If the Minister can give the necessary assurance, and figures in support of it, I shall be satisfied. I do not want to be misled by extravagant hopes into believing that we can take it for granted that the industry will persist, and that we can afford to expend hundreds of thousands of pounds on its establishment. The estimated loss of nearly £500,000 is very considerable, even in these days of colossal figures.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The Government is to be commended for having attempted to supply the needs of the British Government, when supplies were discontinued from the European countries which had previously produced flax. Unfortunately, the seasons in Tasmania have not been favorable, and operations have had to be curtailed. The prices offered in the first place were not nearly sufficient adequately to reward the producers of the crop.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government compensated them for the loss of crops.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– A partial compensation of approximately 2s. 6d. an acre was made. Previously, most profitable crops were grown on the same country. The industry had to be established quickly, with the result that a good deal of waste and loss occurred. I have never been sufficiently encouraged by the results to believe that the industry will ‘be of any importance. I am now more than ever convinced that the intended production can be discounted by 75 per cent. It is idle to contend that we can produce flax fibre in competition with European countries which have engaged in it from time immemorial. Parts of Russia and much of the Scandinavian countries have been producing flax through the ages. This is an appropriate time for a stocktaking of this industry in order to determine its future. Although flax may be grown profitably in some parts of Tasmania and Victoria, generally speaking costs of production throughout Australia are too high to enable the industry to be maintained upon an economic basis. The industry had to be established here to meet the needs of the British Government. We have played our part, but when the war is over I believe that 75 per cent, of the money invested in the industry will have to be written off.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I am one of those who believe that the flax industry in this country must be considered as a post-war undertaking. I saw flax grown in this country many years ago when the crops were processed on the farms. The industry was not highly remunerative then, but it enabled the farmers to make a small profit. At one time flax farmers in Gippsland, Victoria, were receiving £5 a ton for their product. As Senator Herbert Hays has pointed out, the Commonwealth Government undertook the establishment of flax growing in this country as a war-time measure to meet the needs of the British Government. I do not blame the Government for anything that it has done, but it is time that we had a showdown and a stocktaking of the industry. I suggest, therefore, that a comprehensive statement should be given in this chamber, if not now then as soon as possible. The Estimates are very confusing. In one place, there is an item showing a loss on flax production of £424,000, and, in another place, expenditure of £122,000 on machinery and plant. Also, there is provision for the expenditure of £160,000 on constructional work on flax mills. If it is thought that the industry has no chance of surviving in the post-war period why is it proposed to spend £160,000 on constructional work? In Tasmania, the flax industry met with considerable misfortune. In the first place three or four bad seasons were encountered, and figures showed that the average yield was only about 14 cwt. to the acre for last year. Keen competition has been offered by other industries, such as vegetable growing. The last vegetablegrowing season was good’ and the production budgeted’ for by the Government was exceeded by a substantial margin. However, had the season been unfavorable,, the quantity of vegetables produced probably would have been inadequate to meet all requirements. The flax industry suffered because it is not so profitable as vegetable growing. However, I believe that every endeavour should be made to maintain flax production in this country after the war. The industry should not be thrown on the scrap heap. If the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has not sufficient information at his disposal now to make a comprehensive statement on the flax industry, he should do so as soon as possible so that we may all know what is likely .to happen. Those of us who are interested in the industry are willing to help the Government inwhatever way possible.

Senator FRASER (Western Australia - Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services) [6.45 ,a.m.”. - The estimated total expenditure on flax production is £1,488,000. The estimated recovery from the sale of flax is £1,’064,000, leaving a balance of £424,000. ‘Cabinet has endorsed proposals whereby the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Government will share profits and losses both in respect of operating costs and on realization, and covering the charging into production costs of interest on capital at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum. The estimated maintenance expenditure for 1944-45 is shown at £1,488,000 against estimated, revenue of £1,064,000. The difference is due -partly -to the greatly increased crop anticipated for 1944-45, on which considerable expenditure will be incurred before 30th June, 1945, but from -which the revenue will be received in the following year, and partly to the fact that, with certain plant in its present location, it is not “being employed to full capacity. When this plant is transferred to .more suitable places, as provided for in these Estimates under the item “ Office Management, Storage, Seed Cleaning, &c”, a greater output can be anticipated. It is estimated that at 30th June, 1945, the value .of work in progress on crops not -completely processed will be about £450,000 in excess of the corresponding item at 30th June, 1944, so that, even without any stepping-up in output through .the mills, the revenue on ,a profit and loss account basis will exceed the expenditure. That this anticipation is not -unduly optimistic is borne out by the result achieved in .the six months to the 31st December, 1943, and by the fact that production costs par ton of fibre -have been reduced from £2S3 in the first year of operation to £178 in the six months mentioned, notwithstanding increases in -the price .of standard straw - £5 to £8 per ton - increases in wages, provision -of better .conditions for employees, and difficulties experienced in -obtaining suitable habour for mill operations.

Sales of flax fibre to Australian spinners are still made, .by ministerial direction, ,at the prices charged prior to the increase in price of flax sold in the United Kingdom. This action is taken in accordance with government policy, and application has been made for ^payment of a treasury subsidy to cover the difference of £61 10s. The subsidy on sales estimated on figures shown under “Details of Estimated Revenue “ would amount to £92,3S9. Of course, if the Treasury agrees to the payment of this subsidy the estimated revenue figure -would he increased accordingly.

An exhaustive survey of all mills has been made with a view to determining those most suited for conversion to tank retting. This conversion is a natural step forward in the progress of the industry, but will only .be undertaken at mills which are likely to continue in operation as effective units after the war. Conversion is at present under way at four mills, and provision at a cost of £12,000, with estimates for one additional conversion at a cost of £12,000, with £4,000 for effluent treatment and £6,000 for boiler .treatment is being made. In addition retting pits at Colac, Victoria, which belong to the undertaking conducted by Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited, and are now in course ‘of acquisition by the Commonwealth Government, are being modernized at an estimated cost of £3,500. Installation of new tanks would “have cost approximately £12;000.

An important -necessity in the production of “flax fibre is the proper conditioning of the -straw and the fibre. It has been estimated that the Commonwealth Government’s flax enterprise is losing £100,000 per annum because of lack of conditioning facilities. An engineer has been appointed to investigate the problem and to install the necessary plant, -and provision of dE’2,-000 for plant and equipment is made in these Estimates.

As a result of experiments on the 1943-44 crop, it has been definitely proved that the mechanical “harvesting equipment designed to the order of the committee will enable very ;great savings to ibc made in .costs of production. Ministerial approval w.as ,-given .to the expenditure of £5,0,000 on additional plant -of .this nature, and this- plant has. been ordered. Since the approval was given, increases in price of some of the plant will increase the- total cost of £60,000,. and. provision has, therefore, been made for an additional £10y0.00 under “Plant and Machinery “.

As the acquisition of the assets of Flax Fibres Proprietary Limited,, for which provision was made in the 1943-44 Esti- mates. has not been completed, by the Surveyor-General, amounts of £15,000 under “Buildings, and Works” and £24,000 under “ Plant and Machinery “, are. again provided. Provision is also made, for crediting the sums-, which it is estimated will be received for insurance on buildings and plant destroyed in the bush fires in Victoria in January and February, 1944.

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

’. - I - I thank the Minister for hia explanation. The fact which emerges from it is that the cost of producing fibre has been reduced from £283 to £178 a ton. The cost of production, is- high considering the pre-war figure of £100 a ton, hut it is not altogether outrageous, and no doubt it can lae reduced.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
mania · TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

i.: - - ‘Oan. the Minister state the natura of. the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the United Kingdom. Government regarding the purchase of flax? What quantity has been contracted for, and what isi the price? Does it provide far the shipment of flax to Great Britain for a period after the war as- has been done in the case of meat.? If the contact does not cover some part of the post-war period, the industry may go1 out of existence in Australia after so much money has been, expended on it,’ because the Australian market cannot absorb more- than. 50 per- cent. o£ what we are now producing.

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and! Minister- for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.: - - I am not now familiar with the details, but I understand that the contract is from year to year.,, and waa the- case- when we were exporting 5.0-,000 tons a year-..

Senator LECKIE. (Victoria.) 6’.5S a.m.].- The Estimates provide £588^000 this year for the construction and operation, of power alcohol distilleries. Is it worth-while spending, this money at a time when we have, insufficient wheat to process? The crop this year, together with what wheat is in store will amount to less than, a normal crop, and it has to do us’ for flour and stock-feed. Is it suggested that we are to- waste some of the grain - for that is practically what it amounts to - by converting it into pOwer alcohol? I should like to. know if the Ministry is irrevocably committed to- the expenditure of nearly £600,000 this- year- on this; project.. Is there any way in which expenditure can be. slowed down?’ By the time there is wheat enough to distil the war may be over. Is the Government committed to this expenditure, and’ does- it intend to destroy necessary foodstuffs? In a normal wheat season the manufacture of power alcohol from wheat might be justified, but I consider that the project should be delayed or should, cease, because if seems to me that it cannot be of use during the war.

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.: - I am not in a position to say whether sufficient wheat is available for the manufacture of power, alcohol. The programme- provides for the: erection of four dis- tilleries, one- in each of the States of New South. Wales,, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.. The New South Wales distillery has been, in pro:duction for months. The Victorian plant has been, completed and will be producing in the near future. It is anticipated, that the distillery in Western Australia will commence operations shortly- and1 that- the distillery in- South Australia’ will1 start operations about January; 1945.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

!. - The proposed, votes f.or price stabilization, subsidies amount to £2,7.50,000 in respect of. potatoes; and £2,250,000 in respect of tea. Do the wholesale prices show that it is- now necessary for these subsidies to. be, continued? I also desire to. know the principal, items in. the- proposed vote of £5,000,000i for, “other items,” the subsidies, for which amount to nearly as much as those in respect of potatoes, whole milk, and the basic wage adjustment. What proportion of the £5,000,000 provides the tobacco subsidy? .

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– Price stabilization is provided for so that the producers will receive a fair price and the consumers will not be called upon to pay an unnecessarily high price. But is not the Government going too far in this matter? The producer of potatoes deserves all that he gets for his commodity, but the subsidy of probably £6 or £7 a ton must be met from revenue. The question arises whether the consumer could not pay a little more and a little less be taken from revenue. Taxes are so high at present that people hesitate before they invest their capital or enter into business. ‘ The object of the Government should be to reduce taxes within reasonable limits in the near future. At present nearly half of the value of potatoes is paid for by subsidy which comes out of taxation.

That does not indicate that production costs are too high, for the farmer does not get too much.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– The stabilization subsidy on potatoes formed part of a general plan to stabilize wages at the level of April, 1943, and to peg the basic wage at the level prevailing at that date. The subsidy on tea amounts to1s. 2d. per lb. Potatoes were selected because they have an important bearing on the basic wage, but the absurdity of that is shown by the fact that a commodity as scarce as potatoes stills plays an important part in the determination of the basic wage. The Government reduced the sales tax on clothing by 5 per cent., because it had been increased 75 per cent, during the first three years of war. The wisdom of increasing the prices to the consumer of potatoes, butter, and other commodities is being extensively canvassed by the Prices Commissioner, but we do not favour that. We prefer the granting of stabilizing subsidies so that wages can be pegged. The real benefit of price stabilization is its valuable effect in regard to government costs, Commonwealth and State. Prices are fixed and at last wages will be stabilized reasonably well, but I am still dissatisfied with the system on which the basic wage is determined. The price of rice, for instance, is taken into consideration, but the people have not been able to obtain that commodity for years. The basis of calculation needs to be overhauled.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

asked whether the wholesale prices of potatoes and tea showed that the prices stabilization subsidies were no longer necessary. He also asked what proportion of the £5,000,000 proposed to be voted in respect of “ other items “ was earmarked for the tobacco subsidy. Theenumerated subsidies would be in respect of various commodities and services ranging from firewood to gas and electric supplies.

Senator Foll:

– Is tobacco included ?

Senator KEANE:

– No, the price which the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company was paying for imported leaf had risen, but no portion of the increase had been passed on to the public. The company had the right to a subsidy, provided it did not increase its price to the public. The Government did not give it assistance on the same lines as with regard to tea and other commodities, but granted a rebate of excise to the amount of about £750,000. The. position is being examined each month to see that the figures are not understated or overstated. That necessarily is some departure from the ordinary procedure, but it is a part of the stabilization plan. The investment of £12,000,000 on price stabilization subsidies should prove to be an excellent investment. The system has worked well in Great Britain and Canada, and we anticipate that it will work equally well in this country.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Miscellaneous Services, £1,120,000; Refunds ofRevenue, £5,000,000; Advance to the Treasurer, £6,000,000; War (19.14-18) Services, £1,082,000 ; Commonwealth Railways, £2,658,000 ; Postmaster-General’s Department, £19,993,000; Northern Territory, £251,500; Australian Capital Territory, £460,500; Norfolk Island, £4,000- agreed to-

Postponed clause 3 agreed to.

Preamble and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading.

Motion (by Senator Keane) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– I protest against the action of theGovernment in forcing not only Opposition senators, but also Government supporters to pass the Appropriation Bill during an all-night sitting. A few of us on this side have endeavoured to elicit information in relation to the various departments. No party heat has been engendered. We have sought and received valuable information from the Government. I believe that a debate of the kind that we have had in the last ten or twelve hours is worth while, and is of more benefit to the country than are some of the debates on the first reading of appropriation bills. It gives to Parliament an opportunity to obtain information difficult to obtain in any other way. I hope that on future occasions instead of forcing honorable senators to sit up all night to discuss the votes for the various departments, the Government will set aside one or two days for that purpose. I do not entirely blame the Leader of the Senate (Senator Keane). Every year the Estimates are held by the House of Representatives until the last minute, and arc then thrown to the Senate in an appropriation bill which we are compelled to rush through. That applies not only to this Government, but to previous governments.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– in reply - Arrangements were made to conclude the consideration of the Appropriation Bill at a reasonable hour but the Opposition adopted an extraordinary attitude. Sufficient time has been given for the consideration of the bill, and all the information sought has been supplied. At long last Senator Leckie is satisfied that we have not brought him here to be idle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1557

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Keane) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to this day, at 2 p.m.

page 1557

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Air Force Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, No. 134.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, No. 138.

Defence Act and Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, No. 141.

National Security Act -

National Security (General) Regulations - Orders -

Taking possession of land, &c. (17).

Use of land (2).

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, No. 137.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, Nos. 142, 144.

Senate adjourned at 7.17 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 September 1944, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1944/19440927_senate_17_180/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate27 September 1944

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator HERBERT HAYS:TASMANIA

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

HAY CHAFF

Senator KEANE:Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

MAN-POWER

Senator KEANE:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Senator GIBSON:VICTORIA

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Senator KEANE:ALP

APPROPRIATION BILL 1944-45

Senator FRASER:Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLeay:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Gibson:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Keane:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Gibson:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Gibson:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Brand:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Brand:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Gibson:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator Clothier:

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator Clothier:

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:

Senator Keane:

Senator FOLL:

Senator GIBSON:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Collings:

Senator KEANE:ALP

Senator FOLL:

Senator Keane:

Senator FOLL:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:

QUESTION

CUT IN LEND-LEASE COMMISSIONS BY AUSTRALIA SHARPLY CRITICIZED

Senator FOLL:

Senator FOLL:

Senator CAMERON:Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

Senator Collett:

Senator CAMERON:

Senator CAMERON:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator O’Flaherty:

Senator Keane:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator Keane:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator Keane:

Senator Collings:

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senate
27 September 1944

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator KEANE:
ALP

Senator GIBSON:
VICTORIA

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEANE:
ALP

Senator FRASER:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEANE:
ALP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria